To whomever is willing:

I have written a paper on " The Day of the Crucifixion" which I would
like to publish and I need someone to critique the paper.  I believe the

paper will harmonizes the Gospels on this issue. This topic has been
debated endlessly and presented by an innumerable authors and the pros
and cons for each day ( Wed., Thur. or Frid.) has been presented in
Hoehner's book "The Chronlogical Aspects of the Life of Christ".  He, of

course, accepts the majority opinion "Friday" with its problems.

The paper presents a new case for "Thursday" based on a premise which to

my knowledge has never been considered because it has been inadvertently

rejected by an erroneous assumption at the outset. In the paper, I also
present a new proposed translation for John 19:14 which I believe clears

up the time discrepancy that has been an age old problem (It also fits
into the drama theme that has been recently discussed).

I know you are all busy and your time is valuable, but if there some who

might be interested I believe you will find the material eye opening,
just as the Lord has opened my mind to this area. Please contact me.

Jack Pilato
Monmouth Jct. NJ
E-Mail   pilatojc@...

Yes, Kevin O'Brien,
I know what scholars like Barrett say. Also, Westcott 'The definite
article marks the official relation of Nicodemus to the people
generally'. John introduces him as a Pharisee and a member of the
Sanhedrin. Did this mark him off as a leading teacher? That introduction
is the key to Nicodemus, not the presence of an article.
The reference to Polycarp is interesting in that he is well-known as
bishop of the area and as the authoritative teacher. The context makes
this plain, rather than the presence of the article. The word order is
worth noting too.
In spite of great names of scholastic genius to the contrary, I still
maintain that the absence of the article and not its presence is
important.
How about consulting ancient Greek-speaking grammarians. What do they
say?
And what do modern Greeks who teach Greek say about their article?
Most of the grammarians of Greek since the renaissance have been
primarily Latin scholars and have tended to treat Greek as though it is
a branch of Latin!
Anyway, I believe this is a point to be carefully considered and not
taken for granted. Greek does not have a definite article that functions
like our English one.
Ross Saunders from (middle) DownUnder.

Would very much like to read and critique your paper. I have long believed that
it was Wednesday or Thursday. I may be reached directly at:  
joegagne@...

>>> pilatojc@... 04/06/01 04:51PM >>>
To whomever is willing:

I have written a paper on " The Day of the Crucifixion" which I would
like to publish and I need someone to critique the paper.  I believe the

paper will harmonizes the Gospels on this issue. This topic has been
debated endlessly and presented by an innumerable authors and the pros
and cons for each day ( Wed., Thur. or Frid.) has been presented in
Hoehner's book "The Chronlogical Aspects of the Life of Christ".  He, of

course, accepts the majority opinion "Friday" with its problems.

The paper presents a new case for "Thursday" based on a premise which to

my knowledge has never been considered because it has been inadvertently

rejected by an erroneous assumption at the outset. In the paper, I also
present a new proposed translation for John 19:14 which I believe clears

up the time discrepancy that has been an age old problem (It also fits
into the drama theme that has been recently discussed).

I know you are all busy and your time is valuable, but if there some who

might be interested I believe you will find the material eye opening,
just as the Lord has opened my mind to this area. Please contact me.

Jack Pilato
Monmouth Jct. NJ
E-Mail   pilatojc@...






SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Since this is a week off from discussion of papers,
perhaps people can help supply me with a bibliography
-- and this will be a rather broad request (so
interpret it broadly).

As you know if you have read my two articles (and will
learn now if you haven't), I am interested in
combining work done in the sociology and anthropology
of religion with Johannine exegesis (well, not only on
John, I've also written on Mark) -- especially with
respect to the symbolic function of food/drink for
issues of sacred/profane, pure/impure, dualisms of
various kinds, movement across boundaries separating
various binarisms of good/bad, etc.

I've focused upon food (and drink) because these play
a real and symbolic role on different levels:

1) food/drink as life -- they bring life

2) food/drink as gifts -- they presuppose reciprocity

3) food/drink as communal -- they forge bonds

4) food/drink as ritual -- they can be sacramental

Of course, food/drink can bring impurity (cf. 4) and
death (cf. 1), and rejecting food/drink or not
offering food/drink in return can bring alienation
(cf. 2 and 3). In fact, this ambiguity of food and its
functions is what fascinates me -- especially in John
(and in Gnosticism) -- because it relates to those
issues of sacred/profane, pure/impure, dualisms of
various kinds, movement across boundaries separating
various binarisms of good/bad, etc that I have
referred to above.

I'd appreciate bibliographic suggestions. I'd be
especially interested in knowing what has been written
on the development of the eucharist in New Testament
Christianity as well as upon the ideas of purity and
impurity, holiness and the profane in the movement
from Jewish to Christian views in New Testament
Christianity.

Beyond this, any sociology or anthropology of religion
studies of sacred and profane, pure and impure --
especially with respect to New Testament Christianity
-- would be helpful.

Naturally, those works focusing upon John or of
interest to Johannine scholars would be the most
helpful.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

A great place to look would be "A Body Broken for a Broken People: Eucharist
in the New Testament," by Francis Moloney (Harper Collins/Hendrickson,
1997). The footnotes and bibliography are very thorough. I got my copy
through Christian Book Distributers. Another thing I just happen to have
close at hand is an article by John M. Perry entitled "The Evolution of the
Johannine Eucharist," from NTS 39 (1993)22-35.

Incidentally...thank you for your articles. Lent, Holy Week and all, I can't
comment, but I appreciated your thoughts.

Regards,
Pr. Kevin Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 10:39 PM
Subject: [John_Lit] Request for Bibliography


> Since this is a week off from discussion of papers,
> perhaps people can help supply me with a bibliography
> -- and this will be a rather broad request (so
> interpret it broadly).
>
> As you know if you have read my two articles (and will
> learn now if you haven't), I am interested in
> combining work done in the sociology and anthropology
> of religion with Johannine exegesis (well, not only on
> John, I've also written on Mark) -- especially with
> respect to the symbolic function of food/drink for
> issues of sacred/profane, pure/impure, dualisms of
> various kinds, movement across boundaries separating
> various binarisms of good/bad, etc.
>
> I've focused upon food (and drink) because these play
> a real and symbolic role on different levels:
>
> 1) food/drink as life -- they bring life
>
> 2) food/drink as gifts -- they presuppose reciprocity
>
> 3) food/drink as communal -- they forge bonds
>
> 4) food/drink as ritual -- they can be sacramental
>
> Of course, food/drink can bring impurity (cf. 4) and
> death (cf. 1), and rejecting food/drink or not
> offering food/drink in return can bring alienation
> (cf. 2 and 3). In fact, this ambiguity of food and its
> functions is what fascinates me -- especially in John
> (and in Gnosticism) -- because it relates to those
> issues of sacred/profane, pure/impure, dualisms of
> various kinds, movement across boundaries separating
> various binarisms of good/bad, etc that I have
> referred to above.
>
> I'd appreciate bibliographic suggestions. I'd be
> especially interested in knowing what has been written
> on the development of the eucharist in New Testament
> Christianity as well as upon the ideas of purity and
> impurity, holiness and the profane in the movement
> from Jewish to Christian views in New Testament
> Christianity.
>
> Beyond this, any sociology or anthropology of religion
> studies of sacred and profane, pure and impure --
> especially with respect to New Testament Christianity
> -- would be helpful.
>
> Naturally, those works focusing upon John or of
> interest to Johannine scholars would be the most
> helpful.
>
> Jeffery Hodges
>
> =====
> Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
> Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
> 447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
> Yangsandong 411
> South Korea
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear Kevin,

I have been so busy replying to various people that I
can't recall if I thanked you for your bibliographical
information. If I didn't, then let me thank you now. I
have ordered Maloney's book from Amazon.

Best Regards,

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Sorry about posting to the Johannine Literature group
my message to Kevin Anderson for suggesting that I
look at "A Body Broken for a Broken People: Eucharist
in the New Testament," by Francis Moloney.

I had pressed "reply" without realizing that the
message was a post.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

This is a poem I wrote in 1999 -- based on John 20.  I offer it now as an
Easter wish to each one of you.  May every blessings of the Risen Christ be
yours today and every day.

Heiwa (returning to the lurker mode)
*****************************************************

Resurrection

"Where is he?"  Desperate scream --
Anguished widow-church at the empty tomb

Her Self detached
   -- as stark reality impaled her
   -- as emptied bowels contorted her.

The oneness they were
The embodiment of unity -- the bounds of creation
Diversity branching from unity -- divinity ensouling humanity

She was his beloved - his moment of creation.
This is my body!
And she consumed him and he was hers.

The hope, the kingdom,
The church they would build
The promises -- dashed and broken

Hanging from the cross
Crushed and buried
This is my body!

And now -- wrenched from her very soul
Even his body -- no more --
Taken -- this last violation.

Alone -- too drained for fear, she moved
Each step bearing the weight of the unsaved world.

"Mary!"  She turned.

Involution of unclaimed brilliance
Exploded in one majestic NOW.

Their eyes met
Joy erupted from the very fonts of their beings.
Reaching fingers touched.

And once more -- divinity engulfed humanity.
This is my body!


© 1999  (Legal Name)

In a message dated 4/14/01 5:57:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
Yahweh1674@... writes:


> This is a poem I wrote in 1999 -- based on John 20.  I offer it now as an
> Easter wish to each one of you.  May every blessings of the Risen Christ be
> yours today and every day.
>
>

Calvin writes:
I really enjoyed it! Thanks! May I make a request for you to compose one
centered on the 40 days He walked among us in Glorified form, and the
Ascension?

"In His Grip"
Calvin



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

Isn't this the week for "Paul N. Anderson: “Truth and
Liberation: The Work of the Parakletos and the
Transformation of the Self”? So . . . why this delay
of the Parakletos?

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: <Maluflen@...>
> Leonard Maluf
> <<Nathanael was
>  presumably chosen, but he's not in any list of 12.>>
>
> Which isn't terribly significant, since John doesn't have such a list. The
> tradition identified Nathanael with Bartholomew. Does anyone know how old
> this tradition is, and on what it is based?

Sorry for the delay in response to this old message.  I had hoped that I
would be able to lay my hands on the Patristic reference.  This equation of
Nathanael with Bartholomew is an observation of the pairings that take place
in the synotic and the Johannine tradition.  Luke 6:14, Mark 3:18 and
Matthew 10:3 pair Phillip and Bartholomew.  John has Phillip and Nathanel in
1:43.  Connecting these accounts yeilds Nathanael = Bartholomew.

This was a Patristic observation, but I can't locate it off-hand.

Steve Puluka
Cantor Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church
Mckees Rocks PA

From the NET Bible:

16:8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin
and righteousness and judgment-- 16:9 concerning sin, because they do
not believe in me;


Is there any indication in this passage that this reproving work of
the Spirit had not gone on before? Clearly we are told that "when he
comes" (Pentecost ??) he will prove the world wrong, but what
excludes us from concluding that the Spirit had been engaged in such
activities in the Old Testament.

I get the general impression that OT individuals became quite aware
of their sinfulness. Does this passage in John imply that the agent
or means whereby OT individuals became aware of their sin was other
than that of a ministry of the Spirit?

Sincerly,

Susan Moore
Sugar Land, TX

johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com writes:
>why this delay

>of the Parakletos?

Thanks, Jeffery; my mistake in not getting the paper to Felix until after
he had departed for the weekend -- and where he has gone we could not come
-- nor could our e-mail messages.  But he will return, at any moment, and
we await with anticipation the joy of his coming.

The paper was presented at the Christian Theology and Biblical Studies
Section of the Nashville meetings, where the larger theme was on a
theology of self.  As the NT presenter (among four), the theme they asked
me to develop was on the impact of the Holy Spirit upon the self as
described in John, so that's the way I approached the issue.

In getting into the task, I developed first the theological and
applicational impressions of the text, and then moved toward the
exegetical task.  The latter produced a fair bit of dissonance when viewed
in the light of the former; I'd be interested to see what folks think of
the interplay.  (It has been requested by the editors of Horizons in
Biblical Theology, so that's the publication venue I have in mind.)

Thanks, Jeffery, for the nudge.

Paul

(with apologies for cross postings)

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
XTalk ONLINE SEMINAR WITH JAMES D. G. DUNN

The moderators and staff advisors of the XTalk Discussion List
(Historical Jesus and Christian Origins  -- http://www.xtalk.org) are
pleased to announce that J.D.G. Dunn, author of Jesus and the Spirit,
Christology in the Making, The Theology of Paul the Apostle and many
other works, has agreed to conduct a two week online Seminar with XTalk
members and other interested parties on the ideas and arguments set out
in his paper "Jesus in Oral Memory".

The Seminar, to be carried out under the auspices of XTalk and its
managers,  will begin on  Monday, April 23rd, and will run until Friday,
May 4th, 2001.

So as to be managed effectively, the Seminar will be conducted on a
subscription only basis, and any posts submitted by Seminar members will
first be moderated before they are passed on to Professor Dunn. These
moderated posts will be answered by Professor Dunn on a daily basis.

The messages from Seminar List members and the replies of Professor Dunn
will be posted regularly to the XTalk List, allowing XTalk members or
List observers who are not subscribed to the Seminar to see the course
of the exchanges. Non XTalk affiliated parties who are interested only
in observing the give and take of the Seminar are urged to subscribe to
the XTalk List or to read the daily postings on the public XTalk web
page (http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/crosstalk2/).

Topics for discussion are those which are the issues and arguments
raised in Professor Dunn's  paper "Jesus in Oral Memory" concerning the
pre-literary stages of the transmission of the Jesus  tradition.

Since the discussion of these issues as set out in Professor Dunn's
article "Jesus in Oral Memory"  will be the Seminar's initial focal
point, a major prerequisite for anyone wishing to participate in the
Seminar is one's familiarity with the contents and theses of this work.
To access the article, click HERE or go to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Articles%20for%20Review/JesusInOr\
alMemory.htm

To apply for membership in the Seminar, send a blank e-mail message to:

J_D_G_DunnSeminar-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

PLEASE NOTE that while applications for membership in the Seminar are
being accepted immediately, posts to Professor Dunn are not. Nothing
should be sent in to the Seminar until its opening day, Monday, April
23rd.

Questions or comments about the Seminar may be sent to the following
e-mail address:

J_D_G_DunnSeminar-owner@yahoogroups.com

Yours sincerely (and on behalf of the entire XTalk administrative
staff),

Jeffrey Gibson
Co-moderator and List Owner of XTalk and J_D_G_DunnSeminar
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...

Dear Colleagues,

"Do not let your hearts be troubled... if I go and prepare a place for you,
I will come again..." (Jn 14:1-3).

Sorry about the mixup in the discussion schedule, but as Paul Anderson told
you, he didn't send his paper to me before I left for Holy Week and the
Easter weekend.  Now I'm back at the computer, and as soon as my student
assistant has a chance to convert his paper to HTML format, I'll post it to
the JL website.

Meanwhile, we thought it would be good to postpone the discussion of Paul's
paper (so more people have a chance to read it) until after Elizabeth's
paper.  Thus the upcoming schedule is:
      now until April 22 - continued "open" discussion
      April 23 - April 29 - Elizabeth Danna, “Characterization of the Greeks
in John 12”
      April 30 - May 6 - Paul Anderson, “Truth and Liberation: The Work of
the Parakletos and the Transformation of the Self”

Elizabeth's paper is still available at
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL1999.html or
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL-Discussions.html, and Paul's will
be there soon, by Thursday at the latest.

Felix
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Felix Just, S.J. - Dept. of Theological Studies
Loyola Marymount University - 7900 Loyola Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 - Ph (310) 338-5933
Homepage:  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com writes:
>Meanwhile, we thought it would be good to postpone the discussion of
>Paul's
>paper (so more people have a chance to read it) until after Elizabeth's
>paper.

Thanks, Felix; I support this plan.  Again, I apologize for the delay.

Verily,

Paul

After reviewing Elizabeth Danna's paper (Characterization of the
Greeks in John 12), and since this is an "open" period, I
was wondering if there are some thoughts about how this
might connect to the use of the term "Grecians" in
other parts of the N.T.

I'm thinking that the LEAST obscure use of this term
is in Acts 6 (King James):


    Act 6:1 And [1161] in [1722] those [5025] days [2250],
    when the number [4129] [0] of the disciples [3101] was
    multiplied [4129] (5723), there arose [1096] (5633) a
    murmuring [1112] of the Grecians [1675] against [4314]
    the Hebrews [1445], because [3754] their [846] widows
    [5503] were neglected [3865] (5712) in [1722] the daily
    [2522] ministration [1248].


The Strong's analysis of the Greek for "Grecians" is:
1675 Hellenistes {hel-lay-nis-tace'}
      from a derivative of 1672; TDNT - 2:504,227; n m
      AV - Grecians 3; 3
      1) a Hellenist
      1a) one who imitates the manners and customs or the
      worship of the
      Greeks, and use the Greek tongue

      1b) used in the NT of Jews born in foreign lands and
      speaking Greek


The only other time this word is used is in Acts 9:29 and
Acts 11:20.

The reason I think the use of this term is the LEAST
obscure is due to the timing and the location of where
it was used.

The only explanation I can see for its use is that it
does NOT refer to Gentiles, but to the distinction between
***Samaritan*** devotees to "The Kingdom" vs. ***Judaean***
devotees to "The Kingdom".

Thoughts?

George

g wrote:

> The only explanation I can see for its use is that it
> does NOT refer to Gentiles, but to the distinction between
> ***Samaritan*** devotees to "The Kingdom" vs. ***Judaean***
> devotees to "The Kingdom".
>
> Thoughts?
>

Well, since you asked ...

Since, as far as I can see, no one said that it **was** being used in Acts to
refer to Gentiles, are you not then arguing an irrelevant thesis?

More importantly, can you point to a single instance in Hellenistic,
including early Christian, literature,  where the term "Graecians" is used to
denote Samaritans, let alone Samaritan devotes to the kingdom?

Have you tried looking at what Danker has to say on the meaning of the term
or what is said about it in TDNT? Why do you rely on Strongs?

Yours,

JG

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...

Nice questions, Jeffrey.

One:
YOU WRITE:
"...as far as I can see, no one said that it **was** being used in
Acts to refer to Gentiles, are you not then arguing an irrelevant
thesis?"

I believe it is quite common practice for people to
assume these references to "Greeks" are to references to
people outside of the Samaritan and Judaean cultus.  So I
saved a little time by assuming this in my response.


TWO:
YOU WRITE:
"More importantly, can you point to a single instance in
Hellenistic, including early Christian, literature,  where
the term "Graecians" is used to denote Samaritans, let alone
Samaritan devote[e]s to the kingdom?"

Ah, this is the point of my post.  I am suggesting that the
circumstances surrounding this reference are so clear that
THIS would be the key text.  Who ELSE shall we assume these
"Grecians" to be?  Until the crisis with Paul's recruiting
of TRUE Gentiles (non-Jewish & non-Samaritan), there is
no indication that the sudden growth, IN JERUSALEM, of
Christians are anything other than Jews or Samaritans
who have CONVERTED to Judaism (so to speak).  In fact,
I think this fits in well with interpreting the word
"Sinner" as a reference to Samaritans as well.  If
"Non-Jews" had been meant, suddenly the whole non-
Jewish WORLD would fall into the category "sinner".


THREE:
YOU WRITE:
"Have you tried looking at what Danker has to say on the meaning
of the term  or what is said about it in TDNT? Why do you rely on
Strongs?"

I use Strongs because it is convenient.  If you think Danker
has some useful connection with this issue, perhaps you could
share a sentence or two to your audience?  I would find it
very informative.

I look forward to your comments.

George

g wrote:

> Nice questions, Jeffrey.
>
> One:
> YOU WRITE:
> "...as far as I can see, no one said that it **was** being used in
> Acts to refer to Gentiles, are you not then arguing an irrelevant
> thesis?"
>
> I believe it is quite common practice for people to
> assume these references to "Greeks" are to references to
> people outside of the Samaritan and Judaean cultus.  So I
> saved a little time by assuming this in my response.
>

It would have been to your advantage to have checked on whether or not what
you **believed** was the case was indeed **actually** the case. To my
knowledge -- and indeed, according to your own resources (i.e., Strongs) --
the assumption is not only **not** common, it is wrong, since the reference
is to Jews, even Judean Jews, who spoke Greek.  But I'm willing to be
convinced otherwise. Name some names, George, of anyone who has written on
Acts who has  made/propounded  the assumption that you feel is "quite
common".

>
> TWO:
> YOU WRITE:
> "More importantly, can you point to a single instance in
> Hellenistic, including early Christian, literature,  where
> the term "Graecians" is used to denote Samaritans, let alone
> Samaritan devote[e]s to the kingdom?"
>
> Ah, this is the point of my post.  I am suggesting that the
> circumstances surrounding this reference are so clear that
> THIS would be the key text.  Who ELSE shall we assume these
> "Grecians" to be?

Sorry, but this is a circular argument.  Moreover, the circumstances
surrounding the reference which apparently clearly point to your reading of
the text are themselves by no means as "clear" as you claim. Indeed, one
suspects that the reason you claim that they are such has more to do with an
exegetical a priori than with your reading the text objectively, let alone
against the background of research that has been done on this passage and the
meaning of the term within Acts 6 as well as in Luke's usage. Have you
actually ever read any commentary on the passage?

And as to who else shall we assume them to be? Have a look at the long
discussion of the identity of the "Graecians" (MUST you use this term?) in
Haenchen where a number of alternatives are discussed and a solution far
different from what you feel is so obvious is hit upon. Until the crisis with
Paul's recruiting

> of TRUE Gentiles (non-Jewish & non-Samaritan), there is
> no indication that the sudden growth, IN JERUSALEM, of
> Christians are anything other than Jews or Samaritans
> who have CONVERTED to Judaism (so to speak).  In fact,
> I think this fits in well with interpreting the word
> "Sinner" as a reference to Samaritans as well.  If
> "Non-Jews" had been meant, suddenly the whole non-
> Jewish WORLD would fall into the category "sinner".
>

No one has said Non Jews were meant. But there is no mention of Samaritans.
And what makes you think that from the perspective of Judaism, the whole non
Jewish world did NOT fall under the category "sinner". They were, after all,
without the Law.

>
> THREE:
> YOU WRITE:
> "Have you tried looking at what Danker has to say on the meaning
> of the term  or what is said about it in TDNT? Why do you rely on
> Strongs?"
>
> I use Strongs because it is convenient.  If you think Danker
> has some useful connection with this issue, perhaps you could
> share a sentence or two to your audience?  I would find it
> very informative.
>

Sorry, George, but since you are intent on discussing and making claims about
exegetical matters on a professional academic List, it is up to **you** to do
your own homework . And I'm surprised that you even wonder if Danker has
something useful to say. Surely you are not unaware of what Danker is? Of how
no responsible scholar makes a claim about the meaning of a word in the NT
without first consulting this work?

Yours,

JG
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...

Jeffrey,

I will speed right to the end of your post, so as to
save us a lot of time:

You write:
"Sorry, George, but since you are intent on discussing and making
claims about exegetical matters on a professional academic List, it
is up to **you** to do your own homework . And I'm surprised that
you even wonder if Danker has something useful to say. Surely you
are not unaware of what Danker is? Of how no responsible scholar
makes a claim about the meaning of a word in the NT without first
consulting this work?"

Jeffrey, you and I have a bit of history here, don't we?

In fact, you know that I am not a professional scholar.
And you also know that if I were to hue to YOUR standard of
what I'm supposed to prove in my very FIRST post, I would
never be able to post (since I am not able to devote enough
time to provide the foundations that you require of me).

Yes, this an "academic" list.  But it is NOT only for
professionals, right?

The home page says:
"This moderated list is intended primarily for professional
scholars, but graduate students, pastors, and others interested
in the serious academic study of the Bible are also welcome to
participate, as long as they respect the academic focus of
the group."

And I **DO** respect the academic focus of the group.  I
DEFINITELY respect the superior knowledge you have regarding
many matters.  I do not say that I won't read what you
recommend.  But obviously I cannot be expected to halt my
every thread until I read all the books you suggest.  It's
a DISCUSSION list.... so let's discuss.  And I will pay
you the respect that your superior training has earned you.

If you would like to participate in a discussion on things
like Samaritan members of the Jerusalem community, I would
be delighted.  If you think you can teach me some things (as
well as teach other members of this audience) by all means
do so.  I'm all ears.

If you are trying to prove that you are a better scholar
than I am, then I can concede the point right now.  You are
a FAR better scholar than I am.

I have had many other "debate experts" try to thwart a
sincere discussion at other times on other lists by simply
saying "don't make another post until you read this, and read
such and such".  Please, Jeffrey.  Do not descend to this
technique.  If I were to be a slave to these imperatives, I
would never get a chance to exchange ideas or spark the
intelligent input from others.

You KNOW I cannot read as many of these sources as you
do.  And yet you also know that this does not disqualify
me from having a friendly and *probably* productive discussion
on various topics.  Frankly, I can only wonder if you don't
despise me in some way.

I have honored my pledge not to post to your CrossTalk list
because of how unpleasant you found my posts there.  I'm
hoping that you will either be willing to discuss things on
this list, or just ignore my postings all together.

Does this sound fair?  If you acknowledge that it does,
I will proceed to comment on your other very interesting
thoughts of your last post.  You have a marvelous mind
and brain, Jeffrey.  Will I ever get a chance to share
thoughts with it?  Or must the fact that I, as a custodial
father of a young boy (with no time to earn a degree in
ancient languages or religion) will never have the time
to earn a PhD mean that I will be considered off-limits
for the rest of my life?

George

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Grecians > Samaritan Converts to "The Kingdom"?



> > THREE:
> > YOU WRITE:
> > "Have you tried looking at what Danker has to say on the meaning
> > of the term  or what is said about it in TDNT? Why do you rely on
> > Strongs?"
> >
> > I use Strongs because it is convenient.  If you think Danker
> > has some useful connection with this issue, perhaps you could
> > share a sentence or two to your audience?  I would find it
> > very informative.
> >
>
> Sorry, George, but since you are intent on discussing and making claims
about
> exegetical matters on a professional academic List, it is up to **you** to
do
> your own homework . And I'm surprised that you even wonder if Danker has
> something useful to say. Surely you are not unaware of what Danker is? Of
how
> no responsible scholar makes a claim about the meaning of a word in the NT
> without first consulting this work?
>
Dr. Gibson:

     As you think that all members in this group ought to use Danker, why
don't you privately communicate with Professor Felix Just and request him to
make this a requirement for membership?  I am shocked and appalled that you
have, in
effect, told another member that he doesn't truly belong in this group.
Isn't this sort of judgment something that should only be made by Professor
Felix Just?

Sincerely,

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN 55109

----- Original Message -----
From: "g" <george.x.brooks@...>

> I was wondering if there are some thoughts about how this
> might connect to the use of the term "Grecians" in
> other parts of the N.T.
>  snip<<<
> The only explanation I can see for its use is that it
> does NOT refer to Gentiles, but to the distinction between
> ***Samaritan*** devotees to "The Kingdom" vs. ***Judaean***
> devotees to "The Kingdom".
>
> Thoughts?

Dear George,

Here is the information from the new edition of Dankers Lexicon (The
third edition published in 2000 by University of Chicago Press).

1-a person of Greek lnaguage and culture-opposite of barbaros

2-All persons who came under the influence of  Greek, as distinguised
from Israel's culture.
   2a-Gentle, polytheist, Greco-Roman
John 7:35 ; acts 9:29  11:20 16:1,3  21:28 1 Cor 1:22 Gal 2:3
from the Judean perspective embraces a large number of nationalities
with focus on the polytheistic aspect
Acts 14:1 18:4 19:10, 17  20:21 Rom 1:16 2:9 3:9 10:12 1 Cor 1:24
10:32 12:13 Gal 3:28 Col 3:11

   2b used of non-Israelites/gentiles who expressed an interest in the
cultic life of Israel
Acts 17:4
John 12:20

As you can see the two verses at question in your post fall under
different nuances of usage.  There are Old Testament and extra
biblical references as well that I can type out if you are interested
in pursuing your study further.

Best wishes,

Steve Puluka
Cantor Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church
Mckees Rocks PA USA

To Susan Moore.
I'm sorry no-one seems to have taken up your question about whether the
Holy Spirit was at work pre Christ.
I don't know whether this will help.
In the NT generally, and especially in FG, the word 'kosmos' invariably
means 'the world organised against God'. It is almost always used in
this negative sense. It represents post fall humanity. The kosmos is
never portrayed as neutral.
God, and the Logos, made the world. But, after the fall, the world went
its own way.
There is abundant evidence of the work of God's Spirit in the OT, even
brooding over the chaos of pre-creation.
It is only those who want to escape this kosmos that can have direct
access to God's Spirit.
The difference for humanity post resurrection of Christ is the gift of
life through trust in the sacrificed and risen Logos.
In FG, Jesus is always opposed to the kosmos.
I hope this helps a little in the point you raised.

Now, re 'Hellenists'.
The 'Ellenistoi' are introduced into Acts 6 with no explanation, and as
in some way in opposition to the 'Ebraioi'.
There is thus a presumption that the first readers of Acts knew who they
were. The two groups of widows were either believers in Jesus as
Messiah, or the widows of men who had believed in Jesus before they
died.
The seven men chosen were presumably 'Ellenistoi' themselves, chosen to
appease this group of widows.
Then there is mention of a number of synagogues in Jerusalem that seemed
to be there to cater for the 'Ellenistoi'. They are named as 'the
synagogue of the Freedmen (as it is called), and of the Cyrenians and of
the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Arabia…' It seems likely
that these synagogues were set up to cater for diaspora Hebrews who
traveled to Jerusalem for the important festivals, and for those from
the diaspora who had chosen to resettle in Judea. Their language of
worship and scripture reading was Greek. Like Paul, himself a diaspora
Hebrew from Tarsus, they were circumcised and probably strict
Torah-keepers. But they had grown up with Greek as their main language,
with only some Hebrew.
For the Judeans, worship and scripture had to be in the sacred language.
Those who moved away from the language of Moses were suspected of having
polluted the faith. These Greek-speaking synagogues were tolerated In
Judea because the temple authorities could keep a weather eye on them.
But those in far away lands were probably viewed with some concern.
After all, if the Galileans scribes could not be trusted to argue
against Jesus thus necessitating Judean scribes to follow him around in
Galilee, then how much more were diaspora Hebrews to be suspected! I am
sure this is why Paul is quite insistent that, although a diaspora
Hebrew of the Hebrews, he is a Pharisee and a superior law-keeper. This
perception of diaspora Hebrews being inferior is part of the dynamics of
the pre-70AD Judea.
Now it is to these Greek-speaking synagogues that Stephen goes and
argues with them in Greek. Some time later Paul was to go to these same
Greek-speaking Hebrew synagogues.
I think that the first readers of Acts would have assumed that the
'Ellenistoi' were Greek-speaking Hebrews and not Greek converts or even
necessarily Hellenised Hebrews who had given up Judaism. The reading in
Acts 11:20 can be either 'Greek' or 'Hellenist', so no conclusion can be
drawn using that verse.
If anyone is interested in how all this impacts on understanding why
Paul failed so miserably in Jerusalem after his Damascus experience,
I'll be happy to send you as an attachment my paper 'The Tarsian Paul'
read at Macquarie University's Society for the Study of Early
Christianity three years ago.
Ross Saunders from DownUnder

g wrote:

> The only explanation I can see for its use is that
it
> does NOT refer to Gentiles, but to the distinction
> between ***Samaritan*** devotees to "The Kingdom"
vs.
> ***Judaean*** devotees to "The Kingdom".

George (I hope that I have your name correct), perhaps
if you rephrased your suggestion as a question, it
would get a more positive response. How about this:

"I have wondered if 'Hellenists' could refer to
Gentiles, but might the distinction between 'Hebrews'
and 'Hellenists' be between 'Samaritans' devotees to
'The Kingdom' and 'Judaean' devotees to 'The
Kingdom'?"

Rephrasing as a question would be less likely to push
any buttons.

I generally find that the more tentative my
suggestions, the gentler the reply that I receive.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Dear Steve,

I appreciate you taking the time to transcribe the Dankers
lexicon information.  That was very kind.

I hope you understand that I'm trying to go beyond what
dictionaries believe is the use of the King James use
of the word translated as Grecians.

For example, is it your opinion that the "Grecians" (or
Hellenists or Hellenes.... whichever English word you want
to use for this at this time) referred to in Acts were
Gentile converts to Christianity?

Or do you think this term referred to Samaritan converts
to Christianity?

This is really the crux of my exploration on the matter.
I am suggesting that during the time described in Acts
(which presumably only a few years after the time period
described in John), that the "Grecians" mentioned were
most probably Samaritan converts.

What are your thoughts?

George

Ross,

It was good to see your position about the 'Ellenistoi'.

YOU WRITE:
"I think that the first readers of Acts would have assumed that the
> 'Ellenistoi' were Greek-speaking Hebrews and not Greek converts
or even> necessarily Hellenised Hebrews who had given up Judaism."

You also go on to say that no conclusion can be drawn using
the particular verse Acts 11:20.

And technically speaking, I have to agree with you about
that.

But this is what leads me to explore the other aspets of the
N.T.... to wonder about the recruiting efforts of Jesus.  And
then the success of the recruiting efforts of his immediate
apostles.  And from that, make some educated guesses about
what was going on in the Jerusalem Christian community.

While I see the early Jerusalem church as comprised of
Samaritans and Judah-ites, you see the early Jerusalem church
as comprised of Greek-speaking Judah-ites, and old-fashioned,
home-grown Judah-ites.... with apparently no need to distinguish
between Judah-ites and Samaritans.

Obviously, there is quite a bit of difference in these scenarios.
And this is what I was hoping would be revealed in a conversation
on this matter.

Perhaps others can bring in enough other evidence to more or
less demonstrate the validity of one scenario or the other?

George

g wrote:

[snip]

> While I see the early Jerusalem church as comprised of
> Samaritans and Judah-ites, you see the early Jerusalem church
> as comprised of Greek-speaking Judah-ites, and old-fashioned,
> home-grown Judah-ites.... with apparently no need to distinguish
> between Judah-ites and Samaritans.
>
> Obviously, there is quite a bit of difference in these scenarios.
> And this is what I was hoping would be revealed in a conversation
> on this matter.
>
> Perhaps others can bring in enough other evidence to more or
> less demonstrate the validity of one scenario or the other?

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon -- especially after how my recent
message to George was perceived by certain List Members -- may I ask if an
exploration of what an Acts passage means, as well as George's oft repeated
Samaraitan thesis,  is really appropriate on John-L? Wouldn't  Acts-L be a
more suitable venue?

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson


--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...

Jeffrey,

I believe during this "down time" that an exploration
of how ACTS used the term 'Ellenistoi' would be a
valuable way of connecting to how this and related
terms were used in John.

The time period is quite close, even if the time
of writing is less so.

George


--- In johannine_literature@y..., "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
<jgibson000@h...> wrote:
> g wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > While I see the early Jerusalem church as comprised of
> > Samaritans and Judah-ites, you see the early Jerusalem church
> > as comprised of Greek-speaking Judah-ites, and old-fashioned,
> > home-grown Judah-ites.... with apparently no need to distinguish
> > between Judah-ites and Samaritans.
> >
> > Obviously, there is quite a bit of difference in these scenarios.
> > And this is what I was hoping would be revealed in a conversation
> > on this matter.
> >
> > Perhaps others can bring in enough other evidence to more or
> > less demonstrate the validity of one scenario or the other?
>
> At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon -- especially after how my
recent
> message to George was perceived by certain List Members -- may I ask
if an
> exploration of what an Acts passage means, as well as George's oft
repeated
> Samaraitan thesis,  is really appropriate on John-L? Wouldn't
Acts-L be a
> more suitable venue?
>
> Yours,
>
> Jeffrey Gibson
>
>
> --
> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
> 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
> Chicago, Illinois 60626
> e-mail jgibson000@h...

Jeff,

After all your posts and energy, I have yet to
learn what YOUR perceptions are concerning the
church in Jerusalem.

All Judah-ites, some Greek speaking?
A strong blend of Judah-ites and Samaritans?
A blend of Judah-ites with Gentiles (and Samaritans too)?

Surely you have an opinion on the matter, yes?

George