Amaleq13

Thanks to all for the references regarding "Keepa".

Along the lines of this tangent, are there linguistic clues besides the inclusion of "called" (e.g. Simon called Peter) that indicate when a nickname is being used rather than the actual name?

judge

The last link should be www.peshitta.com

I don't think that "called" is included in the Aramaic.
Probably best to check this with an Aramaic speaker though.

Did you have something in particular in mind?

In Mark 3:17 we read tha .."He gave them the name Bnay Raghshee that is sons of

thunder.http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch3.pdf

raghshee can mean either thunder or rage in aramaic so an explanation is even provided in the Aramaic text on this particular occaision to indicate sons of thunder not sons of rage.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, back, sort of, on point, bede, would you consider three different authors who all are followers of the Rev. Moon to be "independent" of each other in their versions of stories about the Rev. Moon? Or three or four different authors who all are Mormons and write their versions of how Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon in gold to be "independent" attestation?

Is Steven Spielberg's version of "Pinochio" (A.I.) an "independent" attestation to the veracity of that story?

As you know, I agree that there was most likely a Rabbi named Jesus who was crucified (for sedition) by the Romans, but I am still a "mythicist" if you want to label me that way, in that the passion narrative is a fictional revision of what actually happened; a myth based on various real events.

But what's most curious to me is what Paul said to the Thesollonians as to who killed Jesus as opposed to what the GMark says (Pilate killed Jesus).

Paul states that it was "the Jews" (plural; non-specific) who killed "the Lord Jesus and the prophets" and who drove them out (and as a result have accrued the wrath of their own god "at last"), yet Mark states quite clearly that it was the Romans (Pilate, specifically) who killed Jesus.

Not even an apologist of your reputation can try to spin Paul's declaration by saying he meant that "the Jews" conspired to kill Jesus, since Paul makes it unmistakeably clear that it was the "Jews" who killed Jesus and the prophets, so he couldn't be referring to the "crowd" that so ridiculously scared Pilate into killing a man he had just publicly found innocent of all charges, nor the Sanhedrin who Pilate rejects by publicly declaring that they have no case.

No matter how you slice it, Mark says Pilate and the Romans killed Jesus and Paul says it was "the Jews" who also killed the prophets (whoever they are) who killed Jesus.

So, was Paul lying or mistaken before god and preaching a false admonition against "the Jews," or did Mark create a myth based on nuggets of truth? Or was Mark trying to apologize for what Paul got wrong?

Myths rarely start from word one. Paul could have been creating his myth based on anti-Judaist motives and Mark could have been creating his myth based on pro-Roman motives, etc., etc., but one thing's for sure, both Paul and Mark cannot be historically accurate in their attestation to who killed Jesus. At least if you're taking 1 Thessolonians and GMark as historically accurate attestations.

Amaleq13

I'm also interested in the rules for Greek.

Specifically, is there any linguistic reason to assume Paul is consistently using a nickname in referring to "Peter/Cephas"?

I'm trying to read Paul without reading Gospel details into his letters. He never explicitly mentions that Peter's "real" name is Simon so I'm interested if there are any linguistic clues suggesting this is implied or can be reasonably assumed.


Thanks for the help.

Amaleq13

Not to distract from your discussion with Bede but, given the above, why do you think the Romans would allow his former followers to continue to operate in Jerusalem?

4God

I'm really beginning to think that some people here believe that those of us calling ourselves Christians, woke up yesterday.

We take the works of many ancient authors(Aristotle,Plato, Africanus) and bounce them against the other few authors of their time and come up with entire synopses(sp?) of what life was like. How then is it so uncanny that Christians would believe approximated 30 different authors proclaiming the same? That's like taking the Big Bang moment, placing 30 of your friends their and all writing about it. Were you predjudiced that the Big Bang theory was correct? Uh, yeah. Does that make your claim any less true? Not a bit.

In light of that, the Bible is a collection, not a novel written by one person. As far as myth goes. It stands to reason that if the accounts of Jesus were written at a substantially later period then the account itself, it could be embellished. Despite efforts to prove this, it is not true. Bede, made an honest attempt to answer and provided much information. But, I think that your presupposition that the individual ancient writings of the Bible are false, skews your thinking. If I can ready Livy and take it for what it is worth, why can I not do the same for John, Exodus, Luke, et. al? If historians have used those works to compile evidence, why is this evidence thrown to the wolves as dung? I think it's because you do not want to believe it, therefore it is false versus taking a hard look at it and deeming it false. I could be very wrong here, but it seems as though some answers to Bede have come from that standpoint.

Toto

Koy - you keep bringing up that passage in 1 Thessalonians. Liberal scholarship generally regards it as a much later interpolation. It was discussed in this thread:

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an Interpolation

Vinnie argues strenuously against interpolation because he wants to find evidence in Paul for a historical Jesus. But most people who read the passage notice a dramatic change in tone and language.

4God: you say

<ahem>Block that metaphor! I don't want to digress here on why you don't throw dung to the wolves.

Biblical criticism attempts to use the same historical tools as are used with other ancient texts. No historian accepts an ancient text uncritically. There are valid reasons for rejecting the historical character of Exodus and the gospels - there is a lack of archeological data to support Exodus, the gospels revolve around supernatural events, there are obvious literary dependences on other documents, etc. You will find some people who have started with the idea that the Bible is false and take potshots at it, but you will find many more who start with the idea that the Bible must be true, and find to their dismay that they cannot support that with modern critical tools.

Vinnie

Please don't whine about 'Vinnie argues strenuously' because he wants to find 'evidence in Paul'. Lovely how you accuse my motives instead of hitting my treatment. Vinnie has documented Pauline evidence time and again. A drammatic change in tone and language doesn't prove much. Writers are capable of such things. Texts were not necessarily written in one sitting and so on. We are dealing with human authors, not robots. Paul is as capable of hyperbole as is Toto who accuses Vinnie of wanting to find an HJ in Paul.

I demonstrated that there are no valid reasons for viewing the passage as an interpolation and that it should be regarded as Pauline.

Appropriate behavior would be for you to either refute my paper or keep your teeth together. Apparently you can't do either....

Vinnie

Vinnie

I am going to return the favor of "accusations". You are a liar. Bona fide scholars like Raymond Brown have stated what the majority position is, which is for authenticity. Critical scholarship supports this passage. Quit lying and start accurately representing critical scholarship.

You are probably dependent on Doherty here. He thinks the minority of critical scholars who support his position leads to "the general judgment of critical scholarship". It doesn't.

Vinnie

Toto

Vinnie - I think that thread contains enough refutation of your position. Liberal scholarship tends to regard the passage as interpolitation; you tend to follow liberal scholarship on other issues, hence my speculation as to why you reject the liberal consensus on this issue. I did not intend to reargue the matter here. I don't know why Koy would want to treat the passage as genuine, or what effect that would have on his argument.

Getting back to the comment that provoked this, if you think that this is genuinely Pauline, either Paul is a liar or Mark is. Do you agree with Koy?