Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-05-2012, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

How long was the gestation period of John the Baptist? Luke has the fetus JtB meet the fetus Jesus.

Popular misconception, but not actually true. Read it again. Luke nowhere says that Mary was already pregnant when she went to see Elizabeth. Luke then has JBap growing to adulthood, then tells his Nativity. contrary to popular belief, Luke does not say Jesus had yet been conceived in Luke 1. The Angel only tells her, "you will conceive," not that she already has.

Well, based on the Angel Gabriel's statement in gLuke about the Conception of Jesus there could have NO eyewitness account of such a conception.

Not even Mary could have SEEN the Ghost OVERSHADOW her.

The author of gLuke MUST be a Fiction writer because there could NOT ever have been any eyewitness account of a Conception by a Ghost.

Luke 1

Quote:

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be , seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadowthee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It is clear that the very conception of the Jesus character is complete fiction and had ZERO witnesses.

gLuke was published in antiquity and accepted as historically accurate by the Jesus cult which shows that people of antiquity did believe Ghosts and Sons of Ghosts were figures of history.

andrewcriddle · 09-05-2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

As for aChristian's notion that Luke traveled with Paul, isn't that idea coming from the discredited letter 1Timothy?

2 Timothy 4:11 see also Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 24

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 09-08-2012, 09:48 PM

Hi tanya,

Thanks for the kind words.

Also thanks for the information about the mountains in New Jersey. I guess Kafka did know his geography better than me

P75 apparently contains Luke 3:18-24:53, so it does not help us in this case, as we need to know the meaning of words in Luke 1.2.

I have looked through a half dozen more ancient examples of the use of the key term "αὐτόπται" and its variations, and I can't find any that can be unambiguously translated as "eyewitness."

A good example is the rhetorician Dinarchus' use of the term in his work "Against Philocles." (See http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-...ery=Din.%203.1)

We have him addressing the members of the court in the case and saying

Quote:

ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε, νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν σωτῆρα, αἰσχύνομαι, εἰ προτραπέντας ὑμᾶς δεῖ [Note] καὶ παροξυνθέντας ὑφ’ ἡμῶν [Note] ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ νῦν εἰσεληλυθότος [Note] τὴν κρίσιν τιμωρίαν ἐλθεῖν. καὶ [Note] οὐκ αὐτόπται ἐστὲ τῶν ὑπὸ τούτου γεγενημένων ἀδικημάτων

3.15 By Zeus the Savior, I am ashamed that you should need us to encourage you and goad you on before you proceed to punish the defendant now on trial. Are you not eyewitnesses of the crimes he has committed?

The problem is that earlier in the speech, Dinarchus said that they did not see Philocles' crimes:

Quote:

Philocles has shown his dishonesty and that he has never taken bribes against you before? You are wrong. He has been like this a long time, though you did not notice it; indeed you have been fortunate not to have met with his venality on more important occasions; for there is no greater menace than a man whose dishonesty passes unobserved. 3.7Athenians, will you not all unite in killing one who has plunged many of our citizens into such deep disgrace and guilt, who first opened the way for the gold that has been distributed, exposing the whole of Athens to blame?
The question is how Dinarchus can be telling the jury that they were eyewitnesses to something he says they never saw?

We can find another sense of the term "αὐτόπται" based on the opening of the work:

Quote:

What in Heaven's name are we to say about such men as this? How will you deal with the wickedness of Philocles, who has been convicted by the Areopagus not once only but three times, as you all know, and as you were recently informed in the Assembly?

The jury members have not actually seen the crimes of Philocles, but they have heard of his conviction in the Areopagus. In this case, the term αὐτόπται possibly means something like self-awareness after hearing the facts in the case, rather than actually seeing something with eyes.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Good point about Kafka. In his "Amerika," the statue of Liberty carries a sword instead of a lantern. As I recall the geography is pretty screwed up too, there are mountains in his New Jersey. Kafka is giving us a dream America, not the America found in history books.

http://www.newjerseyscenic.com/nj_mountains.html

Jay, one of the real strengths of your posts, is the thoughtfulness they provoke. Wonderful thread, with great comments from Steven, Jiri, and Duvduv. Thank you Jay, well done, as usual. I hope you will let us know further, your investigations of "eyewitness" in other ancient Greek literature.

As for aChristian's notion that Luke traveled with Paul, isn't that idea coming from the discredited letter 1Timothy?

The suggestion that Luke may have relied on Josephus, (thanks Diogenes!) made me wonder about Philo. Why did none of the gospel writers quote him? Why do we not conclude that Philo too, was created later, maybe third or fourth century, as has been suggested for other ancient authors? Is your passage from Luke with αὐτόπται found in our oldest extant copy of Luke, P75, dating from early third century? Some of the later versions inserted or changed the text from the gold standard, i.e. Sinaiticus, for example, "but deliver us from evil", αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου from 11:4 .

PhilosopherJay · 09-08-2012, 10:05 PM

Hi Tanya et al.,

I will try to list all the examples I found and the problems I found in the translation of αὐτόπται as "eyewitness" in a blog later in the week.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay · 09-09-2012, 07:10 AM

Hi Tanya,

I found the part in Kafka's "Amerika" that I thought showed really strange geography (pg 110-111 Schocken Books edition, 1974):

Quote:

The mist had already vanished; in the distance gleamed a high mountain, which receded in wave-like ridges towards a still more distant summit, veiled in a sunlit haze...
They now came to rising country, and when they stopped here and there they could see on looking back the panorama of New York and its harbour, extending more and more spaciously below them. The bridge connecting New York with Brooklyn hung delicately over the East River, and if one half-shut one's eyes it seemed to tremble.

While Northwest New Jersey does have mountains, I really don't think you can stand on one and see a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan. I may be wrong about this.

Kafka never visited America, so we know that he wasn't writing from experience. A number of scholars have pointed out a lot of mistakes of this kind in the gospels which may indicate that their authors had likewise never visited Judea-Galilee.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce · 09-09-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

A number of scholars have pointed out a lot of mistakes of this kind in the gospels which may indicate that their authors had likewise never visited Judea-Galilee.

Maybe in the same way that a lot of scholars seem never to have been to school.

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

09-08-2012, 10:05 PM	#54
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Hi Tanya et al., I will try to list all the examples I found and the problems I found in the translation of αὐτόπται as "eyewitness" in a blog later in the week. Warmly, Jay Raskin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.