Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 09-07-2011, 10:40 AM

error

archibald · 09-07-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Arguing with divorce lawyers is fruitless.

Indeed. And you can lead a gift horse horse to water, but you will never make his teeth into a silk purse. I think.

Never mind the bible. I need explanations of idioms used in this thread recently!

archibald · 09-07-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is an old maxim where I come from which roughly translates as : 'Do not use silk patches to mend sack-cloth !'

Best,
Jiri

Jiri. Are you still speaking to me? Anything more on the 'less dead' thing, in the other thread?

TedM · 09-07-2011, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is an old maxim where I come from which roughly translates as : 'Do not use silk patches to mend sack-cloth !'

Best,
Jiri

Well, as I said I'm not your enemy here. This isn't war or even a chess game where I require that I win and you lose. I'm just trying to figure out if what you say has any real substance to it or not and of course I am coming into the issue with my own biases and filters just like you are so I won't immediately agree with you on everything.

There is nothing in the saying about enemies, war or chess, Ted. It addresses your incredulity as to why I should be condescending to you.

Jiri

I interpret the saying to mean 'don't waste your precious time on someone not deserving of it'. I don't think I deserved it.

andrewcriddle · 09-07-2011, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Like I said, I'm not sure if hyperbole isn't at least as often more flagrant closer to events than later (though both would seem to be possible, obviously). Coincidentally, I read in today's Telegraph Newspaper that a team of German historians have just spent 5 years researching the likely accurate number of casualities during the bombing of dresden in WW2. Perhaps if something like that, in the 20th Century, isn't clear for 70 years, and subject to gross exaggeration by some in the interim, then maybe a highly exaggerated/unsubstantiated rumour about numbers of people in the 1st Century could have floated about for a while, and been picked up on or used by an ardent supporter. Just saying it's a possibility. :]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-conclude.html

I'm not sure that any objective historian has ever suggested that over 100,000 people died in the Dresden bombing.

The very high figures seem to come from groups and individuals with a polemical agenda.

Andrew Criddle

archibald · 09-07-2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm not sure that any objective historian has ever suggested that over 100,000 people died in the Dresden bombing.

The very high figures seem to come from groups and individuals with a polemical agenda.

Andrew Criddle

Have you got that the right way around? Do you mean that you think early Christian proselytizers were more like objective historians rather than being people from groups with a polemical agenda?

spin · 09-07-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You haven't read any relevant material. Try here.

I went to that link and did not see anything on the page given nor the few pages afterwards that addressed what I was saying.

The verb παραλαμβανω is used in a christian context for the transmission of traditions, ie from master to pupil. The words of Jesus from teacher to learner, the gospel from god to Paul, from proclaimer to proselyte. The rabbinic situation is specifically from master to pupil. The reference specifically talks of transmission by authorized teachers. Neusner also subscribes to this understanding of the terminology, as do various others (references on request). You cannot trivialize your way out of this. You need to understand how the terminology is used. You can't run off to the blue letter bible or your strongs or whatever excuse you have for not looking at the issue carefully.

I understand all that, but your link doesn't address the very reasonable possibility that it is not limited to that kind of transmission.

Confirmed examples?

You have a "technical" term that you are bending over backwards to avoid and apparently not reading what is said about the specific usage of the word noted in the secondary sources I've already given.

When Neusner gets down to the discussion (167), he has already cited the terminology and refers to, "transmission, and not merely tradition, of the exact words of a teacher just as he spoke them". With the same terms James D.G. Dunn says (197), "we must think of tradition derived directly from Jesus and transmitted by authorized teachers". In each instance we have a transmission by teacher to pupil.

There is nothing reasonable about the refusal to accept what a term means as presented by scholars who are not participants of the sort of debate we are engaged in, when you have no justifiable linguistic reason to do so. This is not a matter of common sense. Words have meanings in contexts. παραλαμβανω is already understood, not up for debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

A creed that is part of a tradition would absolutely require a word that 'covers' a master/student relationship but what about when that same creed is passed along between people that don't have that relationship but are still intending to instruct and pass along something that should continue from generation to generation? Would they then use the short word? I suspect the answer is NO. IOW, one may use the short word to 'receive' a conversation about the weather, but I suspect the long word would still be used for receiving something that is meant to be retained as an important piece of information, and then passed along. It really wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to use a different word for the same content depending on who is talking to who. What if it was a father to son transmission? What if it was uncle to nephew? What if it was older brother to younger brother? What if it was smarter student to dumber student? You get the picture...

TedM · 09-07-2011, 01:42 PM

EDIT: I just opened a thread on the issue found here

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You haven't read any relevant material. Try here.

I went to that link and did not see anything on the page given nor the few pages afterwards that addressed what I was saying.

The verb παραλαμβανω is used in a christian context for the transmission of traditions, ie from master to pupil. The words of Jesus from teacher to learner, the gospel from god to Paul, from proclaimer to proselyte. The rabbinic situation is specifically from master to pupil. The reference specifically talks of transmission by authorized teachers. Neusner also subscribes to this understanding of the terminology, as do various others (references on request). You cannot trivialize your way out of this. You need to understand how the terminology is used. You can't run off to the blue letter bible or your strongs or whatever excuse you have for not looking at the issue carefully.

I understand all that, but your link doesn't address the very reasonable possibility that it is not limited to that kind of transmission.

Confirmed examples?

You have a "technical" term that you are bending over backwards to avoid and apparently not reading what is said about the specific usage of the word noted in the secondary sources I've already given.

When Neusner gets down to the discussion (167), he has already cited the terminology and refers to, "transmission, and not merely tradition, of the exact words of a teacher just as he spoke them". With the same terms James D.G. Dunn says (197), "we must think of tradition derived directly from Jesus and transmitted by authorized teachers". In each instance we have a transmission by teacher to pupil.

There is nothing reasonable about the refusal to accept what a term means as presented by scholars who are not participants of the sort of debate we are engaged in, when you have no justifiable linguistic reason to do so. This is not a matter of common sense. Words have meanings in contexts. παραλαμβανω is already understood, not up for debate.

It sounds to me like it is not well-understood. Your passage admits controversy on the issues of just how exact the verbal transmissions were, as well as how far back the evidence is clear. Your reference to James Dunn is not found in the book with a google search, and is not on page 197. What is needed is evidence that shows that traditions passed along from person to person for the purpose of instruction would have used a different word. You keep making the claim but where is the evidence?

The student-teacher relationship is the most reasonable one to reference when discussing traditions in the religious context. It is not surprising that this would be the context chosen by writers on the subject. But we need to see whether that excludes or includes other relationships in which the SAME material is passed along for instruction and succession. The passage you have given doesn't address that issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

A creed that is part of a tradition would absolutely require a word that 'covers' a master/student relationship but what about when that same creed is passed along between people that don't have that relationship but are still intending to instruct and pass along something that should continue from generation to generation? Would they then use the short word? I suspect the answer is NO. IOW, one may use the short word to 'receive' a conversation about the weather, but I suspect the long word would still be used for receiving something that is meant to be retained as an important piece of information, and then passed along. It really wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to use a different word for the same content depending on who is talking to who. What if it was a father to son transmission? What if it was uncle to nephew? What if it was older brother to younger brother? What if it was smarter student to dumber student? You get the picture...

Solo · 09-07-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

then the mere fact that he said that he investigated everything carefully in the beginning lends some plausibility to the idea that he just couldn't find enough support for the 500 people claim--there is no indication of where that occurred. His account in Acts of what sounds like a smaller group could have been what he was able to come up with that others would corroborate. . .

This is wild speculation. Nothing in Acts sounds like a similar group - Acts has Jesus not just appearing, but spending time as a resurrected teacher for 40 days with a small group of his followers. No skeptical investigation would have corroborated this.

Actually, it is to be noted that in Luke 24 Jesus departs after a fish meal, instructions and a stroll to Bethany and Acts 1:2 confirms the ascension. But then a verse later Luke says that actually Jesus kept appearing to the eleven disciples - by all sorts of evidence (???) - for forty days repeating, during his commute, his commandment regarding Jerusalem and the promise to send Holy Spirit to the brethern.

Luke records another ascension in 1:9-11, this time one interpreted by two men (similar to Luke 24:4) by asking: 'why do you stand looking into heaven....?' Looks to me like Luke was describing exterior of psychic events rather than recording historical reports. Acts 1:11 describes theologically a classical extrapyramidal posture.

Best,
Jiri

archibald · 09-07-2011, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Do you have a date range in mind?

I gave a general indication: between Marcion and Tertullian, though I'm not sure about the evidence from Tertullian.

Could you summarize the main reason(s) why you might date it to there?

Incidentally, and not necessarily impacting on the above question, I seem to recall that someone, maybe more than once, maybe more than some one poster, made a comment to the effect that some of 1 Cor 3-11 'sounded more like Acts', and I think I grasped at least the gist of why this might be true (why it sounded like it at least, I mean).

The general observation, in principle, seemed to be that it tallied with a later development, of which we have reasonably good evidence, being (perhaps) inserted into an earlier stage, where we at least believe it had not developed.

So, my second question is, is there any good textual evidence that a figure of 500 witnesses (or alternatively just 'loads of witnesses') was also 'Actsesque', or 2nd Centuryesque?

And, just in case you think I'm utterly biased.....I have a question for Ted also....

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

09-07-2011, 10:40 AM	#381
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	error

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.