b-greek-digest V1 #735

b-greek-digest              Sunday, 4 June 1995        Volume 01 : Number 735

In this issue:

        RE: CODEX 
        Re: Ending of Mark
        Re: 7Q5 and NT Scrolls 
        Re: 7Q5 and NT Scrolls
        Re: ANE: subject lines
        Re: Ending of Mark 
        Re: Paul & the Judaizers 
        Re: Mark 16:8


From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 14:04:12 -0400
Subject: RE: CODEX 

At 10:51 AM 03/06/95, perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>Re. NT fragments from scrolls--
>The only NT scroll fragments I know of are the 7Q5 fragments, and they are too
>small for a conclusive determination of their content to be made.

Presumably the first line above is a typo for "The only putative NT scroll
fragments --an assignment almost universally rejected-- are the..."   ;-)

In any case, unless I am mistaken other NT scroll fragments exist; for
example among the papyri, p12, p13, p18 and p22 are, I believe, generally
assumed to come from scrolls.

(BTW, I'm quoting here from Eldon Epp's survey essay on the papyri[pg5],
the first essay in Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes' wonderful new
Festschrift in honor of Bruce Metzger's 80th birthday.  Thank you Drs
Ehrman and Holmes; my reading for the summer has been settled.)

Nichael                          -- Do not trust in these deceptive
nichael@sover.net                   words: "This is the
temple of the
Paradise Farm                       Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
Brattleboro VT                          temple of the Lord".


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:14:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark

On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> > with someone making the inventive leap. As it stands, however, the 
> > hypothesis of Q as a loose-leaf codex is itself something of an 
> > imponderable, and all the more so for those who think that the Q 
> > hypothesis is itself an imponderable; would they want to grasp at this 
> > straw to uphold the possibility of a Marcan text that begins before 1:1 
> > and continues beyond 16:8? 
> As I understand both the comment you reacted to as well as Niel's 
> suggestion is that it is MARK (not Q) which was written on the codex 
> whose leaves were lost.  Somewhere I read (_Birth of the Codex_ perhaps?) 
> that codices came into acceptable usage in 3rd and 4th centuries but they 
> appeared earlier and were used in the 2nd, and thus by leap of 
> supposition it is possible there were a few in the first-as to whether 
> that is likely, is another question altogether.
Yes, I think this is possible; I just wonder how likely it is. As Greg 
Jordan's most recent post on this says, it's a "ponderable."

The highly ironic thing about all this to me is the way our biases play 
into what we consider REALLY ponderable. I'm not really looking for an 
alternative to a Mark that begins at 1:1 and ends at 16:8; I'm satisfied 
that the MSS evidence PROBABLY gives us the authentic text. On the other 
hand, I find the Q hypothesis attractive and VERY ponderable. You and 
others, Larry, make it quite clear that you don't think so (and I really 
don't think anything's to be gained by repeating that thread). My feeling 
is that it's not altogether satisfactory but it explains more to me than 
it leaves unexplained.

But, at any rate, I do agree that the codex form must begin somewhere 
with someone taking a decisive step. I just wonder how likely it is that 
gospel texts would be copied to papyrus AFTER and FROM a version written 
in codex form. And I admit, I just don't know enough about book 
production to hazard an opinion worth recording. Guess I'd better shut up! 

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


From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 14:26:58 -0400
Subject: Re: 7Q5 and NT Scrolls 

At 11:49 AM 03/06/95, Paul Moser wrote:
> [re: 7Q5] ... Fee plans to publish his results
>as soon as a journal agrees to reproduce the photograph
>of the fragment...

A question:  Are these photographs not already published?  Photographs of
the fragments have appeared in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series
(I have photocopies of the plates lying here on my desk beside me as I

As a note pictures of the fragments have also appeared in several popular
magazines; however, in most cases these prints appeared in magazines of an
evangelical bent in articles which typically presented O'Callaghan's
original claims as settled.

Nichael                          -- Do not trust in these deceptive
nichael@sover.net                   words: "This is the
temple of the
Paradise Farm                       Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
Brattleboro VT                          temple of the Lord".


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:24:33 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: 7Q5 and NT Scrolls

On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Paul Moser wrote:

> Carsten Thiede has argued at length (most recently
> in *Biblica*, 1994) that 7Q5 is a Markan fragment, but
> Gordon Fee has identified some decisive problems in
> Thiede's case.  It turns out that Thiede's reconstruction
> of the fragment's letters is much more dubious than
> Thiede suggests.  Fee plans to publish his results
> as soon as a journal agrees to reproduce the photograph
> of the fragment.  Thiede, by the way, is also known
> for his dubious claims about the Matthew fragment at
> Magdalen, Oxford, claims reported at length in the
> Dec. 1994 *Times* of London.--Paul Moser, Loyola
> University of Chicago.

Paul, unless I am mistaken, Thiede's argument on that Oxford Magdalen 
fragment also involves a proposition PERHAPS relevant to our discussion 
(which seems to me like grasping at so many straws in the wind): that the 
script on it thought generally to be third-century really did belong to 
the first century? I think that has been to some extent laughed out of 
court (recent discussion on Ioudaios-L) but one never knows in questions 
like this who's going to have the last laugh. 

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


From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 95 14:18 CDT
Subject: 7Q5 

By "the" photo of 7Q5, I meant the one that Thiede
takes to settle the dispute in his favor.  According
to Thiede's '94 *Biblica* piece, the fragment was
examined under the auspices of the Israel National
Police with some salient results.  The disputed
"nu", according to Thiede, could now be identified.
Fee contends, among other things, that the apparent
"nu" results from a smudge mark, not from a genuine
"nu".  The previous photos of 7Q5, including that
represented in Thiede's short book on the topic,
are inconclusive.  Thiede's computer test on the
fragment faces problems from its reliance on
certain letters that arguably aren't in the
fragment.  I'm not at liberty to reproduce
Fee's unpublished case, but it is rigorous
and incisive, as one would expect.  Thiede
does, however, have the support of an Austrian
papyrologist (H. Hunger, as I recall).  As for
Thiede's dating of the Matthew fragment, I don't
know of any corroborating support.  The case for
the latter was published in early '95 in the
*Zeitschrift fuer papyrologie*.--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.


From: Bill Chapman <billc@housing.msstate.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 14:49:42 CST
Subject: Re: ANE: subject lines

> From:          Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
> To:            ane@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu
> Date:          Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:00:46 -0400 (EDT)

> a plea:
> for all the poor slobs like me who signed up for way too many lists,
> could we not as a favour do something about the subject lines to allow
> for quick sorting of mail?? please. (don't make me beg.)
Instead of asking for conformity to some arbitrary abbreviations,
why not use the features of your own mailer to achieve the results
you are seeking.

Your header says you are using elm as a mailer.  This mailer has an
option for you to type "l" (lower case L) and limit the mail you
view to some pattern, e.g., to:=b-greek, or some-such.  Other mailers
(maybe elm, also) have filtering rules.  With my rules, I have mail
forwarded to a separate folder for each list to which I subscribe,
based upon the to: or from: line.  Then, my personal mail stays in
the mailbox, and mailing-list mail goes to these folders, which I
can view whenever it is convenient. 

I think you you will have more success by discovering and using the
capabilities of your mailer than you will have by trying to get
changed behavior from the thousands of us on the multiple lists you
sent this message to. 
- --
Bill Chapman:BillC@housing.msstate.edu:POBox 1262:MSU, MS 39762


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 21:57:18 -0400
Subject: vacation 

To all;

I have really enjoyed the list and the exchange of ideas concerning bib.
Greek.  I will be on vacation til about July 1.  I look forward to getting
back on the list and continuing this lively exchange.

Carlton Winbery
LA College, Pineville, LA


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 22:40:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark 

TO B-Greek@virginia.edu

On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> but Sato's speculation on the material form in which 
> the Q sayings were preserved in the Q community--the "loose
>-leaf  notebook"--does not, so far as I know, rely upon any 
>evidence of such a  proto-codex sort of device, which would be, 
>I guess, a development of the  double waxed wooden tablets 
>bound by one or more leather thongs in a fold- over format.

The waxed wooden tablets were used for writing practice by
young pupils.  They could easily be recoated and used over
and over again.  It's hard to imagine anyone wanting to preserve
the teachings of their Master on such a temporary medium.
But I guess since Q is "vaporware", then that is appropriate. :)

Tim Staker


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 22:37:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Paul & the Judaizers 


  On 6/03 jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu, Greg Jordon, wrote..
>I agree with much of this post, but I wonder whether it is 
>appropriate to consider details of the narrative as a "midrash."
>Even if they weren't historical (and I would question whether 
>all Galilean fishermen were mere midrashim on Jeremiah 
>16:16), it would probably be better to describe the influence 
>in folkloric terms.  Rabbinic midrash is capable of flights of
>fancy, but it is usually self-contained and not part of a 
>continuous narrative history.  There are also haggadic 
>approaches in the NT.

    Scholars are beginning to recognize the different forms the
of midrash styles.  The most familiar and the predominant 
style of midrash is that of the exegetical style that "teases"
meaning out of the smallest aspects of the text.  One 
famous example is that of the Rabbinical midrash on
why there is no Nun chapter in the acrostic Psalm 119.  The
rabbis come up with all sorts of interpretation that seems
"fanciful" to the modern linear mind.  
   I wonder now if  these extreme examples of Rabbinical 
midrash have been oft cited was because of the underlying
antisemitism that was present in the work of Biblical scholars
in the early third part of this century, and this has been passed 
on uncritically.
   Other styles of midrashim are now being recognized by scholars, such as
Herman Hendrickx and Raymond Brown, particularly the narrative midrash.
 Brown suggests that Matthew as the author 
of his narrative midrash gospel may be describing himself as a 
scribe "who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven, who is 
like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new 
and what is old" (Mt 13:52).
   Its also clear that the style of narrative midrash was not 
monolithic. Mark and Matthew's midrash styles are very different.
Mark's midrashic elements are woven directly into
the narrative.  He has the primary resource of 2nd Isaiah.
   Matthew, on the other hand, often made it painstakingly
evident which Scriptures he felt were brought to life (ie, "fulfilled"--
not literally, but in the midrashic, timeless sense) in the
life of Jesus.
    Luke has adds a touch of genious in his midrash style,
his Jesus portraying the Elijah power in the Lucan-only 
passages.  And his Acts is also full of powerful story-telling
elements that are midrash, for example, of Babel in Acts 2 as
to how the gospel was spread out over the face of the world. 
    This narrative midrash can also be found in the Old Testament,
in what were previously thought of as "parallel passages".  They
are actually stories with weavings of previous stories of which
the timeless elements were recognized and reused in ways
appropriate to narrative midrash.
    The debates concerning midrash narative in the gospels
isn't over whether or not they used midrash, but _WHICH_
OT passages were the authors interpreting? Talk about a

    Take care, Greg.

    Tim Staker


From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 20:16:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8

Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu) quoted and wrote: 
>On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
>>    Paul did a pretty good job of explaining the theological import 
of the
>> resurrection without a "resurrection story". 
>>    In fact, I have wondered what Paul would have thought of the late 
>> resurrection stories.  Concerning resurrection, he believed that 
"flesh and
>> blood do not inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15).
>I wouldn't think Paul is docetic here.  He contradicts those who deny 
>Jesus's physical death (15:3) and resurrection (15:12 etc.), and his 
>qualification of the type of resurrected body seems to be aimed at 
>who worried that their dead were rotting such that they couldn't be 
>raised any more (15:35).  He explains there are different kinds of 
>and body (15:39, 44); the one rots, the other will be born from the 
>like a plant sprouting from a seed (37), incapable of rotting.  This 
>would basically fit all the gospel resurrection stories, including 

    It is also ilustrative to consider Paul's comments on the 
resurrection in I Cor. 15:4-8 which lend support to the idea of 
*appearances* after Jesus' resurrection.  If Paul were thinking only of 
a "spiritual" resurrection and an "experiencing" the resurrection as 
some purely subjective experience, he would not have limited the 
witnesses.  If that were his concept of the resurrection, he would have 
been telling the Corinthians that they, too, could "see" the 
resurrected Lord.

    Notice also that Paul's list of witnesses is definite; he names 
names.  He also mentions more than two hundred fifty who saw the risen 
Lord who are still alive at the time of writing, the clear implication 
being that these people were also known and accessible to whoever might 
want to question them about their experience.  These statements of his 
indicate that, as far as Paul's testimony is concerned, positing a 
purely subjective experience or some kind of purely spiritual communion 
on the part of the witnesses to the resurrection is not really an 


    David L. Moore                    Director of Education
    Miami, FL, USA                Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com               of the Assemblies of God


End of b-greek-digest V1 #735


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: