[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

b-greek-digest V1 #846




b-greek-digest           Saturday, 2 September 1995     Volume 01 : Number 846

In this issue:

        Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
        Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
        Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 16:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23

On Fri, 1 Sep 1995 Jan.Haugland@uib.no wrote:

> Larry Swain said:

> With "desolation" I take you mean the "abomination" or "desolationg sacrilege", 
> spoken of in Daniel (v15). Is that correct? 

Most of those who study Matthew are in concurrance that Matthew here is 
referring to Daniel, yes.  However my immediate referent was to the 
Matthean text.

> >           1. At the time of this tribulation there will be false Christs.
> 
> I will agree. At the time of the siege of Jerusalem there will be false 
> Christs.

You again, as you did with Carl, overstate your case.  First, because you 
can't agree with me, since my suggestion has to do with the structure of 
the passage and the use of TOTE, and not anything about the content of 
the passage.  You are trying to get your plum to agree that it is an apple.
 
> Another detail: v21 describes the great tribulation as "such as has not been 
> from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." If we take 
> these words to mean what they say, it will exclude any and all interpretations 
> with more than one such "tribulation". If we agree it refers to the siege of 
> Jerusalem, and in Matthew I can't imagine you can get by that, then this is the 
> only tribulation Jesus foretold according to Matthew.

Well, let me play devil's advocate here.  70AD is not worse than 585 BC 
or 132 AD.  The Babylonian Captivity not only destroyed the city and the 
Temple, but scattered the Israelites among the "nations", 70 did not.  In 
fact if the Mishnah is to be believed sacrifices continued to be offered 
at the Temple and on the reconsecrated altar after 70.  The aftermath of 
the bar Kochba revolt, which actually did have a "proclaimed" messiah, 
proclaimed at least by Akiva, the Jews were prohibited from entering the 
Holy City, no sacrifices were offered thereafter.  It seems a) that the 
Babylonian captivity was on a much worse scale than 70 historically, and 
b) that the Bar Kochba revolt fits your interpretation better.

Finally I do disagree that it refers to Jerusalem, I am one of a minority 
who would date Matthew before 70, in fact as early as 62.  There it is.  
So that for me is not taken for granted.

On a related subject, Jan, you are still arguing issues of faith on a 
list devoted to issues of scholarship.  Our purpose here is neither to 
confirm you faith statements nor to deride them.  They in this discussin 
are moot.

Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com

------------------------------

From: Jan.Haugland@uib.no
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 01:43:07 +0200
Subject: Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23

> On a related subject, Jan, you are still arguing issues of faith on a 
> list devoted to issues of scholarship.  Our purpose here is neither to 
> confirm you faith statements nor to deride them.  They in this discussin 
> are moot.

Larry,

I think this was a very unfair statement, and completely uncalled for. My 
understanding of these texts is the most direct and natural, and if you are not 
able to show otherwise from the text itself it's bordering to ad hominem to 
throw this accusation at me. I had a very detailed knowledge about these texts 
long before I acquired this "faith" you talk about. The "faith", which is 
irrelevant to this group anyway,  comes from the interpretation of the text not 
the other way around -- unlike for most others. 

It requires an enormous amount of faith to squeeze 1900+ years inside a "tote" 
like you do, and it has nothing more to do with scholarship than whatever I may 
have said.

Interpretation of an alleged holy text is very often related to faith. Whether 
you like it or not, our faith strongly interferes with all our interpretations. 
A group for "pure scholarship", whatever that is, would have to be void of 
people with any such faith.

So, stick to the facts.


All the best,

- - Jan
- --
   "Life may have no meaning -- or even worse, it may 
    have a meaning of which I disapprove."



------------------------------

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 18:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23

I wrote:
> > On a related subject, Jan, you are still arguing issues of faith on a 
> > list devoted to issues of scholarship.  Our purpose here is neither to 
> > confirm you faith statements nor to deride them.  They in this discussin 
> > are moot.

JanH Haugland replied:
 
> Larry,
> 
> I think this was a very unfair statement, and completely uncalled for. My 
> understanding of these texts is the most direct and natural, and if you are not 
> able to show otherwise from the text itself it's bordering to ad hominem to 
> throw this accusation at me. I had a very detailed knowledge about these texts 
> long before I acquired this "faith" you talk about. The "faith", which is 
> irrelevant to this group anyway,  comes from the interpretation of the text not 
> the other way around -- unlike for most others. 

If I have caused offense, I apologize, it was not my intent.  I do 
however think that it is very called for.  In your mind your 
understanding of the texts is the most direct and natural.  However, the 
majority of academia views these texts as referring to the events of 70 
AD because they do so after the fact:  Matthew is usually dated in the 
70s or 80s and Luke almost certainly and universally in the 80s.  If the 
majority of scholarship is correct in this regard, then for the people 
who recorded these words in the Little Apocalypse, the parousia is yet 
future.  Thus, the most natural understanding of the text changes.  If on 
the other hand you take the preterist viewpoint, a stance of faith by the 
way, then the natural understanding of the text changes again.  The 
natural understanding of the text depends on where you begin, and you Jan 
have made it very clear that you begin with a belief that the parousia 
took place in 70 AD: your first post on this subject to this list stated 
it baldly.  That is a statement of faith, not a statement dealing with 
academic issues.

> It requires an enormous amount of faith to squeeze 1900+ years inside a "tote" 
> like you do, and it has nothing more to do with scholarship than whatever I may 
> have said.

Again I must confront you on ad hominem statements.  First, in none of my 
posts either on list or off have I suggested that TOTE means 1900 years: 
Quote me.  You have made unqulaified assumptions which you have used as 
premises, however faulty they are.   Second, another assumption you have 
made is  that I believe (and here we enter the realm of faith) anything 
remotely similar to parousia of 1900+ years.  Third, since my very brief 
foray in this discussion said nothing about how many years your charge 
here is not only miscontrual (deliberate?  miscomprehended?) but actually 
takes on the flavor of a personal attack.   Fourth, and finally on this 
statement, again I challenge you to show where in my statement to this 
list my scholarship is in question.  You may disagree with the conclusion 
which I drew, but that is not the same as saying that the scholarship is 
faulty.
 
> Interpretation of an alleged holy text is very often related to faith. Whether 
> you like it or not, our faith strongly interferes with all our interpretations. 
> A group for "pure scholarship", whatever that is, would have to be void of 
> people with any such faith.

No one has suggested otherwise.  However fine the line may be at times, 
there is tacit agreement that the faith presuppositions behind what we do 
stay in the background as we discuss the academic approaches to the 
texts, not very different than discussions on another list regarding the 
meaning of something Tacitus wrote.  I don't regard Tacitus as a holy text.

 > So, stick to the facts.

Which is basically my adjuration here Jan.  As I noted in this too long a 
post, there are several glaring factual errors both in the 
presuppositions you make, as well as in your reportage.  Follow your own 
advice, and all manner of this shall be well.

Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com


------------------------------

End of b-greek-digest V1 #846
*****************************

** 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