Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Mon May 17 17:08:49 EDT 1999
Glassman Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Here’s a phrase that has thrown me for a loop. The Scribes of thePharisees? I thought they were two distinct groups.How is this to be understood?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://metalab.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/B-Hebrew Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bhebrew
GlassmanMark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon May 17 17:48:56 EDT 1999
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 05:08 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote:>Here’s a phrase that has thrown me for a loop. The Scribes of the>Pharisees? I thought they were two distinct groups.> >How is this to be understood?Just as it sounds. In fact, the pharisees had their own scribes- and thenthere were other scribes not associated with the pharisees. theconstruction here is normal and quite typical.best,jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWNGrammatical errors in Revelation?
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Mon May 17 17:08:49 EDT 1999
Glassman Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Here’s a phrase that has thrown me for a loop. The Scribes of thePharisees? I thought they were two distinct groups.How is this to be understood?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://metalab.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/B-Hebrew Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bhebrew
GlassmanMark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon May 17 17:48:56 EDT 1999
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 05:08 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote:>Here’s a phrase that has thrown me for a loop. The Scribes of the>Pharisees? I thought they were two distinct groups.> >How is this to be understood?Just as it sounds. In fact, the pharisees had their own scribes- and thenthere were other scribes not associated with the pharisees. theconstruction here is normal and quite typical.best,jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWNGrammatical errors in Revelation?
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Thomas J. Kraus thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Tue May 18 01:45:27 EDT 1999
Grammatical errors in Revelation? Matt 11:28-30 Referring to Jonathan´s posting and Jim´s reply (two distinct groups, a notion which I hold, too) about the scribes of the Pharisees.H.-J. Fabry, who has done several papers on specific questions dealing with the wider field of Qumran (esp. about “the” law), propagates that the *scribes (of the Pharisees)* is a metaphor for the *Essens (of Qumran)* (in a lecture delivered at a Cologne symposium). But he can not explain why there was a distinction between *scribes* and *scribes of the Essens*. And he does not take into account the function of *scribes* in secular Palestine or the Graeco-Roman world. Thus, his concept is explicitly theoretical and postulated.Maybe this is of any interest.Best wishes,Thomas J. KrausUniversitaet RegensburgKath.-theol. FakultaetUniversitaetsstr. 31D-93053 RegensburgFederal Republic of GermanyTel. + 49 941 943 36 90Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Grammatical errors in Revelation?Matt 11:28-30
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Thomas J. Kraus thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Tue May 18 01:45:27 EDT 1999
Grammatical errors in Revelation? Matt 11:28-30 Referring to Jonathan´s posting and Jim´s reply (two distinct groups, a notion which I hold, too) about the scribes of the Pharisees.H.-J. Fabry, who has done several papers on specific questions dealing with the wider field of Qumran (esp. about “the” law), propagates that the *scribes (of the Pharisees)* is a metaphor for the *Essens (of Qumran)* (in a lecture delivered at a Cologne symposium). But he can not explain why there was a distinction between *scribes* and *scribes of the Essens*. And he does not take into account the function of *scribes* in secular Palestine or the Graeco-Roman world. Thus, his concept is explicitly theoretical and postulated.Maybe this is of any interest.Best wishes,Thomas J. KrausUniversitaet RegensburgKath.-theol. FakultaetUniversitaetsstr. 31D-93053 RegensburgFederal Republic of GermanyTel. + 49 941 943 36 90Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Grammatical errors in Revelation?Matt 11:28-30
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Tue May 18 09:20:17 EDT 1999
Grammatical errors in Revelation? Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN “Thomas J. Kraus” wrote:> Referring to Jonathan´s posting and Jim´s reply (two distinct groups, a> notion which I hold, too) about the scribes of the Pharisees.> H.-J. Fabry, who has done several papers on specific questions dealing> with the wider field of Qumran (esp. about “the” law), propagates that the> *scribes (of the Pharisees)* is a metaphor for the *Essens (of Qumran)*> (in a lecture delivered at a Cologne symposium). But he can not explain> why there was a distinction between *scribes* and *scribes of the Essens*.> And he does not take into account the function of *scribes* in secular> Palestine or the Graeco-Roman world. Thus, his concept is explicitly> theoretical and postulated.> > Maybe this is of any interest.> Best wishes,> I wonder if the answers to Jonathan’s question that both you and Jim have given donot (unconsciously) mix up an historical question with a literary one? That is tosay, is it not possible that the phrase is something Mark himself has constructed inorder to link the Scribes of Mk 2:1-12 and the Pharisees of the conflict stories inMk. 2:15-3:6 as a unified front hostile to Jesus, rather than something whichreflects history, especially Palestinian history c. 30 CE?Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net
Grammatical errors in Revelation?Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Tue May 18 09:20:17 EDT 1999
Grammatical errors in Revelation? Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN “Thomas J. Kraus” wrote:> Referring to Jonathan´s posting and Jim´s reply (two distinct groups, a> notion which I hold, too) about the scribes of the Pharisees.> H.-J. Fabry, who has done several papers on specific questions dealing> with the wider field of Qumran (esp. about “the” law), propagates that the> *scribes (of the Pharisees)* is a metaphor for the *Essens (of Qumran)*> (in a lecture delivered at a Cologne symposium). But he can not explain> why there was a distinction between *scribes* and *scribes of the Essens*.> And he does not take into account the function of *scribes* in secular> Palestine or the Graeco-Roman world. Thus, his concept is explicitly> theoretical and postulated.> > Maybe this is of any interest.> Best wishes,> I wonder if the answers to Jonathan’s question that both you and Jim have given donot (unconsciously) mix up an historical question with a literary one? That is tosay, is it not possible that the phrase is something Mark himself has constructed inorder to link the Scribes of Mk 2:1-12 and the Pharisees of the conflict stories inMk. 2:15-3:6 as a unified front hostile to Jesus, rather than something whichreflects history, especially Palestinian history c. 30 CE?Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net
Grammatical errors in Revelation?Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Thomas J. Kraus thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Wed May 19 02:39:29 EDT 1999
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Matt 11:28-30 Jeffrey,you are right. What I wrote in the short posting, could be misunderstood. I did not refer specifically to the possibilities you mentioned (Mark might have made up this connection, of course). All I tried to throw in was that interpretes should be careful not to judge in a too decisive way whether or not the scribes are these or those (see the Essene-hypothesis supplied by Fabry), that the vocabulary used (GRAMMAEUS) must be backed by diachronic research (a GRAMMATEUS in the papyri has specific rights and duties to fulfill; cf. notes of secular Greek writers), and that the broader context of (let´s say) Mark has to be taken into consideration for talking about Mark 2:16. Then, the literary concept of Mark as a writer might flash up (that´s to be hoped at least).Yours,Thomas J. KrausUniversitaet RegensburgKath.-theol. FakultaetUniversitaetsstr. 31D-93053 RegensburgFederal Republic of GermanyTel. + 49 941 943 36 90Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWNMatt 11:28-30
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Thomas J. Kraus thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Wed May 19 02:39:29 EDT 1999
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Matt 11:28-30 Jeffrey,you are right. What I wrote in the short posting, could be misunderstood. I did not refer specifically to the possibilities you mentioned (Mark might have made up this connection, of course). All I tried to throw in was that interpretes should be careful not to judge in a too decisive way whether or not the scribes are these or those (see the Essene-hypothesis supplied by Fabry), that the vocabulary used (GRAMMAEUS) must be backed by diachronic research (a GRAMMATEUS in the papyri has specific rights and duties to fulfill; cf. notes of secular Greek writers), and that the broader context of (let´s say) Mark has to be taken into consideration for talking about Mark 2:16. Then, the literary concept of Mark as a writer might flash up (that´s to be hoped at least).Yours,Thomas J. KrausUniversitaet RegensburgKath.-theol. FakultaetUniversitaetsstr. 31D-93053 RegensburgFederal Republic of GermanyTel. + 49 941 943 36 90Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWNMatt 11:28-30
Mk 2:15-16 Wieland Willker willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
Thu Apr 4 05:01:47 EST 2002
John 2:23 Erasmus: Book review 2:15 … HSAN GAR POLLOI KAI HKOLOUQOUN AUTW.2:16 KAI OI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN IDONTES …This means:” … many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and hisdisciples — for there were many and they followed him. And the scribes ofthe Pharisees saw …”Now there is a variant reading that adds a KAI before IDONTES. … HSAN GAR POLLOI KAI HKOLOUQOUN AUTW KAI OI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN.KAI IDONTES …I am wondering if I understand this correctly to mean:” … many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and hisdisciples — for there were many and also/even the scribes of the Phariseesfollowed him. And they saw …”Some scribes were probably confused by the slightly equivocal sentencestructure: “many tax collectors … for there were many and they followedhim and the scribes ..”.It is not clear to what the KAI HKOLOUQOUN AUTW belongs. It is normallyassumed that the tax collectors followed him. But it is also possible thatthe Pharisees followed him and then saw what he was doing. To make thisexplicit, some scribes added another KAI. Is this understanding correct?Best wishes Wieland <><—————Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germanymailto:willker at chemie.uni-bremen.dehttp://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
John 2:23Erasmus: Book review