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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Galileans and the Jewish Perception of them

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... George, Please don t take it amiss if I ask you what leads you to believe not only that Hebrew was something spoken generally in Palestine in the 1st
    Message 1 of 3 , May 3, 2001
      George Brooks wrote:

      > To the Greek mind there may have been a distinction
      > between those who with ancestry in Galilee vs. Samaria.
      > But in the HEBREW-speaking mind, a non-Jewish Israelite
      > would be quite appropriately termed a Shomerone or
      > Shomrayin.
      >

      George,

      Please don't take it amiss if I ask you what leads you to believe not only
      that Hebrew was something spoken generally in Palestine in the 1st century,
      but that at this time there was such a thing as a Hebrew speaking **mind**.
      I'm not being hostile -- I'd sincerely like to know.

      And for clarity's sake, I'd be very curious to know both what you think are
      the ways that this Hebrew speaking mind distinguishes itself from a Greek
      speaking mind as well as how you know that those who called Jesus a Samaritan
      had Hebrew speaking minds. Is this just an assumption on your part? Or do you
      have any evidence by which we could know with some reasonable certainty that

      And one more thing -- which I urge you to note is said only out of a desire
      to know why you think the way you think. I am assuming that a foundational
      premise in your case that Jesus was a Samaritan is the passage in GJohn where
      opponents of Jesus declare that "he has a demon and is a Samaritan". I am
      also assuming that you take this to be a statement of fact.

      Now assuming these assumptions are correct -- and again, feel free to correct
      me if I am wrong on this matter -- I'd like to raise a question with you:
      What real grounds do we have for taking this statement as a statement of
      fact, one that John himself regarded and presented as true? So far as I can
      see there are none. On the one hand, isn't what the opponents are saying in
      their charge is that they regard Jesus not so much as a resident of Samaria
      as an "apostate"?. More importantly, does John intend -- as I take it you
      assume (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that the reader of this passage
      should accept the charge, what ever it designates Jesus to be, **at face
      value** and as a statement of fact? Or is this an instance in which John's
      intent is to show not so much something about Jesus but about the wickedness
      of those who make charges against him? After all, John does not intend the
      statement that Jesus has a demon to be taken as a statement of fact, let
      alone a true one. Shouldn't we then say the same of the charge that Jesus is
      a Samaritan?

      Yours,

      Jeffrey Gibson

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • George Brooks
      Jeffrey, Thank you for your questions. Some of them are clearly beyond my ability to answer. Others are questions that I do want to answer. However, I am
      Message 2 of 3 , May 3, 2001
        Jeffrey,

        Thank you for your questions. Some of them are clearly
        beyond my ability to answer. Others are questions that
        I do want to answer. However, I am concerned about
        protocol. The last time you and I dicussed matters, it
        was during a period when no topic was on the docket.

        Since some of your questions involve my entering
        areas that do not involve Elizabeth's paper, I'm thinking
        we should wait until the next "down time" before
        we discuss the larger questions you have rightly
        raised.

        I hope that sounds fair to you.

        George





        --- In johannine_literature@y..., "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
        <jgibson000@h...> wrote:
        > George Brooks wrote:
        >
        > > To the Greek mind there may have been a distinction
        > > between those who with ancestry in Galilee vs. Samaria.
        > > But in the HEBREW-speaking mind, a non-Jewish Israelite
        > > would be quite appropriately termed a Shomerone or
        > > Shomrayin.
        > >
        >
        > George,
        >
        > Please don't take it amiss if I ask you what leads you to believe
        not only
        > that Hebrew was something spoken generally in Palestine in the 1st
        century,
        > but that at this time there was such a thing as a Hebrew speaking
        **mind**.
        > I'm not being hostile -- I'd sincerely like to know.
        >
        > And for clarity's sake, I'd be very curious to know both what you
        think are
        > the ways that this Hebrew speaking mind distinguishes itself from a
        Greek
        > speaking mind as well as how you know that those who called Jesus a
        Samaritan
        > had Hebrew speaking minds. Is this just an assumption on your part?
        Or do you
        > have any evidence by which we could know with some reasonable
        certainty that
        >
        > And one more thing -- which I urge you to note is said only out of a
        desire
        > to know why you think the way you think. I am assuming that a
        foundational
        > premise in your case that Jesus was a Samaritan is the passage in
        GJohn where
        > opponents of Jesus declare that "he has a demon and is a Samaritan".
        I am
        > also assuming that you take this to be a statement of fact.
        >
        > Now assuming these assumptions are correct -- and again, feel free
        to correct
        > me if I am wrong on this matter -- I'd like to raise a question with
        you:
        > What real grounds do we have for taking this statement as a
        statement of
        > fact, one that John himself regarded and presented as true? So far
        as I can
        > see there are none. On the one hand, isn't what the opponents are
        saying in
        > their charge is that they regard Jesus not so much as a resident of
        Samaria
        > as an "apostate"?. More importantly, does John intend -- as I take
        it you
        > assume (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that the reader of this
        passage
        > should accept the charge, what ever it designates Jesus to be, **at
        face
        > value** and as a statement of fact? Or is this an instance in which
        John's
        > intent is to show not so much something about Jesus but about the
        wickedness
        > of those who make charges against him? After all, John does not
        intend the
        > statement that Jesus has a demon to be taken as a statement of fact,
        let
        > alone a true one. Shouldn't we then say the same of the charge that
        Jesus is
        > a Samaritan?
        >
        > Yours,
        >
        > Jeffrey Gibson
        >
        > --
        > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        > 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
        > Chicago, Illinois 60626
        > e-mail jgibson000@h...
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... I suppose, given your qualms, that this will have to do. But let me suggest that we take this up immediately on Xtalk. But I am curious as to which
        Message 3 of 3 , May 4, 2001
          George Brooks wrote:

          > Jeffrey,
          >
          > Thank you for your questions. Some of them are clearly
          > beyond my ability to answer. Others are questions that
          > I do want to answer. However, I am concerned about
          > protocol. The last time you and I dicussed matters, it
          > was during a period when no topic was on the docket.
          >
          > Since some of your questions involve my entering
          > areas that do not involve Elizabeth's paper, I'm thinking
          > we should wait until the next "down time" before
          > we discuss the larger questions you have rightly
          > raised.
          >
          > I hope that sounds fair to you.
          >

          I suppose, given your qualms, that this will have to do. But let me suggest
          that we take this up immediately on Xtalk.

          But I am curious as to which questions are beyond your ability to answer.

          Yours,

          Jeffrey Gibson
          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.