[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #796
b-greek-digest Monday, 24 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 796
In this issue:
Jesus a disciple
Literary vs. "direct" evidence
Literary vs. "direct" evidence
Re: Junia, not Junias!
re: Re: Junia, not Junias!
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Junia, not Junias !
Re: PARADOUNAI TW SATANA
Re: sarx in Paul
Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
Re: Jesus a disciple
Re: Junia, not Junias !
Re: Junia, not Junias!
Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
Re: Junia, not Junias!
Junia again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 8:28:25 -0400
Subject: Jesus a disciple
The comment by Greg Doudna about Jesus living for some time quietly in a
house as a disciple of John the Baptist is intriguing (John 1:39 is the
reference given in support of this claim).
What explicit support is there for this assumption that Jesus was a disciple
of John's? That they knew each other, and maybe knew each other well, seems
obvious (though there may be conflicting strands in the traditions). But
that Jesus was a disciple of John as were Andrew and the other disciple in
John 1:35ff ....
What does anyone have to say?
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 08:21:39 -0500
Subject: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
I am taking the liberty of forwarding a recent post on the Classics list
which has begun to spark a bit of "humph, harumph," etc. reaction from
those who do not much appreciate the idea that literary evidence is
secondary. Inasmuch as I felt it unsatisfactory but unavoidable last Friday
to refer Greg Jordan to Euripides' Bacchae for evidence of Greek
"cannibalism" comparable to the awesome passage in John 6 (not really
cannibalism, but the ritual eating of meat wherein the god Dionysus was
believed to be incarnate), I wonder what B-Greekers might think about the
idea here expressed from Sir Russell Meiggs on the priority of historical
evidence "unmediated by literary or philosophical imagination and
reflection." I think this has a bearing as well on recent discussion of the
validity of Irenaeus' testimony in view of his particular biases.
- -------forwarded message--------
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 10:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dirk t.D. Held" <dthel@conncoll.edu>
To: classics@u.washington.edu
Cc: classics <classics@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: Greek Epigraphy
Having recently read Kenneth Dover's memoirs, I was impressed by his
discussion of Russell Meiggs. Dover says (I can't give you the page
reference) that Meiggs always stressed to him the necessity of beginning
with documents that had not been mediated by literary or philosophical
imagination and reflection. The foundation of understanding should begin
with such quotidian material as is found in the epigraphical record.
Here are the unmediated words of antiquity. From there one can move to
the second order doc{ments which are studied in the classroom. Well,
these aren't the exact words, but I believe I am faithful to Meiggs'
point. No doubt Meiggs can be charged with relying on an unreflective
version of empiricism { butat least it's helpful to be reminded of wherein
the order of things our texts do stand.
Dirkrk t.D.Held, Classics, Connecticut College
<dthel@conncoll.edu>
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: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 08:20:35 -0500
Subject: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
I am taking the liberty of forwarding a recent post on the Classics list
which has begun to spark a bit of "humph, harumph," etc. reaction from
those who do not much appreciate the idea that literary evidence is
secondary. Inasmuch as I felt it unsatisfactory but unavoidable last Friday
to refer Greg Jordan to Euripides' Bacchae for evidence of Greek
"cannibalism" comparable to the awesome passage in John 6 (not really
cannibalism, but the ritual eating of meat wherein the god Dionysus was
believed to be incarnate), I wonder what B-Greekers might think about the
idea here expressed from Sir Russell Meiggs on the priority of historical
evidence "unmediated by literary or philosophical imagination and
reflection." I think this has a bearing as well on recent discussion of the
validity of Irenaeus' testimony in view of his particular biases.
- -------forwarded message--------
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 10:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dirk t.D. Held" <dthel@conncoll.edu>
To: classics@u.washington.edu
Cc: classics <classics@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: Greek Epigraphy
Having recently read Kenneth Dover's memoirs, I was impressed by his
discussion of Russell Meiggs. Dover says (I can't give you the page
reference) that Meiggs always stressed to him the necessity of beginning
with documents that had not been mediated by literary or philosophical
imagination and reflection. The foundation of understanding should begin
with such quotidian material as is found in the epigraphical record.
Here are the unmediated words of antiquity. From there one can move to
the second order doc{ments which are studied in the classroom. Well,
these aren't the exact words, but I believe I am faithful to Meiggs'
point. No doubt Meiggs can be charged with relying on an unreflective
version of empiricism { butat least it's helpful to be reminded of wherein
the order of things our texts do stand.
Dirkrk t.D.Held, Classics, Connecticut College
<dthel@conncoll.edu>
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: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 08:53:50 CST
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias!
> Original message sent on Fri, Jul 21 11:24 AM by Edward Hobbs:
<snip>
> Nevertheless,
> "Junias" is listed in Bauer's Greek Lexicon as the name found
> here. Bauer says that "the context" rules out the possibility
> that the name is Junia, a woman's name! (The "context" shows
> that Junia is an apostle!) The RSV translators accepted this
> absurd attitude, as did the NIV. Interestingly enough, the 1611
> "King James" Version had it right, and the NRSV has corrected the
> absurdly male-chauvinist reading of Bauer, RSV, and NIV.
Is this so absurd? Can you cite any ancient or patristic
documents which point to any women being named as apostles? (I
can't, but I'm happy to be corrected.)
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
- ----
"I don't speak for myself, so how could I speak for anybody else?"
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 10:17:56 -0400
Subject: re: Re: Junia, not Junias!
I don't have the reference with me, but I did find a quote from John
Chrysostom (is he considered Patristic?) which praises Junia for being deemed
an apostle. I can find it (maybe not the reference, though, because I think
my book just gives the quote).
Also, some of my sources indicate that Junia was considered a woman and an
apostle by the early church fathers, and only later was she demoted or was
her sex changed.
Maybe someone out there has the quote from Chrysostom.
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 10:10:26 -35900
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
On Sat, 22 Jul 1995, MR DANIEL W TAYLOR wrote:
>
> Regarding the various postings concerning astronomy and the natal star, I
> certainly have been impressed by the level of the research on this matter.
> But I puzzles me that every discussion of the matter assumes that there
> must have been a reportable, natural, astronomical event to account for the
> record of the star in Matthew. Does it necessarily HAVE to be so? The
> text does not seem to say that the star "led" them to Jerusalem. While
> they were in the east, they saw the star. After they left Jerusalem, the
> star reappeared. Apparently it had not been seen for awhile, perhaps not
> since they left the place in the east where they first saw it. And it
> seems that no one else saw this star, for no one else followed it to the
> birthplace, at least according to the Scriptural record. No one in the
> court of Herod made mention of it. Later, Matthew seems to indicate that
> the star actually rested over the house where the child was. This is not a
> trait of any known star. Since other aspects of the birth of Christ were
> miraculous, especially the announce, incarnation, and virgin birth, could
> not this star also be a miracle, a special star designed to alert the Magi
> of the birth and then confirm its location? Do we need astonomical
> verification on this point?
>
> D. Taylor
> Fayetteville, NC
>
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
The story of the Christmas star raises the very knotty
question of miracles in the Bible. I am somewhat inclined
towards rationalism, so I would prefer a naturalistic explanation
of the star _unless_ no likely candidates emerged. As I
understand you, you are suggesting that the star might have been
a miraculous object appearing _only_ to the Magi. But (as David
Hume pointed out two centuries ago) how could anybody confirm
this? For that matter, how did St. Matthew know about the star
if this were merely a vision vouchsafed only to the Magi? If a
perfectly reasonable astronomical/astrological explanation of the
star were available, why would one feel constrained to invoke a
miraculous explanation instead? Note that I am _not_ denying
miracles _per se_, but I feel uncomfortable evoking them before
all other alternatives have been exhausted.
Why did St. Matthew mention that the visitors from the East
were _magoi_? The very use of this word tells Matthew's readers
that the three "wise men" had to be Zoroastrian astrologers, for
whom "the appearance of new stars heralded the coming of great
world leaders, like Alexander" (cited in *Harper's Bible
Dictionary*, 7th ed. [1961], page 819). Having inherited the
traditions of Mesopotamian astronomy, the Magi would have been
looking for such omens as planetary conjunctions. Why were Herod
and his advisors surprised to hear of the Messiah's birth, and
why did Herod have the Magi explain to him about the new star?
The Jews did not _believe_ in astrology, so for them conjunctions
would not have been fraught with the same significance which they
had for other religious traditions. Note that the Magi did not
go to Bethlehem on their own; _Herod_ (guided by his own
religious advisors) told them to go there, because the Jewish
traditions about the Messiah stated that he would be born in
Bethlehem. Whether or not Herod believed in such astrological
predictions is irrelevant; that crafty and paranoid king would
never tolerate a rival, and would not want Magian
prognostications about a potential Messiah to encourage people to
withdraw support from the ruling dynasty.
Since St. Matthew was not himself an astrologer, but was
relating (to strengthen his claims that Jesus was the Messiah) a
foreign astrological tradition, his terminology about the star
"leading" the wise men and "resting" over the birthplace may be
imprecise. In a triple conjunction, we have our first line-of-
sight alignment when a slightly faster planet (e.g., Jupiter in 7
B.C.) overtakes a slower (i.e., Saturn). Over the next few
months, Jupiter would move to the east of Saturn. However, as
the Earth overtook Jupiter, the latter would appear to move
backward (retrograde motion), and would line up with Saturn for a
second time. Finally, after the Earth had raced well ahead of
Jupiter and had begun to round the Sun, Jupiter would appear to
resume its eastward (prograde) motion, and would pass Saturn for
the third time! Thus the "Christmas star," if defined as a
planetary conjunction, would in fact appear, disappear, and
reappear over the course of a year. The Magi could have seen the
first Jupiter-Saturn conjunction (to use one plausible example)
in Pisces on May 29, 7 B.C. They may have set out for Judea,
arriving there in time for the second conjunction of October
19th. Sent by Herod to Bethlehem, they could have arrived in
that village in time for the final conjunction of November 31st.
"At the sight of the star they were overjoyed," but it did not
rest physically above the birthplace; rather, the last appulse
took place while the Magi were present within the town. Matthew
was not an astronomer, so he was struggling with lay terms to
describe an event that is difficult to depict even now without
diagrams!
In short, Matthew's account fits quite well with at least
one candidate, the triple Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of 7 B.C.,
and probably other appulses also. The astrologically significant
"star" would disappear as the planets pulled apart, only to
reassemble several months later. As I mentioned in my earlier
posting, the triple conjunction of 7 B.C. is recorded in
surviving Babylonian tablets from Sippur. Save for St. Matthew's
non-technical usage of "leading" and "resting" for astronomical
behavior, the account can be made to harmonize with natural
phenomena without recourse to miracles. What _is_ "miraculous"
is the fortuitous combination of so many planetary appulses in
this period of history, showing the incredible forethought and
advance planning of the solar system's Architect. . . .
------------------------------
From: Roger Bailey <RBAILEY@accdvm.accd.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 95 10:16:30 CST
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias !
From: Roger Bailey
Has there ever been found, in Patristic literature, an instance of the
misconstruction of a text, even a disastrous misconstruction ?
Has the expression 'male chauvinism' a place in scholarly discourse ?
What has political correctness to do with interpretation of a literary
text, at least interpretation to which it is intended that serious
students should give consideration ?
Best,
Roger
Roger Blackwell Bailey
Dept. of English
San Antonio College
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 09:19:34 CST
Subject: Re: PARADOUNAI TW SATANA
Original message sent on Fri, Jul 21 8:43 PM by Ken Penner:
>> On 18 Jul 95 at 10:30, 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?
<snip>
> The context of my original question had to do with church
> excommunication, an issue I don't see addressed in Romans
> 1:24ff. But then, the Hermas parable might not be about
> excommunication either. What do you think?
Well, I guess the main connection for me was the idea of discipline
in a very immediate sense, which seems to be the point of both 1Co 5
and Ro 1. In Ro 1 it is God doing the handing over to sinfulness without
restraint (the domain of Satan), and in 1Co 5 we see God's people
(the church at Corinth) handing over one to Satan. There seems to be
a parallelism here, but I could just be chasing shadows.
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
- ----
"If you are slaves to sin, why boast of free will?" -- Calvin
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 12:53:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: sarx in Paul
Thanks everyone for the references!
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
But Carl, in the case of the Irenaeus discussion, where is such a thing
possible? I know of no evidence which I can honestly say is not
mitigated by literary, rhetorical, or theological reflection, if you do
please share. Thus, if I am correct, our task is to try to read through
the reflections and recover in so far as is possible what MAY actually be
the historical verity.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings LIbrary
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 13:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Jesus a disciple
On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Eric Weiss wrote:
> What explicit support is there for this assumption that Jesus was a disciple
> of John's? That they knew each other, and maybe knew each other well, seems
> obvious (though there may be conflicting strands in the traditions). But
> that Jesus was a disciple of John as were Andrew and the other disciple in
> John 1:35ff ....
John baptized Jesus, which seemed to be a sign he joined John the
Baptist's movement in its call to repentance etc. Gospel of John shows
Jesus frequenting the place where John baptized and associating with
John's followers. Some of Jesus's followers seem to have originally been
John's and he seems to have met them through John's movement. Jesus
seems to have begun his career only after John was arrested, and then
Jesus followed very similar teachings and practices. Jesus in the
gospels claims that John's movement was a necessary preliminary to his
own, and he continued to mention and support John until the end of his
own (Jesus's) career. All the gospels mention John's preeminent role in
their story, and according to Acts etc., Jesus's followers seemed to
consider themselves a subset of John's general following.
All taken together, nowhere is Jesus called a follower of Jesus, and
indeed the idea would be blasphemy to those who believed in Jesus's
superiority to John. But reading between the lines, I think we can at
least say that Jesus behaved as a follower of John, even though there
were some differences between himself and John. In a sense, Jesus
proclaimed himself as the fulfillment of John's predictions and teachings.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias !
On 24 Jul 1995, Roger Bailey wrote:
> Has there ever been found, in Patristic literature, an instance of the
> misconstruction of a text, even a disastrous misconstruction ?
> Has the expression 'male chauvinism' a place in scholarly discourse ?
> What has political correctness to do with interpretation of a literary
> text, at least interpretation to which it is intended that serious
> students should give consideration ?
To address the last 2 questions: Male chauvinism or any chauvinism or
imperialism has a place in scholarly discussion for it is our basic
assumptions which inform how we read the text, just as at one time in the
not so distant past many "scholars" thought that Blacks were cursed as
children of Cain and the pigmentation was the mark God put on them.
Didn't matter that the flood wiped out everyone except Noah and his
family according to the story.....So if one assumes that there were no
women who were apostles and church leaders then Junia must be Junius.
Being PC-that is the last thing I have ever been labeled as, usually just
the opposite. I am of the old school where conclusions are supported by
the evidence and be reason: and I see no evidence other than a priori
assumptions to read IOUNIAN as male. So in this discussion PC has
nothing to with it.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 12:39:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias!
At 8:53 AM 7/24/95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>> Original message sent on Fri, Jul 21 11:24 AM by Edward Hobbs:
>
><snip>
>
>> Nevertheless,
>> "Junias" is listed in Bauer's Greek Lexicon as the name found
>> here. Bauer says that "the context" rules out the possibility
>> that the name is Junia, a woman's name! (The "context" shows
>> that Junia is an apostle!) The RSV translators accepted this
>> absurd attitude, as did the NIV. Interestingly enough, the 1611
>> "King James" Version had it right, and the NRSV has corrected the
>> absurdly male-chauvinist reading of Bauer, RSV, and NIV.
>
>Is this so absurd? Can you cite any ancient or patristic
>documents which point to any women being named as apostles? (I
>can't, but I'm happy to be corrected.)
A couple comments:
(1) I haven't as yet checked the Chrysostom citation suggested in Eric
Weiss' response to this message, but I don't think it should be surprising
if ancient or patristic documents pointing to women named as apostles
should be wanting. I don't readily accept everything Elaine Pagels
(_Gnostic Gospels_, etc.) has to say on the issue, but I think she has
demonstrated adequately how quickly the early church adopted the
patriarchal attitudes of Hellenistic-Roman culture upon becoming an
institution. Those letters of Paul which have the best claim to
authenticity are remarkably free of anything that could be called "sexism"
or even "hierarchic" attitudes. Luke in Acts also shows women in positions
of leadership in the church.
(2) While I'm not sure that Mark intended in his note to imply that BAGD
cannot be wrong so much as he was suggesting that BAGD just MIGHT be
correct after all. I would just like to inject a note of healthy
skepticism, however, regarding any "ipse dixit" acceptance of the authority
of BAGD or any other reference work. I know well that Liddell & Scott have
(has?) occasional demonstrable errors, and although it has been
demonstrated by Bruce Terry, much to my chagrin, that BAGD really DOES
demonstrate multiple attestations of hARPAGMON in Hellenistic texts, there
is no such thing as an infallible reference work. Now I'm curious what the
new edition of BAGD, which Edgar Krentz has told is is now in the press,
will say about dear Junia.
(3) My apologies for two sendings of my note about Sir Russell Meiggs this
morning. My Eudora program got hung on the transmission and indicated that
it hadn't gone through the first time.
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 12:46:02 CST
Subject: Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
On Fri, 21 Jul 95, Dennis Burke wrote:
>I admit that I am a layman and that I have only been reading about textual
>criticism for a little over a year,
Carlton Winbery is right. You've done very well in your studies in a year's
time to produce this reply.
>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.
Actually Bobiensis, MS "k," is not the oldest Latin gospel MS. That honor
goes to Vercellensis, known as "a," if I'm not mistaken. But "a" is missing
the end of Mark, so Bobiensis is the oldest Latin MS to bring evidence to bear
on the question. I am not impressed with the fact that the oldest Georgian
MSS date from A.D. 897 and 913. The chain of translation is probably from the
Armenian which is from the Syriac which is from the Greek. Aleph and B are
the oldest Greek MSS to bear on the question. Unfortunately, none of the
papyrii contain this section. Metzger has noted in his Textual Commentary
that despite the claim to the contrary, the Ethiopic MSS do contain the long
ending of Mark; they also contain the short ending, which means they
indirectly testify to the absence of the long ending.
But note that I have not discounted the date of these MSS. The long ending is
missing from two significant fourth century Alexandrian family manuscripts and
a Latin MS of the fourth/fifth centuries. This pushes the absence back to the
second century A.D. Note that this is the *only* evidence that these verses
were missing in the second century. I have seen the evidence for their absence
and it is strong.
>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?
No textual critic today would risk his reputation making such a claim, although
Hort came close to this. My concern is more with the easy dismissal of these
verses in more common sources: "The two most ancient and reliable Greek MSS do
not have these verses," as if that proves the case; and it doesn't.
>> 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.
My point is that this is more external evidence that proves the same thing that
the major evidence proves.
Please note also that manuscripts that contain the long ending of Mark together
with asterisks and obeli testify to two traditions--both those that contain it
and those that omit it.
>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.
Good, but not good enough to carry the question by itself.
Can it really be true that three Greek MSS, one Latin, one Syriac, one Coptic,
etc. outweigh all other MSS put together? Or perhaps the four uncials,
thirteen minuscules, one lectionary, the margin of the Syriac Harclean
version, and some Coptic and Ethiopic MSS that testify both ways tip the
scales?
Perhaps I have misunderstood and misrepresented Metzger, but I do not think
so.
>Again, you state that the external evidence for the long ending is strong. This
>is simply not true.
Wait, are you saying that the combined evidence of A C D K W Theta f13 28 33
565 700 892 most minuscules most Latin the Vulgate most Syriac and Coptic, the
Diatessaron, and quotes by Irenaeus and Tertullian in the second century is
*not* strong evidence? This is evidence from the Alexandrian, the Western,
the Caesarian, and the Byzantine text families, some of it ancient.
> 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."
I freely grant that Clement and Origen do not quote from these verses. Perhaps
it is no accident that both were from Alexandria where the strongest external
support for their omission occurs.
I have grave doubts that Eusebius and Jerome are primarily witnesses for the
absence of these verses. To paraphrase Eusebius, he is answering a question
about how to reconcile a discrepancy between the ending of Matthew and the
ending of Mark. He answers that on the one hand, someone might say that the
end of Mark is missing from some MSS, yes, from the very best ones. On the
other hand, someone else might say they are genuine, so he goes ahead to
explain how to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. It seems to me that in
this answer he testifies both to the existence and absence of the verses in
question. Comments, anyone?
I am looking for an English translation of Eusebius' passage, or even for a
copy of the Greek text. So far, the only copy I have been able to locate of
either is in Burgon's book, and he can hardly be said to be impartial.
Jerome says some similar things to Eusebius, although he does not say "someone
might say" these verses are absent. He writes as if most of the copies he
knows of do not contain these verses. He does, however, go on to explain the
apparent discrepancy, as if the verses were genuine. Burgon accuses Jerome of
copying Eusebius, and it may be possible. Again, Burgon is not impartial.
What bothers me, however, about Jerome's evidence, is that he included the
verses in his translation of the Vulgate. This makes it look to me like he
also knew both of their absense and presence.
>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.
You understate the internal case. There are sixteen words in these verses not
found elsewhere in Mark!
>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.
Thanks for your response, Dennis. My point is that the external evidence for
ending the gospel of Mark at 16:8 is good, but not good enough to carry the
question alone.
********************************************************************************
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: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 12:59:51 CST
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias!
On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> Those letters of Paul which have the best claim to
>authenticity are remarkably free of anything that could be called "sexism"
>or even "hierarchic" attitudes.
Carl, are you including 1 Corinthians in that list? I, for one, have heard
Paul bashed for his "sexist" attitudes in 1 Cor. 14:33b-36.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 14:05:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Junia again
Fellow-scholars:
A couple of questioning responses to my posting on Junia/Junias
prod me to take the time to spell out what Patristics readers all know.
Mark O'Brien of Dallas Theological Seminary asks if I can "cite any
ancient or patristic documents which point to any women being named as
apostles? (I can't, but I'm happy to be corrected.)"
The shoe is on the other foot, I'm afraid. This conversion of the
lady Junia (whom Paul calls an apostle) into a man with the non-existent
name of Junias is a fairly modern invention. Peter Lampe (a better
Patristics scholar than I -- I have read only a few thousand pages of the
Greek and Latin Father in their own languages, and make no pretense of
scholarship at it, especially since I spread it over almost 50 years) says:
"Without exception, the Church Fathers in late antiquity identified
Andronicus' partner in Rom. 16:7 as a woman, as did minuscule 33 ["the
Queen of the cursives," textual critics named it] in the 9th century which
records iounia with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Rom.
16:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine
name 'Junias.' This latter name did not exist in antiquity...." See his
"Iunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischen Apostel (Rom
16,7)" in *ZNW* 1985 (76:132-134).
Gerd Luedemann also has a good bibliography on this, in his *Das
Fruehe Christentum nach den *Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte* (1987).
The question isn't whether there are ANY ancient writers who consider
Junia a woman; it is whether there are any who consider her a man, with a
man's name. The answer is, No.
As for Roger Bailey's question, whether there has "ever been found, in
Patristic literature, an instance of the misconstruction of a text, even a
disastrous misconstruction?" -- For those who actually read the Fathers
(even if only in English translation), the question verges on the humorous.
(But of course I didn't say the Fathers had misconstrued--on the contrary!)
As for "political correctness," I've never been politically correct, to my
knowledge; but even the Pope issued a major document about a week ago which
in effect apologized for many centuries of male chauvinism in the church
(but still no ordination of women!). Or is the problem with the term "male
chauvinism"? The FACT of it is ancient, even though the term only appears
from the Napoleonic era onward (first in French). "Prejudiced belief in
the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind."--so the American
Heritage Dictionary. "An attitude of superiority toward members of the
opposite sex."--so Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Is there another
word I should have used?
It wasn't the Fathers who performed this sex-change operation; it
happened late in the medieval period, and gradually penetrated translations
(but only at the end of the 19th century on).
- --Edward Hobbs
(Sometime professor at University of Chicago; University of
California: Berkeley, San Francisco, and Davis campuses; Graduate
Theological Union; University of Judaism; Harvard; and Wellesley;
still refusing to retire)
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #796
*****************************
** 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