[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #791
b-greek-digest Thursday, 20 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 791
In this issue:
Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
Passover and GJn
Re: lang. of Jesus
Re: Passover and GJn
Re: Date of Wavesheaf/Resurrection
Re: Passover and GJn
Re: Passover and GJn
BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
Re: Passover and GJn
Re: Passover and GJn
Re: Date of Wavesheaf/Resurrection
Re: Passover and GJn
B-GREEK Unsubscribe reminder
Re: Passover and GJn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 09:01:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Irenaeus on Valentinians
On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> 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]).
Please read what I wrote in its context, because I did NOT say that it
"negated" anything -- you have turned what I wrote into a "straw man."
I argued that it is just one factor to be taken into consideration with
critical acumen. In fact, I agree that it does not "negate" what Irenaeus
had to say. It does, however, help to place it into proper perspective.
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, 20 Jul 1995 09:29:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Passover and GJn
I accidently deleted the posts on Passover and GJn, but I assume the
discussion was on b-greek? If not, please ignore the rest of this note!
*I agree that we should seek to find the common ground between the
Gospels, whenever possible* (when seeking "history" we do that with any
texts), but it seems to me that our need for "harmonization" can do an
injustice to the texts. The Passover "problems" in the Synoptics and John
may be a case in point.
Even if we can "explain away" the explicit references about Jesus dying on
a different day in John as opposed to the Synoptics -- which I don't think
we can do -- the rest of the Gospel of John makes it clear that Jesus
"replaces" Jewish festivals and rituals. For example, the wedding at Cana
and the ritual washing jars is a symbolic replacement (see R. Brown on
this). Jesus also replaces the Festival of Lights (I am the light of the
world, etc.). The cleansing of the Temple is moved up to the beginning of
Jesus' ministry. These "replacements" occur all throughout the Gospel of
John. Jesus dying on Passover Day in John becomes a part of this larger
theme.
John the Baptist in GJn very early says that Jesus is the "Lamb of God."
The references to the Day of the Passover still seem quite explicit to me,
especially in chapter 19, AND the reference to Jesus' bones not being
broken is another important reference re the Passover lamb. The point is,
for GJn, that Jesus symbolically BECOMES the Passover lamb, and he dies at
the same time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple -- on
Passover Day.
The rather tortuous paths we take to "explain" this historically and
harmonize it with the Synoptics can take the same path that leads many
people to say things like Peter denied Jesus 6 times and the cock crowed 5
times, Jesus healed 4 blind people named Bartimaeus in and around Jericho
on the same day, etc. -- simply because the details don't "mesh." That
path leads to agonizing cognitive dissonance, especially if you own a
"Synopsis of the Four Gospels."
There comes a point where such harmonization does an injustice to the
texts. Harmonization is an attempt to treat these texts with respect, but
if it becomes a driving force, it ironically has the opposite result.
These texts are not treated with respect; instead many times their clear
meaning becomes distorted. In another context, Wimsatt used to call this
"battering the text" in order to fit *OUR* needs.
I would argue that allowing the Gospel of John to make its clearly-stated
theological point is to treat the text with greater respect, instead of
forcing the varying Synoptic viewpoints upon it.
Just another uncontroversial post from:
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, 20 Jul 1995 09:54:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: lang. of Jesus
On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Pete Cepuch wrote:
> Eric Weiss discussed Dr's Lindsay,Flusser,Blizzard, David Biven -left out
> Brad Young -of the Jerusalem School of the Synoptic Gospels and the work
> they have been doing for many years on the Hebrew roots of the synoptic gospels. I, also, have read much of their material and think they make a much better
> case for Hebrew being the language of Jesus than Aramaic. having said that,
> I'm not trying to claim that Jesus did not speak Aramaic or Greek, but there
> seems to be a good case to made for Hebrew.
I would argue that Brad Young's efforts in his book to translate parables
of Jesus back into Hebrew are largely unsuccessful.
> elaborates...Anyway, there is much there in their works like Brad Young's
> book on Jesus' use of parables in relation to "rabbinics" that illustrates
> the "Jewish Jesus" nicely. I think that we goyim would do well to see the
> "Jesus Material" in that light i.e. on totally Jewish/Hebraic grounds and
> hence our traditionally bad theology would improve-probably wishful thinking:)-
I would argue that Brad Young's efforts in his book to translate parables
of Jesus back into Hebrew are largely unsuccessful.
In addition, there is no such thing as "totally Jewish/Hebraic grounds."
The social, cultural, historical, literary interactions prohibit this
"Jewish" culture from existing in some sort of vacuum. FLUSSER HIMSELF
argued that the parable has its roots in the Greek fable and in
Greco-Roman philosophy. Hengel, Goodman, and many, many others have
shown the deep inroads that hellenistic culture made in Palestine, even
though Hengel tries to limit it somewhat.
The hellenized city of Sepphoris was only six miles from Nazareth, where
Jesus grew up. As the classicist M. Bakhtin showed in his book *The
Dialogic Imagination* (and he uses this time period as his primary
example), there was an active, vibrant polyglossia during this era, where
languages, societies, cultures, etc. vigorously interacted with each
other. Goodman's work on Galilee demonstrates what happens in such a
milieu. No matter how much some Jews tried to "isolate" themselves, it
just couldn't be done completely. There, of course, is a continuum: Some
Jews enthusiastically received the Hellenistic influences -- hence there
was a Greek school teaching Homer in Jerusalem during just before the
Maccabean War.
Yet the Maccabeans, who ostensibly were throwing off this hellenistic
"yoke," named their children with hellenistic names and declared a
festival (Hannukah). This declaration of a festival itself comes from,
ironically, a hellenistic influence. Until these hellenistic influences
came about, God was the only one who could declare a festival.
> Anyway, I mentioned this about ayear ago on this list and for some reason
> the "scholarly" opinion is that Aramaic was more in use. It's strange, but
> nation's cultural identity is connected strongly to language.
I would suggest the articles and books that have already been suggested
on this list in order to clarify why these arguments are made. I also
think those sources will clarify why many people "switched" to Aramaic
and/or Greek.
David ("L" but still "M")
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:52:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Passover and GJn
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, David B. Gowler wrote:
> Even if we can "explain away" the explicit references about Jesus dying on
> a different day in John as opposed to the Synoptics -- which I don't think
> we can do -- the rest of the Gospel of John makes it clear that Jesus
> "replaces" Jewish festivals and rituals. For example, the wedding at Cana
I don't think anyone here has been engaged in "explaining away" any
gospel details. Verses such as John 13:1 and 18:39 seem to be at odds
(and who knows, maybe the best way to understand them is as internally
inconsistent), but I don't see any reason why one should see any
interpretation of the day of the crucifixion in John as self-evident.
There is more than enough room for ambiguity.
> John the Baptist in GJn very early says that Jesus is the "Lamb of God."
> The references to the Day of the Passover still seem quite explicit to me,
> especially in chapter 19, AND the reference to Jesus' bones not being
> broken is another important reference re the Passover lamb. The point is,
> for GJn, that Jesus symbolically BECOMES the Passover lamb, and he dies at
> the same time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple -- on
> Passover Day.
I think both John and the Synoptics are clearly relating Passover symbolism
to Jesus, although they do it differently in some ways. Whether the Last
Supper is a passover Seder or the crucifixion is simultaneous with the
sacrifice of the lambs - either way, the Passover analogies are
powerful. But if John was putting the crucifixion of Jesus on the day
before Passover, why would he refer to that momentous, unique first evening
ritual as merely "magalE hE hEmera ekeinou tou sabbatou" (John 19:31)?
John emphasizes it as a sabbath, not as the first day of Passover.
No one wants to force-harmonize the gospels, but then one shouldn't
force-disharmonize them, either, or force them into an artificial
internal consistency. Some believe that a tradition of Jesus being
crucified on the day before Passover is more likely to be historical, with
the Synoptics pushing the Last Supper forward to a Passover Seder. You
seem to be arguing that the Synoptic tradition is more likely to be
historical, with Jesus's crucifixion pushed back one day to relate his
death to the death of the lambs, as part of John's overall festival
analogies. Since *both* arguments make sense, we obviously have a puzzle.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 14:11:43 EDT
Subject: Re: Date of Wavesheaf/Resurrection
Greg Doudna wrote:
> I don't have the astronomical
> data at hand, but a Sunday Nisan 22 occurred in the year
> 36, and in no other year in Pilate's term. I have
> previously noted an historical arguments (not original
> with me) for a 36 crucifixion year date. The fundamental
> objection to such a dating has always been the objection
> from astronomy. However, with the case I outline above,
> I would argue that the astronomical argument provides
> possible (possible!--so many variables!--I know)
> corroboration or support for a 36 date.
I don't think you have to make this case for a 36 date, because
according to "Chronology," A DICTIONARY OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS
(1992), 36 is also a candidate year along with 27, 30, and 33 for
Nisan 14's falling on a Friday. I also remember Robin Lane Fox's
making the same point in one of his books; he favors the 36 date.
Are you sure Nisan 22, 36 is a Sunday?
The typical argument against the 36 date is that if the start of
Jesus' ministry is dated to around 28, then 36 is much too late.
The basis for a 28 start date is (a) Jesus' birth is around 6 B.C.E.
and (b) His ministry began when he was about thirty (Lk3:23). On
the other hand, those who argue for a later start date find the
implication in Jn8:57 ("not yet fifty") more useful.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:37:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Passover and GJn
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> > John the Baptist in GJn very early says that Jesus is the "Lamb of God."
> > The references to the Day of the Passover still seem quite explicit to me,
> > especially in chapter 19, AND the reference to Jesus' bones not being
> > broken is another important reference re the Passover lamb. The point is,
> > for GJn, that Jesus symbolically BECOMES the Passover lamb, and he dies at
> > the same time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple -- on
> > Passover Day.
>
> I think both John and the Synoptics are clearly relating Passover symbolism
> to Jesus, although they do it differently in some ways. Whether the Last
> Supper is a passover Seder or the crucifixion is simultaneous with the
> sacrifice of the lambs - either way, the Passover analogies are
> powerful.
I was arguing in my first posting that John *intensifies* that symbolism.
In the Synoptics Jesus shares the Passover meal with the disciples and
the new ritual explains the significance -- so the Passover tradition
is clearly re-interpreted in light of the death of Jesus.
GJn clearly intensifies that symbolism. In John, we have the almost
cannibalistic John 6, and then Jesus actually becomes the Passover Lamb on
Passove Day; he doesn't just celebrate the Passover with the disciples.
Your argument about 19:31 is unconvincing to me because the other view
takes more seriously the entire thrust of GJn's narrative (and
theology). Jesus symbolically replaces almost every Jewish festival (I
am the bread from heaven; I am the light of the world; etc.).
> No one wants to force-harmonize the gospels, but then one shouldn't >
force-disharmonize them,
That was my point. The other point was that, in practice, this may be
happening, as it does in hundreds of other instances. In those hundreds
of instances, if the texts agree, fantastic; if there is a contradiction
- -- and there are many, I argue -- let's not run from it or sweep it under
a rug or dream up scenarios of Peter denying Jesus 6 times and the cock
crowing 5 times, etc.
>Some believe that a tradition of Jesus being
>crucified on the day before Passover is more likely to be historical, with
> the Synoptics pushing the Last Supper forward to a Passover Seder. You
> seem to be arguing that the Synoptic tradition is more likely to be >
historical, with Jesus's crucifixion pushed back one day to relate his >
death to the death of the lambs, as part of John's overall festival >
analogies. Since *both* arguments make sense, we obviously have a puzzle.
No, I was not intending that conclusion; it is not a *necessary corollary.
I was speaking of the narratives themselves. John, more than the
Synoptics, uses the symbolism of Jesus replacing numerous Jewish festivals
*to a greater degree*. Whole discourses are built on this theme. That
does not force me to the conclusion -- in this instance -- into a
historical judgment that Jesus died on a different day than John says.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:57:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Passover and GJn
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, David B. Gowler wrote:
> I was arguing in my first posting that John *intensifies* that symbolism.
> In the Synoptics Jesus shares the Passover meal with the disciples and
> the new ritual explains the significance -- so the Passover tradition
> is clearly re-interpreted in light of the death of Jesus.
I would think the Synoptics do a much better job than John of relating
Passover to the significance of Jesus's death. Matthew 26:26-29 and
parallels explicitly push the analogy to the max. In contrast, in John,
one must read in (doubtfully) the sacrifice of the lambs.
> GJn clearly intensifies that symbolism. In John, we have the almost
> cannibalistic John 6, and then Jesus actually becomes the Passover Lamb on
> Passove Day; he doesn't just celebrate the Passover with the disciples.
Again, the Synopics underline the "cannibalism" at the last Passover more
than John does, IMO. It's hard to imagine a tradition back-pedaling like
that.
> Your argument about 19:31 is unconvincing to me because the other view
> takes more seriously the entire thrust of GJn's narrative (and
> theology). Jesus symbolically replaces almost every Jewish festival (I
> am the bread from heaven; I am the light of the world; etc.).
I take the festival imagery in John very seriously - and I don't think
Jesus's crucifixion on Passover would detract from that. In fact, the
absence of any Passover celebration at the Last Supper would underline
it, as would the death of the first-born, etc.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:12:42 CST
Subject: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
The external evidence favoring the shortest ending of Mark (i.e. ending with
verse 8) is of mixed character. Actually there are extant only three Greek
MSS, one Latin, one Syriac, one Coptic, two Georgian, and approximatedly one
hundred Armenian MSS that omit the long ending. This evidence would not be
compelling at all except that two of the three Greek MSS are the major fourth
century MSS Aleph and B. When the evidence of these major Alexandrian
witnesses is combined with the two Western witnesses, the Latin Bobiensis MS
and the Sinaitic Syriac MS, it becomes obvious that the omission of verses
9-20 must go back to the early second century at least, when these two textual
traditions split.
The point of this post is to make the claim that the evidence of Aleph and B,
when combined with the Western witnesses, testify to the early omission of
these verses, but do not, in and of themselves, demonstrate that these verses
were not a part of the original ending of Mark. While Aleph and B are very
valuable witnesses, the time has passed in textual criticism to blindly follow
the combined reading of Aleph and B.
The UBS textual committee themselves have not followed the combined evidence
of Aleph and B in the gospel of Mark in the following places:
3:32; 6:23, 41; 7:4 (bis), 24, 28, 35, 37; 10:7, 26; 12:23; 14:68; and 15:12.
In the following places neither Aleph nor B support the reading chosen:
4:8, 16; 7:9; 14:72.
In the following places the combined evidence of the original readings of
Aleph and B are not followed:
5:27; 6:39; 10:40.
These 21 places were gleaned from the footnotes of UBS 3C and could be
amplified by using the footnotes of the Nestle-Aland text, but they are enough
to prove the point.
The existence of the short ending and the markings of asterisks and obeli in
various manuscripts add confirming evidence that the long ending was absent in
second century MSS, but do not push this date back further.
What this means is that the long ending of Mark was in existence in the first
half of the second century (from the evidence of Tatian and Irenaeus) and it
was absent from copies of Mark at that same time. MSS evidence fails at this
point, and one must turn to internal evidence. Metzger says as much when he
states that despite its external support, the long ending "must be judged by
internal evidence to be secondary" (Text of NT, p. 227; Textual Commentary, p.
125).
Actually, despite the evidence of Aleph and B to the contrary, the external
support for the long ending is so strong, having support from all text
families and almost all MSS, that the long ending would be judged on text
critical principles to be original were not the questions about its stylistic
differences from the rest of Mark so significant.
********************************************************************************
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 B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:22:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Passover and GJn
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, David B. Gowler wrote:
>
> > I was arguing in my first posting that John *intensifies* that symbolism.
>
> I would think the Synoptics do a much better job than John of relating
> Passover to the significance of Jesus's death.
I think we are talking about two different aspects here. Let's start at a
general level: Would you agree that GJn, in general, uses more symbolism
than the Synoptics? Second, would you agree, with Raymond Brown et al.,
that Jesus symbolically replaces a number of Jewish festivals and rituals
through such words and actions as the miracle of the wine at Cana, the "I
am" the Bread,"I am" the living water, the early "cleansing" of the
Temple, and so forth? That much seems absolutely clear. If so, wouldn't
the symbolism be more likely to be there about Jesus being the Passover
lamb (including the aspects of the narrative I mentioned in previous
posts?).
Your statement "better job of relating the Passover to the significance of
Jesus's death" is a *tangent* of the point I was trying to make, but not
the same point. Metaphor and symbolism are a more powerful means of
making a point, but the narrative aspects of the Synoptics actually do a
better job of explaining it explicitly. If Jesus had been able to eat the
Passover in John, perhaps we would have had a better explanation!
Instead, we have a symbolic representation of Jesus' replacing the Passover
lamb, just like Jesus replaces the other rituals and festivals.
>Matthew 26:26-29 and
> parallels explicitly push the analogy to the max.
Is "analogy" as "powerful" as metaphor? As symbolism? As parable?
Analogy is more clear and more precise, but hardly more powerful. In
Luke, when Jesus was asked, "Who is my neighbor," he did not give a
definition; he gave a parable. The symbolism I have outlined about
Jesus being the Passover lamb who dies at the same time as the
Paschal lambs fits in with GJn's entire plot.
> Again, the Synopics underline the "cannibalism" at the last Passover more
> than John does, IMO. It's hard to imagine a tradition back-pedaling like
> that.
Wait a minute. That's a moot point. There IS NO Passover meal at the end
of John, so of course the Passover explanations are more clear in the
Synoptics. On the other hand, there are no more explicit or extended (or
disgusting to the people who hear it!) references to "eating Jesus' body"
than in John 6.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 12:44:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Passover and GJn
Gregory Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu) quoted and wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, David B. Gowler wrote:
>
>> Even if we can "explain away" the explicit references about Jesus
dying on
>> a different day in John as opposed to the Synoptics -- which I don't
think
>> we can do -- the rest of the Gospel of John makes it clear that
Jesus
>> "replaces" Jewish festivals and rituals. For example, the wedding
at Cana
>
>I don't think anyone here has been engaged in "explaining away" any
>gospel details. Verses such as John 13:1 and 18:39 seem to be at odds
>(and who knows, maybe the best way to understand them is as internally
>inconsistent), but I don't see any reason why one should see any
>interpretation of the day of the crucifixion in John as self-evident.
>There is more than enough room for ambiguity.
>
>> John the Baptist in GJn very early says that Jesus is the "Lamb of
God."
>> The references to the Day of the Passover still seem quite explicit
to me,
>> especially in chapter 19, AND the reference to Jesus' bones not
being
>> broken is another important reference re the Passover lamb. The
point is,
>> for GJn, that Jesus symbolically BECOMES the Passover lamb, and he
dies at
>> the same time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple
- -- on
>> Passover Day.
>
>I think both John and the Synoptics are clearly relating Passover
symbolism
>to Jesus, although they do it differently in some ways. Whether the
Last
>Supper is a passover Seder or the crucifixion is simultaneous with the
>sacrifice of the lambs - either way, the Passover analogies are
>powerful. But if John was putting the crucifixion of Jesus on the day
>before Passover, why would he refer to that momentous, unique first
evening
>ritual as merely "magalE hE hEmera ekeinou tou sabbatou" (John 19:31)?
>John emphasizes it as a sabbath, not as the first day of Passover.
>
>No one wants to force-harmonize the gospels, but then one shouldn't
>force-disharmonize them, either, or force them into an artificial
>internal consistency. Some believe that a tradition of Jesus being
>crucified on the day before Passover is more likely to be historical,
with
>the Synoptics pushing the Last Supper forward to a Passover Seder.
You
>seem to be arguing that the Synoptic tradition is more likely to be
>historical, with Jesus's crucifixion pushed back one day to relate his
>death to the death of the lambs, as part of John's overall festival
>analogies. Since *both* arguments make sense, we obviously have a
puzzle.
Apparently, an ealier message that I posted in answer to something
Carl Conrad had wrote on this thread never reached the list server.
That previous message pointed out that the Babylonian Talmud
(_Sanhedrin_ 43a), like the Gospel of John, also fixes Jesus'
crucifixion on the eve of Passover. Luke 23:54 and Mat. 27:62
certainly agree with this as well, if we may understand "preparation"
in reference to the Passover rather than to the Sabbath. (Cf.,
however, Mark 15:42.) Nevertheless, Mark 14:12 indicates very clearly
that the first night of Passover was the night of the Last supper. It
is possible, however, as some on the list have already mentioned, that
Jesus and His disciples celebrated Passover establishing the day for
the feast by some method other than those employed by the Temple
priests.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 12:55:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Date of Wavesheaf/Resurrection
Stephen Carlson (scc@reston.icl.com) quoted and wrote:
>Greg Doudna wrote:
>> I don't have the astronomical
>> data at hand, but a Sunday Nisan 22 occurred in the year
>> 36, and in no other year in Pilate's term. I have
>> previously noted an historical arguments (not original
>> with me) for a 36 crucifixion year date. The fundamental
>> objection to such a dating has always been the objection
>> from astronomy. However, with the case I outline above,
>> I would argue that the astronomical argument provides
>> possible (possible!--so many variables!--I know)
>> corroboration or support for a 36 date.
>
>I don't think you have to make this case for a 36 date, because
>according to "Chronology," A DICTIONARY OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS
>(1992), 36 is also a candidate year along with 27, 30, and 33 for
>Nisan 14's falling on a Friday. I also remember Robin Lane Fox's
>making the same point in one of his books; he favors the 36 date.
>Are you sure Nisan 22, 36 is a Sunday?
>
>The typical argument against the 36 date is that if the start of
>Jesus' ministry is dated to around 28, then 36 is much too late.
>The basis for a 28 start date is (a) Jesus' birth is around 6 B.C.E.
>and (b) His ministry began when he was about thirty (Lk3:23). On
>the other hand, those who argue for a later start date find the
>implication in Jn8:57 ("not yet fifty") more useful.
>
Also, against the 36 date is the best info we have on Pontius
Pilate which indicates that he left Jerusalem for Rome before Passover
of 36. (See Shu:rer, _The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ_, I:386-88, esp. n. 145; Josephus _Ant._ xviii:90.)
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:20:26 CST
Subject: Re: Passover and GJn
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, David Moore wrote:
> That previous message pointed out that the Babylonian Talmud
>(_Sanhedrin_ 43a), like the Gospel of John, also fixes Jesus'
>crucifixion on the eve of Passover. Luke 23:54 and Mat. 27:62
>certainly agree with this as well, if we may understand "preparation"
>in reference to the Passover rather than to the Sabbath. (Cf.,
>however, Mark 15:42.)
But my question is, David, where is the linguistic evidence that allows us to
understand PARASKEUH in reference to the Passover rather than to the Sabbath?
It clearly means Friday in Josephus, Mark, the Didache, and the Martyrdom of
Polycarp. The only place that I can find the lexicons suggesting it may mean
"the day of preparation for the Passover" is John 19:14, and even there Friday
is an alternative meaning.
********************************************************************************
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 John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 95 16:58:59 EDT
Subject: B-GREEK Unsubscribe reminder
Here is a reminder of how to unsubscribe from the B-GREEK list.
Please keep this reminder handy, and do *not* send an unsubscribe
message to the *entire* list!
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail message to
MAJORDOMO@VIRGINIA.EDU
with the following request as the TEXT (not subject) of the message:
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
or if you are reading the digested version of B-GREEK send:
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK-DIGEST
For further information, send the following to the same address:
INFO B-GREEK
As a last resort, contact me at djm5g@virginia.edu
Thank you.
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 16:03:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Passover and GJn
At 3:22 PM 7/20/95, David B. Gowler wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>> Again, the Synopics underline the "cannibalism" at the last Passover more
>> than John does, IMO. It's hard to imagine a tradition back-pedaling like
>> that.
>
>Wait a minute. That's a moot point. There IS NO Passover meal at the end
>of John, so of course the Passover explanations are more clear in the
>Synoptics. On the other hand, there are no more explicit or extended (or
>disgusting to the people who hear it!) references to "eating Jesus' body"
>than in John 6.
I have to say that David has, in my judgment, by far the strong side of the
argument. I've never been able to read 6:56 without a shudder and a
powerful sense that the writer was not unaware of the nature of the Delphic
biennial ritual of Dionysus:
hO TRWGWN MOU THN SARKA KAI PINWN MOU TO hAIMA EN EMOI MENEI KAGW EN
AUTWi ...
Some dictionaries may tell you that TRWGW had by Hellenistic era lost its
fundamental sense of "chew" and had become a synonym for ESQIW, just as
BLEPW has lost its more fundamental older sense of "look at" and is
commonly used as equivalent to hORAW. I've never been able to believe this
about TRWGW. ESQIW is the normal word in the NT for "eat," while TRWGW is
found, apart from the two Johannine passages (6:54, 56, 58; 13:18) at only
one other place, Mt 24:38, where the talk is of the feasting before the
flood. In the Synoptics (e.g. Mt. 26:27ff.) Jesus gives the cup and says,
"All of you drink from it. For this is my blood ... shed for many for
forgiveness of sins." But then he proceeds to speak of drinking of the
fruit of the vine. This language is symbolic. John's language in 6:56 is
symbolic also, of course, but the vividness of "chew my flesh, drink my
blood" is worlds away from symbolic action of Matthew 26.
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/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #791
*****************************
** 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