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

b-greek-digest V1 #908




b-greek-digest            Friday, 13 October 1995      Volume 01 : Number 908

In this issue:

        [none]
        Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7
        NEW:  CSN - Christian Software News mailing list
        Tempering with Junia
        What's Wrong with Q? 
        Re: Tempering with Junia
        Re: Used books - the list, finally 
        Eph 4:9 "Lower parts of the earth" 
        2 Refs. on Q and Griesbach 
        Re: What's Wrong with Q?
        Greek Lexica
        Re: What's Wrong with Q? 
        Bible Works & WordPerfect
        Re: Eph 4:9 "Lower parts of the earth"
        apologies 
        Re: Greek-Hebrew Bible Resources 
        APOLOGIES
        RE: HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE
        Re: SUMMARY RE: BOOKS ON THE S

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

From: octavian@co.cnscc.ro
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 08:30:03 -0700
Subject: [none]

unsubscribe

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

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 13:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7

"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:

>I think that this is a very reasonable view of the passage. I must say that
>when I said I think that 1 Cor 1:5-7 should be understood as ironic, I had
>no idea that anyone had ever suggested it before (although I SHOULD suppose
>that all sorts of people have said all sorts of things about Paul!). David
>Moore has responded at length to that suggestion and raised a number of
>points with which I would not disagree, although I still would not put the
>construction upon this statement in 1:5-7 that he has put--that Paul
>indicates here by his congratulation of the Corinthians his satisfaction
>that their glossolalia is a valid and important spiritual accomplishment
>(or rather _endowment_, inasmuch as Paul very clearly says this is
>something given rather than achieved). I still am not satisfied that this
>is Paul's position. And although I would agree that Paul does NOT tell the
>Corinthians that they should not practice glossolalia, I still think that
>the tenor of what he says in chapters 12-14 is that the practice needs to
>be reined in and subordinated to rational communication in the worship of
>the congregation; I still believe also that the opening of chapter 13
>relativizes both rhetoric and glossolalia to a low level among XARISMATA.
>

Carl,

	I put my recent post on 1Cor. 1:5-7 through a search engine to see
if it contained a mention of tongues but couldn't find the word; GLOSS*
turned up empty as well.  Part of the problem in dealing with the biblical
data on spiritual gifts is that some of the gifts elicit emotional
reactions which can disrupt real dialogue. 

	My comments on this passage reflect (I think) my belief that Paul
sees the spiritual gifts as ideally functioning in harmonious concert for
the purpose of edifying the body of Christ.  Although they were not so
functioning in Corinth when Paul wrote 1Corinthians, he appears to take as
a hopeful sign that they were at least functioning in some capacity. 

	Unmentioned, but, IMHO, present in most open discussions of the
topic of the gifts of the Spirit is the fairly-widely-held cessationist
position which posits that legitimate charismatic gifts ceased to function
at the end of the apostolic period.  I've traced the idea back as far as
Calvin (although Eusebius and some others might have expressed at least a
similar attitude) who had been negatively impressed by some of the
doctrines and practices of the Montanists, although they predate him by
several centuries.  Sometimes, IMO, those who hold a cessationist position
find it difficult to see in the biblical data on gifts of the Spirit,
information that might tend to confirm contemporary charismatic practice. 
I really don't know that anyone on the list specifically holds this
position, but felt that it should be mentioned relating to the open
discussion we've had on this topic, since it may be present here as an
undercurrent. 

	Relative to Johan D.F. (Erik) van Halsema's suggestion that 1Cor.
1:5-7 constitutes a "Table of contents," it seems unwarranted to put such
a formal name on Paul's words here.  Erik is observant in noting that Paul
mentions themes that he later touches on and develops in the rest of the
letter, but there is no formal statement included in 1:5-7 and context
that he intends to so do.  One would expect this latter to be present here
if really were presenting this passage as a "table of contents." 

	Congratulations on your (was it) 61 years and to Edward Hobbs on
his 70; you're both considerably ahead of me since I only turn 51 later
this month. 

All the best,

David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education



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

From: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 95 08:50:04 EDT
Subject: NEW:  CSN - Christian Software News mailing list

For your information...

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
*** Forwarding note from SMTP    --DMT03    10/12/95 17:26 ***
=========================================================================
Received: from virginia.edu by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with TCP; Thu, 12 Oct 95 17:26:33 EDT
Received: from dylan.mindspring.com by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19210;
          12 Oct 95 17:25 EDT
Received: from jlovettpc.tallassee.wm.slb.com [163.185.142.11] by
dylan.mindspring.com
	with SMTP id RAA01761 for <djm5g@virginia.edu>; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:13:45
- -0400
Message-Id: <199510122113.RAA01761@dylan.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: serious@mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 16:17:17 -0500
To: djm5g@virginia.edu
From: Serious Developments <serious@mindspring.com>
Subject: NEW:  CSN - Christian Software News mailing list

David John Marotta,
I would greatly appreciate it if you would pass the following announcement
on to the members of your B-GREEK and B-HEBREW mailing lists.  Thanks for
your help.
- --Jerry Lovett

CSN - Christian Software News mailing list

   Purpose:  To keep the Christian community informed of new software
   products as they become available.  Product categories covered by
   the list will include most Christian and Church related software
   products including:  Bible Study, Clipart, Desktop Publishing,
   Church Management Systems, Edutainment, Games, and miscellaneous
   items such as Christian Screen Savers.  Recipients can expect to
   receive one or two emails per week.  Product announcements will
   be high on content and low on Marketing hype.  This is a one-way
   mailing list in order to control the volume and quality of the
   postings.  Anyone wishing to announce new products via this list
   should contact serious@mindspring.com and request the CSN Submission
   Guidelines.  Operating systems for the items announced typically
   run about 90-95% Windows/DOS, 5-10% Macintosh, and <1% for others.
   This is not by design, but is the nature of the Christian Software
   Industry.  We just print the news, we don't make it.

   To subscribe, send email to
       serious@mindspring.com
   and in the body of the message put
       SUBSCRIBE CSN FirstName LastName

   To subscribe via the World Wide Web or to obtain back issues:
       http://www.viper.net/clients/serious/csn.htm

   Owner:  Jerry Lovett <serious@mindspring.com>


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

From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Tempering with Junia

    I'm trying to track down some of the modifications of the NT text that
appear to reflect early Xn opposition to the active role of women in the
church.  In a passage batted about on this list occasionally, Rom 16:7,
there is a variant that, to my knowledge, no one has made much or anything
of, the addition of an article prior to the word _sunaixmalwtous_ in P46
and B.  The change could of course simply tie the word back more closely 
to the _suggeneis_ preceding.  But could it also allow for an alternative 
reading of the text, so that it no longer says "Greet Andronikus and 
Junias, my kin and fellow prisoners, who are preeminent among the 
apostles" but instead, possibly, "Greet Andronikus and Junias, my kin. 
And (also greet) my fellow prisoners who are preeminent among the 
apostles"?  If so, the English translators who have been so keen to 
perform a sex change on Junia may have some (more) like-minded forebears.

   Reflections and reactions?

- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


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

From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 09:46 CDT
Subject: What's Wrong with Q? 

Perhaps Perry Stepp would kindly explain what exactly
is wrong with the plausible hypothesis that Matthew and
Luke independently used Q sources not found in Mark?
Why assume that there's something inherently wrong with
such an hypothesis, especially when it has tremendous
explanatory value?  In his prologue, Luke pretty much
admits that he had a range of sources available to him.
C. Tuckett has a nice piece, "The Existence of Q," in
a 1995 SNTS collection edited by R.A. Piper.  It's
very difficult to explain Matthew-Luke agreements
(against Mark) by assuming that Luke had Matthew.
Consider, just for a few samples, Luke's striking
divergences from Matthew in the birth narratives,
the sermon on the mount/plain, and the passion/
resurrection-appearance narratives.  See Stein's
*The Synoptic Problem* for straightforward reasons
for doubting that Luke had Matthew.  As for a
denial of Markan priority, one must explain, among
many other things, what plausible reason there would
be to produce a gospel like Mark's in the presence
of Matthew's more well-rounded treatment.  The
debate here must be settled by inference to the
best explanation, rather than by strict proof,
but still the assumptions of Markan priority
and Q sources have unsurpassed explanatory power.
- --Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:51:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Tempering with Junia

At 9:25 AM 10/13/95, Bart Ehrman wrote:
>    I'm trying to track down some of the modifications of the NT text that
>appear to reflect early Xn opposition to the active role of women in the
>church.  In a passage batted about on this list occasionally, Rom 16:7,
>there is a variant that, to my knowledge, no one has made much or anything
>of, the addition of an article prior to the word _sunaixmalwtous_ in P46
>and B.  The change could of course simply tie the word back more closely
>to the _suggeneis_ preceding.  But could it also allow for an alternative
>reading of the text, so that it no longer says "Greet Andronikus and
>Junias, my kin and fellow prisoners, who are preeminent among the
>apostles" but instead, possibly, "Greet Andronikus and Junias, my kin.
>And (also greet) my fellow prisoners who are preeminent among the
>apostles"?  If so, the English translators who have been so keen to
>perform a sex change on Junia may have some (more) like-minded forebears.
>
>   Reflections and reactions?

I would only note that the article would not (for people that KNOW their
Greek) alter the fact that IOUNIAN ought properly to be understood as
feminine, because (a) as a compound substantival adjective SUNAIXMALWTOUS
is, of course, common gender, and (b) the masculine article TOUS would be
used to refer to a subject compounded of one masculine and one feminine
noun.

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: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:51:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Used books - the list, finally 

At 9:31 AM 12/10/95, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
>Sigler Press
>9 Sycamore Drive
>Mifflintown PA 17059
>Ph: 1-500-488-3903
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The phone number above is incorrect.

It should read

Ph: 717-436-9167


Sorry
N



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

From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 12:51:54 -24000
Subject: Eph 4:9 "Lower parts of the earth" 

Ephesians 4:9b:

	eis ta katwtera [merh] ths ghs
	into the lower [parts] of the earth

Zerwick (BG by Examples) p. 46 ("Epexegetic Genitive") says:

	the sense seems to be not a descent into the underworld, the "lower
	parts of the earth," but of his coming into the world itself, called
	ta katwtera merh with respect to heaven.

Richard Young in his Intermediate Grammar p. 39-40 states:

	Although some take the genitive ghs as partitive (referring to 		

	Christ's descent into Hades), most take it as appositional (referring
	to the incarnation).  The contrast seems to be between Christ's
	ascent to heaven and His descent to earth.  Thus the lower regions
	refers to the earth itself, not to some subterranean cavity (NIV, 
	REB).  For discussion, see Lincoln (1990:244-47).

I'll try look at Lincoln's commentary on Ephesians (which is what Young is 
referring to) if I can find it in the seminary library or bookstore, but in 
case Lincoln doesn't provide a satisfactory answer, here are my questions, if 
someone can help:

   If, as Young and Zerwick claim, it should be translated "into the lower
   parts, that is, the earth," rather than referring to Christ's descent into
   the underworld, 1) who or what are the captives Christ led (4:8), and 2)
   how is He to fill all things (4:10) if He doesn't also descend into the
   lower parts of the earth (cf. Phil. 2:10)?
                                                                   
Since I'm only on b-greek-digest, I would appreciate any responses to b-greek 
to also be cc:'d to me at

	eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov

Thanks!


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

From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 13:10 CDT
Subject: 2 Refs. on Q and Griesbach 

A follow-up to my previous post:  Two helpful essays
on Q and the two-gospels hypothesis are: C.M Tuckett,
"The Existence of Q," in R.A. Piper, ed., *The Gospel
Behind the Gospels* (SNT 75; Brill, 1995), pp. 19-47,
and idem, "Response to the Two Gospel Hypothesis,"
in D.L. Dungan, ed., *The Interrelations of the
Gospels* (BETL 95; Leuven, 1990), pp. 47-62.
- --Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:25:15 -0500
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q?

At 9:46 AM 10/13/95, Paul Moser wrote:
>  The
>debate here must be settled by inference to the
>best explanation, rather than by strict proof,
>but still the assumptions of Markan priority
>and Q sources have unsurpassed explanatory power.

Thanks, Paul. This point of view, which may not be the majority opinion on
our list but is certainly the majority opinion among NT scholars, needs to
be re-asserted from time to time, especially in view of the most recent
wave of right-wing fundamentalist hogwash.

Cheers, cwc

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: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:44:04 -0500
Subject: Greek Lexica

Since I had trouble with my E-mail gateway, I have been able to read mail,
but not send it. After finally working around the problem, I can now send
once again and participate in the interesting discussions that have been
going on.

On September 26 Edward Hobbs posted a long, helpful bibliography of Greek
Lexica. I want to add one title to what he has there. It *may* be helpful
to some readers.

There is a major, but old, Septuagint lexicon that is now once again in print.

Joh. Fried. Schleussner, _Novus Thesaurus Philologico-criticus sive Lexicon
in LXX et reliquos Interpretes Graecos ac Scriptores Apocryphos Veteris
Testamenti._ Leipzig, 5 vol. 1820-21. 2nd ed. in 3 vols., Glasgow, 1822.
Reprinted in London, 1829.

It has now been reprinted by Brepols Publishers, Steenweg op Tielen 68,
2300 Turnhout, Belgium for 30,000 BEF.

The definitions are all in Latin, which will cause some of us difficulty.
But it is at present the only lexicon to the LXX. S. Jellicoe (in 1968)
called it a "justly famous work," whose "rich treasures have never been
fully explored."

It  belongs in every seminary and university library. In 1961 I was
fortunate to purchase the five volume, original Leipzig edition in
Edinburgh, Scotland, for $20.00! I hav e treasured it ever since.

And I gathered that Edward Hobbs just celebrated his 70th! Congrats.




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

From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:51:10 -0400
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q? 

In a message dated 95-10-13 14:35:04 EDT Carl W. Conrad writes:

>Thanks, Paul. This point of view, which may not be the majority opinion on
>our list but is certainly the majority opinion among NT scholars, needs to
>be re-asserted from time to time, especially in view of the most recent
>wave of right-wing fundamentalist hogwash.
>

     I do not believe that the previous quote about "right-wing
fundamentalist hogwash" is very scholarly (an understatement).  But laying
that aside, Carl,  for over 1800 years the church has held a the Matthaean
priority and there isn't a shred of archaeological evidence for a 'Q'
document?  Are you saying that now over 1800 years later we have all of a
sudden discovered something that hasn't any historical or archaeological
support?
     The best scholars who have studied this and produced publications
regarding it (Dr. Robert Thomas, Eta Linneman, etc.) quote the above
statements which are uncontested among scholars today.  It has been a problem
in the presentation of the 'Q' hypothesis, just as the missing transitional
forms are a problem for evolution.
     I do not believe this is hogwash, rather it is honest scholarship.

Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA  91352



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

From: "Charles W. Bradley" <74034.676@compuserve.com>
Date: 13 Oct 95 14:51:56 EDT
Subject: Bible Works & WordPerfect

Multilingual pastes from BibleWorks into WordPerfect can be done successfully
using the WordPerfect Styles feature. Create one character style each for the
Greek and  Hebrew fonts, then  save the styles into a personal or shared library
(so that the styles are available to every document). Simply invoke the style
[Alt-F8] before pasting text from BWW. The style code will then format the text
with the correct font and size in your document as it is pasted. Text from BWW
can also be exported as RTF and then imported into WP using the retreive into
document feature. I routinely cut and paste into WordPerfect 6.0c for DOS from
BibleWorks, using OS/2 as the operating system.
It must be noted that users of Greek and Hebrew fonts in WP60 for DOS must
install their fonts as TrueType, as opposed to Type 1, or WP60 will not allow
accents and diacritical marks to overstrike below 30 point type size. This must
be done using the WP60 Font Installer. BWW comes with both font types.
Users of OS/2 should install BibleWorks to use Type 1 fonts, and also select
clipboard in WIN/OS2 to run in the public mode. When creating styles in WP60
always select TTF fonts for Hebrew and Greek.

Charles Bradley
Hopewell A.R. Presbyterian Church
Columbia, TN
74034,676@compuserve.com


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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:52:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Eph 4:9 "Lower parts of the earth"

At 7:51 AM 10/23/95, Eric Weiss wrote:
>Ephesians 4:9b:
>
>        eis ta katwtera [merh] ths ghs
>        into the lower [parts] of the earth
>
>Zerwick (BG by Examples) p. 46 ("Epexegetic Genitive") says:
>
>        the sense seems to be not a descent into the underworld, the "lower
>        parts of the earth," but of his coming into the world itself, called
>        ta katwtera merh with respect to heaven.
>
>Richard Young in his Intermediate Grammar p. 39-40 states:
>
>        Although some take the genitive ghs as partitive (referring to
>
>
>        Christ's descent into Hades), most take it as appositional (referring
>        to the incarnation).  The contrast seems to be between Christ's
>        ascent to heaven and His descent to earth.  Thus the lower regions
>        refers to the earth itself, not to some subterranean cavity (NIV,
>        REB).  For discussion, see Lincoln (1990:244-47).
>
>I'll try look at Lincoln's commentary on Ephesians (which is what Young is
>referring to) if I can find it in the seminary library or bookstore, but in
>case Lincoln doesn't provide a satisfactory answer, here are my questions, if
>someone can help:
>
>   If, as Young and Zerwick claim, it should be translated "into the lower
>   parts, that is, the earth," rather than referring to Christ's descent into
>   the underworld, 1) who or what are the captives Christ led (4:8), and 2)
>   how is He to fill all things (4:10) if He doesn't also descend into the
>   lower parts of the earth (cf. Phil. 2:10)?
>
>Since I'm only on b-greek-digest, I would appreciate any responses to b-greek
>to also be cc:'d to me at

Well, here we go again, on another new adventure into the world outside the
GNT itself. I suspect that the traditional view is right, that "the lower
regions" refers to the earth itself, and not to "some subterranean cavity."
And I suspect that there'a a background to some of the peculiar language in
Ephesians, as, for instance 6.12 KOSMOKRATORES TOU SKOTOUS TOUTOU, and it
is in the same realm as astrology and the notion that there are powers
governing the planetary spheres, each sphere being a "heaven" (whence
"seventh heaven"). I think that there's a conception of the universe as a
celestial sphere with the earth in the center constituting the "lower
parts." We don't use the term "genitive of definition" in Greek, but we do
use it in Latin, and it seems to me that's what we have here. I've never
heard the term "epexegetic genitive," but it would appear to be the same
thing as "genitive of definition"; I've also heard the term "genitive of
apposition" used. What do the real grammarians say about this?

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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:01:24 -0500
Subject: apologies 

My sincere apologies for inadvertently sending to the list a message to
Paul Moser that I certainly would not intentionally have sent to the list.
I thought that I had deleted the cc line, and evidently I had not. I know
very well that I have expressed some ideas that must seem altogether
unacceptable to some others, but I really have never meant to disparage
persons holding ideas I don't agree with, and I regret very much any
appearance that I did intend to do so.

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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:17:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Greek-Hebrew Bible Resources 

I would agree with Ken in his assessment of Bible resources.  You have to
pick the one that does the things you are interested in.  Gramcord for PC or
Mac will search for things like genitive absolutes also.  It is more
expensive.
Carlton Winbery

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

From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 15:01:01 -0600
Subject: APOLOGIES

Re. arguments against the existence of Q--

Feeling like neither a fundamentalist nor a hog-warsher (as in, "what a bunch a
hogwarsh!"), and not having the time to write a full-blown defense of the
two-gospel hypothesis today, let me simply note the following:

1.) Biblical criticism is not a beauty contest.  The simple fact that most
scholars accept the existence of Q is, by itself, meaningless.  Once upon a
time, most scholars believed that the sun and stars revolved around the earth.
I note that fact not to imply that "Q-believers" are idiots, but simply to
reinforce the fact that even in the face of scholarly unanimity, there's still
a lot of "on the other hand."  We do ourselves and our guild a disservice when
we insult serious scholars and students simply because they do not agree with
our conclusions.

2.) To make a point the Farrer made, the Mk-Q hypothesis and the Mk-Mt
hypothesis (which encompasses both the two-gospels hypothesis and the
Farrer/Sanders/Goulder hypothesis) do not start out on equal ground.  We can
absolutely and without reservation prove that Matthew exists.  We cannot do the
same for Q.

That being said, shouldn't fair-minded consideration start with a full
exploration of the Mt-Mk hypothesis?  This is the most logical way to proceed,
is it not?  Don't go appealing to hypothetical documents until you've proven
that extant documents don't fit the bill.

The considerations of Streeter, et. al. that led to a discounting of the Mt-Mk
hypothesis are faulty.  They are based on the assumption that Lk was only a
compiler of sources, not an author/theologian in his own right.  The fact that
Lk (according to the Mt-Mk hypothesis) scatters, alters and condenses Matthean
discourse material CAN COGENTLY BE ACCOUNTED FOR in terms of Luke's theological
purposes, whether one ultimately accepts this accounting or not.

Further, Streeter contends that if Lk had used both Mt and Mk as sources, he
would have used both in the same way, following both equally.  This is
fallacious.  As a pastor, I have written dozens of Bible studies, etc., with
several "source documents" on my desk.  I have *never* depended on two source
documents equally.  The human tendency is to pick one document, digest it and
rewrite it in your own terms, then use material from other documents to "fill
in the skeleton."

Which is exactly what Lk has done with Mt and Mk, according to the Goulder
hypothesis.  He takes the general narrative framework for his gospel from Mk
and then (to borrow from Farrer again) mines material from Mt to build his
house on that frame.

Farmer (who is also neither a fundamentalist nor a hog-warsher) notes several
heretofore ignored factors in this debate.  First, he notes that Augustine
apparently changed his mind: first, he held that Mk was Mt's "epitomizer." 
Later, however, he held that Mt and Lk were written first, and that Mk
condensed their accounts to produce a picture of Jesus as both king (Mt) and
priest (Lk).  In this, Augustine concluded that the uniform testimony of the
church from the second century (Papias) onward was correct.  But his earlier
view became standard dogma: his later view was ignored.           

Second, Farmer notes political pressure within the German academy in the 19th
century.  This pressure was the result of struggles between the German
government and the Catholic church.  This pressure may have influenced a
lessening emphasis on Mt (which after all gave Peter the keys to the kingdom)
and a greater emphasis on Mk.

Are we so naive as to deny that political pressures (not to mention political
correctness) "greases the skids" in ways that affect intellectual and scholarly
opinion?  Are we going to claim that "we are scholars" and are therefore immune
to the influence of our social and personal locations?

Are we really going to deny that a great deal of present day Jesus scholarship
is as much based on anti-authoritarian and anti-ecclesiastical sympathies as it
is on a clear-headed analysis of the evidence?  

Grace and peace from a Q-agnostic (and a fundamentalist hog-warsher),

Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University

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

From: drmills@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:12:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE: HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE

I have not followed this thread very well, but the "one man woman" phrase 
in 1 Tim 5.9 surely helps some.  Was polyandry very common in the Greek 
world?  If not, then the phrase must have something besides polyandry in 
view.  Likewise, "one woman man" may have something besides polygamy in 
view.  In 1 Tim 5.9, the woman is a widow and so is not remarried. 1 Tim
 3, on the other hand, does not imply that the bishop is a widower though 
it certainly does not forbid it.

===========================
David R. Mills
drmills@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Applied English Center
University of Kansas

On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:

> 
> Re. 1 Ti 3.2:
> 
> J. N. D. Kelly notes that the text emphasizes the "one" (MIAS GUNAIKOC ANDRA),
> which in his opinion lessens the likelihood of a reference to polygamy,
> adultery.  Thus Paul (?) seems to be talking about remarriage.
> 
> Kelly says: "there is abundant evidence, from both literature and funerary
> inscriptions, pagan and Jewish, that to remain unmarried after the death of
> one's spouse or after divorce was considered meritorious, while to marry again
> was taken as a sign of self-indulgence" (p. 75 of *A Commentary on the Pastoral
> Epistles*).  Of course, he doesn't provide the cross-references for this
> material, so I'm not sure where to find it.
> 
> Grace and peace, 
> 
> Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
> 
> 
> 

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

From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 16:08:43 EDT
Subject: Re: SUMMARY RE: BOOKS ON THE S

perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>As a "Q-agnostic", let me note the following:
>
>1.) Synopses (even those as excellent as Aland's) are not without their biases.
> For instance, if the person organizing the synopsis is convinced of Markan
>priority, they will organize their synopsis according to that conviction.  This
>automatically lessens some of the phenomena that weigh for Matthean priority
>(e.g. Luke's "scattering" of Matthean material.)
>
>Thus the two-gospels group of the SBL encourages those who are interested in
>weighing the two-gospel hypothesis to provisionally make their own synopses.  

Many teachers stress the importance of making one's own synopsis.  That
effort in itself is invaluable.  Stein recommends it at the beginning of
his book, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: An Introduction, a must-read.

I do know that there are least two ways to place the Sermon on the Mount
in the Marcan order (after 1:20 or 1:39).  Sometimes a writer may over-
simplify an example by not matching up certain verses.  For example, in
Stein's argument that Luke did not know Matthew, he discusses several
Matthean additions to the triple tradition.  But in one of his examples
(pp93-94), it looks just as possible (to my eyes) that Mark clumsily
omitted the quote from Is6:9-10, leaving the final bit.  The comparison
is more striking in the Greek (compare MHPOTH EPISTREYWSIN KAI AFEQH AUTOIS
Mk4:12c with MHPOTH ... EPISTREYWSIN KAI IASOMAI AUTOUS Mt13:15c) than in
the RSV Stein used for the book (Mk's "turn again" and Mt's "turn for
me" both translate the identical EPISTREYWSIN).

>2.) William Farmer has just published an *excellent* summary of the two-gospel
>hypothesis.  This book (*The Gospel of Jesus*) is aimed at the popular market
>(a broadside at the Jesus Seminar, to be sure.)  But it is filled with reams of
>valuable research, both historical and textual.  There are things published
>here that are simply not widely available anywhere else (e.g., an overview of
>Augustine's views on the composition of the gospels, an overview of the
>politics of German scholarship at the time of Bismark, etc.)

I was more than a little disappointed with Farmer's book, because he chose
to deal more with the ramifications of the two theories on theology than
the factual details.  Christianity should have nothing to fear from the
truth.

>3.) This is especially important, so pardon me if I shout: 
>
>      EVEN IF ONE ACCEPTS MARKAN PRIORITY, ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THE     
>     EXISTENCE OF Q.  
>
>Holtzmann (see Dr. Hobb's article in Perkins Journal), Austin Farrer, and
>others down to Michael Goulder and E. P. Sanders today believe that Luke used
>Mark and Matthew as his primary sources rather than Mark and Q.  This has two
>advantages over the two-source hypothesis.  First, we don't have to make large
>scale appeals to non-existent hypothetical documents.  Second, it sufficiently
>explains the minor agreements between Mt. and Lk. against Mark.

I'm unaware of this view of Holtzmann particularly considering his key
role in the Two-Source Hypothesis with his Alpha (Ur-Markus) and Lambda
(for LOGIA, i.e., Q).  I hope you mean "non-existent" as in "nonextant"
rather than "never existed."  An argument has been made that the minor
agreements are just as much as a problem for Goulder, because they are
both too little (hence Goulder's Marcan Block policy for Luke) and too
much.  It's not completely persuasive, but in general Goulder's explanation
for Luke's redaction procedure has been rejected as "too fantastic."

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen Carlson     :  Poetry speaks of aspirations,  : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com  :  and songs chant the words.     : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330      :                 Shujing 2:35    : Reston, VA  22091   USA

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #908
*****************************

** 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