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

[Synoptic-L] brief comments: Hakkinen; Kloppenborg; Laupot

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Goranson
    Aplologies for crossposting, though I think these respond to issues on both lists. Dr. Hakkinen asserted that desponsynoi referred to David relatives and not
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 24, 2000
      Aplologies for crossposting, though I think these respond to issues on both
      lists.

      Dr. Hakkinen asserted that desponsynoi referred to David relatives
      and not Jesus relatives or both. May I merely note that that is not agreed
      upon.
      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.

      best,
      Stephen Goranson
      goranson@...




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.