Sheshbazzar

Religious fiction.

tanya

My question to the forum, concerns this word, pentekonta, which translates as 50.

I am not questioning the text. I am not questioning the numerical equivalent, 50, of its meaning.

I am questioning whether the Greek word πεντηκοντα, invariably means exactly 50, and only 50, not 51, or 38, or 62, but precisely fifty. In other words, I seek an answer to the question, does the Greek word πεντηκοντα, appear in any other Greek texts of the same, or earlier vintage as John, and then, in those texts, does πεντηκοντα, invariably mean, "fifty", or, does it mean something equivalent to what we would write, today, as "several dozen"? Did the word, fifty,πεντηκοντα, 2000 years ago, imply the concept of "exactly 50", or rather, the concept of "quite a few, more than a couple dozen, and less than a hundred"?

Example 1:
From the Septuagint, Numbers 2: 32
αὕτη ἡ ἐπίσκεψις τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ κατ' οἴκους πατριῶν αὐτῶν· πᾶσα ἡ ἐπίσκεψις τῶν παρεμβολῶν σὺν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν αὐτῶν, ἑξακόσιαι χιλιάδες καὶ τρισχίλιοι πεντακόσιοι πεντήκοντα.
all the armies in their tents together came to six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty.

Of course, that may well have been the exact quantity of men in the tents. Not 603,547 but, rather, exactly 603,550.

Example 2:
From the Greek translation (called Periplus) of the voyage of Hanno the Carthaginian, fifth century BCE, but, criticized by Pliny the Elder, hence of somewhat doubtful historical accuracy. As a translation from the Punic, the Greek translator could have altered the quantity, or, the original author himself could have simply rounded off the quantity, or, of course, there could have been precisely sixty ships, each with exactly FIFTY oars.

Maybe, fifty, as with other "special" numbers, represented a concept, unrelated, or only vaguely related to the exact numerical representation of the text.

Here is Mark 6:40 (apologies to Sheshbazzar!)
κατὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ κατὰ πεντήκοντα

This text from Mark, seems worthy of inclusion in a discussion about the significance, if any, of the word "fifty", in John, having a meaning not directly linked to an exact numeric equivalent, because, this text from Mark in Codex Sinaiticus, is not found in our earliest example of Mark, i.e. in Papyrus P45.

*********************
[warning: this next bit is even more off-topic, than my usual rejoinders]
Ok, my previous assertion was a bit oversimplified, because that's not the text found in Codex Sinaiticus:

τω και ανεπεϲα πραϲιαι κατα εκατο και κατα ν

Somehow, the scribes knew, apparently, that ν, i.e. "N", alone, meant, Pentakonta, πεντήκοντα.

In other words, this off-topic note, is actually, relevant, in the sense that it shows us, that the word, pentekonta, had special meaning 2000 years ago. [end off-topic]
********************************

So, getting back onto the topic of this submission to the thread, about the meaning of pentekonta in John 8: 57, like the pericope of the adulteress in John 7:53-8:11, which is also absent from P45, maybe this episode of handing out bread, to groups of folks in quantity FIFTIES, was a later interpolation, inserted by folks accustomed to adding a bit of exaggeration to augment the miracle's profundity.

Groups of Fifties and Hundreds as a seating arrangement of clans or families, or entire villages, sounds a lot more significant, than seven or eight folks dividing up five loaves of bread and two scrawny fish....

Toto

This is not exactly an abbreviation. It is part of a numerical representation system similar to Roman numerals - the Romans used letters to represent numbers, as did the ancient Hebrews.

There is a chart here:
http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/numbers/greek/index.htm

Sheshbazzar

No apologies to Sheshbazzar are needed dear.

I encourage you to apply your mind to problems, and to think them through.
Much preferable to mindlessly cleaving to the common rut.

I do find the trope of 6:40 connected with certain peculiar aspects of Hebrew scriptural lingusitics that do not come across in our English translations, regarding the Hebrew words for the numbers five and fifty being used in contexts other than as numbers.

vis; Ex 13:18 חמשים ='harnessed' (the exact same Hebrew word as 'fifty' or 'fifties')
Josh 1:14 & 4:12 חמשים ='armed' (the exact same Hebrew as word as 'fifty' or 'fifties')
Judges 7:11 החמשים ='the armed men' (the exact same Hebrew word as 'fifty' or 'fifties')

The writer of Mark 6:40 was very likely to have had these Hebrew scriptural precedents, and concept in mind when he penned these words. The idea is one of a united military unit or camp.

Not likely a latter interpolation.




.

tanya

Ok, I can buy the idea that Mark 6:40 is not a later interpolation, though, I wrote that, in the context of trying to explain, why that passage was absent from our oldest extant copy of Mark. If it is not of more recent vintage, why is it not found in P45?

Sorry to be so dense, but I fail to comprehend what the Hebrew equivalent of πεντήκοντα, has to do, with the idea expressed in Mark, of feeding hundreds of folks from five loaves of bread and two fish. That's just a simple fish tale, as far as I can determine..... I simply brought it up, in the discussion about the true meaning of πεντήκοντα, not the meaning of armed men as found in Josh 1:14 & 4:12.

So, did you intend to explain to one of the thick skulled ones (me), (*** homo neanderthal genes are found in all of us, to a certain extent ***) that πεντήκοντα is translated in Josh 1:14 as armed men?

Why was Mark likely to have been literate in Hebrew? I thought he was supposed to be a Roman? Surely you are not buying the argument of Ehrman that Mark first wrote his gospel in Aramaic, because he throws in a couple of Aramaic terms, just as Samuel Clemens threw in a few idioms representing uneducated Black English of the 19th century, spoken by the impoverished folks living along the Mississippi, when he wrote Huckleberry Finn. Doesn't make Mark Twain, a Black, or of middle Mississippi origin.

Do you have some evidence to point to Mark's intimate knowledge of Hebrew? But, even assuming Mark did know Hebrew, how does that help explain ν in this context?

Maybe Mark did know Hebrew, I wouldn't know, I just don't find anything in his fish story, that persuades me that Mark was literate in Hebrew.

But, what of John? Did he know Hebrew, too? When he wrote πεντήκοντα, did he imagine "armed men", or fifty years of life on planet earth? I think the author meant that Jesus lived for several decades, and wrote ν, to indicate not 50, exactly, but rather, some number more than 20, and less than 100.

aa5874

Did you not state that you " tend to think it's probably genuine?"

Well, based on the preponderance of evidence, I THINK it is not genuine.

Who are "the rest of us" and what same page are you talking about??

I stay with the evidence and written statements from antiquity.

In the NT it is claimed that Jesus was born after his Virgin mother became pregnant by a Ghost yet we have NO Non-Apologetic sources that used Tacitus Annals 15 with Christus to show that the conception and birth of Jesus could NOT have been the product of a Ghost.

If it was Already documented in Roman History that Jesus was merely a man and people of Judea in Galilee and Jerusalem knew Jesus was a man then the Gospel would have been known to be a massive lie.

Tacitus Annals with Christus is a blatant forgery and fraud carried out sometime after the end of the 4th century.

Sheshbazzar

We have one text designated as P45. I'm sure that you are aware that the recovered NT texts exhibit many variations and streams. We do not know what readings may have been present in other texts contemporary with P45.
The existence of P45 does not set in stone, the content as being the standard, and barring the recovery of a significant number of contemporary additional texts for comparison, cannot be used to establish what was the most common rendering.

Sorry Tanya, I remind you again that I do not engage in arguments about Greek words.

.

tanya

Apologies. I was not hoping to engage in any argument, with you or anyone else.

I was seeking clarification on a couple of points, which, in my mind at least, relate to the OP, but, of course, maybe they are extraneous, or off topic.

1. Where is the evidence, that Mark knew Hebrew?

2. John's use of πεντήκοντα, ν, seems to me, to relate to the age of Jesus, not to armed men. Without arguing about the meaning of the Greek word, can you explain why you think that John, not the Hebrew equivalent of πεντήκοντα, sought to explain the age of Jesus in terms of "armed men"? Was John also fluent in Hebrew? If you believe that, why do you so posit?

From which source do you derive that information? You do agree, don't you, that the GREEK text, upon which we read the new testament, i.e. LXX, has nothing to do with ν, Pentekonta, in that passage from Joshua 1:14? In other words, John was using any Greek words, to express the concept of Jesus' age, not the concept of armed men attacking someone or something? Yes? No?

I don't think that John had anything to do with Judaism. I write that, only to express an opinion, not to identify a fact. It is not a fact. It is only my opinion and probably not a very wise one, either. If you have evidence to the contrary, I will be happy to read it....

Wishing you the happiest of Thanksgivings!!!

Sheshbazzar

My comments in post # 84* were only in regard to Mark 6:40 and from where I believed the writer of Mark 6:40 was deriving the trope of 'by fifties'.

I was clearly not commenting on anything in 'John' or on any other text, or context other than MARK 6:40
(verse 39 also provided for context)
The writer did not draw the phrase ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα from the LXX. And I am not claiming there was or there is a direct linguistic connection.
Rather that the idea (idiom) was generated by, and derived from these Hebrew OT usages of 'fifties' which are not all obvious in our English texts; 'harnessed' in English has no decernable sense of being related to 'fifty', nor does 'armed' or 'armed men'. Whereas in HEBREW it most certainly does, in being the exact same word.

Which then brings us to the Greek LXX translation of Joshua 1:14.
I won't argue Greek words with you, but I will ask you to seek your evidence that whatever Greek word or words are used in the LXX to translate חמשים of Joshua 1:14 (& 4:12 and Ex 13:18 and Judges 7:11) also convey into the Greek the clear idea (idiom) of 'fifty'.

To me by using this particular number in this way, the writer of Mark indicates that he was familiar with and was influenced by an understanding of this 'fifty' or 'fifties' as apparent in Hebrew.
Was it apparent in Greek texts? or did it get 'lost' in translation as with English?





*
OT but 84 is a very significant, 'sacred' ('set apart') number to me. Would you care to put your thinking cap on, and perhaps figure out some of the reasons why that would be?




.

tanya

Well, my thinking cap, serves dual purpose, generally, while resting atop my head, serving as target for the barbs of "dunce", hurled my way....

..........84, hmmm.

Ah. got it. Of course. The last year that the honey bees produced the essential ingredient for your manufacture of mead, that exquisite beverage for which the farms of Kentucky are justifiably notorious.

After '84, of course, the human pollution of the air, combined with fungal infections and verroa mites, killed off the honeybees, and so, one imagines that you were then obliged to commence viticulture from that special date, and of course, a couple of years later, then, your painstaking diligence in establishing the pre-eminent garagiste of Kentucky was acknowledged far and wide, (though, I suppose your prize for best wine of class type 8604, came from the competition held at Michigan State University, environs of your former, more Northern stomping grounds).

OH, wait a minute, I had forgotten. Of course not. Something so material as mere wine production could not be regarded by you as "sacred". What a dunce I am. Can I write, before Abraham was, dunce I am, nah, doesn't quite convey a satisfactory rhyme. I will have to work on that.

No, it was your encounter with George Orwell, whose book 1984, you had first read in 1951, a year after its first paperback publication. You were impressed with the concept of a Ministry of Peace, tasked with making war, and a Ministry of Love, tasked with torture.

The fact that the publication was banned in Russia, and nearly banned in USA and Britain (with Jackson County, in Florida, claiming (1981) that the book promoted communism) gave you inspiration in your own journey away from Bible thumping towards biblical reading.

Some profound thinking going on here, friend. I had to remove my hat, because the brain was overheating, as I sought to think of a suitable reply.

Joe's thought in forming his previous thread, quoted by him, in the OP of this thread, it seems to me, was to regard this Greek symbol, ν, as indicating the numeric equivalent of fifty, i.e. 50 in Arabic numerals.

You suggest that the Hebrew text of Joshua, represents the numeric quantity 50, with a word that ALSO means, besides 50, "armed camp".

I am arguing, against Joe's literal translation of ν, that the Greek writers of the day, used that symbol to represent more than the exact quantity 50, just as did, apparently, the Hebrew writers of that era, and earlier times.

Mark, for example, to me, employs ν, meaning that people were arranged not in groups of 50 and 100, but in throngs, so many, that one couldn't count them all.

I further take John's use of ν to indicate "more than 30, less than 70". In those days, a person over 30 years of age, was a rare specimen indeed. Perhaps ν served as a synonym for "wise", because of his/her relatively advanced age, perhaps not yet 84, but still possessed of experience far beyond the average, a consequence of having lived longer than most others.

Joe's thread, in essence, focuses our attention on the extent to which one should, or could, or ought, project, versus avoid, broad interpretation of ancient text, in attempting to understand the meaning communicated by authors who had taken pride in writing deliberately cryptic, obscurantist prose.