[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #751
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 14 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 751
In this issue:
Re: Mark and Midrash
RE:The Christ Hymn
Re: Porneia
Re: BG: transliteration schemes
RE:The Christ Hymn
Re: The Christ Hymn
Re: Midrash and Mark
Re: Phil. 2 Again
Re: BG: transliteration schemes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 15:51:36 EST
Subject: Re: Mark and Midrash
Ken Litwak wrote, in part:
> 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?
> [Tim Straker] 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.
Ken, you and I have corresponded extensively, and it seems to
me that your objections always boil down to the same hyperbolic
either/or fallacy. I disagree with Tim's extensive claims about
"narrative midrash," but your objections do not get to the major
issues, imo.
It is indeed ironic that the same (incorrect, imo) either/or
fallacy that you raise against Tim's position could be applied
(erroneously, I argue) to your own "theologically shaded
historical narrative" (i.e., how can it be both theologically
shaded and historical narrative?).
You and Tim are actually making similar arguments with similar
positions, but from varied points on the same spectrum (his
"midrash" is your "theological shading"). The only difference is
the variation in elaboration that you see in the NT
(i.e., modern terms, the precise "historicity").
Tim's major point, it seems to me, is that the Gospels seem to be
doing more than just "theologically shading" OT passages. The
author of Hosea 11:1, for example, would agree with that, I think!
(cf. Mt 2:15). The examples are myriad, and I have listed many
of them for you before in previous postings.
In theoretical terms, this is an example of discourse with an
orientation toward another's discourse (or "double-voiced
discourse"). The other discourse exerts influence over the
"initial discourse" (from "without"), and there are diverse forms
of interrelationship, as well as various degrees of "deforming
influence" (in the words of Bakhtin). In rhetorical terms, this
could range from "scribal copying" to such items as "expansion"
or "elaboration." Even scribal copying, however, since it places
the "same" words in a new context, is a reinterpretation of the
"initial discourse" (thus it is actually not the "same" words).
I would recommend M. Bakhtin's *The Dialogic Imagination* and
chapter 4 of his *Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics* to clarify
the theoretical issues further. Then I would also recommend
reading the ancient progymnasmata to see how these elaborations
(etc.) were taught to those learning how to compose in Greek in
the ancient world.
Best wishes, David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:07:18 -0400
Subject: RE:The Christ Hymn
As Prof. Conrad stated in his original post--the view he *inclines* toward re
the theological interpretation of the Christ hymn in Philippians did not
originate with him. The view he expounded is known in theological circles as
an "adoptionalist christology": the belief that Jesus was fully human and,
because of his exemplary life before God, was adopted or promoted to divine
sonship. This is in contrast to the "incarnational christology" which states
that Christ is eternally existent and at a point in time became a human (the
God-man) and who will someday return as exalted King.
Adooptionalist thought has been present within some "Christian" circles from
the beginning. The first, (recorded), to express this was the Shepherd of
Hermas (c. 150 CE) who taught that Christ was an exceptional man who, by
divine decree, was adopted by God to be His "son." In the 2nd and 3rd
centuries the dynamistic monarchians, led by the teachings of Theodotus,
believed that Jesus became the Christ at his baptism; He achieved Godhood and
Sonship at the resurrection. In more recent times, Schleiermacher (1768-1834)
taught that Jesus was a man with a powerful sense of God. Tillich,
Schweitzer, et al offer their own brands of adoptionalistic ideas.
Adoptionalism also forms the basis of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian
Science and the Mormons ideas of Jesus. Needless to say, perhaps, modern
liberal Christianity is entrenched with an adoptionalist christology. Perhaps
one of the more popularized manisfestations of adoptionalist thought is found
in the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar. Here, the self-confident,
authoritative and controlled Son of God found in Scripture is reduced to a
weak-willed, confused and frightened imbecile.
My ThM thesis was entitled "In Support of an Incarnational Christology: An
Examination of Selected Passages from Isaiah 6:1-9:7" so I had to deal with
this stuff a bit. During the research, I briefly brushed up against Phil 2.
In the list of resources given I failed to see the following mentioned:
Paul D Feinberg, "The Kenosis and Christology: An Exegetical-Theological
Analysis of Phil. 2:6-11," Trinity Journal 1 (1980): 21-46
David C Wells, _The Person of Christ_, (Westchester: Crossway Books, 1984)
William Brooks
Pastor in Waiting
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:07:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Porneia
>Stephen Carlson (scc@reston.icl.com) quoted and wrote:
>
>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.
"Panthera" is probably a play on words in the Jewish style as an
answer to the claim that Jesus was hUIOS PARQENOU. Such plays on words
with a change in the order of the syllables is common in the Hebrew of
the Old Testament.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:33:31 -0700
Subject: Re: BG: transliteration schemes
Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu) wrote:
>In sum, I say let's retain the freedom and flexibility of a pluralism
>regarding "meta-orthography," just as we endeavor to retain an
openness
>to a pluralism of ideas and beliefs.
There are some of us still around, Carl, who haven't given up the
idea that absolutes corresponding to ideas and beliefs really do exist.
But I am willing to admit that there is room for pluralism in
conventions of transliteration on B-Greek.
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:52:02 EST
Subject: RE:The Christ Hymn
William Brooks wrote, in part:
> Adooptionalist thought has been present within some "Christian" circles from
> the beginning. The first, (recorded), to express this was the Shepherd of
> Hermas (c. 150 CE) who taught that Christ was an exceptional man who, by
> divine decree, was adopted by God to be His "son." In the 2nd and 3rd
> centuries the dynamistic monarchians, led by the teachings of Theodotus,
> believed that Jesus became the Christ at his baptism; He achieved Godhood and
> Sonship at the resurrection.
[etc.]
I have not been following this thread, so I hesitate to enter
the discussion. But this post ignores, however, the echoes of
"adoptionism" found in places in the NT. I would also
remove the italics from the word Christian in the first line
above, because some of the very first Christians did not believe
that Jesus was the third person of the Trinity. I would argue
that the developmental process apparently described above is the
*opposite* of what actually happened historically. Christians
begin to ponder the full implications of Jesus' life and message
and developed the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity --
and these doctrines are also reflected in the NT
The process of development, however, does NOT speak to the
validity or invalidity of those doctrines. That is a separate,
albeit connected, issue.
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: KBARRON@dscc.cc.tn.us
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:31:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: The Christ Hymn
David, please pardon me, but isn't a Christian one who, by _definition_,
accepts that Jesus is God's Son?
Kevin Barron Dyersburg, TN kbarron@dscc.cc.tn.us
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:49:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Midrash and Mark
Timster132@aol.com says:
>When OT references and allusions appear, they are being
>interpreted by the gospel writer, aren't they? The simplest
>definition of midrash is "interpretation, exegesis" based on
>the meaning of the word in Hebrew which means "to look into,
>to inquire of". It refers to "imaginary expostion or didactic
>story" (BDB).
[snip]
> Concerning your quoting of Star Wars, it seems you and your
>wife are needing to refer to certain quotes in order to communicate
>a specific meaning found in knowing the context from where
>the quotation came from. You're communicating more than
>the words of the quote, you are communicating the known
>context as well. You are weaving it into the immediate present's
>context. You are indeed, in a broad and fundamental sense, midrashing.
[snip]
> They aren't history, they are gospels. They are narratives. They
>are midrash. To a large degree, they are historical, but they
>aren't newspaper accounts.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim, after reading your definition of midrash above, I think we would be
safe to say that the Gospels are indeed "newspaper accounts", i.e., an
interpretation of an event from one context into an immediate context.
Unless, of course, you think that newspapers only print "the facts"! At
any rate, I find this whole discussion of midrash in the NT rather
fascinating (even though I am hardly an expert on such matters), but I also
find the above quoted definition mighty broad. If midrash is primarily
"interpretation", then most of the Hebrew Scripture and the Christian
Scripture is midrash. Indeed, the Koran is midrash, the Book of Mormon is
midrash, etc. Is midrash really defined in such broad terms?
> Ken, its not so much a determination, as it is a conclusion that
>if the gospels are of such a genre as narrative midrash, then they aren't
>primarily a history text book.
Yes, they may not be a "text" book, but are they not in some sense a
"history"? Your definition of midrash as "an imaginary exposition or
didactic story" leaves me at first glance thinking that you really cannot
find history in midrash. But then, if midrash is simply "communicating a
known context in a new, more immediate context," then I have midrash all
around me (indeed, this post is midrash by that definition), and certainly
some of that midrash which I encounter contains history (for that matter,
even real "history texts" are midrash, i.e., an interpretation of a past
event or context in a new one). Am I misunderstanding something here? So,
the Gospels (even _if_ midrash) could be considered historical like a
newspaper account is historical, depending on which definition I choose.
Right?
Thanks for the interesting stuff,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 19:05:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Phil. 2 Again
On Tue, 13 Jun 1995, Paul Moser wrote:
> Regarding "harpagmos" in the Christ hymn, Witherington
> has a helpful reference to R.W. Hoover, "The Harpagmos
> Enigma: A Philological Solution," *Harvard Theological
> Review* 64 (1971), 95-119. According to Hoover,
> "harpagmos" is part of an idiomatic phrase: "as something
> to take advantage of". Cf. Rom. 15:3. His conclusion:
> "In every instance which I have examined, this idiomatic
> expression refers to something already present and at
> one's disposal." I'm unclear, Carl, on your problem
> with "morphe doulou"; the hymn has it that Christ really
> did take the form of a self-sacrificing servant
> (not a slave like Adam).--Paul Moser, Loyola University
> of Chicago.
Once again, Paul, I thank you for the rfc to HTR and I shall look it up.
However, the rfc to Romans 15:3 only expresses, it seems to me, the idea
that, according to your account, Hoover WANTS to read into hARPAGMOS. The
word is, I think, a hapax legomenon, so far as our extant texts are
concerned, but the root meaning of the verb involved seems normally to
involve "seizure by force." That's why I find it difficult thus far to
have it refer to something which Christ is supposed already to possess.
How can he even contemplate taking by force what he already has? It seems
to me some word other than hARPAGMOS ought to express that notion of
holding on to a treasure that one possesses. This is, in fact, the more
serious of my problems with the Greek.
The other problem, I fear, still remains. Christ really did become human,
it is said, and really did assume the MORFH of a slave. And MORFH here
"... always signifies an outward form which truly, accurately, and fully
expresses the real being which underlies it ..." Are you saying that the
Chalcedonian definition is really already implicit here? My problem is
with the logic of the use of MORFH. It appears to me that people want to
use MORFH in a full Aristotelian sense here, but that it cannot apply to
the two phrases MORFH QEOU and MORFH DOULOU in the same way. In assuming
the MORFH DOULOU, does Christ REALLY void the MORFH QEOU? And can he
possibly be said to void his MORFH, if this is what MORFH means? And in
the case of a SLAVE, it seems to me that MORFH cannot quite carry the
same sense of ESSENCE--or should I say SUBSTANCE, that people want the
word to carry in the case of God. Quite apart from the fact that the
paradoxes of a later theological development seem strange at this point
in the history of the movement, it is the usage of these two words, MORFH
and hARPAGMOS that I still don't find satisfactory.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 19:18:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: BG: transliteration schemes
On Tue, 13 Jun 1995, David Moore wrote:
> Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu) wrote:
>
> >In sum, I say let's retain the freedom and flexibility of a pluralism
> >regarding "meta-orthography," just as we endeavor to retain an
> openness
> >to a pluralism of ideas and beliefs.
>
> There are some of us still around, Carl, who haven't given up the
> idea that absolutes corresponding to ideas and beliefs really do exist.
> But I am willing to admit that there is room for pluralism in
> conventions of transliteration on B-Greek.
Of course it must be assumed by each of us, I suppose, that our own ideas
and beliefs bear some relationship to absolutes. But my own experience,
for what it's worth, is that to the extent that people assume their ideas
and beliefs bear an ABSOLUTE relationship to absolutes, they become
insufferably dogmatic. I would assume that we engage here in discussions
with the hope that we may learn from one another, not merely teach. That
is all that I meant by speaking of pluralism of ideas and beliefs. I
think there would be very little discussion at all if we all held
identical ideas and beliefs.
Back to Greek!
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/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #751
*****************************
** 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