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

Re: [GTh] Re: Xmas Season Greetings

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    ... What population? My understanding is that the literacy rate in Judaea (and among diaspora Jews, hence among Jewish Christians) was significantly higher.
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 30, 2012
      [Tom Reynolds]:
      > My understand [sic] is that the population was 5-10% literate
      ...
       
      What population? My understanding is that the literacy rate in Judaea
      (and among diaspora Jews, hence among Jewish Christians) was
      significantly higher.
       
      > ... and virtually everything was presented orally. Except for
      contracts
      > most writings were memory/study aids.
       
      I doubt it. There were letters, for example. To say nothing of the works
      of Plato and Aristotle, e.g.. Do you have any examples of memory aids?
       
      > In [sic] was not till the mid-second century that NT books
      were
      > analysized [sic] as we do so now.
      That kind of analysis isn't much like what we do today.

      > Multiple works assert that all NT writings should be
      read, hopefully by
      > a trained orator, in order to capture how the early Christians
      actually
      > received them.
       
      What are some of these "multiple works" that assert that NT writings
      should be listened to (in the original language?)? And what interest is
      there in "captur[ing] how the early Christians actually received them",
      even if that were possible? Actually, we do know some of that, from
      the interpretive material added by the evangelists in their gospels. But
      of course they weren't illiterate, so by your standards they weren't
      representative. Then again, who can be, unless they're illiterate, Koine-
      speaking, and live in the first century?
       
      Mike
    • Tom Reynolds
      To: Mike Groden,   The statement 5-10% is the generally accepted estimate among both historical and religious scholars. To name a few, in addition to a direct
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 31, 2012
        To: Mike [Grondin],
        The statement 5-10% is the generally accepted estimate among both historical and religious scholars. To name a few, in addition to a direct seminar of Walt Russel, Phd (Biola University) I have heard it lately from at least�four University Professors in video presentations from the Teaching Company. One Professor, Luke Timothy Johnson, Phd is from Emory University while the another is from Eastern University. A third, Kenneth W. Hart is more of a history Professor as ia a fourth, �William R Cook. These are just a few of the sources I have read or heard. All these Professors make the point that the text was dictated orally to a scribe and then read to the audience.
        It is true that highly educated Greeks read Plato, Aristotle, Homer and the Gilgamesh epic while highly educated Jews read the Jewish Scriptures but this was a very small percentage of the population. It is very unlikely that any of the 12 Apostles, or Jesus was literate in the sense we have today, save possibly Matthew. In fact the Pharisees were amazed at Jesus’ command of the Scripture because he was not “learnered”. Paul was literate but still used a scribe and Luke was probably literate. Among most Jews, literacy was limited to reading a verse or two of the Scripture. The ability to sit down and study a text as we do today was limited by both the ability and the availability of the text.
        The answer to one question you ask nay be interesting. “What interest is there in capturing what the early Christians received even if that were possible?” I will send you directly a couple of PDF articles on this subject that you can choose to post or otherwise share if you wish.
        In summary, there are three methods of interpretation.
        1-Historical, Author Centered
        2-Text centered
        3-Reader centered
        The secret of the historical, author centered approach is to capture the original purpose of the author of the text. The historical part is understanding the historical setting at the time it was written and the people it was written to. The analysis is top down meaning one must discover the overall purpose before drilling down to specific passages. Another consideration is genre. What is the genre of the text. For example, one would interpret poetry different from a historical narrative.
        In the case of GT, there is a dispute about who wrote it, where and when. If the text was written relatively early in Judah we know both the historical setting and the culture of the audience. OTOH, if it was written outside Judah, there is the different culture of a mixed Jewish-Greek nature. If it was written around the turn of the century, both the historical setting, culture and audience has changed dramatically. Finally, if it was written in the early-mid second century the culture was largely Greek. Note that in each of these time periods the likely author has changed.
        In the historical-author centered method the challenge of GT is to determine the purpose of the author. This analysis will change depending on the period postulated for GT’s writing. We assume that the text was used within the historical context, received by the audience in the culture of the time and responded to based on the cultural attitudes of the hearers.
        It, therefore, seems reasonable to interpret the text as it would have been understood within each cultural-historical setting in order to determine what we can about the author’s purpose.
        Regards,
        Tom Reynolds

        From: Mike Grondin
        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 10:20 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Xmas Season Greetings
        [Tom Reynolds]:
        > My understand [sic] is that the population was 5-10% literate
        ...
        What population? My understanding is that the literacy rate in Judaea
        (and among diaspora Jews, hence among Jewish Christians) was
        significantly higher.
        > ... and virtually everything was presented orally. Except for
        contracts
        >�most writings were memory/study aids.
        I doubt it. There were letters, for example. To say nothing of the works
        of Plato and Aristotle, e.g.. Do you have any examples of memory aids?
        >�In [sic] was not till the mid-second century that NT books
        were
        >�analysized [sic]�as we do so now.
        That kind of analysis isn't much like what we do today.

        > Multiple works assert that all NT writings should be
        read,�hopefully by
        >�a trained orator, in order to capture how the early Christians
        actually
        >�received them.
        What are some of these "multiple works"�that assert that NT writings
        should be listened to (in the original language?)? And what interest is
        there in "captur[ing] how the early Christians actually received them",
        even if that were possible? Actually, we do know some of that, from
        the interpretive material added by the evangelists in their gospels. But
        of course they weren't illiterate, so by your standards they weren't
        representative. Then again, who can be, unless they're illiterate, Koine-
        speaking, and live in the first century?
        Mike
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.