[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #783
b-greek-digest Friday, 14 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 783
In this issue:
SBL roommate needed
Re: Great Commission ??
Ioudaios web site
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
John 1:1c
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Lucian Rescension
RE: Re: Great Commission ??
ANE: DISC Semitic "aspect"
RE: Re: Great Commission ??
RE: Re: Great Commission ??
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
RE: Re: Great Commission ??
RE: Re: Great Commission ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: EasyGrk@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:00:03 -0400
Subject: SBL roommate needed
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
Greetings! I'm searching for a non-smoking roommate
to share expenses with me at the Marriott during the
Annual Meeting of the SBL in Philadelphia. Please
reply by e-mail or call directly (513) 791-2899.
Dr. Aaron Milavec
The Athenaeum of Ohio
My paper pertains to the "loving enemies" and "turning
the other cheek" texts in this sociological background
and has now been accepted for the fall edition of BTB.
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 14:33:36 -0500
Subject: Re: 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
Technically speaking they are not adjectives but participles--verbal
adjectives--and they are in the present tense, and for that reason there is
no chronological sequence as such. However, for Matthew, "disciple" is a
term that implies not just one who is learning but one who has sat at the
feet of the rabbi and absorbed his lore. There's a distinctly Jewish
conception of mastering the "teaching" thoroughly, which, I think, is
probably why Matthew puts matters in the sequence that he does. So yes, I
think probably that he does understand baptizing and teaching them to obey
as essential aspects to "making disciples."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 14:44:59 -0500
Subject: Ioudaios web site
Someone was referred by Larry Hurtado a couple days ago to the recent
discussion on Ioudaios-L on the Matthew papyrus fragment dated by Thiede to
the first century. I have found exceptionally useful the relatively recent
web site that allows you to read through recent correspondence directly,
and it occurred to me that any who are not aware of this might like to
know.
http://www.Lehigh.EDU:80/lists/Archives/ioudaios-l/
I sure wish we had something nice like this for B-Greek!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:48:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> 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.
I will not dispute the large influence that Hume has had, but, as a
historian and one who dabbles in cultural anthropology, I would argue that
Guthrie's approach is almost (or just) as anachronistic.
Perhaps I should explain my perspective. My background actually caused me
(in the past) to take the sources under discussion as completely
"accurate." But the problem immediately arises, however, that *these
sources contradict each other*. As you noted, it gets much more
complicated than that, but the contradictions cannot be explained away --
hence the "problems" begin. So, the problems we are discussing arise from
the texts themselves, not from an imposition of Hume's viewpoint.
The approach I have taken over the last few years is to immerse myself, as
much as possible, into the social, cultural, literary, ideological, and
historical aspects of early Christian discourse. And, once again, I
always keep in mind that my own ideology plays a part as well. That's the
only way, I think, to lessen anachronism and ethnocentrism.
But, I think the bottom line is: these problems we are discussing stem
from the texts themselves.
I also agree with your "primitive folks" comment, to an extent. That has
been a problem even in some of the scholars who have been working within
the framework of social-scientific criticism (the patronizing view of
"dyadic personality" in the first century, for example).
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 13:56:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Thanks to David Gowler for the very kind remarks. If you had
seen how broad my smile was when returning the boiling pot
comment, you needn't have been concerned. Now to add some more
charcoal . . .
Papias's traditions can be argued to be not much different than
the "Johannine tradition". (Early tradition connected Papias
closely with the writing of the Gospel of John.) This
discrepancy over the age of Jesus should probably be seen as
only one special case of divergent synoptic/Johannine traditions
on details. I tend to think Johannine details are possibly
more trustworthy than synoptic details in some cases. I find
particularly interesting the theme in John in which sayings of
Jesus are midrashed: "the people thought Jesus meant X" (the
obvious sense of the words) "but actually Jesus [or opponents
of Jesus] meant Y" (a non-obvious retroactive interpretation).
It is difficult not to see these "logoi" of Jesus, with midrash,
as related to Papias's books of the "Logoi of the Lord".
One such reinterpreted/midrashed saying may be Jn 2:20-21 in
which there MAY be a tradition underneath that Jesus died at
age 46.
As for the date of this saying, Josephus says the porticoes
and courts of the temple were completed about 11 BCE
(Ant 15.420 [15.11.5]). By a slightly different interpretation
than normally given, Jn 2:20 could be read as referring to
46 years after the completion of this building activity of the
temple, i.e. 36 CE. Therefore let me propose the following
dates for Jesus:
b. 11 BCE
d. 36 CE
There is an historical argument for the late 36 date for the
crucifixion, in that it has long been noticed that the most
obvious reading of Josephus on John the Baptist, if one was
not interpreting in light of the gospels, would date John's
death to 35 or 36--and Jesus apparently died after John. As
for the birth date, for those who are interested in the
"star" story of Jesus's birth, well, 11 BCE was the year of
Halley's Comet.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: MR ALAN R CRAIG <CSRT29A@prodigy.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 17:44:37 EDT
Subject: John 1:1c
- -- [ From: Alan R. Craig * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --
Because there appear to be a number of different ones here who either
have access to some remarkable libraries or to some comprehensive CD-
ROM materials, I would be interested in having someone do a search for
me. I am trying to locate other examples from the N.T. Greek, LXX, or
even Classical Greek which parallel the exact word order and precise
sentence structure as that of John 1:1c; e.g., Acts 28:4; Mark 2:28;
Esther 10:3 (LXX).
Thanks in advance, A. Craig.
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Just a point of clarification Greg. Your last post stated differences in
between Johannine and synoptic details regarding Jesus' dates. But as
your own use of the Matthewan details shows, they confirm your reading of
Jn 2. I would suggest that in this instance we have a difference between
"Jewish (used loosely) " and "Gentile" Christian traditions: Mt and John
on the one hand and Luke on the other. Of course this necessitates
reading the star story as having some historical referent: either
Hailley's comet in 12 or the conjunction of the planets in 7 (Jupiter and
Saturn, the "king" star and the "Jews' star" in conjunction 3 times that
year.) instead of reading as purely a theological construct.
Larry Swain
------------------------------
From: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:15:51 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Lucian Rescension
Gentlemen:
I could use some assistance. What can you tell me about a rescension
of the Greek text taking place in the 2nd or 3rd century supposedly
by Lucian? I remember reading about this I think in Pickering's book
on Identity of NT Text but it seems that Gordon Fee took issue with
this idea. What is the best source of information on this supposed
rescension? What are the arguments pro or con for such a rescension?
- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 18:07:03 -0500
Subject: RE: Re: Great Commission ??
>So then no one should be baptized until he understands the teaching
>of the Master,right?
>thanks
>105135@ef.ev.maricopa.edu
I'm not quite so sure about this, frankly, but that's certainly the way
that the later church seems to have understood it--not baptizing until the
novice has had a thorough indoctrination. This raises an interesting
question that I'd welcome the opinion of others on the list about: does
Matthew's gospel conceive indoctrination as something completed in the
process of learning and taking to heart the lore of the Matthean
discourses? Or is it rather the case that the commandment, "You must become
perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," implies a process of
continual growth such as Paul certainly understands the believer to be
involved in?
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: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 19:12:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ANE: DISC Semitic "aspect"
I thought that since "aspect" is gaining importance in the discussion
of Biblical languages, that this might be of some interest, and might
form the basis for questions/discussion.
Please note the rhetorical tack I took with offering up an analysis of
English. I would be grateful for any feedback on this move, and
whether I might use it in scholarly publications. I think the
knee-jerk reaction, "hey, just wait a minute", is exactly the effect
that I hope to engender.
Vince
Forwarded message:
> From owner-linguist@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU Thu Jul 13 10:55:22 1995
> Approved-By: The Linguist List <linguist@TAM2000.TAMU.EDU>
> Message-ID: <199507120418.XAA07766@tam2000.tamu.edu>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:18:55 -0500
> Reply-To: The Linguist List <linguist@TAM2000.TAMU.EDU>
> Sender: The LINGUIST Discussion List <LINGUIST@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
> From: The Linguist List <linguist@TAM2000.TAMU.EDU>
> Subject: 6.964, Disc: Parameter of aspect
> To: Multiple recipients of list LINGUIST <LINGUIST@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LINGUIST List: Vol-6-964. Tue Jul 11 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 163
>
> Subject: 6.964, Disc: Parameter of aspect
>
> Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar@tam2000.tamu.edu>
> Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry@emunix.emich.edu>
>
> Assoc. Editor: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin@emunix.emich.edu>
> Asst. Editors: Ron Reck <rreck@emunix.emich.edu>
> Ann Dizdar <dizdar@tam2000.tamu.edu>
> Annemarie Valdez <avaldez@emunix.emich.edu>
>
> Editor for this issue: dizdar@tam2000.tamu.edu (Ann Dizdar)
>
> ---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
> 1)
> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 17:23:48 EDT
> From: decaen@epas.utoronto.ca (Vincent DeCaen)
> Subject: Disc: The Parameter of Aspect
>
> ---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
> 1)
> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 17:23:48 EDT
> From: decaen@epas.utoronto.ca (Vincent DeCaen)
> Subject: Disc: The Parameter of Aspect
>
> "On the Parameter of Aspect"
>
> This posting continues the fruitful exchange subsequent to the initial
> book review of C. Smith's 1991 "The Parameter of Aspect". In a
> follow-up to that review, I noted an alternative to Smith's proposal
> involving a simpler binary parameter for aspect that was in part the
> basis for my 1995 dissertation on the Biblical Hebrew verbal system (U
> of Toronto). Smith's reply pointed out the apparent empirical
> disconfirmation by Mandarin and Navajo (treated in her work among
> others); and this is where we pick up the thread.
> I do not grant the traditional analysis of Navajo and especially
> Mandarin Chinese that is the basis of the objection; nor do I grant
> the traditional analysis of the "Oriental" languages including
> Burmese, Japanese, and above all, Biblical Hebrew representing the
> classical Semitic systems. The earliest layer of the quasi-consensus
> on tense, mood and aspect (TMA), flowing from Comrie 1976, 1985 to
> present, is the early 19th century "Orientalist" framework that posits
> (a) "tenseless" languages or "inflectional aspect" systems, and (b) a
> definition of "perfectivity" based on the ambiguity inherent in the
> concept of "completion" (global view as well as relative past tense);
> on "Oriental" and "Orientalism", see e.g., E. Said's "Orientalism"
> 1978. I reject the Orientalist framework and the analysis of Semitic
> systems which was extended to other "Oriental" systems, which was
> extended worldwide to at least half of the world's systems; I
> indirectly reject the traditional analysis of Mandarin and Navajo.
>
> To clarify and make the discussion more concrete, I offer an analysis
> of English in the Orientalist framework (*please* do not take this
> seriously as an analysis of English). English, as all reputable
> authorities agree, is "tenseless": it encodes only "aspect" (cf. Slavic
> systems). Not only do we find arrested development, but actual
> regression from the robust classical Aryan TMA systems. English has
> but one distinction: -ed vs -s/-0, respectively perfective and
> imperfective. The perfective signals "completion" vs the
> non-completion of the imperfective. The severely impoverished system
> of English signals the regression of the Anglo-American mind (witness
> Reagan and Thatcher, etc., etc.).
>
> We note several key elements that underlie all traditional analyses of
> so-called "tenseless" languages. 1) TMA is encoded morphologically on
> the Greek model or not at all: the "morphocentric fallacy." 2) The
> perfective is defined as relative past tense (bypassing the revolution
> in aspectology in the second half of the 1800s): the "aorist fallacy."
> 3) The relative hierarchy of languages, with Greek and Sanskrit on
> top, Semitic near the bottom, and now the creoles on the bottom,
> related to the relative development of "mind" and tied to a particular
> pre-Darwinian interpretation of evolutionary theory.
>
> English is not tenseless, nor is Biblical Hebrew or Quranic Arabic,
> nor is Japanese, nor Burmese, nor Turkish, nor indeed Mohawk or
> Haitian creole. They do differ from the standard European systems:
> they systematically differ with respect to aspect in mirror-image
> fashion. This difference is insightfully captured by Cowper's strong
> claim for a simple binary parameter for aspect: a system default's for
> an aspectual interpretation of its simple tense system, either
> perfective or non-perfective. The aspect not "defaulted for" is
> separately encoded (cross-linguistically in a limited number of ways).
> European "tense" systems default for the non-perfective (apparently
> the minority or marked option); non-European "tenseless" systems
> default for the perfective as does English.
>
> I simply extrapolate to a strong claim for Universal Grammar: all
> systems encode tense (past vs non-past; I do not grant a "future
> tense"), and at least irrealis/realis; and in addition the basic
> system is configured by the binary parameter for aspect. Virtually all
> systems outside of the European sphere default for the perfective
> according to my studies; and I assume that is the unmarked setting for
> UG. The major diagnostic among many is the (non-)obligatory
> expression of the progressive: the perfective default must separately
> encode the progressive. E.g., Mandarin must express the progressive
> by the zai V construction (lit. "at V"): it defaults for the
> perfective. Navajo and apparently the Athabaskan family as a whole
> default for the non-perfective (with Algonquian systems, the only
> real pocket of European-like non-perfective defaulters). This work is
> summarized in my "Tenseless Languages in Light of an Aspectual
> Parameter for Universal Grammar: A Preliminary Cross-Linguistic
> Survey", forthcoming fall 1995, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
>
> This does not mean that individual lexica cannot increase the
> complexity of the system, nor that the many interactions between TMA
> and lexical classes are not also parameterized. I'm only talking about
> the basic configuration of the TMA system for UG. Smith is right to
> point to great complexity inherent in the systems she described in her
> last posting.
>
> re Mandarin. The difficulty is what counts as "inflection", and
> whether "inflection" is not INFL of standard theorizing. I recognize
> Mandarin -le as inflection; but not -guo, -zhe (Smith does not mention
> V-(yi-)V, nor does she include V1-V2 compounds). The literature I use
> is divided on the morphosyntactic status of -guo. But -zhe, I think,
> does not in any way behave as "inflection": see among many sources,
> Li, Thompson, "The Meaning and Structure of Complex Sentences with
> -zhe in Mandarin Chinese" JAOS 96.4 (1976). It certainly is not a
> "progressive"; but is perhaps some sort of "adjectivalization".
>
> re Navajo. I think the jury is still out on these systems. But Rice's
> work on Slave indicates the lexical nature of several classes of
> morphemes in the Athabaskan verb complex. There is indeed a great deal
> of complexity here. And since Athabaskan is really the only system
> that does not fall out naturally from my proposal, it deserves great
> attention. Either the whole project falls through, or we learn
> something interesting about Athabaskan systems, or the proposal gets
> modified in an interesting way: who knows. We learn nothing without
> strong claims.
>
> In summary: I reject any analysis that is "tenseless"; and/or defines
> perfectivity in terms of relative past tense (with Comrie 1976). These
> views embedded in the current consensus on TMA can be easily traced to
> the early 1800s and the work on Hebrew and Arabic. I reject that early
> framework (and the not-so-pretty cultural baggage that goes with it).
> In its place I place Cowper's binary aspectual parameter default, and
> extend the proposal not only to the other "Oriental" systems but to a
> strong claim for UG's TMA system. According to my surveys, the only
> real problem is what to do with Athabaskan systems: a project for the
> near future (I hope).
>
> I note that many proposals under other approaches would benefit from
> the reduction and simplification of terms, concepts, etc. E.g., Bybee
> et al's system can be streamlined; and symmetries emerge that appear
> amenable to explanation. Descriptive/typological work is put on a
> better footing as well.
>
> respectfully,
> Vincent DeCaen
>
> c/o Near Eastern Studies Dept
> 4 Bancroft Ave., 3d floor
> University of Toronto
> Toronto ON M5S 1A1
> CANADA
>
> or
>
> decaen@epas.utoronto.ca
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LINGUIST List: Vol-6-964.
>
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 17:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: Re: Great Commission ??
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> >So then no one should be baptized until he understands the teaching
> >of the Master,right?
> I'm not quite so sure about this, frankly, but that's certainly the way
> that the later church seems to have understood it--not baptizing until the
> novice has had a thorough indoctrination.
I don't think so. I mean the historical understanding Carl points out is
quite on the money as always, but Paul's observation that the disciple is
baptized only when he has run the course so to speak, is not implied in
the last verses of Mt 28. THe disciples are not told to go and be
baptized now that they have absorbed it all, but rather are told to
make disciples baptizing and teaching the to keep what Jesus has taught
them. It does not really address at all when the baptism should take place.
This raises an interesting
> question that I'd welcome the opinion of others on the list about: does
> Matthew's gospel conceive indoctrination as something completed in the
> process of learning and taking to heart the lore of the Matthean
> discourses? Or is it rather the case that the commandment, "You must become
> perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," implies a process of
> continual growth such as Paul certainly understands the believer to be
> involved in?
Carl, I am not certain that for Matthew these ideas would be mutually
exclusive. A disciple becomes complete by learning and taking to heart
the lore; and even in the last verses of the Matthew, they are still
called disciples even as they are encouraged to make other disciples: so
it is seems that even when one is a Master teaching others one is still a
disciple.
Just my .02
Larry Swain
------------------------------
From: "L. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 17:54:07 700
Subject: RE: Re: Great Commission ??
> >So then no one should be baptized until he understands the teaching
> >of the Master,right?
>
> I'm not quite so sure about this, frankly, but that's certainly the
> way that the later church seems to have understood it--not baptizing
> until the novice has had a thorough indoctrination.
Did this process of dealing with catechumens arise before or after
the Donatist Controversy? I'm just trying to fix the catechetical
movement in its rightful historical place.
> This raises an
> interesting question that I'd welcome the opinion of others on the
> list about: does Matthew's gospel conceive indoctrination as
> something completed in the process of learning and taking to heart
> the lore of the Matthean discourses? Or is it rather the case that
> the commandment, "You must become perfect, even as your Father in
> Heaven is perfect," implies a process of continual growth such as
> Paul certainly understands the believer to be involved in?
I find myself wondering whether "indoctrination" is a concept that
Matthew would endorse. Just speaking off the top of my head,
indoctrination seems to imply teaching information -- it is
discipleship in the cognitive domain of the human personality.
But, when Matthew reported Jesus' words he wrote, "...teaching them
_to obey_." The infinitive (threin) appears to function as an object
complement.This moves the instruction process beyond the cognitive
domain into the affective; beyond knowledge to character!
Would this not suggest that Matthew viewed "indoctrination"
(understood as communicating biblical truth) as a necessary but not
sufficient condition in the discipling process? Perhaps the present
tense of "akalouQew" in Matt 10:38 and 16:24 reveals Matthew's
concern with the ongoing nature of discipleship (although one wonders
why he omitted the "kaQ' Hmera" per Lk 9:23!).
Well, I blather about things I haven't thought through very well. I'm
simply wondering if what I perceive to be the predominant model of
discipleship in the American church (that is, the educational model),
with its heavy emphasis upon "indoctrination" and virtual neglect of
character development does justice to either Matthew or Jesus!
*****************************************************
Dr. L. E. Brown 520-282-7478
West Sedona Baptist Church Sedona, AZ 86336
- -----------------------------------------------------
Recursion, Definition of: See, Recursion
*****************************************************
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 19:13:14 -0700
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Larry Swain keeps making very good points. A few comments:
(1) Very interesting about two "systems" in which Matthew and
John may agree against Luke. As you mentioned earlier, Luke
seems to have Jesus born in 6 CE, at the time of the known
census of Quirinius in Josephus. It seems to me special
pleading to turn this into some other date than 6 CE. The
only reason these attempts are made is because Matthew says
differently. Better to just say there were two traditions
and they are not in harmony.
(2) I doubt if the year of Jesus's birth is really recoverable.
There is no clear evidence any family members of Jesus were
involved in the gospel traditions (the gospel traditions appear
to come from folks who don't seem to _like_ the relatives of
Jesus), so the question is relevant: how would anyone know
when this figure from the past was born, exactly.
(3) On Matthew's star: I have always thought the Jupiter/Saturn
conjunction argument to be virtually baseless. The only "stars"
in antiquity which were regarded as great portents were
publicly visible ones such as eclipses or, above all, comets.
Matthew's star is in all likelihood a reference to Halley's
comet. Now whether the tradition that links Jesus's birth
to this widely-hailed portent of that time is accurate is a
different issue.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 22:07:53 -0500
Subject: RE: Re: Great Commission ??
At 5:42 PM 7/13/95, Larry Swain wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> This raises an interesting
>> question that I'd welcome the opinion of others on the list about: does
>> Matthew's gospel conceive indoctrination as something completed in the
>> process of learning and taking to heart the lore of the Matthean
>> discourses? Or is it rather the case that the commandment, "You must become
>> perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," implies a process of
>> continual growth such as Paul certainly understands the believer to be
>> involved in?
>
>Carl, I am not certain that for Matthew these ideas would be mutually
>exclusive. A disciple becomes complete by learning and taking to heart
>the lore; and even in the last verses of the Matthew, they are still
>called disciples even as they are encouraged to make other disciples: so
>it is seems that even when one is a Master teaching others one is still a
>disciple.
I like this very much. And although a "scribe" in Mt's favorable sense is
perhaps more than a "disciple," I get the impression that one of my
favorite Matthean verses says a lot about the ideal Mt espouses:
13:52 DIA TOUTO PAS GRAMMATEUS MAQHTEUQEIS THi BASILEIAi TWN OURANWN
hOMOIOS ESTIN ANQRWPWi OIKODESPOTHi, hOSTIS EKBALLEIEK TOU QHSAUROU AUTOU
KAINA KAI PALALIA.
Also, in response to L.E. Brown, I rather regret my use of the word
"indoctrination" in the paragraph cited above. I certainly didn't mean to
stress the "cognitive" over against the "effective." Another citation from
the same Matthean chapter gives us a very distinctive Matthean slant on
"disciple," I think:
13:23 hO DE EPI THN KALHN GHN SPAREIS, hOUTOS ESTIN hO TON LOGON AKOUWN KAI
SUNIEIS, hOS DH KARPOFOREI KAI POIEI hO MEN hEKATON, hO DE hEKSHKONTA, hO
DE TRIAKONTA. Certainly "bearing fruit" is fundamental to Matthew's
conception of discipleship.
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: "L. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 21:04:41 700
Subject: RE: Re: Great Commission ??
- ---[snip]---
> 13:23 hO DE EPI THN KALHN GHN SPAREIS, hOUTOS ESTIN hO TON LOGON
> AKOUWN KAI SUNIEIS, hOS DH KARPOFOREI KAI POIEI hO MEN hEKATON, hO
> DE hEKSHKONTA, hO DE TRIAKONTA. Certainly "bearing fruit" is
> fundamental to Matthew's conception of discipleship.
Carl,
Indeed, I think this must be it. Reading your message reminded me of
Jesus' first words to his disciples:
4:19 "Deute opisw mou, kai poihsw Humas Halieis avQropwn..."
I take the "come here, after me" as a synonym for "akolouQew." Jesus
bade them follow that they might "haul in" men into the kingdom! I
hope I didn't misunderstand your original intent in re:
"indoctrination."
*****************************************************
Dr. L. E. Brown 520-282-7478
West Sedona Baptist Church Sedona, AZ 86336
- -----------------------------------------------------
Recursion, Definition of: See, Recursion
*****************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #783
*****************************
** 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