|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 15, 2014 13:33:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Apr 16, 2014 8:30:49 GMT
I don't think that is what I am really looking for Dave. I could probably find a lot of that stuff in something like the The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels or Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity. I was thinking of something that focused on the Historical Jesus but took due note of his Jewish background and environment. That is why I was leaning towards Vermes and Ed. Sanders. But so that I do not to derail the thread, further conversation on books may be better via a PM.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 16, 2014 9:08:58 GMT
Update on Jesus wife fragment from Mark Goodacre. Ummm, that "update" is from two years ago. So ... ?
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Apr 16, 2014 10:45:26 GMT
I was thinking of something that focused on the Historical Jesus but took due note of his Jewish background and environment. That is why I was leaning towards Vermes and Ed. Sanders. Fair enough. I thought you just wanted general information on STJ and the culture of Jesus' day. Didn't realise you also wanted a focus on Jesus himself.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 16, 2014 15:22:27 GMT
Update on Jesus wife fragment from Mark Goodacre. Ummm, that "update" is from two years ago. So ... ? Sorry this is the update on Mark Goodacre's blog on 11th April which refers to a piece by Francis Watson commenting on the latest stuff to appear in the Harvard Theological Review: ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/jesus-wife-attempts-comeback-initial.htmlThe other link I gave refers to earlier more detailed material by Francis Watson.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 17, 2014 7:04:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 17, 2014 13:01:15 GMT
An interesting response. In fact re: In other words, in GT, the negated aorist mare mare is written exactly like the affirmative jussive mare mare. Identifying instances of mare mare in GT as a negated aorist is therefore altogether a legitimate option.Er yes - exactly what I thought (!). No but seriously an interesting response. Looking at what the palaeographers say one cannot help wondering whether there is some cognitive dissonance going on at Harvard.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 17, 2014 14:39:12 GMT
In fairness, King does discuss the option in footnote 52 of her original article, but it's odd that she calls reading MARE as a negative aorist an error in her rejoinder. That is quite inconsistent.
Overall, Depuydt is wholly justified in considering MARE as a negative tense and the case of the critics definitely seems more believable. But the reading becomes most persuasive if you think there is a dependence on the Gospel of Thomas. Which there probably is. The main problem is that King sticks to the curious meaning "Let [subj.] swell up" and that she does not consider the two rare mistakes problematic.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 21, 2014 16:44:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 22, 2014 20:03:33 GMT
She doesn't say a word about the paleographical criticism? I wonder what her motivation in all this was?
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Apr 23, 2014 10:06:23 GMT
Well, she's had her 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps that's all she wanted.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 23, 2014 11:59:15 GMT
That's a bit unfair. King really is a big name in the scholarship of "Gnosticism", the category formerly known as Gnosticism (and part of the reason why it is now referred to in this clumsy way) and has done important and influential work on it. As for why she didn't mention paleographical criticism, well first the debate was at an entry level with a lot of effort spent on clarifying she isn't claiming the piece as evidence Jesus was married. But more importantly there aren't many experts in paleography contesting the authenticity of the piece on paleographical ground. Though here is one who does (it's interesting; some of the points made would also hurt the critics' cause): www.agonfilosofia.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176&Itemid=15
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 23, 2014 15:15:44 GMT
That's a bit unfair. King really is a big name in the scholarship of "Gnosticism", the category formerly known as Gnosticism (and part of the reason why it is now referred to in this clumsy way) and has done important and influential work on it. As for why she didn't mention paleographical criticism, well first the debate was at an entry level with a lot of effort spent on clarifying she isn't claiming the piece as evidence Jesus was married. But more importantly there aren't many experts in paleography contesting the authenticity of the piece on paleographical ground. Though here is one who does (it's interesting; some of the points made would also hurt the critics' cause): www.agonfilosofia.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176&Itemid=15He suggests in his conclusion that she was picked out by a forger because of her particular academic interest and because she was not a papyrologist or an expert in Coptic language. Seems very possible. .
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 26, 2014 20:00:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 30, 2014 10:38:48 GMT
|
|