Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] greek online bible [was Keramon]

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    Thanks a lot for all your stuff. Really interesting. I am still looking for information about the lexikon used in the greek online bible
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks a lot for all your stuff. Really interesting.

      I am still looking for information about the lexikon used in the greek
      online bible (www.*greek**bible*.com/).

      What are its academic accreditations ?
      How confident do you feel with it ?
      About "dia twn keramwn" which may be translated by "through the roof",
      do you have somes sources about it ?

      Thanks,

      Emmanuel.
    • Chuck Jones
      Bob, I m embarrassed to admit that the most vivid recollections I have of the external staircase/ladder are from illustrations in Sunday School literature when
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 16, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob,

        I'm embarrassed to admit that the most vivid recollections I have of the external staircase/ladder are from illustrations in Sunday School literature when I was a youth (and we all know how accurate that is!).

        I do think it's important to make a distinction between the courtyard homes of the wealthy and the tiny homes of merchants and craftsmen in towns. These, I understand (from Seminary, not Sunday School!) were quite small--basically one room. The stairs/ladder were outside for reasons of space, cost and construction (the flat roof served basically a patio). Also, it was not uncommon for a small room to be added on the roof to be rented out.

        So one approach is to read the story details and then imagine which sort of house Jesus is pictured as teaching in.

        Chuck

        Jim West <jwest@...> wrote:


        Bob Schacht wrote:

        > Thanks, Jim. Does this show entrance to the roof through an opening in
        > the roof for the stairs?
        >

        Nope. Just a ladder on the outside wall where some industrious looking
        woman appears to be spreading grain to dry.

        >
        > Evidence-- even archaeological evidence-- can be confusing unless one
        > knows more about the context. For example, consider a common courtyard
        > house-- that is, a rectangular compound in which there are walls all
        > around the outside, and access limited to one (or more) door(s), but
        > open to the air in the middle. This has been common in many parts of the
        > Middle East, and many archaeological commentaries on standard house
        > plans take note of it. Then imagine a stairway leading from the
        > *interior courtyard* to the roof. If all you have is a remnant of the
        > compound consisting of the stairway and adjacent parts of the house--
        > but not the other three sides of the compound-- it might look as if the
        > stairway is on the outside exterior, i.e. public side, of the house,
        > even though it was on the inside (courtyard) side, and therefore
        > private. So here we need to know whether "exterior" means the public
        > side, or the internal courtyard side.

        I can't imagine constructing a house within a courtyard and then
        building the stair to the roof on the outside of the compound. That
        makes no sense. If such a stair existed, then it would have been inside
        the compound but outside the house.

        Best

        Jim

        --
        Jim West, ThD

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





        ---------------------------------
        Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • R. Steven Notley
        Gentlemen Perhaps I missed it, but I can not see that anyone responded or took note of my contribution to this discussion last week. Discussion has continued
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Gentlemen

          Perhaps I missed it, but I can not see that anyone responded or took
          note of my contribution to this discussion last week. Discussion has
          continued unabated regarding "ladders" and whether the stairs were
          inside or outside the houses.

          I answered succinctly because of lack of personal time, but also
          because the issues are not in question or difficult.

          First, there were no tiles in Galilee or anywhere in Judea prior to
          70 CE. It is universally attested that they were introduced by the
          Roman X Legion after the conquest of Jerusalem and Judea. Mention of
          tiles in most (but not all) manuscript readings of Luke 5:19 must be
          explained otherwise.

          Second, the style of houses in first century Galilee are well known
          to those who are familiar with Roman period archaeology in Judea.
          The courtyard styled houses are referred to by the term "insula
          houses." Indeed we have many such fine examples in Roman period
          Capernaum and Chorazin, including the so-called "St. Peter's house"
          in Capernaum.

          I refer you now to a brief excerpt from the Encyclopedia of
          Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols.; Jerusalem:
          IES, 1993) 1:292, "The houses [i.e. of Capernaum] are characterized
          by large courts surrounded by small dwelling chambers. The life of
          an extended family centered around a communal court. In the courts
          were ovens, staircases for access to roofs, and only one exit to the
          street."

          Having lived in Israel for 16 years, I have visited these
          archaeological remains too many times to count.

          There were no ladders. Stairs to access the roof were always within
          the family dwelling complex. With few exceptions, homes were single
          story. Capernaum is over 650 feet below sea level and in the summer
          gets unbearably hot and humid. The stairs provided access in the
          summers for a family to sleep where it might be cooler.
          Nevertheless, as Josephus describes in the collapse of the roofs in
          Gamla when the Roman soldiers tried to use them in their escape from
          the Jewish onslaught, the roofs were not intended to bear much weight.

          Typical roofing material was what is referred to in the US as a "sod
          roof" that included larger branches, then small reeds and finally
          covered with straw and mud. Primarily, these were intended to keep
          out the weather. It is not unlikely that these had to be repaired
          annually. One can even see today in Capernaum and elsewhere the
          basalt rollers that were used to repair the roofs.

          Hope this helps.

          Blessings,
          R. Steven Notley
          Nyack College, NYC


          On Oct 16, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Chuck Jones wrote:

          > Bob,
          >
          > I'm embarrassed to admit that the most vivid recollections I have
          > of the external staircase/ladder are from illustrations in Sunday
          > School literature when I was a youth (and we all know how accurate
          > that is!).
          >
          > I do think it's important to make a distinction between the
          > courtyard homes of the wealthy and the tiny homes of merchants and
          > craftsmen in towns. These, I understand (from Seminary, not Sunday
          > School!) were quite small--basically one room. The stairs/ladder
          > were outside for reasons of space, cost and construction (the flat
          > roof served basically a patio). Also, it was not uncommon for a
          > small room to be added on the roof to be rented out.
          >
          > So one approach is to read the story details and then imagine which
          > sort of house Jesus is pictured as teaching in.
          >
          > Chuck
          >
          > Jim West <jwest@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Bob Schacht wrote:
          >
          > > Thanks, Jim. Does this show entrance to the roof through an
          > opening in
          > > the roof for the stairs?
          > >
          >
          > Nope. Just a ladder on the outside wall where some industrious looking
          > woman appears to be spreading grain to dry.
          >
          > >
          > > Evidence-- even archaeological evidence-- can be confusing unless
          > one
          > > knows more about the context. For example, consider a common
          > courtyard
          > > house-- that is, a rectangular compound in which there are walls all
          > > around the outside, and access limited to one (or more) door(s), but
          > > open to the air in the middle. This has been common in many parts
          > of the
          > > Middle East, and many archaeological commentaries on standard house
          > > plans take note of it. Then imagine a stairway leading from the
          > > *interior courtyard* to the roof. If all you have is a remnant of
          > the
          > > compound consisting of the stairway and adjacent parts of the
          > house--
          > > but not the other three sides of the compound-- it might look as
          > if the
          > > stairway is on the outside exterior, i.e. public side, of the house,
          > > even though it was on the inside (courtyard) side, and therefore
          > > private. So here we need to know whether "exterior" means the public
          > > side, or the internal courtyard side.
          >
          > I can't imagine constructing a house within a courtyard and then
          > building the stair to the roof on the outside of the compound. That
          > makes no sense. If such a stair existed, then it would have been
          > inside
          > the compound but outside the house.
          >
          > Best
          >
          > Jim
          >
          > --
          > Jim West, ThD
          >
          > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resources
          > http://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • R. Steven Notley
          Shalom Synoptic-Listers I arrived back yesterday morning from Israel at 5:00 a.m. (in a NY snow storm) and was greeted with the hubbub over the purported Tomb
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 27, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Shalom Synoptic-Listers

            I arrived back yesterday morning from Israel at 5:00 a.m. (in a NY
            snow storm) and was greeted with the hubbub over the purported Tomb
            of Jesus' Family. Over the last 24 hours in my jetlagged state I
            have had the opportunity to review the inscriptional material. It
            was already published by L.Y. Rahmani in A Catalogue of Jewish
            Ossuraries (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1994) 222-224.

            I have collated what I see as some of the fundamental problems with
            the claims. As usual, the problem is that these folks do not control
            the languages at the center of their claims.

            Here are a few reflections, questions regarding the hubbub:

            1. After looking at Rahmani's inscriptions, I think ossuary No. 704
            does indeed read Yeshua bar Yosef (contra Stephen Pfann). However,
            the collocation of these names certainly does not necessitate that
            this is Jesus' ossuary. Indeed, even within Rahmani's own catalogue
            there is another example of a Yeshua bar Yosef (cf. No. 9.1). The
            limited pool of names means that the combination of Yeshua and Yosef
            would have surfaced countless times.

            2. While it is true that Yoseh (ossuary No. 705) is a diminutive
            form of Yosef, I can not think of a single occasion where the NT
            Joseph is referred to by this form either in the NT or later
            Christian writings. Contrast the lack of the shortened form of
            Yosef's name (i.e. YOSEH) with the diminutive form of Mary's name
            (from MIRIAM) that does occur in the NT (i.e. MARIA). MARYA (the
            Hebrew equivalent to the Greek NT name) appears on ossuary No. 706.
            Rahmani even suggests that the similarity in the style of the
            inscription of Yoseh and Marya's names suggests that they may have
            been the parents of Yeshua and the grandparents of Yehuda son of
            Yeshua. While speculative, it may be true. But to attempt to
            identify this Yoseh as the NT Joseph (as done by Jacobovici et al)
            lacks the needed connecting evidence that the NT Joseph was ever
            called by the diminutive form YOSEH.

            3. To my mind the most critical piece of the argument lies with
            ossuary No. 701 which belonged to a woman and inscribed "Of Mariamne
            [that is] Mara". [As Cameron notes, she is the "Ringo" of the names
            in the tomb. In his analogy if you found a tomb with John, Paul and
            George, you could speculate but not be certain it was the Beatles.
            If you found also (the more rare name) Ringo, then the probability
            would become almost certainty.]

            There are two obstacles to identifying this woman as Mary Magdalene.
            First, the NT routinely calls her MARIA or MARIAM, and never the form
            MARIAMNE. The promoters attempt to sidestep this problem by citing a
            4th century Gnostic text, the Acts of the Philip, in which we do have
            a travel companion of Philip named Mariamne. There has been some
            suggestion by Francois Bovon that she is to be identified with Mary
            Magdalene, but my cursory glance at the the Acts of Philip indicates
            she is to be identified with the Mary sister of Martha (from Bethany)
            and not Mary from Magdala. Here is a snippet from the Acts of Philip
            94: "It was she [Mariamne] that made ready the bread and salt at
            the breaking of bread, but Martha was she that ministered to the
            multitudes and laboured much."

            Moreover, the inscription states that this Mariamne was also called
            MARAH. In a real laugher which could only be conjured up in Zeit
            Geist of our day, they have read MARAH as "Master" (i.e. the feminine
            form of the Aramaic MAR). Thus, they are trying to reclaim (a la
            Dan Brown) Mary's rightful place as head of the early Christian
            movement which was taken from her by the chauvinist leadership of
            Christianity. The charges of chauvinism in early Christianity
            notwithstanding, the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was known as "the
            Master" (MARAH) can not be supported by the appearance of MARAH with
            her name on the ossuary. The feminine form of MAR (master) is
            MARTHAH not MARAH. Instead, as Rahmani indicates the appearance
            here of MARAH is the diminutive form of the proper name Martha (cf.
            also Nos. 468.2 and 868). So, this Mariamne was also called by the
            diminutive form of Martha (or MARAH). Once again, we lack a single
            reference in the NT or any later Christian writing I know that Mary
            Magdalene was ever called Martha (or MARAH).

            So, it may be true that this Mariamne and Yeshua were married and
            that they had a son named Judah, but I can find no compelling link
            between these names and the NT figures.

            It is worthwhile to restate that the challenge is to move beyond mere
            speculative possibility to at least probability (if certainty
            remains unattainable). I do not think the evidence that we have been
            provided moves us beyond mere (and questionable) possibility.

            As a final added note, I would point out that a similar clustering of
            these names surfaces among the dynastic family of Hasmoneans. Of
            course, I am not suggesting that this tomb belonged to a family
            descended from the Maccabees. Only to draw attention to the limited
            and popular pool of names at the time and that the collocation of
            these names need not indicate that they are NT figures.

            Shalom from snowy NY!

            R. Steven Notley
            Professor of Biblical Studies
            Department of Biblical and Theological Studies
            Nyack College
            New York City





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • gentile_dave@emc.com
            R. Steven Notley wrote: [As Cameron notes, she is the Ringo of the names in the tomb. In his analogy if you found a tomb with John, Paul and George, you
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              R. Steven Notley wrote:



              [As Cameron notes, she is the "Ringo" of the names
              in the tomb. In his analogy if you found a tomb with John, Paul and
              George, you could speculate but not be certain it was the Beatles.
              If you found also (the more rare name) Ringo, then the probability
              would become almost certainty.]



              And later:



              It is worthwhile to restate that the challenge is to move beyond mere
              speculative possibility to at least probability (if certainty
              remains unattainable).



              Dave:



              The first quote is a perfect example of an application of the Bayesian
              formula, and the second is the general goal of Bayesian probability.



              Thus it occurs to me that this might be an interesting way to try out
              Bayesian statistics in this area. Of course much would have to be based
              on knowledgeable estimates, so I think it would be still be a subjective
              answer (in the sense that different people would get different answers).
              Things like the frequency of Yeshua bar Yosef, and the number of tombs
              from the period, and the chances that the family of Jesus is in one of
              them, etc. would all need estimates.



              Then, since Bayesian statistical results depend on the information
              available, and since different individuals have different information to
              draw on, consensus estimates are likely to lead to a better result than
              individual estimates. Of course that requires an investment of time, and
              I'm not sure how much interest this question has for those here.



              But if nothing else the example shows at least one NT scholar working in
              an almost explicit Bayesian fashion.



              Dave



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.