[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #744
b-greek-digest Friday, 9 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 744
In this issue:
Re: Mark and Midrash
Augustine's concubine & Porneia
Re: Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
palaeography and p75
Re: Paul's concubine? (Paul's sacrifice)
Re: palaeography and p75
Could we have B-GREEK archived, please?
Re: Third day
Re: Porneia
Re: palaeography and p75
Re: Porneia
Subscribe
Re: WINGREEK AND LOGOS
Re: WINGREEK AND LOGOS
Premarital Sex
Re: palaeography and p75
unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 14:24:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark and Midrash
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Paul Moser, PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu, wrote on back on 6/4...
> Since, in certain quarters, NT scholarship suffers from >midrashomania
(remember parallelomania?), we must be careful >regarding definition and
evidence.
I hope I have defined narrative midrash well enough in previous
posts here. Since story-telling is part of the very fabric of Judaism,
it is hard to believe we haven't recognized narrative midrash before now.
Elie Weisel (who died about a year ago) even has a book he
called "Midrash", which is his retelling of several narratives from
the Torah (OT).
I agree with you that there is a midrash-mania a foot in some
corners of the scholarly world. My concerns are not so much recognizing
various kinds of midrash in NT documents (and elsewhere), but with the less
than careful associations of
OT source material with the midrashim. There needs to be
a method worked out for correlating midrash narratives and their source(s).
The other extreme I have found has been with scholars who
are trying to identify the new narrative elements added to the
narrative midrash. They are quick to affirm the historicity of
the new narrative elements they identify, and I think this is
tenuous at best.
To cite one extreme example, it has been asserted that Jesus
was married to Mary Magdalene based on a few verses from
Jn 2:1-12, Jn 20:11-18. I believe this is not the practice of recognizing
the presence of midrash, but the very practice of exegetical midrash itself
(which, when moderns do it, it is called
"eisegesis").
As I have said a while back, I believe the midrash and the historical
elements are so mixed that it is near, if not totally, impossible
to separate them. And I don't think it's a good thing to do so, since
the source material elements do the job of interpreting the
new matterial elements, as well as vice-versa.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 13:36:08 -0600
Subject: Augustine's concubine & Porneia
You wrote
>Augustine's sexual appetites were a problem to him.
>As one of my profs has cogently noted, "Where Augustine blessed us, he really
>blessed us... where he cursed us, boy, did he really curse us!"
>
>I think that his putting aside of his concubine was perhaps part of his attempt
>to cut himself off from this part of his sinful nature that he struggled with,
>and his monastic period may have also been an attempt to put aside 'fleshly'
>desires. As you say, Carl, it does seem a bit strange though.
>
>mark_o'brien@dts.edu
************************************
You might be interested in reading a couple of things on St. Augustine's
concubine.
Peter Brown, _Augustine of Hippo: A Biography_. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967: 61-64. ISBN 0-520-01411-1
- --------. _The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in
Early Christianity._ Lectures on the History of Religions, NS 13. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1988: 389-395. ISBN:0-231-06100-5
Peter Brown tries to set Augustine within the social context of North
African society in the fourth century.
Along with that, those who were discussing PORNEIA might be interested in
the following:
Aline Rousselle, _Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity._ Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1988. ISBN: 0-631-13837-4
Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis! That certainly applies to this
whole area, both back at a time when concubinage had at least quasi-legal
status and today when it has anything but--though POSSLQs seem to be
multiplying.
Peace,
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th St., Chicago, IL 60615
(Voice) Home: 312/947-8105; Off.: 312-753-0752
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 14:59:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Why no genealogy, etc. in Mark
Carl W Conrad wrote:
>It really seems to me that this argument is predicated upon the
>assumption of the modern audience with a relatively short attention span.
re: the modern attention span:
As a more nearly contemporary aside, accounts of the Lincoln-Douglas
debates describe those events as typically lasting seven or more hours,
with a meal break somewhere in the middle. This with the audience standing
in the heat and dust and the speakers with benefit of amplification.
(Readers will recall the broughaha over whether the last Clinton/Bush LWV
debate should be "extended" to 90 minutes or not and the subsequent
commentary on the long-windedness of the speakers.)
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".
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 14:29:35
Subject: palaeography and p75
Hello, all.
I'm new at this collating stuff, so I may be commenting on
something that's already been trod into the ground.
For fun, practice and edification, I collated several plates
(against the NA26--it's all I had) from Metzger's *Manuscripts*
the other day. I noticed an interesting tendency in the plate
of p75 (p. 68, Lk 16.9ff). I cross-checked my findings against
the plate of p75 in Aland's *Text* (p. 91, Lk 24.51-Jn 1.16),
and here's what I found.
The copyist tends toward what I, in my comparative ignorance,
assume are idiosyncratic spellings. Note:
1.) S/he substitutes EI for I in several places: thus MISHSEI
is spelled MEISHSEI (Lk 16.13), GINWSKEI is spelled GEINWSKEI
(Lk 16.15), and SKOTIA is spelled SKOTEIA (twice in Jn 1.5).
2.) S/he drops the second in doubled N's. Thus various
permutations of IWANNHS become permutations of IWANHS in Lk 16.16,
the title of John, and Jn 1.6 and 1.15. Also, EGENNHQHSAN is
spelled EGENHQHSAN in Jn 1.13. I have no other examples of doubled
N on the plates in front of me. I did notice, however, that the
copyist has "properly" doubled the L's in Lk 16.
Also, the copyist *appears* to drop the terminal N from KEKRAGEN
before LEGWN (Jn 1.15--the facsimile I had was less than clear at
this point.) I assume that N was movable before consonants in
the second century A.D.?
3.) Other interesting variants/spellings: KEREAN for KERAIAN (Lk 16.17),
MARTURION for MARTURIAN (Jn 1.7).
My questions:
1.) Do these "idiosyncracies" continue throughout p75? I can't get
to a good library for the next few days, or I'd look it up myself.
2.) What explanations have been offered for the "idiosyncratic"
spellings? I refuse to believe that these features of such an
important manuscript haven't been analyzed and discussed.
3.) Could the substitution of EI for I be explained in terms of
pronunciation? And likewise the substitution of E for AI in KERAIAN
(Lk 16.17)? This pronunciation for these vowels would differ
slightly from the pronunciations we learned in Greek 101, wouldn't
they?
Palaeography is fun. Very interesting stuff, no?
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:50:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Paul's concubine? (Paul's sacrifice)
Greg Doudna (gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov) wrote:
> My
>problem is that the way Paul frames it doesn't seem to make
>sense in terms of a reasonable criticism from opponents.
>
> 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?
Really, that sort of criticism is not that uncommon even today.
There are peolple who will criticize a minister for not "living by
faith" if he also works at a secular job to provide necessary income
for himself and his family.
Times have changed, but human nature surely hasn't. I find it not
at all difficult to imagine that Paul may have been criticized by some
because he provided for his own upkeep so as not to be a burden to new
churches. Paul, of course, does use the criticism to his own
advantage, pointing out his personal sacrifice for the cause of Christ.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 13:20:55 PDT
Subject: Re: palaeography and p75
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org asked:
> Do these "idiosyncracies" continue throughout p75?
All that you mentioned are common mis-spellings found in manuscripts,
except possibly MARTURION for MARTURIAN, which is still not astounding.
They are so common that they are generally ignored by collators.
Since that kind of misspelling is mostly caused by scribes who spell by ear,
they get more common in the middle ages when more Greek vowels
get confounded.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Maurice O'Sullivan <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 21:39:42 +0100
Subject: Could we have B-GREEK archived, please?
David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu> writing on
08 Jun 95 08:44:17 EDT
reminds us that:
> There has been a digest version of B-GREEK for some time
now.
When, I wonder, can we expect an ARCHIVE of B-GREEK?
Due to holidays, I wll have to unsubscribe shortly, and with a
number of interesting 'threads' running at present, I would
rather like to be able to retrieve what I have missed when I
subscribe again.
Any else miss the facility of an archive?
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
------------------------------
From: Maurice O'Sullivan <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 21:39:45 +0100
Subject: Re: Third day
Responding to msg from: Timster132@aol.com
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 04:39:20 -0400
>Subject: Re: third day
>
> [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.]
It wasn't so much that they " graded " them but rather they
ignored them.
In a long [ 70 page ] review-article in the current issue of
The Journal of Theological Studies, the authors, Martin Hengel
and Roland Deines, remark that:
" Nevertheless, the accomplishment of scholars like Billerbeck
or Jeremias -- and also Schlatter -- is that they showed that a
thorough knowledge of Judaism, not least rabbinic Judaism, is
one of the non-negotiable requirements in the field of New
Testament study. Over against the history of religion tradition
which began with W. Bousset and was continued by Rudolf
Bultmann and his pupils, whose historical picture of Judaism
was based almost entirely on sources written in Greek, scholars
like Strack and Billerbeck and 'Jeremias & co.' were amongst
the first who responded to the appeal of the 'Wissenschaft des
Judentums' which was then beginning to blossom, and they
therely helped New Testament scholarship discover the deficits
in its knowledge. "
Regards,
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 15:49:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>
> 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 obviously don't understand what Fitzmyer suggested and what I
was referring to. See J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts and
Some New Palestinian Evidence," Theol. Studies 37(1976): 197-226.
Also, please disagree with what I've stated, not what you wrongly
impute to me. I have stated that "porneia" is used as the broader term,
in various contexts connoting various sexual sins, including adultery,
while "moicheia" seems to be used more restrictedly for "adultery"
properly so called. In this sense, "porneia" seems to function much like
the Hebrew "zenut", which likewise has a rather flexible range of
connotations.
Greg continues:
> 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, your first sentence doesn't tell me much specific. "Usage"
= meaning for all practical purposes. I have already indicated how we
can determine word-meanings: viz. by reading them in the context of the
discourse-world of the texts in which they occur. Thus, we look for the
sexual practices and mores reflected in the NT and then we can tell what
they mean when they refer to "porneia", which is often used in the NT
rhetorically for things in addition to/other than "prostitution"--e.g.,
Rev 22:15.
I stated:
> > 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.
Greg replies:
> 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.
Greg, As you don't reply to my comments about Lev, I assume you
now accept them. As to 1 Cor 5:1, I never stated Paul was "citing" Lev,
only that the ref. to the sexual relationship as a man having "his
father's wife" seems (to many exegetes in fact) to be wording influenced
by Lev 18:8. Again, I respectfully request that you deal with arguments
offered, and not erect straw-man ones. Thus, the presence or absence of
porneia in Lev. 18 is *quite* beside the point, for example.
As I think we have probably inflicted enough of this poorly conducted
discussion upon the list, I suggest we give it a rest. And peace upon you
also.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 17:57:58 EDT
Subject: Re: palaeography and p75
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> 3.) Could the substitution of EI for I be explained in terms of
> pronunciation? And likewise the substitution of E for AI in KERAIAN
> (Lk 16.17)? This pronunciation for these vowels would differ
> slightly from the pronunciations we learned in Greek 101, wouldn't
> they?
Your thoughts are correct. By the second century C.E., EI and I were
both pronounced alike (though EI may have been quantitatively longer)
with their modern pronunciation ("ee"). Likewise for E and AI.
For more information about Greek pronunciation in Classical and Koine
times, see W. Sidney Allen, VOX GRAECA.
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: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:45:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Porneia
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 15:49:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Greg, your first sentence doesn't tell me much specific. "Usage"
= meaning for all practical purposes. I have already indicated how we
can determine word-meanings: viz. by reading them in the context of the
discourse-world of the texts in which they occur. Thus, we look for the
sexual practices and mores reflected in the NT and then we can tell what
they mean when they refer to "porneia", which is often used in the NT
rhetorically for things in addition to/other than "prostitution"--e.g.,
Rev 22:15.
This sounds like a pretty scheme, but it doesn't really help. The NT
doesn't describe much about sexual mores and practices at all, except
for Paul's hesitancy about marriage, Paul's concern about prostitution
(particularly with a non-Christian prostitute), and the like.
Can <porneia> include, say, sex between people engaged to be married?
Unfortunately, we can't appeal to the "mores reflected in the NT",
because the only case where the NT might be speaking about such sex is
where it uses the word <porneia>. It would be circular to conclude
any particular limit in such a situation.
Appeals to the meaning of <porneia> are hopeless; the best sort of
translation is "sexual immorality". To conclude any particular set of
limits on the word would be truly bizarre, given the near-total lack
of evidence.
Michael
------------------------------
From: ax7qc@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 20:16:40 EDT
Subject: Subscribe
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 20:16:35 +0200 (IST)
From: RICHARD RUSSO <AX7QC@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu>
Subject: Subscribe
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.VMS3.89:b9 QCM.9506082005.A539048285-0100000@>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Please subscribe Fr. Romanos V. Russo to your biblical Greek listserv.
Eucharisto!
------------------------------
From: Painter2B@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 20:21:08 -0400
Subject: Re: WINGREEK AND LOGOS
Greetings Ralph,
I am assuming from your message about the WinGreek and Logos fonts that the
problem is indeed that both fonts use an identical file name. This WOULD
cause you problems.
Renaming one of the fonts should be easy enough from the windows file
manager. Just locate the file, hi-lite it and select *Rename* from the
*File* drop-down menu. Then just change a character in the file's name (or
give it an entirely NEW name, but you must keep the same extension). Then go
through the steps of reinstalling the *new* font.
Hope this helps. Have fun!
Paul E. Brouillette
M.A. Student
Gordon-Conwel Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: "Ralph M. Hubbard" <ralphub@beacon.regent.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 20:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: WINGREEK AND LOGOS
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995 Painter2B@aol.com wrote:
> Greetings Ralph,
>
> I am assuming from your message about the WinGreek and Logos fonts that the
> problem is indeed that both fonts use an identical file name. This WOULD
> cause you problems.
>
> Renaming one of the fonts should be easy enough from the windows file
> manager. Just locate the file, hi-lite it and select *Rename* from the
> *File* drop-down menu. Then just change a character in the file's name (or
> give it an entirely NEW name, but you must keep the same extension). Then go
> through the steps of reinstalling the *new* font.
>
> Hope this helps. Have fun!
I have tried this. Doesn't work. However I have received some info that
changing the font name internally would work.
Appreciate everybody's help.
- -Ralph
------------------------------
From: DrFreud2@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 21:09:51 -0400
Subject: Premarital Sex
Alan Cassady's comment on 95-06-06 re justifying premarital sex on the basis
of interpreting/translating PORNEIA as only adultery as being garbage an an
extreme understatement. It is garbage and then some . For instance just
look at I Cor. 6:9.
It is simply amazing the steps one will go to in justifying their own
immorality. One's theology is always determined by one's morality.
Not only is this reasoning (I am overly gracious in referring to it as
reasoning) contrary to the general context of morality in scripture, it flies
in the face of what we know in psychology. Premarital sex between a couple
causes difficulties (in a very predictable fashion) in the marriage.
Dixon Murrah
DrFreud2@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 22:18:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: palaeography and p75
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote in regard to spelling
in P75:
> 3.) Could the substitution of EI for I be explained in terms of
> pronunciation? And likewise the substitution of E for AI in KERAIAN
> (Lk 16.17)? This pronunciation for these vowels would differ
> slightly from the pronunciations we learned in Greek 101, wouldn't
> they?
Yes. EI and I are pronounced alike in modern Greek. E and AI are also
pronounced alike. These changes probably occurred very early. The kind of
spelling confusions you mention show up in the earliest manuscripts of
the New Testament.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: RevRussell@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 00:05:13 -0400
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe RevRussell from b-greek
unsubscribe RevRussell from b-hebrew
------------------------------
From: Sergio1202@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 00:47:03 -0400
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
UNSUBSCRIBE
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #744
*****************************
** 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