You can now read the newest Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (number 28) online here. The only problem is that it does not show the critical apparatus on the bottom of each page nor the cross-references in the margins.
For my current project, which focuses on how early Christians understood Moses' visions, I have been delving much into Second and Third Century Christian sources. During the past week, I have been playing a lot with Theophilus of Antioch with his treatise/letter/apology to Autolycus. Theophilus, let's say, has a fairly unique Christology in many ways. Much of this was explicitly rejected by his rough contemporary Irenaeus and has been discussed at length by modern scholars. But there is one aspect of his Christology that has been largely ignored and is, well, quirky. ὁ μὲν θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων ἀχώρητὸς ἐστιν καὶ ἐν τόπῳ οὐχ εὑρίσκεται· οὐ γὰρ ἐστιν τόπος καταπαύσεως αὐτοῦ. ὁ δὲ Λόγος αὐτοῦ, δι᾽οὗ τὰ πάντα πεποίκηκεν, δύναμισ ὤν καὶ σοφία αὐτοῦ, ἀναλαμβάνων τὀ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου τῶν ὅλων, οὗτος παρεγίνετο εἰς τὸν παράδεισον ἐν προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁμίλει τῷ Ἀδάμ. Καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ ἡ θεία γραφὴ διδάσκει ἡμᾶς τὸν Ἀδὰμ λέγοντα τῆς φωνῆς...
I just finished reading Peter Schafer's new book, Jesus in the Talmud . Previous discussions on this theme have revolved around whether or not the rare appearances of Jesus in Rabbinic literature can contribute to our understanding of the "historical Jesus." Notable in this respect is the highly erudite and ultimately fruitless study by Johann Maier entitled, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Ueberlieferung . Schaefer seeks to move beyond such questions and discuss why Jesus is portrayed the way he is in the Talmud (basically, and to no one's surprise, in a very negative light). His thesis is that the Talmud's occasional discussions of Jesus--when Jesus usually is NOT the primary topic under discussion, but is merely used as an example for another point--provides a "devastating counternarrative" to the gospels. "Counternarrative," by the way, is Schaefer's favorite word in this book. To demonstrate this, he engages in close readi...
If there is any ancient reflection on the dangers, or perhaps terrors, of knowledge, particularly self-knowledge, self-realization, it would have to be Sophocles' Oedipus the King . On my reading, the true tragedy of the play is not that Oedipus killed his father and married his mother (both unknowingly), but the tragedy is gaining knowledge of this, realizing he is who he is. Whereas, if he did not seek out this knowledge, presumably he could have lived out his life in ignorant bliss. Thus, Teiresias, although verbally abused by Oedipus, at first protects Oedipus from this self-knowledge with a reflection on the brutality and horror that can come from wisdom: Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that's wise! This I knew well, but had forgotten it, else I would not have come here. (Oedipus the King 316-9; trans. David Grene) In fact, many people in Thebes already know who Oedipus is, know his true origins, but refuse to tell him. In addition to Te...
Comments