[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #789
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 19 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 789
In this issue:
[none]
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Textual Criticism
re: Re: Textual Criticism
Re: BG: PRWTH as "earlier" in Luke 2:2
Re: Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Great Commission ??
Slightly off topic
Re: Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Great Commission ??
Re: BG: PRWTH as "earlier" in Luke 2:2
re: Re: re: Languages of Jesus
Re: Date of Last Supper
Languages of Jesus
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
Re: Languages of Jesus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Chryssogelos <geo@prometheus.hol.gr>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:54:46 +0200
Subject: [none]
POSTPONE GREEK-L MAIL POSTPONE
------------------------------
From: DC PARKER <PARKERDC@m4-arts.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:42:50 GMT
Subject: TEXTUAL CRITICISM
On 18 July, Benny asked about the comparative merits of
Westcott-Hort and TR.
Their comparison is nothing so crass as a matter of age. For
example, one of the most valuable witnesses to the text of Paul is
tenth century.
The TR is just a text that grew out of the materials that Erasmus had
to hand in Basel,which was subsequently modified by him and his
successors, and which through various chances was adopted by
most printers. If the text of Colinaeus (1534) had received the
attention which it deserved and the good fortune which the TR didn't,
then we would only know the latter as an honourable failure of the
Renaissance. You can find out what you need to know about the
development of the TR from the 4th ed. of Scrivener's Plain
Introduction to the Crit. of the NT.
WH gives, broadly speaking, the text of Sin. and Vat. of the 4th cent.
Older MSS have been found since then. The task in recent years has
been to interpret the new data. If you want to see how this is done,
then I suggest that you read G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (The
Schweich Lectures 1946; London, The British Academy, 1953) and
C.M. Martini, Il Problema della recensionalita del codice B alla luce
del papiro Bodmer XIV (AnBib 26; Rome, 1966). You should also read
J.N. Birdsall's survey of modern text. crit. in ANRW Teil II (Principat),
26.1, 99-197.
I don't know what you have been reading, but it has given you a
wrong view of the available options. I certainly don't know what
you've been told about the 'characters' of Westcott and Hort. I've
never come across any evidence to suggest that they weren't
orthodox in belief and upright in character (except that Hort in his
younger days at least worried abou the value of the Quicunque vult,
for which I hope you will pardon him).
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:11:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
On Tue, 18 Jul 1995 BennyWP@aol.com wrote:
> I have a serious question, or rather, a whole body of questions, regarding
> the validity of modern textual criticism. I understand the purpose of this
> science but I'm not so sure it is on the right track.
...................................................................
> After some study into the origin of Aleph, B and the whole line of Eusebius/Origen
> style biblical texts, as well as the characters of the world's most
> influential textual critics, Wescott and Hort, I have serious doubts as to
> the old "the older the better" idea. Could I get some input pro and con for
> the Wescott and Hort's "new" revised text over the old Received Text?
I shall appear, unavoidably, a bit impatient at this point. About every
couple of months or so, someone new (or who hasn't been "listening"
carefully) springs up asking basically this pretty elementary sort of
question. I think we've been 'round this one several times already in
the past year or so. But, assuming this is a new "consumer" of
information, I provide a summary response.
First, as you don't indicate exactly what sources you've been
relying on for your information about the mss. and figures mentioned, but
as you seem to have a seriously oversimplified notion of what the canons
of modern textual criticism are, I have to assume that your readings thus
far probably tend toward the propagandistic pro-Textus Receptus stripe.
Consequently, if you're a serious inquirer about textual
criticism, I suggest that you get a copy (it's now reprinted by
Hendrickson) of Hort's intro volume that accompanied the W-H 1881 edition
of the Greek NT. I know of few clearer and more historically important
statements of the procedure and principles, the cogent logic, that
underlies modern textual criticism at its best. Hort laid it all out far
clearer than I could I think, and consequently, go thou and read!
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:12:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
Paul Watkins wrote:
>I have a serious question, or rather, a whole body of questions, regarding
>the validity of modern textual criticism. I understand the purpose of this
>science but I'm not so sure it is on the right track. Basically, I see that
>From your apparent level of knowledge, I'd suggest some reading. Start with
D. A. Carson, _The KJV Debate_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 198x) which includes a
helpful survey of the issue that doesn't require a seminary degree to
understand. Follow that with James White's new book, _The KJV-Only
Controversy_ (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1995; I think that's the right title).
(You can also reach White at Orthopodeo@aol.com.) For a more rigorous look
at the modern principles of textual criticism, the standard text has been
Bruce Metzger's _The Text of the NT_ (Oxford, 3d ed., 1993?). I also have a
brief book (about 40 pgs.), _The English Bible_ that surveys some of the
issues. It is a revised, documented version of a two-lecture series for
college freshman that introduces the issues. You could get that (prob.
$3-4) by contacting our bookstore manager, Jerry Taylor, at jdt505@aol.com.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 10:46:06 -0400
Subject: re: Re: Textual Criticism
To BennyWP@aol.com
Regarding your questions about textual criticism...
I am no expert, but since I'm preparing for my 2nd year of Greek I can follow
textual arguments with some measure of understanding. Most of the arguments
for the superiority of the KJV (or Textus Receptus) over eclectic texts or
modern translations just aren't valid. There are whole pages on the Internet
devoted to showing why the KJV is GOD'S TRANSLATION--including why even the
GREEK isn't any more the word of God than the English translation. If it
weren't so sad it would just be silly. The proponents of the KJV for the
most part appeal to the basest human instincts to make their case. Zane
Hodges (retired?) is the only professor at DTS (or so I am told) who defends
the Majority Text over an eclectic text like Nestle-Aland, and his arguments
are flawed according to critiques I've read (e.g., the Majority Text omits
and adds verses just like he claims N-A does).
A great number of the arguments I've read about why the KJV is God's word and
modern translations using different Greek texts are perversions are based on
the presupposition that God would preserve His word from error and corruption
and see to it that the majority of the manuscripts circulated would be
correct. It would be nice if this were true, but the evidence doesn't
support the claim. The scriptures didn't come to us on golden tablets at the
hands of an angel. Human beings copied the texts, and they made mistakes,
added their own glosses and comments, etc.--even the Hebrew Old Testament
manuscripts have scribal comments about what and how certain words should be
read, sometimes because they knew there were problems with the text. (I only
have second-hand knowledge of this, though, since I haven't read up on the
textual transmission of the Old Testament very much.)
A Question to the KJV/TR proponents: If God so desired to preserve His word
corruption-free, why is The Revelation--which includes a curse on those who
add or subtract from its words--one of the worst-attested books as far as
good manuscripts go? Erasmus, whose Greek text forms the basis of the KJV,
created the last 6 verses of Revelation for his text by translating his Latin
manuscript back into Greek because he had no Greek text for the last 6
verses. Consequently, the TR has readings in these verses that are supported
by NO OTHER GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. This may be a simplification of the issue,
but it's basically what I've found in my reading.
Anyway, it looks like your query got a good response.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 11:02:39 CST
Subject: Re: BG: PRWTH as "earlier" in Luke 2:2
On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>So much for grammatical objections. It occurs to me also, however, that the
>suggested way of reading this phrase may be intended to get around the
>apparent problem of the dating of Jesus' birth to the year of Quirinius'
>governorship of Syria, i.e. 6 C.E. (and the discrepancy with the earlier
>indication in Luke 1 that Mary was pregnant with Jesus during the rule of
>Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.E.).
Exactly! I ran across it in vol. 9, p. 3 of the Loeb's edition of Josephus'
Antiquities, where the editor suggests this is the best solution to this
problem.
>So what would this reading be
>intended to achieve? An assertion by Luke that Jesus was born AT SOME
>UNKNOWN TIME PRIOR TO THE GOVERNORSHIP OF QUIRINIUS? But why would Luke
>want to give an imprecise date like that when it appears to be his regular
>custom to cite precisely, often with more than one gentive-absolute
>construction, the year of an event--as, e.g., the activity of John the
>Baptist introducing the baptism (or should we say, the epiphany) of Jesus
There is evidence that there was a census 14 years before the one by Quirinius
in A.D. 7. That would place it in 8 B.C., when Sentius Saturninus was
governor. There is also inscriptional evidence that Quirinius twice governed
Syria. Mommsen suggested this earlier rule was in 3-1 B.C. Ramsey has argued
that the earlier rule refers to 7-6 B.C. when Quirinius may well have been a
military legate of Augustus in Syria. If Ramsey is right, then Luke may well
have used PRWTH to refer to a "first" census. However, if Mommsen is right,
and supposing that Luke did not know who was governing during the earlier
census, it is possible that he might have identified it as the one "earlier"
than that of Quirinius. I can see the reason why he would have identified it
thus; I have to agree that if this is what Luke meant it is very confusing.
But people have even been know to post confusing statements on the B-Greek
listserver :-).
>(Lk 3:1-2 EN ETEI DE PENTEKAIDEKATWi THS hHEGEMONIAS TIBERIOU KAISAROS,
>hHGEMONEUONTOS PONTIOU PILATOU THS IOUDAIAS, KAI TETRAARXOUNTOS THS
>GALILAIAS hHRWDOU, FILIPPOU DE TOU ADELFOU AUTOU TETRAARXOUNTOS THS
>ITOURAIAS ...). So what would be gained by this rather "unnatural"
>understanding of the Greek over against the more common practice of Luke?
This is a good argument against Heichelheim's suggested reading. My next
question is: If the genitive clause in Luke 2:2 is a genitive absolute rather
than a genitive of comparison, what is the grammatical function of PRWTH?
1) This first census was when Quirinius governed Syria;
2) This census was first when Quirinius governed Syria;
3) This census was when Quirinius first governed Syria.
Some of you who are good at noun phrase ordering feel free to comment on this
one.
Thanks, Carl, for your quick reply.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 10:56:00 CST
Subject: Re: Re: Textual Criticism
Original message sent on Wed, Jul 19 8:46 AM by eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov (Eric
Weiss) :
<much snipping>
> Zane Hodges (retired?) is the only professor at DTS (or so I am told)
> who defends the Majority Text over an eclectic text like
> Nestle-Aland, and his arguments are flawed according to critiques
> I've read (e.g., the Majority Text omits and adds verses just like he
> claims N-A does).
FYI, Dr. Hodges is retired and no longer at DTS. A number of very
lucid and logical refutations have been addressed against Hodges and
others on the pro-TR team by DTS's Dan Wallace, probably the latest
being in the feschscift for Bruce Metzger which was published recently.
Regards,
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 11:29:20 CST
Subject: Re: Great Commission ??
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote about Matt. 28:18-20:
>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, I have to agree that the most usual way to understand present tense
participles is as expressing simultaneous action; however, this is not a hard
and fast rule. In the present case, it looks to me like there are pragmatic
limitations that would indicate that these are really to be understood
sequentially: one cannot make disciples until one has gone to them; the AUTOUS
of verses 19 and 20 must refer not to all the nations gone to, but only to
those individuals within them discipled; this being the case, it is only
disciples who are baptized; finally, although teaching must take place in the
process of making disciples, the teaching of all things does not have to
happen before one can be said to have been made into a disciple. I would
further suggest that the teaching them to keep "all things" must continue
after baptism. Thus, although grammatically the participles could be
understood as referring to the whole process of making disciples, this is not
necessary, and the pragmatic situation would seem to overrule the usual
grammatical understanding in this case.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 09:38:26 PDT
Subject: Slightly off topic
I have two questions please. First, because UNIX somehow trashed
months of B-greek postings in my mail folder (but left my other large
mail folders alone), I lost info I received earlier about books on
vocabulary. So I'll have to ask again for suggestions on books to
learn low=frequency NT Greek words, plus anything on LXX or Patristic
vocabulary that you know of. Thanks.
Also, does anyone know if Prof Richard Longenecker has an email
address? Thanks.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 11:53:32 CST
Subject: Re: Re: Textual Criticism
On Wed, 19 Jul 95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>FYI, Dr. Hodges is retired and no longer at DTS. A number of very
>lucid and logical refutations have been addressed against Hodges and
>others on the pro-TR team by DTS's Dan Wallace, probably the latest
>being in the feschscift for Bruce Metzger which was published recently.
The strongest argument against the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text that I can see
is that applying a good discussion of stemmas to the Adulterous Woman passage,
they follow a *minority* text in 12 out of 21 cases that they examine (# 2, 4,
5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19). See pages xxiii-xxxii of their
Introduction. So much for the majority text always containing the correct
reading.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 13:49:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: Textual Criticism
At 10:56 AM 19/07/95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>FYI, Dr. Hodges is retired and no longer at DTS. A number of very
>lucid and logical refutations have been addressed against Hodges and
>others on the pro-TR team by DTS's Dan Wallace, probably the latest
>being in the feschscift for Bruce Metzger which was published recently.
The tiniest of nits: Dr Wallace's article actually addresses the problems
with the "Majority" Text, not the TR; while not _quite_ the same thing,
there is a great deal of overlap and many of Dr Wallace's points hold in
both cases.
Another good article on this topic is Gordon Fee's _The Majority Text and
the The Original Text of the NT_ (which appears, for example, as Chap 10 of
_Studies in the Theory and Mehtod of NT Textual Criticism_).
This is particularly relevant in this context becuase in this paper Fee
specifically addresses many of Hodges' arguements.
Nichael - "...did I forget, forget to mention Memphis?
nichael@sover.net Home of Elvis, and the ancient Greeks."
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:51:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Great Commission ??
At 11:29 AM 7/19/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote about Matt. 28:18-20:
>
>>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, I have to agree that the most usual way to understand present tense
>participles is as expressing simultaneous action; however, this is not a hard
>and fast rule. In the present case, it looks to me like there are pragmatic
>limitations that would indicate that these are really to be understood
>sequentially: one cannot make disciples until one has gone to them; the AUTOUS
>of verses 19 and 20 must refer not to all the nations gone to, but only to
>those individuals within them discipled; this being the case, it is only
>disciples who are baptized; finally, although teaching must take place in the
>process of making disciples, the teaching of all things does not have to
>happen before one can be said to have been made into a disciple. I would
>further suggest that the teaching them to keep "all things" must continue
>after baptism. Thus, although grammatically the participles could be
>understood as referring to the whole process of making disciples, this is not
>necessary, and the pragmatic situation would seem to overrule the usual
>grammatical understanding in this case.
I have no fundamental quarrel with this reading of the text. It does strike
me that the use of tenses is very interesting in this passage:
POREUQENTES OUN MAQHTEUSATE PANTA TA EQNH, BAPTIZONTES AUTOUS EIS TO ONOMA
... DIDASKONTES AUTOUS THREIN PANTA hOSA ENETEILAMHN hUMIN.
First of all, those being addressed are themselves "disciples" in the same
sense as those whom they are to "teach"--that, I take it, is the
significance of ENETEILAMHN. Certainly the "going" precedes the
"disciple-izing" (if I may coin such a word), which is itself an aorist
imperative. Then the present participles, BAPTIZONTES ... DIDASKONTES,
could certainly be understood as "proceeding to baptize ... and
continuously teaching ..." We discussed this somewhat when the question
first hit the board: does baptism precede teaching? I don't know that we
settled definitively for one answer; I recall that I made the mistake about
talking about "indoctrination" preceding baptism, and I certainly should
not have used that word. I would think that some amount of instruction
would precede the ritual of baptism, however, while instruction would
certainly continue following upon baptism. Baptism probably is understood
in several different ways among different Christian group, but in my own
tradition (PCUSA) baptism is celebrated as part of a congregational worship
and the congregation commits itself at this time to assist and instruct the
baptizand(s).
Thanks for bringing this back for a "second reading," Bruce!
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: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:50:51 -0500
Subject: Re: BG: PRWTH as "earlier" in Luke 2:2
At 11:02 AM 7/19/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>(Lk 3:1-2 EN ETEI DE PENTEKAIDEKATWi THS hHEGEMONIAS TIBERIOU KAISAROS,
>>hHGEMONEUONTOS PONTIOU PILATOU THS IOUDAIAS, KAI TETRAARXOUNTOS THS
>>GALILAIAS hHRWDOU, FILIPPOU DE TOU ADELFOU AUTOU TETRAARXOUNTOS THS
>>ITOURAIAS ...). So what would be gained by this rather "unnatural"
>>understanding of the Greek over against the more common practice of Luke?
>
>This is a good argument against Heichelheim's suggested reading. My next
>question is: If the genitive clause in Luke 2:2 is a genitive absolute rather
>than a genitive of comparison, what is the grammatical function of PRWTH?
>
>1) This first census was when Quirinius governed Syria;
>2) This census was first when Quirinius governed Syria;
>3) This census was when Quirinius first governed Syria.
>
>Some of you who are good at noun phrase ordering feel free to comment on this
>one.
I would suggest at fourth alternative, understanding PRWTH as an adjective
used predicatively with EGENETO:
4) This census was first held when Quirinius governed Syria.
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: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 13:39:03 -0400
Subject: re: Re: re: Languages of Jesus
My comments about the gospels being originally in Hebrew were based on the
books UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFICULT WORDS OF JESUS by David Bivens and Roy
Blizzard and JESUS: RABBI AND LORD by Robert Lindsey. Lindsey, a Southern
Baptist, has spent 40 years in Israel working with David Flusser on the
Jewish roots of the New Testament. There is an organization in Cincinnati
(?) associated with him called something like the Institute of Judeo-
Christian Studies (not to be confused with Vendyl Jones' offbeat if not
heretical Institute of Judaic Christian Research in Arlington, Tx) which
publishes a newsletter on this subject. I know Blizzard (Austin, Tx) also
has a newsletter--YAVO, Inc., I believe it's called.
These men propose and offer good evidence (in their minds) that Jesus spoke
Hebrew, not Aramaic, as is commonly taught. They also say that the structure
and ease with which Mark, Luke and the first third or half of Acts translate
back from Greek into Hebrew support their claim that these works represent
slavishly literal translations from Hebrew originals. They also show how
retranslating these works back into Hebrew, combined with a knowledge of 1st-
century Jewish and rabbinical understanding of things, helps clarify some
otherwise puzzling statements in the gospels.
The books are both short and easy to read, and I'd like a scholarly opinion
of Blizzard's and Lindsey's theses. Thanks, if anyone can help.
Beyond this, I don't have the knowledge, skill or expertise to argue for or
against the original language of the gospels.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 13:18:03 CST
Subject: Re: Date of Last Supper
Re: last week's discussion by Carl Conrad, Pat Tiller, and Gregory Jordan on
the Date of the Last Supper.
I freely admit to being a harmonizer; it seems to me that there are many
situations where there is a disharmony in reporting a single event, not
because of dishonestly or intent to deceive, but because of perspective and
purpose of reporting, and because people fail to realize that they need to add
enough detail to avoid being misunderstood. With that in mind, I make the
following statements:
I personally do not see the problem between the synoptics and John. To my
knowledge, the whole thing hinges mainly on two verses: John 18:28 and 19:14
(I agree with Greg that 13:1 has no real bearing on the question, but is
easily understood in other ways).
Looking at John 18:28, where the Jewish leaders would not enter the praetorium
lest they be defiled, the offending phrase is FAGWSIN TO PASCA "they might eat
the passover." The solution to this is in Deut. 16:3 where in talking about
the passover, the text says that the Israelites should eat unleavened bread
"on it" [i.e., the Passover] (LXX EP' AUTOU) *seven days*. I realize the
parallel is not exact, but it is enough to dispel the notion that PASCA here
has to refer only to the initial meal of the festival. It certainly makes
sense that the Jewish leaders would want to avoid defilement for the whole
Passover week.
Looking at John 19:14, the offending phrase is PARASKEUH TOU PASCA, which has
been taken to mean "preparation day for the Passover," but which can also mean
"Friday of Passover week." PARASKEUH is the regular word for Friday. It is
so used in Josephus, Antiquities 16.163; Mark 15:42; and Didiche 8:1. It
would also seem to be used to mean Friday in Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54; and John
19:31, 42. In fact, I am not aware of a place in the relevant literature
where it means anything other than Friday (however, I am quite sure that if
there is such a place, I shall shortly be made aware of it). With this in
mind, it would seem that the phrase in question also means "Friday of Passover
week."
For these reasons I see no contradiction between the synoptics and John. The
14th of Nisan (Passover) fell on Thursday that year, and Jesus was crucified
on Friday the 15th.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 13:39 CDT
Subject: Languages of Jesus
There's a nontechnical presentation of the evidence
regarding the languages of Jesus in John Meier's
*A Marginal Jew*, Vol. 1 (ABRL; Doubleday, 1991),
chap. 9. We have evidence of an Aramaic (rather than
a Hebrew) substratum of Jesus' sayings at, e.g.:
Mk 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34, Matt 6:12, Gal 4:6,
Rom 8:15. For substantial confirming evidence, see
Matthew Black, *An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels
and Acts*, 3d ed. (Clarendon, 1967).--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:13:54 CST
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, David B. Gowler wrote:
> 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.
It is doubtful that Irenaeus was either the first or the last to misunderstand
and/or misrepresent his opponents' positions. However, I fail to see how this
rather human tendency negates the value of Irenaeus' testimony as to his own
position (for example, his view that Mark 16:19 is in the conclusion of Mark
[Against Heresies 3.10]).
If I may add a couple of points to last week's interesting discussion about
Irenaeus' views on the age of Jesus that I do not remember being raised ...
It needs to be clear that Irenaeus was arguing against, not for, the one-year
ministry of Jesus. His main two arguments are 1) that at least three
different passovers are mentioned in John, meaning that more than one year
passed in the ministry; and 2) John 8:56-57 says that Jesus was not yet fifty,
implying that he was over 40, while Luke 3:23 says that he began his ministry
around age 30. Irenaeus thus argues that Jesus' ministry was over 10 years in
length. I consider his first argument both good and conclusive. I rather
doubt the validity of his second. I myself have at times had difficulty
telling the difference between people in their thirties and their forties.
And in spite of the fact that Irenaeus says, "it is altogether unreasonable to
suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years," my late aunt passed much of
her life as twenty years younger than she actually was (she refused to tell
her age because in her 60's she looked like she was in her 40's). I can thus
see the Jewish leaders using an outside figure (not yet 50) in their
accusation, especially if they did not know his actual age, which is likely.
After all, how embarrassing it would have been if they had said, "you are not
yet 40," and he said, "I'm 42." Or so they may have reasoned.
Irenaeus may here be speaking rhetorically, but I can understand his rhetoric
and respond to it.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:20:20 CST
Subject: Re: Irenaeus and age of Jesus
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
>The Luke tradition of a 30-year Jesus--how did Luke "know"
>that?--is a different tradition.
Greg--
Irenaeus himself appeals to this tradition of Luke (Against Heresies 2.22.5).
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:35:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Languages of Jesus
David Gowler (dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu) quoted and wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Paul Moser wrote:
>
>> Regarding the languages spoken by Jesus, it's hard to
>> improve on the careful discussion by Joseph Fitzmyer
>> in "Did Jesus Speak Greek?", *Biblical Archaeology
>> Review* 18, #5 (1992), 58-63, and in his *A Wandering
>> Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays* (Scholars, 1979),
>> chaps. 1 and 2. His conclusion: "So the answer to the
>> question, 'Did Jesus speak Greek?' is yes, on some
>> occasions, but we have no real record of it. Did Jesus
>> teach and preach in Greek? That is unlikely; but if
>> he did, there is no way to sort out what he might have
>> taught in Greek from what we have inherited in the
>> Greek tradition of the Gospels."
>
>I think Fitzmyer's very fine article also can be found in the recent
>Sheffield volume devoted to this issue (although I think Fitzmyer
tends
>to underestimate a bit the Hellenization of the Galilee).
>
>It seems that we are screeching to a halt at another historical Jesus
>cul-de-sac:
>
>On one hand, people like Black, Jeremias, Dalman, etc. would echo the
>words of T. W. Manson that the detection of assonance, consonance,
>alliteration, paranomasia, and onomatopoeia depends upon the texts
being
>translated back into Aramaic (in *Teaching*).
>
>On the other hand, Funk, Hedrick and others point out very clearly
that
>these elements already dominate in the Greek (hence the "sound"
studies
>that some NT scholars are doing).
I seem to remember having read somewhere that the couplet at Mat.
11:17 shows signs of having been composed originally in Koine. Not
being well versed {:) in matters of meter, etc. in Greek, I would be
interested to know what Carl Conrad or others who have studied poetry
and meter in the classics might have to say about the verse.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #789
*****************************
** 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