[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #740
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 7 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 740
In this issue:
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Unsubscribe
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Porneia
still curious
Late Resurrection Stories
Re: Mark 16:8
subscribe
Re: Porneia
Re: Porneia
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Porneia
Temptation, Marcan priority (was "still curious")
Re: Porneia
Re: Late Resurrection Stories
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 13:47:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Gregory Jordan wrote:
> If nothing
> else, I see a meeting with Peter being set up in Mark 14.28-31 and raised
> again in 16.7 with no resolution (and I think Mark didn't expect the
> audience to be as imaginative as 20th century Biblical scholars :). So I
> assume Mark's ending is incomplete and unrecoverable, and it may never
> have existed in written form.
This raises an interesting question for me. If the purpose of the
resurrection accounts, as someone has suggested, is to validate an
apostle's mandate, and if Mark can be connected to Peter (certainly in
tradition, but Mark's Gospel seems more Roman and Peter is connected
to Rome), why then would Mark fail to describe the appearance of the
risen Christ to Peter?
Paul had no problem asserting this (1Co15:5), so why not Mark, especially
in light of the foreshadowing that Greg brought up?
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:26:14 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> > others (IMHO). It also presupposes, I think, that the NEANISKOS is an
> > angel. Larry has said that angels are not uncommonly referred to as
> > NEANISKOI, but I'm not really convinced that this one is, beyond the fact
> > that he is in the literal sense an ANGELOS, a bringer of news.
>
> Carl,
>
> Several times you have stressed the _neaniskos_. Do you have an opinion
> on him? Is he the same neaniskos as the one in the _Secret Gospel of
> Mark_? And if so, what does his presence in the tomb mean?
I don't really have a fully-formed opinion, more a hunch, that there's an
intended link between the NEANISKOS of 15:51,
KAI NEANISKOS TIS SUNHKOLOUQEI AUTWi PERIBEBEBLHMENOS SINDONA
*EPI GUMNOU*, KAI KRATOUSIN AUTON. 52 hO DE KATALIPWN THN SINDONA GUMNOS
EFUGEN
and the NEANISKOS of 16:5. This is, in fact, the NEANISKOS of Morton
Smith's _Secret Gospel_, but I don't think that really has any foundation
at all. What intrigues me is that the word SINDWN in 14:51 is used
elsewhere in the NT ONLY of the linen cloth that forms the burial shroud
of Jesus. There is another feature of the NEANISKOS at 16:5, the fact
that he is "dressed in a white robe." This is what usually is
understood--perhaps rightly, I'll admit--as indicating his angelic
status; however, arent' the white robes associated somehow with baptism
(? those who have been "washed in the blood of the lamb"?) or with
glorified believers. Somewhere (I had thought it was in a book on Luke,
but I can't find the reference) I once read a suggestion that the
NEANISKOS was a neophyte of the Marcan community who announces the
message that Jesus is risen. I'm not really satisfied with how all this
fits together at all, but I can't shake the sense ("gut feelings" not to
be trusted!) that there is an INTENDED LINK between the two NEANISKOS
references.
That, at any rate, is what I've been alluding to, secretly hoping that
someone who really understands what 14:51-2 means would enlighten us. Let
me add one comment about this passage. I admit readily that I DON'T know
just what 14:51 is referring to, but I DON'T think Morton Smith has
clarified the issue one little bit. Furthermore, I think there are many
issues in NT interpretation that we may never understand (this side of
the grave) because we don't know what the original writer and his/her
original audience knew; this may be one of them; BUT I DON'T THINK THAT
14:51-2 are intended to be meaningless to the reader. And behold, a
mystery!
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: Kyosu@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:26:46 -0400
Subject: Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe b-Greek
Charlie Ray
kyosu@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:58:28 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
One clarification in response to Ed Krentz's comments: the Muenster
Institute is *not* the same operation as the IGNT project. The latter is
an Anglo-British committee project. THe bulletins of the Muenster
Institute are excellent for keeping up with the Alands and their many
valuable projects, but not very good for keeping up with the IGNT project.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:24:23 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
In response to the query about "porneia" and whether it applies to what
we call "premarital sex," it appears that "porneia" is used in the NT
wide a wide sweep of connotation, practically including any form of
inappropriate sexual intimacy.
Now the question becomes, then, what forms of sexual intimacy are
specificially mentioned or hinted at as inappropriate. And on this
question perhaps 1 Cor 7:25-38 is the fullest. Here Paul seems to pose
the alternatives for "unmarried" ("virgins = parthenoi): either marriage
or keeping sexual desires sufficiently under control as to make continued
celibacy an option. Thus, vv. 36-38 appear to have in view betrothed
people.
In 1 Cor 6:12-20, Paul discusses sexual intimacy with
prostitutes, condemning it.
One could conclude therefore that the only approved context of
full sexual intimacy in the NT is marriage. Thus, any other
circumstances of full sexual intimacy is "porneia".
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 95 15:50:00 CDT
Subject: still curious
In an earlier posting, I asked how those who believe in Marcan priority
explain Mark's account of the temptation (Mark 1:12-13). These verses seem
best explained as an epitome of Matthew's temptation narrative. Also, if
Mark's account is the original, how is that Matthew and Luke just happen to
have exactly the right information to fill this "tantalizing" gap in the
story?
Also, I'm surprised how quickly my comments about Mark 1:1-4 are dismissed as
"no real difficulty." This is a mighty strange beginning--John just appears
out of nowhere, introduced only with one of Mark's very few direct citations
of the OT.
If Matthew is first, it's easy to explain what's happened: Mark lops off the
genealogy and the infancy narrative, finds himself without an introduction,
and so inverts Matthew order of event/OT reference to supply at least some
explanation of the character he is going to talk about.
Note the initial words of Mark 1:2 (KATHWS GEGRAPTAI EN...) Isn't KATHWS
without an antecedent a bit strange? Doesn't this wording make more sense
if one thinks of Mark as having the original Matthean order in mind as he
writes? Or are there other biblical examples of KATHWS referring to what
follows instead of what precedes?
Art Marmorstein
marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu
------------------------------
From: Steve Willis <swillis@mlc.awinc.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 14:30 PDT
Subject: Late Resurrection Stories
Steve Willis here, sorry this is a bit late, I've been sending to the wrong
address. Hopefully you're reading it now....
Someone recently said,
> In fact, I have wondered what Paul would have thought of the late gospel
>resurrection stories.
Not to pick on that one individual, but I've seen many express the view that
the gospels are rather late. I'd like to answer that with a comment then ask
a question for the Listers.
Comment: I don't believe the gospel accounts to be all that late. Luke-Acts
is the reason. Acts the later of the two works by one author (assumed Luke),
ends before recording the death of Paul. If Paul died around 66 as is
commonly held, and Acts was finished sometime (years? months?) before that,
then it seems safe to assume Acts written by 63-65, 66 probably the latest.
But, the Gospel account (Luke) was written prior to Acts (see 1:1ff). Could
we not assume 60-63 for "Luke"? This does not end the point, for the Gospel
of Luke says there were many other (gospel) accounts written prior to
Luke's writing (Luke 1:1-4). Doesn't this date some gospel accounts probably
prior to 60? Seeing much similarity to Mark and Matthew, doesn't it make
sense to think they were under consideration--at the least?
This may not be the current "scholorly" view, but besides this
internal/external evidence, there may be a couple other passages to consider
that may affirm this view:
Jesus said, "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and
scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify...." (Matthew 23:34-NAS).
The intent seems that there would be some "scribes" writing for Jesus'
cause. Which has led me to wonder if this might have been what the apostles
were doing in Acts 6, when instructing the church to select men to oversee
the task of food distribution among the Grecian women.
"And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, 'It is
not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.'
... '"But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the
word.'" (Acts 6:2, 4 NAS).
We might understand the "ministry of the word" and not neglecting "the word
of God" is seen as more than just preaching and teaching. Perhaps the
apostles were already writing to spread the resurrection accounts.
Now the question:
I read earlier this year (TIME magazine) about a mss find for the text of
Matthew. The report said Peter Thiede claimed to identify a portion of
Matthew's Gospel in a fragment from upper Egypt. He dates the fragment in
the FIRST century. The TIME article reported Thiede's view taht if this were
so, Matthew's gospel "could be pushed back just before or after A. D. 70, a
decade or more earlier than the consensus date among experts." See, I told
you I was not intending to flame anyone--this article made the same claim.
(TIME, Jan. 23, 1995, p. 47, International Edition). OK, HERE'S the
question: Can anyone here tell us more about this Matthew find? Is it that
early?
(LATER NOTE FOR RESEND): I realize that Thiede's views have made it into the
discussion since I first tried to post this a week or so ago. I wonder if
anyone can fill "us" (read "me") in on the Matthew text some more--pro & con.
Thanks for your consideration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Willis
Swillis@mlc.awinc.com
A US Citizen in Canada
Dan Quayle says: "Don't Forget to Vot!"
(OK, It's a jok).
------------------------------
From: Steve Willis <swillis@mlc.awinc.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 14:30 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
The Timster (Tim Stalker) said,
> My understanding is that in 1 Cor 15, when Paul says
>Jesus was raised "on the third day according to the Scripture"
>he is speaking of the Jewish eschatological 3rd day after the
>Judgment when God's kingdom comes in fullness. And he
>doesn't say exactly what the witnesses saw.
> Indeed, all of the witnesses experienced the resurrection of Jesus,
>but no where does Paul say they experienced a resuscitated
>corpse of Jesus, which is the literal misinterpretation of
>the resurrection pericope (in my opinion).
I wonder if we shouldn't be considering a "third" kind of body.
1) the kind Jesus shared with humans (Heb. 2:14) before the cross.
2) the kind Jesus showed after the cross (John 20:27).
and
3) the kind that has not yet appeared that we will have in heaven (1 John
3:2);
The first we are all aquainted with, as we too have this form (Phil. 2:7-8).
The second proved he was alive (not dead!), as a convincing proof (Acts 1:3).
The third kind is one that the faithful will share, but has/had not appeared
on earth.
For your consideration.
Steve Willis
A US Citizen in Canada
Swillis@mlc.awinc.com
------------------------------
From: "Dr. James Edwards" <edwards@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 17:04:08 -35900
Subject: subscribe
SUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 16:52:17 EDT
Subject: Re: Porneia
Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> In response to the query about "porneia" and whether it applies to what
> we call "premarital sex," it appears that "porneia" is used in the NT
> wide a wide sweep of connotation, practically including any form of
> inappropriate sexual intimacy.
> Now the question becomes, then, what forms of sexual intimacy are
> specificially mentioned or hinted at as inappropriate.
[pre-marital sex 1Co7:25-38]
[prostitution 1Co6:12-20]
> One could conclude therefore that the only approved context of
> full sexual intimacy in the NT is marriage. Thus, any other
> circumstances of full sexual intimacy is "porneia".
I would add incest (with father's wife = step-mother?) to the list (1Co5:1).
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:02:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
I would disagree that the term _porneia_ should be understood to refer to
all sex outside of marriage. Most of the NT is not concerned with the
status of the unmarried, except that they avoid violating marriage. This
is the meaning of 1 Cor. 7.2 - porneias are violations of husbands and
wives. It is not "garbage" that most young people in antiquity were
involved in arranged marriages - it is a fact. Often the "husband" would
put off formally marrying his _parthenos_: this is the background of 1
Cor. 7.36-38. If there is anything "radical" in Paul's advice, it is
that a man may honorably refuse the woman to whom he was promised.
Sometimes young men would get away from their future spouses and pursue
sexual relationships with prostitutes and concubines, or even propose new
marriages for themselves (cf. Augustine of Hippo, who kept a concubine
for years, had a son by her, and eventually broke up with her). It may
be that Paul himself had a concubine (1 Cor. 9.5). There was nothing
illegal or immoral about such relationships, and they were regarded as
basically a lesser form of marriage.
I also believe other sexual practices are not covered by _porneia_:
pre-marital sex between 2 unmarried people, homosexuality, masturbation,
bestiality, incest between coevals, incest with one's children, sex with
slaves, etc. The root meaning of the word was prostitution (as is the
English "fornication"), and in Greco-Jewish usage it was used by
extension for adultery (violations of a spouse by a non-spouse - cf. men
who call their adulterous wives "whores" in English, exaggerating even
when there is no payment involved). It was also used for religious
infidelity since OT times (the OT prophets began the metaphor of
backsliding Israel as "whore/adulteress").
All this is not to say that pre-marital sex was not condemned in NT times
or among NT authors. The main concern, though, would have been the
virginity of the woman involved and if she were engaged.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:14:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> and the NEANISKOS of 16:5. This is, in fact, the NEANISKOS of Morton
> Smith's _Secret Gospel_, but I don't think that really has any foundation
> at all. What intrigues me is that the word SINDWN in 14:51 is used
> elsewhere in the NT ONLY of the linen cloth that forms the burial shroud
> of Jesus. There is another feature of the NEANISKOS at 16:5, the fact
> that he is "dressed in a white robe." This is what usually is
> understood--perhaps rightly, I'll admit--as indicating his angelic
> status; however, arent' the white robes associated somehow with baptism
> (? those who have been "washed in the blood of the lamb"?) or with
> glorified believers.
This is where I think the _Secret Gospel_ is helpful (and I do believe it
is authentic). It explains that the _neaniskos_ is a prototype of John's
Lazarus, a young man whom Jesus loved and raised from the dead. That
could be one reason he has the linen "shroud" on. Also, since Jesus
taught him the _musterion_, he is garbed like an initiate in a mystery
religion, which makes sense since he literally rose from the dead. The
only thing left to explain is why he would be in the tomb. H. Koester
believes the redactor of Mark eliminated various traditions retained in
the _Secret Gospel_, leaving some in (in what makes for confusion!).
Maybe ... completely guessing here ... the young man rolled the stone
away just as Jesus rolled *his* stone away, or something like that.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 22:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> I also believe other sexual practices are not covered by _porneia_:
> pre-marital sex between 2 unmarried people, homosexuality, masturbation,
> bestiality, incest between coevals, incest with one's children, sex with
> slaves, etc.
I'm not sure whether or not the inclusion or exclusion of these deeds
in the term porneia would be clarified by Aline Roussel's study, titled
Porneia. I suppose anyone esp. interested in the topic might want to
find that book. But then I don't suppose it could be assumed without
demonstration that Paul's understanding of the word is the same as
that of those studied by Roussel.
> All this is not to say that pre-marital sex was not condemned in NT times
> or among NT authors. The main concern, though, would have been the
> virginity of the woman involved and if she were engaged.
I've heard the latter said before, but I can't remember right now if
this is derived from the NT texts or brought in from elsewhere. I
would have thought the morality (or better, spiritual character) of
the man's act was in view in at least some of the texts... Perhaps
you can clarify.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 21:09:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Temptation, Marcan priority (was "still curious")
(AM) "In an earlier posting, I asked how those who believe in Marcan
priority explain Mark's account of the temptation (Mark 1:12-13).
These verses seem best explained as an epitome of Matthew's
temptation narrative. Also, if Mark's account is the original, how
is that Matthew and Luke just happen to have exactly the right
information to fill this "tantalizing" gap in the story?"
I am somewhat reluctant to start off anew at the "beginning" of Mark's
gospel after the lengthy and heated discussion (which may not yet be
over) of its "ending." But inasmuch as you reiterate the questions and
no one else ventures a response, it appears that someone must speak up
for "those who believe in Marcan priority." But don't assume a
uniformity of views among them, please. We've certainly seen a range
of views regarding the ending among both those who are satisfied that
the gospel does end at 16:8 and those who think it cannot end there.
The more or less standard view on this matter is that the Temptation
Narrative in Mt & Lk is part of Q. I think it is fair to say that most
of those who find the Q hypothesis useful at present do NOT simply say
that Q can simply be equated with parts of Matthew and Luke not
accounted for by Marcan elements; most, I think, will rather say that
there must have been a stage of the oral tradition at which some
elements that later became fixed in the Q tradition circulated
broadly; another, perhaps still more common view is that the Q
tradition itself went through phases of development and that Mark very
likely knew some pieces from an earlier stage of development. At any
rate, the Temptation Narrative in Mt & Lk is so close, although the
order of two of the episodes in the narrative is altered, that both
are thought to derive from Q, and Lk is believed to have altered the
sequence in order to make the Temple episode climactic, as the Temple
looms large in Luke's recurrent themes. Far from supposing that Mark
gives an abbreviated version of the account in Mt & Lk, those who hold
in Marcan priority argue (notice how scrupulously I avoid the
first-person pronoun here, except for the occasional parenthesis) that
Mt & Lk EXPAND the meager Marcan account by filling it out with the Q
narrative or else (more likely) substitute the more expansive Q
Temptation Narrative for that of Mark. It seems more difficult to see
why Mark, if he had available the text from Mt and/or Lk, would have
settled for the meager account which he offers. This is, of course,
one of those arguments which can be used either FOR or AGAINST Marcan
priority: one side claims that Mark wrote later and ABBREVIATED the
account appearing in Mt & Lk; the other side claims that Mt & Lk were
dissatisfied with Mark's meager account and substituted the fuller Q
version for it. This is an abbreviated statement, but I think it hits
the basic points. Each must decide for him/herself which (if either)
hypothesis seems more plausible.
(AM) "Also, I'm surprised how quickly my comments about Mark 1:1-4 are
dismissed as "no real difficulty." This is a mighty strange
beginning--John just appears out of nowhere, introduced only with one
of Mark's very few direct citations of the OT.
"If Matthew is first, it's easy to explain what's happened: Mark
lops off the genealogy and the infancy narrative, finds himself
without an introduction, and so inverts Matthew order of event/OT
reference to supply at least some explanation of the character he is
going to talk about."
But again, the question must be asked: WHY in the world, if Mark KNEW
the genealogy and birth narratives of Matthew, would he lop them off?
What would he GAIN by doing that? For my part, it seems far more
plausible that Mark and Luke both drew birth and infancy narratives
from their own sources ad added them to Mark's account. What strikes
me as especially strange here is the procedure of beginning with
Matthew's gospel as the norm and model and assuming that Mark set out
deliberately NOT to IMPROVE Matthew's version, but actually and
deliberately to compose an INFERIOR GOSPEL. Why should Mark want to do
that?
(AM) "Note the initial words of Mark 1:2 (KATHWS GEGRAPTAI EN...) Isn't
KATHWS without an antecedent a bit strange? Doesn't this wording
make more sense if one thinks of Mark as having the original Matthean
order in mind as he writes? Or are there other biblical examples of
KATHWS referring to what follows instead of what precedes?"
On Mark 1:1-8 I would again point to the original redaction-critical
work on Mark, Willi Marxsen's _Mark the Evangelist_ (1956, ET Abingdon
Press, 1969), "Study One: John the Baptist," pp. 30-53. Marxsen argues
that Mark sets the two prophetic texts forward first in order to
highlight the phrase in 1:3 EN THi ERHMWi prior to asserting that John
"appearaed on the scene" EGENETO--where?: 1:4-EN THi ERHMWi. The
"wilderness" is the key locale here, and Marxsen claims that it is not
a specific geographical wilderness. Mt & Lk actually put the
wilderness on the map; in Mk it is, even if a historical locale,
fundamentally a symbolic locale: the wilderness between Egypt and
Promised Land, the wilderness between Place of Exile and the Promised
Land of the Return. It is the wilderness of Elijah, and Mark's
description of John is meant to challenge the reader to recognize that
John the Baptist is, in fact, Elijah, the prophet who precedes the One
Who Comes in the name of the Lord (cf. 9:11-13). To many no doubt
this will all appear very fanciful, but as part of an interpretation
of the gospel as a whole with a powerful apocalyptic thrust looking
forward to the imminent return of Jesus as Son of Man, its logic is
consistent with recurring patterns in the remainder of the gospel.
As for the question of whether there are other examples of a KAQWS
clause--a relative adverbial clause--preceding the demonstrative
adverbial clause, I'm not really sure, but it certainly is common for
a relative clause to precede its demonstrative logical antecedent.
What IS missing here and might be expected, I think, is a hOUTWS at
the beginning of 1:4 to correspond to the KAQWS: "Just as ... even so
..." In any case, I think this KAQWS is different in usage from the
KAQWS that one sees so frequently in the Pauline letters, where a
subsequent clause beginning with the KAQWS clarifies or expands
something that has previously been stated. I don't have the reference
works handy here to check on that, but I don't think the KAQWS clause
of Mark 1:2 is really problematic. To which must be added: others have
found to be QUITE problematic some of the things that haven't seemed
so to me.
Let me say that I am not eager here to begin a die-hard defense of
Marcan priority. It is clear that the hypothesis has both its
defenders and its critics on this list. I just didn't think that Art
Marmorstein's question should remain unanswered as if the upholders of
Marcan priority had never thought about those questions.
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: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 22:24:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Porneia
I concur with Larry's understanding of porneia. It seems to refer to any
uncondoned sexual activity - any activity outside of marriage.
George
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 19:46:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Late Resurrection Stories
Steve Willis (Swillis@mlc.awinc.com) wrote:
> there may be a couple other passages to consider
>that may affirm this view:
>
>Jesus said, "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise
men and
>scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify...." (Matthew
23:34-NAS).
>
>The intent seems that there would be some "scribes" writing for Jesus'
>cause.
>
Steve's surmises about the early origin of the Gospels could well
be correct, but Jesus' references to "scribes" most probably does not
have the meaning he ascribes to it above.
Scribes, GRAMMATEIS, in Jesus' time were the scholars well versed
in matters biblical. Among the Jews, they were experts in the Law.
Jesus also saw the possiblilty of the scholarly believing in Him and
entering into the Kingdom of God (See Mat. 13:52).
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #740
*****************************
** 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