Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-11-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ok, then I don't know why Kirsch quoted that phrase, which he just attributed to a "scholar." Perhaps he assumed that if Schüssler Fiorenza chose to rebut the idea, that someone somewhere had said it. You can take that up with him.

I'm not the one who cited him.

Quote:

If you think that later studies have falsified her position, which studies? Who did them?

As SF herself notes,A. Lancelotti in his Sintassi ebraica nel greco Dell’Apocalisse and G. Mussies in his The Morphology of Koine Greek As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism and in his summary of this work: "The Greek of the Book of Revelation," in J. Lambrecht, ed., L'Apocalypse johannique et 1'Apocalyptique duns le Nouveau Testament, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 53 (Louvain, 1980), pp. 167-177.

Then there's Steven Thompson's The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Canbridge, 1980).

Quote:

[How can an analogy like that be falsified in any case?

By showing that the claim that the analogy is grounded in, is dependent upon for its truth, and which it arises out of -- namely, (and as is plainly stated in the passage I quoted) that R.H. Charles' conclusions regarding why the author of AoJ wrote the way he did -- is itself wrong.

Jeffrey

S.C.Carlson · 01-11-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Interesting. So we know that Mark used Homer because he does not write in verse as Homer did (let alone in dactylic hexameter) or use Homer's language, or follow Homer's plot line.

I wonder what evidence he -- or RC -- would bring forward if they wanted to justify the claim that Mark was not dependent on Homer. Wouldn't it be exactly the same considerations that the appeal to to show that he does?

MacDonald's thesis about Homer and Mark has been cogently critiqued by Karl Olav Sandnes “Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald’s ‘Mimesis Criticism’” JBL 124 (2005): 715-732.

Stephen

patcleaver · 01-13-2009, 09:34 AM

I read that several of the passages of the Septuagint, that the gospels are based on, are mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures. One example was the passage Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin birth. It is very likely that this passage was a well known mistranslation at the time that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, and its use could have been an intentional hint that the gospels were fiction.

Its as if I wrote a story called the greatest American heroes, but instead of describing actual people who were famous, it only mentioned people that historians are fairly sure are myths, such as, Rip Van Winkle and Paul Bunyan, and some other people that nobody ever heard of.

If the writers of the Gospels, wrote a story based on verses of the Septuagint that, in their community, were well known for being mistranslations, or otherwise defective, then that would be an intentional indication of fiction.

aa5874 · 01-13-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I read that several of the passages of the Septuagint, that the gospels are based on, are mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures. One example was the passage Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin birth. It is very likely that this passage was a well known mistranslation at the time that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, and its use could have been an intentional hint that the gospels were fiction.

Its as if I wrote a story called the greatest American heroes, but instead of describing actual people who were famous, it only mentioned people that historians are fairly sure are myths, such as, Rip Van Winkle and Paul Bunyan, and some other people that nobody ever heard of.

If the writers of the Gospels, wrote a story based on verses of the Septuagint that, in their community, were well known for being mistranslations, or otherwise defective, then that would be an intentional indication of fiction.

But, this introduces another problem, there may be people who disregard historians and believe that Rip Van Winkle, Paul Bunyan or any other legendary character were really great American heroes.

Examine the Septuagint, are there not characters in there that are deemed to great Jewish heroes but now appear to be Rip Van Winkles?

There were those who challenged the history of the Jews as laid out by Josephus, and thought the Jews mis-interpreted their own Scriptures. Even Josephus, at one time claimed it was Vespasian who was predicted as the ruler of the habitable earth contrary to the interpretations of the Jews.

Even today, if you tell a person in the Western World, specifically the USA, that Jesus was born of a virgin using Isaiah 7.14, it may be considered true without question.

People of antiquity who believed that Gods could be born of virgins may not have regarded the story of the virgin birth of Jesus as nothing different to what they believe.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-13-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I read that several of the passages of the Septuagint, that the gospels are based on, are mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures. One example was the passage Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin birth. It is very likely that this passage was a well known mistranslation at the time that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, and its use could have been an intentional hint that the gospels were fiction.

Its as if I wrote a story called the greatest American heroes, but instead of describing actual people who were famous, it only mentioned people that historians are fairly sure are myths, such as, Rip Van Winkle and Paul Bunyan, and some other people that nobody ever heard of.

If the writers of the Gospels, wrote a story based on verses of the Septuagint that, in their community, were well known for being mistranslations, or otherwise defective, then that would be an intentional indication of fiction.

BTW, it's time I reveal that "Pat Cleaver" is also one of the names I write under.

When I was deciding upon what I should do to make it appear that Pat was someone other than me, I lit upon the idea to use the technique in my postings under the name of Pat Cleaver that I use above, but personally find illegitimate -- i.e., reifying what "I" claim, on no grounds whatsoever, are possibilities into actualities. and then using these "actualities" as good grounds for confirmating my claims -- to do so.

After all, it's obvious from what I write above that "Pat" can't be real. No real person could in actuality be as clueless about the things I write about above as I'm presenting myself as being. Do people really not see how much I'm having you on?

Jeffrey (Pat)

Amaleq13 · 01-13-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

It is very likely that this passage was a well known mistranslation at the time that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, and its use could have been an intentional hint that the gospels were fiction.

For this statement to rise above uninformed and unsupported speculation, one would need to do some sort of research establishing that, in fact, what you consider "likely" actually happened or, at the very least, that such a notion actually is "likely".

dog-on · 01-14-2009, 02:21 AM

Indications of fiction.

Mark

Quote:

9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
12At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Matthew

Quote:

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Luke

Quote:

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

John

Quote:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth

Each of these passages appear quite early in their respective gospels.

If they are not an indication of the fictitious nature of the work, I don't know what is...

No amount of special pleading can change this simple fact.

patcleaver · 01-14-2009, 06:01 AM

Jesus says that whatever we pray for will be granted. Anyone can disprove what Jesus claimed in just a few minutes.

Jesus statements about prayer seem so outrageous and obviously false that they may be a parody of the statements made by false messiah claimants and a simple way to intentionally indicate that the work was fiction.

Jesus statements about being able to handle poisonous snakes and drink poison without harm is another claim that can be easily disproved. This is just a parody of claims by other false messiahs about what their followers could do. They could be intentional indications of fiction.

The guaranteed curing of the sick is another claim that can be easily disproved simply by trying it on a terminally ill patient. These things are parodies of claims of false messiahs and intentional indications that the gospels are fiction.

mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

patcleaver · 01-14-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

It is very likely that this passage was a well known mistranslation at the time that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, and its use could have been an intentional hint that the gospels were fiction.

For this statement to rise above uninformed and unsupported speculation, one would need to do some sort of research establishing that, in fact, what you consider "likely" actually happened or, at the very least, that such a notion actually is "likely".

Anytime anyone does anything complicated then they make some mistakes. As soon as they finish, and sometimes even before they finish, then critics begin pointing out their mistakes. Do you really think that there were not lists of mistranslations being circulated as soon as the Greek version of Isaiah began to be circulated.

Justin Martyr has his fictional character Trypho the Jew claim that it is a mistranslation. He would not have done that unless Jews were claiming that it was a mistranslation.

Amaleq13 · 01-14-2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If they are not an indication of the fictitious nature of the work, I don't know what is...

Unless you have researched what those who lived in {insert your preferred Gospel authorship date here} considered to be an indication of fiction, it seems quite reasonable to think that you don't know what is.

Indications of fiction to folks in the 21st century cannot be assumed to be the same for folks living in the first couple centuries of the Common Era. I'm no expert but I think you might find similar "indications" in works that were accepted as history.

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

01-13-2009, 09:34 AM	#123
patcleaver Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 742	I read that several of the passages of the Septuagint, that the gospels are based on, are mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures. One example was the passage Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin birth. It is very likely that this passage was a well known mistranslation at the time that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, and its use could have been an intentional hint that the gospels were fiction. Its as if I wrote a story called the greatest American heroes, but instead of describing actual people who were famous, it only mentioned people that historians are fairly sure are myths, such as, Rip Van Winkle and Paul Bunyan, and some other people that nobody ever heard of. If the writers of the Gospels, wrote a story based on verses of the Septuagint that, in their community, were well known for being mistranslations, or otherwise defective, then that would be an intentional indication of fiction.

01-14-2009, 06:01 AM	#128
patcleaver Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 742	Jesus says that whatever we pray for will be granted. Anyone can disprove what Jesus claimed in just a few minutes. Jesus statements about prayer seem so outrageous and obviously false that they may be a parody of the statements made by false messiah claimants and a simple way to intentionally indicate that the work was fiction. Jesus statements about being able to handle poisonous snakes and drink poison without harm is another claim that can be easily disproved. This is just a parody of claims by other false messiahs about what their followers could do. They could be intentional indications of fiction. The guaranteed curing of the sick is another claim that can be easily disproved simply by trying it on a terminally ill patient. These things are parodies of claims of false messiahs and intentional indications that the gospels are fiction. mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.