[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #760
b-greek-digest Thursday, 22 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 760
In this issue:
Summer '96 biblical congresses in USA?
Most odd book in NT studies?
"Whosoever"
WHOSOEVER
Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
The Lost Gospel
Re: Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
Re: Question?
Re: Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
Re: Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
Mack at Bay
Re: Phil 2:6 OUX hARPAGMON hHGHSATO
Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
BG: Phil. 2:6 Article as Demonstrative?
Re: The Lost Gospel
Re: BG: Phil. 2:6 Article as Demonstrative?
Re: Text types in Luke (fwd)
"blood of prophets"
Re: "blood of prophets"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 09:44:50 EET
Subject: Summer '96 biblical congresses in USA?
This question is somewhat in the periphery of this discussiongroup:
I am planning to spend some time in the U.S. of A. in the summer of 1996.
Does any of the members of B-Greek know of an interesting congress for NT-
scholars in that period? It has to be open to guests who are not (yet) member
of any of the big organisations.
Any reply is welcome
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik van Halsema |Research Assistant Free University Amsterdam
j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl |Faculty of Theology
jdfvh@dds.nl |De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 12:22:35 EET
Subject: Most odd book in NT studies?
Currently I am reading:
Gillis Gerleman, Der Heidenapostel, Ketzerische Erwaegungen zur predigt des
Paulus, zugleich ein Streifzug in der griechischen Mythologie.
Scripta Minora 1987-1988:2), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell 1989
This is by far the most curious book I have ever read about Paul.
Gerleman (well known for his BKAT commentaries on e.g. Esther) defends that
the Pauline letters are written in a kind of secret code, only to be
understood by those who are in the know.
Paul actually is Hermes, the Corinthians Community actually are the gods on
the Olympus (only to name two of his conclusions)
Two questions:
1/ has anybody else on the list read this pamphlet?
2/ could we perhaps start some kind of competition:
who has read the most odd book in NT studies?
I suggest we only deal with books that claim to be serious studies. So we
leave out all the New-age inspired stuff about Jesus having been brought up
in India etc. I don't think we can call that serious scholarly work. Also, we
are dealing only with books that are available to everyone (unpublished
dissertations are left out).
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik van Halsema |Research Assistant Free University Amsterdam
j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl |Faculty of Theology
jdfvh@dds.nl |De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
negat quis nego, ait aio.
(Cicero, De Amicitia 25.93)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: ronnieg@blue.misnet.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 07:19:19 -0500
Subject: "Whosoever"
While studying Matthew chapter 5 I've found the English word "whosoever"
translated from two different words "pas" and "hos". From my study I've
concluded the following:
We should not consider the term "whosoever" (verse 32)to be
universal in scope. In verse 28 "whosoever" is a noun (pas) which literally
means "everyone" or "anyone", but in verse 32 the relative pronoun (hos)
must take its meaning from the context. The context refers to those who
know the law; who are the salt of the earth and light of the world; whose
righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees; and
are identified by Matthew specifically as the disciples of Christ (5.1).
Therefore, verse 28 tells us any man (believer or unbeliever) who
looks lustfully at a woman is committing adultery with her in his heart.
But verse 32 explains that only believers commit adultery by putting away
their faithful wives. Why? - being believers, they live by a higher
standard, and they know better.
Would you consider this to be an acceptable conclusion based on the
meaning of the two words translated "whosoever"?
Thanks.
Ronnie Greenhagen
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it.
------------------------------
From: ronnieg@blue.misnet.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 07:43:59 -0500
Subject: WHOSOEVER
Upon reviewing the message I posted this morning I discovered I
referred to Matthew 5.32 when it should be 5.31. This is truly embarrasing.
Please overlook my Gumpishness.
Ronnie Greenhagen
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it.
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 08:37:46 CDT
Subject: Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
I am a lurker of this newsgroup. What little NT Greek I know, I've been
teaching myself (with limited success). Last night in our Bible study, a
question arose to the translation of Acts 16:17. We were discussing the
reasons that Paul would have had to drive the spirit from the slave woman.
She followed them around shouting that they were telling you/us:
"the way to be saved" (NIV)
"the way of salvation" (KJV)
We touched upon what we felt was the obvious, the bad publicity. It would
be like having Jean Dixon (sp?) following Billy Graham around shouting the
same thing. People, being skeptical of Dixon, would likely be skeptical
of Graham and/or his message.
However, it was then mentioned by our minister that the Greek did not have
the word "the" in the verse and could therefore, possibly, be translated
as "A way to be saved" or "A way of salvation". Since Paul was teaching
THE way of salvation, not A way of salvation, this could have given Paul
additional impetus to drive out the spirit. Our minister thought that
there was a grammatical rule in NT Greek which allowed "the" to be left
out, but implied, in certain cases (predicate accusative or something).
At home, I looked in my NRSV and noticed that it translated the verse with
"a", not "the" like NIV and KJV.
My question(s), finally, is this,
1. Is it valid to translate the verse either way (a or the)?
2. What is the "rule" my minister was talking about?
3. Is this "rule" fixed, or is it subjective?
4. If subjective, could someone please provide me with a couple of
examples where the rule is and is not followed?
I'm sorry I don't have the Greek to transliterate. I hope it is not
too much trouble to look-up.
Dennis Burke
dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com
PS I have an NIV Study Bible and, during the study, I happened to notice
that the note for 16:30 (the jailer asking Paul and Silas what he
must do to be saved) mentioned that the jailer must have known that
they had been preaching "a" way of salvation. I thought it was
rather ironic that they translated 16:17 with "the" and then had
a footnote in the same section with "a".
------------------------------
From: James Stafford <james@curly.sed.stel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:42:04 -0400
Subject: The Lost Gospel
I would like expert criticism of Burton L. Mack's book "The Book of Q: The
Lost Gospel". He presents a reconstruction of the book of Q, the
conjectured common source of the four canonical gospels as well as the
gnostic Gospel of Thomas. He casts Jesus as a sort of Gallilean Diogenes.
He allows for the existence a number of separate Jesus movements in 1st and
2nd centuries. He describes the Gospels as being fusions of the beliefs of
various of these movements. He describes Paul as coming from a Christ
tradition that arose in Asia Minor that may have started as a Jesus
movement, but borrowed from Hellenistic traditions such as Mithraism. I
thought it'd be good to get the opinions of this group.
James F. Stafford "An unperturbed existence leads to
dullness
of spirit and mind" R. R. Bate et. al.
james@curly.sed.stel.com FUNDAMENTALS OF ASTRODYNAMICS
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 11:03:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
My off the cuff response. (The real experts will show up later.)
(1) It's common enough to have the demons tell the truth (from the
point of view of the text, of course) about Jesus, etc., and still
be considered a nuisance. See the Gospels. It's altogether too
subtle--wholly implausible, I would say--to present the woman as
deliberately relativizing the salvation offered by Paul by calling
it "a way" rather than "the way." (2) NT Greek is heavily influenced
by the LXX; articles are not always present where they could or
"should" be; so maybe the missing article here is not such a big
deal. On the other hand, "prepare the way of the Lord" in Isa
and in the gospels is THN hODON....
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Cierpke@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 12:41:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Question?
Matthew 27:34 states Christ was given wine mingled with gall (NASB). As I
understand it, this was a narcotic to ease the pain given by merciful people.
Matthew specifically states, that,"after tasting it he was unwilling to
drink". Hope this answers your question
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 12:51:25 CST
Subject: Re: Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
On Wed, 21 Jun 95, Dennis Burke wrote:
>Last night in our Bible study, a
>question arose to the translation of Acts 16:17.
>
>However, it was then mentioned by our minister that the Greek did not have
>the word "the" in the verse and could therefore, possibly, be translated
>as "A way to be saved" or "A way of salvation". Since Paul was teaching
>THE way of salvation, not A way of salvation, this could have given Paul
>additional impetus to drive out the spirit. Our minister thought that
>there was a grammatical rule in NT Greek which allowed "the" to be left
>out, but implied, in certain cases (predicate accusative or something).
>At home, I looked in my NRSV and noticed that it translated the verse with
>"a", not "the" like NIV and KJV.
>
>My question(s), finally, is this,
> 1. Is it valid to translate the verse either way (a or the)?
Yes, the Greek noun does not require the presence of the definite article to
be definite. Thus it may be translated with a definite article in English
even where it is missing in Greek.
Note however that the presence of a definite article does not (contrary to
popular opinion) necessarily imply that this is the one and only. I can talk
about I-20 as being *the* highway to Dallas without implying that there are no
other roads leading to Dallas, even from Abilene (there are other longer,
slower ways to go).
> 2. What is the "rule" my minister was talking about?
I don't know.
>PS I have an NIV Study Bible and, during the study, I happened to notice
> that the note for 16:30 (the jailer asking Paul and Silas what he
> must do to be saved) mentioned that the jailer must have known that
> they had been preaching "a" way of salvation. I thought it was
> rather ironic that they translated 16:17 with "the" and then had
> a footnote in the same section with "a".
Note that the text was prepared by the NIV translation committee and the
footnotes were done by the editors. This may go a long way toward explaining
the difference.
I am however curious as to why the NRSV committee changed the "the" of the RSV
to "a" in the NRSV. Does anyone know why?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 13:14:33 CST
Subject: Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
On Mon, 19 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>Bruce, is there, in fact, a single instance of hARPAGMON other than in
>our text? I was under the impression that it really was a hapax. I have
>no tools with me here in the mountains (other than a GNT, that is) to check.
Carl--
Did you say that this word was a hARPAX? :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist.
The word is a h.l. as far as the Bible is concerned; however, BAG lists the
following as examples from NT background and foreground material:
1) robbery--Plut., Mor. 12A; Vett. Val. 122,1; Phryn., Appar. Soph.: Anecd.
Gr. I 36
2) prize, booty--(Xian foreground only) Euseb., In Luc. 6 (AMai, Nova Patr.
Bibl. IV 165); Cyrill. Alex., De Ador. 1, 25 (Migne, Ser. Gr. LXVIII 172C)
3) a piece of good fortune, windfall--Heliodor. 7,11,7; 7,20,2; 8,7,1; Plut.,
Mor. 330D; Diod. S. 3,61,6; Nageli 43f
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <ropes!scc@uu3.psi.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 13:52:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Translation Question (Acts 16:17)
Dennis Burke wrote:
> My question(s), finally, is this,
> 1. Is it valid to translate the verse either way (a or the)?
The Greek is hODON SWTERIAS, lacking the article, so the NRSV is
most correct to translate as "a way of salvation." I see little
reason to translate the verse with "the."
> 2. What is the "rule" my minister was talking about?
Your minister was thinking about Colwell's Rule, which concerns
predicate nominatives appearing before the copula. Here, hODON
is a normal accusative direct object after the verb.
> 3. Is this "rule" fixed, or is it subjective?
There is much debate about the status of this Rule, but I think
that it, like most "rules," is not "hard-and-fast."
> 4. If subjective, could someone please provide me with a couple of
> examples where the rule is and is not followed?
The most controversial application of the rule is, of course, Jn1:1c.
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: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 14:06 CDT
Subject: Mack at Bay
In reply to James Stafford's question, Mack's sweeping
claims about the influences on Jesus and Paul do not
admit of quick refutation, but they have been criticized
forcefully by such NT scholars as Aune, Charlesworth,
Evans, Kee, and Witherington. For careful assessments and
extensive references, see Craig Evans, *Jesus and his
Contemporaries* (Leiden: Brill, 1995) and Ben Witherington,
*Jesus the Sage* (Fortress, 1994), esp. pp. 117-47. In
a 1991 SBL paper, Kee argued that the pseudonymous letters
called Cynic Epistles were not available as a source of
influence on either Jesus or Paul, that they emerged
during the reign of Vespasian. In *Images of Jesus Today*
(Trinity Press International, 1994), Charlesworth remarks:
"There is presently, as far as I know, no evidence of
Cynics in Jesus' milieu; and archaeologists have found
no evidence of Cynics in pre-70 Palestine." The
"Cynic Jesus" was fabricated in the 30's, at the
height of the history of religions school, and has
recently been revived in ways negligent of actual
historical evidence. A new book on this topic is:
Gregory Boyd, *Cynic Sage or Son of God* (Wheaton, Ill.:
Victor Books, 1995). For influences on Paul, including
some comment on Mack's speculations, see the careful
treatment in David Wenham, *Paul: Follower of Jesus or
Founder of Christianity?* (Eerdmans, 1995).--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 14:26:59 CST
Subject: Re: Phil 2:6 OUX hARPAGMON hHGHSATO
On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>(2) In Classical Greek: (a) most normally the predicate word precedes the
>copula in a declarative sentence:
> PROFHTHS EI SU
>and also in a sentence of our type in question:
> PROFHTHN SE EPOIHSA.
>
>Bruce also asked about implications of placement of the negation: should
>the OU in our phrase be construed with hARPAGMON, with hHGHSATO, or with TO
>ISA EINAI QEWi? Here again I'll say that for Classical Greek the negation
>normally precedes immediately what it negates, for which reason I
>understand our phrase, in a version retaining the original word-order:
> " ... not a-thing-to-be-grasped did-he-consider
>being-on-a-par-with-God, ..."
>
>This construction of the phrase may, of course, be suspect, if it can be
>shown that Hellenistic word-order deviates from the classical norms which I
>believe I have accurately represented here.
And Pat Tiller wrote in response to Carl's post of the 19th:
>> I am out of my element to comment on Hellenistic Greek, but I can say
>> that the normal pattern in classical Greek would be
>> predicate-word/verb/object or predicate-word/object/verb. The
>> predicate-word normally comes first.
>>
>> Wherefore I make it: (4) (but translate): considered
>> being-on-a-par-with-God not to-be-seized.
>
>I agree with Carl, but for a slightly different reason. I doubt that word
>order is really the main issue here. According to Smyth, _Greek Grammar_,
>"Verbs meaning *to appoint, call, choose, consider, make, name, show,* and
>the like, may take a second accusative as a predicate to the direct
>object" (para 1613). "The absence of the article generally distinguishes
>the predicate noun from the object" (para 1614). My own observations
>(unscientific and random) show that this is true also for Hellenistic
>Greek. Thus arpagmon would be the predicate and to einai isa qew
>(articular) would be the object.
>
>Since ou generally precedes the word it negates (Smyth, para 2690; also,
>I think, true for Hellenistic Greek), option 4 is to be preferred over
>option 2.
These gentlemen's comments drove me back to Moulton and Geden to look up
hHGEOMAI. Excluding single accusative entries, verb initial and verb final
contructions, pronoun direct objects, and predicate adjective constructions,
we are left with II Peter 2:13 which has the form:
predicate-accusative-noun verb direct-object:articular-noun-phrase
This is the same order as they suggest. It is nice that this parallel also
has the article on the direct object, making Smyth's rule that Pat points out
apply. I like that rule, because it parallels the rule for main clauses in
distinquishing subjects from objects that this list has discussed in reference
to John 1:1.
I too will go with #4 from the following list, since they are right about the
negative preceeding the word it negates.
> In other words, is it grammatically:
> 1) did not consider robbery/booty [to be] equality with God;
> 2) did not consider equality with God [to be] robbery/booty;
> 3) considered not robbery/booty [to be] equality with God;
> 4) considered equality with God not [to be] robbery/booty?
Thanks for the help in understanding the word order.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 14:39:46 CST
Subject: Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
On Monday I wrote:
>The Greek word hHGEOMAI takes a double
>accusative where the two arguments of the verb in the accusative are
>considered to be the same. Actually there is an implied EINAI between the
>accusatives (consider X [to be] Y), as can be seen from Phil. where it is
>explicit.
The reference that I accidently omitted is Phil. 3:8, where EINAI is present.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 15:52:44 CST
Subject: BG: Phil. 2:6 Article as Demonstrative?
Is it possible that the article TO in Phil. 2:6 is functioning as a
demonstrative (translate it "this"), thus equating EN MORFH QEOU hUPARCWN
"being in the form of God" with TO EINAI ISA QEWi "to be equal with God"?
"who, being in the form of God, considered this equality with God not [to be]
robbery/a prize, but emptied himself . . ."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 16:36:33 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: The Lost Gospel
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, James Stafford wrote:
> I would like expert criticism of Burton L. Mack's book "The Book of Q: The
> Lost Gospel". He presents a reconstruction of the book of Q, the
> conjectured common source of the four canonical gospels as well as the
> gnostic Gospel of Thomas.
Various scholars have attempted to "reconstruct" Q. The most
frequently cited in recent years is J. Kloppenborg, _The Formation of Q_,
in which he tries to dissect Q into its redactional layers. Many
(including yours truly) remain unpersuaded by this attempt. But in any
case, Kloppenborg emphasizes that he is attempting *literary* history of
the Q text, not a tradition-history of early Christianity, something Mack
& others frequently have ignored in attempting to use K.'s work as
justification for a history of early Christianity.
There is a debate currently underway as to whether Gospel of
Thomas is essentially a 2-3rd cent. text incorporating some earlier Jesus
tradition and shaped by gnosticizing forces; or whether GosThom may be a
2nd-3rd cent. redaction of an earlier form of the GosThom (from the lst
cent.). Thus far, I tend to think the former rather than the latter, with
many others, but Mack, Koester & Crossan are among prominent scholars
holding variants of the latter position.
>He casts Jesus as a sort of Gallilean Diogenes.
Yup. So do a few others, notably Crossan. This, however, is
vigorously disputed by *many* others, as reviews of the books in question
will show. Most NT scholars probably still regard Jewish eschatology as
a crucial category for understanding/placing Jesus in his own
religious/cultural milieu.
> He allows for the existence a number of separate Jesus movements in 1st and
> 2nd centuries. He describes the Gospels as being fusions of the beliefs of
> various of these movements.
Most NT scholars tend to think in terms of various early
Christian groups, with somewhat varying emphases, etc. The Gospels are
also commonly regarded today as written for, and as reflecting, various
early Christian circles. Thus, e.g., Matthew probably for a
circle/church with strong Jewish-Christian background and constituency,
but also open to Gentile converts.
>He describes Paul as coming from a Christ
> tradition that arose in Asia Minor that may have started as a Jesus
> movement, but borrowed from Hellenistic traditions such as Mithraism. I
> thought it'd be good to get the opinions of this group.
Mack's notions about Paul are especially dubious, in my view. I haven't
read this latest book of his, but I interacted with his views on Paul
expressed in his book _A Myth of Origins_ (1988) in my article "The
Gospel of Mark: Evolutionary or Revolutionary Document?" _Journal for
the Study of the NT_ 40(1990), 15-32.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 17:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BG: Phil. 2:6 Article as Demonstrative?
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> Is it possible that the article TO in Phil. 2:6 is functioning as a
> demonstrative (translate it "this"), thus equating EN MORFH QEOU hUPARCWN
> "being in the form of God" with TO EINAI ISA QEWi "to be equal with God"?
>
> "who, being in the form of God, considered this equality with God not [to be]
> robbery/a prize, but emptied himself . . ."
The demonstrative is usually "touto" - I don't know if your proposal is
possible some other way. And presumably, if there were a demonstrative
pointing back to the previous phrase, it could not refer to huparkhOn
because that is only a participle modifying Jesus (the subject) not a
gerund, and if it referred to "morphE" it would be feminine. On the other
hand, this is a rough Greek translation from the Aramaic, so no
ordinary rules may apply.
You mentioned before that the copula is explicit here (if I understood you
right). That is not possible if "to einai" is understood as a noun phrase -
there would still be an implicit copula (not robbery/a prize considered
the being equal-things to God [to be], using words close to what you suggest).
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 17:55:58 PDT
Subject: Re: Text types in Luke (fwd)
hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
> From E. C.
> Colwell onward, text-critics have tended more & more to understand
> text-types as "a process".
When I first read that Colwell article, it made sense to me as an
explanation of the Neutrals/Alexandrians. But explaining textual
affinities in terms of processes and proclivities only makes sense
if we remember that certain proclivities could produce text types,
others not.
I read an article that suggested that the scribe of Vaticanus worked
in a disciplined fashion under the control of rules, including
at least these two rules:
1. Make sense always.
2. Compare multiple exemplars and choose the shorter reading.
If scribal practice in an area like Alexandria, say, held to similar rules,
then even if the imported Bibles were dissimilar, copying would smooth
out many differences. Those are centripetal, similarity-inducing rules
(contracting maps, we analysts call them). A text type could be the result.
On the other hand, if you start with a single exemplar, and let it be copied
by teams of scribes like those responsible for p45 or W or D's ancestor,
you don't end up with a text type, you end up with chaos. Their products
would resemble each other only in being free/paraphrastic, but would not
resemble each other in readings.
me:
>> The 4th-5th century Byzantine witnesses ...do not have a single point
>> of origin.
hurtado:
> this suggests a *process* not a recension. And this means that
> "local text theory" doesn't fit so well.
I don't see any recension involved there til the 6th or maybe 8th century.
But some important processes involved are _local_processes_,
e.g. obtaining scriptures for new churches from nearby mother
churches, mixture of texts from multiple bibles read in one area, loss
of texts in one area due to persecutions, preferential copying from
respected exemplars, etc. Such local processes could explain why early
Byzantines were similar but not siblings, and they gradually became
more unified.
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: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 05:14:08 +0000
Subject: "blood of prophets"
Dear Expert in Gospels and/or Canonicity issues,
What does "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" (Lk 11.51)
allude to? Does this passage in any way "establish" or "affirm" an accepted
OT canon by Jesus and the early church? Just need some hard facts and fast.
My library is very "bare" in the Gospel commentary section and this is a
side-issue for me at the moment, for a remote conversation in another
dimension... :-\
Sincerely,
Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: "blood of prophets"
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Shaughn Daniel wrote:
> Dear Expert in Gospels and/or Canonicity issues,
>
> What does "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" (Lk 11.51)
> allude to? Does this passage in any way "establish" or "affirm" an accepted
> OT canon by Jesus and the early church? Just need some hard facts and fast.
Shaughn,
YOu might try Roger Beckwith, esp. his _The OT Canon of the NT Church_ in
which he argues that this verse is a reference to a closed canon-Abel in
Genesis and Zechariah in CHronicles, the last book of the HEbrew Bible.
Taken altogether with the other evidence he presents it is an interesting
arguement. MAny others however remain unconvinced that the statement
refers to anything canonical at all. HOpe this helps.
LArry Swain
PArmly BIllings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #760
*****************************
** 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