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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , May 28 7:53 AM
    • 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 2 of 13 , May 28 8:09 AM
      • 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 3 of 13 , May 28 3:08 PM
        • 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 4 of 13 , May 28 3:56 PM
          • 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 5 of 13 , May 29 7:18 AM
            • 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.