Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-09-2012, 06:17 PM

There is an interesting word in Jewish Aramaic which is worth investigating

Quote:

tarputh *Af. אתךיף to use foul language, blaspheme. Targ. Ps.XLIV, 7 Levita (ed. מגדף). א פ ר ת , Pirke d'R. El. ch. L I, end, v.מרפיון. foulness,] obscenity, debauchery at] (תרף) .f ת ר פ ו ת idolatrous festivals. Ab. Zar. 11,3 וכי אסור לת׳ החולכין you must not deal with those who journey to idolatrous festivals (Dionysia), but you may deal with those who are coming home; Tosef. ib. 1,15; Y.ib.II,41 b איה הניי [:read] some read תני ת׳ ואית תניי תני תרבות מ א ן . . . תרפים וכ׳ tarputh, and others read tarbuth; he that reads tarputh refers to Vrafim (תרפים obscenities, v.תורפת) &c, v^־vta. Tosef.I.e. 16 בת׳ טיירא עם ...לא (our w.omitted in ed.Zuck.) a man (Jew) must not go with a party on an idolatrous pilgrimage. Bab. ib. 32 b if a gentile is נכרי תתולך לת׳ וכ׳ going to an idolatrous festival, you must not deal with him, because he goes to offer his devotion to idolatry, but on his way back you may deal with him &c.; יטראל וכ׳ לת׳ ההולך if a Jew is going to an idolatrous festival, you may deal with him on his way to it, for he may. reconsider and not go &c; a.e. [Jastrow Jewish Aramaic p 1701]

In many dialects tarputh would be pronounced tarfut. I wonder if it was later related to triumph. מרפיון is certainly a verb meaning foulness in Hebrew. But I wonder whether it was related to the Greek word for triumph.

stephan huller · 10-09-2012, 06:23 PM

The term is directed against Christians such as beit tarput or 'house of idolatry' for a church

http://books.google.com/books?id=AE_...tarput&f=false

sotto voce · 10-10-2012, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The term is directed against Christians such as beit tarput or 'house of idolatry' for a church

http://books.google.com/books?id=AE_...tarput&f=false

To be expected?

'Thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. Because we are to God the perfume of Christ; among those who are being saved, and to those who are perishing. To the one we are the stench of death, leading to death; to the other, the fragrance of life, leading to life.' 2 Co 2:14-16

PhilosopherJay · 10-10-2012, 06:31 AM

Hi Vorkosigan,

Good stuff, thanks.

The dating of the writing of the gospels is a very serious and basic problem. Right now, theological and ideological considerations seem to drive the dating theories. The dating markers that are used seem to be ambiguous and the gospels do not really fit well with other literature of the time. It would be nice to have some real historical and/or scientific evidence.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I used this paper to date Mark many years ago, it is probably the most important paper ever written for the date of Mark.

http://michaelturton2.blogspot.tw/20...f-mark_22.html
http://michaelturton2.blogspot.tw/20...killed-in.html

sotto voce · 10-10-2012, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Good stuff, thanks.

The dating of the writing of the gospels is a very serious and basic problem.

In an age of oral transmission? It is of 'academic' importance.

aa5874 · 10-10-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Good stuff, thanks.

The dating of the writing of the gospels is a very serious and basic problem. Right now, theological and ideological considerations seem to drive the dating theories. The dating markers that are used seem to be ambiguous and the gospels do not really fit well with other literature of the time. It would be nice to have some real historical and/or scientific evidence.

Paleogaphy is an accepted method of dating ancient writings. Paleography is not only used on NT manuscripts but on all ancient writings. C 14 does NOT date the writing at all. C 14 dates the medium or the BLANK pages.

For example, if an ancient writing is found on a stone tablet C 14 would be useless. In general, the medium existed BEFORE words are inscribed.

We have hundreds of manuscripts that have been recovered and dated and the pattern is extremely clear--- there was NO Jesus story or cult known in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

We have stories in the Short gMark that are found ONLY in the writings of Josephus that were composed around c 96 or later.

We can deduce that the authors of the Short gMark, the Long gMark and gMatthew were NOT influenced by the Pauline letters.

The author of Acts claimed he wrote a Jesus story but Never claimed SAUL/PAUL wrote letters to Churches.

Acts 1

Quote:

1 The former treatise have I made , O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach , 2Until the day in which he was taken up , after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen...

The author of Acts did NOT even acknowledge the Pauline letters but claimed it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote letters and gave them to Paul and his group to deliever them.

It is clear that when Acts was composed the Pauline letters were NOT yet invented.

A Jesus story and Acts of the Apostles PREDATE the Pauline letters to Churches.

sotto voce · 10-10-2012, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The author of Acts did NOT even acknowledge the Pauline letters but claimed it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote letters and gave them to Paul and his group to deliever them.

What strange fiction.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2012, 06:23 PM	#32
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The term is directed against Christians such as beit tarput or 'house of idolatry' for a church http://books.google.com/books?id=AE_...tarput&f=false

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.