The Library

« first day (1571 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3017 days later) »

6:37 AM

Q: What basis did the Jews have for wanting to stone Jesus for blasphemy?

In John 10, Jesus famously says, "The Father and I are one," and then the Jews he is speaking with get angry: The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?...

I'm just curious - something I know nothing about, maybe somebody else does - when he asks about the "oral law" (here we don't need it, this is in Leviticus, but in principle) - if something is recorded in the Mishnah, is that generally assumed to be continuous with whatever "oral law" was known in 1st C. Palestine? Or is there some other source of oral law that we're talking about?

13 hours later…

Davïd

7:47 PM

A: Topicality of a Textual Question related to a Group with a Specific Doctrinal Commitment

1. Reason for VtC OP notes the "hold" reason provided by the system. Just to be clear, I did not point to that text with my VtC, but rather invoked the "bespoke" field, filled with this text: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns a specifically Christian and doct...

^^^^ There you go, @ScottS - sorry for the wait. It's like the very definition of "anti-climax". I doubt I've added anything of substance to @Susan's pithy, cogent, and clear contribution already in the Q&A thread.

2 hours later…

Susan

9:38 PM

@Davïd I don't think it's what the question was getting at in any case, but I'm still mulling over the question (from comments on Meta) of whether, outside of a framework of inspiration, a conceptual "original" text is required (in the OT case). There is a line between text criticism and redaction criticism, but it seems to be flexible.

Does anybody else think "autographa" (sing.) is odd? (Wikipedia indicates that it's correct, but I had never seen that before this Q and can't quite get my head around it.) LSJ gives an adjective αὐτόγρᾰφος, which seems reasonably Anglicized to "autograph".

I would be OK if we wanted it to be neuter for whatever reason so the plural was "autographa". But singular "autographa"? (One wonders how this is different from Ps 151's ἰδιόγραφος. I guess "auto-" refers to the document's internal claim rather than to the claim of the author, whose "own" idiograph it is?)

Davïd

9:52 PM

@Susan I think I wanted "resolves in", but I'll find a better wording at some point.

"Autographa" was new to me in Scott's question. I take it as a plural. (Is it singular??)

Susan

@Davïd He used it as if singular, and Wikipedia:

> The original manuscript (the original parchment the author physically wrote on) is called the "autographa."

Davïd

@Susan Tov's Textual Criticism big book (good old Tov) was attempting to make just that point: that there is a sliding scale from textual to literary criticism, and sometimes one finds oneself in "no man's land". (Probably the wrong metaphor here.)

Susan

@Davïd Oh, sorry.

Davïd

@Susan No matter. It means I was too obscure. :) Possibly even academic.

@Susan Well that's plain weird. (IMO, of course.)

Susan

@Davïd OK, will go back there. It's troubling for some books more than others.

Davïd

9:56 PM

@Susan True.

Jack Douglas

@Davïd don't take it personally :p

This question seems to have been closed in response to this meta post, but I'm not sure the close reason is valid as it appears to be well within scope. — Jack Douglas 2 mins ago

Davïd

@JackDouglas :D

Susan

@Davïd BTW, citing "additional reading" that has not yet been published? :-)

Davïd

@Susan Cutting edge, BH.SE.

Susan

@JackDouglas That was the automated close reason, we all realize, yes? 4/5 closed with David, + curious "too broad", as stated.

Jack Douglas

9:57 PM

joking aside, for the record, I love you answers on BH @Davïd — at least those I can understand

Susan