[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #803
b-greek-digest Friday, 28 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 803
In this issue:
Cynics
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: BG: Hort and AlephB
Re: centurion in matthew
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 13:41 CDT
Subject: Cynics
David Gowler wonders whether the quotation of Betz
supports the view that parts of Galilee were untainted
by Hellenism. It does not. Betz (nor anyone else, to
my knowledge) does not deny that there are similarities
between some Cynic teachings and some teachings of
Jesus. The presence of similarities, however, does
not entail influence (as Sandmel famously noted), nor
does it entail that the Mack-style Cynic model is
appropriate in explaining the Jesus of Q, GThomas, or the
canonical gospels. Betz is concerned with the
explanatory adequacy of the Cynic model in connection
with Jesus. He predicts "that a more precise interpre-
tation ... would make evident the even greater
differences between the teachings of Jesus and the
ancient Cynics" (p. 471). Betz's conclusion is
compatible with Martin Hengel's case for the widespread
influence of Hellenism in turn-of-the-era Palestine.
On the Cynics themselves, see A.J. Malherbe, "Self-
Definition among the Cynics," in B. Meyer & E. Sanders,
eds., *Jewish & Christian Self-Definition* (Fortress,
1982). On Galilee, Jesus, and the Cynics, see Sean
Freyne, "The Geography, Politics, and Economics of
Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus," in
B. Chilton and C. Evans, eds., *Studying the Historical
Jesus* (Brill, 1994), esp. p. 120: "Thus the Jesus
movement was not just another protest movement, venting
its anger on the elites. Neither did it espouse the
kind of social and personal withdrawal that was associated
with various forms of Cynicism...." --Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 15:08:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
>
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Vincent Broman wrote:
> nichael@sover.net wrote:
> > Fair enough. What I should have said is something to the effect that there
> > are three things that can be argued for: 1] a purely supernatural event; 2]
> > an astronomical event that was interpreted as "wonderous" and 3] Matthew
> > was attempting something more "metaphorical".
> > My point was only that #2 is ruled out.
> The argument about the rotation of the earth making it impossible
> to follow the star doesn't entirely rule out astronomical phenomena
> if the phenomenon is always localized at one time of day.
> E.g. the observation of Sirius rising (to predict Nile flooding) was
> always made at sunrise.
Yes, as I've pointed out (several times) in this discussion additional
information --as implicit in, for instance a heliacal rising-- would tend
to suggest a _general_ direction (i.e. "somewhere more or less east of
here"); at least for a few day (not however for an arbitrary length of
time).
But, once again, it would be useless in pointing to a specific location.
> In any case you haven't ruled out atmospheric phenomena, e.g. aurora
> borealis, ball lightning, marsh gas, UFOs, angels in geosynchronous orbit,
> or blimps loaded with Greek fire.
Well, actually the assumption of aurorae won't help the case (as a
moment's thought will demonstrate).
As to the the other suggestions --setting aside the fact that it is
pretty easy to show that none of these would do the job (an exercise left
to the reader)-- I will take these as Vincent's subtle reminder that
perhaps this discussion has outlived its usefulness. ;-)
Nichael
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
> I guess I would have to say that I consider this a special case of #3;
> that is, the distinction between 1] a "metaphor" (taken broadly) and 2] a
> record of an historical event, combined with a metaphor and rewritten to
> confirm to a theological need, is, I'm afraid, rather more subtle than my
> mind can handly this late on a Thursday afternoon. ;-)
>
> In any case, the original point --that as a record of a real, physical
> event Matthew's description cannot be taken seriously-- is not affected.
HOwever you wish to cut the pie. BUT, the point is very much affected.
The problem is that you are introducing a modern, literalist reading into
an ancient text. Dale Allison in the article someone else mentioned
appearing last year in BR argues that astral phenomena in the ancient
world are not just phenomena of the physical world but are viewed as
beings of a supernatural order and he suggests that the "going before" be
interpreted as an angel. You might also check out Allison and Davies
_Matthew 1-7_.
Second, reading meaning into historical events is not exclusively limited
to Matthew or to Judaism. (An eagle in Homer is seen as a negative
portent, etc. Is it so impossible that an eagle actually flew overhead?
ALong the same lines is it so impossible that Matthew's "star" refers to
an historical event interpreted theologically?
Third, everyplace the "star" prophecy of Numbers is referred to and used
in literature of the period the star is understood as a PERSON, not the
things we see at night after sunset. If your interpretation is correct,
Matthew is either off his rocker, or is unique in his understanding of
Numbers. I find this as implausible as you find his interpretation of an
historical event such as a comet or conjunction of planets. Rather is
Matthew is using this "star" prophecy one would expect him to use of
Jesus himself rather that some portent, since that is the way it was
understood.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings LIbrary
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 13:05:21 PDT
Subject: Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
David Gowler wrote:
>I hyperbolize because it seems to me that both extreme positions of Jesus
>being "purely" Jewish or hellenistic (e.g., cynic sage) are not only
>simplistic, but clearly wrong.
I don't know if there is any way to ascertain it, but I would suggest
the possibility that, even with the Hellenistic influence on Judaism,
there might be points (and I don't know if Cynic philosophy would fall in
this category) beyond which a Jew would not go. It seems to me that
from what we know about Jews in the Hellenistic world at large, there was
still some degree of separatenes of uniqueness to them. I don't want to
improperly retroject a modern example backwards, but I wonder if
communities within larger "melting pots", like the Chinese community in
China Town in San Francisco suggests that even in the midst of embracing
another culture to a large extent, there are still distinctives upon
which an ethnic group will push back against other cultural influences.
Frow what I've read, Japanese business, while adopting many "capitalist"
and "American" practices and forms still abides by centuries-old customs
and beliefs which make it at variance with the way US companies do
business.
It could therefore be the case that even if Jews in Galilee had
"contact" with various other ideas, those ideas would not have been able
to get a sympathetic hearing and thus be a no-op culturally. Sorry, I
guess I better explain that in my work context, a no-op is a computer
language instruction that basically does nothing. They do have a
purpose, but dont' actually cause the computer to do anything.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:00:18 -0500
Subject: Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
At 1:05 PM 7/27/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>David Gowler wrote:
>
>>I hyperbolize because it seems to me that both extreme positions of Jesus
>>being "purely" Jewish or hellenistic (e.g., cynic sage) are not only
>>simplistic, but clearly wrong.
>
> I don't know if there is any way to ascertain it, but I would suggest
>the possibility that, even with the Hellenistic influence on Judaism,
>there might be points (and I don't know if Cynic philosophy would fall in
>this category) beyond which a Jew would not go. It seems to me that
>from what we know about Jews in the Hellenistic world at large, there was
>still some degree of separatenes of uniqueness to them.
It seems to me that to ask the question in this way is practically to beg
it. While it may be true that Essenes (whom Hengel has argued to be HEAVILY
influenced by Hellenism) looked upon Sadducees as non-Jews and upon avowed
philhellenists as (dare I use an anachronism?) Quislings or what-have-you,
I would guess that people in Palestine and in the Mediterranean Diaspora
too ranged all across the spectrum in openness to Hellenism but that
relatively few (I confess I am guessing here) did not consider themselves
Jews. I suspect that even among those who piously went to the Temple in
Jerusalem for festivals there were wide divergences regarding how they
understood "being Jewish."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:02:24 -0500
Subject: Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
At 1:05 PM 7/27/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>David Gowler wrote:
>
>>I hyperbolize because it seems to me that both extreme positions of Jesus
>>being "purely" Jewish or hellenistic (e.g., cynic sage) are not only
>>simplistic, but clearly wrong.
>
> I don't know if there is any way to ascertain it, but I would suggest
>the possibility that, even with the Hellenistic influence on Judaism,
>there might be points (and I don't know if Cynic philosophy would fall in
>this category) beyond which a Jew would not go. It seems to me that
>from what we know about Jews in the Hellenistic world at large, there was
>still some degree of separatenes of uniqueness to them.
It seems to me that to ask the question in this way is practically to beg
it. While it may be true that Essenes (whom Hengel has argued to be HEAVILY
influenced by Hellenism) looked upon Sadducees as non-Jews and upon avowed
philhellenists as (dare I use an anachronism?) Quislings or what-have-you,
I would guess that people in Palestine and in the Mediterranean Diaspora
too ranged all across the spectrum in openness to Hellenism but that
relatively few (I confess I am guessing here) did not consider themselves
Jews. I suspect that even among those who piously went to the Temple in
Jerusalem for festivals there were wide divergences regarding how they
understood "being Jewish."
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: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:00:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> The problem is that you are introducing a modern, literalist reading into
> an ancient text. Dale Allison in the article someone else mentioned
> appearing last year in BR argues that astral phenomena in the ancient
> world are not just phenomena of the physical world but are viewed as
> beings of a supernatural order and he suggests that the "going before" be
> interpreted as an angel. [...]
> [E]veryplace the "star" prophecy of Numbers is referred to and used
> in literature of the period the star is understood as a PERSON, not the
> things we see at night after sunset. If your interpretation is correct,
> Matthew is either off his rocker, or is unique in his understanding of
> Numbers. I find this as implausible as you find his interpretation of an
> historical event such as a comet or conjunction of planets. Rather is
> Matthew is using this "star" prophecy one would expect him to use of
> Jesus himself rather that some portent, since that is the way it was
> understood.
Larry, I think we're in violent agreement on this topic. As I thought I
made clear elsewhere in this discussion --and if this point wasn't clear I
thank you for pointing it out-- I find nothing at all questionable or
unreasonable about the assumption that the purpose of Matthew's story was
interpretive. And I'm _certainly_ not trying to say that a literalist
reading is the correct one; quite the contrary.
Rather, the only point I was trying to argue was one of astronomy. I was
reacting to what I saw as various attempts to rationalize away what is,
speaking purely physically, a fundamentally flawed story; attempts that
moreover, were themselves rooted in misunderstanding.
> (An eagle in Homer is seen as a negative
> portent, etc. Is it so impossible that an eagle actually flew overhead?
> ALong the same lines is it so impossible that Matthew's "star" refers to
> an historical event interpreted theologically?
Of course not (and again, I've never argued differently).
However, Matthew doesn't just say "a star appeared in the sky". He
attributes specific physical attributes to it --it "rests", it could be
"followed" to a specific location-- that are simply impossible physically.
Furthermore, to use your example, there may well have have been a "comet
or conjunction of planets"; it's just that they wouldn't have behaved in
the way that Matthew claimed his star did.
Rather, the correct analogy here would be if Homer had his eagle separate
into a dozen pieces, each of which took wing and began proclaiming the
name of a different god in a human voice. Faced with such a story --and
this story is no more impossible than what Matthew describes-- it would
not be unreasonable to point out that whether or not he is speaking (for
want of a better term) metaphorically, he certainly can't be describing a
physical event (well, OK, at least not a non-supernatural one).
Nichael
ncramer@sover.net
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:46:11 CST
Subject: Re: BG: Hort and AlephB
On Thu, 27 Jul 95, Dennis Burke wrote:
>As for only significant variants being examined, I don't know enough about the
>case to be sure. However, it appears that the committee examined at least
>2324 sets of variants. This comes from the prefaces of Metzger's _Textual
>Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition_. The prefaces state that
>UBS3 lists 1440 sets of variants and UBS4 adds 284 more sets of variants (but
>273 were no longer listed/marked in UBS4, but were still variants considered
>by the committee) and Metzger lists 600 more variants which were examined
>by the committee, but not listed/marked. So, 1440 + 284 + 600 = 2324 sets
>of variants examined by the committee. That's about 1 variant for every 3
>verses in the New Testament. Now, it's possible that there may be more than
>1 variant per verse, but it's quite a coincidence that the table on page 29
>of Aland/Aland's _Text of the New Testament_ shows that 62.9% of the verses
>of the New Testament are variant free (except for orthographical differences)
>for the 7 editions of GNTs compared. These 7 are: N/A, Tischendorf, Vogels,
>Wescott-Hort, von Soden, Merk and Bover. There may be many less-significant
>variants to be examined, but examining over 2300 is, in my opinion, a pretty
>good start.
Dennis--
Thanks for pointing out this information from the Textual Commentary and the
Aland and Aland book. I don't have a 2nd ed. of the TC so I'm not sure
exactly what the +284-273 figures refer to but the 2040 were in the 1971
edition. I would guess they merely promoted 284 of the 600 and demoted 273,
but they may actually have worked through another 284 variants. If so, good!
My concern, however, is that from p. 29 of Aland and Aland one can see that
there are textual questions between the 7 listed editions of the GNT in 2948
verses. In some cases there may be more than one variant in a verse. I am
impressed by the 2324 figure (or even the 2040 figure), but this means there
are at least 600 variants which the committee has not yet examined. It's not
the things I know I don't know that bother me so much as the things I don't
know I don't know :).
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:03:00 -0700
Subject: Re: centurion in matthew
Gregory Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu) wrote
>
>
>Also, Matthew preserves more complexity and less ambiguity in wording
>about the person who was ill. In Matthew he is the centurion's
_pais_,
>which I take to mean his homosexual lover (as contrasted with _doulOi_
in
>verse 9).
More likely, Greg, is that it simply means servant. Cf. especially
Mat. 12:18 where Jesus is prophetically referred to as hO PAIS MOU in a
citation from Isaiah's Servant Song. Another passage in Mat. where
PAIS is used for "servant" is 14:2 (Herod's servants). In Luke, Mary
refers to Israel with the expression, ANTELABETO ISRAHL PAIDOS AUTOU
(1:54), and she refers to King David as DAUEID PAIDOS AUTOU. Christ
warns in a parable, against mistreating fellow servants in the Lord,
referring to them as TOUS PAIDAS KAI TAS PAIDISKAS (Lu. 12:45). The
brother of the prodigal son calls hENA TWN PAIDWN to find out what the
party is about (Lu. 15:26).
Since the meaning you cite for PAIS is not found in other passages
of the NT, and since there is nothing in the context of the healing of
the centurion's servant to indicate it should be so understood there,
it seems best to stick with "servant."
David L. Moore Department 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, 27 Jul 1995 20:33:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Nichael Cramer (nichael@sover.net) wrote
>
>
>On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
>> The problem is that you are introducing a modern, literalist reading
into
>> an ancient text. Dale Allison in the article someone else mentioned
>> appearing last year in BR argues that astral phenomena in the
ancient
>> world are not just phenomena of the physical world but are viewed as
>> beings of a supernatural order and he suggests that the "going
before" be
>> interpreted as an angel. [...]
>> [E]veryplace the "star" prophecy of Numbers is referred to and used
>> in literature of the period the star is understood as a PERSON, not
the
>> things we see at night after sunset. If your interpretation is
correct,
>> Matthew is either off his rocker, or is unique in his understanding
of
>> Numbers. I find this as implausible as you find his interpretation
of an
>> historical event such as a comet or conjunction of planets. Rather
is
>> Matthew is using this "star" prophecy one would expect him to use of
>> Jesus himself rather that some portent, since that is the way it was
>> understood.
>
>Larry, I think we're in violent agreement on this topic. As I thought
I
>made clear elsewhere in this discussion --and if this point wasn't
clear I
>thank you for pointing it out-- I find nothing at all questionable or
>unreasonable about the assumption that the purpose of Matthew's story
was
>interpretive. And I'm _certainly_ not trying to say that a literalist
>reading is the correct one; quite the contrary.
>
>Rather, the only point I was trying to argue was one of astronomy. I
was
>reacting to what I saw as various attempts to rationalize away what
is,
>speaking purely physically, a fundamentally flawed story; attempts
that
>moreover, were themselves rooted in misunderstanding.
>
>> (An eagle in Homer is seen as a negative
>> portent, etc. Is it so impossible that an eagle actually flew
overhead?
>> ALong the same lines is it so impossible that Matthew's "star"
refers to
>> an historical event interpreted theologically?
>
>Of course not (and again, I've never argued differently).
>
>However, Matthew doesn't just say "a star appeared in the sky". He
>attributes specific physical attributes to it --it "rests", it could
be
>"followed" to a specific location-- that are simply impossible
physically.
>Furthermore, to use your example, there may well have have been a
"comet
>or conjunction of planets"; it's just that they wouldn't have behaved
in
>the way that Matthew claimed his star did.
>
>Rather, the correct analogy here would be if Homer had his eagle
separate
>into a dozen pieces, each of which took wing and began proclaiming the
>name of a different god in a human voice. Faced with such a story
- --and
>this story is no more impossible than what Matthew describes-- it
would
>not be unreasonable to point out that whether or not he is speaking
(for
>want of a better term) metaphorically, he certainly can't be
describing a
>physical event (well, OK, at least not a non-supernatural one).
If we take EN THi ANATOLHi as "in ascendence," it would not be
beyond reason to think that the Magi may have seen the same star over
Bethlehem when they left Herod's presence. As to their seeing the star
"go before them" and "stay over the place where the Baby was," it is
probably best to read some authors from antiquity to see how they
interpreted signs (I've been reading some Seutonius lately). I don't
think it would be reaching too far to consider that the Magi
interpreted their experience (and related what they saw) in much the
same way as the former.
David L. Moore Department of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #803
*****************************
** 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