Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solitary Man · 12-07-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Hrm, what does Jeffrey Gibson, Solitary Man, No Robots, and Gamera have in common?

Rearguard action over minutiae as a rhetorical tactic to distract people from the obvious - that they lost the main argument long ago

Really. How interesting. What argument did we lose?

Gamera · 12-07-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This is the issue I've asked you and Sheshonq to address. But it's like pulling teeth.

Pulling teeth? Yawn. Exaggeration is sometimes useful when there is a valid point underneath. Without such a point, it merely smells bad. As in this case.

You want me to address this point? It merely requires that Jeffrey finish the can of worms he's already opened.

If you're interested in seeing me address the point, then your argument is with Jeffrey, not me. I would think you'd be interested in seeing his responses anyhow.

Leave the can of worms aside. The issue is simple:

Did a Hebrew word for rabbi exist 100 bcc meaning more or less teacher or master. Leave aside the morphology.

If so, what is anachronistic about Mark, transliterating that word for whatever reason, using it to mean more or less teacher or master. Mark is writing in Greek, not Hebrew, so whether the word is titular or not in Hebrew is hardly a constraint on him.

Gamera · 12-07-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I don't know about the old saying, but I do know that you seem adrift.

Mark and the gospel writers are writing in Greek, blah blah blah

Since I haven't addressed anything related to the language of the writings, I have no idea why you're directing this at me..

I know, that's your problem as well as spin's, which I've called you on, and now you're talking through your hat.

Mark wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, so learned discussions abou the morphology of the Hebrew word rabbi has nothing to do with Mark's use of the transliterated term. And hence the OP provides no support for the anachronistic use of a GREEK word.

But keep avoiding this core issue. It's mildly amusing.

spin · 12-07-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Page 123 is not available in your Google link.

Yeah, actually it is. Just a little tricky to get to. Try here.

Thanks, it wouldn't show from the other link you provided.

What is interesting is that the writer accepts that it is anachronistic for Matthew. He's part way there.

There is no reason for the Matthean redactor to change rabbi as found in 9:5 to kurie, so one would assume that that was the original text in Mark as well and that it has been modified by a later scribe, making another such anachronism.

The rearguard apology for rabbi is falling apart.

spin

spin · 12-07-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

There is one other possibility, namely, that "rabbi" was in fact a title in the time of Christ. Hezser (p. 63ff) examines this possibility.

You can't see how ridiculous it is to defend the rabbi stuff. You've flitted from one approach to another with gay abandon. Think about it.

spin

spin · 12-07-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Wishing doesn't make it so. Read what is said in the entry. Once we get past all the smoke, we come down to the same conclusion we had already come to, except that it states it a little loosely. Here it is again:

The one problem is that the entry didn't establish the use with pronominal suffix.

This is obviously false <edit>. The cited text refers specifically to RB, not rabbi, and provides no point of reference to assume the title rabbi in operation during Jehoshua ben Perachiah's time. This is plainly evident in that the first people to be recorded having the title were all after the Jewish War. The saying by Jehoshua ben Perachiah is a red herring here.

spin

This is the issue I've asked you and Sheshonq to address. But it's like pulling teeth.

This cite wasn't mine. It was Jeffrey's and it seemed to rebut your position.

Gosh Gamera that's <term for not intelligent>. You advocated a part of it, so it's yours through advocacy. I did read it when Jeffrey Gibson posted it. I've also criticized it for its basic lack of relevance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Your current response seems characteristically off center. Mark is in Greek. The gospel writers don't care about how pronominal suffixes relate to the word rabbi. He is coining a word instead of using the obvious Greek equivalent -- for whatever reason.

Apologists apologize apologetically -- for whatever reason.

Mark on the other hand uses the term rabbi coherently as reflected in the tannaitic use of the word. Oh, but Gamera would have it that Mark pre-empts the tannaitic use, when he can't even date the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

If the word rabbi existed a hundred years earlier with more or less the meaning of teacher,...

The word for teacher was MWRH. Obviously RB didn't mean teacher. So obviously, it's "less". We are just seeing the usually apologetic hand fudging the data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

...whether it was used with a pronominal suffix at that time or not, wouldn't change the fact that a Greek writer might for a whole variety of reasons I mentioned want to transliterate the word and use it for the equivalent of teacher or master.

Fudge, fudge. Admits then shoves anachronism under the carpet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

If so, there is no anachronism.

:notworthy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The fact that you cite evidence that rabbi would not be used in this way until later, something I'm happy to accept, doesn't change the fact that Mark is writing in Greek, not Hebrew, and may not care about the niceties of Hebrew morphology.

Nor does it change the fact that Gamera accepts the anachronism and mitigates it -- it was the bloody Greeks.

spin

Sheshonq · 12-07-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No. That does not support the conclusion that at the time of Christ, this was the case. What was "Matthew's setting" mentioned above? It was not the Palestine of the AD 20s and 30s. The author of Matthew most probably had not been born yet at that time.

Whatever the time of the actual writing of gMt as we have it, I hold with Birger Gerhardsson that the Gospels in general reliably transmit the words of Christ.

Assuming your conclusion hardly works anywhere. It certainly won't work with me.

Furthermore, your rebuttal source cannot be squared with your insistence on faithful transmission. You cited the text: Matthew's attitude towards this term, however, ....

Either:

(a) the text have reliably transmitted the words of Christ (your claim), or

(b) the author of GMatthew has an attitude towards this term that informs the choices of words he employs in this phrase, in which case 'faithful transmission' is not possible, because the author of GMatthew was acting as more than just a robotic scribe

So which author do you want to stand by? Gerhardsson or Sim?

Sheshonq · 12-07-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The quotes you used are all in reference to Christ or involving/referencing Christ. You missed that important distinction I drew above.

None of this is responsive to the issue.

Yes it is.

Quote:

You need to address these issues rather than beating your breast.

Excuse me? I "need" to do nothing at all, not until Jeffrey finishes his can of worms first.

And if the day ever comes when I am uncertain of what to do and require advice, it will take someone of far more skill than you to be able to provide it.

Sheshonq · 12-07-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Since I haven't addressed anything related to the language of the writings, I have no idea why you're directing this at me..

I know,

Apparently you do *not* know, since you're asking me to answer for an argument that I haven't made.

Quote:

that's your problem as well as spin's, which I've called you on, and now you're talking through your hat.

It is not my problem. And since I haven't addressed any part of the linguistic argument, it is impossible for me to be 'talking through my hat' about it. You, however, do appear to be talking out your ass.

Oh, and since spin himself appears to have answered your objections directly - without any rebuttal from you, I might add - one has to wonder why you keep pushing these arguments.

Quote:

Mark wrote in Greek, not Hebrew,

I am not spin.

What is it with the bible crowd here? First Gibson mistakes me for Ted Hoffman, now Gamera mistakes me for spin.

Sheshonq · 12-07-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

There is one other possibility, namely, that "rabbi" was in fact a title in the time of Christ. Hezser (p. 63ff) examines this possibility.

You appear to be jumping from horse to horse, whenever your current mount looks to be stumbling.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.