[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #749
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 13 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 749
In this issue:
Re: Mark and Midrash
Re: Temptation, Marcan priori...
pneumatikos in 1 Cor 14.37
pneumatikos in 1 Cor 14.37
Re: Porneia
re: third day
BG: transliteration schemes
Re: Mark, Midrash, and Progym...
RE:Porneia (in Matt 19:9)
Who was short? (Lk 19:3)
Re: Who was short? (Lk 19:3)
Re: Who was short? (Lk 19:3)
sub
[none]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 95 22:19:17 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark and Midrash
I want to make a couple of points about the Timster's notion of midrash.
First, I would ask how one distingushes between a text about Jesus whose
author wanted to convey historical information AND show ways in which he/she
felt Jesus' life fulfilled OT predictions and one which uses OT material to
invent a story that may or not have historical elements in it? He sems to
suggest that ht presence of material reflecting OT passages suggests
narrative midrash. I would ask, using my own experience, does the fact taht
my wife and I often quote lines from Star Wars mean that we are
doing a midrash on Geroge Lucas's material? Hardly. I would be very
very surprised to see a Jew talking about religious matters and NOT
use language reflecting OT material. That would be truly odd, so it's
presence in the text need mean little more than that its author was a Jew.
Claiming it is all narrative midrash may be true, but it hasn't been
demonstrated by Tim, and he hasn't, so far as I can see, offered any basis to
tell the difference between the two possibilities above. He seems determined NOT
NOT to allow for the alternative that allows the Gospels to contain
theologically shaded historical narrative with OT citations because
their authors felt Jesus was the Messiah and read the OT in that light.
I don't see a basis for this. Furthermore, I think Tim's position is
inconsistent. On the one hand, he wants to say that the literal view,
that the authors actually want to record a real event, s inappropriate,
but still seems to want to claim that some of the events, perhaps the
crucifixion, really happened in some sense. That seems like a pretty
blatant example of wanting to have you cake and eat it too. If it's
narrative midrash as Tim suggests, then all bets are off, and it may
just as easily be considered worthless for showing anything but the'
author's OT hermenetical skills. To claim more would go beyond the
notion of narrative midrash Tim has argued for. It sounds like a
method without controls. Everyone's ideas about the extent of
the midrash and its significance count equally.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 05:50:44 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Temptation, Marcan priori...
On Mon, 12 Jun 1995 LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
> dear prof conrad,
> what i meant is that the temptations are, like the genealogies,
> presented in a different order in Mt. and Lk.
This (1) is obviously true, (2) was dealt with in my original post, and
(3) has nothing to do with your remark about "reinventing the synoptic
problem."
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: Claes Mjornheim <Claes_Mjornheim@online.idg.se>
Date: 12 Jun 1995 11:55:25 GMT
Subject: pneumatikos in 1 Cor 14.37
Hello,
this is my first contribution to B-GREEK. It contains a short presentation of
myself and an exegetical question.
Presentation:
My name is Claes Mjornheim, living outside Stockholm and working on a
doctoral dissertation about 1 Corinthians 10.1-5. The main question is: what
does Paul mean with "the rock was Christ"? Was Christ really there in the
desert or was the rock only a typos for Christ?
If anyone of you knows about someone how works with the same or a similar
problem, I would be very grateful if you mailed me the name etc. of that
person, so I could get in contact with him/her. Or if you know about some
recent (or not yet published) literature on this topic, I would be very
grateful for tips.
An exegetical question:
In order to interpret 1 Cor. 10.1-5 I have to do many things. One is trying
to understand Paul's use of pneumatikos. In this case I have found a peculiar
passage in 1 Cor. 14.37. It reads: "Anyone who claims to be a prophet or a
pneumatikos must aknowledge..." Why does Paul distinguishes between a prophet
and a "spiritual man" (pneumatikos)? Is not a prophet a pneumatikos? If not
what would be the difference between them? I think I have an answer, but
would like to hear some of your proposals instead of giving you a
preunderstanding of this matter.
An invitation:
If some of you would like to visit Sweden and Stockholm, let me know and we
(I am married with Berit and we have two small girls) could perhaps give you
accommodation at our home.
Best regards
Claes Mjornheim
Toredalsvagen 26
S-144 63 Roenninge
Sweden
Phone/fax: +46 8 532 505 11
e-mail: claes_mjornheim@online.idg.se
------------------------------
From: Claes Mjornheim <Claes_Mjornheim@online.idg.se>
Date: 12 Jun 1995 12:07:07 GMT
Subject: pneumatikos in 1 Cor 14.37
Hello,
this is my first contribution to B-GREEK. It contains a short presentation of
myself and an exegetical question.
Presentation:
My name is Claes Mjornheim, living outside Stockholm and working on a
doctoral dissertation about 1 Corinthians 10.1-5. The main question is: what
does Paul mean with "the rock was Christ"? Was Christ really there in the
desert or was the rock only a typos for Christ?
If anyone of you knows about someone who works with the same or a similar
problem, I would be very grateful if you could mail me the name etc. of that
person, so I could get in contact with him/her. Or if you know about some
recent (or not yet published) literature on this topic, I would be very
grateful for tips.
An exegetical question:
In order to interpret 1 Cor. 10.1-5 I have to do many things. One is trying
to understand Paul's use of pneumatikos. In this case I have found a peculiar
passage in 1 Cor. 14.37. It reads: "Anyone who claims to be a prophet or a
pneumatikos must aknowledge..." Why does Paul distinguishes between a prophet
and a "spiritual man" (pneumatikos)? Is not a prophet a pneumatikos? If not
what would be the difference between them? I think I have an answer, but
would like to hear some of your proposals instead of giving you a
preunderstanding of this matter.
An invitation:
If some of you would like to visit Sweden and Stockholm, let me know and we
(I am married with Berit and we have two small girls) could perhaps give you
accommodation at our home.
Best regards
Claes Mjornheim
Toredalsvagen 26
S-144 63 Roenninge
Sweden
Phone/fax: +46 8 532 505 11
e-mail: claes_mjornheim@online.idg.se
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 10:40:56 EDT
Subject: Re: Porneia
Greg Doudna wrote:
[Re John 8 8:41, PORNEIA]
> I don't think there is any evidence at all that would show a
> Jewish condemnation of a child born to parents who conceived
> that child when they were betrothed, or that such a conception
> would remotely fit within the semantic domain of "porneia" or
> any semitic equivalent. The accusation concerning Jesus's birth
> did not involve Mary's betrothed husband, Joseph, but rather
> an accusation of adultery, i.e. that Mary had committed
> adultery with (perhaps a carpenter?) other than her
> betrothed husband.
I didn't mention this the first time, but there is also the charge of
Celsus that Jesus was the product of an illegitimate union with a Roman
centurion, named Panthera. I don't know how old that rumor was or how
plausible it is that John's Gospel could be referring to it.
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: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:07:48 -0600
Subject: re: third day
Tim Staker responded to me with the following list of third days in the OT.
But the list only increases my perplexity. There is not doubt that the
third day is often significant.
>
> 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
My fundamental problem with Tim's response is that unless one can show me
in an ancient Jewish text the specifics of this presumed interpretation of
each of the third days he lists below, I have the suspicion that one by
this method may interpret many things in the OT eschatologically or
apocalyptically that should not be. Why is it that the apicalypse never
uses the number three in this manner?
>
> 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.]
Urzeit-Endzeit eschatology, to my knowledge, never operates with this third
day interpretation. Can you cite specific texts? How do you know that it is
on the third day that the dead are raised at the eschaton? Is such
numberical symbolism present in Philo? in First Enoch, which uses much
numerical symbolism? in the NT itself? In Iamblichus' _Theologoumena
Arithmetica_? What is the date of this "Jewish Mysticism" referred to
above? In short I need one text that actually gives this three day schema
for the eschaton--a text that is both geographically and chronologically
relevant to the NT. In my opinion general references to a different way of
reading texts is not validation enough.
I read your communication to Larry Hurtado and was not persuaded there
either, because of the lack of chapter and verse reference to these Jewish
texts.
I look forward to learning. :-)
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:55:29 CST
Subject: BG: transliteration schemes
The following chart combines Carl Conrad's posting of three different schemes
of transliteration with my suggested modifications and the traditional digraph
scheme. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
_____________________________________________________________________________
There is no standard transliteration scheme on B-Greek. However, most people
will use one of the following six schemes. Note that these schemes use either
upper case or lower case, not both, since a change in case may signify a
different letter.
LETTERS TLG/CCAT Simplified Modified Traditional
ACCENTS Beta Code CAPS Lower CAPS Lower Digraph
alpha A A a A a a
beta B B b B b b
gamma G G g G g g
delta D D d D d d
epsilon E E e E e e
zeta Z Z z Z z z
eta H H E H E E
theta Q Q q Q q th
iota I I i I i i
kappa K K k K k k
lambda L L l L l l
mu M M m M m m
nu N N n N n n
xi C C c X x x
omicron O O o O o o
pi P P p P p p
rho R R r R r r
sigma S S s S s s
tau T T t T t t
upsilon U U u U u u
phi F F f F f ph
chi X X x C c ch
psi Y Y y V v ps
omega W W O W O O
digamma V f w
koppa q q
iota subscript | i i
smooth breathing )
rough breathing ( h ( h h h
acute accent / / / /
circumflex accent = @ = ~
grave accent \ \ \ \
diaeresis +
The following are the same for all schemes.
upper case *
(following character is upper case)
apostrophe '
hyphen -
comma ,
period .
raised dot (colon) :
question mark :
dash _
Note that both medial and final sigma are transliterated the same.
Accents are usually omitted for all schemes except TLG unless they are
necessary for the sense of the post.
Breathing marks and the * to indicate upper-case are written at the beginning
of the word.
Accents and diacritical marks are written directly after the coding for the
character above and below which they are located in the source document. They
follow the second character of a diphthong.
Note on TLG/CCAT Beta code keyboard layout: This was originally created to
enable appropriate software programs to translate TLG coded texts into
different Greek fonts used by different platforms.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:22:39 EST
Subject: Re: Mark, Midrash, and Progym...
Tim Straker wrote:
> No doubt you are right. I am not familiar with the term you use here
> ("progymnastic"), but it doesn't sound like something Cicero would have
> called it. It sounds more like a modern evaluation. Could you give me your
> definition of it?
Since *Progymnasmata* are "beginner's texts on composition," they
were used at a "secondary" level of education to instruct
students on how to read/write Greek. So, I think Aelius Theon of
Alexandria and Hermogenes of Tarsus (who wrote ancient
progymnasmata) would disagree that they are a "modern evaluation!"
:-)
I don't have time to elucidate, but some references:
1. See Vernon Robbin's introduction to *Patterns of Persuasion*
and his "Writing as a Rhetorical Act in Plutarch and the Gospels"
in *Persuasive Artistry: Studies in NT Rhetoric . . .* (ed.
Duane Watson.
2. S. F. Bonner's *Education in Ancient Rome*
3. *The Chriea in Ancient Rhetoric* (Ron Hock and Edward O'Neil).
There are many other references I could give, but that should be
a start. This type of composition/speech was common in the
marketplaces; it is rather removed from the classical rhetoric to
which you referred.
The Gospels demonstrate that their authors were at least trained
at this level of education (they learned how to write Greek with
handbooks such as these, in all probablility). This does not
preclude the "Jewish method of interpretation" that you
mentioned. As I mentioned, it is not either/or; it is both/and.
> Midrash, I think, is a little more than a style of rhetoric tho. It also
> represents a traditional (I would even say "mainstream") method on
> interpreting Scripture (pesher) in Judaism, which is
> a little more specific in function.
See above. "Pesher commentary" is just one aspect reflected in
the gospels, and it fits in very well with some of the
composition exercises in the progymnasmata.
Once again, this is not a "style of rhetoric." It's how people
learned to write in Greek and is (thus) a fundamental aspect of
the composition of the Gospels, which can be clearly seen by
analyzing the texts via the exercises in the progymnasmata.
Best wishes, David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:22:52 -0400
Subject: RE:Porneia (in Matt 19:9)
For all it's worth--here's an excerpt from some research I've done on another
another project that intersects the current discussion re porneia.
*****************************************
The Classical meaning of porneia ususally revolved around sexual misconduct:
prostitution, fornication, adultery and referred to brothels. In the LXX,
porneia is used 41 times and always translated the Hebrew znh (commit
fornication, to play the harlot, to be a harlot). It referred to both married
and unmarried people. In Hos 2:4-7, for example, the sexual escapades of
Gomer are called porneia. Sometimes, as in Jer 3:6-10, it was used in
conjunction with moicheia (adultery). It is used in the NT 26 times and
almost exclusively refers to the sexual relationships between married people.
In time, unless the context determined otherwise, porneia came to refer to
any unwarranted sexual intercourse (including the gross perversions of
homosexuality, bestiality, etc.).
This has led to the general interpretation (cf NASB) that Christ legitimized
divorce on the grounds of adultery or some other sexual sin. This
interpretation is fraught with difficulties:
(1) The usual word for adultery is not porneia but moicheia. In Matt 15:19;
Mark 7:21 and Gal 5:19, for example, the two are used together which suggests
a slightly different nuance in meaning.
(2) It contradicts the parallel Synoptic passages of Mark 10:1-12 and Luke
16:18 where the "exception clause" is not found.
(3) It contradicts 1 Cor 7:10-11 where no concession for divorce is given.
(4) There were two widely held contemporary interpretations concerning
divorce: Rabbi Hillel taught that any disfavor (even burnt toast) was grounds
for divorce; Rabbi Shammai believed that divorce was permissable only on
grounds of adultery. If Christ intended for porneia to mean either adultery
or general sexual sin, then He uncharacteristically did not rise above the
contemporary religious mindset of His day.
(5) It does not account for the shocked reaction of the disciples in 19:10.
(6) Jesus would contradict Himself within the same breath. In 19:6, the
present imperative chorizeto (seperate) is used with the aorist suzeugnumi
(to bind together). In effect, Jesus says, "What God has bound together in
time past let no one separate in an ongoing manner." Jesus would not state
that marriage in permanent and then state it may be broken.
For these reasons, the interpreation of porneia meaning "adultery" or "sexual
sin" in this passage is rejected. During the Second Temple Period, one
definition of porneia adopted a very precise and technical meaning among the
Rabbis to refer to the unlawful marriages in Lev 18:6-18 (TDNT 587). This
technical meaning is found in some passages in the NT. In 1 Cor 5:1 the
illicit sexual activity between a son and his stepmother is called porneia
(in violation of Lev. 18:8). It is also found in Acts 15:20, 29. Notice the
order of the injunctions that James proposed versus what the Council decided:
JAMES COUNCIL
idols (Lev 17:8-9) idols (Lev
17:8-9)
porneia (Lev 18:6-18) blood (Lev
17:10-12)
things strangled (Lev 17:13-14) strangled (Lev
17:13-14)
blood (Lev 17:10-12) porneia (Lev
18:6-18)
Here, porneia refers to the unlawful marriages; the Council's order
"corrects" that of James' to make it match the order of the OT. "The
surprising combination of porneia with dietary regulations is due to the fact
that the sour prohibitions are based upon Lv. 17 and 18. Porneia here is
marrying within the prohibited degrees which according to the Rabbis was
forbidden 'on account of fornication.'" (TDNT 587)
Thus, it is the position of this paper that porneia in Matt 19:9 refers to
the unlawful marriages found in Lev 18:6-18. There are several reasons for
the superiority of this translations:
(1) A basic hermeneutical priciple is that context determines the meaning of
a word. No serious student of Scripture would deny the thoroughly Jewish
nature of Matthew's gospel. The exchange of 19:9 takes place with Jewish
religious leaders who would naturally understand the technical meaning of
porneia.
(2) Incestuous marriages were a live issue in Israel. Herod and Herodias were
condemned by John the Baptist (based upon Lev 18:16 and 20:21) in Matt 14:4.
(3) This interpretation does not violate the clear teaching of the parallel
passages in Mark and Luke as well as the teaching in 1 Cor 7:10-11 concerning
divorce. Also, it accounts for why the clause was not included in the other
Gospel accounts.
(4) This interpretation accounts for the astonished reaction of the disciples
for, in essence, Jesus was stating there was *no legitimate reason* for
divorce.
(5) This interpretation accounts for why Jesus was asked the question in the
first place. Consider what had happened: John the Baptist condemned Herod for
his incestuous marriage; John was imprisioned and beheaded by Herod for this
rebuke (Matt 14:1-12). Consider the situation: The Pharisees confronted Jesus
while He was in Perea (Matt 19:1) with this question; Perea was ruled by
Herod. If Jesus taught the same as John, which was a valid assumption,
then--perhaps--Jesus would rise the ire of Herod and have Jesus killed (as He
did John). Such a chain of events would fit in with the Pharisees plans.
Jesus did teach the same as John--the former just did it a bit less bluntly
and confrontational.
*************************************************
Hope it helps,
William Brooks
Pastor in waiting
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 15:32:13 -0700
Subject: Who was short? (Lk 19:3)
In Luke 19:3 Zaccheus is not able to see Jesus in the crowd
because he is short. Zaccheus solves this problem by climbing
a tree. Question: who was short--Zaccheus, or Jesus?
kai ezEtei idein ton iEsoun tis esti, kai ouk Edunato apo
tou oxlou, hoti tE hElikia mikros En.
Not the most profound question that has ever been asked on this
list I admit, but I've been wondering this for years!
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Who was short? (Lk 19:3)
On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
> In Luke 19:3 Zaccheus is not able to see Jesus in the crowd
> because he is short. Zaccheus solves this problem by climbing
> a tree. Question: who was short--Zaccheus, or Jesus?
Come, Mr. Doudna, didn't you learn the song? Back to Sunday School!
I guess that argument won't wash on this list, though. How about:
Can there be any real doubt that mikros hn refers to the same person
as ezhtai, ouk hdynato, prosdramwn, anebh, and idh? But I'll leave
that one to the grammarians and observe merely that (1) shortness was
*clearly* a hot issue in The Lukan Community, where Jesus was at least
believed to have got off on a good start in this department (2:52) (I
trust you all enough that I'm not going to hunt for an appropriate
ascii smiley to insert here) and (2) whatever the stature of Zacchaeus
in this story in Luke, it increased greatly in the Clementine
literature, which see for some ideas regarding his later career. I
suppose once he put on the mitre some folks had trouble seeing past
*him*.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 23:33:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Who was short? (Lk 19:3)
At 10:09 PM 12/06/95, James D. Ernest wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
>
>> In Luke 19:3 Zaccheus is not able to see Jesus in the crowd
>> because he is short. Zaccheus solves this problem by climbing
>> a tree. Question: who was short--Zaccheus, or Jesus?
>
>Come, Mr. Doudna, didn't you learn the song? Back to Sunday School!
;-)
The first thing that crossed my mind, too.
Cheers
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: DrFreud2@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 23:31:32 -0400
Subject: sub
unsubscribe B-GREEK
subscribe b-greek-digest
end
------------------------------
From: "Damon J. Casale " <mcasale@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 20:59:01 -0700
Subject: [none]
subscribe b-greek Marie Casale
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #749
*****************************
** 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