[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #743
b-greek-digest Thursday, 8 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 743
In this issue:
Re: third day
re: third day
Resurrection appearances
There is a digest version of B-GREEK.
Re: Paul's concubine?
Rev 2-3 anti-Paul?
Re: Porneia
WINGREEK AND LOGOS
Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
RE: Paul's Concubine
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Porneia
Re: Mark 16:8
Virus Alert
Re: Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
Re: Paul's concubine?
Re: Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 04:39:20 -0400
Subject: Re: third day
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Larry Hurtado, hurtado@cc.UManitoba.CA, asked...
>Could we have the primary texts references where the three-
>day eschatological scheme that was supposedly common
>in Second-Temple Jewish tradition can be found? Never run
>across it myself.
If memory serves me correctly, the secondary source I read this in is the
Encyclopedia Judaicae, under eschatology, in particular, the
section concerning the Eschatological Banquet.
Of course, the source is rabbinical. As I am sure you are aware, these
materials were written down later than the 2nd Temple period,
but may reflect much earlier traditions (ie, 1st-2nd century). Since
eschatology was active in the first c., its likely (at least possible) that
the rabbinical material on eschatology is in part early, especially if
correlations can be found in the NT.
[Anti-semetic scholars earlier in this century graded these rabbinical
sources as inferior simply because they were Jewish. I think the idea that
the rabbinical materials being inferior needs to be re-examined.]
One such correlation is the feeding of the 5,000 with its sacramental
overtones (he took, blessed, broke, gave- Mt 14:19)
and that of the Great Eschatological Banquet in Jewish Eschatology
where all are satiated by the meal of the Messiah.
I am sorry I can't give you volume, chapter, page on this, but
I kind of assumed this was common knowledge among NT
scholars, but maybe not. Anyway, I don't have these resources
available right now (or I would definitely look them up and give
you the primary sources). If the above isn't enough info for you,
if you want, I can see what I can do.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 04:42:10 -0400
Subject: re: third day
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com> asked (somewhat increduously)...
>I second the request. Where are these many references to the third >day in
the OT?
On the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place of sacrifice
for his son Isaac. It was on the third day Pharaoh lifted Jacob our of
prison when he interpreted his dream for him. The land of Egypt was in
darkness three days until Moses lifted the curse. After they passed through
the Red Sea, they were without water for three days until Moses raised his
rod and struck the rock from from the water poured. It was on the third day
after Moses climbed up Mt Siniai, that God gave him the Ten Commandments.
Joshua told the people to prepare, for he would lead them from the
wilderness up into the promised land on the third day. God told King
Hezekiah, he would heal him on the third day when he went up to the Temple.
Queen Esther sat in ashes and fasted for three days before she went into the
King's court to plead for her people. Hosea prophesied that after two days
God would revive Israel, and on the third day God would raise them up. And
Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days before he was spewed back
up on land. Even in the Creation story, it was on the third day, that life
first blossomed, plants sprouted up, vegetation grew, and the Garden was
created. Throughout the Scripture, the third day was a special day, when God
brought judgment or deliverence.
This reoccurance of "three days" or "the third day" was recognized as
significant to Jewish eschatologists, and early Christians also
noted the "veiled" references to reserrection in the words "lifted up",
"rise", "raised".
>Why should the third day of Gen 1 have any eschatological
>significance? the seventh day, yes, as Hebrews argues
In Jewish mysticism and eschatology, the Creation story was read
symbolically. Like in the Beginning, the End would be similar. Chaos would
be the beginning of the end, which would be the result of the Great Battle.
The first day is when Light appears, and that is when the glory of the
Lord appears as God is revealed as the Victor.
. Three days later, on the third day of creation is when land arises and
life first appears. In the End, this is when the dead are raised
for judgment.
[Now be sure that this is NOT what Genesis 1 means to ME, but it was for
some Jewish eschotologists and with some variations, for Jewish mystics as
well.]
>It is possible that the formula Paul cites in 1 Cor 15:3-5 has Hosea >6:2 ?
But that passage really has nothing to do with an >eschatological day of
judgment. It is the attitude of Israelites who >think forgiveness is easily
come by--and rejected by Hosea, God's >prophet.
We have to remember that the ancients did not interpret the Scriptures with
the same criteria and methods we moderns (and
post-moderns) do.
So yes, because of the concurrent exegetical methods of Paul's day, I
think it is entirely possible Paul is just thinking of Hosea
6:2 (even though the context is about the nation of Israel). And because of
these ancient exegetical methods, I believe it is just as likely, if not more
so, that Paul is thinking of the whole "third day" eschatological concept
that is "according to the Scriptures" in the many "three/third day" passages
in the OT.
See the post I just sent to Larry H. on the matter of sources.
Grace & Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 03:47:47 -0700
Subject: Resurrection appearances
Larry W. Hurtado <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>I wish to emphasize again that in Paul, at least, and possibly for
others
>too, *resurrection appearances* (as distinguished by them from other
>visions of the glorified Jesus) functioned *to accredit apostolic
>witnesses* as well as to validate Jesus' resurrection: see 1 Cor 9:1;
>15:1-7 (this is why the resurrection appearances form a closed list in
>Paul). This may be relevant to a possible absence of
>resurrection-appearance stories in Mark. Whatever is the case on this,
>however, the res.-appearances function as I have indicated.
After considering what Larry Hurtado has said above, a comment
seems in order relative to recent discussions of the resurrection.
His observation that, "*Resurrection appearances* (as
distinguished . . . from other visions of the glorified Jesus)
functioned *to accredit apostolic witnesses* as well as to validate
Jesus' resurrection," is certainly correct. Nevertheless, since (as he
implies) the set of resurrection witnesses is identical to the set of
apostolic witnesses, it could be misleading to think that citation of
resurrection appearances is always *equally* functioning both to affirm
or define the resurrection *and* to accredit apostolic witness. One
could not discuss the resurrection appearances of Christ at all without
some reference (however oblique) to the apostle, or apostles, who
witnessed them; so, perforce, mention of the resurrection appearances
calls for mention of the apostles.
When context is taken into account, however, we find that
different references to the resurrection fall at different points on a
spectrum of emphasis that goes from almost purely apostolic
accreditation (I Cor. 9:1, for instance) to those that serve to define
and affirm the fact of the resurrection (See I Cor. 15:4-8.).
Regarding the latter, Paul's words in the verses that immediately
follow (vv. 9-10) should be taken as an aside, as v. 11 makes clear.
Considering the I Cor. 15 passage, it is probable that the nature
of the resurrection is defined here, not only through the verbal
witness of people accessible to - and in, many cases, known to - the
Corinthians, but also by the dynamic of life visible in all those who
had witnessed this singular event.
I realize this is somewhat off-topic from the ending-of-Mark
thread. (It might be, as Larry Hurtado has suggested, that some
dynamic having to do with apostolic authority accounts for absence of
resurrection-appearance stories in Mark.) Since, however, the
resurrection is a central theme in the biblical witness, exegesis and
definition of what the NT has to say about it should be worthwhile.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 08 Jun 95 08:44:17 EDT
Subject: There is a digest version of B-GREEK.
For those of you who did not notice the announcement. There has been a
digest version of B-GREEK for some time now. I would recommend that
everyone be on the digest version. In order to do that send the following
messages to majordomo@virginia.edu
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
SUBSCRIBE B-GREEK-DIGEST
END
Several of you will probably fail to unsubscribe properly because your
mail address has changed. Here are the steps to unsubscribe:
Here is a reminder of how to unsubscribe from the B-GREEK list.
Please keep this reminder handy, and do *not* send an unsubscribe
message to the *entire* list!
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail message to
MAJORDOMO@VIRGINIA.EDU
with the following request as the TEXT (not subject) of the message:
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
or if you are reading the digested version of B-GREEK send:
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK-DIGEST
For further information, send the following to the same address:
INFO B-GREEK
This furthre information will show you how to use the LIST B-GREEK command
to find your alias and unsubscribe it.
As a last resort, contact me at djm5g@virginia.edu
Thank you.
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:59:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Paul's concubine?
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
>
> CRITICISM/CHARGE: Paul is not taking our money
> and therefore does not deserve status or respect.
>
> I have difficulty imagining this as a serious accusation against
> a traveling religious teacher. What I suspect is that Paul has
> distorted or reframed the actual charge/criticism, for rhetorical
> purposes. Do you seriously find credible that Paul is being
> condemned for *not* taking money?
Well, yes, actually. With most readers, I think, in light of this and
other passages in the Cor correspondence, such as 2 Cor 11:7-15, which
seems to indicate that Paul's problem over finances in Corinth was that
he was inconsistent in his practice, accepting funds from some churches
while not asking for funds from Corinth (esp. 2 Cor 11:8-9). And cf.
also 1 Thess 2:1-12, where Paul seems to be recalling his practice in
Thessalonika of supporting himself by work and not taking money from
them.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:19:13 -0700
Subject: Rev 2-3 anti-Paul?
Ken Litwak:
> Excuse me Greg? Rev 2-3 is full of anti-Pauline rhetoric?
> Would you mind enlarging upon that?
See Gilles Quispel, _The Secret Book of Revelation_
(McGraw-Hill, 1979). A number of themes and points converge
upon this likely conclusion. Paul made converts in Ephesus
which probably included Gentiles, and taught that eating meat
which had been offered to idols was acceptable so long as it
caused no offense. In addition, Paul's claim to being an
apostle came under heavy attack. The letter to the Ephesians
(Rev 2), meanwhile, attacks "those who call themselves apostles"
and perhaps Gentiles "who claim they are Jews, but are not".
Rev 2-3 calls the object of its attack "Nicolaitans", and this
is probably a reference to the Hellenist leader Nicolas, the
proselyte from Antioch of Acts 6. (At least early church
tradition is unanimous that the Nicolaitans came from this
Nicolas.) Paul came from Antioch and otherwise was associated
with these same Hellenists of Nicolas (e.g. Acts 21:8).
Paul's teaching on permitting eating of meat offered to idols
under certain circumstances is deemed particularly offensive
in Rev 2-3.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:18:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
(in response to the following comment from me):
> > Uh, Greg, how about Matt 15:19, where *both* moicheia and porneia appear
> > in a list of "no-nos"? Or do you claim that "porneia" here *must* =
> > prostitution?
Greg's response:
> Exactly (unless it is repeated for stress) and it must be because
> there is nothing else for it to mean. Cf. Matthew 5.32 & 19.9 where
> Jesus does use them interchangeably. And I *know* you know all this, I
> just can't understand why you're playing this game.
Greg: I'm playing no insincere "game", I assure you. On "porneia" in
Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, there is in fact more than what you assume here.
E.g., Fitzmyer has suggested that "porneia" here = "zenut" (Heb.),
perhaps esp. here marriages within forbidden relations. IT is also quite
reasonable to see "porneia" as the general term for sexual impropriety
(pejoratively and loosely called "whoredom"/porneia), both in these
passages and elsewhere in the NT.
> You have not shown a passage whose context indicates anything that could
> not be covered by "prostitution" or "adultery" - the two very exact
> meanings attributed to the word in Jewish Greek and clearly derived from
> its usage in the larger sphere of Greek.
Greg: You're in a catch-22 situation. You've made up your mind that
"porneia" must always = either quite specificially prostitution or
adultery. So . . . any ref. to porneia must = . . . . prostitution or
adultery, bingo. Nice way of doing semantics! Convenient, but not
persuasive. But I leave you to it.
>
> ... Lev. 18.8 involves a case of adultery, as opposed to Lev. 18.7
> for blood incest "askhEmosunEn mEtros sou ouk apokalupseis:
> mEter gar sou estin"!
Greg, Lev. 18:6 shows that the *list* of forbidden sexual relations in
Lev. 18 are all forbidden *because they are within close relations*. The
sexual liaisons forbidden include man/step-mother (18:8) *because of the
family relation* and it's not merely a case of "general" adultery. The
outrage of Paul in 1 Cor 5:1 ("a kind [of porneia] that is not even found
among pagans") is a rhetorical flourish occasioned by what he regards as
incest, not merely adultery.
But all these passages have been commented on extensively, and
the word studies are in print. I have my own fish to fry, Greg, so I
leave you to your opinions--I merely wanted to alert other readers that
they are debatable.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Ralph M. Hubbard" <ralphub@beacon.regent.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 11:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WINGREEK AND LOGOS
Our university has a windows driven TLG reader which is based on Peter
Gentry's shareware Wingreek Font set. The university also uses Logos; the
font sets appear to incompatible. How could one use both font sets? It
appears one or the other would have to be renamed.
[]===================================================================[]
[] Ralph M. Hubbard [] Internet:ralphub@beacon.regent.edu []
[] Chesapeake, VA 23320 [] CompuServe: 73140,1203 []
[]===================================================================[]
[] []
[] Rom 8:38-39 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor []
[] angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to []
[] come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all []
[] creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in []
[] Christ Jesus our Lord. []
[]===================================================================[]
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 10:29:00 CDT
Subject: Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
Mark as it stands is the best of the gospels for public reading. Not all
that long ago, a professional actor did a nation-wide tour "performing" the
Gospel of Mark in its entirety. The reviews and audience response were quite
favorable. If one were to try the same thing with Matthew or Luke, it
wouldn't work--at least not without considerable cuts.
If one views Mark as a gospel prepared *primarily* for public reading, the
elimination of the genealogies (and even such things as the Sermon on the
Mount!) make perfect sense. Mark has chosen exactly the kind of things that
hold an audience's attention and left out those that don't.
------------------------------
From: RlMackie@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:07:35 -0400
Subject: RE: Paul's Concubine
On Wednesday, Greg Doudna wrote
[excerpt]
> CRITICISM/CHARGE: Paul is not taking our money
> and therefore does not deserve status or respect.
>I have difficulty imagining this as a serious accusation against
>a traveling religious teacher. What I suspect is that Paul has
>distorted or reframed the actual charge/criticism, for >rhetorical purposes.
Do you seriously find credible that Paul >is being condemned for *not*
taking money?
It does sound like a strange accusation to modern ears, especially phrased in
that manner. Perhaps, however, it would be easier to imagine as a credible
accusation if it were phrased in this manner:
CRITICISM/CHARGE: "If Paul had something worthwhile to say, he would make
(you/us) pay for it."
I suggest "you/us" because it is not entirely clear to me whether Paul's
critics were exclusively within the Corinthian Church or included outside
agitators who were trying to justify their expectation of MISQOS for
EUAGGELIZOMAI. Closely allied to this argument would be such modern phrases
as "You get what you pay for. Pay nothing, get nothing." and "There's no
such thing as a free lunch."
In the rest of 1 Corinthians 9, Paul wrote such things as hOUTWS KAI hO
KURIOS DIETAXEN TOIS TO EUANGGELION KATAGGELLOUSIN EK TOU EUAGGELIOU ZHN. EGO
DE OU KEXRHMAI OUDENI TOUTWN...TIS OUN MOU ESTIN hO MISQOS; hINA
AUAGGELIZOMENOS ADAPANON QHSW TO EUAGGELION EIS TO MH KATAXRHSASQAI TH
EXOUSIA MOU EN TOW EUAGGELIW (v14-15a, 18). In these verses Paul argues that
the EUANGGELION he proclaimed is worth something, but for his MISQOS he did
not make use of his rights (to receive physical support--money--from the
Corinthians).
Perhaps Paul also felt that the Corinthians would understand the free gift of
God better if they received it as a gift rather than a message for which they
had to pay. In the verses cited above, Paul would be arguing, "In this case,
there is such a thing as a 'free lunch'--God's gift of salvation through
faith in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ."
These seem credible reasons for believing that *someone* denigrated Paul's
message because it came ADAPANON (without charge) rather than proposing an
otherwise unknown concubine.
Roger
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
e-mail: rlmackie@aol.com | EKEINON DEI AUXANEIN
Roger L. Mackie | EME DE ELATTOUSQAI
301 Sherman, PO Box 36 | John 3:30
Good Thunder, MN 56037-0036 | "THAT MAN MUST GROW
(507) 278-3169 | BUT I MUST DIMINISH"
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:15:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> Uh, Greg, this is one of the reasons I personally have a bit of a problem
> with some of your posts. Please note that Larry H. wrote "the
> overwhelming view of the scholarly guild". He did not say that it was a
> universal opionion.
And neither did I imply he did. But when significant scholars disagree,
what is the point of saying "the overwhelming view of the scholarly
guild"? I took it, rightly or wrongly, as a rhetorical ploy to stifle
discussion and can me with condescension.
> Where do Chadwick and Hanson accept Smith's thesis? I would like
> chapter and verse if you don't mind.
I didn't say Chadwick and Hanson accepted Smith's thesis, but rather that
they accepted the Secret Gospel of Mark as genuine. That is a significant
distinction. A good roll call of opinions by scholars themselves undecided
is in James Charlesworth & Craig Evans, "Jesus in the Agrapha and
Apocryphal Gospels," in _Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of
the State of the Current Research_ ed. Bruce Chilton & Craig Evans
(Brill 1994) esp. p. 527 & n. 124. The Hanson article at least is in
Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1974) 513-21 (p. 515) according to
their bibliography.
> > As far as I know,
> > only Jacob Neusner has declared it a fake, a typically extreme opinion
> > from him, and one couched in his general hostility to historical-Jesus
> > research.
>
> Um, well gee, you have Larry Hurtado for one, Ed HObbs for two both of
> whom have intimated it on this list. ANd they are not alone.
Well gee, shall we do a head count? Install an applause meter? Science by
the vote? I'm undecided, but at least I'm willing to entertain all
reasonable possibilities.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Greg: I'm playing no insincere "game", I assure you. On "porneia" in
> Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, there is in fact more than what you assume here.
> E.g., Fitzmyer has suggested that "porneia" here = "zenut" (Heb.),
> perhaps esp. here marriages within forbidden relations.
I once examined the context of every use of _moikheia_ and _porneia_ in
the NT to see if I could tease some systematic distinction out of their usage,
but I couldn't. I think it is highly unlikely that Jesus is meant to be
addressing such rare cases in what seems here his sweeping statement on
marriage. Were Jews really divorcing their wives for having sex with their
uncles and bulls? and if so, would it even be brought up here in the
main statement on infidelity in marriage, and by using a term in Greek which,
according to you, refers to every conceivable sexual offense other than
adultery?
> Greg: You're in a catch-22 situation. You've made up your mind that
> "porneia" must always = either quite specificially prostitution or
> adultery. So . . . any ref. to porneia must = . . . . prostitution or
> adultery, bingo. Nice way of doing semantics! Convenient, but not
> persuasive. But I leave you to it.
Just to clarify: I determine a word's meaning by its context and usage.
How do you? In order to show porneia meant any conceivable sexual sin,
you would have to show instances where it clearly means something other
than "adultery" or "prostitution," the two meanings that are
overwhelmingly attested in the NT and elsewhere.
> Greg, Lev. 18:6 shows that the *list* of forbidden sexual relations in
> Lev. 18 are all forbidden *because they are within close relations*. The
> sexual liaisons forbidden include man/step-mother (18:8) *because of the
> family relation* and it's not merely a case of "general" adultery. The
> outrage of Paul in 1 Cor 5:1 ("a kind [of porneia] that is not even found
> among pagans") is a rhetorical flourish occasioned by what he regards as
> incest, not merely adultery.
Paul's reference to the pagans certainly removes the weight of the
discussion from Mosaic law to universal principles. Paul is definitely
not citing Leviticus in 1 Cor. 5:1: he does not claim to be citing
anything, his wording and phrasing are completely different, and besides,
Leviticus 18:7-8 doesn't even use the word porneia.
In my first post I *was* just offering my viewpoint alongside yours, but
subsequently I felt it necessary to defend myself from your accusation of
having offered mere careless personal opinions rehashed from secondary
sources.
Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.
Greg Jordan
chuma@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
> Well gee, shall we do a head count? Install an applause meter? Science by
> the vote?
Why does this sound so familiar?
Philip
------------------------------
From: Steve Willis <swillis@mlc.awinc.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 09:40 PDT
Subject: Virus Alert
Hey all, (this is an almost invisible group mailing).
There is a fake version of PKUNZIP out there that will erase your hard
drive--apparently. Be careful and read a little more below.
> FALSE "PKZ" FILE ALERT
>
>
> Some joker out there is distributing a file called PKZ300B.EXE
> and PKZ300B.ZIP. This is NOT a version of PKZIP and will try
> to erase your hard drive if you use it. The most recent version
> of PKZIP is 2.04G. Please tell all your friends and favorite
> BBS stops about this hack.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:14:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Marmorstein, Art wrote:
> Mark as it stands is the best of the gospels for public reading. Not all
> that long ago, a professional actor did a nation-wide tour "performing" the
> Gospel of Mark in its entirety. The reviews and audience response were quite
> favorable. If one were to try the same thing with Matthew or Luke, it
> wouldn't work--at least not without considerable cuts.
>
> If one views Mark as a gospel prepared *primarily* for public reading, the
> elimination of the genealogies (and even such things as the Sermon on the
> Mount!) make perfect sense. Mark has chosen exactly the kind of things that
> hold an audience's attention and left out those that don't.
My understanding is that ALL literary works in antiquity were intended
for public reading, and I should think that this is no less true of the
other gospels than of Mark. Granted that Mark is shorter, it is also
true, I think, that his intense eschatological urgency may not have been
in sync with every church community's eschatological understanding of
the present time. And granted that WE don't find the genealogies
particularly exciting, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke have clear
designs, Mt's to demonstrate the place of Jesus in Israel's royal
lineage, Lk's to demonstrate Jesus' linkage to universal humanity. I
don't think they would be omitted in a public reading in a church
audience. And, even if it should be conceded that the genealogies might
be omitted for the reasons you cite, it is hard to imagine that the birth
narratives would be omitted in a public reading. And finally, I really
can't see how the Sermon on the Mount would be omitted either.
It really seems to me that this argument is predicated upon the
assumption of the modern audience with a relatively short attention span.
Others might be able to tell us more about public reading in the Jewish
or early Christian context, and it may be said that I'm mixing apples
with oranges to note that at the Panathenaia in Athens the entire Iliad
and Odyssey were read aloud, eight books each day, over the course of six
days, and at the Dionysia three tragedies PLUS a satyr play were put on
each day. I might note also, that there are passages in those epics that
are quite comparable to the genealogies, such as the "Catalog of ships"
that fills the last 300 lines or so of Iliad 2.
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 10:19:07 PDT
Subject: Re: Paul's concubine?
> On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
> >
> > CRITICISM/CHARGE: Paul is not taking our money
> > and therefore does not deserve status or respect.
> >
> > I have difficulty imagining this as a serious accusation against
> > a traveling religious teacher. What I suspect is that Paul has
> > distorted or reframed the actual charge/criticism, for rhetorical
> > purposes. Do you seriously find credible that Paul is being
> > condemned for *not* taking money?
>
> Well, yes, actually. With most readers, I think, in light of this and
> other passages in the Cor correspondence, such as 2 Cor 11:7-15, which
> seems to indicate that Paul's problem over finances in Corinth was that
> he was inconsistent in his practice, accepting funds from some churches
> while not asking for funds from Corinth (esp. 2 Cor 11:8-9). And cf.
> also 1 Thess 2:1-12, where Paul seems to be recalling his practice in
> Thessalonika of supporting himself by work and not taking money from
> them.
>
> Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
While I agree with Larry's assessment, I think there is another,
perhaps more significant issue going on at Corinth. Much of the
1 Cor 1-3, and most of 2 Cor, esp. 3,4,11 and 12, seems to suggest
that Paul is being compared to other teachers and rhetoricians,
both traveling and permanent. What I see in 1 Cor. 9 and elsewhere is
an accusation that goes something like this:
Everyone else who comes through here teaching or speaking in public
(I don't know that someone who made his (her?) living by practicing
rhetoric for pay was viewed as "teaching" per se) gets paid for it.
The other apostles, including the super-apostles, get paid. Getting
paid seems to be the mark of reputable teacher or apostle. If Paul is
not getting paid, he must not be of that same group. If he really had
something to say, and was a reputable member of the apostles, he would
accept/charge money.
In fact, you may have encountered this in the reverse direction.
Doctors and lawyers I've met, for example, seem reticent to give out
free advice. They figure their advice is worth money and are not about
to give it away free. I have no trouble seeing the Corinthians looking
down on Paul as being inferior to other teachers because he is afraid to
ask for money, implying that he isn't in the same league with other
teachers or apostles. That may not be linear logic to some, but if
you've ever watched the US Congress at work on CSPAN, you'll know that
important decisions seem to be made based on rather bizarre arguments.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 13:38:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
At 10:29 AM 08/06/95, Marmorstein, Art wrote:
>If one views Mark as a gospel prepared *primarily* for public reading, the
>elimination of the genealogies (and even such things as the Sermon on the
>Mount!) make perfect sense. Mark has chosen exactly the kind of things that
>hold an audience's attention and left out those that don't.
Art
While this is certainly an interesting notion, I'm not sure I buy all the
particulars. If Mark's intention was to grab the audiences attention he
would not have dropped the post-resurrection appearances!
Or for that matter would an editor really exclude the Sermon on the
Mount/Plain if his intention was to play to the audience? Similarly this
would mean that we would have to exclude _all_ of the pericopes and sayings
assigned in the standard model to the Synoptics Saying Source as too
unstageworthy; but surely many of those would read as well before an
audience as anything in Mark.
Nichael -- Do not trust in these deceptive
nichael@sover.net words: "This is the
temple of the
Paradise Farm Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
Brattleboro VT temple of the Lord".
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #743
*****************************
** 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