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

Re: [XTalk] Easter Greeting

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... This morning, one of the readings was from Acts 10:34-43, which portrays Peter saying, That message spread throughout Judea[!], beginning in Galilee[!]
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 8, 2012
      At 09:50 AM 4/8/2012, John E Staton wrote:
      >A happy Easter to all listmembers.

      This morning, one of the readings was from Acts 10:34-43, which
      portrays Peter saying, "That message spread throughout Judea[!],
      beginning in Galilee[!] after the baptism that John announced..."

      Does that strike anyone else as odd? I thought I had recalled that
      Luke/Acts said that the ripples emanated from Jerusalem. But even
      more, saying that the message began in Galilee and spread throughout
      Judea makes it sound like Galilee is in Judea. Also, John's baptism
      is not connected with Jesus, but with an announcement. And I'm not
      sure I understand the "spreading throughout Judea" thing. The Gospels
      don't seem to spend much time on that-- or what am I forgetting?

      Happy Easter,
      Bob Schacht
      Northern Arizona University

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Goffin
      Bob, I think that beginning in Galilee could well be a later insertion like Mk 14:28 & 16:7, not to mention the whole of John 21. To my mind, after Peter s
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
        Bob,
        I think that 'beginning in Galilee' could well be a later insertion like Mk 14:28 & 16:7, not to mention the whole of John 21. To my mind, after Peter's death, there was a movement among some early Christians away from Paul & his views back to those of Peter who was preeminent in Galilee. His prestige was obviously considerable, leading to his name being taken pseudepigraphically in the epistles.
        Dennis

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

        Dennis Goffin

        Chorleywood UK


        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        From: r_schacht@...
        Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:42:08 -0700
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Easter Greeting




























        At 09:50 AM 4/8/2012, John E Staton wrote:

        >A happy Easter to all listmembers.



        This morning, one of the readings was from Acts 10:34-43, which

        portrays Peter saying, "That message spread throughout Judea[!],

        beginning in Galilee[!] after the baptism that John announced..."



        Does that strike anyone else as odd? I thought I had recalled that

        Luke/Acts said that the ripples emanated from Jerusalem. But even

        more, saying that the message began in Galilee and spread throughout

        Judea makes it sound like Galilee is in Judea. Also, John's baptism

        is not connected with Jesus, but with an announcement. And I'm not

        sure I understand the "spreading throughout Judea" thing. The Gospels

        don't seem to spend much time on that-- or what am I forgetting?



        Happy Easter,

        Bob Schacht

        Northern Arizona University



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



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • johnestaton
        Bob, The words you refer to in Acts 10 refer to Jesus preaching before his passion, Acts 1:8 refers to the preaching of the church post-Pentecost. After the
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
          Bob,
          The words you refer to in Acts 10 refer to Jesus' preaching before his passion, Acts 1:8 refers to the preaching of the church post-Pentecost. "After the baptism that John announced" shows the earthly ministry of Jesus is intended. This did start in Galilee and spread to Judea. The gospels don't make much of this, except for John, but incidents such as the provision of the colt for Palm Sunday and the upper room for the Last Supper suggest Jesus had friends in Jerusalem, and that would in turn suggest the message about Jesus had spread there too. There is actually no foundation for the scholarly assumption that Jesus did not visit Jerusalem until the last week in his life, or that his ministry lasted just a year. This is an impression given by the gospel writers' literary imperative of getting to the events of the Passion as soon as possible. John's idea of. 3-year ministry with multiple visits to Jerusalem is more credible, even if he has moved the cleansing of the temple narrative for his own literary purposes.
          Though whether the writer of Acts envisages Galilee as being in Judea is a moot point. He could just be saying the message spread from Galilee to Judea in a clumsy manner.

          Best Wishes

          John E Staton

          --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
          >
          > At 09:50 AM 4/8/2012, John E Staton wrote:
          > >A happy Easter to all listmembers.
          >
          > This morning, one of the readings was from Acts 10:34-43, which
          > portrays Peter saying, "That message spread throughout Judea[!],
          > beginning in Galilee[!] after the baptism that John announced..."
          >
          > Does that strike anyone else as odd? I thought I had recalled that
          > Luke/Acts said that the ripples emanated from Jerusalem. But even
          > more, saying that the message began in Galilee and spread throughout
          > Judea makes it sound like Galilee is in Judea. Also, John's baptism
          > is not connected with Jesus, but with an announcement. And I'm not
          > sure I understand the "spreading throughout Judea" thing. The Gospels
          > don't seem to spend much time on that-- or what am I forgetting?
          >
          > Happy Easter,
          > Bob Schacht
          > Northern Arizona University
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Stephen Goranson
          Whatever the writer s intention, Galilee is in some uses part of the land of the Jews, a greater Judaea including Judaea proper, Galilee and Peraea. Stephen
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
            Whatever the writer's intention, Galilee is in some uses part of the land of the Jews, a greater Judaea including Judaea proper, Galilee and Peraea.

            Stephen Goranson
            http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
            ________________________________
            From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of johnestaton [john.staton@...]
            Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 5:54 AM
            To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [XTalk] Re: Easter Greeting



            Bob,
            The words you refer to in Acts 10 refer to Jesus' preaching before his passion, Acts 1:8 refers to the preaching of the church post-Pentecost. "After the baptism that John announced" shows the earthly ministry of Jesus is intended. This did start in Galilee and spread to Judea. The gospels don't make much of this, except for John, but incidents such as the provision of the colt for Palm Sunday and the upper room for the Last Supper suggest Jesus had friends in Jerusalem, and that would in turn suggest the message about Jesus had spread there too. There is actually no foundation for the scholarly assumption that Jesus did not visit Jerusalem until the last week in his life, or that his ministry lasted just a year. This is an impression given by the gospel writers' literary imperative of getting to the events of the Passion as soon as possible. John's idea of. 3-year ministry with multiple visits to Jerusalem is more credible, even if he has moved the cleansing of the temple narrative for his own literary purposes.
            Though whether the writer of Acts envisages Galilee as being in Judea is a moot point. He could just be saying the message spread from Galilee to Judea in a clumsy manner.

            Best Wishes

            John E Staton

            --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com<mailto:crosstalk2%40yahoogroups.com>, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
            >
            > At 09:50 AM 4/8/2012, John E Staton wrote:
            > >A happy Easter to all listmembers.
            >
            > This morning, one of the readings was from Acts 10:34-43, which
            > portrays Peter saying, "That message spread throughout Judea[!],
            > beginning in Galilee[!] after the baptism that John announced..."
            >
            > Does that strike anyone else as odd? I thought I had recalled that
            > Luke/Acts said that the ripples emanated from Jerusalem. But even
            > more, saying that the message began in Galilee and spread throughout
            > Judea makes it sound like Galilee is in Judea. Also, John's baptism
            > is not connected with Jesus, but with an announcement. And I'm not
            > sure I understand the "spreading throughout Judea" thing. The Gospels
            > don't seem to spend much time on that-- or what am I forgetting?
            >
            > Happy Easter,
            > Bob Schacht
            > Northern Arizona University
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Matson, Mark (Academic)
            Yes, John has it right I think. This is meant to be a summary of proclamation of the word , (by which I think Luke means activity of Jesus ministry -- not
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
              Yes, John has it right I think. This is meant to be a summary of "proclamation of the word", (by which I think Luke means activity of Jesus' ministry -- not so much his preaching as the totality of his ministry is "the good news of peace / the message (rhma)), which began after John's baptism in Galilee and proceeded to the "entire region of Judea". Here Judea I think might mean the area inhabited by the "jews" (just like John has Ioudaioi in outside of Judea as well). So it is somewhat of a synechdoche, thus the "whole of Judea" is simply a figure of speech.

              I am interested in the way Luke tells the story in a way that seems to implicate John's emphasis on Judea, another John-Luke point in common. Of course Luke's travel narrative has no specific geographical points, and might be assumed by Luke to include "all of Judea".

              mark

              Mark A. Matson
              Milligan College
              http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
              ________________________________________
              From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of johnestaton [john.staton@...]
              Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 5:54 AM
              To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [XTalk] Re: Easter Greeting

              Bob,
              The words you refer to in Acts 10 refer to Jesus' preaching before his passion, Acts 1:8 refers to the preaching of the church post-Pentecost. "After the baptism that John announced" shows the earthly ministry of Jesus is intended. This did start in Galilee and spread to Judea. The gospels don't make much of this, except for John, but incidents such as the provision of the colt for Palm Sunday and the upper room for the Last Supper suggest Jesus had friends in Jerusalem, and that would in turn suggest the message about Jesus had spread there too. There is actually no foundation for the scholarly assumption that Jesus did not visit Jerusalem until the last week in his life, or that his ministry lasted just a year. This is an impression given by the gospel writers' literary imperative of getting to the events of the Passion as soon as possible. John's idea of. 3-year ministry with multiple visits to Jerusalem is more credible, even if he has moved the cleansing of the temple narrative for his own literary purposes.
              Though whether the writer of Acts envisages Galilee as being in Judea is a moot point. He could just be saying the message spread from Galilee to Judea in a clumsy manner.

              Best Wishes

              John E Staton

              --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
              >
              > At 09:50 AM 4/8/2012, John E Staton wrote:
              > >A happy Easter to all listmembers.
              >
              > This morning, one of the readings was from Acts 10:34-43, which
              > portrays Peter saying, "That message spread throughout Judea[!],
              > beginning in Galilee[!] after the baptism that John announced..."
              >
              > Does that strike anyone else as odd? I thought I had recalled that
              > Luke/Acts said that the ripples emanated from Jerusalem. But even
              > more, saying that the message began in Galilee and spread throughout
              > Judea makes it sound like Galilee is in Judea. Also, John's baptism
              > is not connected with Jesus, but with an announcement. And I'm not
              > sure I understand the "spreading throughout Judea" thing. The Gospels
              > don't seem to spend much time on that-- or what am I forgetting?
              >
              > Happy Easter,
              > Bob Schacht
              > Northern Arizona University
              >
              > [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



              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Bob Schacht
              ... I am aware that the underlying Greek term is ambiguous, but the way it is presented to us in translation specifies the geographic and political unit that
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
                At 03:17 AM 4/9/2012, Stephen Goranson wrote:
                >Whatever the writer's intention, Galilee is in some uses part of the
                >land of the Jews, a greater Judaea including Judaea proper, Galilee and Peraea.

                I am aware that the underlying Greek term is ambiguous, but the way
                it is presented to us in translation specifies the geographic and
                political unit that did not include Galilee. If the reference was to
                the "Jewish world" or some such, why don't the translators say so? Or
                maybe not capitalize "judea". How would the first century
                reader/hearer have understood this sentence? Is this a translation
                issue, because it is just difficult to convey in English the
                ambiguity in the Greek?

                Bob Schacht
                Northern Arizona University

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Bob Schacht
                ... Yes, I think you & John are right; I was conflating the spread of the good news during Jesus lifetime with what happened after his ascension. That is a
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
                  At 07:20 AM 4/9/2012, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:
                  >Yes, John has it right I think. This is meant to be a summary of
                  >"proclamation of the word", (by which I think Luke means activity of
                  >Jesus' ministry -- not so much his preaching as the totality of his
                  >ministry is "the good news of peace / the message (rhma)), which
                  >began after John's baptism in Galilee and proceeded to the "entire
                  >region of Judea".

                  Yes, I think you & John are right; I was conflating the spread of the
                  good news during Jesus' lifetime with what happened after his
                  ascension. That is a helpful distinction, and I'm sorry that I missed it.

                  > Here Judea I think might mean the area inhabited by the "jews"
                  > (just like John has Ioudaioi in outside of Judea as well).

                  I was thinking of this as well. But was John really referring to Jews
                  in general, or was he sometimes quite intentionally restricting his
                  focus to the inhabitants of the Roman province of Judea? This is an
                  important distinction, because understanding Ioudaioi everywhere in
                  GJohn as Jews in general, rather than inhabitants of Judea, has been
                  the basis of Christian Jew-bashing for centuries. But I suppose this
                  takes us beyond the scope of this list.

                  > So it is somewhat of a synechdoche, thus the "whole of Judea" is
                  > simply a figure of speech.
                  >
                  >I am interested in the way Luke tells the story in a way that seems
                  >to implicate John's emphasis on Judea, another John-Luke point in
                  >common. Of course Luke's travel narrative has no specific
                  >geographical points, and might be assumed by Luke to include "all of Judea".

                  An interesting point. Thanks.

                  Bob Schacht
                  Northern Arizona University

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • David Mealand
                  I think the relation between Galilee and Judah changed several times. Galilee was annexed by Judah at least by the time of Alexander Jannaeus. After the end
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
                    I think the relation between Galilee and Judah changed
                    several times. Galilee was annexed by Judah at least
                    by the time of Alexander Jannaeus. After the end of the
                    Hasmonaean rule Herod ruled the whole territory as a
                    client king subordinate to Rome. After his death Galilee
                    was split off again, and given to Antipas as part of his tetrarchy.
                    So around 4 BCE to 41 CE Galilee was separately ruled, as were
                    some other areas.

                    Later on Herod Agrippa was well in, first with Gaius, then
                    with Claudius, and was given, first one of the tetrarchies
                    then Galilee, then Judaea and Samaria. But when Herod Agrippa
                    died Galilee went under direct Roman rule along with much of
                    the rest, though later again (c.61 CE) his son Agrippa II did
                    get some of Galilee.

                    So whether someone "should have" described Galilee as part of Judah
                    would depend partly on the time written about, and partly on the
                    time of writing, in order to be correct politically (as opposed to
                    being politically correct). On the other hand popular usage
                    might have been looser, but given the shifting pattern above
                    it might be hard to decide if someone is being loose, or being
                    correct either with reference to their own period, or to the period
                    described.

                    So all this may clarify some things but make others more murky.

                    David M.


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


                    --
                    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                  • Bob Schacht
                    Thanks to Mark (previous email) and David (below) for their helpful comments. To add another complexity regarding the scope of who was Jewish, I suspect that
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 9, 2012
                      Thanks to Mark (previous email) and David (below) for their helpful comments.
                      To add another complexity regarding the scope of who was Jewish, I
                      suspect that the scope differed depending on whether or not you were
                      a resident of Judea. That is, Judeans might have reserved that label
                      for themselves, especially before 70 AD (viz. John 1:46), whereas
                      Samaritans and Galileans might have chosen to identify themselves as
                      Ioudaioi in the larger sense.

                      Also, would Antipas have used the term Ioudaioi in reference to his
                      own citizens?

                      Is Josephus ambiguous in the same way?

                      Bob Schacht
                      Northern Arizona University

                      At 09:54 AM 4/9/2012, David Mealand wrote:

                      >I think the relation between Galilee and Judah changed
                      >several times. Galilee was annexed by Judah at least
                      >by the time of Alexander Jannaeus. After the end of the
                      >Hasmonaean rule Herod ruled the whole territory as a
                      >client king subordinate to Rome. After his death Galilee
                      >was split off again, and given to Antipas as part of his tetrarchy.
                      >So around 4 BCE to 41 CE Galilee was separately ruled, as were
                      >some other areas.
                      >
                      >Later on Herod Agrippa was well in, first with Gaius, then
                      >with Claudius, and was given, first one of the tetrarchies
                      >then Galilee, then Judaea and Samaria. But when Herod Agrippa
                      >died Galilee went under direct Roman rule along with much of
                      >the rest, though later again (c.61 CE) his son Agrippa II did
                      >get some of Galilee.
                      >
                      >So whether someone "should have" described Galilee as part of Judah
                      >would depend partly on the time written about, and partly on the
                      >time of writing, in order to be correct politically (as opposed to
                      >being politically correct). On the other hand popular usage
                      >might have been looser, but given the shifting pattern above
                      >it might be hard to decide if someone is being loose, or being
                      >correct either with reference to their own period, or to the period
                      >described.
                      >
                      >So all this may clarify some things but make others more murky.
                      >
                      >David M.
                      >
                      >
                      >---------
                      >David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
                      >
                      >
                      >--
                      >The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                      >Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >------------------------------------
                      >
                      >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]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.