[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #653
b-greek-digest Friday, 7 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 653
In this issue:
Re: Subject: NT Documents
1st C. synagoague services?
Future Middle Deponents
MYSTERY
Re: Future Middle Deponents
Re: Future Middle Deponents
Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
Mystery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 10:53:59 EST
Subject: Re: Subject: NT Documents
Unfortunately, Ken Litwak has "abandoned" this particular field,
but I can't help but respond one last time:
Ken wrote:
>>If Pliny said something recorded nowhere else, say, Domitian
liked to wear funny hats, he would probably be given more credit
fro being right than Luke was for the existence of Asiarchs.
It's fine to say taht we should look for corroborating evidence
outside the NT, but if Pliny or Seutonius or Thucydides can be
taken as accurate sources for events that are only recorded by
one of them, why can't the NT be treated the same way?<<
First, let me agree that there is such a bias in some scholars.
Alan Segal, for example, had to write a book to "reclaim" Paul
as an example of a first-century Jew. Yet, on the other hand,
there are also many scholars with the opposite bias -- that the
NT authors *have* to be historically accurate in every detail,
and they reject *any* evidence that suggests otherwise. My
original point was that the "sword cuts two ways."
Second, let me bring in some other reasons why the precise
historicity of Acts is suspect at times:
1. Acts contradicts itself in places (e.g., the reports of
Paul's "conversion").
2. Acts and Paul contradict each other (e.g., Gal 2 and
Acts). So, some of the primary reasons for many scholars'
skepticism about Acts' precise historicity come from the biblical
texts themselves!
3. Acts fits within the standards of *ancient*
historiography, which did not have the same standards of precise
historicity (your term "facticity," is a bit misleading, I think)
as we expect today. The focus was more "character-centered," as
C Gill has demonstrated in his analyses of Plutarch and Tacitus.
We also could talk about the extreme (and necessary)
selectivity of Acts (e.g., the focus on Paul and not the other
apostles in the latter parts of the narrative). Or how the
vignettes were shaped by biblical models from the LXX and
hellenistic type scenes, both literary and cultural -- and this
literary stereotyping can be pointed out in almost all ancient
literature.
My point is that extreme positions should be avoided because
they don't conform to the data in the texts and because they set
up false dichotomies and false alternatives. We should weigh the
evidence that we have as fairly as we can. Is that not your main
point?
Just think about some of the other extant ancient literature
and how meticulous scholars have been about pouring over
historical details. For example:
1. Suetonius' _Lives_: Although it gives an air of
impartiality that simulates objectivity, it is embroidered with
gossip and exaggeration. It utilizes many rhetorical techniques
(e.g., _divisio_), its use of physiognomy causes me, at least, to
look at it a bit askance -- but that was an accepted practice in
the ancient world. Scholars have been taking him to task for
years for the historical difficulties he presents in other areas.
2. Josephus: The _Antiquities_ is also embroidered with
gossip, and it contradicts _War_ in places (e.g., the portrait of
Herod). Josephus is personally involved in many of the events
in _War_, but it still is quite tendentious in places (e.g.,
especially about his rival, John of Gischala). Josephus even
begs forgiveness for his prejudice (e.g., I.4). The speeches in
_War_ (like all speeches in ancient historigraphy) are primarily
rhetorical creations that "fit." (see Varneda, _Josephus_, pp.
89- 117).
3. Tacitus' _Annals_: It reeks of disillusionment and
cynicism about recent imperial history and uses many type
characters, like the "sage" and "tyrant." There are
inconsistenceis in his portraits of people, like Tiberius.
Tacitus, it is clear, does not give a completely accurate
portrait of people he abhors, like Nero and Tiberius.
4. Plutarch: He gives a lot of helpful information, but his
constructions are rhetorical and illustrative. Because the
focus is "instruction of character," Plutarch also uses
stereotypes, lieterary techniques like the AKME, and a literary
patterm that every person follows (early promise, tests,
decline, etc.).
I could go on ad nauseum -- and perhaps already have! __ but
such ancient narratives *have* been put through the wringer as
far as historicity; NT scholars have not always recognized this,
but these texts have all been studied with the "critical acumen"
you seek.
Ken: >>Second, I reject the assertion that accuracy in small
details tells nothing about the overall accuracy of a work.
Let me correct this slight hyperbole that leads to a false
dichotomy, because it does not accurately reflect what I wrote.
My posting actually said that we cannot "extrapolate [Acts']
accuracy of detail . . . to imply the *general trustwrthiness* of
its accounts." I submit that there is a tremendous difference
between that statement and the concept that you evidently were
responding to.
But, if you think that accuracy in small details *does* imply
something about the overall accuracy about a work, let me ask you
a couple questions:
Chariton's _Chaereas and Callirhoe_ gives us a lot of
accurate details about "local color," as well as many other
general historical information (e.g., prayer and worship in the
ancient world, the role of Fate in belief, etc.). So, if you
believe such local details say something about the general
historical trustworthiness, what is your evaluation of the
portrayal of Hermocrates, the general of Syracuse, and Artaxerxes,
King of Babylon? The problem is that other sources tell us that
they were not comtemporaries. What should we conclude from that?
And should we investigate similar chronological problems
that occur Acts? (like the "Egyptian?").
Apuleius' _The Golden Ass_ also tells us much in general
about the ancient world (e.g., the Egyptian Zatchlas and the Isis
cult, physicians, Hypata, etc.; see Fergus Millar's article, for
example). But does such verisimilitude lead us to make any
conclusions about the historicity of the details of this story?
Especially when we see the use of such literary stereotypes as
found in _The Milesian Tales_ or the _Theophrastan Characters_.
These are items that can be pointed to explicitly and are not
"pulled out of the air" subjectively.
Ken: >>I do note, however,that what's involved here is really
complete subjective feeling. Some historians doubt some things
said by Roman historians, because they view them as unlikely.
Why?
I hope some of the above answered that question, but a close
reading of those texts and of comparative texts gives us valuable
data for making such evaluations. These are not "complete
subjective feeling."
Ken: >>In the case of he NT, this becomes more difficult for some
because they are not ready for the supernatural elements
involved.
This has been true in the past, and there are still some who
start from that presupposition. But, on the other hand, I think
you are trying to fight "old battles." We have discussed the
Jesus Seminar on another list, so let me use as an example,
Narcus Borg's latest article (_The Fourth R_ 7:3). He gives a
"sketch" of the historical Jesus in five brush strokes. The
*first two items* are: "Ecstatic" and "healer." Let me quote
Borg: "I am persuaded that the gospel traditions about Jesus as
healer and exorcist reflect historical happenings" (p. 12). On
the other hand, he rejects the nature miracles. I do not agree
with Borg's overall position, but this article gives evidence
both against and, in part, for the validity of your argument.
My point, again, is that we need to avoid the extremes of both
"sides" and look more closely at these texts *and* at all the
comparative ancient texts at our disposal. Then, and only then,
can we start putting these issues into their proper historical,
social, cultural, economic, political, and ideological contexts.
Ken:
>> unless of course you decided that Acts belongs to a genre
that specifically doesn't care about the facts, an act of
classification that I challenge because form doesn't dictate the
significance of content (contra Bultmann and his descendants, who
are still with us :-). How do we know if Mark is trying to
record facts rather than midrtash or liteary fiction to
accomplish his task or even BUddhism as David Graham has
suggested?
This is a mixing of points. Genre analysis is a bit
different. But I would argue that genre analysis *not only*
should drive us to investigate large numbers of Jewish and Greco-
Roman literature for comparison, *but also* should propel the
interpreter to a more detailed study of the document at hand (see
_New Boundaries in Old Territory_, pp. 15-16, 91-117). Bultmann
is being superceded here, once again, because many are realizing
that Clyde Votaw's attack against the theological presuppositions
of Bultmann, Dibelius, and Schmidt was essentially correct, and
that we need to realize and concentrate on more of the literary
elements involved in examining the genre of the gospels, for
example.
I have already disregarded the injunction of Sirach that "The one
who uses too many words will be despised," so I will end here.
But the above material responds to the rest of Ken's legitimate
concerns in the remainder of his last posting.
Best wishes, David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:40:46 -0500
Subject: 1st C. synagoague services?
Do we have any evidence as to the customary time for the synagogue service
in the first century? Was it held Friday evening (after 6 PM) or sometime
on Saturday?
Thanks,
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT Kansas City, Missouri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 16:01:41 +0500
Subject: Future Middle Deponents
From a linguistic point of view, we call it the process of
simplification. Every language over a period of time simplifies itself in
phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Future middles changing over
to active forms were common but a few did not get switched over. In Hebrew
class we had a phrase for this "yotsay main ha'clal" - the exception to the
rule!
The amount of simplification that took place with koine greek from
classical greek was so "revolutionary" that Atticism made a short comeback.
It was short lived due to the number of Greek speakers from Asia Minor down
to North Africa, and the use of the language for business purposes.
Kent A. Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 95 15:55:00 MST
Subject: MYSTERY
I would be interested to hear any opinions from the list concerning Paul's
use of the word musterion(mystery). His use of h oikonomia tou musteriou in
Eph. 3:9 would seem to indicate a particular -house-law- or economy or
administration of this mystery or secret which is being brought to light
-photisai-which has been hidden away from the ages in God etc.
How was this received by the readers "of his day"? I know of the existance
of the so-called mystery religions etc. but does anyone have an idea of the
impact Eph 3 had on the culture-i.e. Greek-of the day?
As there are many on this list with different view-points, I would be
interested to hear them...
thanks,
Pete Cepuch
tDd
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 18:23:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Future Middle Deponents
On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Kent Sutorius wrote:
> From a linguistic point of view, we call it the process of
> simplification. Every language over a period of time simplifies itself in
> phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Future middles changing over
> to active forms were common but a few did not get switched over. In Hebrew
> class we had a phrase for this "yotsay main ha'clal" - the exception to the
> rule!
Let me be sure that I understand what you're saying: is it that all
futures were originally middle but that most of them changed over
historically to active forms? Historically, of course, the future forms
appear originally to have been short-vowel aorist subjunctives built on
the same stem as the present tense. I have wondered whether the future,
particularly in intransitive verbs, but not only those, involved a sense
of self-projection and went into the middle voice for that reason.
but is that what you really mean: that all or most futures were
originally middle in form and most of them regularized into actives if,
in fact, the present tense is active. Is there evidence for such a
thesis? I guess there's plenty of material in Homer, at least, to test
it. But I want to be sure if that is, in fact, what you're saying.
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: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 23:13:44 +0500
Subject: Re: Future Middle Deponents
>To: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
>From: kassutor@clark.net (Kent Sutorius)
>Subject: Re: Future Middle Deponents
>
> Carl wrote in my response:
>
>>but is that what you really mean: that all or most futures were
>>originally middle in form and most of them regularized into actives if,
>>in fact, the present tense is active. Is there evidence for such a
>>thesis? I guess there's plenty of material in Homer, at least, to test
>>it. But I want to be sure if that is, in fact, what you're saying.
>>
> As a general rule that is precisely what I am saying. A.T.
Robertson is not willing to stick his neck out on prescribing the reason
such a phenomenon occurs, but it's a simple fact of simplicity that occurs
in language. That was the purpose of Koine versus Attic. It simplified
rules (grammar) for the masses to pick up. Attic had too many variations
plus phonological adaptations that made the language difficult. You
therefore see alternative forms of the future being reduced to the use of
the sigma-future (e.g.zhsw in place of zhsomai). Apparently those verb
stems that could not take an active sigma aorist kept the middle voice form
(BDF). You see the same thing happening with second aorist forms giving way
to first aorist forms (e.g. hmarton to hmarthsa). -mi verbs give way to -w
verbs. Modern Greek has no -mi verb forms and no distinction of first
aorist/second aorist.
>
>Kent A. Sutorius
>Maryland Bible College and Seminary
>kassutor@clark.net
>
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 23:15:18 +0500
Subject: Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
>To: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
>From: kassutor@clark.net (Kent Sutorius)
>Subject: Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
>
>Rod wrote,
>
>>Do we have any evidence as to the customary time for the synagogue service
>>in the first century? Was it held Friday evening (after 6 PM) or sometime
>>on Saturday?
>>
>
> When I was studying in Israel, I wrote a paper on the geography of
the Gospels in the Galilee. I used the Palestinian Talmud plus other
sources from that time that stated that synagogue services were held Friday
evenings after sunset and on Saturday mornings. It was more common to see
men attending the Friday services and a mixed assembly (women in the back or
in the balcony) on Saturday. I think Luke 4 would attest to a Saturday service.
>
>
>Kent A. Sutorius
>Maryland Bible College and Seminary
>kassutor@clark.net
>
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 23:46:28 +0500
Subject: Mystery
Some general remarks: musterion refers not to something mysterious
but that which is hidden/secret until it is disclosed. The revelation of
the Body of Christ was clearly not seen by any in the Old Testament and of
the Apostles, Paul was the recipient of such a fantastic revelation. The
impact was tremendous. For the first time, the world has the means of
having true communion with God. Rich, poor, free, slave, man, woman, races,
etc. are one in Christ. The body takes on (zwh) life (which turned the
world upside down). The Church is God's means of proclaiming and
exemplifying the reality of the new birth. Truly an amazing word and
doctrine to study.
Kent A. Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #653
*****************************
** 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