Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Although there are several parallel phrases in Barnabas and 1 Peter (Barn. 5.6 and 1 Pet 1:20), it is only with Polycarp that clear use of 1 Peter is found (e.g., Pol. Phil. 1.3 and 1 Pet 1:8; Pol. Phil. 10:2 and 1 Pet 2:12). The author of 2 Pet 3:1 (ca. 100-125, or possibly as late as 180) refers to the existence of an earlier letter by the Apostle Peter. Eusebius claimed that Papias (ca. 100-150) knew and used 1 Peter (Hist. eccl. 3.39.17), and he includes it in the list of the recognised books (3.25.2 and 3.3.1). Irenaeus was the first to use 1 Peter by name (Haer. 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2), and thereafter many references are made to the book by the early church fathers. Early witnesses validate the use of the book in the church, and it does not appear to have been seriously questioned in the fourth century, even though it is missing in the Muratorian Fragment.
Lee Martin MacDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origins, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 395-396.
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Seneca, Ep. 94:1-2
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Seneca, De beneficiis 2.18.1-2
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Aristotle Pol. 1.1253b.1–14.
And now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management; for every state is composed of households. Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriage (there is no exact term denoting the relation uniting wife and husband), and thirdly the progenitive relationship (this too has not been designated by a special name). Let us then accept these three relationships that we have mentioned.
ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν ἐξ ὧν μορίων ἡ πόλις συνέστηκεν, ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον περὶ οἰκονομίας εἰπεῖν: πᾶσα γὰρ σύγκειται πόλις ἐξ οἰκιῶν. οἰκονομίας δὲ μέρη ἐξ ὧν πάλιν οἰκία συνέστηκεν: οἰκία δὲ τέλειος ἐκ δούλων καὶ ἐλευθέρων. ἐπεὶδ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις πρῶτον ἕκαστον ζητητέον, πρῶτα δὲ καὶ ἐλάχιστα μέρη οἰκίας δεσπότης καὶ δοῦλος, καὶ πόσις καὶ ἄλοχος, καὶ πατὴρ καὶ τέκνα, περὶ τριῶν ἂν τούτων σκεπτέον εἴη τί ἕκαστον καὶ ποῖον δεῖ εἶναι. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ γαμική （ἀνώνυμον γὰρ ἡ γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸςσύζευξις） καὶ τρίτον τεκνοποιητική （καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ὠνόμασται ἰδίῳ ὀνόματι）. ἔστωσαν δὴ αὗται τρεῖς ἃς εἴπομεν. ἔστι δέ τι μέρος ὃ δοκεῖ τοῖς μὲν εἶναι οἰκονομία, τοῖς δὲ μέγιστον μέρος αὐτῆς: ὅπως δ᾽ ἔχει, θεωρητέον: λέγω δὲ περὶ τῆς καλουμένης χρηματιστικῆς.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
- The Prophetic Demonstration in the Temple (19:45-48)
- The Question of Jesus’ Authority (20:1-8). See especially 20:8.
- Jerusalem’s Unfaithful Leadership (20:9-19). See especially 20:19.
- The Question of Caesar’s Authority (and the Priority of the Temple) (20:20-26).
- The Question of Moses’ Authority (20:27-40).
- The Question of the Messiah’s Authority (20:41-44).
- Warning to the Disciples (20:45-21:4)
- Prophecy of Judgement on the Temple (21:5-6)
Vs. 45 In the hearing of all the people he said to the disciples:
Vs. 46 “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honour at banquets.
Vs. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.
Jesus' response to this treatment of the poor widows is a pronouncement of greater condemnation. The poor widow, a symbol of all those vulnerable in socieity, has been taken advantage of by the very system that was supposed to care for her. As Green notes,
Vs. 1 He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury;
Vs. 2 he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.
Vs. 3 He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;
Vs. 4 for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”
Vs. 5 And they were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said
Vs. 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.”
So this narrative episode begins with a prophetic utterance of judgement noting that the temple is filled with "robbers", it ends with a prophetic utterance of judgement, "not one stone will be left standing." Throughout the various scenes in this episode, there is conflict between Jesus and the scribes, those associated with the temple. Just before the pronouncement of judgement, Jesus offers his disciples a stark warning: The scribes are selfish and corrupt, and they are taking advantage of poor widows, and they will receive the greater condemnation. Jesus then notes a specific example of a poor widow being taken advantage of, and walks out of the temple and announces one last time that the temple, along with those associated with it, will be judged.
 See J. D. M. Derrett, “‘Eating Up the Houses of Widows’: Jesus’s Comment on Lawyers?” NovT 14 (1972): 1-9.
 Green, 725.
 BDAG #5776.
 A. G. Wright, “The Widow’s Mite: Praise or Lament? – A Matter of Context,” CBQ 44 (1982): 256-65, here, 262-63.
 Evans, Luke, 302.
 Wright, The Widow’s Mite,” 262.
 Green, 728-29.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
1:17 If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds, live in reverent fear during the time of your exile.
2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
First Peter 2:10 is frequently seen to be a clear proof that the audience must be Gentiles. Here we have an intertextual echo or partial quotation of Hosea 1:9-10. Could our author really have been referring to Jews by phrases like “once you were not a people” or “once you had received no mercy”? This in some ways is a very odd question when one reads the original text of Hosea in its own context, where Hosea is clearly speaking of and about Jews, and offering a prophetic critique of their behavior. The prophet is indeed talking about Israel being temporally rejected and then restored. Thus there is no good reason why the author of 1 Peter could not be using this language in the same way as some of his own Jewish contemporaries. The key perhaps is to recognize that our author, himself a Jew, reflects the view of over-Hellenized Diaspora Jews that was not uncommon among more Torah-true Jews, who had been raised and lived in a more conservative environment in the Holy Land. For instance, consider the reaction of Qumranic Jews to Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere. [28-29]