[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #781
b-greek-digest Thursday, 13 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 781
In this issue:
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Re: Irenaeus and Revelation
Re: Validity of Irenaeus
Re: Help! Thiede & p64 again
Last Supper as Anticipated Passover Meal?
Re: Validity of Irenaeus
Re: Validity of Irenaeus
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Re: Validity of Irenaeus
site for Greek NT
Re: Irenaeus and Revelation
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Re: Validity of Irenaeus
Re: site for Greek NT
Irenaeus-Jesus' age/ministry
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Questions RE: 2Thess 2:1 & 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 22:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Just a quick note-my server is offline, so I have to call long
distance-hence my uncharacteristic silence today. Anyway, if memory
serves, Greg is correct in pointing out that Irenaeus's discussion of
Jesus' age has to do with a Valentinian teaching of a one year ministry,
although my memory of it is in the beginning chapters of book v. I will
look and when the server is up will post a reference.
Date of Revelation: Most commentators go with the 90 date, although as
Greg points out there are internal problems with that date, but it is a
minority of us who would put the date back. Does that help your
discussion any?
Larry
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 02:44:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and Revelation
Larry Swain wrote:
> Date of Revelation: Most commentators go with the 90
> date, although as Greg points out there are internal
> problems with that date, but it is a minority of us who
> would put the date back. Does that help your discussion
> any?
This is an accurate description. I have been thinking of
your earlier post on reluctance to discount Irenaeus's
chain of tradition on the Domitianic date. There are of
course more possibilities that might be considered, e.g.
a 60's Jewish apocalypse which was later Christianized and
published in the form in which we have it in the time of
Domitian. Then there are the conflicting traditions about
Revelation being written by John against Cerinthus, or by
Cerinthus in the name of John. It is, as you said, "a
sticky wicket". And probably by now we've confused poor
Lori more than ever--or maybe it is we who need confusing
from something she will turn up for us.
The best argument for the 60's dating of Revelation to my
knowledge is J. Christian Wilson, "The Problem of the
Domitianic Date of Revelation" in _New Testament Studies_
39 (1993): 587-605. Wilson's article is a
history-of-scholarship study on how the Domitianic date
became dominant in the NT field. A century ago apparently
virtually all scholars held to a 60's dating. But then
Lightfoot (who also never wavered from a 60's Revelation
dating) outlined evidence which he believed supported a
wide-ranging Domitianic persecution. (This was part of
an argument for dating the Epistle of Clement, not Rev.)
This Domitianic persecution then led others to switch to
a Domitianic dating for Revelation. In recent years the
Domitianic persecution has basically evaporated among
scholars for lack of evidence--but the Domitianic dating
of Revelation continues just as strong without the
persecution. Wilson proposes to move Revelation back to
where it ought to be--to a context of a real persecution,
I would be interested in knowing of any published
rebuttals to Wilson's arguments, which appear very sound
to me.
Grna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 10:53:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Validity of Irenaeus
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:44:05 -0700
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Michael Bushnell wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
>
> > On the matter of Jesus's age, Ireneaus reported a tradition
> > that Jesus was over forty years old. Everyone *assumes* or
> > "knows" Ireneaus was wrong on this, but on what grounds?
>
> The best grounds is by examining the names Luke gives for the
> civil players in Jesus' birth and death. We know the dates
> of their reigns quite well, and that establishes pretty
> tight bounds for Jesus' life.
But Michael, this is a non-sequitor. Let's just look at it.
Date of death: the only date information here is reign of Pilate,
which was 26-36 CE.
Date of birth: going by Matthew, this was during the time of
Herod the Great, which was 37-4 BCE.
Haven't you read Luke 3:1, which says that Jesus was born in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius? Doesn't that rather reduce the
uncertainty?
Moreover, Luke records that at the passion, Herod (not the Great, of
course) and Pilate were both in office; that fixes it more securely.
Michael
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 10:16:14 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Help! Thiede & p64 again
On Tue, 11 Jul 1995, Jeff Kloha wrote:
> Hi all. This was probably discussed before I joined the list in March,
> but I need to look at some reviews or comments on Thiede's redating of
> p64. Anyone have an archive of the discussion, or can summarize it for
> me, or point to some published reaction? Thanks in advance.
For detailed initial critical assessments of Thiede's work, contact
Stuart Pickering (spickg@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au), and Sigrid Peterson
(petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu), both of whom posted their assessments on
the Ioudaios-L discussion list recently.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 10:52 CDT
Subject: Last Supper as Anticipated Passover Meal?
In "Chronological Aspects of 'Gospel Harmony',"
*Vox Evangelica* 16 (1986), 33-59, R.T. France
assesses various attempts to harmonize John and
the synoptics on the time of the Last Supper and
the crucifixion. He asks: "Granted that the Last
Supper was a Passover meal, is it possible that it was
held a day before the official date not because of a
divergent calendar but because Jesus, knowing that
when the official time arrived he would be dead,
deliberately held a 'Passover' with his disciples
a day in advance, as a farewell meal? Support for this
proposal may be found in Lk 22:15-16.... The wording
of v 16 (especially if, with the better textual witnesses,
ouketi is omitted) suggests that it was an unfulfilled
wish, in that he would not in fact eat the Passover
(in the full sense) with them, but yet at the same time
the 'earnest desire' would be sufficient motivation
for Jesus to take the irregular step of an
'anticipated Passover'.... The main thing lacking
would of course be the lamb.... And it is a remarkable
fact that none of the synoptic gospels ... mentions
that they had a lamb.... We have noted that the
Jewish day began at sunset. The killing of the
lambs took place in the afternoon between about
3 and 5pm, while the Passover meal followed after
dark.... When therefore Mark 14:12 speaks of a meal
held after dark on the same day when the lambs were
killed, he cannot be speaking of the regular Passover
meal, which was the next 'day', but must refer to
the evening before the killing, which began the
same Jewish 'day' (pp. 50-51). France concludes:
"Taken within his own Jewish context, (Mark) is
describing the same date which John also clearly
presents for the Last Supper, that is the evening
which began Nisan 14, 'the day on which (some 15-20
hours later) they sacrificed the Passover lamb'."
France also pursues the issue whether Nisan 14 can
be called the first day of Unleavened Bread.
Plummer's 1898 commentary on Luke suggests the
view developed by France.--Paul Moser, Loyola
University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 11:06:49 -35900
Subject: Re: Validity of Irenaeus
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote to Greg Doudna:
> Haven't you read Luke 3:1, which says that Jesus was born in the
> fifteenth year of Tiberius? Doesn't that rather reduce the
> uncertainty?
>
Unfortunately, Luke says no such thing. If you re-read this
passage, you will see that Luke was describing when JOHN THE BAPTIST
began his ministry, not when Jesus was born! John's call would have
occurred about A.D. 29. As an amateur astronomer, I hope to contribute
something to this discussion eventually on astronomical dating of the
Nativity, the final Passover, and the Crucifixion, but this will have
to wait until I can complete some other projects in progress.
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 12:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Validity of Irenaeus
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:
> Haven't you read Luke 3:1, which says that Jesus was born in the
> fifteenth year of Tiberius? Doesn't that rather reduce the
> uncertainty?
>
> Moreover, Luke records that at the passion, Herod (not the Great, of
> course) and Pilate were both in office; that fixes it more securely.
And Luke also says that Herod the Great was alive and Quirinius was
governor of Syria-which while still open (some have found evidence that
Quirinius may have been in Syria earlier than 6 AD, but I don't find it
convincing)certainly presents a problem as Herod died in 4 and Quirinius
is first positivelyknown to be in Syria in 6 AD-a difference of 10
years-hmmmm, could there be a problem here?
And it doesn't really fix it at all in terms of the passion. Herod and
Pilate were in office during the whole of Pilate's tenure, so we still
have a big gap in being firm. And of course there is the reference in
John 8-"You are not yet 50 years old" which has been understood for
almost 2000 years as saying that Jesus is nearer 50 than 40, and surely
not as young as 28.
There is more but I shall leave it there for the moment.
Larry Swain
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:49:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
On Tue, 11 Jul 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> Just a quick note-my server is offline, so I have to call long
> distance-hence my uncharacteristic silence today. Anyway, if memory
> serves, Greg is correct in pointing out that Irenaeus's discussion of
> Jesus' age has to do with a Valentinian teaching of a one year ministry,
> although my memory of it is in the beginning chapters of book v. I will
> look and when the server is up will post a reference.
>
Thanks for the reference. Anyway, let me throw another wrinkle into the
discussion. It was my distinct impression, during a patristics class with
William Schoedel many moons ago, that the ideology/theology of Irenaeus
*also* made his reporting of such gnostic "heresies" rather skewed.
Perhaps this does not impact such items as a one-year ministry debate, but
it does impact other areas of discussion. When a text makes a claim, it
is always good to see into what rhetorical use that claim is situated
*overall* (see next paragraph), is it not?
And, since my own books are back in NC, I can't quote the exact place, but
during Irenaeus's discussion of recapitulation/salvation, there is a
reference to the necessity of Jesus' passing through "all stages of life"
(i.e., reaching an "older age") -- hence the connection to the age issue
under discussion. Can anyone help me out here with a precise reference?
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: Lorel509@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 16:14:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
David Gowler said:
>And, since my own books are back in NC, I can't quote the exact place, >but
during Irenaeus's discussion of recapitulation/salvation, there is >a
reference to the necessity of Jesus' passing through "all stages of life"
>(i.e., reaching an "older age") -- hence the connection to the age issue
>under discussion. Can anyone help me out here with a precise >reference?
I just read that last night. I'll post it along with the other in an hour
or so, soon as I finish reading my mail.
Thanks for all the input on Rev., Irenaeus, and Jesus death guys. It's really
helping me a lot.
PS. It's not necessary to send me a cc. I'm on the list and I'm not going
anywhere. One copy is enough. :)
Lori Eldridge
Spokane, WA
Lorel509@AOL.COM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 16:45:33 CDT
Subject: Re: Validity of Irenaeus
> On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com> wrote:
>
> And of course there is the reference in
> John 8-"You are not yet 50 years old" which has been understood for
> almost 2000 years as saying that Jesus is nearer 50 than 40, and surely
> not as young as 28.
Actually, I've always understood the reference to "50 years old" to be a
simple indication that Jesus was not "old". After all, this is in reference
to Jesus living in relation to Abraham. I think it might be reading too
much into the reference to assume that it indicates Jesus is nearer to 50
than 40. I think the point of the statement was that Jesus wasn't even
old by "current" standards, let alone over 1000 years old, so how could
Abraham have possibly known of Jesus.
Dennis Burke
------------------------------
From: Greg Smith <smith@wilson.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: site for Greek NT
Is there a good ftp, gopher, or preferably an http (www) site
for the Greek NT? I've found the Septuagint at
gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/11/Religious/Biblical/LXXMorph
but have not been able to find a site for the NT.
____________________________________________________________________________
Gregory Douglas Smith Biophysics Graduate Group
Institute for Theoretical Dynamics 916-752-8275 (office)
2201 Academic Surge Bldg. 916-752-7297 (fax)
University of California 916-753-5988 (home)
Davis, CA 95616 smith@itd.ucdavis.edu (email)
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and Revelation
Thanks Greg for the references on the dating of Revelation. My problem
always has been with dealing with the external evidence. The most
frequent way of handling it has been to say If A is true (i.e. a 60s
dating for the original document) then B must be false. But it seems to
me that B must be taken into account in determing A-the date. Thus the
conundrum.
Larry Swain
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
David has a good point about taking into account ideology when discussing
points various writers make, including and esp. Irenaeus. The corollary
is also true-because an item is used rhetorically does not necessitate
that it is therefore unhistorical. So recognizing that Irenaeus'
reportage of Jesus' age ( in one place the "stages of life" in another a
multiple year ministry) is a rhetorical device to discount certain
teachings of his opponents it does not follow that he is therefore being
unhistorical, that must be determined separately.
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Validity of Irenaeus
But that is not how the ancient world understood it, which is the point.
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Dennis Burke wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com> wrote:
> >
> > And of course there is the reference in
> > John 8-"You are not yet 50 years old" which has been understood for
> > almost 2000 years as saying that Jesus is nearer 50 than 40, and surely
> > not as young as 28.
>
> Actually, I've always understood the reference to "50 years old" to be a
> simple indication that Jesus was not "old". After all, this is in reference
> to Jesus living in relation to Abraham. I think it might be reading too
> much into the reference to assume that it indicates Jesus is nearer to 50
> than 40. I think the point of the statement was that Jesus wasn't even
> old by "current" standards, let alone over 1000 years old, so how could
> Abraham have possibly known of Jesus.
>
> Dennis Burke
>
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 07:52:22 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: site for Greek NT
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Greg Smith wrote:
> Is there a good ftp, gopher, or preferably an http (www) site
> for the Greek NT? I've found the Septuagint at
> gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/11/Religious/Biblical/LXXMorph
> but have not been able to find a site for the NT.
I have a link from
http://www.uwa.edu.au/HGrk/Database/ccat
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
University Computing Services and Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/jtauber
------------------------------
From: Lorel509@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 20:08:19 -0400
Subject: Irenaeus-Jesus' age/ministry
Hi All,
I found the requested discussion of Irenaeus' on Jesus' age in Book II,
Chapter 22. I'm starting at section 3. I have deleted some parts [indicated
by ellipses] that I felt weren't needed for this discussion in order to save
K's. All brackets are those of the author unless they are double
brackets--which are my additions. If I didn't start early enough let me know
and I'll send the rest of it too. Also, let me know if you want to see more
of the footnotes.
Lori
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Irenaeus'_Against Heresies_ Chapter II, Chapter 22
3. But is is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while
affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not
examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went
up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was
the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should
assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the
passover. First of all, after He had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee,
He went up to the festival day of the passover, . . . Then again, withdrawing
himself [from Judea], He is found in Samaria; . . . Afterwards he went up,
the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover in Jerusalem; .
. . Again, withdrawing from thence to the other side of the sea of Tiberias,
He there, seeing a great crowd had followed Him, fed all that multitude with
five loaves of bread. . . Then, when He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and
plots were formed against Him by the Pharisees, He withdrew to a city called
Ephraim; and from that place, as it is written, "He came to Bethany six days
before the passover." and going up from Bethany to Jerusalem, He there ae the
passover, and suffered on the day following. Now, that these three occasions
of the pssover are not included within one year, every person whatever must
acknowledge. And that the special month in which the passover was
celebrated, and in which also the Lord suffered, was not the twelfth, but the
first, those men who boast that they know all things, if they know not this,
may learn it from Moses. Their explanation, therefore, both of the year and
of the twelfth month has been proved false, and they ought to reject either
their explanation or the Gospel; otherwise [this unanswerable question forces
itself upon them], How is it possible that the Lord preched for one year
only?
4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing
the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly
acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was
another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance;
but what He was, that he also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, he
also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of
humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for
the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it
which belonged to himself. For He came to save all through means of
Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and
children, and boys, and youths, and old men. [[ "aren't there any women in
heaven?" Lori asks :) ]] He therefore passed through every age, becoming an
infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus
sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an
example of piety, righteousness and submission; a youth for youths, becoming
an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise he
was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect master for all, not
merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age,
sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them
likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the
first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,"
the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.
5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding
that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,"
maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth
month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage,
destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more
necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean,
during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have
had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He
had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not
yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirety years
of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now
Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to
receive baptism); and ,[according to these men,] He preched only one year
reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered,
being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced
age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that
this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the
fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our
Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the
Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with
John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that
information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. [[the
footnote for this comment says: Trajan's reign commenced A.D. 98 and st. John
is said to have lived to the age of a hundred years.]] Some of them,
moreover saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very
same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the
statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these,
or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams
attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord
Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord
said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and
was glad," they answered him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast
Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has
already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth
year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty
years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years
old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not
extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had
attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had
truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply
made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old,
and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is
altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years,
when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what
they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere
phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much
of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to
Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did
not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth
month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the
fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their
AEons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with
Bythus in the Pleroma; of which being Homer the poet, too, has spoken,
doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:--[[<snip>a
verse from Homer quoted in Greek I presume]] which we may thus render into
English:--"The gods sat round, while Jove presided o'er, And converse held
upon the golden floor." [[this concludes chapter 22]]
- - - - - - - - - -
Boy, Irenaeus sure is long-winded isn't he. :)
Since typing this up I have a few questions. When did the practice start of
capitalizing pronouns of God and Jesus? Were they in Irenaeus' original text
or added afterwards?
Lori
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 20:55:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> David has a good point about taking into account ideology when discussing
> points various writers make, including and esp. Irenaeus. The corollary
> is also true-because an item is used rhetorically does not necessitate
> that it is therefore unhistorical. So recognizing that Irenaeus'
> reportage of Jesus' age ( in one place the "stages of life" in another a
> multiple year ministry) is a rhetorical device to discount certain
> teachings of his opponents it does not follow that he is therefore being
> unhistorical, that must be determined separately.
The first point is the *very same one* I made in my first posting, so yes,
I agree on the first point. The ideological component is one aspect among
many to be considered.
Second point: "rhetorical device" is the opposite of what I was talking
about. All composition during this era was "rhetorical composition."
"Rhetorical device" (it seems to me) tends to trivialize the complex
issues involved, although I won't bore the list with a bibliography
concerning composition in the ancient world. It just isn't a "device" or
"trick"; it's the way people wrote in Greek at the beginning of the
Christian era -- check the progymnasmata, for example.
Bottom line, though: Because of my overall reading of Irenaeus's works,
especially aspects dealing with his doctrine of recapitulation, I doubt
the truth of his assertion about Jesus' age.
Thanks to Lori for for typing out the relevant passages. That was above
and beyond the call of duty. BTW, I agree that Irenaeus left out some
rather important people in his theory of recapitulation!
One other bit of trivia: One of the early theories of evolution believed
that the human fetus passed through (recapitulated) the stages of
evolution (e.g., at one stage of development the fetus seems to have
gills) -- strange, but true. That aspect of the theory has since been
discarded, but it is similar to the kind of process that Irenaeus says
about Jesus having to recapitulate the stages (in age) of humankind!
Best wishes,
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: Doug Hanley <dhanley@accessnv.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 22:06:47 -0800
Subject: Questions RE: 2Thess 2:1 & 3
Could someone please give the plain greek reading of these two verses.
In other words, from the idiomatic language in v. 1. Is the Lord's Coming
and our be gathered to Him, treated as "that day". Closely tied events.
Then following suit, in verse 3 Would it mean the Apostasy and revealing of
the man of sin come first (proton)
Thanks in advance.
You could reply via e-mail if you don't want to clog the list.
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|Doug Hanley (For more information on this chap browse around) |
|dhanley@accessnv.com http://coyote.accessnv.com/dhanley/ |
|m3(M-Cubed) MAC/MIDI/MUSIC http://coyote.accessnv.com/dhanley/m3/m3.html |
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #781
*****************************
** 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