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

Re: [XTalk] Re: [GPG] On The Term "Christian"

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson On: Alpha Belief From: Bruce BRUCE (before): [1 Thess] 1:10. Jesus who delivers us from the wrath of God.
    Message 1 of 27 , Dec 20, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Crosstalk
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
      On: Alpha Belief
      From: Bruce

      BRUCE (before): [1 Thess] 1:10. Jesus who delivers us from the wrath of God.
      / Exactly so thought the Didache brethren.

      JEFFREY: As did the authors of 2 and 4 Maccabees of the Maccabean martyrs.
      What is your point?

      BRUCE: The Didache is an advanced Alpha text. It thanks God for Jesus, not
      as having sacrificed himself for his followers, or having bought them with
      his blood, but for having taught them the Way of Life. My point is that 1
      Thess, over most of its length, does not say anything that takes one outside
      the perimeter of Alpha belief.

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Of course, Christian , whether self-label or not, implies a particular answer to the question of Who is/was Jesus? Those who were your Beta
      Message 2 of 27 , Dec 20, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        At 05:15 PM 12/20/2010, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
        >Was "Christians" the new name of the Beta disciples? Since the non-Messianic
        >meaning of "Christ" is "Saviour," and since Beta theory emphasized the role
        >of Jesus in the salvation process (whereas Alphas dealt with God, albeit in
        >the Way which Jesus had expounded to them), it seems to be possible....

        Of course, " Christian", whether self-label or not, implies a
        particular answer to the question of "Who is/was Jesus?"
        Those who were your "Beta Christians" would be fine with that name,
        because they thought he was the Messiah.

        But those whom you call Alpha Christians would not accept that label,
        because they had a different understanding of who Jesus is/was. For
        many of them, Jesus was a prophet, or maybe a rabbi, but not the
        Christ (Messiah.) So another term, like The Way, or the disciples
        would have suited them better. They might not have accepted the
        divinity of Jesus, either.

        Bob Schacht
        Northern Arizona University



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Thomas Kopecek
        E Bruce Brooks wrote on Monday, December 20, 2010 6:55 PM in Response To: Jeffrey Gibson on Alpha Belief. ... I d like to raise two issues for Bruce about his
        Message 3 of 27 , Dec 20, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          E Bruce Brooks wrote on Monday, December 20, 2010 6:55 PM in Response To: Jeffrey Gibson on Alpha Belief.

          >BRUCE (before): [1 Thess] 1:10. Jesus who delivers us from the wrath of God.
          >Exactly so thought the Didache brethren.

          >JEFFREY: As did the authors of 2 and 4 Maccabees of the Maccabean martyrs.
          >What is your point?

          >BRUCE: The Didache is an advanced Alpha text. It thanks God for Jesus, not
          >as having sacrificed himself for his followers, or having bought them with
          >his blood, but for having taught them the Way of Life. My point is that 1
          >Thess, over most of its length, does not say anything that takes one outside
          >the perimeter of Alpha belief.

          I'd like to raise two issues for Bruce about his words above.
          (1) You have referred to Didache any number of times in your posts. Why do you think it is an 'ADVANCED Alpha text'? What is 'advanced' about it?
          (2) You write that "over most of its length" I Thess does not contain anything that goes beyond what you call "the perimeter of Alpha belief." What is it in the letter that DOES take one beyond "Alpha belief"? I presume it is the words in I Thess 5:9b-10, that is, "9 For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him"?

          Yet these words in I Thess 9b-10 may not have anything to do with any 'Beta Christianity' view of an atoning death of Jesus in the sense of an atonement 'for sins' or an implication of being "bought by Jesus' blood," to cite words you use above. They may be explained as concerned about exactly what they say they are concerned about, namely, life rather than death-or to use the term employed in the Didache's Eucharistic Prayers sequence, to wit, "immortality." What I am suggesting is that Paul in I Thess 9b-10 may have in mind what he says more fully in Romans 5:3-6: "3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we WILL certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his." Yes, it is true that the broader context in Romans has to do with the issue of sin, but one can make a pretty good case that Paul is marshalling a view of a Jesus' follower's relationship with Him that originally and essentially has a different 'root' from the issue of sin, which is dealt with at length in Romans only because of the particular situation in the Roman church to which Paul is writing (that would take me too long to explain and would be tedious).
          *
          Indeed, Paul talks the way he does in Rom 5:3-6 also in Gal 3:27-28: "27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Both passages appear to amount to what one may dub a Pauline 'baptismal mysticism', and this may well be one of the 'root' ways Paul viewed the death of Jesus, appearing as it does in I Thess, Rom, and Gal, as I have suggested. Such a 'mystical' unity with Christ appears also in Gal 2:19b-20: "19b I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Sin, BTW, is in no way a central theme in Galatians any more than it is in I Thess-or II Thess for that matter, where the word does not appear (II Thess appears to me to be as much 'Alpha Christianity' as I Thessalonians. Sin appears only twice in Galatians-and has nothing to do with the death of Jesus: "Gal 2:17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! . . . . Gal 3:22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

          Perhaps you are beginning to see why am unconvinced by the way you characterized the core of 'Beta Christianity' in your 5-page discussion of 'Alpha Christianity' you originally recommended to those seeking to engage with your
          'project'.

          Tom

          ________________
          Thomas A. Kopecek
          1536 Elk Horn Drive
          Otley, Iowa 50214-8513
          kopecekt@...



          *






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG In Response To: Tom Kopecek On: Two Alpha Issues From: Bruce Tom said, I d like to raise two issues for Bruce about his words above [not
          Message 4 of 27 , Dec 21, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Crosstalk
            Cc: GPG
            In Response To: Tom Kopecek
            On: Two Alpha Issues
            From: Bruce

            Tom said, "I'd like to raise two issues for Bruce about his words above [not
            here quoted]" Fair enough. Here are the two issues. The second one is
            somewhat extended, and I have added a peroration at the end.

            TOM: (1) You have referred to Didache any number of times in your posts. Why
            do you think it is an 'ADVANCED Alpha text'? What is 'advanced' about it?

            BRUCE: Didache incorporates an earlier document, the Two Ways. The Two Ways
            is simply a tract about personal conduct: things that will get you to Heaven
            (or Hell) if you do them. Nothing simpler or more elementary could be
            imagined. That same tract is also incorporated (though in rearranged form)
            into the much later Epistle of Barnabas (2c), which shows its separate and
            indeed rather durable nature (Barnabas did not copy it from the Didache,
            since Barnabas is unaware of some adjustments which were made to it in
            Didache context). The Didache goes on from there to lay out ritual rules:
            how to do a baptism, how to organize a Eucharist; exact forms of words. I
            would say, the Two Ways is primitive Alpha, the Didache is Alpha plus a
            liturgy, and also plus people who were in charge of the liturgy, and it is
            those people, not the believers en masse, whom the Didache principally
            addresses. This is a more advanced state of congregational organization than
            is implied by the Epistle of James, for instance, where the elders
            collectively pray over the sick, and where the office of teacher is open and
            fluid (though gently discouraged by the writer of that Epistle).

            So Didache is more advanced liturgically, and it is more advanced
            organizationally. Obviously, the two are likely to go together, but not
            inevitably. One can have a hymn, or even a prayer, without a bishop. So by
            my count, that makes two areas of advancement.

            TOM: (2) You write that "over most of its length" I Thess does not contain
            anything that goes beyond what you call "the perimeter of Alpha belief."
            What is it in the letter that DOES take one beyond "Alpha belief"? I presume
            it is the words in I Thess 5:9b-10, that is, "9 For God has destined us not
            for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who
            died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him"?

            BRUCE: Right. The phrase which strikes me as inescapably Beta is "who died
            for us." The Alphas would have been grateful that Jesus had lived for them,
            and taught them, and this is what they say in the Didache prayers, but for
            them, his death was probably just the ending of his life. It doesn't
            detectably impinge on their day-to-day interaction with God.

            TOM: Yet these words in I Thess 9b-10 may not have anything to do with any
            'Beta Christianity' view of an atoning death of Jesus in the sense of an
            atonement 'for sins' or an implication of being "bought by Jesus' blood," to
            cite words you use above. They may be explained as concerned about exactly
            what they say they are concerned about, namely, life rather than death-or to
            use the term employed in the Didache's Eucharistic Prayers sequence, to wit,
            "immortality."

            BRUCE: If so, then 1 Thess falls entirely within the Alpha purview, as far
            as I am able to discern it at this stage. I hesitate to adopt Tom's
            interpretation outright, but if it holds, that would be an interesting
            result. It would date the appearance of Beta ideas in Paul to between 50 and
            55, give or take a year, and it would show that for all the years since his
            conversion in c38 and up to that point, Paul had been an Alpha disciple.
            That would decisively refute my earlier suggestion, that Paul was originally
            converted to Beta Christianity. Which would solve some problems, without as
            far as I can see creating others. A surprising result, but analytically
            speaking a welcome one. Let me ponder it.

            TOM: What I am suggesting is that Paul in I Thess 9b-10 may have in mind
            what he says more fully in Romans 5:3-6: "3 Do you not know that all of us
            who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4
            Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just
            as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too
            might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a
            death like his, we WILL certainly be united with him in a resurrection like
            his."

            BRUCE: That's what Paul thinks, all right, as of that moment, and to me, it
            shows that we have here unmistakably crossed the line into Beta. Baptism
            seems to me an especially good place to detect that line. Early baptism,
            under John and evidently also as revived by the "disciples" of Jesus (see
            again the Didache), evidently was symbolic of purification, and emblematic
            of forgiveness and thus of sinlessness; it was fundamentally *about the
            believer,* his repentance, his forgiveness, and his new state of being
            wholly right with God (in the quaint terminology of the time, "justified").
            But later baptism was indeed *about the death of Jesus;* it was his
            paradigmatic death and resurrection (and not anything the believer himself
            had or hadn't done) which this baptism signified; it was a baptism of blood
            and not water. "Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb" would have been
            unintelligible, I venture to suspect, to an Alpha Christian. To me, that
            reorientation of the symbolism of baptism is drastic, not cosmetic; it shows
            a major shift in Christian thinking. This is the shift I have tried to
            capture in the contrast between Alpha and Beta.

            Justification before God versus mystical union with Jesus. These are not the
            same.

            TOM: Yes, it is true that the broader context in Romans has to do with the
            issue of sin, but one can make a pretty good case that Paul is marshalling a
            view of a Jesus' follower's relationship with Him that originally and
            essentially has a different 'root' from the issue of sin, which is dealt
            with at length in Romans only because of the particular situation in the
            Roman church to which Paul is writing (that would take me too long to
            explain and would be tedious).

            BRUCE: Well, I for one would welcome that particular tedium, but I defer to
            Tom's sense of the list's larger interest. My thought, pending that further
            discussion, would be that what is generally happening here, in the Forties
            and Fifties, is that Jesus is soaking into the whole scenario of salvation.
            Salvation, indeed religion in general, is coming to be all about Jesus, and
            all mediated through Jesus, and the entire OT is there merely to predict
            Jesus. This is a huge change from anything that the earliest texts tell us.
            The preaching of John probably is a good index for what the starting point
            of the Jesus followers may have been like, and John is talking about sin and
            repentance and forgiveness. I have to think that Jesus himself focused on
            these things also, and after him, his first followers and probably their
            first converts as well.

            That Paul is talking about sin in Romans is either because his own worldview
            still has a place for sin in it, or because (and this is the possibility I
            have previously suggested) he is rhetorically accommodating himself to the
            Alpha people at Rome whom he is hoping to persuade to take a different view
            of things. The strategy of persuation in Paul, about which he is explicit
            but which seems to have escaped many of his biographers, is what makes it
            impossible to write down Paul's theology by simply adding up the things he
            says in his letters.

            TOM: Indeed, Paul talks the way he does in Rom 5:3-6 also in Gal 3:27-28:
            "27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with
            Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or
            free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ
            Jesus." Both passages appear to amount to what one may dub a Pauline
            'baptismal mysticism', and this may well be one of the 'root' ways Paul
            viewed the death of Jesus, appearing as it does in I Thess, Rom, and Gal, as
            I have suggested. Such a 'mystical' unity with Christ appears also in Gal
            2:19b-20: "19b I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I
            who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the
            flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for
            me."

            BRUCE: The equality of believers, I suspect, was true of the earliest
            believers (Jesus in Mark shows himself as part of such an undifferentiated
            "new family" community; the Epistle of James chides them for lapses in this
            regard). Their gradual accommodation to the differential world outside them
            is one thing that happens during the later 1c; the Haustafeln are one of the
            most obvious signposts of that process. So the lack of distinction of slave
            and free, etc, was probably an original trait of the disciples, and not a
            novel feature of the Beta phase. Like almost everything else in the previous
            belief system, it was capable of being given a Beta spin, as Paul seems to
            be doing here, but that does not make it a distinctive Beta doctrine.

            At bottom, the sense of identification with Jesus, rather than with God, in
            this passage, suggests to me that we have crossed the line into Second Tier
            Thinking about Jesus, and thus into what I have called Beta. It is not any
            more God that the believer is relating to, but Jesus. This "religion of
            Jesus" vs "religion *about* Jesus" contrast is an old distinction, indeed a
            German distinction, but in whatever language, I think it has a lot going for
            it, analytically speaking.

            TOM: Sin, BTW, is in no way a central theme in Galatians any more than it is
            in I Thess-or II Thess for that matter, where the word does not appear (II
            Thess appears to me to be as much 'Alpha Christianity' as I Thessalonians.
            Sin appears only twice in Galatians-and has nothing to do with the death of
            Jesus: "Gal 2:17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we
            ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?
            Certainly not! . . . . Gal 3:22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things
            under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus
            Christ might be given to those who believe."

            BRUCE: I continue to think that sin, since it figures in both worldviews (or
            persists from the one into the other), is not a good litmus test for Alpha
            vs Beta. Paul's theory of sin, by the way, which it seems to me he puts in
            different ways at different times, is at one point strikingly like the
            classical Chinese Dauist view of crime: namely, that it is laws that create
            crime. Paul says exactly this in Romans, in the course of arguing against
            the validity of the Law.

            Those for whom the Two Ways document was the roadmap to getting and staying
            right with God would have been baffled, or scandalized, by any such notion.
            It is truly a different world. We, here and now, are very accustomed to
            blending and harmonizing and homogenizing the two worlds, as we write our
            many books, but our doing so may be inimical to our understanding of how
            doctrine was evolving in these very lively decades.

            TOM: Perhaps you are beginning to see why am unconvinced by the way you
            characterized the core of 'Beta Christianity' in your 5-page discussion of
            'Alpha Christianity' you originally recommended to those seeking to engage
            with your
            'project'.

            BRUCE: Not really, but things like that are up to the viewer anyway. It is
            to be expected that even an adequately up-to-date version of that page (for
            which I regret that I have not been able to find time recently) would
            doubtless fail to convince many. We live in a Beta world. My own sense is
            that Alpha, as a component in a new way of seeing the early history of
            Christianity, is enormously fruitful: it permits restatement of several
            conundrums which have long resisted solution; it finds a place for more of
            the data, and with less contortion, than any other view I know of. But that
            is of interest to analysts, not to practitioners, and those with an
            exclusively analytical interest in the history of Christianity are not a
            numerous set. Anyone declining to number themselves among them, let alone
            among the Alpha subset of them, is perfectly free to stay outside. As Henry
            V would have put it, that merely leaves the more pizza for the rest of us.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG In Response To: Bob Schacht On: Names for Christians From: Bruce BOB: . . . But those whom you call Alpha Christians would not accept
            Message 5 of 27 , Dec 21, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Crosstalk
              Cc: GPG
              In Response To: Bob Schacht
              On: Names for Christians
              From: Bruce

              BOB: . . . But those whom you call Alpha Christians would not accept that
              label, because they had a different understanding of who Jesus is/was. For
              many of them, Jesus was a prophet, or maybe a rabbi, but not the Christ
              (Messiah.) So another term, like The Way, or the disciples would have suited
              them better.

              BRUCE: Right, and anyway, they had always called themselves that. There was
              no new choice involved.

              BOB: They might not have accepted the divinity of Jesus, either.

              BRUCE: Indeed, though somewhat to my surprise (we learn by doing, and we
              learn especially fast be getting it wrong the first time), the Alphas seem
              to have been able to go a long way in the divinization line, as witness the
              Philippians hymn, without changing their idea of how Jesus, human or divine,
              related to their personal salvation. A divinized rabbi is still a rabbi
              (which of course is one of the ways people address Jesus in Mark). Just as,
              for some Jews including some Jesus converts among Jews, a divinized Moses
              (see the Assumption of Moses) is still a lawgiver, and not a god.

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • Emmanuel Fritsch
              EF: Not only a Greek word, but also, if I well remember, a Latin ending : the -anus construction is Latin, and is an evidence for an administrative or
              Message 6 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                EF: Not only a Greek word, but also, if I well remember, a Latin ending :
                the "-anus" construction is Latin, and is an evidence for an administrative
                or juridical construction. What, if not in the context of a prosecution?
                (M.-F. Baslez, /Bible et histoire/, éd. Fayard, 1998)

                EBB: Ac 11:26 XRISTIANOUS. Right. But what is the context of the Acts
                statement? Ac 11:25f, Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and
                when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an
                entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it
                was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

                EF : I am not convinced that the context is relevant. There is no
                obvious link of consequence from Barnabas and Saul presence in Antioch
                to the term "christian". The sentence "and it was in Antioch that the
                disciples were first called Christians" looks as a parenthesis. The
                evidence is : the term is not used any more in Acts, but in an ironical
                question (26:28) of Aggripa, who, even if not an ennemy, is not an insider.
                Compare with the Saul/Paul transformation, when predication reach a
                latin public.

                So I desagree with :

                EBB : Notice that the previous name of the group was seemingly "disciples",
                [..]
                For all Acts gives us to understand, the change of name was internal.

                EF : After Act 11:25f, the internal name of the group remains "disciples".
                There is no change of name in Acts.


                EF: Luke-Acts is the witness of a change of perspective : when he states
                that in Antioch, the term "christian" had appeared, he let us understand 1-
                that it is not a self name, and 2- that this particular use has since been
                adopted in many other places.

                EBB: #2 seems to me a valid inference; I am still not so sure about #1. The
                likely etymology of Christian seems to me to be Christ. If the Jesus people
                at any point regarded themselves as followers of the Christ (in any of its
                possible senses), they might have used it of themselves.

                EF : Why taking a latin construction in that case ? As far as I lnow,
                "christian" is the unique instance in the NT of such a latin
                construction for a social group designation.


                EBB : If the change was an internal development, and not a reflex of
                outside police survellance, why might they have adopted it?

                EF : some possible answers to the opposite question (if "christian" an
                external term, why to adopt it) :
                - They adopted the name a generation later, when a majority of new
                disciples had been educated in a world where "christian" was the
                external name of the disciples. Going from outside to inside, they wore
                the name with them, "Those are christians" becoming "We are christians".
                - A feeling of pride and challenge, against humiliations and persecutions.
                - The need to reach a legal status (as a religio licita) in the roman
                empire may also have urged Jesus followers to adopt the name used by
                authority.


                EBB : We can first ask, What were they called before? [...] "disciples"
                was the only name used by, or available for, the Jesus followers
                collectively, whether at Jerusalem or Damascus or, until Saul arrived, at
                Antioch.

                EF : Point granted. There are other possible name : "believers",
                "brothers", "follower of the way", but "disciples" is the majority. It
                would be interesting to study the shades and nuances the others
                introduce in the text. For instance, "believer" looks as an older stage
                than "disciple", something as an alpha-disciple seen by a beta-one. (or
                a pre-alpha seen by an alpha).

                Thus "disciples" is the internal term for first christian. But once
                again, there is no change in Act after Saul's days in Antioch.


                EF: So there is an external principle of semantic unification : to be a
                Jesus follower is the external, administrative, definition of "christian".

                Are there any internal impetu for the real unification ? Or is internal
                unification a consequence of external prosecutions and persecutions ?

                EBB: [..] This I would rather call accommodation than unification,

                EF : Great for accomodation !


                EBB : and that the Beta complication was a product of the following
                decade, the 40's. Is there an event that might have been significant for
                that decade? One, as I suggested in my Twelve paper for SBL, was the
                probably move of the center of Jesus preaching (mission center) from
                Capernaum to Jerusalem, which was probably coordianted with the
                beginning of the reign of Herod Agrippa I (41), and the Davidic
                enthusiasm that seems to have accompanied it. Jerusalem, as the site of
                Jesus's death, is a much more likely locus for the rise of Beta or Death
                of Jesus theorythan Galilee, which had been too much and too directly
                affected by the teachings of Jesus in his lifetime. Nor does Antioch (or
                Damascus, or Edessa, or Ephesus, or for that matter Caesarea) suggest
                itself, at least on my limited knowledge, as likely to have stimulated
                that idea.

                EF : What is the intellectual benefit when going from Alpha to Beta ?
                The promise of salvation becomes a promise of resurrection. Am I true ?

                What happens in the late 30's and the early 40's ? The death of
                Stephanos, first, and then James, probably with his brother John. How
                may they be saved, since they are dead ? The cost of being a Jesus
                follower is increasing. The benefit has to grow in consequence.
                Salvation becomes resurrection.

                a+
                manu

                PS : "crosstalk2" : does it mean we are authorised to cross post the
                thread ? (or to cross post too ?)
              • Thomas Kopecek
                Could someone tell me what GPG is? And while that someone--or someone else--is at it, what also is WSW? Some persons on XTalk are forwarding copies of their
                Message 7 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Could someone tell me what GPG is? And while that someone--or someone else--is at it, what also is WSW? Some persons on XTalk are forwarding copies of their XTalk posts to some places or other so designated. And now there is even talk of cross posting to GPG.

                  ________________
                  Thomas A. Kopecek
                  1536 Elk Horn Drive
                  Otley, Iowa 50214-8513
                  kopecekt@...


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Fritsch
                  Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 8:18 AM
                  To: gpg@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: Crosstalk
                  Subject: [XTalk] Re: [GPG] On The Term "Christian"


                  EF: Not only a Greek word, but also, if I well remember, a Latin ending :
                  the "-anus" construction is Latin, and is an evidence for an administrative
                  or juridical construction. What, if not in the context of a prosecution?
                  (M.-F. Baslez, /Bible et histoire/, éd. Fayard, 1998)

                  EBB: Ac 11:26 XRISTIANOUS. Right. But what is the context of the Acts
                  statement? Ac 11:25f, Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and
                  when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an
                  entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it
                  was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

                  EF : I am not convinced that the context is relevant. There is no
                  obvious link of consequence from Barnabas and Saul presence in Antioch
                  to the term "christian". The sentence "and it was in Antioch that the
                  disciples were first called Christians" looks as a parenthesis. The
                  evidence is : the term is not used any more in Acts, but in an ironical
                  question (26:28) of Aggripa, who, even if not an ennemy, is not an insider.
                  Compare with the Saul/Paul transformation, when predication reach a
                  latin public.

                  So I desagree with :

                  EBB : Notice that the previous name of the group was seemingly "disciples",
                  [..]
                  For all Acts gives us to understand, the change of name was internal.

                  EF : After Act 11:25f, the internal name of the group remains "disciples".
                  There is no change of name in Acts.


                  EF: Luke-Acts is the witness of a change of perspective : when he states
                  that in Antioch, the term "christian" had appeared, he let us understand 1-
                  that it is not a self name, and 2- that this particular use has since been
                  adopted in many other places.

                  EBB: #2 seems to me a valid inference; I am still not so sure about #1. The
                  likely etymology of Christian seems to me to be Christ. If the Jesus people
                  at any point regarded themselves as followers of the Christ (in any of its
                  possible senses), they might have used it of themselves.

                  EF : Why taking a latin construction in that case ? As far as I lnow,
                  "christian" is the unique instance in the NT of such a latin
                  construction for a social group designation.


                  EBB : If the change was an internal development, and not a reflex of
                  outside police survellance, why might they have adopted it?

                  EF : some possible answers to the opposite question (if "christian" an
                  external term, why to adopt it) :
                  - They adopted the name a generation later, when a majority of new
                  disciples had been educated in a world where "christian" was the
                  external name of the disciples. Going from outside to inside, they wore
                  the name with them, "Those are christians" becoming "We are christians".
                  - A feeling of pride and challenge, against humiliations and persecutions.
                  - The need to reach a legal status (as a religio licita) in the roman
                  empire may also have urged Jesus followers to adopt the name used by
                  authority.


                  EBB : We can first ask, What were they called before? [...] "disciples"
                  was the only name used by, or available for, the Jesus followers
                  collectively, whether at Jerusalem or Damascus or, until Saul arrived, at
                  Antioch.

                  EF : Point granted. There are other possible name : "believers",
                  "brothers", "follower of the way", but "disciples" is the majority. It
                  would be interesting to study the shades and nuances the others
                  introduce in the text. For instance, "believer" looks as an older stage
                  than "disciple", something as an alpha-disciple seen by a beta-one. (or
                  a pre-alpha seen by an alpha).

                  Thus "disciples" is the internal term for first christian. But once
                  again, there is no change in Act after Saul's days in Antioch.


                  EF: So there is an external principle of semantic unification : to be a
                  Jesus follower is the external, administrative, definition of "christian".

                  Are there any internal impetu for the real unification ? Or is internal
                  unification a consequence of external prosecutions and persecutions ?

                  EBB: [..] This I would rather call accommodation than unification,

                  EF : Great for accomodation !


                  EBB : and that the Beta complication was a product of the following
                  decade, the 40's. Is there an event that might have been significant for
                  that decade? One, as I suggested in my Twelve paper for SBL, was the
                  probably move of the center of Jesus preaching (mission center) from
                  Capernaum to Jerusalem, which was probably coordianted with the
                  beginning of the reign of Herod Agrippa I (41), and the Davidic
                  enthusiasm that seems to have accompanied it. Jerusalem, as the site of
                  Jesus's death, is a much more likely locus for the rise of Beta or Death
                  of Jesus theorythan Galilee, which had been too much and too directly
                  affected by the teachings of Jesus in his lifetime. Nor does Antioch (or
                  Damascus, or Edessa, or Ephesus, or for that matter Caesarea) suggest
                  itself, at least on my limited knowledge, as likely to have stimulated
                  that idea.

                  EF : What is the intellectual benefit when going from Alpha to Beta ?
                  The promise of salvation becomes a promise of resurrection. Am I true ?

                  What happens in the late 30's and the early 40's ? The death of
                  Stephanos, first, and then James, probably with his brother John. How
                  may they be saved, since they are dead ? The cost of being a Jesus
                  follower is increasing. The benefit has to grow in consequence.
                  Salvation becomes resurrection.

                  a+
                  manu

                  PS : "crosstalk2" : does it mean we are authorised to cross post the
                  thread ? (or to cross post too ?)



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

                  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
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  Tom, These letters are names of closed E-groups which I manage. I don t believe anyone other than myself ever cross-posts to them, or if they do, the
                  Message 8 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tom,

                    These letters are names of closed E-groups which I manage. I don't believe
                    anyone other than myself ever cross-posts to them, or if they do, the
                    cross-postings are not in fact posted, since both lists allow posting by
                    members only. Perhaps more important, the archives of both these lists are
                    closed to the public, so that sharing of content is limited to a controlled
                    membership.

                    GPG is short for "General Philology Group," which is where standard
                    philology gets applied (as carefully as possible) to non-Chinese texts. This
                    is a very small group. WSW, or Warring States Workshop, is my home list,
                    where the same is done with classical Chinese texts. It is larger, more
                    comparable in size to Crosstalk, but again the membership is only by
                    individual approval, and we are confident that scholarly decorum will be
                    maintained, and scholarly expectations met. For rules applying to those
                    groups, see for example

                    http://www.umass.edu/wsp/email/index.html

                    I cross-post some of my Crosstalk responses to GPG in order that they may be
                    available for our small group to discuss further, since not all the members
                    are also members of Crosstalk (though some are). Much more rarely, I
                    cross-post to WSW if there seems to be something of general methodological
                    interest, or something of direct Sinological application. I do not believe
                    that, other than myself, there is any cross-membership between Crosstalk and
                    WSW.

                    In my experience, both the Sinological and the NT worlds prefer to work in
                    isolation, including isolation from each other. I don't think this is a
                    desirable, or even a safe, situation. It would be like a foolproof vehicle
                    avoidance system that only works on Buicks. Some problems that deeply
                    perplex the NT fraternity (like the Parable of the Unjust Steward, as the NT
                    people sometimes call it, or what happens to Acts in Bezae) are transparent
                    to someone of Sinological acquaintance, and vice versa. These cross-postings
                    are one gesture toward bringing the two at least momentarily together.

                    Hope this helps. Best wishes to all, this being the Shortest Day or
                    something like that, a moment of great profundity. Especially to those who
                    know what Yin and Yang are.

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Thomas Kopecek" <kopecekt@...>
                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:17 PM
                    Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: [GPG] On The Term "Christian"


                    Could someone tell me what GPG is? And while that someone--or someone
                    else--is at it, what also is WSW? Some persons on XTalk are forwarding
                    copies of their XTalk posts to some places or other so designated. And now
                    there is even talk of cross posting to GPG.
                  • Bob Schacht
                    ... I find this practice questionable. You get to preach to your choir, but replies to your sermons (to continue the metaphor) are screened out unless the
                    Message 9 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 11:17 AM 12/22/2010, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                      >Tom,
                      >
                      >These letters are names of closed E-groups which I manage. I don't believe
                      >anyone other than myself ever cross-posts to them, or if they do, the
                      >cross-postings are not in fact posted, since both lists allow posting by
                      >members only. Perhaps more important, the archives of both these lists are
                      >closed to the public, so that sharing of content is limited to a controlled
                      >membership.

                      I find this practice questionable. You get to preach to your choir,
                      but replies to your sermons (to continue the metaphor) are screened
                      out unless the respondent is a member of your private group, which
                      gets to see only those portions of the replies you want them to see.

                      I guess the membership of your private groups is self-deprived if
                      they decide not to join XTalk to get the whole picture.

                      Bob Schacht
                      Northern Arizona University


                      >GPG is short for "General Philology Group," which is where standard
                      >philology gets applied (as carefully as possible) to non-Chinese texts. This
                      >is a very small group. WSW, or Warring States Workshop, is my home list,
                      >where the same is done with classical Chinese texts. It is larger, more
                      >comparable in size to Crosstalk, but again the membership is only by
                      >individual approval, and we are confident that scholarly decorum will be
                      >maintained, and scholarly expectations met. For rules applying to those
                      >groups, see for example
                      >
                      >http://www.umass.edu/wsp/email/index.html
                      >
                      >I cross-post some of my Crosstalk responses to GPG in order that they may be
                      >available for our small group to discuss further, since not all the members
                      >are also members of Crosstalk (though some are). Much more rarely, I
                      >cross-post to WSW if there seems to be something of general methodological
                      >interest, or something of direct Sinological application. I do not believe
                      >that, other than myself, there is any cross-membership between Crosstalk and
                      >WSW.
                      >
                      >In my experience, both the Sinological and the NT worlds prefer to work in
                      >isolation, including isolation from each other. I don't think this is a
                      >desirable, or even a safe, situation. It would be like a foolproof vehicle
                      >avoidance system that only works on Buicks. Some problems that deeply
                      >perplex the NT fraternity (like the Parable of the Unjust Steward, as the NT
                      >people sometimes call it, or what happens to Acts in Bezae) are transparent
                      >to someone of Sinological acquaintance, and vice versa. These cross-postings
                      >are one gesture toward bringing the two at least momentarily together.
                      >
                      >Hope this helps. Best wishes to all, this being the Shortest Day or
                      >something like that, a moment of great profundity. Especially to those who
                      >know what Yin and Yang are.
                      >
                      >Bruce
                      >
                      >E Bruce Brooks
                      >Warring States Project
                      >University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                      >
                      >
                      >----- Original Message -----
                      >From: "Thomas Kopecek" <kopecekt@...>
                      >To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                      >Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:17 PM
                      >Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: [GPG] On The Term "Christian"
                      >
                      >
                      >Could someone tell me what GPG is? And while that someone--or someone
                      >else--is at it, what also is WSW? Some persons on XTalk are forwarding
                      >copies of their XTalk posts to some places or other so designated. And now
                      >there is even talk of cross posting to GPG.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >------------------------------------
                      >
                      >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                      >
                      >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • jgibson000@comcast.net
                      ... On top of this, our protocols forbid the cross posting of Xtalk messages unless one has the express permission of the author)s) of the message(s) you are
                      Message 10 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 12/22/2010 1:29 PM, Bob Schacht wrote:
                        > At 11:17 AM 12/22/2010, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                        >
                        >> Tom,
                        >>
                        >> These letters are names of closed E-groups which I manage. I don't believe
                        >> anyone other than myself ever cross-posts to them, or if they do, the
                        >> cross-postings are not in fact posted, since both lists allow posting by
                        >> members only. Perhaps more important, the archives of both these lists are
                        >> closed to the public, so that sharing of content is limited to a controlled
                        >> membership.
                        >>
                        > I find this practice questionable. You get to preach to your choir,
                        > but replies to your sermons (to continue the metaphor) are screened
                        > out unless the respondent is a member of your private group, which
                        > gets to see only those portions of the replies you want them to see.
                        >
                        > I guess the membership of your private groups is self-deprived if
                        > they decide not to join XTalk to get the whole picture.
                        >
                        > Bob Schacht
                        > Northern Arizona University
                        >
                        On top of this, our protocols forbid the cross posting of Xtalk
                        messages unless one has the express permission of the author)s) of the
                        message(s) you are quoting to do so.

                        Jeffrey

                        --
                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                        Chicago, Illinois
                        e-mail jgibson000@...
                      • E Bruce Brooks
                        To: Crosstalk In Response To: Bob Schacht, Jeffrey Gibson On: Cross-Posting From: Bruce To Bob s objections to cross-posting, there are sufficient answers.
                        Message 11 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To: Crosstalk
                          In Response To: Bob Schacht, Jeffrey Gibson
                          On: Cross-Posting
                          From: Bruce

                          To Bob's objections to cross-posting, there are sufficient answers.
                          Jeffrey's is cogent and indeed official:

                          JEFFREY: On top of this, our protocols forbid the cross posting of Xtalk
                          messages unless one has the express permission of the author)s) of the
                          message(s) you are quoting to do so.

                          BRUCE: If so, then so. But could I point out that the protocol is anomalous?
                          There are two kinds of E-lists, the chat kind and the academic kind. Chat
                          need not be defined, but one characteristic is that it is not cumulative; it
                          does not work to a particular end. An academic discussion does tend to work
                          to an end, and the end is usually publication of one kind or another.
                          Academics are supposed to respect each other's right of priority, and thus
                          of first publication, whence it follows that appropriating another's result,
                          or putting it in a place where someone else can appropriate it, is a
                          violation of that understanding. This implies a previous conversation which
                          is itself carried on within academic limits.

                          The trouble with Crosstalk is that despite its self-statement (". . . a
                          moderated, academic e-List dedicated to the scholarly investigation and
                          discussion of critical questions and issues . . . "), it is not carried on
                          within academic limits. Anybody can access its archive, and copy and
                          distribute anything they find there, with or without attribution. Those who
                          doubt this can go to the Crosstalk page and unregister. They will find that
                          they still have access to previous messages. Only members can post, but
                          anybody off the street can get into the archive and read all they want, and
                          do with it what they like. So everyone who posts to Crosstalk is in effect
                          publishing what they say on a very public wall poster. There is no privacy,
                          and thus there can be no realistic expectation of privacy. If instead of
                          crossposting to Y Group, I inform the members of Y group that they can go to
                          the Crosstalk site and access that message for themselves, exactly the same
                          result will be achieved, without anything that can technically be called
                          cross-posting.

                          So the present protocol against cross-posting rests on no previous basis of
                          confidentiality. Everything posted to Crosstalk is cross-posted to the
                          entire electronic community. This is why some of my recent postings, which
                          rightly or otherwise I felt might be useful to myself in future, had a
                          copyright notice at the bottom. This was by way of notice to people off the
                          street, browsing the Crosstalk archive, that at least in this case, "the
                          rights of the author have been asserted."

                          For just these reasons, I had some years ago made the suggestion that the
                          Crosstalk archive be limited to members only. I forget exactly what answer I
                          got, but if I recall aright, it was roughly that it had been considered and
                          rejected. I herewith resubmit that suggestion. Let Crosstalk put its archive
                          money where its protocol mouth is, or else put its protocol mouth in a
                          different place. At present, there is a mismatch.

                          Perhaps it would be useful at this point to hear from other Crosstalk
                          members. Are they aware that the Crosstalk conversation is entirely open to
                          the wider public? And are they comfortable with that arrangement?

                          Bruce

                          E Bruce Brooks
                          Warring States Project
                          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                        • Thomas Kopecek
                          Bruce: Perhaps it would be useful at this point to hear from other Crosstalk members. Are they aware that the Crosstalk conversation is entirely open to the
                          Message 12 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bruce: Perhaps it would be useful at this point to hear from other Crosstalk
                            members. Are they aware that the Crosstalk conversation is entirely open to
                            the wider public? And are they comfortable with that arrangement?

                            Tom: I wasn't aware that the archived posts were 'open' to the universe. I suppose that at present I don't mind, for I don't plan to publish anything in the area of the first two centuries AD before I pass to my 'punishment', as it were. But, who knows? If my health improves, I might try to put some pieces together for publication, and then I might like to use some of my posts on Crosstalk and would appreciate them not having been available previously to those who don't 'play by scholarly rules'.

                            In sum, I'm ambivalent. Big help, right? :-)

                            I hope other XTalkers give their opinions on this important topic.

                            Tom


                            _____
                            Thomas A. Kopecek, Ph.D. (Brown)
                            Professor Emeritus of Religion & History
                            Central College, Pella, Iowa 50219
                            kopecekt@...

                            Home Address:
                            1536 Elk Horn Drive
                            Otley, Iowa 50214-8513





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • David C Hindley
                            Tom, Crosstalk2 messages have always been open to non-members to browse, although the privilege of posting is reserved for members. If I remember correctly
                            Message 13 of 27 , Dec 22, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Tom,

                              Crosstalk2 messages have always been open to non-members to browse, although the
                              privilege of posting is reserved for members. If I remember correctly (there is
                              a statement of purpose on the group's home page), the group exists not only to
                              facilitate the open discussion of issues related to the study of early
                              Christianity among scholars within the academic fold, but also allow interchange
                              with non-academics who can and will adhere to the same standards of historical
                              critical criticism. My general impression is that the mix of active members
                              (that is, those who post as opposed to the vast majority who merely lurk) are
                              67% academics/graduate students and 33% non-academics.

                              Other lists that dwell on these subjects, including some that are not
                              academically oriented, do restrict browsing rights to members only. Reasons for
                              this may be unwillingness to be "labeled" on account of having expressed
                              positions that might be construed by employers or fellow workers or family as
                              inappropriate or forbidden or even in violation of some sort of
                              written/unwritten code of ethical behavior, justified or not.

                              If I understand Bruce rightly, he might state something on Crosstalk2 that he
                              considers relevant to one of his members-only lists, and that is fine, except
                              the posts frequently contain backquotes from other list members. Based on what I
                              have seen done in the past, the group's policy (and this is similar to the
                              policy of most all groups I have seen) is to require that whenever content in a
                              post is to be disseminated to another forum, and it quotes something posted by
                              another member, that member must give off-list approval before it can be further
                              disseminated, and even then the disseminated post should expressly state that
                              fact. Quotes from *published* materials, on the other hand, are subject to fair
                              use provisions of copyright law.

                              The reason is this: once something a member has said is quoted in a post sent to
                              another forum in which a fellow member does not participate, s/he no longer has
                              control over the context in which that quote is presented. No one wants his/her
                              words twisted around or nuanced positions misrepresented as promotion of an
                              agenda. And just because the members of the other group are professional
                              academics who should "know" how to look at a subject without bias and with
                              rigor, things can and do get misinterpreted and misrepresented, especially when
                              you are not there to police the discussion of your ideas. For example, an
                              admiration for the communal organization of the earliest followers of Jesus as
                              presented in Acts may end up being interpreted as your endorsement of Communism.
                              Whoa!

                              This kind of further dissemination, with permission, is not the same as cross
                              posting! For this reason, cross posting generally tends to be restricted to
                              announcements (like the SBL e-list gatherings, or the publication of a book,
                              etc) or initial statements of inquiry or sometimes a considered position for
                              which a member seeks the input of others. Even then, the poster often
                              "apologizes" for posting the message on multiple lists, so it is not construed
                              as spamming.

                              Respectfully,

                              Dave Hindley
                              Newton Falls, Ohio USA


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                              Of Thomas Kopecek
                              Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:45 PM
                              To: 'crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com'
                              Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: cross-posting to private groups

                              Bruce: Perhaps it would be useful at this point to hear from other Crosstalk
                              members. Are they aware that the Crosstalk conversation is entirely open to the
                              wider public? And are they comfortable with that arrangement?

                              Tom: I wasn't aware that the archived posts were 'open' to the universe. I
                              suppose that at present I don't mind, for I don't plan to publish anything in
                              the area of the first two centuries AD before I pass to my 'punishment', as it
                              were. But, who knows? If my health improves, I might try to put some pieces
                              together for publication, and then I might like to use some of my posts on
                              Crosstalk and would appreciate them not having been available previously to
                              those who don't 'play by scholarly rules'.

                              In sum, I'm ambivalent. Big help, right? :-)

                              I hope other XTalkers give their opinions on this important topic.

                              Tom


                              _____
                              Thomas A. Kopecek, Ph.D. (Brown)
                              Professor Emeritus of Religion & History Central College, Pella, Iowa 50219
                              kopecekt@...

                              Home Address:
                              1536 Elk Horn Drive
                              Otley, Iowa 50214-8513





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



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

                              The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                              To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                              To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                              List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                            • E Bruce Brooks
                              To: Crosstalk In Response To: David Hindley On: Cross-Posting From: Bruce I had earlier suggested that closed membership combined with open archive (as is
                              Message 14 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To: Crosstalk
                                In Response To: David Hindley
                                On: Cross-Posting
                                From: Bruce

                                I had earlier suggested that closed membership combined with open archive
                                (as is currently the case with Crosstalk) was anomalous. David's recent
                                comment allows me to point to where, as it seems to me, the anomaly lies.

                                DAVID: If I remember correctly (there is a statement of purpose on the
                                group's home page), the group exists not only to facilitate the open
                                discussion of issues related to the study of early Christianity among
                                scholars within the academic fold,

                                BRUCE: "open discussion" is not the same as a closed discussion "within the
                                academic fold." A sheepfold implies a door, which (as Jesus somewhere says)
                                only the shepherd can enter. An open discussion, such as we presently have,
                                includes any academics and nonacademics who happen to be passing by the open
                                archive window. They are not selected, and not selectable, and they are not
                                necessarily committed to the principles and expectations of the list. Not
                                that they can reply to what is posted, but they can listen to it, take it,
                                and use it as they like.

                                DAVID: . . . but also allow interchange with non-academics who can and will
                                adhere to the same standards of historical critical criticism.

                                BRUCE: But how are these to be selected from the general run of passersby?
                                The only answer is, by limiting membership to those who accept those
                                standards (as is presently required), and then by limiting discussion to
                                that membership. The membership selection is already in place. The next
                                step, it seems to me, is the corresponding privacy of the archive.

                                This would be true for any academic list. It seems to me all the more
                                needful for an NT list, where the historical-critical approach has often
                                been found to be disturbing, offensive, or whatever to those coming from a
                                different background, or adhering to a different set of procedures and
                                priorities.

                                Probably the interests as well as the comfort and convenience of both
                                publics is best served by keeping them separate.

                                What would happen, for instance, if some member of the extreme evangelical
                                public (if that is the right term for the people I have in mind) saw
                                something in the Crosstalk archive, copied it to a website of their own and
                                highlighted it as an example of the vile things that are going on in academe
                                today? Complete with the original poster's name, institution, and E-mail
                                address? As some will know, this has actually happened to classroom
                                teachers. And all of these personal details are freely available (and the
                                rules for posting on Crosstalk require them to be present on each posting)
                                in the present open archive.

                                That scenario is perhaps not likely to occur next Tuesday, but the risk
                                should not be minimized. I could tell some horror stories from the
                                Indological field, where the same tension between scholarship and the larger
                                public exists, complete with destruction of buildings in India and hacking
                                of computers in other countries. Why invite those possibilities? On Tuesday
                                or any other day? The problem with Tuesdays is that the universe has an
                                infinite supply of them.

                                Bruce

                                E Bruce Brooks
                                Warring States Project
                                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                              • David Mealand
                                David Hindley wrote ... I agree. Also, even without cross posting, it would be good if a little more care were taken to ensure that the quoting and replying
                                Message 15 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  David Hindley wrote
                                  >
                                  > The reason is this: once something a member has said is quoted in a
                                  > post sent to
                                  > another forum in which a fellow member does not participate, s/he no
                                  > longer has
                                  > control over the context in which that quote is presented. No one
                                  > wants his/her
                                  > words twisted around or nuanced positions misrepresented ...
                                  >

                                  I agree. Also, even without cross posting, it would be good if a
                                  little more care were taken to ensure that the quoting and replying
                                  technique replies to what was said rather than its opposite.

                                  I can see that this matters more to those still in academic posts
                                  - I am retired and if I get fed up with being misconstrued I have
                                  plenty of other things to get on with elsewhere.

                                  David M.



                                  ---------
                                  David Mealand, University of Edinburgh




                                  ------

                                  --
                                  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                • Jack Kilmon
                                  ... From: David C Hindley Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 8:52 PM To: Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re:
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --------------------------------------------------
                                    From: "David C Hindley" <dhindley@...>
                                    Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 8:52 PM
                                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: cross-posting to private groups

                                    > Tom,
                                    >
                                    > Crosstalk2 messages have always been open to non-members to browse,
                                    > although the
                                    > privilege of posting is reserved for members. If I remember correctly
                                    > (there is
                                    > a statement of purpose on the group's home page), the group exists not
                                    > only to
                                    > facilitate the open discussion of issues related to the study of early
                                    > Christianity among scholars within the academic fold, but also allow
                                    > interchange
                                    > with non-academics who can and will adhere to the same standards of
                                    > historical
                                    > critical criticism. My general impression is that the mix of active
                                    > members
                                    > (that is, those who post as opposed to the vast majority who merely lurk)
                                    > are
                                    > 67% academics/graduate students and 33% non-academics.


                                    Not to mention one non-academic co-moderator.

                                    Jack

                                    Jack Kilmon
                                    San Antonio, TX
                                  • Thomas Kopecek
                                    When I was looking around for e-lists to join after a decade of not having the time to spend on them, I found I was frustrated by lists like, say, Biblical
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      When I was looking around for e-lists to join after a decade of not having the time to spend on them, I found I was frustrated by lists like, say, Biblical Studies, another Yahoo list. Unlike XTalk, its archives are available only to members. Hence, I had to join before I could see what kind of discussions the list members were carrying on. I found that to be an irritant. XTalk, of course, was different. Consequently, there are arguments for both leaving the archives open and, as has been said, making them available only to list members.

                                      Cross-posting to other groups is yet another matter, though, as Bruce points out, with an open archive, it hardly matters.

                                      Tom

                                      ________________
                                      Thomas A. Kopecek
                                      1536 Elk Horn Drive
                                      Otley, Iowa 50214-8513
                                      kopecekt@...
                                    • David C. Hindley
                                      Tom, It is true that one can find a quote from an Crosstalk2 discussion posted on another list, but most moderators of moderated groups discourage this, and
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Tom,

                                        It is true that one can find a quote from an Crosstalk2 discussion posted on another list, but most moderators of moderated groups discourage this, and prefer that the person who wants to bring someone else's statements into their group's discussion, they should summarize the other person's statement and post a link to the message (if possible). On other more popular oriented lists I belong to, I frequently post links to Crosstalk2 discussions when they start a topic on something I know has been discussed here. I do not think I have ever seen any of those discussions quoted.

                                        In the case of a closed archive, that option is not available. The person who wants to quote a message from Crosstalk2, must get the original author's permission. I rarely ever do this, although I have occasionally asked for permission to post a private message from an academic I have corresponded with (so far, only Steve Mason, David Trobisch, and Robert Eisenman). Folks like these, however, have a corpus of published books or articles which can be cited in support.

                                        The other option for them, when faced with a closed list, is to actually follow up on the info posted and check the sources (bible, pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, whatever) and the strength of the positions cited (go to the library, check out the book cited, and read the relevant passages yourself). On popular lists, even those with pretensions of methodological care, this latter option is as rare as a unicorn in your back yard. The bad part of a closed list is that your position is paraphrased, with all the twisting and misinterpretations that go with paraphrases, without the ability of interested readers checking it out for themselves.

                                        Dave Hindley
                                        Amateur history buff
                                        BA Psychology (Ohio State Univ.)
                                        Newton Falls, Ohio, USA


                                        --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Kopecek <kopecekt@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > When I was looking around for e-lists to join after a decade of not having the time to spend on them, I found I was frustrated by lists like, say, Biblical Studies, another Yahoo list. Unlike XTalk, its archives are available only to members. Hence, I had to join before I could see what kind of discussions the list members were carrying on. I found that to be an irritant. XTalk, of course, was different. Consequently, there are arguments for both leaving the archives open and, as has been said, making them available only to list members.
                                        >
                                        > Cross-posting to other groups is yet another matter, though, as Bruce points out, with an open archive, it hardly matters.
                                        >
                                        > Tom
                                        >
                                        > ________________
                                        > Thomas A. Kopecek
                                        > 1536 Elk Horn Drive
                                        > Otley, Iowa 50214-8513
                                        > kopecekt@...
                                        >
                                      • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          <<BRUCE: Didache incorporates an earlier document, the Two Ways. The Two
                                          Ways
                                          is simply a tract about personal conduct: things that will get you to
                                          Heaven
                                          (or Hell) if you do them. Nothing simpler or more elementary could be
                                          imagined. That same tract is also incorporated (though in rearranged form)
                                          into the much later Epistle of Barnabas (2c), which shows its separate and
                                          indeed rather durable nature (Barnabas did not copy it from the Didache,
                                          since Barnabas is unaware of some adjustments which were made to it in
                                          Didache context). >>

                                          Is the Two Ways Document online anywhere? It isn't linked from your page.

                                          Regards,

                                          Robert Brenchley
                                          Birmingham UK


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            <<BRUCE: Indeed, though somewhat to my surprise (we learn by doing, and we
                                            learn especially fast be getting it wrong the first time), the Alphas seem
                                            to have been able to go a long way in the divinization line, as witness
                                            the
                                            Philippians hymn, without changing their idea of how Jesus, human or
                                            divine,
                                            related to their personal salvation. A divinized rabbi is still a rabbi
                                            (which of course is one of the ways people address Jesus in Mark). Just
                                            as,
                                            for some Jews including some Jesus converts among Jews, a divinized Moses
                                            (see the Assumption of Moses) is still a lawgiver, and not a god.

                                            E Bruce Brooks
                                            Warring States Project
                                            University of Massachusetts at Amherst>>

                                            Perhaps not so surprising; isn't it a case of Jesus being interpreted as
                                            something like the 'Ancient of Days' of Daniel 7, or Melchisedek in 11Q13? As
                                            I suggested before, I think there's an angel christology behind a lot of
                                            this.

                                            Regards,

                                            Robert Brenchley
                                            Birmingham UK


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Thomas Kopecek
                                            As I recall, a Two Ways document or, perhaps, oral tradition used independently by Didache and Barnabas must be reconstructed from the latter two documents.
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              As I recall, a 'Two Ways' document or, perhaps, oral tradition used independently by Didache and Barnabas must be reconstructed from the latter two documents. The two are available, of course, online.

                                              The old but reasonably accurate ANF translation of Barnabas is available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.html .

                                              The ANF translation of the Didache can be found at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.viii.html. I happen to like it because its footnotes refer to the Apostolic Constitutions of the latter half of the 4th century, which is a sprawling text that I worked on for a number of years for a variety of reasons.

                                              There are undoubtedly newer translations of both, but I've found that new is not always better.

                                              Michael Holmes in his edition of the Greek text and translation of the Apostolic Fathers refers to a discussion of the 'common source' for the two ways in Didache and Barnabas in Robert Kraft's translation of the two documents (I can't recall offhand either the title or the date of Kraft's work, but the discussion is in the Introduction, so my notes, see pp. 4-16). More recently, however, there is a pertinent discussion in The Journal for the Study of the NT (1995), pp. 89-113, by A. Draper titled "Barnabas and the Riddle of the Didache Revisted."

                                              HTH, Tom

                                              ________________
                                              Thomas A. Kopecek
                                              1536 Elk Horn Drive
                                              Otley, Iowa 50214-8513
                                              kopecekt@...


                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of RSBrenchley@...
                                              Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:45 AM
                                              To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: [XTalk] Re: [GPG] On The Term "Christian"

                                              <<BRUCE: Didache incorporates an earlier document, the Two Ways. The Two
                                              Ways
                                              is simply a tract about personal conduct: things that will get you to
                                              Heaven
                                              (or Hell) if you do them. Nothing simpler or more elementary could be
                                              imagined. That same tract is also incorporated (though in rearranged form)
                                              into the much later Epistle of Barnabas (2c), which shows its separate and
                                              indeed rather durable nature (Barnabas did not copy it from the Didache,
                                              since Barnabas is unaware of some adjustments which were made to it in
                                              Didache context). >>

                                              Is the Two Ways Document online anywhere? It isn't linked from your page.

                                              Regards,

                                              Robert Brenchley
                                              Birmingham UK
                                            • David C. Hindley
                                              Not really online anywhere, as this is a somewhat hypothetical document, more of a traditional model by which ethics is presented to students. Such a
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Not really online anywhere, as this is a somewhat hypothetical document, more of a traditional model by which ethics is presented to students. Such a "Two-Ways" Ur-document was proposed around the turn of the 20th century on the basis if similarities between sections of the Didache and Epistle of Barnabas. These two were determined to be independent of one another (one did not seem to be derived from the other), so proposing a common source or tradition made sense.

                                                Later, among Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls recovered from the Dead Sea region, was found 1QSerekh, commonly known as the Community Rule. Chapters 3:13 - 4:26 contain a version of Two-Way teaching. There are also similar sections in other scrolls and fragments from cave 1, 4 & 5. Since this version did not seem to be the direct source for Didache and Barnabas versions, it is yet another example of Two-Ways treaching technique.

                                                Maybe it is best to look at it as a technique that was popular among Jewish sectarians as well as early Christians.

                                                David C Hindley
                                                Newton Falls, Ohio, USA

                                                --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, RSBrenchley@... wrote:
                                                >
                                                ><<BRUCE: Didache incorporates an earlier document, the Two Ways. The Two Ways is simply a tract about personal conduct: things that will get you to Heaven (or Hell) if you do them. Nothing simpler or more elementary could be imagined. That same tract is also incorporated (though in rearranged form) into the much later Epistle of Barnabas (2c), which shows its separate and indeed rather durable nature (Barnabas did not copy it from the Didache, since Barnabas is unaware of some adjustments which were made to it in Didache context). >>

                                                Is the Two Ways Document online anywhere? It isn't linked from your page.

                                                Regards,

                                                Robert Brenchley
                                                Birmingham UK
                                              • E Bruce Brooks
                                                To: Crosstalk In Response To: Robert Brenchley On: Two Ways From: Bruce Robert noted that the Two Ways Document isn t presently linked from our Alpha
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Dec 23, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  To: Crosstalk
                                                  In Response To: Robert Brenchley
                                                  On: Two Ways
                                                  From: Bruce

                                                  Robert noted that the Two Ways Document isn't presently linked from our
                                                  Alpha Christianity page.

                                                  It should first be said that there are online copies here and there; I can't
                                                  speak to their adequacy. That and a lot else, essential to the picture of
                                                  Alpha Christianity (as I see it) isn't presently on or linked from the Alpha
                                                  Christianity page. That page is inadequate to its current purpose; it was
                                                  meant as background for an SBL session, and not as a general acquaintance
                                                  portal. I am working to convert it, but making an adequate web site is a lot
                                                  like writing an adequate book, and the time to do either isn't available to
                                                  me just now.

                                                  As far as that goes, I am attempting to clean up and refurbish the whole
                                                  Biblica section of the Project site (much of it has been de-linked pending
                                                  that cleanup; better nothing than something outdated). It's a slow process,
                                                  not least because I am still finding things out. But such as it may
                                                  currently be, the main page of Biblica is available at

                                                  http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html

                                                  Those interested in some point of our evolving picture of things NT are
                                                  welcome to mention it (there is a mail link on each page of the site), and
                                                  we will try to put that page on top of the stack of things to do, or redo.

                                                  We also have a professional information channel, which is the Project's
                                                  journal. It deals mostly with classical China (our home area), but there is
                                                  also a certain amount of NT material as well (plus, in future issues, a
                                                  little Homeric material, and a smattering of Indica). The TOC of the first
                                                  issue is at:

                                                  http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html

                                                  Articles on Non-Sinological subjects are at the end of each section, for the
                                                  convenience of all concerned.

                                                  Libraries can place a standing order with their jobber (there aren't
                                                  subscriptions in the usual sense of the word). The Sinological articles
                                                  often have matter of interest to students of NT, especially the Second Tier
                                                  Gospels, even if this (like the Indian input into the Gospel of John, noted
                                                  in several articles byt Derrett in JBL) isn't widely recognized among
                                                  scholars. It used to be (see any early 20c commentary on the Lukan Sermon on
                                                  the Plain), but that was then, and this is now. There will be an article
                                                  soon (hopefully in v2, but we shall see) about the Golden Role as it looks
                                                  from the other end of the Silk Road cultural pipeline. Stuff like that. Not
                                                  surprisingly, this is one of the details that bear on the Q problem.

                                                  Another channel to the journal, to our book (The Emergence of China) about
                                                  the general intellectual history of the Chinese classical period, and
                                                  anything else one might want fot the NT shelf of the well-stocked home, is
                                                  available via the Project's link to Amazon:

                                                  http://www.umass.edu/wsp/reference/books/bookshop.html

                                                  As that page notes, the Project benefits from sales (of any item) made via
                                                  that link. The results to go help support our student assistants. The price
                                                  to the viewer is not increased.

                                                  Enjoy.

                                                  Bruce

                                                  E Bruce Brooks
                                                  Warring States Project
                                                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                                • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Dec 25, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    <<Robert noted that the Two Ways Document isn't presently linked from our
                                                    Alpha Christianity page.

                                                    It should first be said that there are online copies here and there; I
                                                    can't
                                                    speak to their adequacy. That and a lot else, essential to the picture of
                                                    Alpha Christianity (as I see it) isn't presently on or linked from the
                                                    Alpha
                                                    Christianity page. That page is inadequate to its current purpose; it was
                                                    meant as background for an SBL session, and not as a general acquaintance
                                                    portal. I am working to convert it, but making an adequate web site is a
                                                    lot
                                                    like writing an adequate book, and the time to do either isn't available
                                                    to
                                                    me just now.>>

                                                    That's a pity because, while I obviously can go back to the original
                                                    documents - and would if I had your document to work with - the danger is that
                                                    if I start from them I may end up somewhere different to you. I don't want to
                                                    be at cross purposes.


                                                    Regards,

                                                    Robert Brenchley
                                                    Birmingham UK


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Karel Hanhart
                                                    EF wrote EF : Why taking a latin construction in that case ? As far as I lnow, christian is the unique instance in the NT of such a latin construction for a
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Dec 28, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      EF wrote

                                                      EF : Why taking a latin construction in that case ? As far as I lnow,
                                                      "christian" is the unique instance in the NT of such a latin
                                                      construction for a social group designation.
                                                      "
                                                      However, there is a second instance "Herodianoi"in Mark 6,3. Here it is also unique. To me christianoi ishas a derogatory meaning of "softies" or "wishy washy", Followers of the Way, who were taught "to love your enemy" - were regarded by fellow Judeans as "wishy washy" or "soft on the Romans. Incidentaslly to love one's enemy is a paradox - it is very hard to put into practice.

                                                      cordially,

                                                      Karel Hanhart



                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      From: Emmanuel Fritsch
                                                      To: gpg@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Cc: Crosstalk
                                                      Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:18 PM
                                                      Subject: [XTalk] Re: [GPG] On The Term "Christian"

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