jakejonesiv

:huh:
I am not sure why you picked Earl Doherty to be the target of this new insight. How did you get mental illness out of Gal. 4:23, dia astheneia ho sarx?

Jake Jones IV

Toto

Unfortunately, some significant posts were lost from this thread in the recent server unpleasantness. I've emailed Doherty to see if he has copies of his posts.

jgibson000

Since a great many of the contributions to this thread are now dealing with the issue of the meaning of ARCONTES in 1 Cor 2:6-8 and, more specifically, whether the MJ interpretation of this passage is based upon faulty argumentation, I've opend a new thread the title of which, Selective quotation, misreadsings, and misrepresentations of sources, better reflects than does "Born of a Woman" the subject matter that's become our focus here.

You'll find it here.

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

I think Earl figured why and he responded (though the ensuing exchange was unfortunaely deleted), which is really more important than what you missed.

As for your question on Gal 4:13, you need to understand how the ancients and Greeks especially thought of wellness and illness in general. The prevailing medical theory was that of Hippocrates' four humours: blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm. All manner of disease, including mental problems (which were not really thought of as a separate medical issue until the 19th century), all were thought of as disturbances in one of the humours th sarki. Now, if you check your English-Greek dictionary for 'black bile' you will get your comeuppance . :wave:

Jiri

EarlDoherty

I have been asked to repost my two postings of July 17, which were lost in the Great Crash, one to Rick Sumner, the other to Jeffrey Gibson….The other post I had wanted to reply to was Kevin Rosero's in which he asked me about taking a more 'balanced approach' to the question of Jesus' existence in my next edition of The Jesus Puzzle. I have always found Kevin quite calm and reasonable in his postings. If he restores that posting, I'll try to come back on over the weekend and make a few comments. On some of the other topics that have been debated here lately, I'm afraid I'm rather burned out for now. I wonder where some of you get all your energy.

A few responses to Rick’s Response to my ‘response’ to his rebuttal to my 2 Peter article. (I can’t remember why I put scare’s around the word, maybe because I felt it addressed so few of the article’s arguments.)

This is really strained argument, and you are making much too much of the reference. If I write to someone and tell them of a film I saw, and add the phrase “which I’ve wanted to see for some time,” does that mean the recipient would find it “makes no sense” unless I’d already told them that before? ‘Peter’ is telling the reader that he expects soon to die, and adds that Christ had revealed that to him. The writer is aware of such a tradition of revelation (MJ) or prophecy by Jesus (HJ), but there is no necessity that his readership must be aware of it. Sorry, but I simply can’t see your reasoning here.

Yes, that was a mental typo. I meant the preceding verses (up to v.11).

Now really, Rick, do you think I’m that ignorant of fallacious reasoning? You are confusing “conclusions” based on separate arguments as providing explanations for the situation under discussion. One of the basic observations/conclusions of the entire Jesus Puzzle picture is that the “Galilean” (Kingdom preaching) and “Jerusalem” (epistolary) expressions of pre-composite Christianity were in fact independent and had nothing to do with one another. That is supported by a whole range of evidence and analysis of the documentary record. (Whether or not you agree I’m right about this is a different matter.) With that picture in mind, I can state that the writers of the later Gospels can be seen as inhabiting a different dimension from the writers of the epistles, and offer this as an explanation for their lack of the tradition under debate. Mark I regard has having had that unique contact between the two and became aware of the epistolary tradition present in 2 Peter about Peter’s visionary experience, upon which he constructed his own Transfiguration scene in his Gospel (which all the rest copied from).

One has to be very careful with analogies. Too often they don’t equate. The “ruby slippers” change is clear. We know where it came from, and there is virtually no likelihood that such a change could have arisen independently of the movie (though even that is theoretically possible). In 1st century Christianity, with incomplete records, with all sorts of oral tradition supposedly floating around, we cannot be so precise or confident. Certainly not to the extent of you ruling out as “absurd” every other option except derivation from a particular written Gospel—and in the face of other examples within 2 Peter itself that it does not appeal to such a Gospel when there should be equal likelihood of such appeal as in the case of 1:14. (Even though you do not use my ‘ill-advised’ phrase “without much doubt”, claims that you make like this are equally guilty of the same thing, wouldn’t you say?)

Is it? And who is to say it “doesn’t need the key elements”? Regardless of Synoptic “precursors”, why is the writer of 2 Peter offering this incident? He tells his readers that it is to demonstrate “the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming [i.e., the coming Parousia].” To demonstrate this he speaks of his “majesty”, that he was “invested with honor and glory” (neither one of which is taken from the synoptic Transfiguration). So why would those other missing synoptic elements not have served the same purpose? Would not the shining of his face, the brightness of his clothes, the appearance of Moses and Elijah to talk with him, not have also served to illustrate the writer’s point? Two spectacular biblical figures coming out of heaven?!! If the writer had a Gospel open in front of him (which he would have accepted as historical fact), you really think he would have left that out? Sorry, your ‘reason’ is impossible to accept and is simply an excuse to dismiss what is indismissible. Of course, I’ve already pointed out that for the writer to demonstrate Christ’s power and the promise of his coming by only appealing to a pretty tame episode like this instead of his resurrection from the dead, or his raising of Lazarus (wouldn’t he have known of this from the Gospel of John?), or other amazing miracles of Jesus, is a huge incongruity.

As for the words from heaven, you claim they are taken from Matthew or Luke. Let’s compare the texts:

2 Peter: ho huios mou ho agapntos mou houtos estin, eis hon egw eudoknsa.
--literally: “the son of me, the beloved of me, this is, toward whom I am well-pleased.”

Mt. 17:5: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapntos, en hwi eudoknsa.
--literally: “this is the son of me, the beloved, in whom I am well-pleased.”

Lk. 9:35: houtos estin ho huios mou ho eklelegmenos, autou akouete.
--literally: “this is the son of me, the one having been chosen, listen to him.”

Mk. 9:7: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapntos, akouete autou.
--lit.: “this is the son of me, the beloved, listen to him.”

Where is the commonality of wording to justify your ‘without much doubt’ claim? The sentiment is basic anyway, just how many ways are there to say “this is my son, my beloved”? In any case, the whole idea comes from Isaiah 42:1-4, as many texts inform us. Matthew even quotes it in 12:18:

“idou, ho pais mou hon hnretisa, ho agapntos mou hon eudoknsen hn psuchn mou.” (I don’t know which ancient version of the LXX Matthew may have been using; it doesn’t agree with mine!) It is hardly impossible that 2 Peter and the Synoptics independently formed their scene from the scriptural precedent, especially when their respective wordings are not the same.

Incidentally, J. N. D. Kelly (The Epistles of Peter and Jude, p.319, observes: “The true Greek text here (the MSS have assimilating variants) comes closest to Matthew’s version, but differs from it (a) in placing ‘This is’ at the end of the first clause instead of the beginning; (b) in reading ‘my beloved’ instead of ‘the beloved’; and (c) in reading ‘on whom’ 9eis hon instead of ‘in whom’ (en hoi). The discrepancies are of no significance since the author’s source was probably traditional material, and not any of the written gospels” (my emphasis). So here we have a (conservative) scholar opining that the 2 Peter scene came from tradition anyway. And note one other point he raises: the manuscripts of 2 Peter have “assimilating variants”. How can we tell, then, whether the “true Greek text” (Kelly doesn’t say how he knows it’s the true one) has not been assimilated by scribes to their own familiarity with some synoptic text, a very common occurrence?

[quote]You aren't addressing the concern: The redactor of John 21 was sympathetic to Peter, and uses the passage to counterbalance the apparent tradition of a false prophecy about the beloved disciple. That is all the earmarks of a Johannine creation. What circles he moved in has nothing to do with that.

I argue why the other gospel authors don't know it--they don't know it because John made it up. You offer no substantial rebuttal to that. What it boils down to is that the prophecy of Peter's death is distinctive to the context of John 21--there is no reason to suggest that it ever existed outside of it.[/quote[

This, as far as I can tell, is your only argument with any real force. But it is compromised in a number of ways. First of all (though perhaps this is irrelevant), I don’t see the reference to Peter’s death as serving to counterbalance the supposed false prophecy about the beloved disciple. The latter is a separate issue, and I don’t know what purpose the former would serve in relation to the latter. The writer actually offers his ‘out’ in the succeeding verse 23, explaining that Jesus meant something different. The issue of Peter’s death doesn’t serve any equivalent purpose. Secondly, I also don’t see a close connection between the Johannine passage and 2 Peter’s reference. John 21:18-19 is a ‘prophecy’ about the manner of Peter’s death. 2 Peter doesn’t address that aspect at all. The writer (speaking as Peter) is simply saying that his death is imminent, as Christ has revealed to me. Actually, this doesn’t make any sense as a reflection of the John passage. What does one have to do with the other? How, from John, would a writer know anything about the time of Peter’s death, let alone inform him as to when he should become aware of its imminence? There is a certain ‘coincidence’ in that both refer to Peter’s death, but that may be all it is, a coincidence. Even if you are correct (and you may be) that the John 21 prophecy is an invention of the evangelist, it doesn’t matter.

A further compromise: Scholars are in general agreement that chapter 21 in John is tacked on, and they don’t know if it’s by the same author (which is a dubious concept anyway, since critical scholarship regards John as passing through several stages of writing and editing). Thus the connection between 2 Peter and John 21 is even more tenuous. We can’t even be sure that they weren’t written in that order.

There is simply too much uncertainty, incongruity and even contradiction involved in this whole issue to make the kind of secure statements you are making. In view of this, it is very much encumbent on you to deal with all the factors my article brings up, and not simply dismiss them as though we can lay the whole case on a pair of ruby slippers.

(I won’t address the balance of your post, simply because I don’t have time. I hope everyone realizes that when you are one person on one side of the fence in opposition to many people on the other side, you just can’t deal with everything and everyone. I’m taking a break after my Refutations article, but I do need to get on to other writing projects. That said, Kevin, this is not my last post!)

All the best,
Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

(Reprinted from July 17)

Jeffrey, you are incorrigible. This is a prime example of why I rarely have anything to do with you, and why you waste not only my time, and everyone else’s, but your own.

So I use the word “cut” which Knibb does not. That was my shorthand way of putting it. For you to find an objection in that, let alone to treat it like a federal case, casts aspersions only on your sense of reality, not on me or my ‘accuracy’. Knibb says: “…revised to make it more orthodox,” in reference to a deletion of what he regards as authentic to the original document, namely 11:2-22. That is clear from p. 154: “the primitive character of the narrative makes it difficult to believe that it did not form part of the original text.” In other words, the ‘revision’ was a ‘cut’.

Now, who did the revising/cutting? Again, semantic arguments, as though they have any significance or relevance to the issue at hand. If the Lat2 and the Slavonic are “independent translations of a Greek version of the Vision” (the one “revised”), then it is their direct ancestor that did the cutting. It hardly matters if I made it sound as though the Lat2 and Slavonic did the cutting. It amounts to the same thing. But I should have known better where you are concerned.

This sort of thing is smoke, Jeffrey. It’s part of your schtick, and you really ought to change it, because it is not only tedious, it is transparent, and everyone by now recognizes it. (I actually went to look up the spelling of “schtick” to make sure it was correct, so you wouldn’t spend half a posting pointing out any error. To save you some time, there are 3 spellings: schtick, schtik, and shtik. Although perhaps you’ll tell us how it is properly rendered in Koine.)

It goes along with the endless—and largely unnecessary—quotes from this or that text or lexicon. It goes along with claiming that such and such an authority really meant something else than what I (or whoever) claims he or she meant, but without explaining that other meaning. We have long given up on you enlightening us as to what Ehrman really meant in regard to Galatians 4:4 corruptions. Then there is the avoidance of issues and arguments by demanding first a response to something you’ve thrown up as a roadblock to getting on with the main argument, regardless of how secondary the former is to the issue, or even irrelevant. Then, of course, there is the endless appeal to your superior education, the picayune appeals to strict semantics, the pouncing on typos, the scattering of impressive-sounding “bites” to suggest a vast background of knowledge in myriad fields which you (and you alone) are a party to, but which somehow are never used in the argument in concrete fashion. It’s true, I haven’t read nor am familiar with The Effects of Second Temple Judaism’s Sacrifice of Chickens on the Verb “Ginomai”, but if you don’t explain it, I’m going to ignore it as irrelevant.

Of course, you’re not fooling anyone. It’s clear that you use this “schtick” as a substitute for genuine, pertinent argument. It’s noise, so you can sound like you’re actually rebutting or saying something. That’s clear when you got to my comments about the “legendary” judgment by Knibb, and my suggestion as to his motives. You really had nothing to say on those scores. Except some vague accusation of “special pleading.” You obviously don’t know the technical meaning of that phrase. It’s been diluted (like “begging the question” has been diluted and compromised), but it means selectively choosing certain evidence while ignoring unfavorable evidence. My reference to Knibb’s possible motives have nothing to do with that.

I will hopefully get around to Ben’s latest thread on the Ascension (which I have taken note of), but as for ignoring issues others have raised, one could note that in your claims that Galatians 4:4’s “genomenon ek gunaikos has to be entirely in line with the common phrase and meaning “born of woman”, we are still waiting for you to address another major issue I raised in my recent posting to Ben: why Paul, if it all means the same thing, would have changed the verb between 4:4 and 4:23, and why those key Pauline references to Jesus’ ‘birth’ are the only cases anywhere in the NT where anyone uses anything other than “gennaw to refer to anyone’s birth, including Jesus’. All you have offered in response is the pontifical declaration that ginomai can only mean one thing.

You know, Jeffrey, I think we’ll put that on your tombstone. “GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS”. Tourists visiting the site will scratch their heads. “Look at that, Mildred! Shouldn’t that be “GENNWMENON”? And a disembodied voice will drift up: “They…both…mean…the…same…thing…”

And life in the real world where things actually get accomplished will go on.

Actually, maybe this will be my last post. My eyes are sore and bleary (they still can’t take unlimited time at the computer screen), I’m tired, and my soul is weary. I’ve got to get back to Kansas. Toto, where did I put those damn ruby slippers?

All the best,
Earl Doherty

jjramsey

This seems to ignore the "ruby slippers" in question, which is the phrase "whom I am well-pleased." That is common to both 2 Peter and Matthew, and it is a redaction from what is in Mark. That would indicate that 2 Peter was familiar with the tradition of the transfiguration as altered by the author of Matthew.

jakejonesiv

How do you know that a mental problem rather than a physical ailment is referenced in Gal 4:13?

Jake Jones

Rick Sumner

Quotes from my 'blog will be deigned "The Dilettante Exegete" in the proceeding citations.

Why does Earl feel the need to explain to me things I note explicitly? My entire argument about Johannine creation of the prophecy is that it matches the redactor of Jn.21, not the author of the bulk of John, whose redactive tendencies it does not match.

Firstly, the suggestion that there is "one similarity" is nonsense, (both are on mounts, both are witnessed by Peter), but I'm sure you're aware of that. What's more important is the fact that you've thoroughly misrepresented me here.

Not only is "one similarity" not my only argument, it's not even my primary argument. The thrust of my argument is that the Transfiguration is thoroughly and demonstrably Markan at every level, which subsequently precludes the necessity (and, by extension via Occam's Razor, the probability, which I'm sure is what you're defending--the probability of the existence of an independent tradition. Since an argument to simple possibility would be unfalsifiable, and thus one of those fallacious bits of reasoning you assure me you know enough to avoid) of an independent tradition.

What's even more important than the fact that you thoroughly misrepresent the thrust of my position is that you seem entirely unaware of that thrust's existence--it's not that you fail to address it, it's that you carry on unaware that it's there (which is why you missed the ruby shoes analogy, for example. The entire episode is the shoes, not the words, in the instance of dependence for the transfiguration. The wording is only "ruby slippers" once one has established that dependence, and then looks for which gospel he drew from).

These two examples, paired with your thorough strawman reading of not one but both of my responses to your lexical arguments--despite the fact that their intention is explicitly stated--points one with compelling force to a given conclusion. Namely, you somehow felt equipped to not only address, but dismiss with pompous apologies about the inadequacy of, an argument you have not extended the simple courtesy of more than a cursory skimming, much less made any effort to understand or assess. You did not recognize what you were arguing against, and repeatedly demonstrated as much.

This post is not about the intertextuality between 2Peter and the Gospels, on the contrary, I still feel with gotten about as far as we're going to on that. Rather it is, like Kevin Rosero's previous post (which seems to have been lost), a look at why so many of Doherty's opponents suggest that he misrepresents and fails to engage fairly both the literature he cites and the opposing arguments he addresses. We do so, quite simply, because it's true.

As an aside that is pertinent to the many posters here who sympathize both with Michael Turton's (Vorkosigan) Commentary on Mark, and Doherty's hypothesis, one of their methodologies has brought a thoroughly false positive here, and should subsequently be reassessed. Either there is an independent tradition (Which Doherty's approach to the epistolary record demands) or there is not (Which Turton's traditionless "Mark as fiction" demands). Both of these methodologies cannot come out of this unaffected. Somewhat ironic since Michael has expressed the hope of complimenting Doherty.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

S.C.Carlson

Aside from the colorful "ruby slipper" terminology (which is growing on me), I think that's basically why those scholars who think that 2 Peter is dependent on synoptic tradition tend to conclude that it is dependent on Matthew, not Mark.

Stephen Carlson