jgibson000

No, not at all. I was not dealing at all with the question of what is and is not possible in reconstructing a story that was originally in another langage.

I was asking you to give me your reconstruction of the story you claim lies behind the PA in the original langage in which it was originally composed and in the particular wording in which it was originally transmitted so that we can see what the Vorlage of this story originally looked like. This is quite a different matter altogether from what you think was my "point" in my message to you.

The issue is not whether "concepts" :huh: (weren't we talking about a story ??) about adultery could (or could not) be expressed in Aramaic in Greek, but how they were actually expressed in your purpoted Vorlage of the PA.

Are you saying you actually do not know how the purported Vorlage of the PA originally read in the language in which it was originally composed -- what its form and wording was?

Are you actually telling me you don't know? If so, this is pretty astonishing given your certainty about what the story originally was and the direction of its traditions-geshichte trajectory.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

Dr. Gibson: in an effort to avoid wasting time for everyone, I will only say that if you read Jay Raskin's new book, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk), (http://www.evocc.com ) you will understand what he is saying, even if you do not agree. If you haven't read that book, you and Philosopher Jay will probably be talking past each other.

Toto

All discussion of what is an ad hom and complaints about moderator inaction have been split off here. Please do not raise these questions in this forum.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Can I still question the competence of Mr. Gibson in this forum (as per your previous explicit permission to do so)? There are believed to be some questions about his competence <Edit>.

Yuri.

jgibson000

Please call me Jeffrey. After all, you've never insulted me by insisting on addresssing me in inappropriate ways.

I'll see what I can do to get ahold of it. But the present issue isn't whether I understand him. Rather, as I indicated in my last message to Jay, it's that he's misundertsood me.

In any case, I'm not sure how reading his book will provide me with the specific answers to the particular requests I made of him in that message, namely,

1. if he would state clearly whether or not he does actually know, as he claims he does (even if only implicitly), how his purported Vorlage of the PA originally read in the language in which it was originally composed;

and if so


2. if he would then set out, in the original langage in which it was originally composed and in the particular wording in which it was originally transmitted, the form and wording of the particular story about Simon and Helene that he claims lies behind, and as the base of the traditions-geschichte of the PA so that we can see at first hand what this Vorlage of the PA actually looked like;

If you can tell me how it would, I'd be grateful.

Untill then, and, curiously, because of what Jay has written here and elsewhere about his book and the methodologies he employed in coming to the conclusions that he has, I actually suspect that Jay's answer to request #1 has to be is "no, I don't know" and therefore that his honest answer to #2 has to be "I can't".

But I am eager to have him prove me wrong on these points.

Jeffrey Gibson

Diogenes the Cynic

Questions about "competence" as it is pertains to specific abilities relevant to the topic at hand or to one's grasp of an esoteric skill set required to comprehend a given argument (e.g. being able to read a given language if one desires to make stylistic claims about a given author) are fair game.

Other insinuations about "competence" (such as what I edited out above) are purely ad hominem, inflammatory and off-topic and as such are not permitted in this forum.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Yuri Kuchinsky

I would like some clarification of this. Let’s state as a pure hypothetical that someone is believed to be irrational. Surely, in such a case, this would also be among the “specific abilities” of this person, that would be quite “relevant to the topic at hand”?

So how do we define “specific abilities” in this case, and how would we draw the line between the “specific abilities” of a given person, and his or her ‘general abilities’?

This seems to be more difficult than it may at first sound...

Again, I would like some clarification. I have cited here an opinion of our friend Richard Carrier about Mr. Gibson. This opinion has been _permitted in this very forum_, and is still available in the archives -- so I assume it is in agreement with this forum’s protocols. So my question is, Have the protocols of this forum been changed since that time? If so, then I would think the members should be informed.

Yuri.

Julian

[MOD]
Questions about moderation and policies are inappropriate in BC&H. Requests for clarification should be directed to Mods via PMs or a qustions thread could be opened in the Questions, Problems and Complaints forum. Likewise, if you have a complaint please open a thread in that forum. Further comments on moderation in this thread will be removed.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[MOD]

Diogenes the Cynic

Yuri, I've posted a longer response to your questions here in your QP&C thread.

darstec

Papias did NOT comment on it. Later writers SAID Papias commented on the story.

We have absolutely no evidence Papias said anything about it, or anything else. In fact there is little to no evidence Papias even existed except in the imagination of some early church fathers.