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

b-greek-digest V1 #617




b-greek-digest             Friday, 17 March 1995       Volume 01 : Number 617

In this issue:

        Re: Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis 
        Re: Question on homothumadon 
        Re: Nida 
        Josephus on prophets
        Re: Josephus on prophets 
        Re: Josephus on prophets
        HONOR, SHAMELESSNESS
        REDACTION CRITICISM/
        Re: Josephus on prophets
        Re: Josephus on prophets
        Text critical list?

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

From: Doug Hanley <dhanley@accessnv.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 23:43:45 -0800
Subject: Re: Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis 

>>Question from the peanut galary:  Has anyone tried the sort of linguistic
>>analyses being tested on Paul on other texts as "controls", e.g.,
>>Josephus' works?  J. wrote two accounts that overlap in part--Jewish War
>>and Antiquities of the Jews--and I am aware that the contents of
>>overlapping narratives of the same events do not fully agree (i.e., J.
>>tells the same event differently often).  But has anyone studied J.'s
>>linguistic data?  J. tells us that he use assistants, particularly in
>>polishing his Greek style.
>
An interesting point is that Paul used scribes as well, i.e. 1 Co 16:21, Ga
6:11, Col 4:18, 2Th 3:17, and Phm 1:19 all refer to Paul writing with his
own hand. In those mentioned other than Philemon, it is likely the rest of
the Epistle was done by scribe/secretary.
>
Is this taken in to account as well in cluster analysis?

- ------------------------------------
Doug Hanley     dhanley@accessnv.com
- ------------------------------------



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

From: Doug Hanley <dhanley@accessnv.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 23:43:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Question on homothumadon 

>>:-) Although a native speaker of Greek, I had never thought of such
>>connections as that between, say, "THUMOS" ("anger" in *modern* Greek) and
>>"THUMIAMA" ("incence" (?) burnt in Greek Orthodox churhes); even funnier,
>>this connection is far more obvious in English, thanks to the double meaning
>>of "incense"! By the way: "THUMIAMA" is both an ancient and a modern Greek
>>word, but I suspect that it is associated strictly with non-Christian
>>practices when (and if) it shows up in the New Testement (?)

THUMIAO - Incense (three different offshoots in NT - STRs# 2368,2369,2370)
Very Christian Practices


>>> As for the word HOMOTHUMADON, I don't THINK it is that common in
>>> pre-Hellenistic Greek, but the reference works, or a quick run of the TLG
>>> disk through a search program could settle that question quickly.
>
>>It is not that common in modern Greek, either, having given way to
>>"HOMOFWNWS": "in a single voice" rather than "in a single mood" :-)


- ------------------------------------
Doug Hanley     dhanley@accessnv.com
- ------------------------------------



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

From: "Paul J. Bodin" <pjbodin@ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 08:07:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Nida 

On Wed, 15 Mar 1995 DDDJ@aol.com wrote:

> <<You may obtain Louw & Nida on disk from Silver Mt Software (John Baima on 
> this list).>>
> Mac? Is this the domain lexicon or somrthing else. CD Rom?
> Dennis

John's software is for Intel platforms, not the Mac.  All of the programs 
he is now working on are for Windows, although I believe he still also 
markets Lbase for DOS.  The Louw and Nida lexicon (yes, it is the one 
arranged by semantic domains) is a Folio View version.  It *is* available 
on a CD ROM bundled with Bible Windows and a large selection of texts.

___________________________________________________________________________
Paul J. Bodin                            Internet: pjbodin@ocf.berkeley.edu
Union Theological Seminary                  smail: 1333 66th Street
Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary              Berkeley, CA 94702


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

From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:05:30 EDT
Subject: Josephus on prophets

A few points re. Larry's discussion of Josephus qua prophet:

(1) Josephus' hesitation to use the word  _prophetes_  and his 
limiting it primarily to the canonical prophets is due to the fact 
that he considered that the "succession of the prophets" ended 
in the reign of Artaxerxes (Jos. C.Ap 1.41, cf. Feldman, "Prophets 
and Prophecy in Josephus," JTS 41 (1990) 386-422).  So, there is a 
clear reason for not using the term later.

(2) Nevertheless, Feldman notes that the word prophet or prophesy is 
actually ADDED by Josephus a "significant" 169 times, where the word 
is NOT found in Scripture itself.  For example, Scripture refers to 
Samuel as a prophet once, in contrast to Josephus who refers to him 
as such 45 times! (Feldman, 391)  Josephus doesn't just avoid the 
word _profetes_; he actually OVERuses it in some cases.

(3) Feldman argues that _prophetes_ used by Josephus of post-
canonical individuals means prophets or prophet-like figures -- 
primarily himself (!) -- who speak God's utterances in the 
present, or who interpret the past, or who foresee the future.   
Josephus, for example, used the term _prophetes_ of John Hyrcanus as 
one who could foretell the future.  According to Larry, he could have 
classed JBap as a prophet.  Feldman says that he could have and did 
class Hyrcanus as one.  Why didn't Josephus do so with JBap?

(4) Several prophets are Hellenised by Josephus in order to make 
"their portrait ...  readily intelligible to his pagan readers" 
(Feldman, 421).

So, a suggestion: let's assume with Larry an hypothesis that accords 
the historical JBap the status or role of _profetes_; however, let's 
also ask then why Josephus, differently from the Gospel writers, has 
painted JBap in a highly stylised portrayal of Hellenistic sage, 
something that he also did with other "prophets"?  

And bringing us full circle: might the answer to that question 
suggest why, assuming Larry's hypothesis of the historical Jesus as 
prophet, the earliest Gospel tradents (e.g., the earliest line 
of thinking in Q1) might have done the same with Jesus?

Greetings!

L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology   | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA

Email:    GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice:    613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax:      613-236-4108

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

From: PaleoBill@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 16:09:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets 

    At the risk of appearing overtly critical I think Greg has glossed over
some points. Jo. has an adversion to calling the 'sects' during his 'own day'
by Jewish conventions. He signifies their existence as philosophical
schools--an obvious attempt to resonate with his Greco-Roman (and Flavian)
audience. Moreover, he has a distinct _tendez_ in offering exculpatory
evidence on the behalf of the Pharisees. In addition, he also goes to great
lengths to present the Jewish faith as innocent of the sole breach of the
_Pax Romana_ (in roughly a two hundred year period only the Jews were guilty
of this percieved breech). It comes as litte wonder than that Jo. would paint
J. the B. in a light that has does not mirror the so-called prophets that
arose during this turbulent period (roughly nine to ten from Judas, Theudas,
etc. until the destruction by Titus and Vespesian). Such a moniker would have
elicted an opprobrious view of John in the eyes of his audience. And, as
seems probable, Jo. thought well of J. the B. then it comes as no surprise
that he did not refer to him in the manner of the Gospels. Moreover, the most
proximate temporal, and religious, source for the J. the B. ministry is the
Gospel material (and Acts)--not Josephus. The normative canons on proper
historiographical methodology dictate that the Gospels should recieve
priority. Hope this little soapbox lecture has been probative rather than a
pain.
Best Regards
Bill

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

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:42:02 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets

On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Gregory Bloomquist wrote:

> So, a suggestion: let's assume with Larry an hypothesis that accords
> the historical JBap the status or role of _profetes_; however, let's
> also ask then why Josephus, differently from the Gospel writers, has
> painted JBap in a highly stylised portrayal of Hellenistic sage,
> something that he also did with other "prophets"?
> 
> And bringing us full circle: might the answer to that question
> suggest why, assuming Larry's hypothesis of the historical Jesus as
> prophet, the earliest Gospel tradents (e.g., the earliest line
> of thinking in Q1) might have done the same with Jesus?

A most interesting line of reflection!  Should it be the case that "the 
earliest Gospel tradents" preferred a more "hellenized" or sage-like 
Jesus (and, please note, I'm not yet able to see from Kloppenborg et alia 
yet quite why this suggestion is taken by some as so forceful or likely), 
we should certainly observe Kloppenborg's caution against reading his 
proposed literary history of Q as indicating/equalling the tradition 
history of the Jesus material.  Put positively, Kloppenborg himself warns 
us that material that might have been added later to Q might well have 
been among the earliest Jesus material around, and might have very good 
call for being considered authentic (e.g., eschatological material).
	But to return to Greg's question, yes, I think we also have to 
consider what factors/forces might have moved Q1 folks to draft their 
Jesus the way some propose they did.  One possibly relevant matter is 
that Kloppenborg also insists that "Q" = LITERARY phenomena, not oral 
tradition (contra, e.g., Kelber), and that it = GREEK material, not 
Aramaic material.  So, on this suggestion, the folks in question might 
well have been preparing a picture of Jesus to commend him to tastes that 
favored Greek-philosophical values/characteristics/themes, in which case 
the proposed sophistic Jesus of Q1 might be a secondary, lateral 
adaptation of Jesus & Christianity somewhat comparable in some respects 
to Josephus' attempt to portray and commend Judaism to his non-Jewish 
readers.
	But I must leave this speculative line for others and commitments 
of my own summon.

Cheers.  Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

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

From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 15:25:30 
Subject: HONOR, SHAMELESSNESS

One of the things I thought of when reading Malina et.al. on "honor/shame" 
is the emphasis on the *public* natures of honor and shame in the 1st 
century Mediterranean world.  If I read it properly, both honor and shame 
had to be publicly acknowledged to be real.

Jesus' emphasis on the secrecy of righteous acts (see Mt. 6 and elsewhere) 
is an incredibly radical idea.  To say that "the only righteousness God 
counts is that which is done for his benefit alone" is a startling 
non-sequitur in a society where benevolence and piety were by definition 
public and social phenomena.

Just an observation--I hope I haven't taken the conversation too far off 
on a tangent.

PLStepp

perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
perry_stepp@baylor.edu

- ---
  WinQwk 2.0b#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy

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

From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 15:25:31 
Subject: REDACTION CRITICISM/

M.>I haven't seen the Peabody book, but the idea of trying to find lingui
M.>differences between source and redaction material in Mark isn't anythi
M.> E.J. Pryke in the late 70's wrote a book called something like "Redac
M.>Criticism and Marcan Style."  He came up with a preliminary division o
M.>"source" and "redaction" material based on the ideas of Bultmann and 
M.>Dibelius, found some differences in vocabulary and grammar, then used 
M.>differences to reclassify some Marcan passages based on linguistic gro
M.>
M.>The argument wasn't very convincing.  Most of the vocabulary differenc
M.>found involved time words (euthws, for instance).  He also cited thing
M.>the use of the genitive absolute as pointing to the hand of the redact
M.>Obviously enough, the initial assumptions of the redaction critics mad
M.>inevitable that time references would be over-represented in "redactio
M.>material and so the whole thing was basically an exercise in circular 
M.>reasoning: indications of time point to a redactor, there are more tim
M.>references in the redaction passages, therefore we have linguistic evi
M.>that there really is a difference between the source and redaction mat
M.>Not very impressive. 

How does this work compare with R. Fortna's work in John?  Fortna attempts 
to isolate an Ur-gospel under the text of John by isolating "gaps/aporeia" 
in the text and branding them as redactional insertions.  (I have grossly 
and perhaps pejoratively oversimplified Fortna's methodology, but you get 
the idea.) 

So, anyway, how do similar works in other gospels (or even John) stack up?

PLStepp

perry_stepp@baylor.edu
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org

- ---
  WinQwk 2.0b#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy

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

From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:42:54 EDT
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets

Paleo-Bill's points are not incorrect, just in need of some nuancing. 
Josephus' language for JBap IS, as PaleoBill indicates, hellenised.  
Fine.  The question is: so what?  

Josephus can use the term _profetes_ of other contemporaries 
both favourably and unfavourably -- remember, he thinks of 
himself as a _profetes_: does this mean that he wants to call 
down opprobrium on himself?!  I don't think so.  But this 
double and triple use should indicate that we need to 
do more than look at the use of the term.  For the term needs to be 
unpacked.  

As I have tried to suggest, the point is: what does 
Josephus MEAN when he says _profetes_?  Likewise, what does he MEAN 
by describing JBap in highly hellenised form?  

I think that it will ultimately be more helpful to examine the use of 
the terminology that Josephus DOES use for JBap and see how it fits 
other figures he may describe, than it will to suppose on the basis 
of the Gospel traditions that Josephus MUST describe JBap as a 
prophet and then look desperately for something that may not 
even be there.  

Re. Gospel evidence: Paleo-Bill says that 
> the most 
> proximate temporal, and religious, source for the J. the B. ministry is the
> Gospel material (and Acts)--not Josephus. The normative canons on proper
> historiographical methodology dictate that the Gospels should recieve
> priority. 

So ANTIQUIUS MELIUS always applies in historiography?   Would you 
agree then that Q1 may be a better index of what the historical Jesus 
was like than the canonical Gospels -- assuming Q1, of course?  
Shouldn't one also take into consideration bias and possible 
authorial intent?  Does this mean that Mark is better than John?  
Lots of questions raised in that final statement.

Greetings!

L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology   | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA

Email:    GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice:    613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax:      613-236-4108

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

From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 20:48:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets

On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Gregory Bloomquist wrote:

> So ANTIQUIUS MELIUS always applies in historiography?   Would you 
> agree then that Q1 may be a better index of what the historical Jesus 
> was like than the canonical Gospels -- assuming Q1, of course?  

On which (among other things) see whats-his-name on thoroughgoing
eschatology in the current JBL.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA      Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts


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

From: Timothy John Finney <finney@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:38:03 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Text critical list?

Someone recently asked whether there is a discussion group devoted to New 
Testament textual criticism. I would like to know as well. Is there such 
a list?

Tim Finney




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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #617
*****************************

** 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