FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-14-2011, 02:20 PM   #491
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

TO: Kapyong
Your posts s#484 and #485 seem to be saying the same thing in several different ways, so I won't quote them.
Atheists necessarily say there are no eyeswitnesses to the gospels, because with their preconceptions any reports of the supernatural would be false, thus showing that they are either lying or were not eyewitnesses. If the supernatural is possible, however, then texts that seem to be from eyewitnesses might actually be from eyewitnesses. I have found seven, comprising a majority of the text of the gospels, so that is evidence for the supernatural in itself. You automatically reject such evidence, but the preconception is yours, not mine.

Apart from that, most people in the world do believe there is evidence for the supernatural. Those who have seen such evidence would seem to have a better case for believing their conclusions. You can't prove a negative. You can't use a negative you can't prove as your basis for rejecting all knowledge that you can't account for. Yet most of what is posted here against me does take for granted that that negative has been proven. Critiques thus vary between saying that I can't say what I say to saying that I have said something yet cannot prove it.
Adam is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 03:02 PM   #492
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
When reading this thread I sometimes feel like this is a variation on Sartre's Huis Clos (= No Exit) - l'enfer, c'est les autres ("Hell is other people"). I'd like to ignore the religious headbangers for a moment and continue to discuss the Latinized Greek of Mark with Vork and Spin. Has anyone examined to see:

1. Does the Diatessaron 'pick up' the Latinized Greek phrasing of Mark?
2. Does Clement of Alexandria's citation of Mark echo any of the Latinized Greek?

I'd like to determine if the Latinized Greek was isolated to one version of the text of Mark (= the Catholic text) or all citations. For instance do the Western readings of Mark retain it as well?
Please feel free to either start a new thread or request a split. (This goes for anyone - this thread is becoming unwieldy.)
Toto is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 03:15 PM   #493
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
You claimed that we can conclude that the Semitisms in Mark force us to come to the most reasonable blah blah. You've provided nothing that requires or "forces" us to any such blah. So I asked you for the what that forces us. And I'm still waiting for you to provide the forcing indications.
force? into what?
Let's go back to your original silly comment that you seem to have forgotten:

Quote:
We can also conclude that the semitisms in Mark force us to come to the most reasonable explanation is that they were written by Mother-tongue Latin Aramaic speakers of Greek.
Does the bold part answer your question?

I must have confused you when I said "require" rather than "your word "force", but that seems to have not had any effect either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
Quote:
No evidence for Semitisms was provided. There was just someone's series of opinions you lifted off internet.
ok, well I have taken some greek but am very much dependant on the knowledge of experts. Citings are available in what I gave you. Is it your contention that none of those examples are an indication of semitisms?

I agree, opinions on the Internet can be misleading and biased. I usually stick to those that provide credentials, citings, and avoid using an alias of some sort. Everything else is exactly as you say - opinions on the Internet.
Sorry, the else is your insinuation. Opinions are what everything on internet is until you can show differently. Scholarly books are safer that way.

So, you've cited someone's opinion but you need to cough up the goods about real Aramaisms in Mark rather than depend on someone's opinion for lack of knowledge. It ultimately means, when you claim that the most reasonable explanation is that they were written by Mother-tongue Latin Aramaic speakers of Greek, that you are wasting your breath, because it has no value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
Quote:
The following (#4) is not necessary to be said: whether the writers were Aramaic speakers or not, they needed an acquaintance with the Jewish religion. I only mentioned it as a given.
ok, well you said it unnecessarily then.
There is a value in the redundancy of communication, ie when more is said than is needed. It helps get the idea through. But I point out that it is not an extra point in the argument. It is just a reminder that the writers were aware of Jewish culture whether they were Semitic or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
However, this author was well aware of Jewish customs and language, cites from both the Greek and Hebrew OT, is familiar with geography.
Some awareness must be expected given the Jewish connection, but you are certainly wrong to make much of the geography given the fuck ups regarding 1) Tyre and Sidon (7:31), 2) the location of Gerasa near the Sea of Galilee and 3) the order of villages between Jericho and Jerusalem. Whoever wrote the material was not aware of the real geography.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
I would be interested in examples of greek words getting translated into greek in Mark.
The Greek that gets translated end up in Latin: leptas explained in relation to a quadrans (12:42) and a hall in relation to a praetorium (15:16). What have leptas to do with Judea when the smallest coins were prutahs? (Coin collectors are now confused because of this!) Why explain a hall with a Latin term? Obviously the text was written in Rome and the evidence is strong.
spin is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 03:38 PM   #494
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Why explain a hall with a Latin term? Obviously the text was written in Rome and the evidence is strong.
This is hillarious
We have a story with Roman soldiers and bureaucrats in Judea and they refer to the praetorium ( a Latin word) and somehow this is strong evidence the work was written in Rome.
Give up Spin.
judge is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:11 PM   #495
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

"I tried, for my own personal use, to see what Mark would yield when translated back into the Hebrew of Qumran. I had imagined that this translation would be difficult because of considerable differences between semitic thought and Greek thought, but I was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy. Around the middle of April, 1963, after only one day of work , I was convinced that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly into Greek and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original Hebrew."


(Jean Carmignac, "Birth of the Synoptics", p. 1; the author was a scholar who worked for a decade on the Dead Sea Scrolls)

Carmignac was , of course, a philologist..
judge is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:33 PM   #496
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

Synoptic passages that are awkward in greek but translate into a very natural Hebrew in the exact same word order should be telling.

I am curious why you feel they are not?
Because that is naturally how I speak Chinese -- with word order in Chinese that is awkward in Chinese but natural in English! That is normal second-language sentence patterning. Everyone whose second language is less than perfectly fluent does that. So there is no probative value in noting that some of GMark's sentence structure looks better in another language because it is not evidence of where the translation is taking place -- in the writer's head, or from text to text. The only way you can demonstrate that GMark is a translation from an aramaic or Hebrew original is to find the original text in the other language.

Did you ever read Heart of Darkness? It's probably not difficult to find English sentences that look more natural in Polish than in English. Did Conrad write it in Polish first?

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:42 PM   #497
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
how I speak Chinese -- with word order in Chinese that is awkward in Chinese but natural in English! That is normal second-language sentence patterning.
I have the same experience in German (although German was originally my Muttersprache but after a long absence it is now my second language). I find it impossible to naturally place conjugated verbs in the past tense at the end of sentences). It just feels unnatural now as do most of the rules of my former mother tongue. Even the professors I know who can write papers in a foreign language only do so with great unnaturalness.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:52 PM   #498
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

Synoptic passages that are awkward in greek but translate into a very natural Hebrew in the exact same word order should be telling.

I am curious why you feel they are not?
Because that is naturally how I speak Chinese -- with word order in Chinese that is awkward in Chinese but natural in English! That is normal second-language sentence patterning. Everyone whose second language is less than perfectly fluent does that. So there is no probative value in noting that some of GMark's sentence structure looks better in another language because it is not evidence of where the translation is taking place -- in the writer's head, or from text to text. The only way you can demonstrate that GMark is a translation from an aramaic or Hebrew original is to find the original text in the other language.

Did you ever read Heart of Darkness? It's probably not difficult to find English sentences that look more natural in Polish than in English. Did Conrad write it in Polish first?

Vorkosigan
Waht you need to do is find something rather than speculate.
We know exactly what a translation from a semitic tongue to greek looks like.
We have the LXX.

Semitic grammar is characterised by the repetition of a preposition before every noun of a series which it governs. Such a construction is and is intolerable in literary Greek and likewise in English.

Joshua 11:21

ויב�? יהושע בעת ההי�? ויכרת �?ת־העתקי�?
מן ־ההר מן ־חברון מן ־דבר מן ־עתב ומכל הר יהודה מן כל הר ישר�?ל
ע�?־עריה�? החרימ�? יהושע

και ηλθεν ιησους εν τω και�?ω εκεινω και εξωλεθ�?ευσεν τους ενακιμ εκ της ο�?εινης εκ χεβ�?ων καιεκ δαβι�? και εξ αναβωθ και εκ παντος γενους ισ�?αηλ και εκ παντος ο�?ους ιουδα συν ταις πολεσιν αυτων και εξωλεθ�?ευσεν αυτους ιησους


Then Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab and from all the hill country of Judah and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities.

Of couse this will not sit well with you Vork becuase you have wasted so much of your life with your work on greek texts.
It is going to be difficult for you to accept, quite naturally. Who wants to admit they have been wasting so much time?

And so rather than produce any evidence, you speculate that maybe possibly something in heart of darkness will help you.
What you need is evidence
judge is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:53 PM   #499
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Atheists necessarily say there are no eyeswitnesses to the gospels, because with their preconceptions any reports of the supernatural would be false, thus showing that they are either lying or were not eyewitnesses. If the supernatural is possible, however, then texts that seem to be from eyewitnesses might actually be from eyewitnesses. I have found seven, comprising a majority of the text of the gospels, so that is evidence for the supernatural in itself. You automatically reject such evidence, but the preconception is yours, not mine.

Apart from that, most people in the world do believe there is evidence for the supernatural. Those who have seen such evidence would seem to have a better case for believing their conclusions. You can't prove a negative. You can't use a negative you can't prove as your basis for rejecting all knowledge that you can't account for. Yet most of what is posted here against me does take for granted that that negative has been proven. Critiques thus vary between saying that I can't say what I say to saying that I have said something yet cannot prove it.
Adam, you're asserting again. Please show that John Mark was an eyewitness of the Passion using evidence that puts him directly on the spot. He is mentioned only in Acts, which does not place him at the death of Jesus. So what would be your evidence that he saw Jesus die and ever said anything to the writer of Mark?

Also, I've witnessed the supernatural many times. I like exploring Taiwan where I live, and have frequently been present in temples where the shaman is possessed by a god and speaks to locals. I have watched two men, possessed by gods, cutting each other with giant knives. I have spoken with mediums in a magic trance.

Clearly, the temple gods of Taiwan must exist, for I see their effects every day.

Quote:
You can't prove a negative. You can't use a negative you can't prove as your basis for rejecting all knowledge that you can't account for.
This is why you need to make a deeper study of methodology. It is not up to us to prove anything because (1) you're the one making affirmative claims ("John Mark is the source of Mark's passion story") and (2) methodological naturalism is the foundation of scientific and scholarly inquiry. Instead, it is up to you to show affirmatively how your claims are true.

Quote:
If the supernatural is possible, however, then texts that seem to be from eyewitnesses might actually be from eyewitnesses.
If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

Even funnier is that the existence of the supernatural is completely unrelated to whether a particular text comes from a particular person. Even if Jesus rose from the dead and is now punishing people for all eternity for using their genitals in an unapproved fashion, it doesn't mean that the writer of Mark got the Passion story from John Mark.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:57 PM   #500
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
how I speak Chinese -- with word order in Chinese that is awkward in Chinese but natural in English! That is normal second-language sentence patterning.
I have the same experience in German (although German was originally my Muttersprache but after a long absence it is now my second language). I find it impossible to naturally place conjugated verbs in the past tense at the end of sentences). It just feels unnatural now as do most of the rules of my former mother tongue. Even the professors I know who can write papers in a foreign language only do so with great unnaturalness.
I make a nice second income editing Chinglish scientific papers into good English. Some of the stuff I get is utter garbage. But all of it was originally written in English. The translation takes place in the writer's head, not on paper.

The claims about an Aramaic/Semitic layer are untenable because there is no way to find where the original translation is taking place, in the writer's head or text-to-text.

I generally think that all Bible scholars should be sent to live in a polytheistic culture where they had to speak in a second language.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:00 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.