Toto

1) In 1902 when Mead wrote, the word abortion meant miscarriage. The modern usage of abortion to refer to an induced abortion is - modern. When you read abortion in earlier texts, you need to think primarily of miscarriage.

2) The description of the cosmic event involving Sophia was literally a miscarriage/abortion

That's not exactly what Mead was doing. Mead referred to an attested use from ancient times which could be contemporary to the composition of Paul's letters (Mead himself probably relied on earlier scholarship that dated most of the NT to the second century.) However, Louw-Nida have no ancient or modern Greek usage to support their interpretation.


?? What readings are those?

A miscarriage is a common occurrence. It happens when something goes off with the development of the fetus and the woman's body expels the undeveloped fetus. The fetus requires a certain time to develop; if it is born before that time, it is born dead.

There is no comparable medical case where a fetus is born too late. :huh: The closest example I can think of would be where the fetus dies and the woman can't expel it - but I don't know how she would have survived in pre-medical times.

I think this is obvious, and I don't know what a cognitive linguist could add to it.

Quite a bit. It's another topic

LegionOnomaMoi

We have texts from multiple ancient civilizations describing techniques for abortion (as in deliberately ending a pregnancy), ranging from the purely magical to the more medical. This is absolutely true of the time period and place in question, from Paul to Irenaeus. It's also true of much early periods, but that's irrelevant. The point is that the early christians, Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries were very much aware of deliberate attempts made to end pregnancies distinguished from unintended fetus death (miscarriage). So no, we don't want to think primarily of "miscarriage."

1) It wasn't. There was no "pregnancy" but a creative act: Sophia attempted to produce an offspring without a mate but lacked the power to do so.
2) The use of abortion which Irenaeus states the Valentinians apply to Paul isn't about Sophia. It starts with a description of a girl that Irenaeus tells us the Valentinians believe was a daughter of an important synagogue-chief that Christ raised from the dead. She was the one who was "apart from the Pleroma as/like an abortion." It is this use of abortion which immediately precedes Irenaeus' report of the Valentinian understanding of Paul's use of the term.


We don't know what attested use he was talking about as he doesn't tell us. It's likely that he's relying on Irenaeus because 1) most of our information about gnosticism in Mead's day came from him and 2) Irenaeus is the one who describes this interpretation of Paul's words.

However, that's irrelevant to my point. My point is that this use of ektroma is a metaphorical extension applied in Irenaeus (which according to himn the Valentinians used) first to a girl who existed apart from the Pleroma whom Christ raised from the dead, and then Paul. In neither case are we talking about abortion/miscarriage in the literal sense, but a metaphorical one. This metaphorical sense was, according to Irenaeus, concocted by the Valentinians. Even if it dates to or before Paul, someone originally extended the literal meaning of ektroma to mean "existing outside the pleroma." And we have other instances of metaphorical and unique extensions of the term, some of which have no exact parallels in any other text. So why is it "impossible" (especially given the temporal context of a sequence of actions followed by Paul as "last" and therefore "untimely") to think that Paul metaphorically extended "untimely birth" to mean "born too late," but it is possible that someone else metaphorically extended "untimely birth" to refer to a concept from a highly complex cosmological system?


I listed other metaphorical uses several posts back.




But we aren't talking about a literal miscarriage or abortion. And the earliest ancient greek lexicographer says the word means "untimely birth." Not "early untimely birth." It's not a stretch to extend the notion of being born at the wrong time (too early) to just being born at the wrong time. Certainly, it's less of a stretch than extending it to refer to a cosmological concept describing an obscure reality.


Then read some academic texts on metaphor and metonymy. Lakoff's Woman, Fire, and Dangerous Thing's is a good place to start, but if you want I can supply you with papers on the subject from journals or other academic publications.

As the majority of view among historians (including classicists like Loveday Alexander) is that Acts is a type of ancient historiography, I fail to see how this is another topic.

Toto

Hello, Mr. Linguist - my point is not about the procedure of induced abortion, which clearly existed.

When you read the word "abortion" in anything written before about 1950, the writer probably means "miscarriage," rather than "induced abortion." The meaning of the term abortion has shifted.

So there was a metaphorical pregnancy. What is a pregnancy but a creative act??
I see a big difference. The ektroma did not just exist outside the pleroma. It was an unformed mass resulting from a failed attempt at a pregnancy (or creative act, if you must.) The concept is very much like a miscarriage.

Paul (or the interpolator) lists himself last to see the risen Christ. Last does not mean untimely. An untimely birth is, by necessity, too early, and results in death. If there is any metaphor here, it could be that Paul thought of himself as born dead - but not born too late.

There really is no other form of untimely birth. Untimely birth is just a euphemism for writers too squeamish to use the indelicate terms "miscarriage" or "abortion."

I think I've explained why this is much more of a stretch, while the cosmological concept is a close analogy.

I actually have read a bit of Lakoff.

I think that the only reason you think this is a possible metaphor for born normally but too late is that you are not putting this in the context of childbirth in ancient times.

Either that, or you just like to argue. I also like to argue and this has been fun, but I've got other work I have to do.

I don't think it is the majority view among non-evangelical specialists. I refer to to Richard Pervo's The Mystery of Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk) or his other books on Acts. Or at least a dozen threads in this forum or the archives.

Adam

As I was saying....
In my thread at #555 and in #97 here, there are about 600 verses, but you're still choking on the first one? Your reading skills leave something to be desired.
Maybe someone else is capable of reading 600 verses? Or at least more than one?
The case for MJ is so weak no one can even dares to look at it?

LegionOnomaMoi

We aren't either reading or talking about "abortion" but a greek word which could refer to 'miscarriage" or "abortion" among other things. English (more so that any language I know of) has a tendency to create new words rather than extend meanings. Greek did quite the opposite (even more so than is typical). The same term would be used to cover a wide variety of meanings compared to other languages. Hence the need of context. So whatever "abortion" meant before "about 1950" is utterly irrelevant. What matters is what "ektroma" meant. And as it could refer to deliberate termination of pregnancy or miscarriage (or the various metaphorical uses), that's all that is relevant.


The only point is that the use is metaphorical. Metaphorically using or extengind (or "mapping") so-called "literal" meanings of words onto "metaphorical" uses is quite common. The problem is that you consider it impossible that Paul did this, despite the context of his usage of the term (a context which you can't appreciate given an inability to actually READ the language), yet it is no problem for you to assume that someone else did the exact same thing. Two standards of evidence. That isn't an unbiased, skeptical approach. It's using shifting standards to support one interpretation you prefer over another based on preconcieved notiions. It's exactly the sort of reasoning christian apologists, even fundamentalists, use to support X interpretation on a particular passage which actually doesn't support their view.


We're talking about a girl (NOT SOPHIA) who was born and lived (and whom allegedly the Valentinians believed Christ resurrected), but lived outside of some obscure cosmological construct of perfection, in which matter is all "abortion." So yes, the concept is very much LIKE a miscarriage. That's what METAPHOR IS. The terk ektroma meant neither miscarriage nor abortion but a birth at the wrong time (in the literal sense, so far as we can tell, early). In one interpretation, Paul takes the sense of "born at the wrong wrong time" and metaphorically maps it onto "coming to late." Under another, he takes "an aborted fetus" and maps onto all matter that exists outside of this perfect realm which would be all of reality were it not for a monstrous IMperfect reality created by Sophia. If you want to argue that the latter metaphor is somehow far more connected to the literal meaning of ektroma than the only possible explanation is that you are LOOKING for a reason to interpret the passage in a particular. And if you can't have that, you'll just fall back on some obscure argument for interpolation, without having studied textual criticism or the work done in this field on Paul's letters.That's not a historical approach. It's just as biased, just as self-serving, and just as much a matter of "special pleading" as I've seen from christian apologetics.

If he was the last, but came too late, then this is the sense that is being metaphorically mapped onto the use. Again BOTH interpretations REQUIRE metaphorical mapping. You've selected one, without even knowing where it came from because apparently Mead, writing before an enormous amount of original "gnostic" literature and the vast amount of scholarly literature resulting from it, doesn't need to be critically examined. He says the term was used in a certain way, and so you accepted it. You applied completely different standards to others, stating there was no use of this greek term which paralleled Paul's. However, Mead didn't even mention an author, let alone a text, which uses this term in that way. But you accepted it anyway.

That's quite simply wrong. A stillborn baby can be "born" at the right time. A fetus can even be "late" and be stillborn. The above is utterly and completely wrong, given any society at any time, including our own. The mother of a family I've known almost my whole life gave "birth" to a dead child shortly after it was due.

You keep using English, which is notorious for adopting and creating new words rather than extending meanings.


You've explained that you can't read Greek, you don't know much about gnosticism, you didn't know what texts Mead relied on, you couldn't point to a greek use of the word ektroma in the sense Mead refers to (I had to do that for you). And I've explained why your rejection of "untimely birth" to mean "come to late" as implausible is nothing compared to accepting the notion that all of reality is an abortion.

Great. Then why on earth, given his work, are you suggesting that Paul couldn't mean "come to late" ?


I spent years reading greco-roman texts. I spent years studying Greek and Latin (among other languages). I've read quite a bit about everything from abortion to miscarriage to exposure and the ways these were treated in the literature we have (from papyri scraps to full texts). Are you seriously suggesting that human biology somehow shifted in this era? That stillborn children couldn't be "born" late? So educate me then. What is the evidence in "the context of childbirth in ancient times" to suggest that children couln't be "born" late and be stillborn? There are greek words for "early" or "too soon." Why didn't the ancient lexicographer use these?


I like discussions. I like a back and forth where both participants know what they are talking about, or either myself or the other is lacking knowledge in the topic and receiving it. What I REALLY don't like is biased, intellectually dishonest approaches to scholarship, especially from those who don't know what they are talking about and claim that they are the ones who are unbiased.



That's because of your selective reading of the literature, which apparently consists of looking for those authors who will support the conclusions you've already arrived out (which is the only reason I can think of to support how you accepted Mead's view, although he didn't point to any usage of the word you required of others). I've read the Westar scholars too, just like I've read equally biased christian scholars like Darrell Bock. The thing is they don't represent the majority. They are the extremes on either side.


And I can refer you to a whole lot of actual scholarship published by reputable companies which require their books to be reviewed before publication. Or to journals. Not just companies which publish biblical studies either. But as you reject something like the Journal for Biblical Studies in favor of sensationalist literature designed for those largely incapable of judging its worth (because they lack the background to do so), there's no point. You aren't after you're own interpretation of historiography (what most likely happened), but a history you've already decided on.

Sheshbazzar

I'm not the one that needed to put up hundreds of evasive posts in multiple threads before finally giving in and writing out your version of even the first verse of an imagined, miracle free, and thus supposedly credible 'gospel'.

You have taken over a three hundred posts in this forum to even squeeze out your first turd.
So, are you ever going to pass your "probably"?
Is it the first verse in your miracle-free, and therefore credible gospel, or not ?

No, it can't be! "The word of God came to John the son of Zechariah, in the desert,.."

You start out the very first sentence of your gospel that does not rely on miracles.....with a supernatural miracle claim? :hysterical:
You are simply pathetic.

Adam

I thought you claimed to be a Southern hillbilly. You've never heard a preacher claim to be speaking for God? If you did you assumed you were witnessing a miracle?

Sheshbazzar

So your positon on this here verse is that no word of Gawd actually came to John?
That he was just making up shit, and shooting his mouth off, just like all of these the lying and manipulative con-men that pass for Preachers around here?
.... Yep, well then, I suppose I could buy that.
Hell no. Liars for Jeebus are a dime a dozen, and thick on the ground 'round these parts.
Need to keep everything locked up tight 'cause these Southern Christers, if they can't flim-flam you out your possessions with their Holy Jeebus speeches, they'll come round and rob you blind during the night, and get Jeebus to fergive 'em on Sunday.


But I'll be a'tellin ya boy, that thar shore don't sound like too good 'er position fer no Christian boy to be a'taken,
...that is lessen yer be awant'n one o' these here good ole Christian boys to stuff yer poop-chute.
.

Adam

Already in one verse (Luke 3:2a) the historicity of John the Baptist is established, so I see why you all fear to proceed a few verses farther and risk losing your MJ purity. You fear that you will not read of miracles and thus have to believe in HJ.

tanya

επι αρχϊερεωϲ αννα και καϊαφα εγενετο ρημα θυ επι ϊωαννην το Here's Luke 3:2, which shows, in harmony with Josephus, information about Anna and Kaiafa as high priests.

Assuming (I do not) that Josephus has not been forged, then, one has a consistent story to establish the presumed historicity of Anna and Kaiafa, not John the Baptist. I believe that these two characters were inserted into Josephus, to provide credibility to Luke. Is there an uncontaminated Hebrew text listing Anna and Kaiafa?

Luke, and the other gospels, are filled up with mythical constructs. These texts may sprinkle in a few genuine names and places, but is that different from any novel?

Where in Italy do the events described in Catch-22 occur? Pianosa? Really? Yes, the island does exist, but not the squadron described by Heller.