[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #804
b-greek-digest Saturday, 29 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 804
In this issue:
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Cynics
Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
Re: centurion in matthew
pais=homosexual lover?
pais=homosexual lover?
Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
Re: Bilingualism
Re: centurion in matthew
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 23:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Nichael wrote:
> >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.
I think we agree on the interpretive purpose. I don't think we agree on
historicity. I responded to what I thought you were saying: we know that
stars don't enter earth's atomosphere and lead people to physical locales
and stand above something as small as a stable. This being true, then
Matthew is not speaking of an historical event but rather is affecting
another OT prophecy, Numbers 24.17 "a star shall arise out of Jacob".
This is what I thought your position was, if not I apologize for not
reading your comments carefully enough.
If it is your position, then we do have some differences.
> >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.
Flawed only from our perspective when we read Matthew literally. From
his perspective not so flawed-of course he doesn't expect the star to
come stand over the stable-we know that the ancients were not so naive-if
memory serves Clement of Alex actually discusses this very point. And
this is what I meant about reading literally-a literal reading is not one
that takes the text at face value and pronounces it true, a literal
reading is also one which takes the text at face value and pronounces it
false. I ask what did Matthew mean when he described this. WHat beliefs
or observations of the stars and their portents were common? Could
Allison's position represent at least in part what Matthew is getting at?
And David wrote:
> 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, you have been quiet of late. It is good to see you back. I
basically agree with you here and apologize to all for not including it
earlier. One thing to note in this connection is that the text does NOT
say that the star guided the Magifrom the East, only after they visited
Herod does the star "move". But that phrase in verse 9 is problematic to
say the least, but I think we are trying too hard to make it fit our
knowledge and not the first century which is precisely the point you make
here.
Larry Swain
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:30:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
At 11:20 PM 27/07/95, Larry Swain wrote:
>I think we agree on the interpretive purpose. I don't think we agree on
>historicity. I responded to what I thought you were saying: we know that
>stars don't enter earth's atomosphere and lead people to physical locales
>and stand above something as small as a stable. This being true, then
>Matthew is not speaking of an historical event but rather is affecting
>another OT prophecy, Numbers 24.17 "a star shall arise out of Jacob".
>This is what I thought your position was, if not I apologize for not
>reading your comments carefully enough.
>
>If it is your position, then we do have some differences.
I don't know if Matthew was describing an underlying historical event; nor
at the moment am I particularly interested in that. What I have pointed
out is that _as described_ the event could not have taken place. That is
the only point I have made.
> ... And
>this is what I meant about reading literally-a literal reading is not one
>that takes the text at face value and pronounces it true, a literal
>reading is also one which takes the text at face value and pronounces it
>false.
Quite right; a position I've argued here (and elsewhere) several times myself.
Here, however, I was writing in reaction to the attempts to make the
Matthew's description literally true.
>Flawed only from our perspective when we read Matthew literally. From
>his perspective not so flawed-of course he doesn't expect the star to
>come stand over the stable-we know that the ancients were not so naive-if
>memory serves Clement of Alex actually discusses this very point.
More power to the ancients. But might I point out that more than one
person on this very list --here, now, in the late 20th century-- has
attempted to justify as physically possible that a star could stand still
or that it could be followed to a specific location.
N
------------------------------
From: MikeWicker@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 11:26:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
In a message dated 95-07-28 08:28:56 EDT, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn
Cramer) writes:
>I don't know if Matthew was describing an underlying historical event; nor
>at the moment am I particularly interested in that. What I have pointed
>out is that _as described_ the event could not have taken place. That is
>the only point I have made.
>
>
Are you saying that God was unable to do this? Texts ought to be taken
literally unless there is some very compelling reason to do otherwise. Again
I refer to the sea creature that swallowed Jonah. This story is certainly
intended to be understood as an historical event. Is there a problem with
this that I don't see?
Mike Wicker, Pastor
Grace Bible Church
Elmer, NJ
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 15:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Cynics
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Paul Moser wrote:
> 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.
Once again:
1. I disagree with the "Mack-style Cynic model" and said so quite
clearly in my last post, so the point about Mack, for me, is a given.
2. However, the way the issue is framed above once again simplifies the
discussion into an category of (direct?) "influence." Surely the
historical-critical model can negotiate some areas of agreement with a
social-semiotic model that talks about cultural discourse and indirect
"influences." How else do we explain the common _topoi_ in the Jesus
materials? Parallelomania may be an issue with Mack's arguments, but not
here. The issue is: How can we explain the similarities *and*
differences?
3. The above approach, it seems to me, does not sufficiently grasp the
complexity of the nature of language and cultural discourse, especially
the competing systems of active polyglossia in the first century.
> 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).
I hope that Betz would agree that the best approach would be to examine as
closely as possible BOTH the similarities and differences.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 16:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> 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.
I had suggested varying degrees of assimilation, but your statement also
necessitates the definition of what it took to be "a Jew" in the first
century. I won't attempt that here, though.
The evidence suggests that many Jews sought to keep themselves "separate"
(even though it was impossible to do that totally -- every single
first-century Jew had been, at least indirectly, affected by hellenistic
culture). On the other hand, the evidence also demonstrates that many
Jews became much more assimilated. Hengel postualtes that 15% of the
people in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus spoke Greek as their native
tongue. Of course not many Jews studied Homer at the Greek school *in
Jerusalem* (before the Maccabean War), but some did.
Of course many Jews also would never have "made a graven image." It would
have been unthinkable to many scholars today to admit that, until the
discoveries of such items in the synagogue at Dura Europas and now at
Sepphoris in the Galilee.
And as Martin Goodman convincingly demonstrated in his book on the
Galilee, many of the proscriptions against contact with Gentiles came
about *because there was so much contact with Gentiles*, inappropriate
contact in the rabbis' opinion.
> 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,
I don't know of anyone who would disagree with your idea of a general
"separatedness." Perhaps the examples of the ancient world would be more
apropos, such as the different ways in which the Jewish populations in
Rome situated themselves geographically, as opposed to the situation in
Alexandria. It also varies from case to case: Philo was deeply
"hellenized," but still remained very "Jewish" (e.g., his lengthy
discussion on circumcision talks about that it is imporatant only
symbolically and spiritually, etc., but when he comes right down to it, he
advises, "Go and do it physically anyway."
> 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.
My argument: Jesus was a Jew and was *deeply embedded* in Judaism,
culturally, religiously, etc. Yet it is not legitmate to think of Jesus
as growing up in a cultural or religious "isolation booth." The village
of Nazareth was not an isolated backwater (Sepphoris six miles away;
Nazareth was along a branch of a very busy trading route -- the Via
Maris; Capernaum, we now know, served as a gateway to the important
Gaulanitis (Golan Heights); and so forth). See Meyers and Strange,
_Archeology_. But that doesn't speak against your "no-op."
The evidence suggests that it was not a complete "no-op"; even on the most
basic level of language and discourse, this has to be the case, due to the
nature of language, including cultural and social discourse. There were
direct and indirect "influences" that were unavoidable. Once again, that
is NOT a challenge to the "Jewishness" of Jesus, but it is a challenge to
those who ONLY want to see the Hebrew Bible -- and it only -- as the
"background" for the total world view of Jesus. Somehow that is more
"safe" theologically to many people. That context may be dominant, but it
is not the only context.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:00:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: centurion in matthew
David,
We know that _pais_ has a broad range semantically, so the meaning must
always be decided by context, e.g., in Matt. 14:2 we read "servants"
so as not to think Herod is blustering to a bunch of little boys, his
sons, or multiple adult male lovers (!).
The most unambiguous Greek word for slave was _doulos_, which is what
Luke uses first before he uses _pais_ (7:7). In other words, it appears
Luke has selected one of the meanings of _pais_ in his source and brought
it to the fore. John did the opposite in John 4:43-54 (a more distant
version of the same story) - he uses _huios_ (son) first, then _pais_.
So here we have two different takes on _pais_ plus one version, Matthew,
which uses only _pais_. I bet Q had only _pais_ with enough context
to cause both Luke's and John's traditions to move uncomfortably to
change it.
Unlike the other uses of _pais_ one might cite, this is in reference to a
Gentile Greek. The context in Matthew does not explain why a Roman
centurion, of all people, would be worked up over the health of a single
slave. Luke, in his turn to _doulos_, does: he explains that the slave was
_autOi entimos_ (7:2) - "honored" in an unromantic mode - and dying.
Within the passage, Matthew uses both _doulos_ (8:9) and _huios_ (8:12),
but *not* in reference to the _pais_. These are probably where Luke and
John or their sources got the ideas to recast the original account, which I
think was more like Matthew's in this case.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Greg Hahn <ghahn@iglou.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 18:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: pais=homosexual lover?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 15:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Hahn <ghahn@iglou.com>
To: owner-b-greek-digest@virginia.edu
Subject: pais=homosexual lover?
>
> From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 20:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: centurion in matthew
>
> 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
Really?!? Why? I would really like to be enlightened as to the use of
PAIS in that manner. I don't see any reference to such in BAG. (or any
other source that I am aware of.)
Further, even if PAIS did carry such a meaning, why would we believe that
Matthew intended it as such here?
Thanks!
Greg Hahn
------------------------------
From: Greg Hahn <ghahn@iglou.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 18:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: pais=homosexual lover?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 18:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Hahn <ghahn@iglou.com>
To: b-greek-digest@virginia.edu
Subject: pais=homosexual lover?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 15:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Hahn <ghahn@iglou.com>
To: owner-b-greek-digest@virginia.edu
Subject: pais=homosexual lover?
>
> From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 20:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: centurion in matthew
>
> 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
Really?!? Why? I would really like to be enlightened as to the use of
PAIS in that manner. I don't see any reference to such in BAG. (or any
other source that I am aware of.)
Further, even if PAIS did carry such a meaning, why would we believe that
Matthew intended it as such here?
Thanks!
Greg Hahn
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 95 16:47:45 PDT
Subject: Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
David,
You wrote:
The evidence suggests that it was not a complete "no-op"; even on the most
basic level of language and discourse, this has to be the case, due to the
nature of language, including cultural and social discourse. There were
direct and indirect "influences" that were unavoidable. Once again, that
is NOT a challenge to the "Jewishness" of Jesus, but it is a challenge to
those who ONLY want to see the Hebrew Bible -- and it only -- as the
"background" for the total world view of Jesus. Somehow that is more
"safe" theologically to many people. That context may be dominant, but it
is not the only context.
I don't think I tried to argue that Jesus knew nothing of non-Hebraic
culture. It would be difficult if not impossible to know how the
average Jew in Galilee would have been affected by the culture. My
point was to suggest that some things in Hellenistic culture might be
known about by Jesus but promptly rejected. Just as I, as a Christian,
know a little bit about Islam, but reject it, so that Islamic thought
does not influence my thoughts or ideas at all (at least so far as I
know), Jesus could well have been aware of any number of philosophical
or religious ideas (and I'd be happy to know that he was aware of other
ideas but rejected them, rather than troubled by that), but
immediately upon learning about them rejected them because they did not
fit into his worldview. They created no cognitive dissonance for him.
I would think that Cynic ideas, what little I know about them, would fall
in this category, so that any similarities would have to be understood
as coming from a different source (or originating with Jesus himself,
given that I would allow him some thoughts and ideas of his own, unlike
some schools of NT criticsim).
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
Soon to be of GTU,
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: RLTrapp@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 20:51:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Bilingualism
To any and all:
I am relatively new to the list and am mostly a lurker, but I have a question
which I think some of you could probably answer for me. I read recently
something about most Jews being bilingual in the first century. My
question--Is this true and, if so, where can I get some more information
about it?
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Lynn Trapp
Coppell, Texas
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 20:08:06 -0700
Subject: Re: centurion in matthew
Gregory Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu) wrote
>We know that _pais_ has a broad range semantically, so the meaning
must
>always be decided by context, e.g., in Matt. 14:2 we read "servants"
>so as not to think Herod is blustering to a bunch of little boys, his
>sons, or multiple adult male lovers (!).
>
>The most unambiguous Greek word for slave was _doulos_, which is what
>Luke uses first before he uses _pais_ (7:7). In other words, it
appears
>Luke has selected one of the meanings of _pais_ in his source and
brought
>it to the fore. John did the opposite in John 4:43-54 (a more distant
>version of the same story) - he uses _huios_ (son) first, then _pais_.
>So here we have two different takes on _pais_ plus one version,
Matthew,
>which uses only _pais_. I bet Q had only _pais_ with enough context
>to cause both Luke's and John's traditions to move uncomfortably to
>change it.
>
>Unlike the other uses of _pais_ one might cite, this is in reference
to a
>Gentile Greek. The context in Matthew does not explain why a Roman
>centurion, of all people, would be worked up over the health of a
single
>slave. Luke, in his turn to _doulos_, does: he explains that the
slave was
>_autOi entimos_ (7:2) - "honored" in an unromantic mode - and dying.
>
>Within the passage, Matthew uses both _doulos_ (8:9) and _huios_
(8:12),
>but *not* in reference to the _pais_. These are probably where Luke
and
>John or their sources got the ideas to recast the original account,
which I
>think was more like Matthew's in this case.
Should we choose that meaning for PAIS when there is nothing in the
context (Luke's AUTWi ENTIMOS notwithstanding) that definitely points
to such an interpretation? In fact, nowhere in the NT can we say that
PAIS is definitely used in that sense. Upon skimming through the
references for PAIS in Hatch & Redpath, I found no uses of the word
with that meaning in the LXX either. Although PAIS may be fairly
common in reference to catamites in pagan Greek literature, it seems to
be foreign to biblical literature in that sense.
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 #804
*****************************
** 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