Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-11-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

It appears that in transcribing the quote from Zetzel's review, a couple of the punctuation marks changed. This happens sometimes going from PDF to Microsoft Word. As a result of these changes in punctuation marks, one could possibly get the impression, I suppose, that Zetzel is not supporting Wiseman's contention that Catullus wrote Laureolus. Therefore, here is the quote of his clear support for Wiseman with the proper punctuation marks and the pertinent text in bold.

Quote:

By far the most novel and interesting section of Catullus and His World is chapter 6. "The Unknown Catullus." in which W. argues that Catullus wrote not only the extant collection but also mimes and possibly a prose treatise on the mime. As far as the mimes themselves are concerned (the Phasma and Laureolus referred to by Juvenal, his scholiast, and Tertullian: all ancient references to Catullus are collected by Wiseman in a very valuable appendix), W. is almost certainly right, and his recognition of the mime as a serious literary form in the late Republic (here and in "Who Was Crassicius Pansa?" TAPA 115 [1985]: 187-96) is of considerable interest. What is more, there is no reason to deny the authenticity of the treatise on mimes assigned to Catullus by the Berne scholia on Lucan 1. 544, although its precise title is lost in a textual corruption. But the larger argument that W. sets out concerning Catullus the mimographer is neither convincing nor consistent in itself.

Now with the proper punctuation marks, it is perfectly clear that Zetzel is supporting Wiseman's contention that Catullus did indeed write the mime plays. That Zetzel disagrees on other elements of Wiseman's argument is clear, but quite irrelevant to the fact that he supports Wiseman's contention that Catullus wrote Laureolis which is the only issue we are concerned about.

Zetzel even repeats his support for Wiseman's position that Catullus wrote the mime plays Phasma and Laureolus later in the review. I have again placed the relevant passage in bold.
as Zetzel writes, "As far as the mimes themselves are concerned...W. is certainly right..." and "Phasma and Laureolus are certain titles for Catullan mimes," I think we may say without reservation that he supports Wiseman's contention that Catullus wrote Laureolus.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Jeffrey

mountainman · 11-11-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

So, no use of a form of "chrism" ever, in the gospels? I ask again, why is Jesus called Christos then? Can anyone tell me?

Have a look at the thread entitled: what is the
difference between χρησιανόν and χρισιανόν ?

Christos = greek Χριστός (with an iota) = 'annointed'
Chrestos = greek χρηστός (with an eta) = 'good/ethical'

To the commoner, the chrestian religion was the
religion of the good and ethical, and this had in
one form or another existed for thousands of years,
totally independent of christianity.

A play on words happened at some stage.
Χριστός was conflated with χρηστός,
The question is: which century.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-11-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

So, no use of a form of "chrism" ever, in the gospels? I ask again, why is Jesus called Christos then? Can anyone tell me?

Have a look at the thread entitled: what is the
difference between χρησιανόν and χρισιανόν ?

Christos = greek Χριστός (with an iota) = 'annointed'
Chrestos = greek χρηστός (with an eta) = 'good/ethical'

To the commoner, the chrestian religion was the
religion of the good and ethical, and this had in
one form or another existed for thousands of years,
totally independent of christianity.

Why would anyone make the mistake of confusing one for the other?

Χριστός is a noun χρηστός is an adjective which, when applied to men means good in the sense of "honest, worthy, kindly", and when applied to members of a community means "useful, deserving", (cf. Demostenes 20.7), but so far as I can see, never "ethical".

There is no indication anywhere, so far as I know, that the term χρηστός was ever applied by outsiders to members of the Jesus movement or that Christianity was ever called, let alone known, by outsiders as the "religion of the good, the honest, the worthy".

Quote:

A play on words happened at some stage.
Χριστός was conflated with χρηστός,
The question is: which century.

No, the question is where. Can you point me to one instance of this purported play on words?

In any case, I'm flumoxed if I can see how what you tell Magdyln to look at will be of any use in answereing her questions about whether "chrism" apperas in the gospels and what Jesus was called Christos.

Jeffrey

Magdlyn · 11-11-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

No. Chrism is an English derivative from the noun Greek noun χρῖσμα (chrisma) which, as the Wiki article you yourself adduced notes, is a substantive form of the verb χρίω, χρίομαι. Exkrisen is a past tense form of the verb χρίω (Greek verbs are inflected to signify person, number, tense, mood, kind of action, etc.)

I'm having a hard time following you, Gibson. But thanks for trying, I really appreciate it.

Quote:

Again, you are confusing verbs and nouns. HLEIFEN is a form of the verb wich means "to anoint". It can't mean "ointment" because "ointment is a noun.

And anointed is an adjective.

Quote:

Because as Lk 7:38, Ps. of Sol. 17, Isaiah The DSS and other texts show, one does not need the application of a physical chrism to be The "anointed" one = the one chosen and empowered to be the Messiah/Christ.

Oh! I see now, we are jumping from the language to a bit of theology. In your opinion, Jesus was spiritually anointed by God. All the oil and "perfume" Mary was throwing around was just because...? Jesus said she should always be remembered for doing it because...?

Quote:

If you had done a little reading around in the books on NT chrastology that I recoomended to you -- but which you disdained with the genetic fallacy as unworthy of your time and attention - you might have spared yourself your confusion.

I like books. I did not have time to run out to the library and get your chrastology books this weekend...

Quote:

Use it for what? To make people the Messiah? What makes you think the practice is based on anything done to Jesus?

The Bible.

Mary anointed Jesus, whether the Greek word was chrism, or chrisma or not.

I believe you quibbled about whether Judas Maccabeus should be called a kind of messiah b/c he had not been physically anointed. But it's OK to call Jesus "Christ" in your opinion, based on a spiritual anointing?

Quote:

My main effort was to show that a Mary and/or unnamed woman anointed various Christly body parts and that Jesus said he anointed her.

Quote:

She didn't. He didn't. And if he did, it was not for, nor did it signify, what you claimed its purpose and its signification was.

Agree to disagree.

mountainman · 11-11-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Have a look at the thread entitled: what is the
difference between χρησιανόν and χρισιανόν ?

Christos = greek Χριστός (with an iota) = 'annointed'
Chrestos = greek χρηστός (with an eta) = 'good/ethical'

To the commoner, the chrestian religion was the
religion of the good and ethical, and this had in
one form or another existed for thousands of years,
totally independent of christianity.

Why would anyone make the mistake of confusing one for the other?

Most people could not write. They relied on
hearing the words, not seeing them.

The two words when pronounced in the
greek tongue sound almost the same.

The same might also be claimed for the Latin
equivalents (ie: christos and chrestos are
very similar sounding)

Does this explain why people might make the
mistake of confusing one for the other?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-11-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Why would anyone make the mistake of confusing one for the other?

Most people could not write. They relied on
hearing the words, not seeing them.

The two words when pronounced in the
greek tongue sound almost the same.

The same might also be claimed for the Latin
equivalents (ie: christos and chrestos are
very similar sounding)

Does this explain why people might make the
mistake of confusing one for the other?

No.

Leaving aside the matter of whether you've begged the question with your claim about Greek pronunciation of the two words (you know this how?, do you confuse a noun for an adjective, no matter how similarly pronounced, especially when you hear anyone use these words in a sentence? More importantly, would the ancients -- who didn't have to read it to know their own language, especially since the use in speech of the adjective involved using inflected and arthrous forms which would acutally distinguish it from the noun, and the sytax of the sentence in which it was used would give its nature as an adjective away, even if the pronunciations of the initial vowel elided??

And where is your evidence that Christians were called "good" by outsiders and that Christainity known as the "religion" of the good?

As usual, you are vamping, Pete, while you are skating on very thin ice.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-11-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

I believe you quibbled about whether Judas Maccabeus should be called a kind of messiah b/c he had not been physically anointed.

I did no such thing. I raised the question of the validity of your historical claim that Judas was called or was thought of, or presented, anywhere in Jewish litearture as "the Messiah" or given the title CHRISTOS. The issue of whether he should be called (now it's a kind of??:huh: ) Messiah or why he was (or was not) thus called IF he was (or wasn't), was not on the table, nor was it anything I spoke of.

My exact words, in response to your claim that "According to Jewish thought as shown a bit later, the mosiach was supposed to be a human being, not a god. And he was not supposed to be killed, he was supposed to rule on earth. Cyrus of Persia is an early example. Judas Maccabeus another", were:

Where in any Jewish text, canonical or non canonical, is Judas proclaimed as Messiah?

Nothing more. Nothing less. So here again, you express an unfounded (and wrong) belief.

BTW, you still haven't answered that question -- or acknowledged that Judas didn't do the things you claim he did -- namely that "He brought peace and self rule to Judah" or that your belief that he was anointed, let alone anointed as the Messiah of Jewish expectation is not depicted anywhere in any Jewish work, canonical or non canonical.

Quote:

But it's OK to call Jesus "Christ" in your opinion, based on a spiritual anointing?

I'm not sure that I know what "spiritual" anointing means, but yes it's more than OK to note that Jesus was called Christ even in the absence of anointing with oil, since that's what Luke and Paul and Mark and Matthew and John (all of Jesus) and Isaiah (of Cyrus) and the Ps. of Sol (of the Anointed of the Lord) and the DSS (of the Messiah of David and the Messiah of Aaron) and Akiva (of Simeon Bar Koseba) say is OK to think about those they call Messiah.

Jeffrey

Magdlyn · 11-11-2007, 07:41 PM

Please fix quote tags, it seems like my words are yours. ty

Magdlyn · 11-11-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'm not sure that I know what "spiritual" anointing means, but yes it's more than OK to note that Jesus was called Christ even in the absence of anointing with oil, since that's what Luke and Paul and Mark and Matthew and John ... say is OK to think about those they call Messiah.

Jeffrey

But in the gospel narrative, Jesus was anointed (all your wrangling to the contrary), by Mary M (or Mary B, or another woman, take your pick, and it was either his head or feet, and Simon was either a leper or a Pharisee, or it was actually Lazarus' house, who cares?) , and Jesus said she should always be remembered for it. I asked you why, and you have not answered that yet.

mountainman · 11-11-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the matter of whether you've begged the question with your claim about Greek pronunciation of the two words (you know this how?, do you confuse a noun for an adjective, no matter how similarly pronounced, especially when you hear anyone use these words in a sentence?

Check the very concrete example
of P.Oxy 3035

From WIKI we have the following:

Quote:

POxy 3035 (or P. Oxy. XLII 3035) is a warrant for the arrest a Christian, issued on the 28 February 256 AD, by the authorities of the Roman Empire. This is one of the earliest uses of the word Christian attested on papyrus.

Image: P. Oxy. XLII 3035 (© Copyright the Egypt Exploration Society).
The order was issued by the head of the Oxyrhynchus ruling council, to the police in a country village, to arrest a man described as a Christian (note χρισιανόν, the papyrus has the early spelling, χρησιανόν). The charge which makes the Christian liable for arrest is not given, unless this is Christianity itself.

It looks to me that P.Oxy 3035 is not about
a "christian" but is about a "chrestian".

How do you resolve this?

Quite clearly, publications such as
The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri:.
“Not Without Honor Except in Their Hometown”?
ELDON JAY EPP. 5–55. do not.

They claim it is christian.
Another Prosenes-like assumption.

Best wishes,

Pete

ps: here is an image of the greek fragment

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

11-11-2007, 07:41 PM	#118
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Please fix quote tags, it seems like my words are yours. ty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.