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

b-greek-digest V1 #651




b-greek-digest            Wednesday, 5 April 1995      Volume 01 : Number 651

In this issue:

        Re: Subject: NT Documents
        [none]
        Re: genre of Revelation
        Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
        Re: Date of Revelation
        Re: Date of Revelation
        Re: Baptism
        Re: Baptism
        mailing list 
        Is this necessary?
        Re: Subject: NT Documents
        Re: Is this necessary?
        Re: Is this necessary? 
        Unsubscribe              
        Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS 
        Re: Hebrews
        please help Isa 48 
        Re: Date of Revelation 

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

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Subject: NT Documents

Tim has made some good points regarding Ken's objection.  In this debate 
I find myself agreeing with both.  I would like to add an observation, 
though.
It depends to a great degree on how you ask the question.  If you are 
asking if Acts is historical, Acts cannot be part of the corroborating 
evidence-outside sources must be called in to show that the office of 
Asiarch existed, for example, and since it did that speaks to the 
historicity of the book as the whole.  
On the other hand, if you are asking what is an Asiarch, did they exist, 
and what were their functions, then Acts a piece of the evidence 
necessary to answer the question.
Just my .02.

- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us




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

From: "James P. Forrestal" <pforrest@ohana.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 07:26:09 -1000 (HST)
Subject: [none]

UNSUBSCRIBE BIBLICAL GREEK

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

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 10:39:47 PDT
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation

      Greg Carey pointed to a pesimistic view of the world as one 
connection that Rev has with other apocaluptic works.  I wouldn't insist 
on this because I've only read some of the primary sources once, but
I didn't get the sense from reading, say ENoch, that I do from reading
Revelation that God is really in control.  I think that's part of
what Rev 11 is about, to say that in spite of the situation, 
GOd is in control and really still at work in the world, whereas these
Jewish apocalypses seem to me to present a situation  in which God is
abset basically from the world but will in the near future
decisively enter human history and establish righteousness.  Is that a
fair reading?

Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA

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

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 10:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Revelation and the Canon ...

Tim, 
I agreed with much of your response to me.  There are a couple of 
nitpicky points however.

First, my statements regarding the date of the gospel titles were not 
conjecture in the same fashion that yours were.  In regard to the gospel 
titles there is textual and literary evidence which suggests the 
conclusion, it is not conclusive which makes it a supportable 
conjecture.  Your conjecture on the other hand, in this instance, is that 
the apostolicity of the author of Apocalypse is invented, and in this 
instance I do not see any evidence to support it.  In fact just the 
opposite.  The debate between those who thought John Apostle wrote the 
book and those who believe John Presbyter wrote the book go back into the 
early part of the second century according to Eusebius, darn close to the 
documents beginning.  Either arguement may have been mistaken, but I 
don't see any reason to posit an aetiology of invention to support 
canonicity in this case, and I did not see it supported in your earlier 
posts on the subject.  This may be the case in some circles for Hebrews, 
but certainly was not universal even in that instance.  

Second, while I agree that the process is a mystery to a great degree, I 
am very wary of reading things into the process without real support.  If 
apostolicity was as much a part of the process as you originally seemed 
to contend, I would agree with you.  But since it wasn't why read it into 
their motivations at all?

Regards, 


- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us





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

From: David R Graham <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:10:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation

I agree with Carl that the seven is more than a set of hills.  How far I 
would be inclined to search for a way of taking that is something he might 
not care to do, but his point that its recurrence in the book indicates 
something more than the obvious is well made and taken.  One possibility is 
the 7 vital centers of the human personality.  This could be correlated with 
the 7 "planetary" centers of some Greek philosophy and medicine of the time. 
 Certainly it is not unreasonable to suspect that the author(s) of the Rev. 
were at least aware of the possibiliity of these correlations.

I agree with Hobbs, also, that dating of this tome is no shoo-in.  I would 
go so far as to surmise that it is impossible in the absence of something we 
aren't aware of anywhere.  The reason for that surmise is that we don't know 
the specific number pattern the author was using, and without that, the book 
is essentially unknowable.  It's encrypted, obviously, and we don't have the 
key, which is a number system.


All the best,

David

The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO


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

From: David R Graham <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:18:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation

I have a lot of trouble with the idea that Jews had an established and 
recognized legal status in the Empire.  This makes Jews and Romans sound 
chummy, which they hardly were at least in Palestine.  If they were chummy 
outside Palestine, then who was in Palestine and who was chummy with Romans 
outside Palestine were not the same people by any stretch of the 
imagination.  They can't both be called Jews in First Century terms.  
Galatian Jews (in Gaul itself) were hardly the same thing as Palestinian 
Jews.  They were more like Celts.  Galatian Jews in Asia Minor were not like 
Palestinians.  And the enormous Jewish population in current Afghanastan and 
Pakistan/Kashmir were even less like Palestinian Jews.

So, either we should stop referring to Jews as having an accepted position 
in the Empire -- many of them did not, especially the rabble in Palestine -- 
or we should not call all these various peoples loosely "Jews."  I am 
reminded of the present and long-standing distinction between Ashkenazy and 
Sephardic Jews, who between themselves regard themselves almost as a 
different race, which in many respects they are.  Certainly a different 
culture altogether.  
A same sort of thing and even more so applies to "Jews" in the first 
century.  The term is just too vague for analytical use.

All the best,

David

The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO


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

From: David R Graham <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:23:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Baptism

Tim,

Thanks for your note, which follows.  You should tell the folks who said 
this about me.  You should tell me, also.  Else it's hearsay, no?  Who knows 
so much about me?  And how do they know?  

All the best,

David



>TO: merovin@halcyon.com
>
>Dave, you replied...
>
>>I'd like to mention that there is no biblical and there is certainly >much
>experiential evidence to support the assertion that apostolic >authority is a
>continuing thing in the sense that there are always >alive -- though not
>always immediately present -- people who >embody apostolic authority as much
>as Paul or Thomas did.  >Certainly the laity believe that this is so, as
>evidenced by their >behavior.  They'll run to an apparent well-spring of
>soteriological >strength with very great speed and efficiency.  Sometimes
>they are >right.
>
>    So, David, who laid hands on You?  Who gave you your title of Reverend?
>Professor of Philosophy? 
>    My understanding is that you are not a recognized minister at all and
>that you gave this title to yourself.  BTW, hve you noticed that no one here
>on B-Greek is flocking to you?
>     And what is this Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning?  It only
>exists in your mind, doesn't it?  Aren't you just using your son's internet
>connection?
>     Sorry about sending you this bad karma, but I really question your creden
>tials.
>
>     Tim Staker
>
>
The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO


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

From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:31:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Baptism

   Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:23:55 -0700
   X-Sender: merovin@halcyon.com
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
   From: David R Graham <merovin@halcyon.com>
   Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
   X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>

   Thanks for your note, which follows.  You should tell the folks who
   said this about me.  You should tell me, also.  Else it's hearsay,
   no?  Who knows so much about me?  And how do they know?

Tim Staker didn't say anything about you; he asked questions.  I'm
interested too.  Where did your title come from?  Where did your
degree come from?  Are people flocking to you?

Michael

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

From: DTK4@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:38:19 -0400
Subject: mailing list 

unsubscribe b-greek

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

From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 14:50:03 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Is this necessary?

Folks:

Is the following discussion really necessary on B-Greek?  What exactly does 
it have to do with the Greek or the NT?  Do we all need to post our 
credentials before our views are honestly debated?  I mean, I'm as curious 
as the next person about this Institute thingy, but let's be honest, it 
isn't GREEK! <relieved but frustrated sigh>  Sorry, I'm through ranting now.

With apologies for adding to the off-topic traffic,

Leo Percer
PercerL@Baylor.edu



Date:	 4-APR-95  2:28p
From:	IN%"merovin@halcyon.com"  "David R Graham"
To:	IN%"Timster132@aol.com"
CC:  	IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
RE:	RE: Baptism

Return-path: <owner-b-greek@virginia.edu>
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU)
 by baylor.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #8312) id <01HOY0709CRK9KN0J3@baylor.edu>; Tue,
 04 Apr 1995 14:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Virginia.EDU by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02673; 4 Apr 95 15:25
 EDT
Received: from coho.halcyon.com by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02655; 4 Apr 95
 15:24 EDT
Received: from  (blv-pm0-ip29.halcyon.com) by halcyon.com with SMTP id AA16829
 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <b-greek@virginia.edu>); Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:23:55 -0700
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 12:23:55 -0700
From: David R Graham <merovin@halcyon.com>
Subject: Re: Baptism
X-Sender: merovin@halcyon.com
To: Timster132@aol.com
Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
Message-id: <199504041923.AA16829@halcyon.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Tim,

Thanks for your note, which follows.  You should tell the folks who said 
this about me.  You should tell me, also.  Else it's hearsay, no?  Who knows 
so much about me?  And how do they know?  

All the best,

David



>TO: merovin@halcyon.com
>
>Dave, you replied...
>
>>I'd like to mention that there is no biblical and there is certainly >much
>experiential evidence to support the assertion that apostolic >authority is a
>continuing thing in the sense that there are always >alive -- though not
>always immediately present -- people who >embody apostolic authority as much
>as Paul or Thomas did.  >Certainly the laity believe that this is so, as
>evidenced by their >behavior.  They'll run to an apparent well-spring of
>soteriological >strength with very great speed and efficiency.  Sometimes
>they are >right.
>
>    So, David, who laid hands on You?  Who gave you your title of Reverend?
>Professor of Philosophy? 
>    My understanding is that you are not a recognized minister at all and
>that you gave this title to yourself.  BTW, hve you noticed that no one here
>on B-Greek is flocking to you?
>     And what is this Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning?  It only
>exists in your mind, doesn't it?  Aren't you just using your son's internet
>connection?
>     Sorry about sending you this bad karma, but I really question your creden
>tials.
>
>     Tim Staker
>
>
The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO


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

From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:58:00 EST
Subject: Re: Subject: NT Documents

Larry Swain wrote, in part:

>>It depends to a great degree on how you ask the question.  If 
you are asking if Acts is historical, Acts cannot be part of the 
corroborating evidence-outside sources must be called in to show 
that the office of Asiarch existed, for example, and since it did 
that speaks to the historicity of the book as the whole.  
On the other hand, if you are asking what is an Asiarch, did they exist, 
and what were their functions, then Acts a piece of the evidence 
necessary to answer the question.<<

Perhaps I can approach this same issue in a slightly different 
way (in response to Ken Litwak's original post).  Of course, Acts 
should be analyzed in the same way as other comparable ancient 
documents for "historicity," using "critical acumen" (this aspect 
of historicity is just one of many items to be examined, in my 
opinion -- indeed, a minor one).

In addition, I find the arguments of L. T. Johnson (in his _Acts_ 
commentary) quite astute:  Despite numerous historical 
difficulties, Acts fits comfortably within the (rather loose) 
standards of ancient historiography.  What Johnson calls 
"fictional shaping" is substantially present in major 
portions of Acts.

The key point is this:  Johnson concludes that Acts is 
"impressively precise in matters of local color and detail," 
especially in the latter part of the narrative.  Yet Johnson 
correctly points out that it is bad methodology to extrapolate 
this accuracy of detail in local color (etc.) to imply the 
*general trustworthiness* of its accounts.  This 
methodological fallacy is a common one in many commentaries 
on Acts.  Such factual fastidiousness is also a characteristic of 
good "fiction" (5), according to Johnson.

Note that Johnson does *not* call Acts "fiction"; he just uses 
that as an example -- it would be inaccurate and indeed 
anachronistic to call any such ancient text "fiction" per se.  
Johnson uses the term "apologetic history."  I deal with this in 
more detail in my review of Johnson's excellent commentary in 
_BTB_ 24:4 197- 198.

But the point is clear -- Chariton's _Chareas and Callirhoe_, for 
example, utilizes many such techniques, including "historical" 
characters and many very accurate references.  Not many people, 
however (if any), would argue for the historicity of this ancient 
novel based on such "accuracy in local color and detail."
 
So, in response to Ken Litwak's earlier posting, the sword of 
"treating Acts the same" cuts two ways.

David

********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu

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

From: Troglodyte <huizenga@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:13:44 -35900
Subject: Re: Is this necessary?

As long as we seem to be off topic, I'd like to ask if such a list exists 
for these sorts of discussions where Greek is not the foremost issue, 
where other things are questioned and debated? I tried *bible* but all 
that was going on there was the deciphering of Revelation: How the Pope 
and Saddam Hussein are the Beast and Antichrist; and Why All WHo Worship 
on Sunday are Damned. Of course I'm being a little facetious, but does a 
list exist that pertains more towards scholarship/theology, and if not, 
can one be started?

On Tue, 4 Apr 1995, Leo Percer wrote:

> Folks:
> 
> Is the following discussion really necessary on B-Greek?  What exactly does 
> it have to do with the Greek or the NT?  Do we all need to post our 
> credentials before our views are honestly debated?  I mean, I'm as curious 
> as the next person about this Institute thingy, but let's be honest, it 
> isn't GREEK! <relieved but frustrated sigh>  Sorry, I'm through ranting now.
> 
> With apologies for adding to the off-topic traffic,
> 
> Leo Percer
> PercerL@Baylor.edu
> 
> 
> 
> Date:	 4-APR-95  2:28p
> From:	IN%"merovin@halcyon.com"  "David R Graham"
> To:	IN%"Timster132@aol.com"
> CC:  	IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
> RE:	RE: Baptism
> 
> Return-path: <owner-b-greek@virginia.edu>
> Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU)
>  by baylor.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #8312) id <01HOY0709CRK9KN0J3@baylor.edu>; Tue,
>  04 Apr 1995 14:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
> Received: from Virginia.EDU by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02673; 4 Apr 95 15:25
>  EDT
> Received: from coho.halcyon.com by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02655; 4 Apr 95
>  15:24 EDT
> Received: from  (blv-pm0-ip29.halcyon.com) by halcyon.com with SMTP id AA16829
>  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <b-greek@virginia.edu>); Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:23:55 -0700
> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 12:23:55 -0700
> From: David R Graham <merovin@halcyon.com>
> Subject: Re: Baptism
> X-Sender: merovin@halcyon.com
> To: Timster132@aol.com
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
> Message-id: <199504041923.AA16829@halcyon.com>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Thanks for your note, which follows.  You should tell the folks who said 
> this about me.  You should tell me, also.  Else it's hearsay, no?  Who knows 
> so much about me?  And how do they know?  
> 
> All the best,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> >TO: merovin@halcyon.com
> >
> >Dave, you replied...
> >
> >>I'd like to mention that there is no biblical and there is certainly >much
> >experiential evidence to support the assertion that apostolic >authority is a
> >continuing thing in the sense that there are always >alive -- though not
> >always immediately present -- people who >embody apostolic authority as much
> >as Paul or Thomas did.  >Certainly the laity believe that this is so, as
> >evidenced by their >behavior.  They'll run to an apparent well-spring of
> >soteriological >strength with very great speed and efficiency.  Sometimes
> >they are >right.
> >
> >    So, David, who laid hands on You?  Who gave you your title of Reverend?
> >Professor of Philosophy? 
> >    My understanding is that you are not a recognized minister at all and
> >that you gave this title to yourself.  BTW, hve you noticed that no one here
> >on B-Greek is flocking to you?
> >     And what is this Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning?  It only
> >exists in your mind, doesn't it?  Aren't you just using your son's internet
> >connection?
> >     Sorry about sending you this bad karma, but I really question your creden
> >tials.
> >
> >     Tim Staker
> >
> >
> The Rev. David R. Graham
> Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
> Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
> merovin@halcyon.com
> EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
> 
> 

Leroy Huizenga						huizenga@acc.jc.edu
6383 College Ln.
Jamestown, ND 58405					(701)253-4416


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

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 14:49:43 CST
Subject: Re: Is this necessary? 

On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 Leroy Huizenga wrote:

>As long as we seem to be off topic, I'd like to ask if such a list exists 
>for these sorts of discussions where Greek is not the foremost issue, 
>where other things are questioned and debated? I tried *bible* but all 
>that was going on there was the deciphering of Revelation: How the Pope 
>and Saddam Hussein are the Beast and Antichrist; and Why All WHo Worship 
>on Sunday are Damned. Of course I'm being a little facetious, but does a 
>list exist that pertains more towards scholarship/theology, and if not, 
>can one be started?

Leroy--

Write Greg Slade (camsock@xc.org) for a list of discussion groups on the
Internet that pertain to Christianity.  I would post it but 1) it is long and
2) it is copyrighted.

- --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: Lloyd Schultz <Lloyd.Schultz@mixcom.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 17:45:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Unsubscribe              

UNSUBSCRIBE BIBLICAL GREEK

- -


- -


- -
- ---
 ~ OLX 2.1 TD ~ Lloyd.schultz@mixcom.com
                                            

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

From: RlMackie@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 21:30:41 -0400
Subject: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS 

The NIV translation of Hebrews 13:20 reads "May the God of peace, who
_through the blood of the eternal covenant_ brought back from the dead our
Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep...".  A collegue of mine got the
impression from that language that the God of peace used the blood of the
eternal covenant to raise Jesus from the dead.

The Greek (O DE QEOS THS EIRHNHS O ANAGAGWN EK NEKRWN TON POIMENA TWN
PROBATWN TON MEGAN EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS AIWNIOU TON KURION HMWN IHSOUN) leaves
me with the impression that EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS AIWNIOU does not modify O
ANAGAGWN but MEGAN or POIMENA.  Then the sense might be something like, "The
God of peace, who brought again from the dead the shepherd of the sheep whose
greatness is shown in/by the blood of the eternal covenant--that is our Lord
Jesus..."  Have I missed some clues in the grammar that led the NIV
translators to render it the way they did?

I noticed that one of the list contributors has been working in Hebrews (but
failed to note your identity--_mea culpa_).  Could the list members lend
their gramatical/linguistic insight into this issue?

Roger L. Mackie                    EKEINON DEI AUXANEIN
301 Sherman PO Box 36              EME DE ELATTOUSQAI
GOOD THUNDER MN 56037-0036
(507) 278-3169                     e-mail: rlmackie@aol.com

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

From: "Alan D. Bulley" <458507@acadvm1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 95 21:19:20 EST
Subject: Re: Hebrews

Timster (does he have a real name, or is it ineffable? :-) outlined
his understanding of Hebrews and, by way of saluting his brave gesture,
I thought I'd break "e-mail silence" and ask some questions...

On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:23:38 -0400 Timster said:
>From: Timster132@aol.com
>
>    I did an intense study of Hebrews last year, particularly trying to
>understand what that author means by "purification".  I can ellaborate on this
> later if you are interested.
>     Anyway, as regards to date, I believe I have come to the conclusion that
>Hebrews was written in that period after Paul and before the Temple was
>destroyed, ie, in the 60's.
>     Reasons:
>     1. If the Temple had already been destroyed, there would be little
>reason to write an apology against the Temple Priesthood.  (see 8:13-- it had
>not yet disapeared)

Why do you believe that Hebrews is "an apology against the Temple
Priesthood"? All references in Heb. to the location of the cult
involve the Tabernacle (_skhnh_) and the author's description of the
cultus is seemingly based on the OT alone -- it is entirely possible
that he knew little or nothing of the Jerusalem temple.

>     2. Its soteriology is expressed as Christ's having "made purification"
>for our sins, which would make MOST sense to believers who knew and who had
>immediate experience with temple worship (9:13-14)

It could just as easily make sense to anyone who was familiar with
the OT. Contemporary Christians continue to use sacrificial
language without any immediate experience of the Jerusalem temple.

>    3. Sin for the author of Hebrews is turning back to the Temple priesthood
>and sacrifices, which explains why when turning back there "no longer remains
>a sacrifice for sin" in Christ, and it is "profaning/trampling on the blood
>of Christ" (10:26-29).

I would hate to limit "sin" in Hebrews to any one item, but isn't
"faithlessness / unbelief" the besetting sin the author underlines
again and again in his argument? (3:7-19; 4:2, 14; 6:4-12; etc.)
Isn't this underlined all the more by the positive example given
by the lengthy praise of those who lived by _pistis_ in ch.11?

>    4. The theology of Hebrews represents a transitional phase in theological
>development in the NT.  There is a definite Pauline influence in the theology
>(Christ the exact imprint of God, Christ as mediator, Superiority of Christ)
>yet a curious absence of the influence of the Gospel narratives/midrash
>concerning who Jesus is.  No sign of birth narratives here.  For the author
>of Hebrews, Christ is "a Son" from God who serves as God's Priest AND
>Sacrifice.  This is an evolution from Christ as "adopted Son" (Psalm 2) to
>installed Priest.  This does not seem as developed as the King, Moral
>Teacher, Healer, Logos images of Christ found in the Gospels.

I'm not sure why "King, Moral Teacher, Healer [and] Logos images of
Christ" must necessarily be more "developed" than the priestly
Christology of Hebrews. There are a few other points in this
message I'd like to pick up on, but I'm afraid that we'll wind
up all over the map before we have a chance to discuss your first three
points. :-)

I don't know -- perhaps b-greek isn't the place to launch into a
discussion of Hebrews. Any thoughts?


Alan D. Bulley
Faculty of Theology/Faculte de theologie |458507@acadvm1.uottawa.ca
Saint Paul University/Universite St-Paul |abulley@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
Ottawa, Canada

Fax: (613) 782-3005

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

From: rmihailovich@fre.fsu.umd.edu
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 21:47:03 EDT
Subject: please help Isa 48 

I need your help. I am studing Isaiah the 48th chapter. I need you Hebrew
scholars to help me with a difficult passage. I need the answer by Friday,
if poss. It appears that this chapter (48) is 1 person narr. and identifies
as the creator. Now the end of the verse  48:16 says, " and now the Lord
God, and his Spirit, has sent me". Question, sinse the Creator is speaking
is the "me" here the creator. Most interprete it as Isaiah, but I can see no
justification for the switch. So is there reason why the "me" of this verse
can not be the creator. Now I know some of you may not except the idea of
the trinity. But could this be the first and third person of the trinity
sending the second person of the Godhead or trinity to redeem. Could this
be interpreted in light of John 1:11, " he came unto his own " and John 1:14
" and the Word was made(became) flesh and dwelt amoung us".
 
Also, Isaiah 48:15, " I have called him; I have brought him " and 48:14,
" the Lord hath loved him ". The interpreters say this is Cyrus. My
question is. does the language force me to except Cyrus. This appears
to be a prophetic verse in which Cyrus is not the fulfillment. For one
the Lord never said anywhere that "he loved Cyrus".
 
Anyway, what is the language saying. Can any of you help?
 

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

From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 22:08:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation 

> I have a lot of trouble with the idea that Jews had an established and 
> recognized legal status in the Empire.  This makes Jews and Romans sound
>  chummy, which they hardly were at least in Palestine.  If they were
> chummy  outside Palestine, then who was in Palestine and who was chummy
> with Romans 

Chummy is not a word I would use.  Legal status only means that the religion
was recognized under the umbrella of Rome and Roman occumpation.   The charge
used against the Christians by Jews in Roman Empire was that Christians were
advocating allegiance to another Lord besides Caesar: the charge of
rebellion.  As such, the synagogues who were angry with Paul and his converts
 found the Roman Law a convenient lever to use against the new sect.  I would
not call this chummy, but political opportunism.
( Cf. Acts 19, 15:50, 14:5, 19)

Jefferis Kent Peterson
Center For Biblical Literacy
P.O.Box 1736
Lawrenceville, GA 30246-1736

"Love the Lord with all your....mind."

AOL: JefferisP
Internet: JefferisP@aol.com
CompuServe: 73061,1777

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #651
*****************************

** 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