Can you summarize the argument more fully?
Steve Davies

>
> I have just encountered a good case for being a literalist.  Wendy
Cotter “The Parable of the Feisty Widow and the Threatened
Judge”,  NTS July 2005,  238ff argues that the judge gives in to
the feisty widow because she might give him a black eye.
>
> Isn’t that fun?
>
> I would like to know how the linguists on XTalk view Cotter’s
literal rendering of Lk. 18.5
>
> Regards,
>
> Ernie Pennells,
> 220-50 Songhees Road,
> Victoria BC, 
> Canada V9A 7J4
>
> Tel: (1) 250 - 381 5676
>  
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Steve Davies]:
>Can you summarize the argument more fully?

I guess I was being rather cryptic,  Steve.

The key word in Lk. 18.5 is �UPWPIAZW (strike under the eye),  which
translators have rendered metaphorically as the unjust judge being pestered
by the widow.  Wendy Cotter takes this more literally as the judge feeling
concerned that this determined and feisty woman might actually give him a
black eye.

Eugene Peterson in �The Message� comes close to Cotter�s theme with, �I�m
going to end up beaten black-and-blue by her pounding.�

Kenneth Bailey �Poets & Peasants� also comes close to Wendy Cotter�s theme.
Based upon his knowledge peasant communities in the Middle East,  he
describes the potential for a bold woman to brave the male assembly before a
judge,  and win an effective hearing through disruptive behaviour.

My enquiry is therefore whether the customary metaphorical treatments have a
stronger claim than Cotter�s fisticuffs.

Regards,

Ernie Pennells,
220-50 Songhees Road,
Victoria BC,
Canada V9A 7J4

Tel: (1) 250 - 381 5676



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

This is a long article on a new exhibition, but nothing specific of
interest here. However, it does offer some hope that certain manuscripts of
interest here may at last receive fuller publication...
Bob Schacht

<http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-ca-sinai5nov05,0,3848658,ema\
il.story?coll=cl-lat-homepage>November
5, 2006

MUSEUMS


Fragile treasures of the Sinai

An ancient monastery unlocks its trove, and the Getty gives L.A. a rare
glimpse of history.

   PHOTO GALLERY
<http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-gallery_sinai,0,6321789.phot\
ogallery?coll=cl-lat-homepage>Treasures
from an ancient monastery

By Suzanne Muchnic, Times Staff Writer

http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-ca-sinai5nov05,0,1942210.stor\
y?coll=cl-lat-homepage

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

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Ernest Pennells" <pennells@...>
wrote:

> The key word in Lk. 18.5 is `UPWPIAZW (strike under the eye),  which
> translators have rendered metaphorically as the unjust judge being
pestered > by the widow.  Wendy Cotter takes this more literally as
the judge feeling > concerned that this determined and feisty woman
might actually give him a > black eye.

>> My enquiry is therefore whether the customary metaphorical
treatments have a > stronger claim than Cotter's fisticuffs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ernie Pennells,

Well, I dunno. How's that for help? It would seem to me that the
parable could not originally have had an unjust judge allegorical for
God. That doesn't seem likely to me in terms of the religious context
of the times.

Furthermore, the purpose of a judge is to hear a case, not to give in
to pressure. This judge doesn't hear the case at all, but gives in.
That fits his unrigheous character well, but doesn't make it likely
that he is to be considered God. The woman is taking advantage of his
unrighteousness by her strategy.

For all we know the whining bitch doesn't have a case at all. I think
of a particular instance at my college where public screaming
(literally)and threatening-lawsuits repeatedly won the day for a
woman who had not the slightest scrap of right on her side.

As the judge is God, the woman, in turn, is said to be an allegory
for God's chosen ones. Now, if they are already the chosen ones, they
will already unjustly have God working for them against enemies who
have just and righteous claims against them, as the OT oft
reports to be the icase. I don't see any reason for anyone advancing
the argument that God's chosen will get their way, rightly or
wrongly, by physically threatening to assault God, although that is
the case if the Bible's allegory is to be followed and we assume that
strike under the eye is (more or less)literally meant.

We are to keep whining to God and eventually, whether we are in the
right or not, he'll give in just to get us to leave him alone....
that's the relationship of God to His Chosen? I suspect that the
original parable (is this a parable, I can't tell anymore) did not
allegorize God/Judge at all. That makes no sense to me, nor does
Chosen-People/Woman.

But what do you suppose it might have been about, if the allegory in
the Word is secondary and not the intent of the original?

I know, this letter doesn't help you with your question, but...
well... there we are.

Steve Davies

Steve Davies wrote:
It would seem to me that the
parable could not originally have had an unjust judge allegorical for
God. [snipped]  I suspect that the
original parable (is this a parable, I can't tell anymore) did not
allegorize God/Judge at all. That makes no sense to me, nor does
Chosen-People/Woman.
But what do you suppose it might have been about, if the allegory in
the Word is secondary and not the intent of the original?

Allegory is usually seen as secondary, isn't it?  Which doesn't mean that in
some original version of the story the judge is not used to refer to God in some
other metaphorical device.  (Bit vague, I know, but it *is* Monday morning...)

For my money, the application is 18:7, not 18:8; it's a "how much more" type of
story (cf Lk.11:13) - ie if such a dodgy character as this judge will eventualy
do as he is asked, how much more will your loving heavenly Father answer your
prayers.  Whether the original saying was part of the story as Luke shapes it,
to deal with his church's concerns over parousia-delay, is another question. 
But the image of a feisty widow losing it with a bad judge and smacking him in
the eye - sounds like exactly the kind of cartoon-image Jesus would have used to
get the crowd going.  In a different age and culture, he might have used Tom and
Jerry cartoons...

Cheers,
Rev Tony Buglass
Superintendent Minister
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit



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

[Tony Buglass]
>In a different age and culture, he might have used Tom and Jerry
cartoons...

I like it,  Tony

[Tony Buglass]
>Allegory is usually seen as secondary, isn't it?

Then what have translators been feeding us all these years?  I want my Tom
and Jerry!

Regards,

Ernie Pennells,
220-50 Songhees Road,
Victoria BC,
Canada V9A 7J4

Tel: (1) 250 - 381 5676



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

Hi Tony, Steve and Ernie,
On Nov 6, 2006, at 4:40 AM, Tony Buglass wrote:

> Steve Davies wrote:
> It would seem to me that the
> parable could not originally have had an unjust judge allegorical for
> God. [snipped]  I suspect that the
> original parable (is this a parable, I can't tell anymore) did not
> allegorize God/Judge at all. That makes no sense to me, nor does
> Chosen-People/Woman.
> But what do you suppose it might have been about, if the allegory in
> the Word is secondary and not the intent of the original?
>
> Allegory is usually seen as secondary, isn't it?  Which doesn't
> mean that in some original version of the story the judge is not
> used to refer to God in some other metaphorical device.  (Bit
> vague, I know, but it *is* Monday morning...)
>
> For my money, the application is 18:7, not 18:8; it's a "how much
> more" type of story (cf Lk.11:13) - ie if such a dodgy character as
> this judge will eventualy do as he is asked, how much more will
> your loving heavenly Father answer your prayers.  Whether the
> original saying was part of the story as Luke shapes it, to deal
> with his church's concerns over parousia-delay, is another
> question.  But the image of a feisty widow losing it with a bad
> judge and smacking him in the eye - sounds like exactly the kind of
> cartoon-image Jesus would have used to get the crowd going.  In a
> different age and culture, he might have used Tom and Jerry
> cartoons...
>
> Cheers,
> Rev Tony Buglass
> Superintendent Minister
> Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
>
>
	 I love the Tom and Jerry connection!  Right on target.  Road Runner
and Wylie Coyote work, too:)!  Jesus compared the Kingdom to the
ravenous mustard weed that grows so huge that it invited birds
(crows?) to the cornfield... to an Assassin who needed his practice,
etc.  All very Tom and Jerry-like/ Road Runner and Wylie Coyote-like
stories. In his fine little book, "The Essential Jesus" Crossan
writes (p 170) "Hear it instead (that is not in the way Luke frames
it) in its own literal situation where, in a world of male dominance,
widows (and orphans) are peculiarly susceptible to injustice and
oppression.  Such a focus surely connects us to all the prophetic
concerns about the lowliest of the low and the weakest and forward to
brother James statement: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before
God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their
distress, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." (Jas. 1:27
NRSV)  Strategies for the latter might take a good smack now and again!

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Gordon Raynal wrote:

>         I love the Tom and Jerry connection!  Right on target.  Road Runner
> and Wylie Coyote work, too:)!  Jesus compared the Kingdom to the
> ravenous mustard weed that grows so huge that it invited birds
> (crows?) to the cornfield... to an Assassin who needed his practice,
> etc.  All very Tom and Jerry-like/ Road Runner and Wylie Coyote-like
> stories. In his fine little book, "The Essential Jesus" Crossan
> writes (p 170) "Hear it instead (that is not in the way Luke frames
> it) in its own literal situation where, in a world of male dominance,
> widows (and orphans) are peculiarly susceptible to injustice and
> oppression.  Such a focus surely connects us to all the prophetic
> concerns about the lowliest of the low and the weakest and forward to
> brother James statement: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before
> God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their
> distress, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." (Jas. 1:27
> NRSV)  Strategies for the latter might take a good smack now and again!

FWIW, Wendy Cotter, the author of the article now under discussion, is a friend
of
mine  (and who incidentally, also happens to live half a mile from me).  I'll
ask
her if she wants to come on board and join this discussion.

Jeffrey

P.S.  I'm still waiting for responses from XTalkers about attendance at SBL.

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

Hi Jeffrey,
Will be interested in her comments.
See you in a couple of weeks.
Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC
On Nov 6, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

>
>
> Gordon Raynal wrote:
>
>>         I love the Tom and Jerry connection!  Right on target.
>> Road Runner
>> and Wylie Coyote work, too:)!  Jesus compared the Kingdom to the
>> ravenous mustard weed that grows so huge that it invited birds
>> (crows?) to the cornfield... to an Assassin who needed his practice,
>> etc.  All very Tom and Jerry-like/ Road Runner and Wylie Coyote-like
>> stories. In his fine little book, "The Essential Jesus" Crossan
>> writes (p 170) "Hear it instead (that is not in the way Luke frames
>> it) in its own literal situation where, in a world of male dominance,
>> widows (and orphans) are peculiarly susceptible to injustice and
>> oppression.  Such a focus surely connects us to all the prophetic
>> concerns about the lowliest of the low and the weakest and forward to
>> brother James statement: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before
>> God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their
>> distress, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." (Jas. 1:27
>> NRSV)  Strategies for the latter might take a good smack now and
>> again!
>
> FWIW, Wendy Cotter, the author of the article now under discussion,
> is a friend of
> mine  (and who incidentally, also happens to live half a mile from
> me).  I'll ask
> her if she wants to come on board and join this discussion.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> P.S.  I'm still waiting for responses from XTalkers about
> attendance at SBL.
>
> --
> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
> Chicago, Illinois
> e-mail jgibson000@...
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>

With apologies for cross posting.

This is the second announcement of the 10th annual gathering of  NT,
Biblical,  and Biblically related e-list members at the Annual Meeting
of the Society of Biblical Literature in  Washington D.C .

[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-Lister's meeting is planned for Saturday, Nov. 18th at
11:30 a.m. in the Washington D.C. Convention Center Exhibit Hall D at
The Gorgias Press booths (booth 1017) in Exhibit Hall A of the
Washington D.C. Convention Center.

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 9 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 second call to write 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/AAR  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 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-lister's meeting".

And N.B. -- This year there will be a formal, SBL sponsored. E-Listers'
Brown Bag Lunch Meeting on Sunday, Nov. 19th from 11:45 to 12:45 in
Meeting Room 2-RW where we can talk -- and perhaps do some e-list
planning -- without the distractions of the exhibit.

The Program Book listing of this event is:


      S19-40E-Listers Brown Bag Luncheon
      11/19/2006
      11:45 AM to 12:45 PM
      Room: Meeting Room 2 - RW
      Bring your own lunch (concessions are available in the exhibit
      hall) and join us for discussion.

I look forward to seeing you in Washington D.C.!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson


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



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

Does anyone here has access to JSTOR?  I am in need of the following
articles that can be accessed there.

"Panem Nostrum": The Problem of Petition and the Lord's Prayer
Michael Joseph Brown
Journal of Religion, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 595-614

The Lucan Text of the Lord's Prayer (Lk XI 2-4)
Robert Leaney
Novum Testamentum, Vol. 1, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 103-111.

And if anyone has access to the Jewish Bible Quarterly,  I need the
article  "Kaddish and Lord's Prayer" by David Baumgardt that appeared in
vol 19 (1991).

With thanks in advance to anyone who can send me these.

Yours,

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

Thanks to Mark Goodacre, I now have the following articles:

"Panem Nostrum": The Problem of Petition and the Lord's Prayer
Michael Joseph Brown
Journal of Religion, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 595-614

The Lucan Text of the Lord's Prayer (Lk XI 2-4)
Robert Leaney
Novum Testamentum, Vol. 1, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 103-111.


However, I am still looking for David Baumgardt's Jewish Bible Quarterly
article  "Kaddish and Lord's Prayer" [vol 19 (1991)].

But I suspect that this is something that would first have to be scanned
since it appears that JBQ does not have volumes earlier than 1994 or so
online.


Yours,

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

The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness
in a Biblical Forgery, by Peter Jeffery (Yale U.P., 2006) offers further
evidence that Morton Smith composed the MS claimed to be a Letter of Clement of
Alexandria that quoted a Secret Gospel of Mark. Jeffery examines the history of
liturgy and finds that Smith's imagined initiation ceremony did not fit the
practice in Alexandria at the time. Jeffery shows that Smith pursued fairly
desultory work in cataloging the Mar Saba library, if that had been his main
purpose. For example, why didn't Smith examine the folder of old MS fragments,
if his interest had been to find old texts? Smith didn't bother to check in the
Jerusalem library (where most Mar Saba MSS had been moved) for texts by the same
hand as his claimed find. And, as I noted previously, why didn't Smith--who
published the admonition for scholars to check old books for marginal
annotations--say anything about the 1646 Voss book margins?

Jeffery engages previous critiques of Smith's claims mostly merely quite
briefly, and goes his own way. So the work of integrating his insights with
previous scholarship remains for reviewers to evaluate. The book is not free of
errors; on page 2 Jeffery says Smith got his "second doctorate" at Hebrew
University, but that 1945 degree was before his 1957 Harvard Th.D. Perhaps
others will comment on Jeffery's Roman Catholic perspective on the Anglican
church and on homosexuality. In any case, this is a learned and lively book
that, in my view, shows even more than before that Smith wrote the Letter with
Secret Mark.

Jeffery wrote (p.263 n.65) that Smith's 1958 private publication Manuscript
Material from the Monastery of Mar Saba, Discovered, Transcribed and Translated
by Morton Smith "no doubt" included photographs. Perhaps so, but he has not seen
it (nor I). It was an exceedingly limited publication. The Smith papers (minus
letters destroyed; except for the Scholem correspondence, originals of both
sides, preserved in Jerusalem) are being cataloged at Jewish Theological
Seminary. Those papers may provide more insight.

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

goranson@... wrote:

> The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals
> of Sex, Death, and Madness
> in a Biblical Forgery, by Peter Jeffery (Yale U.P.,
> 2006) offers further
> evidence that Morton Smith composed the MS claimed
> to be a Letter of Clement of
> Alexandria that quoted a Secret Gospel of Mark.

I've read four of the book's eleven chapters so far.
It's proving to be very interesting, and certainly
every bit as much fun as Carlson's Gospel Hoax.

So far Jeffery's argument complements Carlson's case
for Clement's letter showing itself to the product of
the 1950s. In chapter three, for instance, he argues
that while Secret Mark certainly suggests an
initiation rite, its combination of resurrection
symbolism, a period of teaching followed by a night
vigil, and the wearing of a white cloth suggest
20-century Anglican concerns (p 70). And second,
"Clement and the Alexandrian church, in particular,
held to a different theology of baptism that was based
not on the Easter event of Jesus' resurrection, but on
the Epiphany event of Jesus' baptism by John." (ibid)
So Smith's hoax not only has the 20th-century Anglican
liturgical renewal behind it (just as it evokes the
50s milieu for American gay men, per Carlson), but it
relies on Pauline associations between baptism and
resurrection motifs (Rom 6) instead of baptism and
epiphany motifs (i.e. creation, heavens opening with
light, the descent of the Holy Spirit and fire, the
seal of priestly and messianic anointings) (see p 68).

And in a footnote on p 271, Jeffery says that his work
is compatible with Carlson's, with only a slight
disclaimer: "While I don't deny the motives that
Carlson ascribes to Smith (Gospel Hoax, pp 78-86), I
think there were more compelling motivations, which I
identify in Chapter 11."

I hope to have a full review of this book for the list
when I've finished it.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
$420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment!
www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

With apologies for cross posting.

This is the Third and final announcement of the 10th annual gathering
of  NT,  Biblical,  and Biblically related e-list members at the Annual
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in  Washington D.C  on
Saturday, Nov. 18th at 11:30 a.m. . The meeting will take place at the
Gorgias Press booth (booth 1017) in Exhibit Hall A of the Washington
D.C. Convention Center.

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.

And N.B. -- This year there will be a formal, SBL sponsored. E-Listers'
Brown Bag Lunch Meeting on Sunday, Nov. 19th from 11:45 to 12:45 in
Meeting Room 2-RW where we can talk -- and perhaps do some e-list
planning -- without the distractions of the exhibit.

The Program Book listing of this event is:


      S19-40E-Listers Brown Bag Luncheon
      11/19/2006
      11:45 AM to 12:45 PM
      Room: Meeting Room 2 - RW
      Bring your own lunch (concessions are available in the exhibit
      hall) and join us for discussion.

Those who have let me know of their intentions to join as at the
informal gathering are:


Rikk Watts (XTalk)
who will be a responden to Gathercole's new book in the Synoptic Gospels
section Sunday Noon;  presiding a Mark section on Resurrection; Mon
a/noon; and in the Theol Herm section: respondent to Meye Thompson.

Stephen Carlson (SynopticL; XTalk)
whose papers are: (1) "Luke's Panel Technique for his 'Orderly'
Narration"     S18-24 Sat. 9:00am Synoptics Gospels Section and (2) "The
Nineteenth-Century Exemplar of 'Archaic Mark' (MS 2427)"     S21-18
Tues. 9:00am NT Textual Criticism Section

Jacob Knee (XTalk)

George Kiraz (Hugoye)

Christine Altinis-Kiraz

Everett Oakley (ANE-2)

Joseph Cathey

Gordon Raynal (XTalk)

Ken Penner (g-Megilot)

Joseph T. Edmiston (XTalk, Synoptic-L, B-Greek)

Patricia Walters (Synoptic-L)
who will be giving a paper on Tuesday morning 9-11am, "Formation of
Luke-Acts" session -- Room: 204B - CC.   Paper title:  "The Gilded
Hypothesis Revisited: The Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts"

Steve Black (XTalk)
who will be presenting a paper in  the SBL Construction of Christian
Identities Consultation (S19-108)   on Sunday late afternoon. Paper
Title:  "The Construction of Christian Identity through the Stereotyping
of the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew"

Frank Jacks (XTalk and Corpus Paulinum and Synoptic-L,)

Bill Skelton (Johannine Literature, XTalk)

Joseph Weaks (Synoptic-L, B-Greek)

Andrew Porter (B-Greek)

Mark Nanos (Corpus Paulinum)
who will be presenting a paper in Philippians Group Meeting entitled
"You say 'Judaizers,' I say, 'Why so?': Re-visiting the Context Implied
by
Paul's Name-Calling in Philippians 3"

Brian Tucker (Biblical Studies)

Gail Dawson (XTalk)

Donald R. Vance (ANE-2)
Presenting a paper in SBL S20-6 Biblical Hebrew Poetry section
Monday November 20, 2006 9:00 AM CC 204C. Paper Title: "Psalm 137
Reexamined with a View to Voice"

Lareta Finger (Corpus Paulinum)

Albert Maksel

Robert Raphael

Eli Elliot (Corpus Paulinum)
who will be delivering a paper in the SBL consultation on Jesus
Traditions, Gospels and Negotiating the Roman Imperial World, Session
S19-18, November 19, 2006 -- 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM -- Room: 156 - CC; The
paper is entitled:  "Empire as Metaphorical Family: God�s Family vs.
Caesar�s Family"

Randall Buth (B-Greek)
who will be presenting a paper in Biblical Greek Language and
Linguistics Section 11/19/2006 5:40 pm Room 204C-CC. Paper Title: "Greek
Body Parts"

Christopher Hutson (Corpus Paulinum)
who be participating in a panel discussion on �Teaching NT Introduction
or Christian Origins� in the Best Practices in Teaching Workshop,
S19-103, Saturday, 4:00-5:30.

Robert Raphael (B-Greek)

Stan Gundry

Mark Thalacker (Kata Markon)


and me (J. Gibson [Xtalk, Corpus Paulinum, Kata Markon,  and others)
I'll be presenting a paper entitled "The Bread Petition in the Lord's
Prayer: A Lack or "Alas""?" S21-25 Synoptic Gospels Tuesday November 21,
2006 9:00 AM CC 146C

I look forward to seeing you in Washington D.C.!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson


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



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

Would anyone who has access to JSTOR please send me OFF LIST the
following article if it is available there:

C. J. Hemer, "epiousios"" JSNT 22 (1984): 81-94

With thanks in advance.

Jeffrey

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

On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
> Would anyone who has access to JSTOR please send me OFF LIST the
> following article if it is available there:

Done.

Joe Weaks

The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals
of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery, by
Peter Jeffery. Yale University Press. ISBN-10:
0-300-11760-4; ISBN-13: 978-0-300-11760-8.


Like Stephen Carlson a year ago, Peter Jeffery is able
to show how obvious it is that Morton Smith fabricated
Clement's letter to Theodore. One would think that
Carlson exhausted all of Smith's anachronisms (the
"bald swindler" M. Madiotes, Morton Salt, and modern
gays in the 1950s being arrested in public
Gethsemanes), but Jeffery has spotted more:

* The three features of Secret Mark�s initiation rite
-- resurrection symbolism, a period of teaching
followed by a night vigil, and the wearing of a white
cloth -- point to the 1950s Anglican liturgical
renewal movement. In addition, Clement and the
Alexandrian church had a theology of baptism that was
based not on the easter event of Jesus' resurrection,
but on the epiphany event of Jesus' baptism by John.
Secret Mark should thus have epiphany motifs (i.e.
creation, the heavens opening with light, the descent
of the Holy Spirit and fire, the seal of priestly and
messianic anointings) rather than easter motifs (i.e.
Pauline associations between baptism and
resurrection). (pp 60-70)

* The homoeroticism in Secret Mark makes no sense in
an ancient context. Adult males were supposed to
pursue young boys/men, who in turn were supposed to
acquiesce only after "playing hard to get" and only if
the boy perceived that the sex would have intiatory
value (i.e. that the man would go beyond sex and
educate him in proper mores). But in Secret Mark,
Jesus does not pursue the young man: just the opposite
if anything, and this would have been shamefully
unacceptable. Secret Mark was evidently written by a
modern person who assumed that ancient homosexuality
would have followed Plato's model of an older teacher
with a young disciple, but who didn't quite understand
how the roles played out -- and such misunderstandings
were common in academic circles before the work of
K.J. Dover in the late 70s. (This would seem to
improve on Carlson, who argued that the homoeroticism
in Secret Mark makes no sense since Jesus and the
young man are depicted as social peers. But a "young
man", however rich, suggests they're not quite peers.)
(pp 185-192)

* Clement's letter is riddled with allusions to Oscar
Wilde's 19th-century play, "Salome", and Wilde was a
homosexual martyr to boot. In the play Salome does the
"dance of the seven veils", which is punned by Smith's
Clement, who writes about "the truth hidden by seven
veils". She is punned, in turn, by Smith's Salome,
whom Jesus rejects along with the rest of the female
race. (pp 226-231)

On top of this, Jeffery catches Smith in some pretty
amusing lies. A notable one: whereupon discovering
Clement's letter, Smith says he went to Vespers
instead of staying to investigate his discovery,
apparently forgetting what he said two pages earlier
(in "The Secret Gospel", p 10) -- that he had stopped
attending religious services because he no longer
"responded" to them. (pp 9-11)

Jeffery goes after Morton Smith pretty hard, unlike
Carlson who seemed (at least in part) to respect or
admire a man who had the skills to bamboozle so many
academics. Jeffery expresses sorrow and contempt:
Smith "became what he opposed: a hypocritical Clement
who condoned lying for the sake of a fundamentalist
sexology" (pp 247-248); "a man in great personal
pain", who didn't even understand himself despite
pretensions to a superior gnosticism (p 243); a bitter
academic, whose hoax stands as "the most grandiose and
reticulated 'Fuck You' ever perpetuated in the long
and vituperative history of scholarship" (p 242). He�s
right about that last one, but whether Smith wrote his
hoax more out of experimental amusement or angry
revenge remains unclear.

The names Stephen Carlson and Peter Jeffery will soon
become closely associated, and that's a credit to them
both. But who has the stronger case? Carlson has the
edge with his forensic handwriting analysis. The
Morton Salt exhibit (Carlson) and Anglican liturgical
analysis (Jeffery) each point to Morton Smith in
particular. Both address the homosexuality issue --
which also puts Smith directly on the spot -- though
Jeffery more satisfyingly. Carlson insists on the
pernicious nature of fakes, while Jeffery seems more
interested in the perniciousness of Morton Smith
himself. They complement each other perfectly, and
stand as definitive twin debunkings of the Secret Mark
hoax.


P.S. This book will be of interest to those who study
ancient rituals, whether or not they care about Secret
Mark. In discussing the baptismal imagery in Secret
Mark, Jeffery offers an enlightening critique of
academic treatments of liturgical traditions,
insisting that instead of giving undue priority to
texts, scholars need to give full attention to three
dimensions of worship -- the textual, the
practical/actional, and the theoretical/critical. An
example:

"We can learn a lot about a church by studying its
hymnal (the textual dimension). But we can learn even
more by attending its worship and observing that these
people rarely use their hymnal -- they rely instead on
photocopied pamphlets that are distributed each week
and then discarded (the practical dimension). It is
only when we have identified and interviewed the
decision-makers, and gotten them to explain the
critique of their hymnal that the photocopies embody
(the critical dimension), that we will begin to
understand who this community is before its god." (pp 57-58)

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
The all-new Yahoo! Mail beta
Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

During the past 20 years, Jesus has been cast in a variety of major roles,
often in book-length development: Jesus the Teacher, Jesus the Magician,
Jesus the Healer, Jesus the Prophet, etc. Notice how all of these are Power
roles. One might add Jesus the Cynic, which may or may not be a power role,
depending on your perspective!

Now comes another idea, that intrigues me.

Bruce Grindal, a Professor of Anthropology at Florida State University,
wrote an article in the November 2006 issue of Anthropology News (Vol 47
#8) entitled "Beggars, the Ancestors and Jesus" (p.15). After reciting an
experience with a beggar in Accra (West Africa), he tells of an experience
in a (Black?) church in Florida on the Second Coming, speculating on what
form Jesus would return in. His conclusion: He would come back as a
mendicant, "a person who lives by the charity of others." No formal
exegesis was revealed, but the idea nonetheless intrigues.

"Beggar" is used in a similar sense in the Gospels twice (prosaiteo, Mark
10:46; John 9:8), both relating to a specific person who was blind. Another
word (ptochos) was used once in Galatians 4:9 as an adjective ('beggarly').
But in this case it may be better to rely on context rather than
restricting ourselves to specific words.

For example, when Jesus sends his disciples out in Mark 6:7-11 (cf. Luke
9:2-4; Matt 10:5-15)
>7 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave
>them authority over the unclean spirits.
>  8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no
> bread, no bag, no money in their belts;
>  9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics.
>  10 He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you
> leave the place.
>  11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you
> leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them."

These instructions essentially mean that the disciples are sent out as
mendicants. If one looks at Jesus' typical modus operandi in the gospels,
he had no income and seemed frequently to be eating in other people's homes
or at least other people's food.

Perhaps the question of whether or not he was a mendicant depends on
whether or not he was providing a 'service' in exchange for his support.
The 'service' set is described as casting out demons and healing people
(Mark 6:13), proclaiming the good news, cure the sick, raise the dead,
cleanse the lepers, cast out demons (Matthew 10:7-8); and proclaiming the
kingdom of God and healing (Luke 9:2). That this might be an appropriate
framing for the work of Jesus is suggested by one of Matthew's additions,
"for laborers deserve their food" (10:10).

The Didache was specifically concerned with differentiating deadbeats from
authentic messengers (sorry, I don't remember the term the Didache uses for
the non-deadbeats who sojourned with them.)

Of course, who's a deadbeat and who's authentic can be a matter of
perspective. Anyone remember "Whatsmyname?" who appeared in eastern
Pennsylvania a few years ago? I suppose he was a mendicant; he didn't claim
to heal anyone, in fact, he didn't claim to do anything, but people treated
him as if he were one of the disciples on a missionary journey.

Bob Schacht
University of Hawaii

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

Bob,

St Francis certainly saw Jesus as a kind of mendicant. St Francis was no
scholar, of course, but in his simplicity of spirit he "plumbed depths where
learned science could but skim the surface".

Intriguingly, the earlier biographies of St Francis portray him as a radical who
was much in love with 'lady poverty', but the later biographies greatly
down-play this. I wonder whether Jesus was similarly made more palatable by
succeeding generations of his followers.

Richard.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Schacht" <bobschacht@...>
To: "CrossTalk" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:48 PM
Subject: [XTalk] Jesus the Mendicant?


> During the past 20 years, Jesus has been cast in a variety of major roles,
> often in book-length development: Jesus the Teacher, Jesus the Magician,
> Jesus the Healer, Jesus the Prophet, etc. Notice how all of these are
> Power
> roles. One might add Jesus the Cynic, which may or may not be a power
> role,
> depending on your perspective!
>
> Now comes another idea, that intrigues me.
>
> Bruce Grindal, a Professor of Anthropology at Florida State University,
> wrote an article in the November 2006 issue of Anthropology News (Vol 47
> #8) entitled "Beggars, the Ancestors and Jesus" (p.15). After reciting an
> experience with a beggar in Accra (West Africa), he tells of an experience
> in a (Black?) church in Florida on the Second Coming, speculating on what
> form Jesus would return in. His conclusion: He would come back as a
> mendicant, "a person who lives by the charity of others." No formal
> exegesis was revealed, but the idea nonetheless intrigues.
>
> "Beggar" is used in a similar sense in the Gospels twice (prosaiteo, Mark
> 10:46; John 9:8), both relating to a specific person who was blind.
> Another
> word (ptochos) was used once in Galatians 4:9 as an adjective
> ('beggarly').
> But in this case it may be better to rely on context rather than
> restricting ourselves to specific words.
>
> For example, when Jesus sends his disciples out in Mark 6:7-11 (cf. Luke
> 9:2-4; Matt 10:5-15)
>>7 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave
>>them authority over the unclean spirits.
>>  8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no
>> bread, no bag, no money in their belts;
>>  9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics.
>>  10 He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you
>> leave the place.
>>  11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you
>> leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against
>> them."
>
> These instructions essentially mean that the disciples are sent out as
> mendicants. If one looks at Jesus' typical modus operandi in the gospels,
> he had no income and seemed frequently to be eating in other people's
> homes
> or at least other people's food.
>
> Perhaps the question of whether or not he was a mendicant depends on
> whether or not he was providing a 'service' in exchange for his support.
> The 'service' set is described as casting out demons and healing people
> (Mark 6:13), proclaiming the good news, cure the sick, raise the dead,
> cleanse the lepers, cast out demons (Matthew 10:7-8); and proclaiming the
> kingdom of God and healing (Luke 9:2). That this might be an appropriate
> framing for the work of Jesus is suggested by one of Matthew's additions,
> "for laborers deserve their food" (10:10).
>
> The Didache was specifically concerned with differentiating deadbeats from
> authentic messengers (sorry, I don't remember the term the Didache uses
> for
> the non-deadbeats who sojourned with them.)
>
> Of course, who's a deadbeat and who's authentic can be a matter of
> perspective. Anyone remember "Whatsmyname?" who appeared in eastern
> Pennsylvania a few years ago? I suppose he was a mendicant; he didn't
> claim
> to heal anyone, in fact, he didn't claim to do anything, but people
> treated
> him as if he were one of the disciples on a missionary journey.
>
> Bob Schacht
> University of Hawaii

Hi Bob:

It is interesting and I am always up for theories that break the mold.  My
own is something of the opposite.  I think Jesus was the "odd son out" of a
relatively well-to-do family and the parable of the prodigal son may have
autobiographical elements.....in fact, I think more of the HJ can be
harvested from the parables than from the multiply fooled around with
sayings.  A parable <Heb mashal; Aram mathla> is a  fictitious story that
demonstrates a moral or ethical premise.  I think it more likely they could
contain personal experience rather than made up out of the blue.  Was Jesus
the prodigal son?  One of his younger brothers?  Whatever the case, there
are clues that the Bar Yahosef family was part of a larger higher income
clan.  First, it goes without saying that Jesus reveals in his dialogues an
intimate familiarity with scripture and the pseudepigraphat, an education.
Let's look at what the NT and the patristics tell us about Jesus' family.
Let's start with his uncle Clopas/Alphaeus:

First we must look at Matthew's father (and James, the less),
Alphaeus/Clopas/Cleophas. (Mark 2:14). Alphaeus is a transliteration of the
Aramic "Khalfy" HET-Lamed-Fe-Yod.  Clopas is the Greek rendering where the
thraty Het is rendered as a K.

So lets gather up what we know about Alphaeus:

Matthew 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican;
James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at
the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and
followed him.

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his
mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas (Clopas) , and Mary Magdalene.

So we learn that Matthew and James were the sons of Clopas/Alphaeus and his
wife Mary.  We also know that Shymeon, the son of Clopas succeeded
James/Yaqub as the Nasi of the Netzeraya which in itself speaks of the blood
relationship of the three sons of Clopas and Mary to James and Jesus.

It is Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius who writes about "members of the Lord's
family..." and "..the son of the Lord's uncle, the aforesaid Shymeon, son of
Clopas.." Hegesippus mentions a brother of Joseph whose name was Clopas
(Euseb. Hist. III.11; 32:1-4, 6; IV.11.4).

Hence, Alphaeus name must have been Khalfy bar Yaqub.  Matthew and James,
the "lesser" were Mattaya Levi bar Khalfy and Yaqub bar Khalpy with Yaqub
named after Jesus' same mutual grandfather as is Yaqub/James, the Just.

The wife of this uncle, Jesus' aunt known as the "other Mary" travels with
Jesus, along with Salome (another aunt) and one Joanna and Susannah (whose
relationship we do not know but were also wealthy) are reported traveling
with Jesus and supporting the group.  Uncle Alphaeus would have supplied the
money to buy Matthew the border agent franchise from Herod which, judging
from similar practices, would have cost about fifty grand in today's
currency.  Salome, Jesus' other aunt, always close by, was the sister of his
mother and the wife of one Zebedy (father of disciples James <the greater>
and John) who was in a partnership with Peter/Kefa and Andrew's father Yonah
in a fishing fleet on Lake Kinessaret...a lucrative (and not a "poor man's")
enterprise. Only Mark mentions Salome (Shalomzion) by name and Matthew
refers to her as the mother of the sons of Zebedee and John (19:25) refers
to her as Mary's sister, therefore Jesus' aunt.

These clues point to Jesus being from a well-to-do clan and his disciples
having been relatives and associates, not just a dozen men that dropped what
they were doing to blindly follow Jesus.

I think Jesus was from a wealthy family...may have been the contrite
"prodigal son" whose mission was a family enterprise.  He has cousins as
disciples, brothers, aunts and his mother nearby throughout his mission.
Part of his contrition may have been his disdain of wealth.  After all, if
he was the prodigal son, look what it did to him.  All of the things he may
have done when he was "prodigal" convinced him (when he was repentant) that
it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel...well, you
know the rest.

Although my position is opposite of the mendicant position, I like thinking
outside the "traditional" views.


Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas

---- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Schacht" <bobschacht@...>
> To: "CrossTalk" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:48 PM
> Subject: [XTalk] Jesus the Mendicant?
>
>
> > During the past 20 years, Jesus has been cast in a variety of major roles,
> > often in book-length development: Jesus the Teacher, Jesus the Magician,
> > Jesus the Healer, Jesus the Prophet, etc. Notice how all of these are
> > Power
> > roles. One might add Jesus the Cynic, which may or may not be a power
> > role,
> > depending on your perspective!
> >
> > Now comes another idea, that intrigues me.
> >
> > Bruce Grindal, a Professor of Anthropology at Florida State University,
> > wrote an article in the November 2006 issue of Anthropology News (Vol 47
> > #8) entitled "Beggars, the Ancestors and Jesus" (p.15). After reciting an
> > experience with a beggar in Accra (West Africa), he tells of an experience
> > in a (Black?) church in Florida on the Second Coming, speculating on what
> > form Jesus would return in. His conclusion: He would come back as a
> > mendicant, "a person who lives by the charity of others." No formal
> > exegesis was revealed, but the idea nonetheless intrigues.
> >

snipped for brevity

Jack to Bob:
>
> I think Jesus was from a wealthy family...may have been the contrite
> "prodigal son" whose mission was a family enterprise.  He has cousins as
> disciples, brothers, aunts and his mother nearby throughout his mission.
> Part of his contrition may have been his disdain of wealth.  After all, if
> he was the prodigal son, look what it did to him.  All of the things he may
> have done when he was "prodigal" convinced him (when he was repentant) that
> it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel...well, you
> know the rest.
>
> Although my position is opposite of the mendicant position, I like thinking
> outside the "traditional" views.
>
>
> Jack
>
> Jack Kilmon
> San Antonio, Texas


Jack. it seems to me that these two "nontraditional" views synthesize nicely. 
The notion that Jesus was from a relatively affluent family can account for his
erudition; but rich kids have been known to take a course of voluntary poverty. 
A chosen mendicancy accounts for such sayings as "the Son of Man has no place to
lay his head" and the fact that Jesus appears to be flat broke in the "give unto
Caesar" pericope and has to have the Pharisees produce a coin with Caesar's
image upon it.

At any rate, if Jesus' family were well off, it doesn't exclude him from taking
up mendicancy along with his ministry.  Indeed, it makes the mendicancy rather
likely, considering what you note he has to say about wealth.

Ed Tyler

----- Original Message -----
From: <leeedgartyler@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Jesus the Mendicant?


>
> ---- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bob Schacht" <bobschacht@...>
>> To: "CrossTalk" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:48 PM
>> Subject: [XTalk] Jesus the Mendicant?
>>
>>
>> > During the past 20 years, Jesus has been cast in a variety of major
>> > roles,
>> > often in book-length development: Jesus the Teacher, Jesus the
>> > Magician,
>> > Jesus the Healer, Jesus the Prophet, etc. Notice how all of these are
>> > Power
>> > roles. One might add Jesus the Cynic, which may or may not be a power
>> > role,
>> > depending on your perspective!
>> >
>> > Now comes another idea, that intrigues me.
>> >
>> > Bruce Grindal, a Professor of Anthropology at Florida State University,
>> > wrote an article in the November 2006 issue of Anthropology News (Vol
>> > 47
>> > #8) entitled "Beggars, the Ancestors and Jesus" (p.15). After reciting
>> > an
>> > experience with a beggar in Accra (West Africa), he tells of an
>> > experience
>> > in a (Black?) church in Florida on the Second Coming, speculating on
>> > what
>> > form Jesus would return in. His conclusion: He would come back as a
>> > mendicant, "a person who lives by the charity of others." No formal
>> > exegesis was revealed, but the idea nonetheless intrigues.
>> >
>
> snipped for brevity
>
> Jack to Bob:
>>
>> I think Jesus was from a wealthy family...may have been the contrite
>> "prodigal son" whose mission was a family enterprise.  He has cousins as
>> disciples, brothers, aunts and his mother nearby throughout his mission.
>> Part of his contrition may have been his disdain of wealth.  After all,
>> if
>> he was the prodigal son, look what it did to him.  All of the things he
>> may
>> have done when he was "prodigal" convinced him (when he was repentant)
>> that
>> it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel...well, you
>> know the rest.
>>
>> Although my position is opposite of the mendicant position, I like
>> thinking
>> outside the "traditional" views.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> Jack Kilmon
>> San Antonio, Texas
>
>
> Jack. it seems to me that these two "nontraditional" views synthesize
> nicely.  The notion that Jesus was from a relatively affluent family can
> account for his erudition; but rich kids have been known to take a course
> of voluntary poverty.  A chosen mendicancy accounts for such sayings as
> "the Son of Man has no place to lay his head" and the fact that Jesus
> appears to be flat broke in the "give unto Caesar" pericope and has to
> have the Pharisees produce a coin with Caesar's image upon it.
>
> At any rate, if Jesus' family were well off, it doesn't exclude him from
> taking up mendicancy along with his ministry.  Indeed, it makes the
> mendicancy rather likely, considering what you note he has to say about
> wealth.
>
> Ed Tyler


Makes sense, Ed.  Much like Prince Siddartha.

Jack

Jack Kilmon wrote:
I think Jesus was from a wealthy family...may have been the contrite
"prodigal son" whose mission was a family enterprise.

Interesting.  For years, I heard folk talk about Joseph having his own business,
so in British terms he'd be sort of well-off middle-class-ish (the kind of
interpretations you'd get from middle-class Brits, I suppose - stuck out a bit
for me as a definitely working-class Brit, at least in my origins!)  Then I read
Crossan, talking about ceramics as evidence for the growth of local industry in
urbanisation and loss of land, ie landless peasants had to earn their way
through a trade.  That meant that carpentry wasn't an indication of prosperity
and higher social class, rather of a landless refugee family having to make
their way.  Now, you're suggesting he wasn't from a poor peasant background, but
a wealthy one.  Back to where we started from?

I suppose Joseph could have done very nicely out of his enforced trade -
especially if he profitted from the growth of the new cities at Sepphoris and
Tiberias.  But Nazareth in the 20s was a very poor place, if the reconstructions
in Crossan and Reed "Excavating Jesus" are anything to go by.  Capernaum was
obviously the place to be - so how does the theory of a wealthy clan fit in with
theories of origins in Nazareth?

I'm intrigued to see how this new angle illuminates the story...

Cheers,
Rev Tony Buglass
Superintendent Minister
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit

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

The new film is generating a good bit of positive reviews.  One from
today is on Ethics Daily:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8184

Perhaps this will be a movie well worth seeing.



--
Jim West, ThD

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

Jack wrote:

So we learn that Matthew and James were the sons of Clopas/Alphaeus and his
wife Mary.



John: What leads you to equate Matthew with Levi, son of Alphaeus?



Thx,

     John Sabatino

     Austin, TX



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

Hello listers and sorry for this:

does anyone on list have access to JSTOR and would said person be
willing to do me the kindness of getting this essay

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-6407(197312)42%3A4%3C486%3ATZAA%3E2.0.CO%3\
B2-T

and emailing it to me?

I would appreciate it tremendously.

Thanks


Jim


--
Jim West, ThD

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Sabatino" <taurus78@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: [XTalk] Jesus the Mendicant?


>
>
> Jack wrote:
>
> So we learn that Matthew and James were the sons of Clopas/Alphaeus and
> his
> wife Mary.
>
>
>
> John: What leads you to equate Matthew with Levi, son of Alphaeus?
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
>    John Sabatino
>
>    Austin, TX


Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27 and then Matrthew 9:9.  Also Jerome, Preface to the
Commentaries on Matthew:

The first evangelist is Matthew, the publican, who was surnamed Levi. He
published his Gospel in Jud�a in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the sake
of Jewish believers in Christ, who adhered in vain to the shadow of the law,
although the substance of the Gospel had come.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Buglass" <tonybuglass@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Jesus the Mendicant?


> Jack Kilmon wrote:
> I think Jesus was from a wealthy family...may have been the contrite
> "prodigal son" whose mission was a family enterprise.
>
> Interesting.  For years, I heard folk talk about Joseph having his own
> business, so in British terms he'd be sort of well-off middle-class-ish
> (the kind of interpretations you'd get from middle-class Brits, I
> suppose - stuck out a bit for me as a definitely working-class Brit, at
> least in my origins!)  Then I read Crossan, talking about ceramics as
> evidence for the growth of local industry in urbanisation and loss of
> land, ie landless peasants had to earn their way through a trade.  That
> meant that carpentry wasn't an indication of prosperity and higher social
> class, rather of a landless refugee family having to make their way.  Now,
> you're suggesting he wasn't from a poor peasant background, but a wealthy
> one.  Back to where we started from?
>
> I suppose Joseph could have done very nicely out of his enforced trade -
> especially if he profitted from the growth of the new cities at Sepphoris
> and Tiberias.  But Nazareth in the 20s was a very poor place, if the
> reconstructions in Crossan and Reed "Excavating Jesus" are anything to go
> by.  Capernaum was obviously the place to be - so how does the theory of a
> wealthy clan fit in with theories of origins in Nazareth?
>
> I'm intrigued to see how this new angle illuminates the story...
>
> Cheers,
> Rev Tony Buglass
> Superintendent Minister
> Upper Calder Methodist Circuit


If the residence in Nazareth is historical and not an historicized Matthean
error (There is no prophecy in the OT that the Messiah would be called a
Nazarene) or a play on the "branch" (Netser) from the stump of Jesse in
Isaiah, the only advantage for living there would be its close proximity to
Sepphoris.  Many building projects in Sepphoris at the time of Jesus' youth
would have kept a building contractor lucratively busy.  According to the
Protevangelium of James, Sepphoris was the residence of Jesus maternal
grandparents.  These building projects would  have begun in the rebuilding
of Sepphoris by Antipas until late in 4 BCE given the city's destruction
earlier that year by Varus.  Stone masonry was one of the skills of a tekton
and Nazareth is known for its ancient stone quarry.  It would have made more
sense to live near the stone resource and cart the quarried blocks to
Sepphoris.  I look to "stonemason's language" as in Matthew 16:18 and the
stone/cornerstone language of Mt. 21:42/Mk12:10 and GoT #66.  Perhaps the
carpentry and stone mason's hand can be found when splitting wood and
lifting stone (GoT #77).

Jack


Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas

Jack,

<<If the residence in Nazareth is historical ... the only advantage for living
there would be its close proximity to
Sepphoris. Many building projects in Sepphoris at the time of Jesus' youth would
have kept a building contractor lucratively busy.>>

What do you think about the evidence for a vineyard that the whole village was
involved with?

According to the authorities I consult (e.g., M. Rostovzev, _JSTOR: The Social
and Economic History of the Roman Empire_) larger scale wine production was
characteristic of some of the private estates controlled by members of the
ruling classes. The personal possessions of these elite class individuals mostly
existed solely to generate income ( = disposable cash) for the "owner" ( = those
granted right of possession of tracts of royal land configured as estates). The
field towers (the exact purpose of which are not actually known for sure,
despite the statement in the article below) are closely associated with these
private estate vineyards.

That could mean Nazareth (or "that site" in case it is not the actual Nazareth)
was a village of peasant (= tenant) farmers working the winery of an aristocrat,
possibly a member of the Herodian family. Usually, common folks did not have the
resources available to invest in large scale viniculture because they would
exhaust their resources long before they could realize income from the venture
(vineyards did not generate income for several years after they are
established). People gotta eat. Scott also refers to this dilemma as a common
disincentive towards taking risks, even potentially highly profitable ones,
faced by subsistence farmers in SE Asia.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that some of these peasant farmers could
*also* have side businesses as stone masons, carpenters, potters, weavers, etc.
In spite of the fact that farmers are kept busy doing *something* all year long
(cutting firewood, maintaining outbuildings and dwellings, maintaining any
irrigation channels, etc) there are significant periods, especially in winter,
when "free" time is more available. Also, male and female children and women of
the household could contribute their skills.

I am still convinced that we really do not understand the economics of the
Galilee or Judaea like we should.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio USA




The Foundation for Biblical Archaeology
http://www.tfba.org/projects.php?projectid=9

<<Late in 1996, an ancient wine press was discovered among rock terraces on a
hilltop over-looking modern-day Nazareth. An archaeological survey of the area
was conducted and excavation of the site began in April 1997 under the direction
of Ross Voss and Stephen Pfann. Initial finds included the wine press,
agricultural terraces, stone irrigation channels, bases of five watchtowers, and
pottery sherds dating the site to the first century of the common era-about the
time of Jesus.

Evidence suggests that the first-century residents of this village made their
living growing grapes, olives, and grain on terraces cut into the limestone
hills. At harvest time, all of the estimated 300 villagers would have gathered
to stomp grapes to extract the juice or to huddle in watchtowers at night
guarding their produce against thieves.>>