[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #782
b-greek-digest Thursday, 13 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 782
In this issue:
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Irenaeus and age of Jesus
First Russian Bible Studi software.
Re: Validity of Irenaeus
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
NT-Greek.arj
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Great Commission ??
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 23:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, David B. Gowler wrote:
> 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 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.
David, this is what I meant in an earlier post defending Dr Terry: could
you please READ what people write before responding. If you will please
note my comment at the top i said, and let me repeat: DAVID HAS A GOOD
POINT ABOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IDEOLOGY WHEN DISCUSSING POINTS VARIOUS
WRITERS MAKE, INCLUDING AND ESP. IRENAEUS. Now where in that do you get
the idea that you needed to defend and reclaim the point? It is valid.
> 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.
By rhetorical device I mean the methods of rhetoric, no trivialization
intended. I have in fact written a couple of papers on Irenaeus' use
classical rhetorical "Composition methods?", And then how is this the
opposite of what you were talking about? Seems to me rhetoric and its
use in the ancient world is precisely the point you were trying to make,
if not please enlighten me further. Second, you didn't address the
point, but rather took issue with something you read into my post: a
neat rhetorical composition device I might add.
The point is that rhetorical use does not mean unhistorical. If Irenaeus
is using Jesus' age as part of his argument it must be demonstrated on
other grounds that what he reports is not true.
And as he so often does, Irenaeus points the reader to his sources of
tradition, which brings into view another question: Irenaeus as merely
reporting what he knows, but is the tradition from the first century
he reports historical or not?
> 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.
Let me bring the simple truth home David. Since you read his doctrine of
recap. and so disagree with what he reports, should we therefore
disregard everything you say regarding Irenaeus? After all you have used
rhetoric in constructing your argument, have admitted to your reading of
the facts: or shall we rather attempt where possible to use reason and
evidence in discussion? Do you get the point yet?
> 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!
Absolutely!
Larry
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 01:02:47 -0700
Subject: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Papias (c. 120?):
"For unlike most I did not rejoice in them who say much, but
in them who teach the truth, nor in them who recount the
commandments of others, but in them who repeated those given
to the faith by the Lord and derived from truth itself; but
if ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters, I
inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or
Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or
any other of the Lord's disciples, had said, and what
Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples,
were saying. *For I did not suppose that information from
books would help me so much as the word of a living and
surviving voice.*" [emphasis mine]
-- quoted in Eusebius, _Eccl His_ 3.39
Note Papias's intent to collect the most reliable oral
testimony available and his skepticism toward the reliability
of some books or gospels currently in circulation. In
other words, Papias was able to do what is impossible for
us--interview some people behind some of the gospels and
try to get better-quality information. This is not to make
Papias into a critical historian--but it does mean his
information could be more trustworthy in cases than some
things in the canonical gospels.
The tradition in Irenaeus of Jesus being over forty years of
age almost certainly came from Papias. Irenaeus's midrash
should be distinguished from the tradition he is midrashing.
The 40's-age of Jesus tradition from the circles around
John the Elder and Papias in Asia Minor, which Irenaeus
cites, probably is from a common origin with what shows up
in John 8:57. One may evaluate this tradition how one wishes,
but nevertheless this is what was probably current in
Asia Minor circa 100 CE.
The Luke tradition of a 30-year Jesus--how did Luke "know"
that?--is a different tradition. Because of the extent of
the disparity, there should be no attempt to harmonize
them. One should choose one or the other or none. It seems
to me Papias has a better shot at being accurate. Too bad
none of his books survived except for a few scattered
quotations. Who knows what else of interest might have
been there.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: "Alexander I. Yakushkin" <alex@avers.donetsk.ua>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 14:30:52 +0300
Subject: First Russian Bible Studi software.
Christian Center
Secretary: Fedosov Sergej Alekseevich
Do vostrebovanija - 0560
Donetsk 340000 Ukraine
June 29, 1995
Dear friend,
Lords' peace to you and yours! I send warmest greetings to you
and each brothers and sisters in the Lord with you. Could I ask you
about help?
Four years ago group of young Christians, students of Polytechnic
Institute, organized in the Donetsk Independent Christian Center for
missionary and studding work in our region. We told to our
nonbelievers colleagues and other people about Saviour Jesus Christ,
His life, death on cross, about God's plan our life, etc. Center has
little libraries of Christian literature, where everyone could find
their spiritual bread and develop their theological knowledge; rent
audio & video hall. We help local churches in organization Sunday
Schools for children and new-believers.
Now Center has 25 permanent members, but much other people visit
our weekly lessons. They are students of University and Polytechnic
Institute in main. We pray, study The Holy Scriptures, listen
Christian broadcasts.
Last years' Center had severe evangelization tours in Georgia,
Armenia and little villages of Russia. We told with people about our
Father, about worlds' Saviour Jesus Christ, His life and death on
cross. Places, which you were hasen't churches, much people not knew
about Jesus. We distributed tracts, Gospels, New Testaments and severe
Bibles. In this year we shall visit severely of these places again.
Center start print Christian books in Donetsk. We printed 5000
copies' book "Verbs about Jesus" in April 93, if The Lord say "yes",
we shall continue print Christian literature.
Last year we start design "Russian Electronic Bible" project. Now
fullworking Windows version in the Russion language is ready. "Russian
Bible 1.0" has Russian Synodal text of the Holy Scriptures, Old Testa-
ment in Hebrew, Septuagint (Old Testaments in Greek), Byzantine Majo-
rity New Testament in Greek, Vulgate (Bible in Latin), King James Ver-
sion in English and 11 Bible maps. Russian and English texts has "Red
Letter Edition" (if wish), all texts can use Cross Reference module.
Hope, user will like our interface and sounds.
We expect continue work with our software and will add
Church-Slavonic text, Hebrew-Rissian & Greek-Russian dictionaries,
Helley's Bible handbook and Nustrem Bible dictionary in Russian and
another commentaries, which Center can has copyright.
But for continuation project we are need in financial help. As I
wrote most of our Churches and seminaries are pool and Center can't
sell "Russian Bible" by commercial price. When we start work with
"Russian Bible", we borrow $400 from our social ministry and pay money
for rent of software, rent of good computer time. Not for salary! Now
money end and we haven't another. Could I ask you help us find sponsor
for this project? We can send demo model, full-working version or spe-
cial slide show for presentations about "Russian Bible". That is best?
We don't know addresses and BBS's of organizations, who can interest
of our product.
Now I stop. Contact with me by usial mail or E-mail address
alex@avers.donetsk.ua. Please, compress your letters (ZIP, ARJ or RAR)
- - I must pay for every Kbyte abroad.
May The Lord blesses you & your ministry!
Your brother in Christ
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 08:01:04 CDT
Subject: Re: Validity of Irenaeus
I'm not arguing one way or the other as to the age of Jesus. I simply feel
that the verse it too vague and open to interpretation to be used as a
definite indication that Jesus was over 40, but closer to 40 than 50. I
realize that it could be interpretted in that manner, but, on its own, I
think it's a pretty weak argument. I was going to ask for other references
of the period, but a later post by Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
(which I did not include) provided further information to this effect (thanks).
Is there a consensus among modern scholars as to the meaning of the verse
in question?
Dennis Burke
> On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com> wrote:
>
> But that is not how the ancient world understood it, which is the point.
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Dennis Burke wrote:
> >
> > 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: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> David, this is what I meant in an earlier post defending Dr Terry: could
> you please READ what people write before responding. If you will please
> note my comment at the top i said, and let me repeat: DAVID HAS A GOOD
> POINT ABOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IDEOLOGY WHEN DISCUSSING POINTS VARIOUS
> WRITERS MAKE, INCLUDING AND ESP. IRENAEUS. Now where in that do you get
> the idea that you needed to defend and reclaim the point? It is valid.
Larry, I'm sorry, but you are the one misreading the postings. I argued
in my first post, as I indicated again, that rhetorical composition did
*not* necessarily in and of itself contradict Irenaeus's claim of Jesus
being over forty.
It was plain to see that you agreed with my first point about ideology,
but you *obviously missed* my second point about it NOT being decisive.
By this omission, you were implying that my position was more radical than
it actually was.
Thus, if you read my postings again, it will become clear that I was not
"reclaiming the point"; I was reminding you that you were merely seconding
what I had said ON BOTH OF THESE POINTS -- the opposite of what you implied.
> By rhetorical device I mean the methods of rhetoric, no trivialization
> intended. I have in fact written a couple of papers on Irenaeus' use
> classical rhetorical "Composition methods?", And then how is this the
> opposite of what you were talking about? Seems to me rhetoric and its
> use in the ancient world is precisely the point you were trying to make,
> if not please enlighten me further. Second, you didn't address the
> point, but rather took issue with something you read into my post: a
> neat rhetorical composition device I might add.
My point simply was that the term "rhetorical device," as understood by
most people today, connotes a trivialization of the complexities of
rhetorical composition (this is confirmed by your use of the term in the
last sentence above concerning me). By using this term, I felt, you had
subtly, once again, misrepresented my position. This, intentional or not,
is a form of slanting that not only caricatures my position, but does not
encourage dialogue.
> The point is that rhetorical use does not mean unhistorical. If Irenaeus
> is using Jesus' age as part of his argument it must be demonstrated on
> other grounds that what he reports is not true.
This indeed, once again, was one of the two points I made in my very first
posting. The main thrust of my last note (see my first paragraph above)
was to reiterate what you seemed to have missed. I would be glad to send
the first note to you again, so that it could become more clear with a
more careful reading.
> Let me bring the simple truth home David. Since you read his doctrine of
> recap. and so disagree with what he reports, should we therefore
> disregard everything you say regarding Irenaeus? After all you have used
> rhetoric in constructing your argument, have admitted to your reading of
> the facts: or shall we rather attempt where possible to use reason and
> evidence in discussion? Do you get the point yet?
I will try to avoid the sarcasm that you brought to this issue, but I
must point out the either/or hyperbole that, once again, misrepresents --
and trivializes -- my position.
I did not say we should disregard *everything* Ireneaus says. I merely
said that we should take his frame of reference into account, and that on
this one issue, I did not believe the accuracy of his report.
Likewise, I have a frame of reference, and you should indeed take that
into account when reading my posts. Perhaps it is your frame of
reference, however, that leads you to misread my posts and react so
vehemently.
But, unlike your hyperbole of my position claims, this isn't an
all-or-nothing situation. I would just urge more critical acumen when
reading Irenaeus, as well as b-greek postings! I take it that you would
agree, considering your comments about "reasons" and "evidence."
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:39:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
> Papias (c. 120?):
>
> "For unlike most I did not rejoice in them who say much, but
> in them who teach the truth, nor in them who recount the
> commandments of others, but in them who repeated those given
> to the faith by the Lord and derived from truth itself; but
> if ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters, I
> inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or
> Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or
> any other of the Lord's disciples, had said, and what
> Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples,
> were saying. *For I did not suppose that information from
> books would help me so much as the word of a living and
> surviving voice.*" [emphasis mine]
> -- quoted in Eusebius, _Eccl His_ 3.39
>
> Note Papias's intent to collect the most reliable oral
> testimony available
Greg, Is that what this passage says? Is that what he means by "truth?"
Or is he talking about a theological frame of reference? Is he talking
about the necessity of believing the "true Gospel?"
Second, This comes from Eusebius -- in the fourth century, wasn't it?
This seems to me to be, at best, anecdotal evidence that has some value,
but shouldn't we also give some credence to Luke, who actually wrote in
the first century? His anecdotal evidence is much more close at hand
temporally, and if we can believe his prologue, he may have had some
contact with "eyewitnesses."
In
> other words, Papias was able to do what is impossible for
> us--interview some people behind some of the gospels and
> try to get better-quality information. This is not to make
> Papias into a critical historian--but it does mean his
> information could be more trustworthy in cases than some
> things in the canonical gospels.
First, it seems to me to be a common belief, during this era, of the power
of the spoken word. Papis (via Eusebius!) could be more trustworthy in
places, but you haven't convinced me yet in this instance. We also have
to bring Eusebius into the mix as well, don't we?
> The tradition in Irenaeus of Jesus being over forty years of
> age almost certainly came from Papias. Irenaeus's midrash
> should be distinguished from the tradition he is midrashing.
The first point is possible, and I agree with the second point, although
midrash isn't the term I'd choose. But it seems to me that *Irenaeus* is
grasping at some anecdotal evidence to back up his already-held theology
of recapitulation. I would also argue that Luke has some differing
anecdotal evidence of Jesus' age (as you note below).
> The Luke tradition of a 30-year Jesus--how did Luke "know"
> that?--is a different tradition. Because of the extent of
> the disparity, there should be no attempt to harmonize
> them. One should choose one or the other or none. It seems
> to me Papias has a better shot at being accurate.
Your argument of the 40-year old Jesus tradition being current around 100
CE is possible -- you have postulated a possible reconstruction from
some 4th century evidence primarily. Luke's gospel, as you note, records
a different tradition; one that was definitely current in the 1st
century. Of course, chronological priority does not imply a greater
degree of accuracy.
Greg, you always keep the pot boiling and keep things interesting! Thanks!
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:02:37 -0500
Subject: NT-Greek.arj
Did anyone receiving the above-named file--I think it was on July
10--successfully decode it or make sense of it in any way? I tried
UU-Decode and binhex decoding and got nowhere with it.
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: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:04:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
> Papias (c. 120?):
>
> "For unlike most I did not rejoice in them who say much, but
> in them who teach the truth, nor in them who recount the
> commandments of others, but in them who repeated those given
> to the faith by the Lord and derived from truth itself; but
> if ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters, I
> inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or
> Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or
> any other of the Lord's disciples, had said, and what
> Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples,
> were saying. *For I did not suppose that information from
> books would help me so much as the word of a living and
> surviving voice.*" [emphasis mine]
> -- quoted in Eusebius, _Eccl His_ 3.39
>
> Note Papias's intent to collect the most reliable oral
> testimony available and his skepticism toward the reliability
> of some books or gospels currently in circulation. In
> other words, Papias was able to do what is impossible for
> us--interview some people behind some of the gospels and
> try to get better-quality information. This is not to make
> Papias into a critical historian--but it does mean his
> information could be more trustworthy in cases than some
> things in the canonical gospels.
Greg's suggestion as to the possible reliability of the information
attributed to Papias is worth entertaining, but with two important
caveats he has failed to note:
1) Papias' statement that he always preferred direct (oral) testimony to
written texts is merely a Hellenistic commonplace--a rhetorical device
commonly used among Hellenistic historians (and those acquainted with
hellenistic historical rhetoric) to claim validity for what they then
deliver. Strangely, this has not been noticed in *any* of the NT
scholars works' I've read who have referred to Papias. Usually, they
take him as a simple soul whose profession tells us much about the "oral
culture" of his time--all of which is a strangely naive reading of
Papias' statement, I presume by people insufficiently aware of
Hellenistic rhetoric. (On ancient historiography, see, e.g., the quite
accessible discussion by D. E. Aune, _The New Testament in its Literary
Environment_ [John Knox/Westminster, 1987], chap. 3, esp. pp. 81ff.)
So, Papias professes his "method" of inquiry *primarily* to
assert the validity of what he says, for rhetorical effect and to chime
with ancient values. Whether in fact he actually ignored texts and
relied so fully on eye-witness testimony should not necessarily be
assumed from such a rhetorically framed statement.
2) In any case, the gospel writers were people of that time as well,
influenced by the same conventions and values. So, it stands to reason
that whatever you attribute to Papias, you have to presume true of them
as well. If you see Papias as actually preferring direct testimoney,
then it is likely the evangelists operated in a similar fashion--Yes? If
not, why not?
And if so, the further thing to note is that they were gathering
information a full generation or more *earlier* than Papias, and so would
have had access to a much richer stock of direct witnesses than he. So,
I'm not sure how Greg can so freely suggest that Papias may well have
more accurate information than these earlier gatherers of Jesus tradition.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 10:35:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Eusebius himself did not believe Jesus lived to be more than about 34
years old:
"...our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, beginning his mission
at the age of about thirty,...
"...Holy Scripture further tells us that He completed the whole period
of His teaching when Annas and Caiaphas were high priest, showing that
the years covering their ministry include the whole period of His
teaching. Since, then, He began His mission in the high priesthood of
Annas and continued till the reign of Caiaphas, the period covered does
not stretch to four complete years." EH 1.9
Of course, Eusebius is mixed up about the high priesthoods and even the
gospel.
PS: I did not see in Lori's posting of Irenaeus anywhere where he claims
to be quoting the tradition of Papias. He claims the gospel as if
supported him, which he then shows is only his conjecture. He then
claims sources close to John (Polycarp more likely than Papias?), unnamed
and uncited, and who knows if Irenaeus is reading into them just as he is
reading into the gospels. Plus, Irenaeus's date would put about 20 extra
years onto Jesus's ministry: can the dating of Paul's ministry be
reconciled with that?
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 09:30:39 CST
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Original message sent on Thu, Jul 13 3:04 AM by hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca (Larry
W. Hurtado) :
<much snipping>
> Papias' statement that he always preferred direct (oral)
> testimony to written texts is merely a Hellenistic
> commonplace--a rhetorical device commonly used among
> Hellenistic historians (and those acquainted with hellenistic
> historical rhetoric) to claim validity for what they then
> deliver.
I was wondering whether you would think this also applies to the preamble in
Luke's gospel then?
Mark
mark_o'brien@dts.edu
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:37:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
David Gowler correctly chastens me for describing Papias's intent
to be "to collect the most reliable oral testimony available".
David is right that Papias's seeking of "truth" meant the truth
of the gospel and was theologically framed. Equally important
is Larry Hurtado's observation that Papias's preface should be
understood as common Hellenistic rhetoric to claim validity for
what is being delivered.
Based on what Larry has said, I must concede that there is no
reason in principle why traditions found in Papias (to the extent
such can be identified) are more reliable than traditions found
in Luke. Nevertheless, on this specific case of the age
of Jesus, Luke's "thirty years" looked contrived--it is the same
age as David becoming king--and perhaps was Luke's own
invention, though it could have been in one of Luke's written
sources. In addition, there seems to be possible indirect (not
decisive) objections on grounds of plausibility. Would a 30-year
old Jesus command the respect as a teacher attributed in the
gospels? And to go from Herod the Great (37-4) to the 15th
year of Tiberius as "about thirty years old" is only barely
harmonisable by starting from 4 BCE (arbitrarily) and either
doing a little fiddling with Luke's dates or assuming thirty
is itself an approximation for "in his thirties".
Continuing with David Gowler:
> Second, this comes from Eusebius -- in the fourth century,
> wasn't it?
Eusebius says he is quoting from Papias and I've never heard
this disputed. I don't see any basis for saying this is not
a transcription from Papias. Of course textual transmission
and other variables could enter in, but no more than in any
other ancient quotation that I can see.
> Greg, you always keep the pot boiling and keep things
> interesting!
Just as long as I'm not *in* the pot when people like you and
Larry turn up the heat . . .
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: "Paul D. Scolardi" <105135@ef.ev.maricopa.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 10:03:55 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Great Commission ??
MATTHEW 28:18-20 (ENGLISH-RSV)
_________________________________________________________________
18
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and
on earth has been given to me.
19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo,
I am with you always, to the close of the age."
I don't have the greek for this passage but maybe you do. My question is this:
In this passage does it give a chronological order,another words:
1)make a disciple
2)baptize him
3)teach him to obey
or
are baptizing them and teaching them to obey,adjectives that relate to the
verb make disciples,describing how to make a disciple.
?????
Please e-mail me your answers. at 105135@ef.ev.maricopa.edu
thanks,
105135@ef.ev.maricopa.edu
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 10:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Greg,
I mostly agree with your latest post. I would point out however that
Luke's tradition of a 30 year old Jesus when he went to Jordan to be
baptized by John and the Johannine tradition of a 40 year old Jesus are
not mutually exclusive-it is we who count how many passovers are
mentioned in the gospel and assume them to be consecutive years, rather
than entertain the possibility that a number of years may have gone by
between the holidays recorded. So Jesus may very well have been 30 when
he started and nearing 50 when he died.
Larry
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 13:37:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> > Papias' statement that he always preferred direct (oral)
> > testimony to written texts is merely a Hellenistic
> > commonplace--a rhetorical device commonly used among
> > Hellenistic historians (and those acquainted with hellenistic
> > historical rhetoric) to claim validity for what they then
> > deliver.
>
> I was wondering whether you would think this also applies to the preamble in
> Luke's gospel then?
I think that Charles Talbert's *Reading Luke* (and related works) would
put this question into a good context as far as Luke -- although Aune's
great book that Larry mentioned might be even better. Luke certainly
seems more "writing oriented" as a "hellenistic historian." in the broader
sense (he's the only one also to stress that Jesus could read, an
important inclusion for Luke's purposes). He also found things lacking in
the other things he had seen/heard -- also a milder criticism of
predecessors than is often found elsewhere.
The "I was there" or "you can trust me because I . . ." certainly is
restrained in Luke's prologue, but it is there: He looked at those
things "carefully," isn't it?
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 13:46:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
> Just as long as I'm not *in* the pot when people like you and
> Larry turn up the heat . . .
Just a short (public) note to stress again my gratefulness for your
postings. Without divergent readings/opinions to ponder we would be
static persons indeed.
Such interaction is the major reason that this forum is so helpful to me
and so many others.
Thanks again,
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 13:06:46 CST
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Original message sent on Thu, Jul 13 7:37 AM by dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
(David B. Gowler) :
>>
>> I was wondering whether you would think this also applies
>> to the preamble in Luke's gospel then?
>I think that Charles Talbert's *Reading Luke* (and related
> works) would put this question into a good context as far as
> Luke -- although Aune's great book that Larry mentioned
> might be even better. Luke certainly seems more "writing
> oriented" as a "hellenistic historian." in the broader
> sense (he's the only one also to stress that Jesus could read,
> an important inclusion for Luke's purposes). He also found
> things lacking in the other things he had seen/heard -- also a
> milder criticism of predecessors than is often found elsewhere.
> The "I was there" or "you can trust me because I . . ." certainly
> is restrained in Luke's prologue, but it is there: He looked at
> those things "carefully," isn't it?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that we owe a lot here to David
Hume's skeptical approach to the recording of history. Hume's
philosophy has affected our modern thinking greatly, so that we
have an innate suspicion about the veracity of anything recorded
by these 'primitive' folks. I know that Guthrie argues in an
addendum to his NT Intro that we should perhaps give some of
these writers more credit for being accurate than we do. We often
seem more apt to take the word of a twentieth century German
scholar over that of an alleged eyewitness or someone who was fairly 'close to
the action'! But, weeding out poor historical records from that which is
accurate can be difficult, as is
demonstrated in this discussion over Irenaeus.
Just my two cents worth...
Mark.
mark_o'brien@dts.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #782
*****************************
** 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