spin

I can't see any sign of such an idiom in Greek, but the phrase is present in the LXX of Mal 3:1 as one would expect, ...as it is a quotation.


spin

andrewcriddle

As well as its use in the Gospels for direct quotation from the OT PRO PROSWPOU is used in Luke 9:52 and 10:1

(When I said earlier PRO PROSOPWN SOU it should have been PRO PROSWPOU SOU Sorry about that.)

Andrew Criddle

Aquitaine

Yes, the two areas are different. But, political control over the subregions of this general area, and even the naming of them was ever changing, IIRC. And Herod controlled the entire area for quite some time, with both Galilee and Judaea included. So for informal discussion purposes, including them together for the time period of Herod's reign anyway is not a terrible mistake.


V, My computer time online is sporadic these days, so it is difficult for me to answer all your points in one sitting, so I can probably only respond to your points one or two at a time.

Unfortunately, No... I don't have a scholarly background as you obviously do.

I did have a class many years ago regarding biblical history. What I recall is that nearly everything in the bible is not what it claims to be. Daniel written centuries after the events it portrays, etc. This was at a Catholic college (of all places! ...and I am not catholic, btw) and the catholic students in the class were quite upset at what the professor was saying.
I wish I still had the textbooks from the class...

V, What would you recommend as a good starter "scholarly introduction to the New Testament"?

Juliana

If your goal is to convince "the scholars" who have chosen to ignore the results of the more than 200 years of research in the Historical Jesus -- which clearly failed as was stated by Bornkamm (1956), p.11 (see also Albert Schweizer): ‘Am Ende dieser Leben-Jesu-Forschung steht die Erkenntnis ihres eigenen Scheiterns—The conclusion of the Life of Jesus research is the discovery of its own failure’, -- who have only one goal, namely completing the Judaization of Jesus and dissolving him into pure myth (He did not exist, but he certainly was a Jew), if your goal is to convince them, yes, then you have to refute every single fabulation and fabrication they have come up with in the last few decades. But this wasn't Carotta's goal, he had no program and no ideological glasses dictating him how to look at this. He just stumbled across the historical Jesus, btw. under funny circumstances.
It's those scholars you cite all the time, whose task it is to refute Carotta, but for some reason they won't do it.

Just one example which perfectly shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

E) THE EASTER LITURGY DOES NOT FOLLOW THE GOSPEL, BUT THE BURIAL RITUAL OF CAESAR (as Ethelbert Stauffer proved, cf. Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Bern 1957, p. 21).

V: "That means diddly, even if true. Think about it."

The contrary is true. The liturgy is very significant. Texts, whether "holy" or not, are quite easy to adulterate and adopt to the needs of those in power. This way the version ad orientem conversa of the vita Divi Iulii came became the official gospel in the first place, under Vespasianus and his minister for Jewish affairs Flavius Josephus (aka Paulus).
The liturgy on the other hand is conservative, and thus retains more of the origin of a religion than the scriptures, Luther's sola scriptura is wrong.
Attend a Catholic Good Friday mass and an Easter Vigil. Or watch the military style processions to the water (Caesar at the Rubicon) on Epiphany (6th January, the original christmas date, senatus ultimum consultum) especially in Southern Europe. And there are umpteen other examples.
You won't do any of this however, but keep studying the OT in search for further passages, which with the "right" interpretation can somehow be "proved" to be the origin of the story of Mark. You won't look to Rome, after all it's the capital of the "empire of evil" and Caesar was an immoral pagan.
Of course you have no idea that "the opposition between the Old and the New Covenants is an oriental metaphor for the old Rome of the Senate and the new Rome of Caesar; between the old order, righteous but exploiting, and the new order, liberating and promoting brotherly love; or as poets have observed, between ROMA and its mirror image AMOR."
All this is not significant because the recent trend in so-called scholarship has chosen a different path, well...

spin

If it were an idiom in Greek, I would have expected to see it signalled in L&S. One should be able to find examples in the Greek prior to the period of the gospels. The Luke references are interesting.


spin

Amaleq13

Juliana,


You are switching subjects. Scholarly attempts to describe a historical Jesus are irrelevant in your discussion with Vorkosigan because you are not debating that topic. You are debating competing explanations for the origin of the first Gospel story. He offers an attempt to describe the creation of the original Gospel story with the Hebrew Scriptures as a primary source. That this theory is generally accepted both by folks who accept/assume a historical Jesus as well as those who deny such a notion cannot just be brushed aside as willful ignorance or dogmatic blindness. HJ proponents insist that the author is recording history by way of Scripture while MJ proponents argue that the author is expressing his beliefs by way of Scripture. They both agree that Scripture was a primary tool in the author's efforts.

You, on the other hand, offer a relatively unique description of the creation of the story that, unless I am mistaken, does not appear to have been published for peer review yet seeks to overturn/deny a general consensus among scholars. To suggest that Carotta does not need to directly address that consensus with something more than a suggestion of conspiracy or accusations of a fear of change is simply ridiculous. He clearly needs to defend the claim that his explanation for the origin of the story is better than the one currently accepted.

The mere fact that Carotta's explanation is not obvious and is clearly far more complicated is sufficient to require a direct rebuttal to the more obvious and less complicated explanation currently accepted.

Juliana

No, I am not switching subjects.

Carotta does not suggest conspiracy nor fear. The fear idea is my speculation. There must be a reason why the majority of scholars so far prefer to ignore his book. The reason is not that it is "baaaaad", not the "refutations" provided by Vorkosigan, that much is clear. Does he think he understands something of (Greek) linguistics, (Roman) history or archaeology? Does he think he can compete with the scholarship of say a Fotis Kavoukopoulos?
Why should Carotta DEFEND his "claim" (better word 'discovery') if nobody criticizes it - in a decent form and in an appropriate medium, e.g. a peer reviewed journal? Probably even a "rebuttal" in such a paper would not be published today, the very thought of it, the very idea of taking this revolutionary discovery seriously is out-of-bounds, a big no-no. The way they censor it is to simply hush it up.
And the "currently accepted explanation" is the one accepted by the majority in the Anglo-Saxon world I suppose?

Amaleq13

You clearly are when you change the subject from scholarly explanations of the Scriptural origins of Mark's Gospel to scholarly attempts to describe/identify "the" historical Jesus. Only the former is actually relevant to your current discussion with Vorkosigan. I understand that, ultimately, Carotta's theory identifies the historical Jesus but it is the explanation of Mark's origins that is being questioned not the obtained conclusion.

Some reasons have already been suggested and they are, IMO, far more plausible than your suggestions of fear and/or conspiracy. For example, they might not have heard of him or they might consider the idea insufficiently serious to warrant professional consideration. Attempting to publish the theory for peer review would directly address both. Attempting to publish it for mass consumption does not.

He should do so because it is an excellent way to have his theory taken seriously both by the scholars and those who rely upon them for their professional opinions.

Making the effort and having it rejected might lend your conspiracy theory some credibility but you have to understand that, as it currently stands, it tends to lump you in with all other unsubstantiated conspiracy theorists and I'm sure that isn't the impression you want to create.

You will find Mark's author's use of Hebrew Scripture frequently mentioned in just about any professional publication containing New Testament scholarship.

Vorkosigan

Juliana, are you aware that "Schweizer" wrote that piece a century ago? And that Bornkamm wrote half a century ago? Do you think that scholars' understanding of the Gospel has stood still since 1956?

Probably because they don't even know he exists, since he hasn't published in a peer reviewed journal.

Juliana, even if it could be shown that the liturgy came from the burial ritual of Caesar -- and I seriously doubt that -- that would not tell me anything except that Christians borrowed the liturgy. But once again we find Carotta citing a scholar from 50 years ago. Has Carotta read anything written after 1980?

The world accepts this, except for Carotta. Let's see....world--Carotta..... world--Carotta..... world--Carotta.... Not a difficult choice there.

:rolling: Do you think I am some sort of Christian? I'm an atheist, Juliana.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

The modern Catholic Easter Liturgy probably goes back in its essentials to the time of Constantine or his successor Constantius. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem is probably important in its development. It is not primitive.

The genuinely primitive Easter liturgy is what we find in Melito's homily 'On the Pasch' and in scattered references in Tertullian and other early fathers.

Andrew Criddle