b-greek-digest V1 #605

b-greek-digest             Friday, 10 March 1995       Volume 01 : Number 605

In this issue:

        Re: Historical Jesus 
        Re: Historical Jesus 
        Re: Q: Reality or Fantasy 
        Re: UBS3 is Poison 
        Mack on Q1 and Cynics
        Current threads: sorting out the issues
        Re: UBS3 is Poison
        On Preservation
        lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning 
        re: UBS3 is Poison
        re: UBS3 is Poison
        Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
        Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 02:06:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Jesus 

From: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
To: Andersos@cgs.edu (Stan Anderson)

Stan, you astutely noticed....
>A couple of observations.  First, the uncertainty principle of quantum
>physics (Which may not be a very good analogy to use here.) also
>affirms that the observer is changed by the event as well as the event
>being changed by the observer.  So one might argue that even though >in your
point 2) the questor molds Jesus into the questor's image the
>process will still have an effect on the investigator so that the
>investigator has been transformed by the search.

  I guess I thought of the analogy from quantum physics because in both
subnuclear physics and in source criticism we are talking about things
unseen.  As physics uses complex mathematics to speak of these
invisibilities, we as source critics face a complex task of discerning the
invisible layers (and vaportexts as Q) beneath the Biblical texts.  Going on
with this analogy,  I went on to suggest that there are so few historical
events of Jesus life that are recoverable, that we are putting more of
ourselves into what we perceive as the historical Jesus than anything.
  Where the uncertainty principle gets its name from is that we are not exactl
y certain what the real actualities are, since as we look at them we change
the event-- so we do not know for certain if what we perceive is what was
there before we perceived it.
  What I was meaning (whether I said this or not) was that in this quest we
may think we are seeing the "real" historical Jesus, when in fact we are bring
 more of our own perceptions into it than we may realize... and because there
is so little of what we know for certain about the historical Jesus, the
search results usually turn out more of seeing ourselves in the historical
>Second doesn't your uncertainty principle objection to the quest for
>the historical Jesus also aply to your study of the "early church's
>faith witness to the Jesus they knew"?  

  YES!!! Exactly!  That is a wonderful point: Because the "Jesus of faith"
that we know very well from the texts we have DO transform us as we view
them.  The whole point is for us to become part of the events of the gospel
stories we are hearing/reading. 
  And that is why I am not interested in the historical Jesus search and I am
interested in Biblical text studies.

Tim Staker


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 02:06:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Jesus 

From: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
Reply-to: bratton@acc.jc.edu (Timothy Bratton)
To: b-greek@virginia.edu

Timothy Bratton, you commented on 3/09/95---

>I find the allegations that not enough "historical" material has
>survived to write about Jesus incredible when E.P. Sanders wrote a >337 page
_The Historical Figure of Jesus_ (N.Y., N.Y.: Penguin, >1993) so recently.
 Since I am a relatively new member on this >board, were there extensive
on-line discussions and reviews of this >work?  And if not, perhaps this is
the time to do it!  I have the book >myself, but have not had the leisure to
read it yet; I believe that >Leroy Huizenga has a copy and may have started
to study it.  Any >contributors? 

  As i said before, I don't see where the historical sources are, except for
the New Testament, where Paul's information about the historical Jesus is
thin and the Gospels are mostly midrash interpretations of the OT and not
historical biographies.  Let me say I believe there is enough evidence that
Jesus did indeed live in history, that he did cause a ruckus in the Temple,
that he was crucified and died and there was something powerful that happened
after his death that launched the Christian movement which I personally
believe was his resurrection which cannot be historically proved, but I take
by faith.
  I have not seen Sander's book from 1993, but I did hear about it.  I didn't
know if it was a rehashing of <Jesus and Judaism>, and haven't seen a copy,
but your bringing it up again encourages me to obtain a copy.  I am fairly
new to b-greek mail list also, so I am unaware of any previous threads on it.
 BTW, Sander's <J & J> was also contained several hundred pages, with many
many important reference notes and sources.  A scholarly work.  If you get a
chance to peruse Sander's <Historical Figure of Jesus>, I would love to see
your comments.  Thanks.

>As an historian, I feel very uneasy with the argument that we are
>to accept Jesus solely on the grounds of faith.  For example, a >Moslem
might approach me claiming that I should accept the >_Qu'ran_ as the revealed
word of Allah, with Muhammed as His >Prophet. 

  Whether you accept Jesus as Savior or Muhammed as Allah's Prophet, either
decision would still be a step of faith, even after all of the "proofs" have
presented. Its a matter of the "leap of faith"

Referring to a rational choice of religion, based on historicity, you
referred to CS Lewis' contrasting... 

> for example, Islam soon appears inferior to Christianity because >Islam's
claims to be a religion of love is incompatible with the >_jihad_, and it
imposes a tremendous barrier between God and >mankind, whereas in Christianity
 "God so loved the world that he >sent his only begotten Son" to save us. 

  From what I know of Islam, it is a religion of love AND justice, which
includes a time for war (according to the Koran).  Contrasting this to our
Crusades and the event of the Holocaust, I think we are the ones who are to
worry about any claims to superiority.

> It is AFTER we have decided which religion is most likely to be >"true"
that we accept its remaining tenets on FAITH, and gain >additional insights
through REVELATION in Scripture. 

I would like to think this is true, but most of us are submerged in a culture
where one religion or another is prominant, and we tend to not question the
religion we have known all our lives, while being cautious and critical of
faiths we are not very familiar with.  I have read some of the Koran in
English and appreciate its insights, but prefer the Bible, but then I have
known the Bible most of my life and am comfortable with it.  Plus my personal
experiences with God have been in the context of Scripture, the church, and
Christ.  But I feel that there are some Islamic folk who may experience God
but not know Christ.  I have ben impressed with the similarity of the concept
of "doing islam", that is, being submissive to God, and the Reformation
doctrine of salvation not by any work, but by grace.
  I don't know if the above comments belong in this forum, but I just wanted
to share some of my thoughts about your good comments.

Tim Staker-- Timster132@aol.com


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 02:06:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Q: Reality or Fantasy 

TO: W.Burton@agora.stm.it (Bill Burton)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
CC: b-greek@virginia.edu

Bill, you mentioned on Mar 9:
>When I get caught up in crossing my eyes over the _apparatus >criticus_ of
NA 27 or when I get confused about source criticisms of >a particular text
(I'm presently struggling with sources for Lk >1:47-51) 

  Out of curiosity, I looked at the text your Luke passage.
The end of v 48, some earlier mss and heavy mss (p75, Sinai, B, D) simply say
"they killed them and you build"-- perhaps meaning that the Pharisees were
building over their graves(?).
  Later mss (5th cent-- A,C,W; and Byz) have added "their tombs" in an attempt
 to clarify what is meant,  which scribes often did.
  There were some other variants in your passage, but didn't seem as

>For me it is an aspect of divine inspiration that God worked >THROUGH this
COMMUNITY of believers....
>it is a fact; historical, philosophical, lexical and otherwise that the
>TEXT is/was SUBJECT to the community.   Long before there was a >New
Testament there was  group of believers.

  I think this was an important point to raise.  We who are in the protestant
tradition have at times ignored this.  The church found these writings
inspirational or else they would not have been kept.
I may also point out that this community was also subject to other influences
other than the Holy Spirit, namely political.  
  The hag namadi, gnostic christians, and churches in North Africa
represented the underside and disenfranchised of what later became the
survivors of Christianity history.  If we re-include them in the "community"
which they were a part of, we may consider what value these other texts may
offer us today, whether or not these other churches were "politically
correct" or "theologically correct" in their day.
  So I guess i am saying that the community of believers that receieved the
Scriptures had the Spirit's guidance, yes, but they had other influences
too-- so they were fallible humans as we are, and their contribution needs to
be recognized as such.  Still we need to remember and show our thanks and
recognize our indebtedness to them.

BTW, you mentioned that you are in Rome.  Is that Rome, Italy or Rome, WI?  I
am in Southern Indiana.  :)

Tim Staker-- Timster132@aol.com


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 02:06:56 -0500
Subject: Re: UBS3 is Poison 

TO: JOHNHALL@gulf.net
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
CC: b-greek@virginia.edu

John if you think a few mistakes in theory make the UBS3 poison, consider

The Byzantine mss. do not all agree perfectly with one another and there are
several sub-text families within the Byzantine tradition. (such as f1 and f13
and others)

The Traditional Text, ie the Textus Receptus, did not exist in print until
Erasmus was asked to compile it.  He took a few manuscripts, and without
comparing them closely, linked them together and added a few comments for the
publishers as to how they were to connect the mss.  His book of revelation
did not have the last page with it, so he translated from the Latin Vulgate
BACK into Greek to get the text-- and he made a few errors in the process.

Also, the publishers did not like that he omitted 1 John 5:7-8.  He responded
that no Greek mss had this verse, although the Vulgate did have this verse
which is a proof text for trinitarianism.  They put so much pressure on
Erasmus that he had to "come up with" a Greek manuscript that had the missing
verse (that is he had someone write up a fresh mss.)

These aren't just stories-- you can check the KJV text and copies of the
original Textus Receptus to see that there are true.

This conflated string of mss became the Textus Receptus which was mass printed
 and became "the text received" by many.

So according to your rationale... if there is something rancid, it is all

Well, I disagree with this rationale, because humans copied the Scriptures
and people make mistakes.  But the message of the gospel continues-- this is
the miracle!

Since niether the Textus Receptus and Byzantine tradition AND the UBS3 aren't
perfect, then I think we can say that what IS perfect is God's love and the go
spel, the SPIRIT of the text, not the letters, the jots, the tittles

And why does every single word have to be plenary verbally inspired to say
that the Bible is inspired?  The proof is in the pudding-- ie, being inspired
by what we read-- not declaring that every word on the page is inspired.  I
am comfortable to just say the Bible and its message are inspired by God
without having to worry about how the breathing marks and accents are placed
(although these marks weren't in the early mss).

And don't worry--- there are LOTS of Christians out there that love God and
will accept you whatever your belief in inspiration.

Love and peace--


From: W.Burton@agora.stm.it
Date: Fri,  10 Mar 95 10:30:49 GMT
Subject: Mack on Q1 and Cynics

A public thanks to Gregory Bloomquist and Tim Staker for their thoughtful

cmments regarding scripture and tradition.  
I continue to be grateful for the postings of these two and so many others.
Bill Burton
Gregorian University
Rome, Italy


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <Carl_W._Conrad@oui.com>
Date: 10 Mar 1995 11:31:10 GMT
Subject: Current threads: sorting out the issues

Friday, March 10, 1995
To: NTGreek Discussion <b-greek@virginia.edu>
In re: Current threads: sorting out the issues

Wow! What a busy "place" (arena?) B-Greek has been in the
last 24 hours; I'm away for a day and return to
approximately 70K of new messages! I've been trying to sort
things out; I owe responses to a couple people who've raised
specific questions to me, but I'd like to formulate my
responses in a general message for the sake both of my own
(and others'?) sanity and of bandwidth economy (which I
think Ken Litwack is right to emphasize; I, for one, find it
dismaying to see three or four screens of cited previous
correspondence prefacing a specific response to a very
specific issue raised somewhere in that cited

1. Methodology: 
     I think probably the most valuable thing to come to
light in these threads (apart from the initial question of
possible Cynic affinities of Q1) is the
not-altogether-clearly-focused discussion of methodology in
gospel research and epistemological assumptions underlying
legitimate and fruitful research. As I note below, I think
that Greg Bloomquist has done far better than I could in his
discussion of the "foundational question" to clarify the
rationale which I believe underlies the work of most serious
scholars concerned with Synoptic research. One note or
footnote on epistemology: While I DO think that one ought to
apply the same criteria to interpreting the Jesus traditions
as one applies to other historical/documentary evidence, I,
for one, have no problem in general and per se with the
miracles that tradition reports Jesus as having performed. I
think that the miracles are a solid part of the tradition. I
do, therefore, not agree with those researchers who would
assert one can only take a naturalist, rationalist view of
(to use the Aristotelian phrase) HOIA AN GENOITO.

2. Why no interest in historical Jesus or why the express
wish that the "quest" would die:
     I really don't think I have anything to add to what I
already wrote yesterday in response to Phil Graber: I can
understand how others might feel they have no urgent need to
know all that can be learned/recovered/discovered about "all
that Jesus said or did." I can see that there are
epistemological or theological grounds for taking this
stance which don't fall within what I originally, foolishly,
asserted to be "unworthy." I don't know whether this will
satisfy Tim Staker, whose response to my "reflections" was,
I thought, thorough, reasonable, and deadly serious, but
perhaps what follows in this new set of "unfocused
ramblings" (Larry Swain's paraphrase of my reference to my
first unauthorized epistle). But, as I said in response to
Phil Graber, I still find the PASSIONATE rejection of the
"quest for the historical Jesus" disturbing, so much so that
it just seems pathological to me. As I said before, I
seriously doubt that much of great importance that is new is
likely to be added to our trove of credible Jesus lore, and
although I didn't say it before, I also have my doubts of
the value of writing a biography of Jesus; I just don't
think the information that we ordinarily look for in  a
biography is the sort of information that the evidence
offers us. I suspect that Bultmann was right (_Jesus and the
Word_), that the evidence for Jesus' message to much better
than for what he did at any particular time and place prior
to his crucifixion. On the other hand, what I DO look for to
come from the ongoing investigation of the Synoptics (yes,
and of "Q") is more credible reconstructions of the lives
and activities of first-generation communities of Christian

3. Rejection of critical study, examination, analysis,
formulation of hypotheses, testing of hypothesises and
drawing of conclusions, both tentative ones and others that
appear successful enough to serve as foundations for further
hypothesis and testing. On what grounds is this enterprise
     (a) belief that the canonical gospels are essentially
historical sources that should be accorded acceptance "more
or less" uncritically without further ado. I cannot accept
this stance for myself but I don't have a very serious
quarrel with those who do--because I accept the canonical
gospels as the basis for belief and practice, even if I do
not read and interpret them in the same way as those who
read and interpret them without consideration of the
critical issues--and I know too many fine people who have
lived faithful and fruitful lives by doing so.
     (b) belief that the underlying and sustaining motive of
the whole enterprise of synotpic gospel research is "more or
less" a conscious and deliberate or at least
pyramid-building cooperative effort to debunk the gospels
and demonstrate that the Jesus proclaimed in the New
Testament was not what believers know him to be. Having read
the Linnemann book referred to in recent correspondence, I
find this to be her basic thrust: those engaged in synoptic
research since the 18th-century have either deliberately
sought to undermine the Christian gospel or have served as
unwitting instruments of those who have sought deliberately
to undermine the Christian gospel. I cannot accept this
thesis as valid in any significant measure--unless it is
held that ANY endeavor to examine critically, analyze and
draw conclusions regarding the gospels as historical
evidence in the same manner that one examines critically,
analyzes, and draws conclusions regarding any other kind of
documentary evidence bearing upon historical events is, as
such, intended to undermine the Christian gospel. I think
that Greg Bloomquist's response (Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:41 EDT)
to Ken Litwack's "foundational questions" nicely goes to the
heart of what I would myself want to say in response to a
rejection of type (b).

4. Comparison of historical research into secular ancient
history and historical research into the gospels and what
they record. I respect Ken's sincere and earnest endeavor to
demonstrate the unreasonability of applying to the gospels
criteria that one does not apply to events reported by the
historians of Greece and Rome, but I don't think that he has
applied the comparison to properly comparable material. In
Ken's correspondence with me we have talked about such
matters as the crossing of the Alps by Hannibal with
elephants, the reliability of battle accounts and reported
speeches in Thucydides, and the weight to be placed upon the
bias of Tacitus against the emperor Tiberius. More
comparable, I think, would be the endeavor to ascertain
solid biographical data concerning Jesus on the one hand
and, say, Socrates, Pythagoras, or that most celebrated of
all Cynics, Diogenes. 
     (a) I think that "we" (the community of scholars more
or less confident of having reached trustworthy conclusions)
are on more solid ground in ascertaining facts about the
historical Socrates than we are about the historical Jesus,
although the most "solid" facts about Socrates are not the
ones that most people would consider the most critical
issues regarding Socrates: we know pretty well when he was
born, when and why he was executed (at least what the formal
charges brought against him were), facts about his family
and customary activities--but there are serious problems to
solve regarding somewhat contradictory portraits drawn of
him by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes, all of whom
provide important evidence, but evidence that has to be
evaulated carefully.
     (b) Pythagoras is a much more difficult case and is
perhaps more comparable to Jesus in that he really did
become an object of cult veneration. Some general facts
regarding his birth, early years in Samos, and ultimate
emigration to southern Italy, his discovery of the
mathematical ratio of the musical octave and of the theorem
that bears his name, are generally accepted. But there are
sayings and principles that appear to be the deposit of
successive generations of his cult adherents in Sicily and
southern Italy that are more comparable to NT documents that
are the "deposit" of Christian communities of the first and
second centuries. My impression is that scholars are
hesitant to make very many hard-and-fast assertions
regarding Pythagoras himself and that they are more inclined
to date the Pythagorean materials relatively in terms of
earlier and later materials. This seems considerably more
comparable to the problem of the historical Jesus. (I shall
add, as an aside, that I have only known one faith-committed
Pythagorean personally.)
     (c) Much more difficult is Diogenes, about whom there
are so many wonderful stories that one hopes some of them
are true. The most significant collection of them is in the
work of Diogenes Laertius centuries later. I think that
there are probably very few solidly-attested facts about
Diogenes, although the stories do generally present a
consistent picture of a consistent (and fascinating)
personality. It may be that a better analogy to Diogenes is
the OT prophet Elijah who, though surely a historical
character, is much more a figure of legend than of
demonstrable historical delineation.

5. Historicity of Gospel narratives:
     (a) Ken has brought up the matter of the
birth-narratives in Matthew and Luke and the claim that
these are "fictions." Here we are indebted to the fine
discussion by Raymond Brown in _The Birth of the Messiah_. I
think Brown approaches these narratives appropriately,
although I think he sees somewhat more positive historical
basis in their elements than I do. It seems to me that
"fictions" is a rather crass term, one that is used either
by a debunker or by one who believes that another's
treatment of one or both narratives is intended as a
debunking would use. Personally I would say of the birth
narratives what I think some others might also say: that
they don't offer us biographical facts such as any of us may
learn of our own births from documentary evidence and direct
testimony of parents and immediate kinfolk; rather they
offer us, in story form, faith-assertions about who Jesus
was and IS, originally and forever,  for the community of
faith in which we live. I think it is easy enough to discern
the lack of historical reliability--at least insofar as both
accounts are concerned--because of inner factual
contradictions (Jesus in Mt is born of parents resident in
Bethlehem, in Lk of parents who have come to Bethlehem from
Nazareth for the census; Lk 1 speaks of a date within the
lifetime of Herod the Great, who died 4 B.C.--as does Mt,
while Lk 2 refers to the census of Quirinius, which would
have to be 6-7 A.D.) But calling these stories "fictions" is
to miss the point and misunderstand their importance to the
community of faith (of which I count myself a member).
     (b) Another example: the "call" of the first disciples.
Mark 1:16-18 tells us that Jesus called Simon "Peter" and
Andrew from their boats on the lakeshore in Galilee, while
John 1:35-42 tells us that the two brothers first came to
follow Jesus in Judea, where one or both of them had
previously been adherents of John the Baptist. Is it really
to the point to attempt to harmonize these two accounts to
show that both are somehow true? or to decide which one is
true and which one false? If I had to choose, I would go
with the account in John as more likely historical, although
I think that John tells this story with a definite
theological intention. I think that the account in Mark
probably (I do not say certainly) has litle or no historical
foundation, that the core of the story is clearly the
Jesus-saying, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of
men." I find the form-critical approach to this narrative
hard to fault: the story was invented to flesh-out the
saying in a memorable anecdote that could and would and did
become the foundation of many a sermon on the subject of
what it means to be called by Christ. I even suspect (pure
hypothetical suspicion, utterly beyond verification) that
the story originated in Greek-speaking Christianity when
IXQUS perhaps already had become a confessional acronym. At
any rate, I do not feel that this story loses its
faith-value because I doubt the historicity of the Marcan
account of a lakeside call of Peter and Andrew.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com


From: johnhall@gulf.net
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 06:44:46 -0400
Subject: Re: UBS3 is Poison

>John if you think a few mistakes in theory make the UBS3 poison, consider

GLORY NO! It's not that there are a few mistakes, but that there is - 

a. Many mistakes [ 3000+ differences between Aleph and B in the Gospels alone]
b. Consistant pattern to these mistakes [not just minor slips of a scribal
pen, but a      consistant doctrinal pattern!]
c. Reasonable proof that the origination of these Uncials are from heretics.

It would be comperable to basing the Holy Bible on the New World Translation
of the JW's.  IT is THAT serious. 

>The Traditional Text, ie the Textus Receptus, did not exist in print until
>Erasmus was asked to compile it.  

Sorry, but the Traditional Text goes back farther than the TR. 

>He took a few manuscripts, and without comparing them closely, 

without comparing them closely? how do you know this? wast thou there? or
didst thou read this from one who is a proponant of the Crtitical Text????? =)

You still miss the mark completely and it boggles my mind how you can do so.
Let me sound so foolish as to repeat myself - 

[bear with me now.... please -]

                        GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD!!!!!

1. If God promised to preserve His Holy Word, we must have it TODAY
2. If God promised to preserve His Holy Word, He didn't just preserve the
thoughts, but THE ACTUAL WORDS.
3. [ok, I admit this next one is my opinion, but...] If God promised to
preserve His Word, it is easily understandable, that He would have done this
through His Church, rather than a monk's wastepaper basket.

Brother, how big is your God? Does He need TC to preserve His Word?


Just as the early church did not MAKE the canon, but RECOGNIZED God's canon,
we need to use TC not to determine the Word of God, but to recognize the
Word of God.

The UBS3 has too many DOCTRINAL errors - 

Joseph was NOT Jesus' father,
Christ was NOT the only begotten God,
Jesus did NOT have to have his sins paid for at the temple after his birth,
Christ did NOT sin when he got angry at the money changers in the temple.....

right now I have to get ready for work, but I will attempt to show in the
UBS3 where there is blasphemous heresy. You hold to the Critical Text out of
ignorance Brother, I cannot hold to this text and stand perfectly before
God. PLEASE, don't parrot what your teachers have taught you, read the other
side SERIOUSLY. I don't agree with John W. Burgon in some areas, but he went
without being refuted by Hort, because Hort could not answer him.....

- --
John Calvin Hall
Pensacola Christian College
Pensacola, Florida

'O doulos tou Kuriou 'Ihsou Xristou


From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 07:52:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: On Preservation

Some helpful reading on the issue of preservation of the Greek text is 
found in:

Daniel B. Wallace, "Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual 
Criticism."  _New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A. Kent Jr._.  
Edited by Gary T. Meadors.  Winona Lake, IN:  BMH Books, 1991.

This article was reissue in _GTJ_ 12:1 (Spring 1991):21-50.

Best Wishes,
Gary T. Meadors
BapBibleSem of PA (the Clarks Summit one  :-)


From: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 10 Mar 95 08:48:39 EST
Subject: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning 

As list owner I am allowed a few privileges.  I have a question under
study, and need some ideas for where to turn:

It is a rather vague request.  I am trying to work on understanding
James 5:14-16, and I would like to know how people take this passage.
Which commentaries take the passage as "weak in faith" instead of
"physically sick"?  What do those on the list think of that idea?
What lexical evidence is significant?

David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg  PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8


From: John Baima <jbaima@onramp.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 07:57:25 -0600
Subject: re: UBS3 is Poison

>I'm sorry, but I would have to admit that I am not completely "learned up"
>on this specific area of the Greek Text. =)

Yes, this is the problem. I don't intend to be too mean, but you really do
need to look at some of the data. There is no way to avoid textual criticism
no matter what your creed is. Period.


>The Church has had the Word of God ever since He gave it to her. If you
>believe what Hort, or Tischendorff would want you to believe, then you'd
>think that we have not had an accurate copy of the Holy Bible for 1500
>years. This is heresy, and to me, borders on blasphemy, because it calls God
>a liar.

Which ms. of the first 1,500 years was correct? No 2 of them are identical,
and you believe in the preservation of every word (every character???),
right? So which one do you choose?

>[del] don't be so hard
>against Erasmus for being Cathoic: 

I have never questioned Erasmus' scholarship because he was Catholic or been
"hard" on him. (A lot of my best customers are Catholic :-)

>both Westcott and Hort have been
>documented to be Mary-olaters, and with what I've heard about the dogmas of
>Metzger, Aaland, Black, etc..... I'd wonder whether or not they even have a
>relationship with Christ .... I guess that's just between them and the

You really do yourself a disservice when you spout such ignorant things
about men you've never met or know about.

- -John Baima


From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:57:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: re: UBS3 is Poison

> Us Fundamentalists love to throw around the doctrine of INSPIRATION - - that

> against Erasmus for being Cathoic: both Westcott and Hort have been
> documented to be Mary-olaters, and with what I've heard about the dogmas of
> Metzger, Aaland, Black, etc..... I'd wonder whether or not they even have a
> relationship with Christ .... I guess that's just between them and the Lord.

Precisely so.  In which case I would invite you to consider whether your
careless words on the matter are something you wish to leave on the public
record, not to mention other records of careless words that may be kept
elsewhere.  ("Let the reader understand.")  This is something I have had
to remind myself of on more than one occasion.  I mention it publicly here
because I think you should also consider what kind of effect your posting
will have the the reputation of a segment of the Christian church that is
already constantly maligned, often unjustly, for fostering obscurantism and
uncharitable public discourse.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Department of Theology
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA                     Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts


From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:32:25 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics

Tim Staker said:
>>  Concerning Cynics and the Gospel tradition, rather than Q, I think a couple
Luke-only passages (L) may reflect Cynic influence or origin.
   The parable of the shamelessly persistant man calling for help from  his
sleepy friend (Lk 11:5-8) and the parable of the unjust judge and the widow
(Lk 18:1-5) share a common outlook.  They both compare earthy and base
examples of how people are.  The argument follows that it is true that groggy
and unjust folk can respond to others' needs, then how much more will God
respond to us when we pray?<<

An interesting note about Cynic behavior and the honor-shame models 
which have been so big in NT study recently.  The pattern Tim 
identifies is one which rejects honor-shame patterns.  In that sense, 
Cynics were shameless--they would not allow convention to restrict 
their behavior.  And to some degree the Jesus traditions portray 
Jesus in this way.

Here's the trick--there's a lot of social power in being shameless.  
James C Scott in _Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Peasant 
Resistance_ discusses how shameless behavior is an effective way for 
the otherwise powerless to get their way.  Wonder if there's more 

Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University


From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 15:41:49 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning

On 10 Mar 1995, David John Marotta wrote:

> As list owner I am allowed a few privileges.  I have a question under
> study, and need some ideas for where to turn:
> It is a rather vague request.  I am trying to work on understanding
> James 5:14-16, and I would like to know how people take this passage.
> Which commentaries take the passage as "weak in faith" instead of
> "physically sick"?  What do those on the list think of that idea?
> What lexical evidence is significant?
> David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
> Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
> Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg  PRODIGY: KCMR45A
> C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8

Another aspect of this passage relates to its exercise today.  The crux 
interpretum seems to be Js 5:15, "the prayer of faith *will* save the one 
who is ill/sick and the Lord *will* raise him;... (and if sin is an 
issue, it will also be addressed in the total event).  This term for 
ill/sick, while capable of a figurative usage, is usually understood as 
real illness here (cf. e.g. BAGD, 402a-b; and most critical commentaries).

The challenge with which I am concerned is the confidence which is 
asserted concerning the "prayer of faith" and restitution is wellness.  
Most exercise of this event today fudges on this issue.

I have wondered for a long time but have not felt confident enough to put 
forth an idea in print...but now B-Greek will let me do so (some pun 
intended).  Seriously, I am soliciting critique, especially expertise in 
regard to the possible chiastic aid I am floating.

1 Cor 12:7-11 gives what I view as a well crafted list.  I see a possible 
chiasmus with doublets (problem:  Lund views this section as part of a 
larger chiasmus which, in his chart, does not view this section the same 
as I do (i.e. want to!).

			miraculous powers (hinge)
		discerning of spirits (cf. 1 Jn 4:1-6)
	Interp of Tongues

It is not difficult to see 1, 3, and 4 as doublets.  May the hinge  
suggest that the whole list is miraculous charismata?  If my portrayal 
of these structures (whether technical chiasmus or merely intended 
structure) is correct,  then there must/could be some relationship 
between faith and healing.  At any rate, one exegetical problem in this 
list has always been how this "faith" is a special charisma.

Proposal:  Does 1 Cor give a window for viewing Js 5 as a special gifted 
procedure which warrants the "prayer of faith" as certain?

Your interaction...

(Note, I do hope to publish an art. in this area when I feel it warrants 

Gary T. Meadors


End of b-greek-digest V1 #605


To unsubscribe from this list write


with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at


You can send mail to the entire list via the address: