FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2012, 03:41 PM   #111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Please read the archives. I favor Mead's explanation.
The question is why. Mead begins his explanation with an incorrect understanding of the use of the greek article (here to, the masculine dative). He states "Notice the article, "as to the abortion not "as to an abortion.""
However, there is a reason we don't refer to indefinite and definite articles when it comes to greek grammar, but merely "the article." First because, strictly speaking, there is no indefinite article. Second, the use of the article does not parallel that of english. Hence, in Robert Funk's edited and translated A Greek Grammar of the New Testament we find (sec. 433.3) "...in 1 C 15: ὥσπερ τῷ ἐκτρώματι= τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὥ. ὄντι 'to me who am, so to speak, one untimely born.' The article here does not correspond to the english "the" in that it is not definite. Nor does Mead point to the use of this term in Gnostic texts. In fact, as the texts which relate to this date to centuries after Paul, the fact that you favor Mead's explanation is peculiar, as Mead's explanation is based on either misusing or misunderstanding the grammatical use of the article and then applying it to a theological concept for which we have no documentation until long after Paul. Of course, in Mead's day virtually everything we knew about the "gnostics" was based on the writings of christians such as Irenaeus.



Quote:
Thanks for proving my point. Louw and Nida have decided what the passage must mean, based on reading the events of Acts into Paul's letters, and have redefined έκτρωμα to fit their presumptions, with no support from ancient usage.
What support is there from ancient usage? Again, the term most commonly refers to a miscarriage or abortion. Clearly, it's not being used that way. We know, however, that the term was used occasionally in a metaphorical sense. To resort to some gnostic explanation based on texts dating centuries after Paul is ridiculous. The problem is there isn't a single metaphorical sense in which the term is used, but rather more than one. So interpreting Paul here requires context. Paul refers to a series of events (the alleged "appearences" of his risen Lord), and then ends with eschaton (last, finally) followed by his own supposed "vision" of this risen Lord. The term ektroma generally refers to an untimely early birth. But we know that it can be used in other ways, and that Paul is using it metaphorically here. It is therefore entirely possible (especially within context) that Paul is using the general meaning of "untimely" to refer to a late birth. It's certainly more plausible than Mead's misuse of greek grammar and application of a much later gnostic cosmology.






Quote:
So Will Durant is not the only person making this error. It is still obviously wrong.
Yet you prefer Mead's which is even more obviously wrong.
LegionOnomaMoi is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 08:29 PM   #112
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

There is an alternative beta code in which C represents Chi and X represents Ksee, which is how many fonts transliterate ASCII characters. For the other letters this alternate scheme is identical. I prefer this to the system in the Wiki article.

As for the scholarly acceptance of my preferred transliteration scheme, see here, which at the end of the page describes the transliteration scheme used by Crosstalk2 (Xtalk) and B-Greek e-lists. After a while you get used to it, after all it is just an alternate alphabet.



A lot of us type the transluterated letters in caps to represent uncial letters (as written) which did not have punctuation, accents or breathing marks. If you want to add these, some use the lower case "h" for tough breathing, lower case "(i)" for iota subscript, "/" for acute accent, etc. Others may use the transliteration letters in lower case without diacriticals.

The transliterations found in many scholarly publications do not distinguish between omega (Ω/ω) and omicron (Ο/ο), representing both as "o", or eta (Η/η) and epsilon (Ε/ε), representing both as "e", or may distinguish between them with a "long" vowel symbol above the English "Ō/ō" (for Ω/ω) or "Ē/ē" (for Η/η). Hmmm, saying Ω/ω = Ō/ō, Ο/ο = O/o, Η/η = Ēē, Ε/ε = E/e sounds like the Chimpansee at the zoo, doesn't it?

I'm kind of surprised that LegionOnomaMoi was not aware of this.

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The use of the so-called beta code is common among NT Greek users, or was before unicode became more widespread.
Then how does one transliterate eta? With an "h"? If so, then how does one represent rough breathing diacritics? For example, the common greek article ho is, in the greek alphabet, represented only by one letter: omicron. It is transliterated ho because of the rough breathing diacritic indicating an "h" sound before the omicron. There is no "h" letter in the greek alphabet, and the only letter which looks like an "h" is the greek eta. So, in "beta code," how would one represent something as common as the masculine nominative article?
Do you have a problem with clicking on links? Beta_code answers all of your questions.

Quote:

...
Are you familiar with linguistic research into metaphor or semantic shifts? ...
Yes, also with ad hoc arguments.

Quote:
Paul was clearly not "miscarried." Yet the sense of the insult is a metaphorical mapping of a "untimely/wrong" birth onto an individual whose birth was quite normal. I see no reason to think that it is improbable that the same type of metaphorical extension could not imply that his birth was untimely. I don't think this is the most likely reading, but it is certainly plausible.
In context, it is not at all plausible.
DCHindley is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 08:52 PM   #113
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
There is an alternative beta code in which C represents Chi and X represents Ksee
I'm aware of it, as I used it in Perseus as an undergrad. I just have never seen it as a method for representing greek for people who can't read the original language:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
it's not designed for readability (which is why this is the first time I've seen it used rather than transliteration for anything but computer readability). menin aeide thea Peleiadeo Achileos seems to me a lot more readable than mh=nin a)/eide qea\*phlhi+a/dew *)axilh=os

Quote:
After a while you get used to it, after all it is just an alternate alphabet.
So is greek. The point of the standard transliteration is that the pronunciation is similar, and I don't have to use something like ( to represent h. It's true that in academic works which tranliterate greek, they will usually use diacritics to differentiate between, for example, omicron and omega. However, as the pronunciation differences aren't that big of a deal (my first semester greek professor was greek, and used modern greek pronunciation, which I then had to overcome for the rest of my studies), why not simply write "th" instead of "q" or "o" instead of "w"? You don't eliminate the problem of representing the greek accurately unless you add in (at the very least) something to represent the rough breathing, and it just makes reading it harder.

Quote:
A lot of us type the transluterated letters in caps to represent uncial letters (as written) which did not have punctuation, accents or breathing marks.
The point of transliteration in general is to make another alphabet readable to people who can't read the original. Beta code was designed so that those who could read greek could represent it accurately. So apart from using it for the benefit of other readers of greek, I can't think of any good reason.
LegionOnomaMoi is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 09:54 PM   #114
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
It is pointless to endlessly rehash the gosples fort clues of proof or disproof, neither are there. One can look at tne times and imagine a number of itinererant rabai/prophets prophesizing gloom and doom for Israel. It is what Jewish prophets did.

All's you have to look at for general parallels is the genesis of the Mormons and Scientology. Both fabrications and both peopled with true believers.
Yeah, I always thought that "Joseph Smith" was obviously a phony moniker with no relation to any real history. That's one for your side.
And "L. Ron Hubbard" was as mythical as his Thetans.
No.

My point was the two myths were started by known real historical humans forwhich today there are many true believers.

Hubard drew on scifi and other areas in synthesizing his relgion.

Mormonism was based on the Christian myth. Something about a lost Jewish tribe in the Americas.

By analogy it is not difficult to see how the Jesus myth grew possibly form an actual wandering Jewsh mystic.
So.....Jesus is no more real than Joseph Smith? Yeah, who would believe in a phony name like "Joseph Smith" or a swear word like....
All right then, that demolishes my Post #96. Now how about someone dealing with my #97? Even Shesh is silent.
Adam is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 10:59 PM   #115
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post

No.

My point was the two myths were started by known real historical humans forwhich today there are many true believers.

Hubard drew on scifi and other areas in synthesizing his relgion.

Mormonism was based on the Christian myth. Something about a lost Jewish tribe in the Americas.

By analogy it is not difficult to see how the Jesus myth grew possibly form an actual wandering Jewsh mystic.
So.....Jesus is no more real than Joseph Smith? Yeah, who would believe in a phony name like "Joseph Smith" or a swear word like....
All right then, that demolishes my Post #96. Now how about someone dealing with my #97? Even Shesh is silent.
No again.

There is historical coorboration for Joseph Smith, and the history of the Mormons. There are records of the events. The Mormon myth is the apearrance of a Christian angel and the discovery of a set of tablets from god, a modern Moses story of a sort. The rise of Mormonism is a good example of how Christianity likely evolved.


In contrast there is no corboragtion for the JC 0f the gosples. There is little hard evidence for the exploits of the Jews depicted in the Old Testament.
steve_bnk is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 11:46 PM   #116
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

:Cheeky:
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
So.....Jesus is no more real than Joseph Smith? Yeah, who would believe in a phony name like "Joseph Smith" or a swear word like....
All right then, that demolishes my Post #96. Now how about someone dealing with my #97? Even Shesh is silent.
No again.

There is historical coorboration for Joseph Smith, and the history of the Mormons. There are records of the events. The Mormon myth is the apearrance of a Christian angel and the discovery of a set of tablets from god, a modern Moses story of a sort. The rise of Mormonism is a good example of how Christianity likely evolved.
I thought my sarcasm was too obvious to need smilies.
Quote:
In contrast there is no corboragtion for the JC 0f the gosples.....
Apparently FRDB has a unique filter that allows Steve to see only my shorter posts but ignores my major longer posts like #97. His response here to my #114 like his response to my #96 makes no notice that my #97 makes his point here irrelevant.
Adam is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 11:59 PM   #117
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Now we are getting some where

Quote:
You should have told that to the writers of The New Testament. The tales which came -from them- are filled with miracle stories.
In fact the NT plot couldn't even function without the inclusion of these miraculous elements.
You have absolutely no basis from either history, or from the content of these texts upon which to hang any statement that 'jesus life to his disciples wasnt about miracles, they didnt teach this at all.' You are simply pulling this statement out of your ass. According to the texts, he did miracles and healings, and taught his disciples to perform miracles and healings. You have no evidence from anywhere that says otherwise.
So you are saying there is no difference between biblical jesus and historical jesus??
Hardly. No one has ever yet been able to provide any 'historical' jesus. Unless you can turn up some contemorary and non-apolgetic witness, a 'historical jesus' remains a figment of peoples imaginations. The texts which we do have describe no such thing as a 'historical' jesus. They Never have, and never will.

From the outhouse;
Quote:
Who wrote about the miracles?? Roman authors who hellenized the religion and wrote to a roman audience.
Perhaps. Can you provide a different set of authentic first century CE Gospels which have no miracle accounts?

I thought not.
Shesh has a very short memory, or he just wants to forget how thoroughly I bested him in our tiresome interchange in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses.......blah blah blah blah and more of the same.
I invite anyone to review that absolute groaner of a thread that drug out for 628 long posts.
But just read the last 3 pages of posts, and the comments and opinions of the other posters there, and decide for yourself whom it was that bested whom.
The thread that finally died of terminal idiocy.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:32 AM   #118
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

No one refuted anything I said, except for minor points I already amended that were in my links to my earlier articles.
Still waiting for anyone to deal with my #97 by reading Proto-Luke and the Passion Narrative in the source to John.
Thanks for your link to my Post #576 there, with my points made quickly.
Adam is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:38 AM   #119
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
:Cheeky:
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
No again.

There is historical coorboration for Joseph Smith, and the history of the Mormons. There are records of the events. The Mormon myth is the apearrance of a Christian angel and the discovery of a set of tablets from god, a modern Moses story of a sort. The rise of Mormonism is a good example of how Christianity likely evolved.
I thought my sarcasm was too obvious to need smilies.
Quote:
In contrast there is no corboragtion for the JC 0f the gosples.....
Apparently FRDB has a unique filter that allows Steve to see only my shorter posts but ignores my major longer posts like #97. His response here to my #114 like his response to my #96 makes no notice that my #97 makes his point here irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with claims of the supernatural.

Longer or shorter posts does not change the fact there is no coorboration of an historical Jesus let alone the supernatural aspects. There are vents regarding the Jews of the times and leaders who appear elsewher, such as the Jewish rebelion. There is archealogical evidence of the Jewish defense and Roman assualt on Masada.

There are records of Jews who clainmed the mantle of messiah. Nothing about the JC depicted in the NT.

The gosples are not consistent in message. In one JC is a wise ass gadfly in the face of the Jewish establishment. In another he is the spiritual guru preaching meekness. The JC depicted across the NT collection as it was picked appears more of a composite character.

When i say coorboration of an actual JC and the events i mean other that that written by believers of unknown origins and intent.

'Eyewitnesses'n the gosples are not proof of anything.
steve_bnk is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:41 AM   #120
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Please read the archives. I favor Mead's explanation.
The question is why. Mead begins his explanation with an incorrect understanding of the use of the greek article (here to...
I was a little puzzled by that, since I would assume that Mead knew that about Greek. But that was not what impressed me.

Quote:
... Nor does Mead point to the use of this term in Gnostic texts. In fact, as the texts which relate to this date to centuries after Paul, the fact that you favor Mead's explanation is peculiar, as Mead's explanation is based on either misusing or misunderstanding the grammatical use of the article and then applying it to a theological concept for which we have no documentation until long after Paul. Of course, in Mead's day virtually everything we knew about the "gnostics" was based on the writings of christians such as Irenaeus.
I assume, along with Robert M. Price, that this passage is an interpolation by a later editor, so the fact that the theological concept of "the abortion" is later than Paul's letters are usually dated, is not a drawback.

But I'm not wedded to Mead's theory. It just makes the most sense of the term, which is otherwise out of place. If Mead is not correct, I think the most likely theory is that Paul (or the later interpolator) referred to himself as a wretch or a mess.

Quote:
What support is there from ancient usage? Again, the term most commonly refers to a miscarriage or abortion. Clearly, it's not being used that way.
Unless Mead is correct.

Quote:
We know, however, that the term was used occasionally in a metaphorical sense. ... The problem is there isn't a single metaphorical sense in which the term is used, but rather more than one. So interpreting Paul here requires context. Paul refers to a series of events (the alleged "appearences" of his risen Lord), and then ends with eschaton (last, finally) followed by his own supposed "vision" of this risen Lord. The term ektroma generally refers to an untimely early birth. But we know that it can be used in other ways,
How do we know that?

Quote:
and that Paul is using it metaphorically here. It is therefore entirely possible (especially within context) that Paul is using the general meaning of "untimely" to refer to a late birth....
What I find highly unlikely is that Paul would use the term metaphorically to refer to a late, normal birth. The term always seems to have some bad implications. And if Paul wanted to say that he never got to meet Jesus in the flesh, I think he could have said it more directly.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:29 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.