jgibson000

I note with interest Yuri's attempt at

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...17#post3518117

to explain why it is that my (or the moderators') questioning him about his competence in Greek is both unnecessary and irrelvant vis a vis his claims regarding the style of the Greek of the PA and that of Luke.

If I may, I should like to respond to what he says, and I'll do so point by point

As anyone who has actually examined translations of Greek against the Greek that was translated knows, we can assume no such thing.

But even if it we could assume it – that is to say, even if were to hold that it is legitimate to think that the existence of similarities between English translations of Greek texts is a strong indication that the Greek behind these translations is "quite similar" -- the question still remains: is it?

The only way to tell is by going to those Greek texts themselves and looking to see what's what's there and then pointing to the actual Greek lexical and grammatical and sytactical features of those texts that provide primary evidence for this claim.

And since your argument is that the actual Greekof the PA (let alone any portion of it) is similar in style to the style of Greek that is found in and throughout Luke (and not just in a portion of it), then knowledge of Greek, let alone your display of such knowledge, is indeed both necessary and relevant to prove it, since you cannot make your case, let alone examine the Greek that you say is the same, without it.

One wonders why you didn't deal with Greek text from the beginning.

The argument of this note is (I think) "How could I have studied these texts for so long if I had not known Greek" or "How could I have studied these texts so long and not come away with a knowledge of Greek?".

The answer is the first question is "quite easily" if you've been studying only the English translations of them.

And the answer to the second is, the proof's in the pudding.

In any case, I'm not sure how the length of time you've been dealing with biblical texts indicates or guarentees any competence in Greek since the issue is not how long you've been studying the texts, but whether the versions of the texts you've actually studied are in Greek whether you ever were actually sufficeintly trained in Greek to be able to read them in this language..

Now as your track record shows, your study of biblical texts was usually of English translations of them or as they are set out in interlinears. And even if I'm wrong about this, even if all of your study has been of the Greek text alone, there's no indication that you leared much about Greek from doing so, let alone that you had training in Greek to be able to understand what vyou were looking at..

Virtually ever time I know of when you've made claims about Greek, you've got it wrong. This is true even when you've used and cited such Greek tools as LSJ. Even in these instances, you've shown a fundamental and persistent inability to understand what LSJ says or what the data set out there indicates. You've been unaware of many of the glosses given there. You've frequently mis translitereated the Greek words you site. You've aspirated words that have no aspiration and written omicrom for omega. And you've not been aware that in your discussion of words, you've given their plural forms when you were speaking of singulars or accusative forms when you were speaking of nominatives. All of this is entirely inexplicable if you are claiming that your years of study have rendered you Greek competent or that you couldn't have studied Greek texts unless you knew Greek..

Yes, you have. But it's interesting to note not only that in many of the occasions when you were discussiing the wording of UBS4/NA 26, you would only give the text of those critical editions in the form of a translation based upon it (the RSV), and that vyou were not able to understand the wording of of variant readings, also that not a single one of these "articles" has ever been published in any professional journal. Nor, so far as I know (and as you yourself have stated), have you ever made even the slightest attempt to get them published in such journals, let alone to present or discuss them in an acaedmic setting or at a regional or national conference of one of the professional biblical societies. Why is that?

Moreover, to my knowledge when anyone who is competent/trained in Greek has taken the trouble to read your "work", and thought it worthwhile to respond to it, those persons have always and without exception panned it.

The evidence speaks for itself. As does your continual refusal both to actually engage directly with the questions your are asked about the claims you make on matters Greek and to provide what would be the actual Greek evidence you should provide when called to do so.

Of course not, especially when the subject in question does not involve authoritative claims about Greek, the exegesis of the Greek of a NT passage, or a discussion of the actual grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of Greek texts. But when it does, then knowledge of Greek is both necessary and relevant -- especially if that person wishes to be taken seriously.

Yes, but leaving aside the question of why you didn't do so, let's note that when you first posted on the style of the Greek of the PA, you were talking about what you, on the grounds of your own examination of the text, concluded was the case. So quoting others would have been (and is) irrelevant and beside the point.

And here I though the important matter was whther or not there was any truth to, and Greek evidence supporting, your claim about the style of the Greek of the PA being similar to the style of the Greek charactistic of Luke. Dear me! How could I have been so wrong?

But as long as we're expressing opinions about why people have done what they've done, let me note that besides myself there is an increasing number on IIDB who are certain that both your accusing me of engaging in ad hominem and your persistent harping on how the question of your competence in Greek is irrelevant in matter of whether you actually know what the Greek style of the PA and of Luke actually is, is a tactic to avoid having to answer a question that, if you actually responded to the specifics, has the potential to show that you do not possess the knowledge you claim to possess.

But as I've said on many an occasion before, you can easily prove me (and others) wrong once and for all by bringing forth the Greek evidence (in Greek) that you think supports your case.

Jeffrey Gibson

judge

Doesn't this sound a bit far fetched?

Independent communties all happen to excise the exact same portion, without any collusion?:huh:

No Robots

Hey, I'm just going by what Augustine said (quoted above).

jgibson000

No you are not. You are going by a misunderstanding and an over interpretation of what Augustine said.

Jeffrey Gibson

No Robots

Augustine says that many Christians excised the pericope out of some sort of moral qualm. What is there to mis- or overinterpret? I say nothing about the origin of the pericope, or of the NT as a whole for that matter. I'm just saying that this passage has a unique, fascinating and ancient history. It seems that it has long been very controversial, and it remains so. So be it.

PhilosopherJay

Hi jgibson,

Thanks, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you before. I think I understand you now.

Before the Christ/Messiah stories became what they became, we know that they were popular. We know of over 30 gospels and hundreds of related text. They were obviously fulfilling a need for entertainment in Judea/Syria Palestine and surrounding areas by the mid-second century. That some of these were declared holy or God-inspired later should not prevent us from seeing them as originally popular entertainment. In the same way, we may appreciate Shakespeare as the greatest writer of modern times, while he considered that his plays were merely foddah for the uncouth masses.

We know that popular entertainment develops along certain paradigmatic lines. Successful popular entertainment blends and updates popular entertainment that came before. For example, the new movie "Superman Returns" reworks material from previous Superman movies, television shows and comic books. The original character was an evil Superman meant to refer to Adolf Hitler. "King Kong" which came out last Summer was a remake of "King Kong" from 1933. Yet the love theme between human girl (Naomi Watts) and Ape was much closer to the 1970 version starring Jessica Lange. It was quite different from the 1933 version with Fay Wray (the first so-called scream-queen) who was simply terrified of the monster. The successful Star Wars movie series were an updating and revision of the popular Flash Gordon serials of the 1930's. However, it did mix in special effects which were popularized in the "Star Trek" television series of the 60's and slightly later movies such as "2001 a Space Odyssey" and "Logan's Run."

So, in general popular entertainment involves revision, updating and mixing of previously popular themes and narratives. This understanding allows us to deconstruct scenes in the gospels into their prior constructs in earlier and possibly an original gospel. I suggest in my book, that this original gospel took the form a play that was written by a woman.

As far as reconstructing the original adulteress scene goes, we should keep in mind the dramatic possibilities in this particular scene. That should lead us in the right direction. Here is my full reconstruction: The words in bold, I believe were in the original, the words in italics are the words currently found in the text but were inserted later.

2: Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.
3: The scribes and the Pharisees His disciples brought a woman Mary whom they said had been caught in adultery, and placed her in the middle
4: they said to him, "Rabbi this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
5: Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"
6: This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him and that they might have some charge to bring against her. Jesus Simon bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. He wrote: If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
7: And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who committed adultery with her, accuse her. is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
8: And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. He wrote, “both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.
9: But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest,
7.53: They went each to his own house,
and Jesus Simon was left alone with the woman standing before him.
10: Jesus Simon looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned accused you?"
11: She said, "No one, Lord, Rabbi." And Jesus Simon said, "Neither do I condemn accuse you; go." and do not sin again.



2. "He came again to the Temple" The savior moved between Bethany, where he lived with Mary and the Temple. He probably didn't teach in the temple but went to make sacrifices. The revisionists had him teaching in the temple (no doubt a difficult atmosphere to teach in with animals being slaughtered all around
3. It is absurd to think that the scribes and pharasees would bring a real woman to the Savior to judge an actual case. If they wanted his views on adultery, they only had to ask him. It is the disciples who bring things to the savior (children, blindmen) not the scribes and pharasees.
The narrator would not have stated Mary's adultery as a fact, but simply the fact that the disciples had charged her with adultery. This is part of a pattern of conflict between Mary and the disciples that we see over and over again in gospel texts.
4. Note that the actors on stage repeat what the narrator has just told us. It reinforces the audience's understanding.
6. I believe the original savior character was called Simon for many reasons too complicated to go into at the moment. That the savior character wrote something on the ground is important to the story. The revisionists make a mess of the story by leaving out what he wrote. It is important to the story. It is simply unbelievable that a story could be told about the lead character writing something on the ground and the audience/reader not be told what it is. So why did they leave it out? They left it out simply because the savior was simply quoting the Mosaic law. This meant the the savior both knew and approved of the Mosaic law.
7. The statement by Jesus in the revised text is absurd. Since no one is without sin, it means that no one should ever punish anyone who breaks a law, not just a Mosaic law, but any law. How ridiculous. Also, the savior character is not even bothering with a trial. He is judging without hearing an accusation or defense. Absurd.
8. Again, we have to know what he wrote. Here, in the reconstruction, he is emphasizing the point that both the adulter and adulterous is going to be stoned.
9. It should be noted that in the original text, the disciples were Mary's brothers. So that is why the eldest goes home first, as he was the first one that she committed adultery with.
7.53. This line is found in the previous story, but makes much more sense here.
11. She calls him Rabbi as the disciples do at the beginning of the story. The term Lord is a later apellation for the Savior.
Simon cannot accuse her, because he himself has committed adultery with her.
The last phrase "and do not sin again." is silly moralizing having nothing to do with the story.

That is the full reconstruction as best as I can determine.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay[/COLOR][/COLOR]

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Sorry.

I was thinking of the Carpocratians when I thought that the original had an incestuous theme. Possibly, they interpeted the scene that way, but, upon better consider, the brothers/disciples just needed to have commited adultery generally, rather than with Mary. Mistakes like these happen when you constantly get interupted by real life problems and have to work on things at one o'clock in the morning. I apologize. So here is the corrected version. Remember the italics indicate what I believe to be the revised material and the bold indicates the original material. Material in both the original and revised versions is in normal type.


2: Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.
3: The scribes and the Pharisees His disciples brought a woman Mary whom they said had been caught in adultery, and placed her in the middle
4: They said to him, "Rabbi this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
5: Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"
6: This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him and that they might have some charge to bring against her. Jesus Simon bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. He wrote: If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
7: And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who has not committed adultery, pick up a stone and accuse her. is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
8: And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. He wrote, “both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.
9: But when they heard read it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest,
7.53: They went each to his own house,
and Jesus Simon was left alone with the woman standing before him.
10: Jesus Simon looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned accused you?"
11: She said, "No one, Lord, Rabbi." And Jesus Simon said, "Neither do I condemn accuse you; go." and do not sin again.



Reconstruction Notes:
2. "He came again to the Temple" The savior moved between Bethany, where he lived with Mary and the Temple. He probably didn't teach in the temple but went to make sacrifices. The revisionists had him teaching in the temple (no doubt a difficult atmosphere to teach in with animals being slaughtered all around. Also, one has to wonder what happens to the crowd in the story, apparently quietly watching as this woman is potentially stoned. They disappear from the story like magic, an indication that they were never there to begin with.
3. It is absurd to think that the scribes and pharasees would bring a real woman to the Savior to judge an actual case. If they wanted his views on adultery, they only had to ask him. It is the disciples who bring things to the savior (children, blindmen) not the scribes and pharasees.
The narrator would not have stated Mary's adultery as a fact, but simply the fact that the disciples had charged her with adultery. This is part of a pattern of conflict between Mary and the disciples that we see over and over again in gospel texts.
4. Note that the actors on stage repeat what the narrator has just told us. It reinforces the audience's understanding.
6. I believe the original savior character was called Simon for many reasons too complicated to go into at the moment. That the savior character wrote something on the ground is important to the story. The revisionists make a mess of the story by leaving out what he wrote. It is important to the story. It is simply unbelievable that a story could be told about the lead character writing something on the ground and the audience/reader not be told what it is. So why did they leave it out? They left it out simply because the savior was simply quoting the Mosaic law. This meant the the savior both knew and approved of the Mosaic law.
7. The statement by Jesus in the revised text is absurd. Since no one is without sin, it means that no one should ever punish anyone who breaks a law, not just a Mosaic law, but any law. How ridiculous. Also, the savior character is not even bothering with a trial. He is judging without hearing a witness or defense. It is as if a Jewish trial did not demand the accusation of witnesses. Absurd.
8. Again, we have to know what he wrote. Here, in the reconstruction, he is emphasizing the point that both the adulter and adulteress is going to be stoned.
9. It should be noted that in the original text, the disciples were Mary's brothers. So that is why the eldest goes home first, as he was the first one t to commit adultery.
Picking up a stone would have been a lot quieter than casting a stone. The savior would not have heard it looking on the ground, while he would certainly have heard a casting of a stone.
7.53. This line is found in the previous story, but makes much more sense here.
11. She calls him Rabbi as the disciples do at the beginning of the story. The term Lord is a later apellation for the Savior.
Simon cannot accuse her, because he himself has committed adultery. This admission that Jesus/Simon had committed adultery did not fit with the later puritanical beliefs about him and so was eliminated. Yet, the fact that the Rabbi has the courage to admit that he himself has committed adult makes it a wonderfully charming rabbinical story, which probably predates both Simon Magus and Helena and Jesus and Mary.
The last phrase "and do not sin again." is silly moralizing having nothing to do with the story.

Here is the story without the interpolated material, as I believe it originally was.


2: Early in the morning he came again to the temple;
3: His disciples brought Mary whom they said had been caught in adultery, and placed her in the middle
4: They said to him, "Rabbi this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
5: Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"
6: This they said to test him, and that they might have some charge to bring against her. Simon bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. He wrote: If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
7: And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who has not committed adultery, pick up a stone and accuse her.
8: And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. He wrote, “both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.
9: But when they read it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest,
7.53: They went each to his own house,
and Simon was left alone with the woman standing before him.
10: Simon looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one accused you?"
11: She said, "No one, Rabbi." And Simon said, "Neither do I accuse you; go."

jgibson000

Leaving aside the question of the validity of your major premise (that the genre of the Vorlage of the Gospels was "popular entertainment"), let alone how you've begged the question in equivocating that which is popular with that which is "entertainment", it is methodologically illegitimate (and certainly question begging) to use modern examples of how modern pieces of entertainment (and especially pieces whose forms did not exist in the 1st century) develops as illustrations of, or as the basis of claims about how, ancient entertainment purportedly developed.

For your thesis to have any merit, it must be based on the use of ancients of ancient pieces.

I wonder, then: Have you even looked at Hellenistic examples of spins on older, more original material? Have you, for instance, examined, say, Plautus developed Menander, or how Menander developed Aristophanies, or how 1st century tragedians made use of the "entertainments" originally given much earlier at the Dionysia, or the great tragedias developed the stories on which their plays were based??


Actually what we should keep in mind is the actual data of how what the ancient thought were the dramatic possibilities of their source material and what they knew to be the way that these possibilities developed, not what we think of or know to be the dramatic possibilities of a piece. Not doing so runs the risk of anachonism.

Thanks for this. But this isn't exactly what I asked for. I asked you to set out your reconstruction not in English but in Greek (or Aramaic) so that we could see exactly how the Vorlage of -- in this case, the PA -- was changed by later editors, the Greek text of which we have.

I also asked you to state whether or not you can actually do this.

Umm ... animals were slaughtered only in the inner precinct of the Temple, far away from, and divided off by walls and barriers from the rest of the vast space of the Temple. So not only would there not be a "not conduscive to teaching" atmosphere in the Temple; we know from the Rabbinic lietrature that teaching went on there all the time. Indeed, there were schools there.

OK, Jay. Let's note two things:

(1) Your criterion for determining the truth and accuracy of a description within a story (or the validity of the present form of a story) is your judgement of what is and is not "absurd". But why should we accept your your judgement about what is and is not absurd as true, especially when, as noted above with respect to your claims about what could and could not have gone on in the Temple, your judgement about this is apparently historically and culturally uninformed?

2. If it really is a good criterion, then I can use it too. And since to my eyes, what you write is absurd, nothing of what you say can be true.

Jeffrey Gibson

Julian

Here is what I think the PA was originally, with excuses for my poor Greek grammar skills:

7 ... ειπεν προς αυτους ο αναμαρτητος υμων πρωτος τον λιθον επ αυτη βαλετω
8 λιθος εκ οχλοω πετεται
9 ιησους ειπεν·Μητηρ!

Julian

jgibson000

You forgot the tag line "sometimes you really piss me off!"

Jeffrey