Freethought & Rationalism Archive

la70119 · 04-29-2012, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Just how many years has Ehrman set back the state of knowledge about the Bible with just one little book aimed 'at a general audience'?

In the Anglosphere, decades. :angry:

thief of fire · 04-29-2012, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

If I wanted to I would argue on the basis of the style grammar and word order.

It's the style, grammar, word order, idioms and vocabulary that identify a Latin substratum to Mark. It was fairly certainly written in Rome. Can you explain the form "Herodian" any other way? It shows a Latin gentilic suffix used in Greek. I've shown many Latin traces in Mark here in the past, the explanations for a Roman audience is one of the obvious examples--a hall is explained as a paetorium and two leptas are explained as a quadrans. What use are such explanations to a non-Roman Greek audience??

And if I wanted to argue for a Latin substratum I might argue as you have, though I might not be so confident about Rome.

spin · 04-29-2012, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

If I wanted to I would argue on the basis of the style grammar and word order.

It's the style, grammar, word order, idioms and vocabulary that identify a Latin substratum to Mark. It was fairly certainly written in Rome. Can you explain the form "Herodian" any other way? It shows a Latin gentilic suffix used in Greek. I've shown many Latin traces in Mark here in the past, the explanations for a Roman audience is one of the obvious examples--a hall is explained as a paetorium and two leptas are explained as a quadrans. What use are such explanations to a non-Roman Greek audience??

And if I wanted to argue for a Latin substratum I might argue as you have, though I might not be so confident about Rome.

I've already given two strong indicators. But have you got any theories as to where Greek was spoken in such a big enough community yet needs to supply the Latin substratum? While Rome is easy and obvious, an alternative doesn't stand out:

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

spin · 04-29-2012, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

...and two leptas are explained as a quadrans.

I did a quick google search for exactly this stuff earlier. I've heard this example earlier, but I wasn't sure of the exact frequency of these coins in the ancient world. Must admit that I'm not well versed in ancient coins. :Cheeky:

You guys know of any good sources discussing this leptas/quadrans example? I imagine that we can have a pretty good idea of where in the empire these coins were in much use.

From a very superficial search, it seems to me that both leptas and quadrans were issued in Palestine.

Where did you get the Palestinian minting of the quadrans?

Iskander · 04-29-2012, 04:03 AM

The Jewish annotated New Testament in page 75 says;

Quote:

another indication (see 5.4-1n) of the original Aramaic-language versions of gospel narratives

And i accept this as final because as the old English song says

Quote:

I'll own it's a trifle drafty,
But I look at it this way, you see:
If it's good enough for Nelson,
It's quite good enough for me.

hjalti · 04-29-2012, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I did a quick google search for exactly this stuff earlier. I've heard this example earlier, but I wasn't sure of the exact frequency of these coins in the ancient world. Must admit that I'm not well versed in ancient coins. :Cheeky:

You guys know of any good sources discussing this leptas/quadrans example? I imagine that we can have a pretty good idea of where in the empire these coins were in much use.

From a very superficial search, it seems to me that both leptas and quadrans were issued in Palestine.

Where did you get the Palestinian minting of the quadrans?

I searched for "Pilate Quadrans" and got some results saying that Pilate has some made. Don't remember where that was.

James The Least · 04-29-2012, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Yes, and this is a hugely important point. Mark is the earliest known non-Jewish writer in history to use the Hebrew scriptures in a non-Jewish religious context. Mark is quite confident and experienced in his use of "the scriptures" to establish his authority, but he never misses an opportunity to praise gentiles and denigrate "The Jews." This would have caused cognitive dissonance in any Jewish context, but Mark is a religious polemicist who is using "the scriptures" to prove that "The Jews" killed Lord Jesus, therefore giving Mark and the gentiles full authority to usurp the Hebrew scriptures and therefore God. Mark's Jesus is an etiological myth that functions as an explanation why gentiles now own the copyright to God and the scriptures, which they had been using for some time. The fall of Jerusalem gave life to the Jesus mythos by fulfilling the gentiles' interpretation of the scriptures.

Interesting post.

I do wonder ,now, though, why anyone would want a such a dysfunctional god as the biblical one?

Indeed, Marcion thought the same thing.

Solo · 04-29-2012, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

To camouflage the reference.

Best,
Jiri

Why?

To make it look more realistic to a naive reader: i.e. since Jesus was an Aramaic speaker; he would have recited the Psalm in Aramaic.

Best,
Jiri

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-29-2012, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That doesn't mean it wasn't possible to get something wrong. Mark, for instance got Boanerges wrong. That's not the right transliteration from the Aramaic. I'll quote an actual credentialed expert on the relevant languages here

This is only one example of a mistake Casey finds in Mark's translations. There is much more, and I am inclined to listen to someone who is a credentialed expert and makes a substantive linguistic argument than I am to dismissive handwaving from non-experts.

""'Secondly, this is further evidence that Mark was a normal and fallible bilingual,"""

Yes, D'oh. Exactly what I have been saying. Thanks, Dio. Sometimes Mark's errors are meaningful, sometimes they are not. Either way, confusion here does not show that Mark is working off a source. It shows that Mark was confused.

Exactly. They are translations, as I said.

Quote:

Maurice Casey, who I quoted above, is one of the world's foremost experts on 1st century, Palestinian Aramaic, and you have to do better than "his evidence is shit," when you are not credentialed in those languages yourself and have not offered a substantive, evidentiary rebuttal. Saying Casey's arguments are not at least reasonable is in itself, unreasonable.

I've read Casey. I don't see how it is possible to ascribe the term "method" to the mode of operation of a scholar who thinks Judas was a real person and who reads the mind of Jesus. Truly he is a genius! Steve Carr has been having a field day with Casey's mind numbing historical naivete.

You might also note that expertise in Aramaic does not equal skill in literary and historical analysis, and that citing him as an expert in the former to offer support for the latter is simply an argument from faux authority. Especially when Casey is very obviously engaged in apologetics and not scholarship.

It's really simple, Dio. Casey has no methodology that can support his claims. He can't differentiate between translation and between dependency on a source, no such methodology exists. He can't show the existence of sources that go back to Jesus. If he had such a methodology, you would simply bring it forth and show me and terminate this discussion.

Vorkosigan

I've said myself that I think a lot of Casey's reproduction of the actual life of Jesus is naive, and I don't really put stock in his history, but I do put stock in his linguistic expertise. Aramaic sources behind some of the Greek is not implausible, and does not mean Casey has to be right about anything else (I think he's wrong, or at least highly underwhelming in his arguments for about practically all of his historical reconstructions).

aa5874 · 04-29-2012, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I've said myself that I think a lot of Casey's reproduction of the actual life of Jesus is naive, and I don't really put stock in his history, but I do put stock in his linguistic expertise. Aramaic sources behind some of the Greek is not implausible, and does not mean Casey has to be right about anything else (I think he's wrong, or at least highly underwhelming in his arguments for about practically all of his historical reconstructions).

What??? You made claims about Casey and gMark in support of historical accuracy of certain stories NOW at this late stage you ADMIT Casey is ]WRONG or at least highly underwhelming in his arguments for about practically all of his historical reconstructions).

Why did you introduce Casey to support historical accuracy in gMark if ALL ALONG you were of the opinion ALL, ALL, ALL of his arguments for historical re-construction were seriously flawed??

Your argument was based on known flawed historical re-constructions.

Do you remember you made this statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...Maurice Casey, who I quoted above, is one of the world's foremost experts on 1st century, Palestinian Aramaic, and you have to do better than "his evidence is shit," when you are not credentialed in those languages yourself and have not offered a substantive, evidentiary rebuttal. Saying Casey's arguments are not at least reasonable is in itself, unreasonable.

You need to take a time out. You don't seem to make much sense anymore. You are all over the place. At this point your arguments are failures.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.