[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #734
b-greek-digest Saturday, 3 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 734
In this issue:
Re: The nature of Scripture
Re: Luke's use of KARDIA
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Paul & the Judaizers
Re: Greek futures
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: The nature of Scripture
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Paul & the Judaizers
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Codex
RE: CODEX
7Q5 and NT Scrolls
ANE: subject lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 03:41:48 -0400
Subject: Re: The nature of Scripture
Thanks, Carl, for your good thoughts. I appreciate your insights. I am not
into name-calling, but I would be one who would understand Jesus Christ to be
the Word incarnate, and the Bible to be God's word written. My understanding
of 2 Tim 3:16 is that the graphe, the final written thing, the product of
dual authorship, was as much the word of God in its quality as if God had
personally breathed it out of His mouth. It is my very high view of
Scripture that causes me to wish to maintain a clear distinction between the
words of God and the words of men. Perhaps it would be more accurate, since
I do believe in dual authorship, to say a distinction between the words of
God through men, and the words of men alone. God's words through men are
inerrent; all other words are subject to error. Perhaps that explains my
adamance (how does one spell that word?) vis a vis formal equivalence.
George
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 03:52:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Luke's use of KARDIA
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
My long lost distant cousin/kin Mark Staker asked back on 5/24...
>A friend asked me what Luke meant by his reference to KARDIA
>in Luke 16:15. I remember once being told the KARDIA was
>seen as the seat of intellectual capacity, something akin to how
>we see the brain. Was this a commonly understood meaning
>and is there another meaning that would explain Luke's use
>of the word in 24:32?
Well, Mark, did anyone answered your question? If someone did, I missed the
post.
The Greeks thought of KARDIA as both the seat of emotions and
of thought. It was considered a source of physical vitality as well.
LEV (LEVAV) from the Hebrew added the idea of will, and that the heart was
the source of one's religious/ethical conduct.
In the NT, we find KARDIA used in each of the above senses in different
contexts.
1. KARDIA is used as the source of joy, pain, desire, lust (Act 2:26; Jn
16:6; 2 Cor 7:3; Rom 10:1; 1:24)
2. Where thought and understanding are found (Mt 7:21Jn 12:40; Act 8:22,
etc)
3. The seat of the will, of volition and decision (Acts 11:23; 2 Cor 9:7,
etc).
4. It is the religious center that God turns to, the root of the religious
life, where moral conduct is determined. Luke 16:15 is a good example of
this definition. God lives in the heart. See Rom 5:5, 8:27, Eph 3:17; Heb
8:10; 2 Pet 1:19.
As for Lk 24:32, this best fits the first definition of KARDIA, the heart
being the source of deep emotions.
Good to see you are still on the List.
Peace,
Tim Staker
TImster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 03:49:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
kenneth@sybase.com said...
>So I would still argue that Mark leaves us clueless about
>the Resurrection, and leaves us without any validation
>of the message of Jesus... [DELETIONS]...
>Should I remove Mark from my Bible, as I have no idea what Mark >thought his
audience knew, or what he might have meant by >resurrection?
Paul did a pretty good job of explaining the theological import of the
resurrection without a "resurrection story".
In fact, I have wondered what Paul would have thought of the late gospel
resurrection stories. Concerning resurrection, he believed that "flesh and
blood do not inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15).
Actually, instead of not having any resurrection witness, the Gospel of
Mark is ONE LONG RESURRECTION ACCOUNT. Just about every story of Mark has
verbal clues to "rising up", "liting up" and there are several resurrection
type appearances of Jesus throughout the Gospel (ie, Jesus' Baptism, Calming
the Storm, Walking on Water, the Transfiguration). The few Markan parables
that there are (Ch 4) are keyed into resurrection themes. Jesus foretells
his death and resurrection THREE times, and the Saducees present a question
about resurrection. All this in the short 16 chapters of Mark.
I agree with Carl's comment that the ending at 16:8 makes you go back and
read Mark over, looking for for what you missed. And what you find is the
resurrected Christ! He was there in the text all the time. Since Mark is a
midrash of the resurrection of Jesus, there isn't a need for an additional
appearance at the end.
Actually what one need at the end of Mark is faith. The faith to
perceive the resurrection.
Although I am a little frustrated with the book ending with GAR, I have
noticed that PHOBONTES GAR is the standard reaction in Mark to miracles. And
while we usually translate PHOBOUNTO as they were afraid, there is also a
sense of "awe" at the miraculous in Mark. I think the ending "for they were
in awe" is appropriate for the gospel of Mark. It is a definite pointer to
the resurrection.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 03:53:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Paul & the Judaizers
to: b-greek@virginia.edu
Last week Rex K. wrote,
>After all, Paul had to defend his position before Jews and
>Judaizers who knew the Scripture as well as he did. If
>he were too "free and easy" with the text and did not
>interpret it within acceptable boundaries of interpretation,
>would he have been convincing to them? I think not."
Paul was simply exegeting Scripture using methods that
were common in his day. The Judaizers may not have agreed
with Paul's conclusions, but they would have recognized his
interpretive method and wouldn't have had any problem with it.
We 20th Century exegetes have different parameters for
what we consider good interpretation, and sometimes we find ourselves a
little unnerved by what we perceive as a "free and
easy" way of handling Scriptures.
A method of pesher (interpretation) that was common in
Paul's day was that of approaching a Biblical verse as
a window to timeless truth.
Truth was understood to be eternal, static, real, timeless.
This was partly due to Plato's influence in that the world of
ideas is real and the world we live in as a shadow of
reality. As Hellenized Jews read the Scritpures, they felt that
it held clues to help us perceive the eternal realities. Every
word or even letter could unlock volumes of truth.
Since there was a timelessness to the truth of Scripture,
chronological context was unimportant. The original intent of
the author (which is highly important to us today) was secondary
and not essential to perceiving the truth that the Scripture held.
One example I came across last Thursday was Eph 4:8 ANABAS EIS UPSOS
HXMALWTEUSEN, EDWKEN DOMATA TOIS ANTHRWPOIS ("having ascended on high, he led
captivity captive and gave gifts to people".)
This is Paul's rendering of Ps 68:18 (=LXX Ps 67:18). The Psalmist is
speaking of God who ascended Siniai who also
ascends the Temple mount with victory over Israel's enemies.
But as Paul reads this, the historical context is not important. Truth
is timeless, so Paul is able to perceive in this verse Christ
whom God made victorious in the resurrection.
And Paul sees even more. If he "ascended", that means he also descended,
and so Christ fills the whole universe. (Just as Truth does). Instead of
receiving gifts, though, Christ GIVES gifts-- specifically that of apostles,
prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
This is not exegesis by today's standards. But that pesher was
apporpriate for Paul's day.
Another example of a form of pesher usage of OT texts is called midrash.
It is based on the same concepts: truth perceived in Scripture is timeless.
So when retelling the story of the life of Jesus, the gospel writers freely
borrowed from OT stories-- whose elements were timeless-- into the details of
their Jesus story. So John Baptist is dressed up and eats food like
Elijah's, Jesus is born in a crib with animals near by as Isaiah speaks of,
the allegory of the disciples being fishermen from Jeremiah 16:16, etc. By
modern standards we would calls these additions inaccurate and even untrue,
but for the first century folks who read midrashim, these allusions were
loaded with powerful truth, the eternal timeless truth which they would
_expect_ to find in a story about Jesus.
Paul's and the NT authors' methods of handling of Scripture may not be
compatible to the modern person's. They even seem strange and unfamiliar.
But just as we now emphasize the importance of recognizing ancient genre
while interpreting, we may also want to recognize ancient praxis of
interpretation.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 06:22:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Greek futures
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Vincent DeCaen wrote:
> forgive a naive question from a nonspecialist in Greek:
>
> lu-s-o: ("future") vs. lu-o: (present)
> lu-s-ein (fut inf) vs. lu-ein (inf)
> lu-s-oimi (fut optative) vs. lu-oimi (opt)
> lu-s-o:n (fut part) vs. lu-o:n (part)
>
> is there not a systematic, formal relation? and should that not be
> captured by isolating -s- as contributing to the difference? and
> should not that -s- be related to that in the so-called aorist forms?
> i.e., is there not a correspondence,
>
> luo: is to eluon as luso: is to elusa ??
>
> what then would be wrong with a perfective non-past: luso: ??
>
> after all, cross-linguistically, similar systems (Georgian, Russian,
> Hungarian, even Chadic Mofu-Gudur in the Cameroon) combine non-past
> with perfective aspect (aorist) and get a systematic future reading
> (although that's not its only use [ditto Greek future??]).
I cannot and will not comment with regard to your last paragraph;
however, I think that what you're looking for is well-attested in
(ancient) Greek linguistic history, most particularly, the fact that the
regular future indicative in classical Greek derives historically from
the aorist subjunctive.
(1) early Greek had both short-vowel (omicron/epsilon) and long-vowel
(omega/eta) subjunctive formations without any (so far as I know)
discernible difference of function between the short-vowel and long-vowel
forms);
(2) the text of Homer exhibits the subjunctive forms of both present and
aorist with a future sense that is probably derived from the usage of the
subjunctive to express intention. This is really quite common in Homer.
One consequence of this is that it is not possible to distinguish between
a short-vowel aorist subjunctive and the historical classical Greek
future indicative;
(3) at some point, and I am unable personally to give any surmise as to
when (I don't know if you can find it in the major grammar references or
not), at least in Attic dialect--which, of course, is the standard form
of classical Greek literature, although there is a body of literature,
particularly poetry, in Doric and Aeolic dialects as well, and also a
sizable corpus of epigraphic evidence for other dialects--the long-vowel
subjunctive became regular and the short-vowel forms of the aorist
subjunctive became established as a regular future tense. So you may, if
you wish, refer to the Attic future tense forms as "perfective non-past,"
although I'm not sure whether we can differentiate between use of a form
like POIHSW in a simple progressive future sense ("I'll be making/doing")
from a perfective future sense ("I'll get that made/done").
(4) I might add that modern Greek has undergone a much more decisive
parallel evolution of its future forms and I would guess that literary
evidence exists to document the chronology of its development:
(a) from the koine subjunctive phrases hINA POIW (present sub-
junctive) and hINA POIHSW (aorist subjunctive) coupled with the
koine auxiliary verb QELW (thelo) have emerged two distinct
future indicative conjugational patterns, one of them progressive,
the other perfective.
(b) although QELW (thelo) was originally (or at least previously; I'm
not going to claim to know the linguistic prehistory!) used as an
auxiliary with a complementary infinitive, it came at same point in
late Hellenistic or Byzantine Greek to be used commonly with the
hINA + subjunctive construction; so regular was the combination of
QELW hINA or QELW NA (hINA shorted in common usage to NA) that it
became QA (tha).
(c) the present subjunctive is formed with NA + present tense
forms (the long-vowel forms of the subjunctive long since having
become obsolete); the aorist subjunctive with NA + aorist stem +
present tense endings (-W, -EIS, -EI, etc.). But the compounded
QELW hIna --> QA is the auxiliary used to turn these present and
aorist subjunctive forms into regular futures.
This may be more than you wanted to know, but I think the facts are
right; you might want to consult one of the better reference grammars,
and perhaps one or more of our professional linguists on this list may
have a comment.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 06:34:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995 PaleoBill@aol.com wrote:
> Entering into the question of the ending of Mark somewhat late I was
> wondering if anyone has broached the possibility that Mark was originally
> penned in codex form (as Sato has postulated for Q) and thus the ending would
> be on the outside of the codex--possibly on its own sheet of papyrus.
> Accordingly, I was wondering about the possibility that the external portion
> of the codex (ie the beginning and the end of the manuscript) would be liable
> to tearing and fragmentation due to human error or wear. If so, then the
> ending of the Markan exemplar of the earliest manuscripts may have simply had
> this portion removed. The consequences would be of some import, viz. that the
> use of the codex begin at the most seminal stages of Christianity and that
> Mark did in fact originally have a more elaborate resurrection narrative.
> Does anybody have any reflections that they would wish to share with the list
> about this possibility?
> Best Regards
> Bill Parkinson
(The Fool leaps in again) My only comment here is that this is indeed an
interesting idea, but Sato's speculation on the material form in which
the Q sayings were preserved in the Q community--the "loose-leaf
notebook"--does not, so far as I know, rely upon any evidence of such a
proto-codex sort of device, which would be, I guess, a development of the
double waxed wooden tablets bound by one or more leather thongs in a fold-
over format. I don't think the codex appears regularly until the third or
fourth century--although, of course, it presumably had to get started
with someone making the inventive leap. As it stands, however, the
hypothesis of Q as a loose-leaf codex is itself something of an
imponderable, and all the more so for those who think that the Q
hypothesis is itself an imponderable; would they want to grasp at this
straw to uphold the possibility of a Marcan text that begins before 1:1
and continues beyond 16:8?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 07:28:25 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: The nature of Scripture
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 GGoolde@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks, Carl, for your good thoughts. I appreciate your insights. I am not
> into name-calling, but I would be one who would understand Jesus Christ to be
> the Word incarnate, and the Bible to be God's word written. My understanding
> of 2 Tim 3:16 is that the graphe, the final written thing, the product of
> dual authorship, was as much the word of God in its quality as if God had
> personally breathed it out of His mouth. It is my very high view of
> Scripture that causes me to wish to maintain a clear distinction between the
> words of God and the words of men. Perhaps it would be more accurate, since
> I do believe in dual authorship, to say a distinction between the words of
> God through men, and the words of men alone. God's words through men are
> inerrent; all other words are subject to error. Perhaps that explains my
> adamance (how does one spell that word?) vis a vis formal equivalence.
Thank you very much, George. You have made your position quite clear and
I fully respect it. I have already responded to your off-list message and
I really think that this forum ought to be kept free from discussion of
doctrinal stances. Having just said that, let me violate it very briefly
by saying only that I think it is perilous to attribute to the extant,
manuscript-dependent, committee-edited text a status transcending those
limitations; I suspect that it may occasionally happen that a translation
or even a paraphrase may come closer to the intent of the original author
than the text that the commitee has agreed upon from among the
alternatives. I would hope that,if I put the matter that way, it is set
in a more appropriate context.
Enough already, if not too much.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 07:38:44 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Although I am a little frustrated with the book ending with GAR, I have
> noticed that PHOBONTES GAR is the standard reaction in Mark to miracles. And
> while we usually translate PHOBOUNTO as they were afraid, there is also a
> sense of "awe" at the miraculous in Mark. I think the ending "for they were
> in awe" is appropriate for the gospel of Mark. It is a definite pointer to
> the resurrection.
I will comment only on this last paragraph of Tim's characterization of
Mark's gospel, with which I generally concur. I think I have commented
on-list previously about this GAR and the objection that a Greek sentence
cannot end with a GAR and therefore 16:8 cannot be the original ending of
Mark. Such an assertion betrays an ignorance of Greek or at least a want
of appreciation of the working of postpositives. GAR can never be the
first element in a statement;it is regularly placed AFTER the first word
of a statement to indicate that the statement is an explanation of what
was previously stated. Inasmuch as the one word EFOBOUNTO includes both
subject and predicate, it is a complete clause--except for the fact that
the Greek language abhors a sentence or clause without a connective just
about as surely as nature abhors a vacuum. The only place for the GAR is
after EFOBOUNTO; EFOBOUNTO GAR is a complete sentence, calling for no
further narrative explanation because it is itself the explanation for
why the women didn't tell anyone what they had seen and heard. Q.E.D.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Hans-Christoph Meier <hmeier@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 14:52:18 +0200 (METDST)
Subject: Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Roger Andersson wrote:
> Israel (as a nation--not all the israelites) had
> "excluded" Jesus from Nazareth as the promised Messiah. That the
> israelites were the literal offspring of Abraham's did NOT mean that they
> were the true offspring of his. He was a friend of God, while the actions
> of the jewish nation proved them NOT to be friends of God's.
>
Roger:
Your statement implies the classical christian anti-judaistic point of view.
Since I live and work in Germany I can not but strictly reject what you
say. Even if you might find some 'support' for your statement in the New
Testament (1 Thess 2,15 etc.) you should always keep in mind that Paul as
well as Jesus stayed 'jews' till the end of their lives.
_su de agrielaios o:n enekentristhe:s en autois kai sugkoino:nos te:s
rize:s te:s piote:tos te:s elaios egenou, me: katakaucho: to:n klado:n,
ei de katakauchasai ou su te:n rizan bastazeis alla he: riza se_ (Rom
11;17-18).
hans-christoph, heidelberg
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 09:35:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
*If* one follows the possibility that the exemplar of all existing
manuscripts of Mark was defective at the end, this does suggest
something about how the text came about.
If the text was the culmination of a long process of redaction, in which
many previous versions existed and the final version held no particular
prestige at first, then surely copyists would have supplied the missing
ending from their other sources. That they didn't would then imply that
the text was a mostly unique, spontaneous production or at least a
redaction endowed with exceptional prestige (such that no one would
presume to supplement it, at least at first).
The defective state could reflect that the text was never finished in the
first place (that the author/redactor broke off and left it for some
reason). The medieval parallel that springs to mind is Chaucer, whose
works are mostly unfinished, esp. ones like "House of Fame" which break
off in the middle of the action, and *yet* they were widely copied in
their own day, despite the fact that they were obviously unfinished.
Or the defective state could reflect that the text was accidentally
truncated, but the original could not be consulted for some reason.
Perhaps there were few or even one original copy, or perhaps there were
many copies, but in the hands of a community that was inaccessible to the
community that copied all the manuscripts we have (perhaps it was a
fringe group?).
I have to say I am still bothered by the "ephobounto gar" ending. It's
true gar is second in position, but where is the rest of the clause one
usually expects? as also in Mark 16:8 itself: Eikhen gar autas tromos
kai ekstasis. Are there any other examples in Mark of a two-word
sentence beginning with a verb and ending with gar?
As for the stupid & failing disciples theme in Mark, and the
learn-from-their-bad-example reading of the 16:8 ending, I really don't
see this in Mark. We certainly have stupid and disobedient disciples,
but we also have brave and loyal ones: the women are the same ones who
accompanied Jesus at the cross (Mark 15:40-41), and their trip to the
tomb to take care of Jesus's body is neither stupid nor disloyal. It is
not at all clear what the object of ephobounto is. The women apparently
expect there will be people milling around the tomb area (16:3), and they
might have been portrayed as being afraid of what others would think they
had done with the body (stolen it). It is not clear that they did not
then inform Peter and the disciples; they had already started obeying the
neaniskos (16:7) by *going away* (hupagete, "scram!"; v. 8 "kai
ekselthousai ephugon" and they went out in a hurry).
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 09:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Paul & the Judaizers
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Another example of a form of pesher usage of OT texts is called midrash.
> It is based on the same concepts: truth perceived in Scripture is timeless.
> So when retelling the story of the life of Jesus, the gospel writers freely
> borrowed from OT stories-- whose elements were timeless-- into the details of
> their Jesus story. So John Baptist is dressed up and eats food like
> Elijah's, Jesus is born in a crib with animals near by as Isaiah speaks of,
> the allegory of the disciples being fishermen from Jeremiah 16:16, etc. By
> modern standards we would calls these additions inaccurate and even untrue,
> but for the first century folks who read midrashim, these allusions were
> loaded with powerful truth, the eternal timeless truth which they would
> _expect_ to find in a story about Jesus.
I agree with much of this post, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to
consider details of the narrative as a "midrash." Even if they weren't
historical (and I would question whether all Galilean fishermen were mere
midrashim on Jeremiah 16:16), it would probably be better to describe the
influence in folkloric terms. Rabbinic midrash is capable of flights of
fancy, but it is usually self-contained and not part of a continuous
narrative history. There are also haggadic approaches in the NT.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 09:57:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Paul did a pretty good job of explaining the theological import of the
> resurrection without a "resurrection story".
> In fact, I have wondered what Paul would have thought of the late gospel
> resurrection stories. Concerning resurrection, he believed that "flesh and
> blood do not inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15).
I wouldn't think Paul is docetic here. He contradicts those who deny
Jesus's physical death (15:3) and resurrection (15:12 etc.), and his
qualification of the type of resurrected body seems to be aimed at those
who worried that their dead were rotting such that they couldn't be
raised any more (15:35). He explains there are different kinds of flesh
and body (15:39, 44); the one rots, the other will be born from the first
like a plant sprouting from a seed (37), incapable of rotting. This
would basically fit all the gospel resurrection stories, including Mark's.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:03:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> (The Fool leaps in again) My only comment here is that this is indeed an
> interesting idea, but Sato's speculation on the material form in which
> the Q sayings were preserved in the Q community--the "loose-leaf
> notebook"--does not, so far as I know, rely upon any evidence of such a
> proto-codex sort of device, which would be, I guess, a development of the
> double waxed wooden tablets bound by one or more leather thongs in a fold-
> over format.
I've often wondered if early Christians tried to be innovative in how
they wrote down their texts in order to preserve them from seizure by
officials. Christians were persecuted from the very beginning, and
putting their writings in what was originally the format for clerical
ledgers might have disguised it (from superficial search-and-seizures of
manuscripts). Now I know I *am* out on a limb and out of my element, but
it's just a ponderable.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:06:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
Larry Swain is right. I should have said that it is possible that Matthew
has corrected Mark.
Thanks,
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> with someone making the inventive leap. As it stands, however, the
> hypothesis of Q as a loose-leaf codex is itself something of an
> imponderable, and all the more so for those who think that the Q
> hypothesis is itself an imponderable; would they want to grasp at this
> straw to uphold the possibility of a Marcan text that begins before 1:1
> and continues beyond 16:8?
As I understand both the comment you reacted to as well as Niel's
suggestion is that it is MARK (not Q) which was written on the codex
whose leaves were lost. Somewhere I read (_Birth of the Codex_ perhaps?)
that codices came into acceptable usage in 3rd and 4th centuries but they
appeared earlier and were used in the 2nd, and thus by leap of
supposition it is possible there were a few in the first-as to whether
that is likely, is another question altogether.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:32:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Codex
Larry Swain wrote,
. . . "Somewhere I read (_Birth of the Codex_ perhaps?) that codices came
into acceptable usage in 3rd and 4th centuries but they appeared earlier and
were used in the 2nd, and thus by leap of supposition it is possible there
were a few in the first" . . .
Do we have any Greek Ms that we can prove came from a scroll? I do not know
of one. Even P52 seems to be part of the front and back of a single page.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 95 10:51:20
Subject: RE: CODEX
Re. NT fragments from scrolls--
The only NT scroll fragments I know of are the 7Q5 fragments, and they are too
small for a conclusive determination of their content to be made.
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 95 11:49 CDT
Subject: 7Q5 and NT Scrolls
Carsten Thiede has argued at length (most recently
in *Biblica*, 1994) that 7Q5 is a Markan fragment, but
Gordon Fee has identified some decisive problems in
Thiede's case. It turns out that Thiede's reconstruction
of the fragment's letters is much more dubious than
Thiede suggests. Fee plans to publish his results
as soon as a journal agrees to reproduce the photograph
of the fragment. Thiede, by the way, is also known
for his dubious claims about the Matthew fragment at
Magdalen, Oxford, claims reported at length in the
Dec. 1994 *Times* of London.--Paul Moser, Loyola
University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:00:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ANE: subject lines
a plea:
for all the poor slobs like me who signed up for way too many lists,
could we not as a favour do something about the subject lines to allow
for quick sorting of mail?? please. (don't make me beg.)
1) identify the list in the line
e.g., ANE:
or B-HEB:
or B-GRK:
if multiple addressees, just use one of preference
2) clearly identify the subject matter by one or two words, beginning
with a genre lead, e.g., Q? for question, FYI for info, BIB? for
bibliography request, ADD? for address, etc etc:
e.g., Q? Grk aspect
FYI Eg pyramids
BIB? Mesop sculpture
ADD? Driver you get the idea
3) finally, perhaps we could tag the list heading with a code for a
narrow subspecialty so others can just delete it without thought:
e.g., ANE THP: for Tiberian Hebrew phonology
if that's not your game, why not be able to delete it immediately and do
something else with your precious time??
thanx.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #734
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu