[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #793
b-greek-digest Friday, 21 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 793
In this issue:
re: PARADOUNA TW SATANAS
re: Re: Languages of Jesus
Priority: normal
Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: virginai.edu: host not found)
re: Re: Languages of Jesus
lang. of Jesus
Re: John 1:1c
Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
Re: Junias in Ro16:7 an apostle?
Re: Passover and GJn
Re: Junias in Ro16:7 an apostle?
Re: lang. of Jesus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 03:28:05 -0400
Subject: re: PARADOUNA TW SATANAS
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>> As I was following this thread over 1Co 5, I had Ro 1:24 ff. come
>> to mind, and I was wondering whether any of you see a >>connection here
with the imagery?
Greg Jordan replied....
>Yes - that was a passage I had in mind, too. Again it presents >evildoers
as prisoners who had been "handed over" - but this time >by God, not humans,
and to their own evil, not Satan. There may >have been a connection - Satan
encouraging evil in a person until >he person becomes disgusted with
themselves & repents. The >image is of the sins as officers of God's court,
like Satan, and the >sinners are prisoners whom God has already found guilty
(of >course). But the final punishment is not until Judgment Day, after
>which God's stockpiled "wrath" is unleashed on the sinner -
>*unless* the sinner had repented in the meanwhile. Again, the
>opportunity for repentance is highlighted (Romans 2:4) as the >purpose of
the "handing over," the kind of extended stay in prison >on death row.
Remember that Christ was "handed over" as well (1 Cor 11). So are
traditions. (PARADIDIMI is an interesting word, isn't it?)
Is it possible that SATANAS in 1 Cor 5 could refer to a human "adversary"
or even a type of prosecuting attourney, as a last resort, after loving
admonishment has failed?
Peace,
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 03:28:09 -0400
Subject: re: Re: Languages of Jesus
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com> said on 7/19/95...
> I just want to make one comment on whether Jesus originally >spoke in
Hebrew/Aramaic/etc. It seems to me that multiple >scholars have come up with
alternative rendering of the hypothetical >original for something in the
canonical Gospels. If there are multiple >possibilities proposed, that might
suggest that such an effort, to go >backwards, may not be very helpful in
showing anything except the >facility of the scholar in Hebrew/Aramaic/etc.
Indeed, anyone who >has tried literal translation of Greek into English I
think soon >realizes that exact correspondece is not readily possible, and I
have >doubts about the ability to go from Greek back to Hebrew or >Aramaic
just as much as I would doubt the ability to go from the >NASB (a fairly
literal translation, as English translations go) back to >the Greek.
Comments?
One of the more flavorful artists of rendering Aramaic for the Greek saying
of Jesus was _George Lamsa_. I thought he was very good at explaining many
of the Aramaic colloquialisms, linguistic idiosyncrisies and patterns of
thought that may lie behind the Greek rendering of many of Jesus' sayings.
In particular, I liked his semetic understanding of "angels" as thoughts
sent to us from God. And his Aramaic explanation of the "you must hate your
[family].... if you are to be my disciple" was helpful to many folks.
Peace,
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "MNR. LL MEYER - SIVIEL 3" <S9101950@babel.ee.up.ac.za>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 13:01:16 GMT+2
Subject: Priority: normal
SUBSCRIBE
e-mail : s9101950@babel.ee.up.ac.za
name : Larno Meyer
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 07:35:06 CDT
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: virginai.edu: host not found)
A few comments on what Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> had to say about the
ending of the Gospel of Mark...
Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.
You acknowledge here that the abbreviated version of the ending of Mark exists
in several versions, but you fail to recognize what is really important about
these manuscripts, which is their age. The OLDEST Latin, Syriac, Sahidic,
Armenian and Georgian mss all have the abbreviated version of the ending of
Mark. And of course, Aleph and B are the oldest Greek codices, if I'm not
mistaken. The "extra" verses at the end of Mark are also missing from several
Ethiopic mss.
>
> 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.
I admit that I am a layman and that I have only been reading about textual
criticism for a little over a year, so maybe I'm spoiled, but I haven't read
a work yet that claimed it did or that anyone should follow two particular
sources. I've only read "stuff" by Metzger and Aland, but they make it clear
that each reading should be considered independently. Neither Metzger nor
Aland claim that the abbreviated ending of Mark is preferred based only on the
evidence in Aleph and B. Can you quote any textual critic who does this?
>
> 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.
Exactly! Just proof that blind following of Aleph and B is not what is being
used to determine the Greek New Testament for N/A and UBS. Each reading is
considered on its own merits.
>
> 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.
Yes, but the fact that these manuscripts exist with asterisks and obeli are
further EXTERNAL evidence that these verses did not occur in earlier mss.
AND, there are also several mss which explicitly state in the margins that
these verses did not appear in the older Greek mss. That is, several mss were
explicit about this fact in addition to the mss in which the fact was noted
implicitly.
>
> 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).
You say that mss evidence fails at this point and then quote Metzger to try and
support your statement. I feel that you have twisted Metzger's meaning. I feel
that he makes it clear that the only "external" support for the long ending of
Mark is the sheer number of mss containing the long ending. BUT, there is good
external evidence FOR the abbreviated ending of Mark which outways the quantity
of mss with the long version (remember, quality, not quantity). In other words,
I feel that Metzger's quote should really be taken in the context of:
Even if we couldn't decide based on the external evidence, <his quote here>
Not in the context of:
Dispite its external support, <his quote here>
Reading the entire discussion about the end of the Gospel of Mark makes it
clear that the external evidence for the abbreviated ending of Mark is good.
>
> 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.
Again, you state that the external evidence for the long ending is strong. This
is simply not true. You have under-estimated and under-stated the external
evidence favoring the abbreviated ending of the Gospel of Mark.
1. You failed to recognize that the version with the abbreviated ending of
Mark were the oldest ones (the Old Latin, the two oldest Greek codices,
the two oldest Georgian, etc...).
2. You seem to be give little weight to the number of mss which have the
long ending, but mark it with asterisks or obeli. And you fail to mention
the mss which contain the long ending, but explicitly state in margin notes
that these verses are missing from the oldest Greek mss.
3. You fail to mention the external evidence of some of the fathers. To
quote Metzger,
"Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence
of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the
passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to
them."
You make the point here that almost all of the mss contain the long ending.
But again, it's quality of mss, not quantity that is important. A wide range
of versions have the abbreviated ending of Mark in their oldest copies.
You mention the stylistic differences in the long ending of Mark in regards to
the rest of Mark. You failed, inadvertently, to mention that it's not just
style that sets it apart, but vocabulary as well. There are at least 7 words
in these "extra" 12 verses which did not occur anywhere else in Mark. Three
of these 7 do not appear anywhere else in the New Testament.
To summarize... I'll quote Bruce Metzger's summary of the evidence surrounding
the ending of the Gospel of Mark from his Textual Commentary on the UBS GNT:
"Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal
considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of
the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8."
I agree with you that the internal evidence is important in deciding for the
abbreviated ending of Mark, but I think you do not place enough emphasis on
the external evidence for the abbreviated ending. I think that the external
evidence is much stronger than you acknowledge.
Dennis Burke
- ----- End Included Message -----
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 8:39:53 -0400
Subject: re: Re: Languages of Jesus
Regarding Timster132@aol.com and George Lamsa
How good is Lamsa? I bought his bible years ago and was unimpressed with his
introduction where he shows how the Greek mistranslated Jesus' words -- e.g.,
"camel" for "rope" (going through an eye of a needle); Jesus' last words
being "For this I was spared!" instead of "Why have you forsaken me?" (Lamsa
also changed Psalm 22:1 accordingly.) His claim (citing others) that the
Peshitta was the authentic text seems strained. Do any reputable scholars
agree with Lamsa? Also, I know that The Way International (founded by Victor
Paul "JESUS IS NOT GOD" Weirwille), if I remember correctly, adopted Lamsa's
translation, and maybe even Lamsa himself. I know his translation is cited
by groups like Unity, maybe because they seek any support for showing that
standard Christian translations -- and hence orthodox Christianity -- are
"wrong."
I also was less than enthused about his books purporting to shed light on
gospel passages. Maybe he does have something to say. What does anybody out
there know about Lamsa?
------------------------------
From: "Lindsay J. Whaley" <Lindsay.J.Whaley@dartmouth.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 95 10:07:55 EDT
Subject: lang. of Jesus
Peter Cepuch wrote-------
BUT, the natural reflex of any culture that
is under siege-so to speak-is to circle the wagons and try to maintain
their cultural/linguistic traditions lest they be lost in subsequent
generations.
- -------
It is manifestly not the case that the natural or automatic reflex of a culture
"under seige" is an attempt to maintain a unique identity, especially when it
comes to a language identity. In many cases, groups fight for the survival of
their ancestral language and in many cases they readily relinquish it (and even
here language assimilation is not necessarily linked to cultural assimilation).
Therefore, I don't find Peter's conclusion from his premise above--that the
Jewish people of the first century AD must have been fighting to maintain
Hebrew in order to remain distinct from their various overlords--very
compelling.
In order for this line of reasoning to work, we would first need to establish
that Hebrew was actually taken to be key component of Jewish identity. Second,
we would need to demonstrate that such an idea was generally accepted in the
Jewish community in Palestine and not regarded as a "fanatical" viewpoint. I
doubt even the possiblity of the former. In this area at this point in history,
language didn't seem to be much of a rallying point for nationalism.
Lindsay Whaley
Dartmouth College
------------------------------
From: Roger Bailey <RBAILEY@accdvm.accd.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 95 09:21:46 CST
Subject: Re: John 1:1c
From: Roger Bailey
Alan, I have neither the right books nor CD-ROM here in my office
right now, but it looks as if you are troubled by the word order in
the Grk which gets changed, almost invariably, in the English trans-
lation. I should think that a good grammar would give you several
examples of how the definite article very often distinguishes the
subject of the sentence from the complement, as is the case with at
least three of the references you mention. ( I don't have my LXX
here at the office either. )
Best,
Roger
Roger Bailey
Dept. of English
San Antonio College
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 11:14:16 CDT
Subject: Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
Sorry about the subject line of the previous copy. I had returned mail, fixed
the address and forwarded it without changing the subject on the returned msg.
Dennis Burke
- ----- Begin Included Message -----
A few comments on what Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> had to say about the
ending of the Gospel of Mark...
Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.
You acknowledge here that the abbreviated version of the ending of Mark exists
in several versions, but you fail to recognize what is really important about
these manuscripts, which is their age. The OLDEST Latin, Syriac, Sahidic,
Armenian and Georgian mss all have the abbreviated version of the ending of
Mark. And of course, Aleph and B are the oldest Greek codices, if I'm not
mistaken. The "extra" verses at the end of Mark are also missing from several
Ethiopic mss.
>
> 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.
I admit that I am a layman and that I have only been reading about textual
criticism for a little over a year, so maybe I'm spoiled, but I haven't read
a work yet that claimed it did or that anyone should follow two particular
sources. I've only read "stuff" by Metzger and Aland, but they make it clear
that each reading should be considered independently. Neither Metzger nor
Aland claim that the abbreviated ending of Mark is preferred based only on the
evidence in Aleph and B. Can you quote any textual critic who does this?
>
> 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.
Exactly! Just proof that blind following of Aleph and B is not what is being
used to determine the Greek New Testament for N/A and UBS. Each reading is
considered on its own merits.
>
> 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.
Yes, but the fact that these manuscripts exist with asterisks and obeli are
further EXTERNAL evidence that these verses did not occur in earlier mss.
AND, there are also several mss which explicitly state in the margins that
these verses did not appear in the older Greek mss. That is, several mss were
explicit about this fact in addition to the mss in which the fact was noted
implicitly.
>
> 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).
You say that mss evidence fails at this point and then quote Metzger to try and
support your statement. I feel that you have twisted Metzger's meaning. I feel
that he makes it clear that the only "external" support for the long ending of
Mark is the sheer number of mss containing the long ending. BUT, there is good
external evidence FOR the abbreviated ending of Mark which outways the quantity
of mss with the long version (remember, quality, not quantity). In other words,
I feel that Metzger's quote should really be taken in the context of:
Even if we couldn't decide based on the external evidence, <his quote here>
Not in the context of:
Dispite its external support, <his quote here>
Reading the entire discussion about the end of the Gospel of Mark makes it
clear that the external evidence for the abbreviated ending of Mark is good.
>
> 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.
Again, you state that the external evidence for the long ending is strong. This
is simply not true. You have under-estimated and under-stated the external
evidence favoring the abbreviated ending of the Gospel of Mark.
1. You failed to recognize that the version with the abbreviated ending of
Mark were the oldest ones (the Old Latin, the two oldest Greek codices,
the two oldest Georgian, etc...).
2. You seem to be give little weight to the number of mss which have the
long ending, but mark it with asterisks or obeli. And you fail to mention
the mss which contain the long ending, but explicitly state in margin notes
that these verses are missing from the oldest Greek mss.
3. You fail to mention the external evidence of some of the fathers. To
quote Metzger,
"Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence
of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the
passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to
them."
You make the point here that almost all of the mss contain the long ending.
But again, it's quality of mss, not quantity that is important. A wide range
of versions have the abbreviated ending of Mark in their oldest copies.
You mention the stylistic differences in the long ending of Mark in regards to
the rest of Mark. You failed, inadvertently, to mention that it's not just
style that sets it apart, but vocabulary as well. There are at least 7 words
in these "extra" 12 verses which did not occur anywhere else in Mark. Three
of these 7 do not appear anywhere else in the New Testament.
To summarize... I'll quote Bruce Metzger's summary of the evidence surrounding
the ending of the Gospel of Mark from his Textual Commentary on the UBS GNT:
"Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal
considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of
the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8."
I agree with you that the internal evidence is important in deciding for the
abbreviated ending of Mark, but I think you do not place enough emphasis on
the external evidence for the abbreviated ending. I think that the external
evidence is much stronger than you acknowledge.
Dennis Burke
- ----- End Included Message -----
- ----- End Included Message -----
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 09:25:30 PDT
Subject: Re: Junias in Ro16:7 an apostle?
I want to second Larry Swain's posting and argue for Junias as a
fenimine name. There are, to my knowledge, no male counterparts
elsewhere in Greek literature, and the only stumbling block to
a female apostle is a pre-decision that such could not have
existed. It seems, moreover, that Paul, at any rate, uses apostolos
with a slightly wider meaning than Jesus' original 12 disciples, as
evidenced by the use of the title for himself, as weel as the accountin
Acts 1, which shows that membership in the group of apostles was
at least a little flexible.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 13:25:07 -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 think we are talking about two different aspects here.
..............................
Gregory wrote:
> I haven't read Raymond Brown, so perhaps you could sketch briefly the
> symbolic replacements of festivals. I am, though, aware of the use of
> festivals as part of a coordinated thematic chain in the gospel.
I think now I see why we are speaking two different "languages" here.
Let me explain more fully:
John is simply a different "world" than the Synoptics, filled with
dualistic symbolism on every page (one reason why an early church
theologian called it the "spiritual gospel"). The path taken in many
discourses, for example, is a moving from a physical understanding to a
"spiritual" understanding by the characters: Nicodemus starts with
thinking "born again," but Jesus is talking about "born from above"; the
woman at the well talks about well water, while Jesus talks about "living
water."
Look at GMk's first miracle compared to GJn's: Jesus' first
miracle in Mark shows his superiority to the synagogue officials (they
can't prohibit a demon from entering the sacred space of the synagogue on
the sacred day of the Sabbath; Jesus "taught with authority, unlike the
scribes"; and so forth in Mk 1:21-28).
GJn, on the other hand, makes the first "miracle" of Jesus into a SIGN:
the changing of water into wine at Cana (Jn 2). Raymond Brown (and many
others), in his Anchor Bible Commentary on GJn notes how this episode
symbolically illustrates how Jesus replaces Jewish festivals. The
argument is lengthy, but note the 6 water pots for purification (an
imperfect number, showing the insufficiency of Jewish rituals). Jesus
brings the new wine to replace the old "stale water" of Jewish rites of
purification.
Is Brown's (more extensive) argument on this convincing in and of
itself? Perhaps not. But that's when we turn to the rest of GJn. Look,
for example, at Jn 7-8. At the Festival of Booths, where two of the
major rituals included the pouring out of water and the lighting of the
great lights in the Temple, Jesus states that those who are thirsty
should come to him for "rivers of living water" (7:37-39)," etc. and also
says "I am the Light of the world (8:12)," etc. He symbolically replaces
those rituals and the festival itself.
With these and other aspects (that I mentioned in previuos posts), let's
see how Jesus' "becoming" the Passover lamb fits in: Jn 1:29 and 1:36 --
Jesus is the Lamb of God, according to JnB. Jn 6 -- eating the body of
Jesus. The various references to the Passover, including 19:14,
indicate that Jesus is being slaughtered on the Day of Preparation, at
the same time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple.
Finally, the symbolic reference in 19:36 becomes clear (about none of
Jesus' bones "being broken") -- according to Ex 12:46 and Num 9:12, the
bones of the Passover lambs were not to be broken. Thus Jesus "fulfilled
the Scriptures" as the new Passover lamb and died at the same time. In
the Synoptics he dies after celebrating the Passover and explaining its
new significance to the disciples. GJn chooses to make that point more
symbolically, and, I think, more powerfully. But the point is clearly made.
Gregory:
> . . . with all kinds of ramifications. John's symbols are
precisely that:
> symbols. Jesus is not a bread loaf, vine, gate, shepherd, light, etc.
> nor does he need to replace these things physically (cf. John 6:63) in
> the narrative.
I did not claim that Jesus actually became a four-footed animal with wool
growing all over his body! But *symbolically* Jesus in GJn did become all
of those things ("I am . . . ), and he said and did those things *during*
those festivals (e.g., Jn 7-8 during the Feast of Booths he was the
"light" and "water"). Hence the symbolism becomes more powerful and
meaningful to the Johannine Community.
Sorry that I did not "sketch it briefly," but there it is *in nuce*.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:50:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Junias in Ro16:7 an apostle?
At 9:25 AM 7/21/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I want to second Larry Swain's posting and argue for Junias as a
>fenimine name. There are, to my knowledge, no male counterparts
>elsewhere in Greek literature, and the only stumbling block to
>a female apostle is a pre-decision that such could not have
>existed. It seems, moreover, that Paul, at any rate, uses apostolos
>with a slightly wider meaning than Jesus' original 12 disciples, as
>evidenced by the use of the title for himself, as weel as the accountin
>Acts 1, which shows that membership in the group of apostles was
>at least a little flexible.
>
>Ken Litwak
>Emeryville, CA
Just a brief comment on the notes by Ken and Larry; I agree with the
substance of what both are saying but want to make a slight correction:
The form of the proper name indicated in the text of Rom 16:7 is IOUNIAN,
an accusative singular first-declension proper name. This form by itself
could be either masculine or feminine--the accusative would be the same for
either--but the nominative form, if it's feminine, would be IOUNIA, and if
it's masculine, would be IOUNIAS. Now I think that it almost surely is the
feminine name, in which case we ought to be talking about her as IOUNIA,
not IOUNIAS.
In fact, to be still more precise, I think that the lady's name is really
JUNIA or Junia, and that we are here dealing with a Greek spelling of a
Latin feminine name. The Latin U is regularly transliterated into Greek of
this period as OU. Moreover, although the masculine form IOUNIAS is
perfectly permissible in Greek, it still looks like an originally-Latin
name, and as Junia is the feminine form parallel to a normal masculine
equivalent form Junius (as in Marcus Junius Brutus, Caesar's chief
assassin), I really think it is less likely that IOUNIAN represents a
*masculine* proper name.
In sum: I believe the lady's proper name in Greek is IOUNIA but that this
is really a Roman name and we ought to be spelling it JUNIA. Somewhat
comparable is the references we see to Paul's companion Silas with the
Roman name SILVANUS, spelled in Greek as SILOUANOS.
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: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:02:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: lang. of Jesus
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Pete Cepuch wrote:
> David Gowler wrote:
> I would argue that Brad Young's efforts in his book to translate parables
> of Jesus back into Hebrew are largely unsuccessful."
>
> Why? It's been awhile since I've read his book but I think the point of his
> work was to illustrate how the parables used by Jesus fit in with the
> rabbinic use of parables in general. The point being that His use of
> parables was nothing revolutionary or new but something that was in use by
> rabbinic teaching for quite some time. Jesus' style was well with-in the
> second-temple era's emergence of the "proto-rabbi".
Since a chapter of a forthcoming book I'm writing deals with this issue,
I would be glad to do this (briefly) either on or off-list -- or send you
a copy of the chapter itself. It is a complex issue, complicated by the
fact that "translating something back into" any language is not only
hypothetical, but virtually impossible.
At any rate, Young's arguments about Jesus being a "proto rabbi" are
interesting, but are complicated by the fact that he is anachronistically
merging forms and content 2 and 1/2 centuries apart. Jesus' parables,
although a form of *mashal*, are different from the rabbinic parables that
are *used for exegesis of the Torah*. They tend to support the status
quo, whereas Jesus' parables tend to subvert it. The Amoraim also had a
more comprehensive form for their parables, and Young's search for the
corresponding *nimshal* in the parables of Jesus finds almost none.
He is left to postulate that Jesus' parables are an "early form" of which
he can cite no other examples. To back his claim, he seeks to prove that
Jesus told his parables in Hebrew, which, once again, I find very
unconvincing.
This does NOT mean that Jesus' parables are "superior." They are similar
and the many comparative works with rabbinic parables have been helpful.
For a much more scholarly approach that is somewhat sympathetic to Young's
perspective, but much more methodolically advanced, see any recent work by
David Stern (e.g., *The Parables in Midrash*).
> Far be it from me to argue with FLUSSER HIMSELF :)
Thanks for your humorous and appropriate "chastisement."
> to the Israel of those times. BUT, the natural reflex of any culture that
> is under siege-so to speak-is to circle the wagons and try to maintain
> their cultural/linguistic traditions lest they be lost in subsequent
> generations.
Lindsay treats this very well in a subsequent posting. Let me just add:
You have to "explain the targums" from your position. You also have to
explain the massive evidence for the use of Aramiac and Greek, and the
corresponding little evidence for (daily) usage of Hebrew.
> perhaps there was a segment of that Jewish generation who clung to the
> Hebrew tongue
Fitzmyer's fine article agrees that a few people probably spoke Hebrew.
> Well, the Maccabeans were doing what I tried to explain above: as you say
> "throwing-off this hellenistic yoke". The temple was defiled and the people
> were subjected to a serious cultural challenge.
My point was that the Maccabeans themselves were hellenized, although to
a lesser extent than many other Jews in Palestine. This irony should not
go unnoticed.
> me if I'm wrong-that the text of the various Maccabean books that we have
> are in Greek.
This helps to make my point!
And as is the practice of some in the Jewish world,today,who
> have say English names, they also have Hebrew names-is this not also a
> possibility for the Maccabean children?
Alexander et al., to my knowledge, is a Greek name.
> I'm not sure I understand how Hannukah comes from a hellenistic influence
The declaration of a religious festival by one other than God. Purim had
to be "justified" to many Jews, because it was not authorized in the
Torah. My memory also faintly recalls that Esther comes from diaspora
Judaism and was suspect in some quarters because it doesn't -- with one
possible exception -- have a direct mention of God.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #793
*****************************
** 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