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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mt bibliography

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... What do you understand by re-Judaizing Mark . I realize that many don t wish to identify the author of the second Gospel. Their assessment: they simply
    Message 1 of 24 , Jul 6 3:22 AM
      Mark Goodacre wrote:

      > My own tentative view is that Matthew is Jewish Christian
      > propoganda, written by a Jewish Christian who is effectively re-
      > Judaizing Mark and Mark's Jesus, but it's propoganda that he
      > thinks (rightly, as it turns out) will appeal to a wide target audience.
      > Does that make any sense?



      What do you understand by "re-Judaizing Mark". I realize that many don't
      wish to identify the author of the second Gospel. Their assessment: they
      simply don't know. I realize also that possibly a majority of critical
      scholars are sure that this author, whom we call Mark, was not a Judean
      (First Century Jew).
      But isn't it true that by taking up that position they contradict the early
      references to a (John) Mark in the Acts, the Epistles and Papias? I am
      convinced that if we ever are to fathom the riddle of Mark's Gospel we
      should begin by accepting the oldest tradition about him: "in dubio
      traditio". In other words, we should abandon the Tübinger School in that
      respect. To me the author is John Mark of Jerusalem, who worked with Peter
      and Paul. Why deny that Peter was martyred in Rome; that John Mark, who
      worked with Peter, wrote canonical Mark after the trauma of 70 and that his
      gospel was accepted for the very reason he had worked with Peter and had
      enetered Pauline ideas into his Gospel?
      The term re-Judaizing isn't a happy one, since Mark could well have been the
      one born in Jerusalem. I would rather believe that Matthew looked askance
      at this Pauline trend of thought he detected in Mark. Not a tittle or
      iota...
      yours cordially
      Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@...





      >
      > Mark
      > -----------------------------
      > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      > Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      > University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      > Birmingham B15 2TT
      > United Kingdom
      >
      > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      > Homepage
      > http://NTGateway.com
      > The New Testament Gateway
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/6/2001 6:23:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl writes:
      Message 2 of 24 , Jul 6 4:19 AM
        In a message dated 7/6/2001 6:23:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        K.Hanhart@... writes:

        << The term re-Judaizing isn't a happy one, since Mark could well have been
        the
        one born in Jerusalem. I would rather believe that Matthew looked askance
        at this Pauline trend of thought he detected in Mark. Not a tittle or
        iota... >>

        Without necessarily questioning, in principle, your identification of the
        author of Mk, I would suggest that your last comment here does not do full
        justice to the sense in which Matt is often described as a re-Judaizing of
        the gospel (by comparison to Mark). Matthew's consistent relating of Jesus'
        identity and mission to Israel, his entirely unselfconscious Jewish
        modalities of thought (explicit references to Torah, to Israel as a PEOPLE
        and ITS leaders, etc.) have nothing directly to do with a possible resistance
        to a Pauline trend of thought.

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Mark Goodacre wrote -- ... Mark, I am sure many would be very interested to read your notes on the course you give every year on Matthew at Birmingham, UK.
        Message 3 of 24 , Jul 6 6:17 AM
          Mark Goodacre wrote --
          >
          >Since I teach Matthew every year here, I'd be interested to hear
          >others' opinions on what's worth reading too -- it's always a useful
          >exercise.
          >
          Mark,
          I am sure many would be very interested to read your notes on the
          course you give every year on Matthew at Birmingham, UK. Perhaps a book
          on this one day?

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
          _

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • John Lupia
          Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Steve Black wrote: I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The issue isn t directly mentioned, but Mt s high view
          Message 4 of 24 , Jul 6 10:54 AM
            Synoptic-L@...

            Steve Black wrote:

            I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The
            issue isn't directly mentioned, but Mt's high view of the law might
            suggest that he would see circumcision as a requirement.
            --
            Matthew 28,19 gives the Church formula for baptism. Yet, Acts 19,1-7
            relates c. AD 54 that at Ephesus this formula was unheard of
            incontrovertibly showing that Matthew must date no earlier than AD 55. Now
            the point is that during the Fall or Winter of AD 49 the First Church
            Council of Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision you have raised.
            So, Matthew's Gospel, written by a high ranking member (apostle) of this
            same Church never mentions the requirement for convert circumcision but ONLY
            baptism in the formula found in Matthew 28,19.

            Cordially in Christ,
            John





            _______________________________________________________
            Send a cool gift with your E-Card
            http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Steve Black
            ... I think it (assuming Markan priority for a moment) clearer to suggest that Mt was re-Judaizing Mark s presentation rather than the gospel story . The
            Message 5 of 24 , Jul 6 11:10 AM
              >
              >Mark
              >No, not necessarily. Though I wouldn't want to rule out the thought
              >that it was used "evangelistically", I wonder whether Matthew is
              >attempting to propogate among Christians a more Torah-observant
              >Christian Judaism, in which the householder draws from his
              >treasure-chest both "the new" and "the old" (13.52). There is a
              >contrast with some other forms of early Christianity, and I would
              >agree with Leonard Maluf's comments to the extent that Matthew
              >does look, in some ways, like a re-primitivizing of the gospel story,
              >an attempt, perhaps, to re-Judaize, even "re-Jesuize" Jesus (for
              >want of better terms). What do you think?


              I think it (assuming Markan priority for a moment) clearer to suggest
              that Mt was "re-Judaizing" Mark's presentation rather than the
              "gospel story". The latter is too broad a series of possibilities to
              be useful. [ie. was he also re-Judaizing "Q", "M", and his
              community's living traditions?)

              If Mt wrote for a Jewish-Christian community, it can be assumed that
              they were already "Judaized". So I guess the question is to what
              degree Mt writes for Gentiles or for Jews.

              That Mt saw Gentiles as being included is clear - to what extent
              perhaps is not.

              I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The
              issue isn't directly mentioned, but Mt's high view of the law might
              suggest that he would see circumcision as a requirement.
              --
              Steve Black

              Dig deep for dreams, or you will be toppled by slogans...
              ee cummings

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Jeff Peterson
              ... 28:19 clearly reflects approval and endorsement of a mission to Gentiles (adumbrated in the homage of the Magi, the centurion s servant, Isaiah 42:4 apud
              Message 6 of 24 , Jul 6 11:14 AM
                Mark Goodacre wrote:

                > The difficulty with the Bauckham book, which I love, is that it really
                > is only a beginning point and stops short of many of the interesting
                > nitty-gritty questions and applications to particular Gospels. I
                > understand what you are saying, though I would ask two obvious
                > questions: (1) if Matthew is intended primarily or exclusively for
                > Jewish Christians, what should one make of 28.19? and (2) if
                > Matthew was intended primarily or exclusively for Jewish
                > Christians, should we say that he has failed in this intention since
                > the Gospel was so popular from so early on among so many?

                28:19 clearly reflects approval and endorsement of a mission to Gentiles
                (adumbrated in the homage of the Magi, the centurion's servant, Isaiah
                42:4 apud 12:21, the Canaanitess, Jesus' prophecies in 24:14 and 26:13
                et al.), but on previous reading Mt has seemed addressed to Jewish
                churches/leaders engaged in mission to Gentiles rather than to churches
                themselves composed of Gentiles or their leadership.

                I suppose the passage that has loomed largest in this construction of
                the audience is 23:23, which I have taken as presupposing Torah
                observance as a norm among the recipients. But this may not distinguish
                carefully enough authorial setting/theology from implied recipents,
                which is of course one thing Bauckham et al. are asking us to do. You're
                of course right about the position THE GOSPELS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS holds,
                at the beginning of a discussion, not the end.

                > My own tentative view is that Matthew is Jewish Christian
                > propoganda, written by a Jewish Christian who is effectively re-
                > Judaizing Mark and Mark's Jesus, but it's propoganda that he
                > thinks (rightly, as it turns out) will appeal to a wide target audience.
                > Does that make any sense?

                I think so; maybe Matthew then contributed to the philoJudaism of
                Ignatius' opponents? Markus Bockmuehl's JEWISH LAW IN GENTILE CHURCHES
                (which I've seen but not had opportunity to read) may be of use here.

                Jeff

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: Steve Black To: Synoptic-L Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L]
                Message 7 of 24 , Jul 6 11:28 AM
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Steve Black" <sblack@...>
                  To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic-L@...>
                  Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:10 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] re-Judaizing Matthew


                  > >
                  > >Mark
                  > >No, not necessarily. Though I wouldn't want to rule out the thought
                  > >that it was used "evangelistically", I wonder whether Matthew is
                  > >attempting to propogate among Christians a more Torah-observant
                  > >Christian Judaism, in which the householder draws from his
                  > >treasure-chest both "the new" and "the old" (13.52). There is a
                  > >contrast with some other forms of early Christianity, and I would
                  > >agree with Leonard Maluf's comments to the extent that Matthew
                  > >does look, in some ways, like a re-primitivizing of the gospel story,
                  > >an attempt, perhaps, to re-Judaize, even "re-Jesuize" Jesus (for
                  > >want of better terms). What do you think?
                  >
                  >
                  > I think it (assuming Markan priority for a moment) clearer to suggest
                  > that Mt was "re-Judaizing" Mark's presentation rather than the
                  > "gospel story". The latter is too broad a series of possibilities to
                  > be useful. [ie. was he also re-Judaizing "Q", "M", and his
                  > community's living traditions?)
                  >
                  > If Mt wrote for a Jewish-Christian community, it can be assumed that
                  > they were already "Judaized". So I guess the question is to what
                  > degree Mt writes for Gentiles or for Jews.
                  >
                  > That Mt saw Gentiles as being included is clear - to what extent
                  > perhaps is not.
                  >
                  > I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The
                  > issue isn't directly mentioned, but Mt's high view of the law might
                  > suggest that he would see circumcision as a requirement.

                  I think that the Matthean hagiographer wrote shortly after the institution
                  of the
                  Birkhat haMinim in 85 CE. As a Hellenistic Syrian Jew, he may have seen
                  the Antiochene gentile participation in "the way" on a sharp increase and
                  Jewish participation on a decline. His audience were Hellenistic Jews to
                  whom he is saying, "Hey! This is a JEWISH thing." On the Markan priority
                  issue, the very name of the Gospel appears to indicate that it utilized a
                  source document thought to have been composed by the disciple Matthew,
                  hence it would have been conventional at the time to transfer the apostolic
                  "authority" of Matthew to the Gospel by giving it his name. This
                  anthology/logia/"Q" would seem to confirm it as complementary to
                  Mark as a narrative source document.
                  Luke's sayings source appears to me to have been an Aramaic document
                  which, unlike the Matthean author, he translates himself. A Greek
                  translation used by AMt and an Aramaic document used by ALk gives
                  more credibility (to me) of a genuine "Q" and, by inference, Mark
                  as a primary narrative source to both Matthew and Luke. Hence my
                  viiew that first Mark + Aramaic Q ---->Luke (or proto-Luke) then
                  Mark + Greek Q ---->Matthew. Matthew may not have been
                  "re-judaizing" Mark as much as "re-judaizing" Luke.

                  Jack


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Steve Black
                  ... John Your argument assumes historical accuracy for Acts 19, and Acts 15 (the report of the council of Jerusalem). Acts was written from a distinctly
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jul 6 2:32 PM
                    >
                    >--
                    >Matthew 28,19 gives the Church formula for baptism. Yet, Acts 19,1-7
                    >relates c. AD 54 that at Ephesus this formula was unheard of
                    >incontrovertibly showing that Matthew must date no earlier than AD 55. Now
                    >the point is that during the Fall or Winter of AD 49 the First Church
                    >Council of Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision you have raised.
                    >So, Matthew's Gospel, written by a high ranking member (apostle) of this
                    >same Church never mentions the requirement for convert circumcision but ONLY
                    >baptism in the formula found in Matthew 28,19.
                    >
                    >Cordially in Christ,
                    John

                    Your argument assumes historical accuracy for Acts 19, and Acts 15
                    (the report of the council of Jerusalem). Acts was written from a
                    distinctly pro-Paul position, and any historical kernel that is
                    within it has inevitably been rung threw that "filter". There is also
                    the well known conflicting presentations of the council of Jerusalem
                    by Luke, and the one given by Paul himself in Gal. that calls Luke
                    account into some doubt.

                    All this aside, Galatians itself assumes that the issue wasn't really
                    settled at the council! Why was Gal. written in the first place if
                    not to combat Christians who were *still* saying that Gentiles needed
                    to be circumcised?
                    --
                    Peace

                    Steve Black
                    Vancouver, BC


                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 7/6/2001 2:32:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jkilmon@historian.net writes:
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jul 7 4:20 AM
                      In a message dated 7/6/2001 2:32:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      jkilmon@... writes:

                      << I think that the Matthean hagiographer wrote shortly after the institution
                      of the Birkhat haMinim in 85 CE. As a Hellenistic Syrian Jew, he may have
                      seen
                      the Antiochene gentile participation in "the way" on a sharp increase and
                      Jewish participation on a decline. His audience were Hellenistic Jews to
                      whom he is saying, "Hey! This is a JEWISH thing." >>

                      This simply doesn't seem to me to be the KIND of Jewishness we find in
                      Matthew. Matthew is not trying to MAKE the Jesus thing Jewish. There is
                      nothing defensive or apologetic about Matthew's Jewishness; he takes fully
                      for granted that the messianic community is the culmination of historical
                      Judaism which has been brought to fulfillment in the person of their Messiah.
                      The general trend of history since the time this document was produced has
                      been to gradually dissociate Jesus from these strictly Jewish roots so as to
                      heighten his appeal to non-Jewish adherents. This process may be seen already
                      in the Gospel of Mark, with the use of the title "Son of God" for Jesus in a
                      kind of detached way, i.e., in a way that does not clearly stress the
                      connection of this title with Israel, its history and its writings.

                      Leonard Maluf

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Brian Tucker
                      ... to ... already ... a ... Greetings, The son of God idea has possible Jewish connections and does not need to be divorced from its Second Temple context.
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jul 7 5:10 AM
                        Jack wrote:
                        >> whom he is saying, "Hey! This is a JEWISH thing." >>

                        Leonard Maluf responded:
                        > The general trend of history since the time this document was produced has
                        > been to gradually dissociate Jesus from these strictly Jewish roots so as
                        to
                        > heighten his appeal to non-Jewish adherents. This process may be seen
                        already
                        > in the Gospel of Mark, with the use of the title "Son of God" for Jesus in
                        a
                        > kind of detached way, i.e., in a way that does not clearly stress the
                        > connection of this title with Israel, its history and its writings.

                        Greetings,

                        The son of God idea has possible Jewish connections and does not need to be
                        divorced from its Second Temple context. 4Q246 (whether taken as a negative
                        text (Ed Cook) or positive text (John Collins)).

                        Here is the quote: 4Q246 2:1 "He will be called the Son of God, they will
                        call him the son of the Most High..."

                        It appears that the 'son of God' changes in Mark cannot a priori assume to
                        be non-Jewish, though there may be other reasons for affirming such a shift.
                        I would grant that he may not "stress" certain areas of "connection",
                        however, there appears to be some precedent for 'son of God' in Jewish
                        literature and thinking during the Second Temple.

                        Thanks,
                        Brian Tucker
                        Riverview, MI
                        Niqmmadu@...
                        editor@...
                        http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org



                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        In a message dated 7/7/2001 8:10:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Niqmaddu@hotmail.com writes:
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jul 7 6:03 AM
                          In a message dated 7/7/2001 8:10:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                          Niqmaddu@... writes:

                          << It appears that the 'son of God' changes in Mark cannot a priori assume to
                          be non-Jewish, though there may be other reasons for affirming such a shift.
                          I would grant that he may not "stress" certain areas of "connection",
                          however, there appears to be some precedent for 'son of God' in Jewish
                          literature and thinking during the Second Temple.>>

                          I agree with all of this, and never intended to say anything different. After
                          all, Matthew too uses "son of God" in a variety of different contexts, but
                          usually in ways that reflect more clearly than in Mark the background of the
                          expression in the Jewish Scriptures and contemporary Judaism. The possible
                          Hellenistic or Roman-imperial flavor of the expression in some Markan texts
                          should not, as you say, be assumed a priori, but many scholars have at least
                          thought, after working with the text of Mark, that such non-Jewish overtones
                          are in fact present in some of Mark's texts ("son of God" seems in Mark to
                          sometimes carry the general connotation of a "divine being", as in the
                          Greco-Roman world). The Jewish overtones of the expression have not, however,
                          been entirely forgotten or suppressed in Mark.

                          Leonard Maluf

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Brian Tucker
                          ... contexts, but usually in ways that reflect more clearly than in Mark the background of the expression in the Jewish Scriptures and contemporary Judaism.
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jul 7 6:58 AM
                            Leonard wrote:

                            >> After all, Matthew too uses "son of God" in a variety of different
                            contexts, but usually in ways that reflect more clearly than in Mark the
                            background of the expression in the Jewish Scriptures and contemporary
                            Judaism.>>

                            I think you are absolutely correct. Not to divert from the main point,
                            however, I am curious as to your understanding of the background of Luke's
                            use in 1:32-33: 'He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most
                            High...and of his kingdom there will be know end. Does this fit more in a
                            Jewish mindset or a Hellenistic/Roman?



                            >>...such non-Jewish overtones are in fact present in some of Mark's texts
                            ("son of God" seems in Mark to sometimes carry the general connotation of a
                            "divine being", as in the Greco-Roman world). >>

                            It is interesting to note the differences in the usage of this phrase. If
                            4Q246 was based on Antiochus IV (170 BCE) then the prevailing useage for a
                            Jewish person would be negative, possibly. If one ignores the context (what
                            little there is of 4Q246) and sees this as something about messiah (e.g. 2
                            Sam 7:14) this would shed light on its useage.

                            It may also be instructive to note Antiochus chosen name 'Epiphanes' (Gk.
                            appearance) would not have had a positive reception by most Jews, however,
                            it may have been more accepted in a Hellenistic/Roman setting. Cook remarks,
                            "encapsulated [Epiphanes] the notion of a human king as God manifest. Such
                            human pretensions to deity have never been welcome in Judaism and were
                            condemned out of hand in the prophecies of Isa (14:12-21) and Ezekiel
                            (28:1-10)." (1996:269)

                            It is a wonder that either evangelist chose this potentially misunderstood
                            term. Though it is beyond the scope of our current forum, this may be behind
                            the misunderstanding of (John 10:33)?

                            I am also curious as to how we determine the implied readers would have
                            understood the nuanced useage of 'son of God' in its Hellenistic/Roman
                            useage versus its Jewish useage?

                            Also, without being pedantic which places to we see this sort of redaction
                            occuring? I guess I'll look it up... :-) Assuming Markan priority; Matthew
                            using Mark and that Luke using Matthew and Mark (Goulder/Goodacre).

                            Thanks,
                            Brian Tucker
                            Riverview, MI
                            Niqmaddu@...
                            editor@...
                            http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org




                            The Jewish overtones of the expression have not, however,
                            > been entirely forgotten or suppressed in Mark.
                            >
                            > Leonard Maluf
                            >

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Tim Reynolds
                            If Mt s wedding garment insertion isn t a circumcision ruling I can t think what else it might be. Tim Reynolds ... Synoptic-L Homepage:
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jul 7 9:22 PM
                              If Mt's wedding garment insertion isn't a circumcision ruling I can't
                              think what else it might be.

                              Tim Reynolds

                              Steve Black wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              > >--
                              > >Matthew 28,19 gives the Church formula for baptism. Yet, Acts 19,1-7
                              > >relates c. AD 54 that at Ephesus this formula was unheard of
                              > >incontrovertibly showing that Matthew must date no earlier than AD 55. Now
                              > >the point is that during the Fall or Winter of AD 49 the First Church
                              > >Council of Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision you have raised.
                              > >So, Matthew's Gospel, written by a high ranking member (apostle) of this
                              > >same Church never mentions the requirement for convert circumcision but ONLY
                              > >baptism in the formula found in Matthew 28,19.
                              > >
                              > >Cordially in Christ,
                              > John
                              >
                              > Your argument assumes historical accuracy for Acts 19, and Acts 15
                              > (the report of the council of Jerusalem). Acts was written from a
                              > distinctly pro-Paul position, and any historical kernel that is
                              > within it has inevitably been rung threw that "filter". There is also
                              > the well known conflicting presentations of the council of Jerusalem
                              > by Luke, and the one given by Paul himself in Gal. that calls Luke
                              > account into some doubt.
                              >
                              > All this aside, Galatians itself assumes that the issue wasn't really
                              > settled at the council! Why was Gal. written in the first place if
                              > not to combat Christians who were *still* saying that Gentiles needed
                              > to be circumcised?
                              > --
                              > Peace
                              >
                              > Steve Black
                              > Vancouver, BC
                              >
                              > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 7/7/2001 10:00:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Niqmaddu@hotmail.com writes:
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jul 8 3:18 AM
                                In a message dated 7/7/2001 10:00:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                Niqmaddu@... writes:

                                << I think you are absolutely correct. Not to divert from the main point,
                                however, I am curious as to your understanding of the background of Luke's
                                use in 1:32-33: 'He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most
                                High...and of his kingdom there will be no end. Does this fit more in a
                                Jewish mindset or a Hellenistic/Roman?>>

                                I think this entire section of Luke fits in better with a Jewish mindset, but
                                nevertheless uses expressions that would be well received in the Greco-Roman
                                world as well. Fitzmyer points to parallels here to fragmentary evidence from
                                Qumran (so, more or less contemporary Judaism); there are also remote
                                biblical parallels to "he will be great" (cf. Gen 16:12), and for "of his
                                kingdom there will be no end" (Dan 7:14; Is 9:6); but Luke is, I think, also
                                aware of the fact that hUPSISTOS was a classical title for Zeus in the Greek
                                world as well. In other words, I don't have a point of view here that differs
                                greatly from fairly standard scholarly commentary on this verse.

                                Leonard Maluf

                                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.