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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Didache, John and gospel order (Was: Some on-line items of interest)

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Weaks
    ... Karel, Thanks for sharing the gist of your arguments here. It s nice food for thought. Some of the arguments do look more like chaos theory/coincidence
    Message 1 of 13 , May 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Karel Hanhart wrote:
      > I am fully aware that my proposal is almost too good to be true. Proof
      > is hard to come by in these matters and every theory is bound to have
      > a rebuttal. However, you are too quick in your dismissal, it seems to
      > me.

      Karel,
      Thanks for sharing the "gist" of your arguments here. It's nice food
      for thought. Some of the arguments do look more like chaos
      theory/coincidence that authorial craft, mostly because of the
      assumptions it makes. For instance:

      > However, the surprising composition of the first prayer
      > in the Didache, convinced me that the key terms in the Creed were
      > citations of key terms in the various canonical writings.
      > If true the Creed would so to speak favour the
      > Farrer theory concerning the Gospels in ascending order: (John) '
      > only-begotten' ; (Luke): conceived of 'the HOLY SPIRIT'; (Matthew)
      > born of
      > the 'VIRGIN Mary', (Mark) 'suffered under PONTIUS PILATE'. Perhaps we
      > should pursue this string, (1 Corinthians) raised ON THE THIRD DAY etc.

      Really? These seem to you substantially clear references to those
      gospels? And what do you mean by surprising? It is suprised that the
      Didache has a prayer? or surprising that you were convinced? or
      surprising that it gave a mini-credo? or surprising that you were able
      interpret the references as uniquely identified with the 4 canonicals?

      Perhaps you give a fuller account of your jumps elsewhere, but what
      seems obvious to you is less than so to me.
      > Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important disciple
      > in John.
      I have no idea what this means. With the possible exception of Peter,
      they're all unknown.

      > The famous last chapter 21 is not a later appendix. It has rightly
      > been characterized as a kind of allegorical
      > representation of the book of Acts
      This premise is not very sustainable. (Reminds me of Crossan's biggest
      weakpoints: "Yes, Text A is early and Text B is late because it makes
      sense to me. Now that I've established that stratification, let us
      proceed."

      > If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
      > Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be
      > the case.
      Really? "Certainly?" One does not naturally follow the other. I just
      don't see how we can assert the same kind of theological word groupings
      to these ancient authors that we use in our own methodologies. At the
      least, we need to really try and make that case. (ie. using son of man
      to identify with a text, examples of such allusion in Revelation).

      Still, I applaud every continued attempt at inter-textuality between
      texts such as Didache, Shepherd, etc, with the canonical texts. Instead
      of a building block for a Farrer thesis, perhaps your ideas serve more
      of a supporting role.

      Fantastischliche,
      Joe Weaks

      **************************************************************
      Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
      Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
      Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
      j.weaks@...
      **************************************************************


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Karel Hanhart
      Read my book, therefore, Leonard. I am particularly interested in questions of detail of my argumentation. I mean, one should not turn at once to my tentative
      Message 2 of 13 , May 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Read my book, therefore, Leonard. I am particularly interested in questions
        of detail of my argumentation. I mean, one should not turn at once to my
        tentative conclusion e.g. on the identity of Arimathea or the neaniskos in
        the tomb and shoot it down. Far more important is the calendar question I
        mentioned to BobMacDonald or my solution to the phenomenon of Judas and
        Andrew in the structure of the Gospel of Mark.

        cordially,

        Karel


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <Maluflen@...>
        To: <k.hanhart@...>; <M.S.Goodacre@...>;
        <synoptic-L@...>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:14 PM
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer


        > In a message dated 5/25/2004 8:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        k.hanhart@... writes:
        >
        > << Surely the odd, original, but un-Greek "epetheken onoma toi Simoni...:
        Petron" in Mk 3,16 forced Matthew and John to improve the language. Mark's
        meaning is probably: "he charged
        > Simon with being a (the) rock". >>
        >
        > Karel, I have numerous questions that emanate from your lengthy post, but
        perhaps I should refrain from posing them till I have read your book. In the
        meantime, I would like to highlight the oddity of your argument's premise,
        which is that John and the author(s) of an early Christian creed were
        dutifully recording the correct order of the Synoptic Gospels through coded
        (not to mention chronologically inverted) allusions at roughly the same time
        that an almost universal tradition was developing in the church that
        emphatically asserted the priority of Matthew as the first written Gospel. I
        find this odd in the extreme. With regard to the above citation from the end
        of your post, could you explain to me what is wrong with the Greek of the
        cited Markan phrase? I have never had any particular difficulty
        understanding the phrase, or its syntax, and it reads to me like a good
        essential summary of the story in Matt 16 which Mark will later omit. Mark
        is not interested in the issue of legitimation of an authority in the
        (Jewish)Christian community with which that Matthean source-text deals. (You
        see I am far from conversion on this topic.)
        >
        > Leonard Maluf
        > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        > Weston, MA
        >
        > K)¦Ø,zz-z§ÿÃjfºO.ê¢ ³)¦Ø"¸´ìz´zS?ÂÂwniË


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Karel Hanhart
        ... From: To: ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, May
        Message 3 of 13 , May 28, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <Maluflen@...>
          To: <k.hanhart@...>; <M.S.Goodacre@...>;
          <synoptic-L@...>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:14 PM
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer


          > In a message dated 5/25/2004 8:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          k.hanhart@... writes:
          >
          > << Surely the odd, original, but un-Greek "epetheken onoma toi Simoni...:
          Petron" in Mk 3,16 forced Matthew and John to improve the language. Mark's
          meaning is probably: "he charged
          > Simon with being a (the) rock". >>
          >
          > Karel, I have numerous questions that emanate from your lengthy post, but
          perhaps I should refrain from posing them till I have read your book. In the
          meantime, I would like to highlight the oddity of your argument's premise,
          which is that John and the author(s) of an early Christian creed were
          dutifully recording the correct order of the Synoptic Gospels through coded
          (not to mention chronologically inverted) allusions at roughly the same time
          that an almost universal tradition was developing in the church that
          emphatically asserted the priority of Matthew as the first written Gospel. I
          find this odd in the extreme.

          Leonard, I, for one, find it odd that you appear to be unacquainted with the
          first century method of referring to passages in Tenach. This is always done
          through key terms. If Mark, for instance, writes "when you see to 'dbelugma
          tes eremoseos'" (13,14) his readers knew he was citing Dan 9,27.
          First century authors didnot have footnotes or notes in the margin but their
          audience or at least - in the case of the ecclesia -, the presbyter would be
          in a position to explain the text in the light of Daniel.
          This practice was essential because communication was very expansive at the
          time.
          Finally, the practice that the early ecclesia's notified each other of what
          documents were "received", i.e. approved, by them, is well known Hence my
          conclusion that the Creed originally was a booklist of received documents.

          What do you think of my comment: 'epetheken onoma toi Simoni'?

          cordially,

          Karel





          With regard to the above citation from the end of your post, could you
          explain to me what is wrong with the Greek of the cited Markan phrase? I
          have never had any particular difficulty understanding the phrase, or its
          syntax, and it reads to me like a good essential summary of the story in
          Matt 16 which Mark will later omit. Mark is not interested in the issue of
          legitimation of an authority in the (Jewish)Christian community with which
          that Matthean source-text deals. (You see I am far from conversion on this
          topic.)
          >
          > Leonard Maluf
          > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          > Weston, MA
          >
          >


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Karel Hanhart
          ... From: Joseph Weaks To: Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Didache, John and gospel
          Message 4 of 13 , May 28, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Joseph Weaks" <j.weaks@...>
            To: <synoptic-L@...>
            Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:39 PM
            Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Didache, John and gospel order (Was: Some on-line
            items of interest)


            > Karel Hanhart wrote:
            > > I am fully aware that my proposal is almost too good to be true. Proof
            > > is hard to come by in these matters and every theory is bound to have
            > > a rebuttal. However, you are too quick in your dismissal, it seems to
            > > me.
            >
            > Karel,
            > Thanks for sharing the "gist" of your arguments here. It's nice food
            > for thought. Some of the arguments do look more like chaos
            > theory/coincidence that authorial craft, mostly because of the
            > assumptions it makes. For instance:
            >
            > > However, the surprising composition of the first prayer
            > > in the Didache, convinced me that the key terms in the Creed were
            > > citations of key terms in the various canonical writings.
            > > If true the Creed would so to speak favour the
            > > Farrer theory concerning the Gospels in ascending order: (John) '
            > > only-begotten' ; (Luke): conceived of 'the HOLY SPIRIT'; (Matthew)
            > > born of
            > > the 'VIRGIN Mary', (Mark) 'suffered under PONTIUS PILATE'. Perhaps we
            > > should pursue this string, (1 Corinthians) raised ON THE THIRD DAY etc.
            >
            > Really? These seem to you substantially clear references to those
            > gospels? And what do you mean by surprising?

            Joseph,

            Why the ironic tone of of writing? Didn´t I observe that it was almost too
            good to be true and that proof in these matters is hard to come by?
            My surprise was aroused after I had checked all canonical writings but had
            not found the combination in them of `Father´ ´almighty´ and ´creator´ in
            one verse. We call such a combination a hapax. So the force of my theory was
            diminished, because I did not find the combination in any canonical writing.
            Finally, I decided to check the Didache little expecting that I would find
            confirmation there. But the unexpected occurred. The opening of the prayer
            in the Didache did contain the three elements.
            What is more, it does make sense that the opening statement in the
            Apostle´s Creed (book list) would refer precisely to the Didache. For Luke
            in his Acts makes mention of several authors who wrote before him, but does
            not mention any one of them by name. But he does state that the first
            christian did persevere in the ´didache ton apostolon´. Apparently, the
            Didache was so well known and so much accepted by all, that he could mention
            the book by name.

            > Perhaps you give a fuller account of your jumps ( again the irony KH)
            elsewhere, but what
            > seems obvious to you is less than so to me.

            > Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important disciple
            > in John.
            > I have no idea what this means. With the possible exception of Peter,
            > they're all unknown.

            Philip and Andrew are among the twelve, Joseph, the three are known,
            Nathanael is the only exception. Also Matthew was among the twelve, which
            John (with an innuendo) translated in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, ´Nathanael´
            .

            > > The famous last chapter 21 is not a later appendix. It has rightly
            > > been characterized as a kind of allegorical
            > > representation of the book of Acts This premise is not very
            sustainable. (Reminds me of Crossan's biggest weakpoints: "Yes, Text A is
            early and Text B is late because it makes
            > sense to me. Now that I've established that stratification, let us
            > proceed."

            This was not my idea, but of a famous British commentator, whose name I
            cannot locate at the moment. John prefers Luke, as has been observed by
            others. Is it so strange that John after having told the passion story,
            would begin a final chapter with ´after that Jesus revealed himself anew´
            and continue his account with one great fishing expedition ( the 153 fish
            representing the nations of the world). Just as in Acts two disciples
            ´fishing for people´ play in it a major role, Peter and the Beloved
            Disciple. As Ray Brown and others rightly observed / there appears to be
            rivalry in this chapter between the two disciples, but Peter is the
            acknowledged leader.
            Now taking into account that John wrote his gospel last of the four and that
            he represented the ecclesiae of Asia Minor and taking into account that a)
            the ecclesia of Rome was accredited by most ecclesiae a leading role as
            prima inter pares but b) that Asia Minor long resisted this, the notion that
            John in the fourth gospel wrote as it were a summary of the acts of the
            apostles and did accredit Peter with being Shepherd of the sheep, has a
            degree of probability.It at least explains the strange ending of the Gospel.
            Chapter 21 is not an appendix as Bultmann wanted.
            I am writing this as a protestant, but it does make good sense. In fact,
            history shows both the
            demurral and acceptance by the Eastern church of the primacy of Rome.


            > > If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
            > > Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be
            > > the case.
            > Really? "Certainly?"

            Granted ´cerainly´ is not the right adverb.

            > Still, I applaud every continued attempt at inter-textuality between
            > texts such as Didache, Shepherd, etc, with the canonical texts. Instead
            > of a building block for a Farrer thesis, perhaps your ideas serve more
            > of a supporting role.

            > Fantastischliche,

            Joe, all exegetes speculate / no one is able to offer certain proof. Irony
            is a weak weapon in these matters. Even those who mantain that Jesus
            actually walked on water, are making a phantastic statement. They speculate
            that the authors of the Gospel were reporting facts in the manner of a
            modern journalist. Why accuse a colleague of phantasy?

            cordially,

            Karel

            >
            > **************************************************************
            > Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
            > Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
            > Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
            > j.weaks@...
            > **************************************************************
            >
            >
            > 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@...
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... Not canonical, but the combination appears in Philo Decal 51.6; Spec 3.189.5 Plutarch Platonicae quaestiones 1000.E.11 Maximus Soph.Philosophumena
            Message 5 of 13 , May 28, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Karel Hanhart wrote:

              > Joseph,
              >
              > Why the ironic tone of of writing? Didn´t I observe that it was almost too
              > good to be true and that proof in these matters is hard to come by?
              > My surprise was aroused after I had checked all canonical writings but had
              > not found the combination in them of `Father´ ´almighty´ and ´creator´ in
              > one verse.

              Not canonical, but the combination appears in

              Philo Decal 51.6; Spec 3.189.5 Plutarch Platonicae quaestiones 1000.E.11
              Maximus Soph.Philosophumena 33.6.c.3.

              Jeffrey

              > We call such a combination a hapax. So the force of my theory was
              > diminished, because I did not find the combination in any canonical writing.
              > Finally, I decided to check the Didache little expecting that I would find
              > confirmation there. But the unexpected occurred. The opening of the prayer
              > in the Didache did contain the three elements.
              > What is more, it does make sense that the opening statement in the
              > Apostle´s Creed (book list) would refer precisely to the Didache. For Luke
              > in his Acts makes mention of several authors who wrote before him, but does
              > not mention any one of them by name. But he does state that the first
              > christian did persevere in the ´didache ton apostolon´. Apparently, the
              > Didache was so well known and so much accepted by all, that he could mention
              > the book by name.
              >
              > > Perhaps you give a fuller account of your jumps ( again the irony KH)
              > elsewhere, but what
              > > seems obvious to you is less than so to me.
              >
              > > Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important disciple
              > > in John.
              > > I have no idea what this means. With the possible exception of Peter,
              > > they're all unknown.
              >
              > Philip and Andrew are among the twelve, Joseph, the three are known,
              > Nathanael is the only exception. Also Matthew was among the twelve, which
              > John (with an innuendo) translated in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, ´Nathanael´
              > .
              >
              > > > The famous last chapter 21 is not a later appendix. It has rightly
              > > > been characterized as a kind of allegorical
              > > > representation of the book of Acts This premise is not very
              > sustainable. (Reminds me of Crossan's biggest weakpoints: "Yes, Text A is
              > early and Text B is late because it makes
              > > sense to me. Now that I've established that stratification, let us
              > > proceed."
              >
              > This was not my idea, but of a famous British commentator, whose name I
              > cannot locate at the moment. John prefers Luke, as has been observed by
              > others. Is it so strange that John after having told the passion story,
              > would begin a final chapter with ´after that Jesus revealed himself anew´
              > and continue his account with one great fishing expedition ( the 153 fish
              > representing the nations of the world). Just as in Acts two disciples
              > ´fishing for people´ play in it a major role, Peter and the Beloved
              > Disciple. As Ray Brown and others rightly observed / there appears to be
              > rivalry in this chapter between the two disciples, but Peter is the
              > acknowledged leader.
              > Now taking into account that John wrote his gospel last of the four and that
              > he represented the ecclesiae of Asia Minor and taking into account that a)
              > the ecclesia of Rome was accredited by most ecclesiae a leading role as
              > prima inter pares but b) that Asia Minor long resisted this, the notion that
              > John in the fourth gospel wrote as it were a summary of the acts of the
              > apostles and did accredit Peter with being Shepherd of the sheep, has a
              > degree of probability.It at least explains the strange ending of the Gospel.
              > Chapter 21 is not an appendix as Bultmann wanted.
              > I am writing this as a protestant, but it does make good sense. In fact,
              > history shows both the
              > demurral and acceptance by the Eastern church of the primacy of Rome.
              >
              > > > If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
              > > > Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be
              > > > the case.
              > > Really? "Certainly?"
              >
              > Granted ´cerainly´ is not the right adverb.
              >
              > > Still, I applaud every continued attempt at inter-textuality between
              > > texts such as Didache, Shepherd, etc, with the canonical texts. Instead
              > > of a building block for a Farrer thesis, perhaps your ideas serve more
              > > of a supporting role.
              >
              > > Fantastischliche,
              >
              > Joe, all exegetes speculate / no one is able to offer certain proof. Irony
              > is a weak weapon in these matters. Even those who mantain that Jesus
              > actually walked on water, are making a phantastic statement. They speculate
              > that the authors of the Gospel were reporting facts in the manner of a
              > modern journalist. Why accuse a colleague of phantasy?
              >
              > cordially,
              >
              > Karel
              >
              > >
              > > **************************************************************
              > > Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
              > > Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
              > > Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
              > > j.weaks@...
              > > **************************************************************
              > >
              > >
              > > 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@...

              --

              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

              1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
              Chicago, IL 60626

              jgibson000@...



              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... I m not sure, as I m still trying to figure out just what your argument is. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1 Chicago,
              Message 6 of 13 , May 29, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Karel Hanhart wrote:

                > Thanks, Jeffrey. Would the reference to Philo diminish the strength of my
                > argument in your opinion? Both Philo and the Didache couch their language
                > in terms of Scripture.

                I'm not sure, as I'm still trying to figure out just what your argument is.

                Jeffrey
                --

                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                Chicago, IL 60626

                jgibson000@...



                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Joseph Weaks
                I understand that Burridge is doing a revised edition of his book. Anyone have detailed info. I know he is updating the preface, but is that it, or is there
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  I understand that Burridge is doing a revised edition of his book.
                  Anyone have detailed info. I know he is updating the preface, but is
                  that it, or is there material enhancement to the text? Has he set out
                  to plug some of the holes? Release date? Suggestions where to find out
                  more info?

                  Thanks,
                  Joe

                  **************************************************************
                  Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                  Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                  Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                  j.weaks@...
                  **************************************************************


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Mark Goodacre
                  Yes, I ve seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging developments and reactions
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 8, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes, I've seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a
                    substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging
                    developments and reactions that have emerged since the first edition.
                    It is apparently scheduled for release in September. See the Eerdmans
                    site at:

                    http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802809715

                    What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
                    Richard A. Burridge

                    $34.00 Paperback

                    Not yet in print (Expected ship date: 9/29/04)

                    revised edition; 380 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6.25 x 9.25

                    ISBN: 0-8028-0971-5

                    Foreword by Graham Stanton

                    Richard Burridge's highly acclaimed study of the Christian Gospels is
                    substantially updated and expanded in this revised edition. Here
                    Burridge engages the field of Gospel studies over the last hundred
                    years, arguing convincingly for viewing the Gospels as biographical
                    documents of the sort common throughout the Graeco-Roman world.

                    In pursuing the question of his book's title, Burridge compares the
                    work of the Christian evangelists with that of Graeco-Roman
                    biographers. Drawing on insights from literary theory, Burridge
                    demonstrates that the widespread view of the Gospels as unique is
                    false, and he discusses what a properly "biographical" perspective
                    means for Gospel interpretation. The book includes a long new chapter
                    detailing the recent paradigm shift in Gospel scholarship — a shift
                    due in large part to this very book — a new foreword by Graham
                    Stanton, and an appendix dealing with the absence of comparable early
                    Jewish biographies.

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    I take it that the recent paradigm shift referred to below in the press blurb is Bauckham et al. s (which includes Burridge) Gospel for All Christians.
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 8, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I take it that the recent "paradigm shift" referred to below in
                      the press blurb is Bauckham et al.'s (which includes Burridge)
                      "Gospel for All Christians."

                      Burridge ably filled in for Bauckham in a SBL 2003 session on this
                      topic. As I recall, one of his points is that the gospels are a
                      form about biography, which means that they are about its subject
                      Jesus, not about the local community from which they originated.
                      It sounds like a basic point, but it is a helpful reminder when
                      reading someone's use of a gospel as a window into an early
                      Christian community.

                      Stephen Carlson


                      At 09:51 AM 7/8/2004 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                      >Yes, I've seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a
                      >substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging
                      >developments and reactions that have emerged since the first edition.
                      >It is apparently scheduled for release in September. See the Eerdmans
                      >site at:
                      >
                      >http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802809715
                      >
                      >What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
                      >Richard A. Burridge
                      >
                      >$34.00 Paperback
                      >
                      >Not yet in print (Expected ship date: 9/29/04)
                      >
                      >revised edition; 380 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6.25 x 9.25
                      >
                      >ISBN: 0-8028-0971-5
                      >
                      >Foreword by Graham Stanton
                      >
                      >Richard Burridge's highly acclaimed study of the Christian Gospels is
                      >substantially updated and expanded in this revised edition. Here
                      >Burridge engages the field of Gospel studies over the last hundred
                      >years, arguing convincingly for viewing the Gospels as biographical
                      >documents of the sort common throughout the Graeco-Roman world.
                      >
                      >In pursuing the question of his book's title, Burridge compares the
                      >work of the Christian evangelists with that of Graeco-Roman
                      >biographers. Drawing on insights from literary theory, Burridge
                      >demonstrates that the widespread view of the Gospels as unique is
                      >false, and he discusses what a properly "biographical" perspective
                      >means for Gospel interpretation. The book includes a long new chapter
                      >detailing the recent paradigm shift in Gospel scholarship — a shift
                      >due in large part to this very book — a new foreword by Graham
                      >Stanton, and an appendix dealing with the absence of comparable early
                      >Jewish biographies.
                      >
                      >Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      >List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                      Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


                      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.