[Synoptic-L] brief comments: Hakkinen; Kloppenborg; Laupot
- Aplologies for crossposting, though I think these respond to issues on both
Dr. Hakkinen asserted that desponsynoi referred to David relatives
and not Jesus relatives or both. May I merely note that that is not agreed
If I may, a question for Sakkari. You have noted that Christian
heresiologists first mention "Ebionites" in the second century. Earlier
than Irenaeus, I assume we can agree, are mentions of "Jewish-Christians,"
the poor in NT, and the edat ha-evionim. Also, the Greek for "heresy" had
not yet taken on a negative sense in the first century; evidently that was
probably a second-century (or at least post 70) development (cf Hebrew
minut). And G. Strecker's statement (appendix to W. Bauer Orthodoxy and
Heresy. 1971, p. 279), "the designation Ebionaioi...probably originated in
a concrete [yet unspecified by GS] situation and was not a general
label..." mystifies me. Here's my question: Dr. Hakkinen, are you actually
affirmatively asserting that Ebionites originated in the second century
without continuing the practices and beliefs of some earlier
Jesus-followers? If so, what can you say about the when or where or why or
how of such second-century proposed origin?
I find "excavating Q" a process that seems very tenuous to me. But
I admit that I am not up-to-date on that discussion. What I really wish to
note is the excellent article by Prof. Kloppenborg in the Fall J. of Jewish
Studies, in which he shows that the Jerusalem synagogue inscription is
indeed most probably pre 70 in date and refers to a synagogue building, as
well as congregation. For my two cents worth, I wish Dr. K would spend more
time on such fine studies as this, which deal more with realia. Well done!
Previously, I noted that the article by Eric Laupot entirely
avoided the excellent discussion by Menahem Stern in Greek and Latin
Authors Jews and Juadaism (1980)--a standard work whhich should have been
cited. Stern gave references to Origen, Paulus Orosius, and Sulpicius
Severus himself (on Hadrian's destruction of Jerusalem) which make Laupot's
proposal exceedingly improbable. I am no expert on Sulpicius Severus. But I
made a quick tour in the library of several recent works on him--including
works more recent than most cited in the article--and found yet more
counterindications. E.g., the uncited volume, G. K. van Andel, The
Christian Concept of History in Sulpicius Severus (Amsterdam, 1976), with a
long discussion on Tacitus.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...