To: Crosstalk
In Response To: Bob Schacht
On: The First Jesus
From: Bruce

Those whose interest has been piqued by a possible parallel between Jesus and a
previous slave Messiah may like to look into Winsome Munro's last work, which
intends to establish the possibility that Jesus himself was a slave.

Winsome Munro, Jesus Born of a Slave: The Social and Economic Origins of
Jesus's Message. Edwin Mellen 1998. The final editing was carried out by
Munro's St Olaf College colleague Bill Poehlmann, following Munro's death in
June 1994.

That Munro herself came from South Africa, and was an active opponent of that
regime, may perhaps color (or one might say, inspire) her conclusions.

And no, Munro does not (at least not in the posthumously compiled index to her
book) mention Simon of Peraea.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

National Geographic is running a show this week called "The First Jesus"
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview#tab-f\
acts
Based on the "Jeselsohn Stone"

>Jeselsohn Stone, is three feet tall with 87 lines of Hebrew.  It was
>found on the antiquities market a decade ago but not seriously
>studied by scholars until recently.
>
>Read more:
><http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview#tab\
-facts#ixzz0XT7Bl2Pt>http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-wee\
k/4290/Overview#tab-facts#ixzz0XT7Bl2Pt

The basic story is given as follows:

>He called himself the King of the Jews, likely considered to be a
>Messiah. Just around Passover, the Romans killed him and crucified
>many of his followers outside Jerusalem.  But his name was not
>Jesus, it was Simon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who died four years
>before Christ was born. Now, new analysis of a three-foot-tall stone
>tablet from the first century B.C., being hailed by scholars as a
>"Dead Sea Scroll on stone," may speak of an early Messiah and his
>resurrection. Was Simon of Peraea real?  Did his life serve as the
>prototype of a Messiah for Jesus and his followers?
>
>Read more:
><http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview#tab\
-facts#ixzz0XT7hKSNz>http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-wee\
k/4290/Overview#tab-facts#ixzz0XT7hKSNz

Strangely enough, the writing on the stone is in *ink*.
>The stone is controversial because it could speak of a Messiah who
>will rise from the dead after three days, based on line 80, which
>leading Messianic scholar Dr. Israel Knohl has read as "by three days live."
>
>Read more:
><http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview#tab\
-facts#ixzz0XT85b6SP>http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-wee\
k/4290/Overview#tab-facts#ixzz0XT85b6SP



>ABOUT SIMON OF PERAEA:
>    * A former Jewish slave, Simon of Peraea crowned himself king,
> claiming to be the redeemer of Israel, the Messiah.
>    * He led a failed rebellion against Rome in 4 B.C. before
> Passover and set fire to one of King Herod's palaces at Jericho and
> several other royal residences.
>    * Soon after the rebellion, Simon was captured in a remote
> canyon and killed or chopped in the neck; his corpse was left to
> rot amidst the rocks.  For Jews of the time of Simon of Peraea, not
> burying a corpse was the ultimate humiliation.
>    * In the wake of his death, many of his followers were crucified.
>    * Dr. Knohl believes that Jesus knew the story of Simon's death
> and from it had learned that a Messiah must die to fulfill his destiny.
>    * Accounts by the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus may
> be the only literary evidence from the time that either Jesus or
> Simon of Peraea existed.
>Read more:
><http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview#tab\
-facts#ixzz0XT8SDZ7A>http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-wee\
k/4290/Overview#tab-facts#ixzz0XT8SDZ7A


I hadn't heard much about this before. Is this just NGEO
hyperventilating, or is there any useful information in this?

Bob Schacht
Northern Arizona University


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For those who have not yet left  for SBL:

This is the third and final notice of the 13th annual E-Lister's that
will take place at SBL on  Saturday, Nov. 21st at 11:30 a.m.  at the
Eisenbrauns  Press booth  (# 704)  in the  the New Orleans Marriott
Exhibit Hall.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.

So put this in your diaries/datebooks/planners and come along!

Looking forward to seeing you in New Orleans!

Yours,

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is the second notice of the 13th annual E-Lister's that will take
place at SBL on  Saturday, Nov. 21st at 11:30 a.m.  the Eisenbrauns
Press booth  (# 704)  in the  the New Orleans Marriott Exhibit Hall.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.

As I've done in the past 12 years in arranging this meeting, I'd like to
get an advance head count of those of you who are intending to attend
this year's SBL.

I'd also like to know who among the intended attendees is presenting a
paper during the conference (and at what time and place and within what
SBL group or section and under what title).

So if you haven't done so already, please write to me OFF LIST at
jgibson000@... and let me know the following:

(a) if you will be attending;

(b) if and when and under what aegis (i.e., SBL Section and Session #)
you are presenting a paper,

(c) your paper title, AND

(d) what you consider to be your "home" E-List.

I'll  publish a list of E-Lister's attendees on Nov. 20th.

Again, write to me OFF LIST (jgibson000@...) and /please use a
header that says something like "SBL e-listers' meeting"/.

May I ask that if you are letting me know that you are giving a paper,
that you adhere as closely as possible to the SBL Program Book
Format when you do so. That is to say, I'd be grateful if you'd compose
your information according to this formula:

Name and Institution
Section #
Title of Section
Date
Time
Room
Paper title

For example:

Stephen C. Carlson, Duke University
SBL 24-112
Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and
Early Christianity Section
Tuesday,  11/24
11/24/2009
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Bayside A - SH
Origen's Use of the Gospel of Thomas

Looking forward to seeing you in New Orleans!

Yours,

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Bruce,

On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:28 PM, E Bruce Brooks wrote:

> To: Crosstalk
> Cc: WSW, GPG
> In Response To: Gordon Raynal
> On: Wisdom Literature
> From: Bruce
>
> GORDON: If your grandchild is in the yard by the road and the ball
> rolls
> across the street and she's after it, yelling "look both ways before
> you cross the street" (a very important proverbial form of wisdom
> communication in the age of automated vehicles!), the aim of the
> speech is not first educational, but rather to get her to pay
> attention to the world around her so she can safely navigate that
> world and in this situation return to her play.
>
> BRUCE: Not in a million years. You either grab her (the classic
> Mencius
> response), or if she's too far to reach, you scream "stop!"

Those would be wisdom responses, as well!
>
> Proverbial sayings of the kind quoted are quite different: they
> amount to
> advice in advance, delivered in calm situations and in anticipation
> of events;
> they are not correctives applied in the middle of events.

Your note provides an understanding of wisdom that is centrally
cognitively focused in nature, both in terms of common and parabolic
wisdom.  Another route to understand this form of communication is
not in terms of advice or intellectual fodder, but in terms of sense
arousing communication that evokes a whole self response... arousing
attention to what the senses are taking in, the emotional responses,
the cognition that arouses from the former and the bodily and
behavioral responses.  Common forms of wisdom communication, in such
an understanding, point out some of the ordinary and usual aspects of
"happenings" and such as aphorisms and some parables point out the
extra-ordinary/ non-ordinary qualities of "happenings."  In this
understanding of wisdom, when one is with company, then a form of
bantering can arise that involves the participants in "making
sense" (to use the common parlance) of the circumstances that are
going on.  Likewise, within oneself one can "go a-musing" by such
language, which yes can include evaluations and problem solving
reflections, but may also simply lead to poetical/ artistic kinds of
responses.  This is not to deny cognitive evaluative and problem
solving uses of this sort of speech.  Those, too, are uses of the
speech.  Often the "present tense primacy" of what speech can evoke
gets overlooked and hence my focus in this way.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC
>

To: Crosstalk
Cc: WSW, GPG
In Response To: Gordon Raynal
On: Wisdom Literature
From: Bruce

GORDON: If your grandchild is in the yard by the road and the ball rolls
across the street and she's after it, yelling "look both ways before
you cross the street" (a very important proverbial form of wisdom
communication in the age of automated vehicles!), the aim of the
speech is not first educational, but rather to get her to pay
attention to the world around her so she can safely navigate that
world and in this situation return to her play.

BRUCE: Not in a million years. You either grab her (the classic Mencius
response), or if she's too far to reach, you scream "stop!"

Proverbial sayings of the kind quoted are quite different: they amount to
advice in advance, delivered in calm situations and in anticipation of events;
they are not correctives applied in the middle of events.

I would further distinguish gnomic sayings (another and perhaps distinct branch
of "wisdom" literature), which are meant, not as immediate corrections, nor yet
as prospective counsel on the ways of the world, but as what the Zen people
call a kôan: a bit of language meant to be pondered, turned over and explored
in the mind, until its implications have been thoroughly worked out. (Or, in
extreme cases, until the mind recognizes the impossibility of doing so, and
abandons its rational predilections altogether). This is how Confucius taught,
and you can see him doing so(and praising students who respond as he intends)
in the early chapters of the Analects, say LY 5 and 6, written by people who
still remembered him. (His own maxims, written down after his death, and
without any added narrative settings, are to be found in the core layer of that
text, occupying much but not all of LY 4; see our book, The Original Analects,
ad loc).

There are also paradoxical sayings, which openly and not covertly present a
contradiction or a conundrum. In short, it seems to me that "wisdom" alone is
not an operatively effective category for analysis, and that a finer-grained
typology might help the discussion.

How many different genres of statement are represented in Greek Thomas? Are any
additional types added if we consider Coptic Thomas? What is the range of
statement types in Mencius 4? Is the roster enlarged if we add in Mencius 6? Is
the range of statements in the Dau/Dv Jing wider after the Gwodyen cutoff point
than before? Is it narrower? If narrower, to what types is this tail of the
text reduced? Why might that have been?

That sort of thing. I suggested something of the sort in the discussion of
Klyne Snodgrass's book on the Parables, an SBL or two ago, and perhaps there is
something in it.

Respectfully recommended,

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Hi Bob,

With this conversation going on another list and what you have listed
here presenting all manner of issues, I'm just going to make a few
points for conversation on the Xtalk list:

1. wisdom orality and the move to literature.

At the level of the spoken word each and every identifiable aphorism
and/ or parable stands on its own.  Wisdom speech is not didactic
speech, it is rather speech that seeks to arouse, in one word,
"wondering." With repeated use and in a secondary use wisdom language
may become fodder for lessons, morals, belief affirmations, but that
is entirely secondary to the very present tense nature of wisdom
speech in living interactions.  Wisdom language is about, in common
parlance, "making sense" and "responding sensibly (wisely)."  So, the
real power of this kind of speech is always very present tense... for
making sense and responding to what is going on wisely is "living
stuff."
If your grandchild is in the yard by the road and the ball rolls
across the street and she's after it, yelling "look both ways before
you cross the street" (a very important proverbial form of wisdom
communication in the age of automated vehicles!), the aim of the
speech is not first educational, but rather to get her to pay
attention to the world around her so she can safely navigate that
world and in this situation return to her play.

Regarding Jesus' aphorisms and parables, whatever kind of literature
we find them in: the few in Paul's letters, in sayings gospels, in
narrative gospels, in the Didache, in other forms of writings, the
real power of the speech is found not in terms of the later recorders
various uses of the language, but in each saying.

2. earliest collections of such speech.

We obviously do not have tape recordings of Jesus spouting an
aphorism or telling a parabolic story.  Extant Thomas and Q give us
access to forms of writings that list out aphorisms and parables.
Both "extant" works suggest layers of writing and show forms of
editing and elaboration of the aphorisms/ parables they contain.
Looking at these works in relationship to our other sources we can
find different early forms of gathering the speech to effectively
communicate it onward.  For instance, the Q Sermon is morphed and
expanded by Matthew into the famed Sermon on the Mount and Luke's
Sermon on the Plain.  Likewise at the level of Q1 we can find a
collection of sayings (Q1/ Luke 6:27-31) that provides the base for
the Didache's opening "Way of Life."  Work to form this kind literary
gathering is based in "listing" (whether memory or written listing)
and so is prior to the act of the creation of "sermon" and
"teaching."  This intellectual work is now cognitive in nature and
the forms of communication produced are now intellectual in focus.
Proclaimed sermon and core ethical (ethos) espousal change the nature
of the present tense oral communication to the purposes of thinking
and believing and behaving.  Looking across all the sources we have
we can see both the multiple ways this language came to be employed
and find the different sorts of literary roots that were used.  For
example the Q Sermon very much owes to the story of Moses declaring
the Law of God to the people of Israel and thus this takes us to
Torah and the figure of Moses.  Likewise the employ of "Two Ways"
takes us to both Moses and Joshua and so folded into the creation of
these literary forms is the treasure trove of Israelite Scripture.
Something new is thus created and a new layer of the usage of the
original spoken language comes into play.

3. Thomas' "disorganization?"

I find the idea that the assertion that Thomas' creators art leads to
the conclusion that:
>>
>>> ...What we appear to have in Thomas is a collection of stuff of
>>> diverse sorts that lacks a fully coherent ideology that was compiled
>>> by people who themselves probably didn't think they fully understood
>>> it (saying 1). ...

This suggests that Thomas should have "a fully coherent ideology."
Why?  Says who?  Why push that conclusion?  Such a statement looks at
the creation of this work from the vantage point of ideology...
ideas... cognition.  But as I have pointed out, wisdom speech is not
first aimed at cognition, but at wondering, musing, paying attention,
trying to point out sense, make sense, evoke sense making.  That
there are thematic links to the kinds of sense making issues very
much suggests that the collector understood the sayings!  Further,
the pattern of "work" done to frame, edit, guide the reader's/
hearer's response to the sayings is itself poetical in nature.  To
say the very least, not all literary creations are about "ideology"
promulgation!  The book of Psalms, for example, is a work that
invites one to sing and pray.  Thomas in its extant form is a
meditative work.  The supposed lack of coherence is an intellectual
judgment that really doesn't fit what the work presents.  "Free
association," of course, is an important aspect to imaginative works
of this sort.  Likewise "guided association" is another aspect.
Thomas allows for and makes for both. So ***far*** from concluding
that the apparent randomness of the work suggests the creator "didn't
get it," I will insist that such a literary form indeed "got" a very
important use of the primary wisdom language.  To force upon all
human creative communicative produce the idea of "coherent ideology"
is an extremely limited view of human creativity and the kinds of
communication we produce.

In closing... important to pay heed to the core nature of the kinds
of human communication we find.  Important to trace the different
kinds of "play" that were introduced.  All of this literature we have
and the different kinds of communications that are in them are richly
creative kinds of communication.  I'd suggest that some real thought
needs to be given to such as artistry and not just ideology when such
literature as this is considered.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think Stevan meant this to go at least to GTh, and perhaps also
XTalk, where I cross-posted my reply. He responded:

>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:27:14 -0000
>From: "stevandavies" <stevandavies@...>
>To: Bob Schacht <Bobschacht@...>
>Subject: Re: [GTh] Skinner's Interview with Davies
>Sender: notify@yahoogroups.com
>
>Hi folks
>
>I haven't done this sort of discussion for years, but here we go again.

Good! Thanks for your reply.
I had written:(previous correspondence is in italics)

>Mike,
>To take just one bite of a large apple, Stevan wrote:
>
> >...What we appear to have in Thomas is a collection of stuff of
> >diverse sorts that lacks a fully coherent ideology that was compiled
> >by people who themselves probably didn't think they fully understood
> >it (saying 1). ...
>
>Stevan writes elsewhere that the list genre should by all odds be
>early, and I think he is right. So I would re-write his sentence above as
>"What we appear to have in Thomas is a collection of stuff of diverse
>sorts that lacks a fully coherent narrative that was compiled by
>people who themselves probably didn't think they fully understood it
>(saying 1). "
>
>How does narrative become a synonym for ideology?

It doesn't. My point was that I think that the word "narrative" in
your statement makes more sense than "ideology," for reasons that I
try to elucidate.

>  In my opinion people confronted with the sayings of Jesus early on
> didn't know what to make of them.

I agree.

>Mark came up with the idea that to give them meaning they had to be
>put into narrative context and so he did that. But what came first?
>Did Mark have a desire to create an historical narrative so as to
>denigrate the disciples (said denigration is an historical sort of
>procedure) and the sayings were then brought in to supplement the
>narrative, or was the idea of contextualizing the sayings first?
>They aren't mutually exclusive, I guess.

Our earliest witness, Paul, doesn't seem to care much what Jesus
said, but instead emphasizes the central importance of the resurrection.

Crossan and others may be right that a passion narrative may have
been very early (he likes GPeter for this purpose), and that would
provide a narrative context for Paul's emphasis on the resurrection.
In fact, Paul's letters make more sense if a passion narrative
already existed than the other way around. But I digress, because in
the passion narrative, Jesus is more  acclaimed for saying very
little, than saying very much, according to the canonical Gospels.
And Paul's silence about sayings in the context of the resurrection
supports this conclusion.

Actually, what I meant was that the most likely sequence of genre
types begins with non-thematic sayings lists (GThomas) come before
thematic groups of sayings lists (Q), followed by the narrative
(Mark), as those interested in Jesus tried to make sense of his life.

But now that you have jolted me into remembering the passion
narrative issue, I think that the most credible sequence would start
with bare bones information about what Jesus did, or what happened to
Jesus (the Passion Narrative, Paul's emphasis on the centrality of
the resurrection, and the Signs Gospel). But what these accounts of
"deeds" lack is any explanatory context. Why would Pilate crucify
Jesus? So now my thoughts are meandering in other directions.

>But I mainly want to emphasize here the importance of narrative on
>the text, and on the ideological consequences. Lacking a narrative
>structure (except for the beginning and end), the sayings in GTH are
>free to roam. Q is a list, but it is a partly narrativized list, so
>the ideology in it is more important. That is, sayings that do not
>conform to the (somewhat minimal) narrative are less likely to be included.
>
>Or did the narrative-makers start with sayings and then construct a
>narrative out of them. Imagine somebody determined to write the
>biography of Lao Tzu (whom sinologists nowadays seem to agree is a
>wholly fictional character). They (i.e. I) have an idea that Lao Tzu
>was a librarian who got sick of court life and rode an ox off to the
>west but at the border was asked to give his wisdom so he produced
>the Tao Te Ching. So there's your life story of Lao Tzu in one
>sentence and that's all the author knew, which is probably about as
>much as Mark knew about Jesus' life story.

But if that is all Lao Tzu did, why bother? Who cares?
I am thinking now that the start has to be some remarkable event(s).
And in our case, that seems to be the crucifixion and resurrection,
and then the Signs.

>I want to write a whole book and this is all I have, thinks Mark, so
>I take the Tao Te Ching and start writing about the circumstances
>under which Lao Tzu said his sayings. I can indeed pick the ones I
>like, pick ones that strike me as having some sort of event
>connected to them, throw out ones I can't use. I can make the
>sayings mean what I think they mean.

If what you're doing is writing a novel, that makes some sense. But
that doesn't seem to be the market Mark has in mind. His purpose
doesn't seem to be entertainment.

>But with Mark, we have a full-blown narrative. And that forces Mark
>to make decisions that list-makers are not bothered with: In order to
>make his narrative coherent, he needs to make choices among his
>material, probably discarding material that doesn't fit, and perhaps
>inventing some material to cover up gaps in his narrative. And the
>more coherent the narrative, the more it has a Point of View-- i.e.,
>an ideology. And the more a Gospel has a Point of View, the more
>likely there will be opposing Points of View.
>
>Yes. But the Gospel of Mark is written to be an opposing point of
>view to that of the disciples and family.

Why should anyone care about that? IOW, who is Mark's audience, and
what matters to them?

>This was all to be in my book on the Gospel of Mark that I was going
>to write years ago but it turned out that it was already written in
>"Mark: Traditions in Conflict" by Ted Weeden. So Mark is an opposing
>view to disciples and then Mt and Lk come along to be opposing views to Mark. S

Sounds OK to me-- but we digress.

>It's hard to have opposing views to Thomas because first you have to
>create some sort of point of view for Thomas and then you have to
>oppose the one you created. This is what the first generation of
>Thomas scholars did, though. "Thomas is Gnostic!" "Gnostic is terrible!"

Exactly. I agree. Although ISTM GThomas got tagged with some heresies
early on (by Ignatius?) For the heresiologists, IIRC, all you had  to
have was one bone-headed statement, and that could be grounds for
tossing out the whole thing, coherent or not.

>GJohn, as usual, poses problems for any scheme of literary
>development of the Gospels. I reject the argument of the Jesus
>Seminar to marginalize GJohn because it differs so much from the
>Synoptic gospels. GJohn seems to me, more than the other gospels, a
>layered document, with what seems to me an early layer consisting of
>a narrative based on the "Signs Gospel," and a later layer that
>interleaves a bunch of sermons elaborating on the Gospel's Point of
>View. But I digress.
>
>I think GJohn is marginalized because however early it or its
>subsets might be, it nevertheless is fiction and so for historical
>Jesus questing isn't useful.

We disagree about that.

>The main take-away for me from Stevan's first two interviews is the
>importance of narrative in the literary development of Q and the
>"Gospels," and in their relative dating.
>
>I just cannot imagine what would motive someone to denarrativize the
>synoptics into Thomas, although this is the dependence view held by
>a great many.

I agree.

>Bob Schacht, Ph.D.
>Northern Arizona University
>
>Darn. If you were still in HI I'd come to visit.

Well, you had from August 2004 to August 2009 to do that! Ted Weeden
visited me over there, and we had a jolly time arguing about
Mark..Perhaps if I'd had the sense to tell you about that in advance...

BTW, you were right about the Ahi Poke.

Cheers,
Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The conversation below originated on the GTH list, but it's import
transcends thomasine interests in ways quite relevant to this list,
which has been somewhat quiet lately.

The occasion for my comment there was in response to several
interviews conducted with Stevan Davies, who was quite active on this
list in its formative years (1996-1998), often with respect to his
book, Jesus the Healer, which I debated with him extensively in those
years. Anyway, the present occasion is prompted by Mike Grondin's
comment, as follows:

>Chris Skinner continues his fine series of interviews with Thomas
>scholars by posting a 3-part interview with Stevan Davies, who of
>course needs no introduction to gthomas subscribers. The
>third part hasn't appeared yet, but I didn't want to wait to notify
>subscribers of this ongoing series, so far posted as follows:
>
><http://pejeiesous.com/2009/11/08/interview-with-stevan-davies-part-i/>http://p\
ejeiesous.com/2009/11/08/interview-with-stevan-davies-part-i/
>http://pejeiesous.com/2009/11/10/interview-with-stevan-davies-part-ii/

For those who enjoy Stevan's acerbic wit and keen insights, you will
not be disappointed.
Here is my response to some of what Stevan wrote:

>Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:11:17 -0700
>To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
>From: Bob Schacht <bobschacht@...>
>Subject: Re: [GTh] Skinner's Interview with Davies
>
>At 04:12 PM 11/10/2009, Michael Grondin wrote:
>>
>>...As Chris notes, Steve is very generous in his response to questions,
>>ranging far and wide with his typical keen senses of logic and humour.
>>I was a little surprised to learn that Steve now thinks far less of the
>>Gospel of John than he apparently did when writing _Jesus the Healer_,
>>but it's a pleasant surprise, since I felt that his position in that book
>>re GJn wasn't really tenable. But in any case, an interview well worth
>>reading, and thanks to Chris for doing the work to get it together.
>>As usual, responses to Steve's comments are welcome here.
>
>Mike,
>To take just one bite of a large apple, Stevan wrote:
>
>>...What we appear to have in Thomas is a collection of stuff of
>>diverse sorts that lacks a fully coherent ideology that was
>>compiled by people who themselves probably didn't think they fully
>>understood it (saying 1). ...
>
>Stevan writes elsewhere that the list genre should by all odds be
>early, and I think he is right. So I would re-write his sentence above as
>"What we appear to have in Thomas is a collection of stuff of
>diverse sorts that lacks a fully coherent narrative that was
>compiled by people who themselves probably didn't think they fully
>understood it (saying 1). "
>
>Despite some attempts  here to impose an order on the text of Thomas
>according to the number of characters that fit neatly onto a page
>(of papyrus, I assume), I think Stevan is probably right that the
>only structure evident in the list of sayings is that there seems to
>be more word association among the later sayings in the list than
>earlier (so I am intrigued by his suggestion that the list came
>about has a haphazard record of sayings people could remember when a
>scribe was handy). There is room for some important text-critical work here.
>
>But I mainly want to emphasize here the importance of narrative on
>the text, and on the ideological consequences. Lacking a narrative
>structure (except for the beginning and end), the sayings in GTH are
>free to roam.  Q is a list, but it is a partly narrativized list, so
>the ideology in it is more important. That is, sayings that do not
>conform to the (somewhat minimal) narrative are less likely to be included.
>
>But with Mark, we have a full-blown narrative. And that forces Mark
>to make decisions that list-makers are not bothered with: In order
>to make his narrative coherent, he needs to make choices among his
>material, probably discarding material that doesn't fit, and perhaps
>inventing some material to cover up gaps in his narrative. And the
>more coherent the narrative, the more it has a Point of View-- i.e.,
>an ideology. And the more a Gospel has a Point of View, the more
>likely there will be opposing Points of View.
>
>GJohn, as usual, poses problems for any scheme of literary
>development of the Gospels. I reject the argument of the Jesus
>Seminar to marginalize GJohn because it differs so much from the
>Synoptic gospels. GJohn seems to me, more than the other gospels, a
>layered document, with what seems to me an early layer consisting of
>a narrative based on the "Signs Gospel," and a later layer that
>interleaves a bunch of sermons elaborating on the Gospel's Point of
>View. But I digress.
>
>The main take-away for me from Stevan's first two interviews is the
>importance of narrative in the literary development of Q and the
>"Gospels," and in their relative dating.
>
>Bob Schacht, Ph.D.
>Northern Arizona University

To crawl out even further on this limb, let me add this:
If the key note of literary development of the Gospels was from Lists
to Narratives, is there a third stage?

I suggest, yes! And the third stage is (drum roll, please):
*meta-narrative.*  The narrative stage is somewhat biographical, or
perhaps hagiographic-- i.e., the focus of the narrative is on the
life and death of Jesus.

By "meta-narrative," I mean comments by the Gospeler attempting to
explain the significance of the narrative.

In GMark, there is meta-narrative in 1:1-2 at the beginning, and the
second sentence of the Shorter Ending, or vss. 16:19-20 of the longer
ending, or the verses in Note t of the NRSV

In GJohn, however, the Gospel opens with 18 verses of meta-narrative
(1:1-18), and concludes with at least 21:24-25 and perhaps much more.
For example, all the "sermons" in GJohn might be considered part of
this meta-narrative (mainly chapters 14-17)

Thus, the distinguishing feature of GJohn that may make it late is
not its theology, but the presence of so much meta-narrative.
However, John is a multi-layered document. The "Signs Gospel" within
GJohn, and much else of its narrative, may be much earlier.

What I offer here is not a well-developed thesis, but the sketch of a
few ideas inspired by Stevan's comments in response to Chris's
questions, linked above.

Bob Schacht, Ph.D.
Northern Arizona University


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Of course when I said:

> I begin to arrange the now traditional (13th annual!)
> gathering of all those NT and Biblical and Biblically related e-list
> members (i.e. XTalkers, B-Greeks, and members of Corpus Paulinum,
> John-Lit, Kata Markon, Biblical Studies, T-C List, Ioudaios, Synoptic-L,
> Aramaic, ANE-2, etc. ) who will be going to *Boston* for the SBL conference.
>
I meant I begin to arrange the now traditional (13th annual!)
gathering of all those NT and Biblical and Biblically related e-list
members (i.e. XTalkers, B-Greeks, and members of Corpus Paulinum,
John-Lit, Kata Markon, Biblical Studies, T-C List, Ioudaios, Synoptic-L,
Aramaic, ANE-2, etc. ) who will be going to *New Orleans* for the SBL
conference.

Just more proof that everyone needs a proof reader!

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With apologies for cross posting.

It's that time of year again when the Society of Biblical Literature's
Annual Meeting is just around the corner (Nov. 21st - Nov. 24th in New
Orleans) and I begin to arrange the now traditional (13th annual!)
gathering of all those NT and Biblical and Biblically related e-list
members (i.e. XTalkers, B-Greeks, and members of Corpus Paulinum,
John-Lit, Kata Markon, Biblical Studies, T-C List, Ioudaios, Synoptic-L,
Aramaic, ANE-2, etc. ) who will be going to Boston for the SBL conference.

[For those of you who do not know what the Society of Biblical
Literature is and/or are unfamiliar with the SBL Annual Meeting, go
first to http://www.sbl-site.org/

and then to

http://www.sbl-site.org/congresses/Congresses_AnnualMeeting.aspx].

The informal E-Listers' meeting is planned for Saturday, Nov. 21st at
11:30 a.m.  the Eisenbrauns  Press booth  (# 704)  in the  the New
Orleans Marriott Exhibit Hall.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.

As I've done in the past 12 years in arranging this meeting, I'd like to
get an advance head count of those of you who are intending to attend
this year's SBL.

I'd also like to know who among the intended attendees is presenting a
paper during the conference (and at what time and place and within what
SBL group or section and under what title).

So this is the first call to write me OFF LIST at jgibson000 at
comcast.net and let me know the following:

(a) if you will be attending;

(b) if and when and under what aegis (i.e., SBLSection and Session #)
you are presenting a paper,

(c) your paper title, AND

(d) what you consider to be your "home" E-List.

I'll keep everyone updated as the info comes in to me.

Again, write to me OFF LIST (jgibson000@...) and please use a
header that says something like "SBL e-listers' meeting".

May I ask that if you are letting me know that you are giving a paper,
that you adhere as closely as possible to the SBL/AAR Program Book
Format when you do so. That is to say, I'd be grateful if you'd compose
your information according to this formula:

Name and Institution
Section #
Title of Section
Date
Time
Room
Paper title

For example:

Stephen C. Carlson, Duke University
SBL 24-112
Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and
Early Christianity Section
Tuesday,  11/24
11/24/2009
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Bayside A - SH
Origen's Use of the Gospel of Thomas

Looking forward to seeing you in New Orleans!

Yours,

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With your permission, we'd like to pass along this announcement-

John Levinson, author of the newly published 'Filled With the Spirit' --
http://eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=9780802863720 -- has agreed
to participate with us on the Biblical Studies List --
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical-studies/ -- in a Colloquium
towards the end of the year (specific dates to be announced shortly).

Levinson's book is fantastically well written and stunningly insightful.
It is a ground-breaking pneumatology excellently rooted in the best kind
of exegesis. We hope you will take part in our discussions.

You have plenty of time to get hold of a copy of the book.  You will
enjoy it I'm certain.  And you also have time to invite your colleagues
to take part.

--
++++++

Jim West
http://jwest.wordpress.com

List folk may be interested in a tour to Greece and Turkey that
Professor Sheila McGinn is leading next Summer.

http://jwest.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/join-professor-mcginn-on-a-tour-of-greece-\
and-turkey/

If you have questions, please contact Sheila at the number provided.


--
++++++++

Dr Jim West

James Barfield, whose Copper Scroll claims have been critiqued by Robert
Cargill, has posted two new videos. Barfield claims to reveal the first five
locations of the Copper Scroll, and the last five locations. Barfield claims
that the burials happened 2300 or 2400 years ago. Barfield used built features
at Qumran to set some of his proposed locations. But many of the built
features
he uses were not built till many years after his proposed scenario.
This is one
reason--there are others--that I find his claims unpersuasive.

Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson

Oops, forgot to mention the topic- it's Aramaic and Syriac

With apologies for the cross-posting.

Eisenbrauns has just posted the latest installment of our annual
back-to-school sale.

For the next 10 days, save 15-50% on selected titles. Details here:
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/pages/NEWSLIST

Enjoy,
James

________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788

With apologies for the cross-posting.

Eisenbrauns has just posted the latest installment of our annual
back-to-school sale.

For the next 10 days, save 15-50% on selected titles. Details here:
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/pages/NEWSLIST

Enjoy,
James
________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788

Dear All,

Prof. Herbert Basser requested that I post this to the various lists.

(My apologies for cross-posting.)



Lisbeth S. Fried

Ann Arbor








The Mind Behind the Gospels: A Commentary to Matthew Chapters 1-14
by Herbert Basser
Cloth: ISBN 978-1-934843-33-8, 396 pp. $69.00
Paper: ISBN 978-1-934843-34-5, 396 pp. $35.00
Review copies available upon request.
Topic Areas: New Testament Studies, Bible Studies, Talmudic Studies
Level: Undergraduate or Graduate

Publisher: ACADEMIC STUDIES PRESS



Summary:  Basser gives us a verse-by-verse commentary to the first half of
the Gospel in his study of Matthew through the lens of Jewish texts. These
texts, skillfully interpreted by Basser, illuminate the powerful poetry and
mystery behind much of Matthew’s genius in reworking evangelist’s sources.
These Jewish materials provide a creative, cultural way of thinking about
what God expects from human beings that is infused with the words and images
of Matthew. Basser shows how Jewish idioms and artistry move the speeches,
story, and figure of Jesus, through various layers of Church tradition, from
a Jewish preacher to a Gentile savior. Each chapter of commentary is
preceded by a preliminary discussion and the book is introduced by a
scholarly yet accessible preface and introduction discussing the
methodological issues of the commentary as a whole. In many ways, this book
deepens Basser’s initial views of the New Testament in his Studies in
Exegesis, Leiden and Boston, E.J. Brill, 2000. The present book will appeal
to a broad audience of knowledgeable readers of any or no faith
For more information or to order, please see our website at
<http://www.academicstudiespress.com> www.academicstudiespress.com or email
us at  <mailto:sales@...>
sales@....



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Ken,

I agree with much of what you write. Also, I take Acts to be historical, and it
is precisely for that reason that I equate Gal 2 with Acts 15 (see, for example,
my recent email on chronology).

You assume (I think) that the outcome of the Acts 15 meeting would have
prevented the circumcision issue from arising in (south) Galatia. But is this
really a safe assumption? Following the delivery of the decree the south
Galatians would know that the Judean church leaders did not support
circumcision, but why must we assume that the authority of the Judean church
leaders held sway in south Galatia? The decree does not make its case by
appealing to any words of Jesus, so the agitators in Galatia would surely wish
to question its validity. Peter, James, and the elders had never been to
Galatia, so why should the Galatians accept their authority as absolute?

The scenario may have been something like this:
1. The decree was delivered to south Galatia
2. The agitators argued, "The doctrine of Gentile liberty is a mistaken
inference from a single vision of Peter (whom you do not recognize). Paul (your
'father') circumcised Timothy so he actually supports circumcision, so you
should be circumcised too. Paul's verbal support for Gentile liberty was just to
please Peter and the others, so it does not represent an independent second
witness to the will of God.
3. Paul wrote the letter in
response, arguing that his revelation was independent; that he was no underling \
of Peter and the others on this issue; and that they should not believe the rumo\
r that he supports circumcision.

Ken, does this answer your objection to equating Gal 2 with Acts 15? Do you see
any other difficulties with the equation, or indeed with my reconstruction of
the background to the letter?

I have made my proposal available on the web here:

http://members.shaw.ca/rfellows/Site/T-T_Galatians_background.html

Richard Fellows
Vancouver.

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth Litwak <javajedi2@...>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [XTalk] The background to Galatians
To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com

> Richard,
>
>    That's an interesting idea, but I'm not quite convinced.  I
> see no way that Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15 could refer to the same
> event.  Rather, I am in the company of those who think that
> Galatians was written before the events in Acts 15.  Otherwise,
> it would be clear to Gentiles that, no matter what Paul did with
> Timothy, they did not need to keep the Law.  I would quickly add
> that those who take the view that Paul's autobiographical info
> is von Rankean history, wie es eigentlich gewesen, have adopted
> an invalid view of how history is written, no matter who wrote
> it.  To assume that Luke was stupid or invented the story out of
> thin air and that Paul's account must refer to the same
> encounter is gratuitous and disingenuous at the very least.  I
> don't see any way to match Galatians 2 with Acts 15.  Galatians
> 2 must recount a previous event, IMHO. 
>
> Ken Litwak


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Bob,
On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Bob Schacht wrote:

>
>
> As you may recall, Gordon Raynal picked up my challenge and we had a
> go at it for a couple of weeks, with welcome participation by a few
> others. My questions were inspired by the description of Peter's role
> in the beginning chapters of Acts.

It was an enjoyable chat.

now cutting to one of your paragraphs...
>
>>
>
> Also, his stress on the skandalon might also make it easier to
> understand why Mark does not say all that much about the
> resurrection. Mark doesn't say this, but the implication to me was
> that if the skandalon is the main point of the gospel, then the
> resurrection is, in a sense, anticlimactic.

Interesting.  Why say "anticlimactic?"  How about considering the
function of resurrection affirmation regarding the way the good news
story is told/ the message is affirmed?

For Paul (per Romans 1) Jesus is "declared Son of God with power
according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the
dead..." (NRSV).

For Mark God says in 1:11, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I
am well pleased." (NRSV) and this is after John baptizes him.

Doing theology Paul's way then per I Cor. 15 the authority of the
apostles is lined up by Paul in terms of "opthe's" of the risen
Jesus... and it, of course, is a decidedly male oriented listing.
Doing theology Mark's way focuses attention on Jesus in ministry and
it is most decidedly the nameless woman who anoints Jesus while he is
quite alive who is the model for discerning faith and therefore a
(the? for the Markan community???)  key testifier for the future.
(in Mark 14:9 Mark's Jesus says of her, "Truly I tell you, where the
good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be
told in remembrance of her.")  Resurrection announcement is part of
both kinds of communication, but it functions differently.  And then
besides that, resurrection is just a necessary journey stage
description.  The proverbial end of the story until "THE END" is that
Jesus has got to get up to that throne on "the right hand of the
Father:)!"  Resurrection is never the climax for any of the early
materials that use this affirmation formula.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Richard,

   That's an interesting idea, but I'm not quite convinced.  I see no way that
Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15 could refer to the same event.  Rather, I am in the
company of those who think that Galatians was written before the events in Acts
15.  Otherwise, it would be clear to Gentiles that, no matter what Paul did with
Timothy, they did not need to keep the Law.  I would quickly add that those who
take the view that Paul's autobiographical info is von Rankean history, wie es
eigentlich gewesen, have adopted an invalid view of how history is written, no
matter who wrote it.  To assume that Luke was stupid or invented the story out
of thin air and that Paul's account must refer to the same encounter is
gratuitous and disingenuous at the very least.  I don't see any way to match
Galatians 2 with Acts 15.  Galatians 2 must recount a previous event, IMHO. 

Ken Litwak

--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Richard Fellows <rfellows@...> wrote:

From: Richard Fellows <rfellows@...>
Subject: [XTalk] The background to Galatians
To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 9:19 PM

















       The Judean church leaders wrote a letter affirming Gentile liberty

(Acts 15:19-29). Paul delivered this letter to the south Galatian

churches and simultaneously circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3-4). I

suggest that this made the Galatian believers confused about what Paul

actually believed and that Paul's letter to them is his response to

this confusion. Paul circumcised Timothy to help him gain an audience

with Jews, but Paul could not explain that that was his motive, for

the Jews whom he hoped to bring to Christ would not have responded

favorably. At some point after Paul left Galatia some there said,

"Paul circumcised Timothy, so he must believe in circumcision, so it's

OK for other Gentile believers to be circumcised. It is true that he

preached Gentile liberty, but he must have done so only to please the

Jerusalem church leaders who had written that letter. The real Paul

believes in circumcision. "



These rumors in Galatia explain the letter:



5:11 reads, "why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching

circumcision? ".  The believers thought Paul supported circumcision.

Does the second "still" (ETI) in this verse indicate that Paul is

admitting here that he had recommended circumcision to Timothy?



6:17 reads, "From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry

the marks of Jesus branded on my body". Paul is saying here, "Let no-

one question my commitment, for I have the wounds to prove it".

Chrysostom understood this: http://www.newadven t.org/fathers/ 23106.htm



5:2 reads, "Listen, I ,Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves

be circumcised, Christ will be on no benefit to you." This is a strong

statement. Here Paul over-states his position to correct the rumor

that he believed in circumcision. Paul writes, "I, Paul" to make it

clear that these are his own beliefs: he is not writing these things

to please the Jerusalem church leaders. With the "I, Paul" he detaches

himself from Silas and other Jerusalem church leaders, just as he

detaches himself from Timothy with the "I, Paul" in 2 Cor 10:1.



5:10 says, "But whoever it is that is confusing (TARASSWN) you will

pay the penalty". 5:11 shows that the confusion was the rumor that

Paul supported circumcision. The same word appears in 1:7, "there are

some who are confusing you". 1:8 read, "But even if we or an angel

from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we

proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!". Paul, then, is here

refuting the view that he had endorsed circumcision. The charge that

he supported circumcision therefore lies behind 1:8-9 as well as 5:11.



1:8-9 in turn provides the background to 1:10-24, where Paul explains

(overstates? ) that he was not an underling of the Jerusalem church

leaders. He does this to refute the view that he preached Gentile

liberty with the sole purpose of pleasing them. He makes it clear that

he had preached his gospel even  before he had had much contact with

the Jerusalem leaders. Paul does this to prove that his preaching was

not done out of obedience to the Jerusalem leaders.



Gal 2:6 reads, "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged

leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me: God shows

no partiality)" . Paul here asserts again that he was not an underling

of the apostles: his  preaching and writing derived from the

revelation that he had received from God, and were not done

insincerely to please the Jerusalem apostles.



In Gal 2:11-14 Paul selects an incident that must have been very

atypical, since Acts and Gal 2:1-10 indicate that Paul and Peter were

in agreement that Gentile liberty was important. Paul here asserts his

own commitment to the cause of Gentile liberty: he opposed Peter "to

his face" and "before them all", and he stood alone even after the

other Jews fell away. Paul stresses here that his commitment to

Gentile liberty is sincere. He had taken a stand against Peter himself

on this very issue. He selects this incident because it shows that his

support for Gentile liberty was not motived by a desire to please Peter.



This understanding of Galatians seems to reconcile the letter with Acts.



Does this work?



Richard Fellows

Vancouver.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for the plug and the comments, Bob.  I have added some short
programme notes over on my NT Blog at
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/nt-pod-5-simon-peter-in-mark-programme.html
.  I also already have an article on the topic which explores the
portrayal of Peter in Mark and Matthew.  It was published in 2006 in a
Fs for Henry Wansbrough, but since Fs articles get little attention, I
plan to make it available online.  I also plan a future episode of the
NT Pod on Peter in Matthew.  Cheers, Mark.

--
Mark Goodacre            Goodacre@...
Associate Professor
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org

Way back on 5/3/2009, I wrote:
>Well, I am still hoping for more feedback on my Peter thesis. But I
>am still intrigued by it. ...

As you may recall, Gordon Raynal picked up my challenge and we had a
go at it for a couple of weeks, with welcome participation by a few
others. My questions were inspired by the description of Peter's role
in the beginning chapters of Acts.

Now Mark Goodacre has returned to the subject
>
><http://podacre.blogspot.com/2009/07/nt-pod-5-simon-peter-in-marks-gospel.html>\
NT
>Pod 5: Simon Peter in Mark's Gospel
>
>
>
>The fifth episode of the NT Pod discusses Mark's depiction of Simon
>Peter and the disciples, noting the use of the language of the
>skandalon or "stumbling block" with respect to the idea of the
>crucified Christ.
>
>It is just under eight minutes long. ....
http://podacre.blogspot.com/2009/07/nt-pod-5-simon-peter-in-marks-gospel.html

It is an interesting look at Peter, mainly according to the Gospel of Mark.
I guess I'm an old fuddy duddy, because I prefer the printed word to
Goodacre's charming British accent.
Because Mark's delivery is spoken, rather than written, I cannot
easily cut and paste a few things to talk about.
But one of the interesting thoughts in Goodacre's oration is to draw
our attention to the Parable of the Sower, and the section on Rocky
ground, as a coded (and punny) reference to Peter (Rocky). I don't
recall ever hearing that suggestion before.

Goodacre also suggests, if I understood correctly, that Mark's Peter
is a kind of Everyman: that is, someone capable of both insight and
folly, with whom we are meant to identify. In other words, perhaps
there is a pastoral element to the story in addition to the history
that we usually look for.

Also, his stress on the skandalon might also make it easier to
understand why Mark does not say all that much about the
resurrection. Mark doesn't say this, but the implication to me was
that if the skandalon is the main point of the gospel, then the
resurrection is, in a sense, anticlimactic.

I hope that a written version of your podcast will be available soon.

Anyway, do give a listen, and let us know what you think.

Bob Schacht
Honolulu





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

there are a few out but Peter Head's is the most complete.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/07/graham-stanton.html

others are collected here and the page will be updated as further appear

http://jwest.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/funeral-arrangements-for-graham-stanton/


--
++++++

Jim West
http://jwest.wordpress.com

http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/sad-news-death-of-graham-stanton.html

sad news indeed.


--
++++++

Jim West
http://jwest.wordpress.com

Thanks Jeffrey!  Had a magical pre-birthday eve!  We went to see
Harry Potter:)!
Gordon
On Jul 17, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

> Just a note to wish one of our members -- Gordon Raynal -- a very
> happy
> birthday.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> --
> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
> Chicago, Illinois
> e-mail jgibson000@...
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-
> subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-
> unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-
> owners@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Just a note to wish one of our members -- Gordon Raynal -- a very happy
birthday.

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Has anyone here taught courses on 1 Peter?   If so,  I'd be grateful to
know what books you used in teaching the course and to see the syllabi
you drew up for it.   And since my request is off topic,   may I also
request that responses to it be sent OFF LIST to my private e-mail?

With thanks in advance,

Yours,

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 01:42 PM 7/12/2009, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>On Jul 12, 2009 6:32 PM, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
> >No, I was thinking about Gerd, particularly since he did a Seminar with us
> >a while back.
>
>Well, Gerd is much more conservative with the state of the text than
>Pierson and Naber.

That may be, but I'm guessing that he is fluent in the language Pierson &
Naber wrote in, and might be able to discuss honestly with us what they are
suggesting?

Bob


>Stephen
>
>--
>Stephen C. Carlson
>Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
>Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
>(Baylor, 2005)
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
>To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Jul 12, 2009 6:32 PM, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
>No, I was thinking about Gerd, particularly since he did a Seminar with us
>a while back.

Well, Gerd is much more conservative with the state of the text than
Pierson and Naber.

Stephen

--
Stephen C. Carlson
Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor,
2005)

At 11:52 AM 7/12/2009, David C. Hindley wrote:
>You mean Gerd Luedemann?
>
>_Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity_ translated by M. Eugene
>Boring.(1989)
>
>_Paul, the founder of Christianity_ (2002)

No, I was thinking about Gerd, particularly since he did a Seminar with us
a while back.

Bob


>Or did you mean Hermann L.?
>
>Dave Hindley
>
>--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would Leudeman be any help in getting a handle on this work?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
>To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]