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

RE: [XTalk] Re: Easter Greeting

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.