spin

A good relatively old standard work for the first part would be H.H.Scullard, "From the Gracchi to Nero" does a fairly good job of navigating through the problems that lead up to the Roman principate and then how it all unravelled. But I am away from all books, so I really don't have anything to offer. Besides, the period from Antoninus Pius (ie after Hadrian) onwards is not too well covered in standard works.

Hopefully someone else can indicate standard works, because, sorry, but I'm running on memory at the moment.


spin

spin

You what?


spin

gregor

Haran and spin

Thanks for the reply. And I didn't mean to imply to Haran that I only sought spin's response. I think both points are well made.

Except (warning: uneducated statement follows), I have a problem with the assumption that a later Suetonius might have greater reliability than an earlier Tacitus due to the access to more and more accurate information.

I would assume that the opposite would be the case. With the passage of time fewer people are around to recall the event, memories fade, documents are destroyed, etc.

Toto

From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68

Johann_Kaspar

The parallel Mt 27:27 does not have this word, which "may" be an addition, an explanation for a Roman audience. I understood that you are considering "Mark" as first. No proof, just an assumption. In contradiction with some testimonies. By the way, Dubourg showed that some words were taken from other languages and incorporated into Hebrew.
Your opinion is just opposite of the one of Dubourg and Tresmontant.
If I had time it would be not difficult. The church always considered Hebrew as a "dead" language already at that time. They must be forgiven. They have an agenda against Jews. Always considered also that the gospels were written in Greek.
As you seem to know so many things (if not all), please show us your evidence and tell us how late that tradition was established (boys at age 12 being able to read fluently the bible).
Nonsense.
Yep, I like to fly.
So for you the gospel was first written in Greek? I was thinking that a Jew following the law will receive an Hebrew name... Thanks to you, now I know that it is only an assumption.
a) "Mark" uses both.
(Mk 10:47 kai akousav oti ihsouv o nazwraiov estin hrxato krazein kai legein o uiov dauid ihsou elehson me)
b) A lot of assumptions too (like "earliest form").
c) Please, give evidence of these additions, otherwise I can also assume that there are later deletions in the other text.
d) "may", "may", "would seem" : I see that you like to fly too.
d1) They "may", but they "may not" too. I think that only one thing is sure: there is a lot of confusion, and just we do not know.
e) Epiphanius use nazaraiwn and nazwraiwn and yes they are described as parties, without "may"be.
f) At least (last?!), you recognize that translators into Greek failed to translate those words originally in Hebrew.
g) This question is open at least since 1933 (Guignebert) and obviously no progress has been made.
h) Maybe nazarenos is the epithet and nazwraios is the name with the same meaning. Unfortunately the original Hebrew text has disappeared... there are only edited translations remaining.

Good assumptions.
Johann

spin

It may help if you look at the Greek of Mt 27:27


That's your problem. Can you deal with it without recourse to authority?

I'll wait till you have time and then I'll comment.

I'm not going to chase up the literature on the subject -- I'm in no position to. Just realise that with universal education in the US there is a functional illiteracy rate of over 35%. In a society with almost no education system at all except for the elite, you need to reduce the increase the illiteracy rate extremely. Also remember what Ben Sira indicates about the scribe.

Your view of the 12 year old, is certainly a much more modern one.

You're in no position to say so.

I wouldn't be proud of it if I were you.

Yes.

Sure is. We are dealing with a text, not with a certain history. You cannot assume that there is a reality behind the text.

Not according to the Hort (ie Alexandrian) text.

Not a lot at this stage. We have just one example of scribal inaccuracy in Mk 10:47, influenced by the later more common nazwraios n other gospels.

Unless you would like to complain that Matthew's Greek is not a better form based on a correction of Mark, we should have a precedent of the Marcan text having priority. The additions follow as simple logic.

One use of "may" was a logical use, not indicating "possible".

Well, I can exclude certain things. nazarenos cannot come from NZYR.

It is irrelvenat considering how much later he was writing.

I have not trouble about certain terms in Greek being derived from Hebrew words.

I can't get any meaning from this given the lack of context for your exact thought.

They have clear diverse Hebrew underpinnings. The omega comes from a waw. There were no long vowels under nazarenos.

While not accepting your unwarranted assumption (and I'll debate you formally -- not your received analysts-- on the matter if you like), we have a great deal of transliteration from Hebrew into Greek with all the Hebrew names going into the LXX.

This original Hebrew gospel stuff, is less than wishful.


spin