Sheshbazzar

Stupid shit. I do have other things to do than be online 24/7

LegionOnomaMoi

Then what was? You are relying on an author speaking about gnosticisim before the vast majority of gnostic texts were discovered. Almost everything known about gnosticism in Mead's day was through christian authors.



Ah yes. Robert Price. In which publication intended for those who have a background in ancient history did he argue that this passage was an interpolation? And why?

How on earth does taking referring to a cosmological theory which didn't exist during Paul's day and applying it to Paul (at least partly based on incorrect knowledge of the greek article) make any sense whatsoever?

That's probably true.
Because it is:


That would be fine, were it not that you find it more likely that Paul was referring to some cosmological argument for which we have no evidence until centuries later.

Huon

:notworthy:

steve_bnk

I started a thread in the past asking for people to post studioes rgarding the paranormalhich wen the skeptical side could review and talk to.

When I started tracing through referencer on posted papers and articles I made a discovery. There were a num,ber of sites with a veneer of authenticity to trhe unscientific. Ther was an interlocking groupf regernces showing a;ll;ged [propopfs of the paranormal, none of which has =d any objective scientifc vsalidty.

If you took the papers at face value you would see references to scientifc sounding foundations, acadamies, and the like.

I expect Christian apologetics is similar. A Christian scholar wrtites a book or paper which is pure conjecture and interpretion which is referenced in another book and so on.

I forget the name. I read about a Chritian who decided he was going to learn Hebrew and Greek, go back to the original sources, and thereby end all the debates and disputes.

What he found was there is no original source. What you have is the bible as it was handed down through time. That is it. All Christian theology is fabricted outright or based on wide interpretation and litererary license of a fragmented collection of writings, ie the bible..

The Catholic theolgy evolved over a very loing time. It has little biblical basis as the evangelicals would say. There is nothing in the NT that empowers a pope and priest being the moral arbiters between god and man. Yet the rationale is the foundfation for Catholic theology.


You can invoke any number of Christian writings as a siurce or proof, but in the end all you have is the NT. It is inescapable. All Christian proofs are ultimatly based on the NT texts.

And I wonder how many modern Christians know the history of the translations. A good modern example is the softening of the patriarchy/mysogyny in the NRSV.

Toto

Yes, and those Christian authors discussed the theological idea of the abortion.


In the Journal of Higher Criticism. He makes a good case. The entire passage sticks out like sore thumb, the surrounding text is more coherent without it.

You can't be sure the idea didn't exist in Paul's time, much less the later interpolator's time.


OK, skip the cosmological argument. It is just unlikely that this term applies to a normal, belated birth.

LegionOnomaMoi

Where? And more importantly, how does this then have anything to do with Paul? You asked about the use of ekromoa in ancient sources which would support the interpretation that Paul means "late untimely birth." So what ancient sources support Mead's or your interpretations?




This journal didn't even last a decade. And as Price was the editor, he could publish whatever he wanted. Now, when you want to point to analyses of the passage in a paper published by an author who didn't control what was published in the journal, let me know.


I can't be sure. However, as there is absolutely no evidence, why would I posit that it did?


Once again, can you read Greek?

DCHindley

The ASCII transliteration schemes were invented by those who do read Greek and were discussing Greek texts, in a time when unicode fonts did not yet exist, so they really were not intended to represent the words as pronounced in English. Even now, most folks do not have keyboard templates installed to allow for typing of polytonic Greek fonts. Unless you are copying and pasting unicode characters from an already existing text, it is extremely laborious to pick them out of tables that mix them up all over the place.

Here at this board most folks don't really read Greek, so whether transliterated or not it is gibbirish. But others have access to various Greek NT and OT texts, including grammars and lexicons (Bibleworks, and online resources) and can at least follow along.

You have not run across XTalk or one of the academic e-lists?

DCH

Doug Shaver

Anybody with an Internet connection is free to edit Wikipedia. That's why real scholars don't rely on it.

And as a matter of fact, I have edited one Wikipedia article, a couple of years ago by now, and nobody has yet raised the first question about whether I had any sources of any kind.

LegionOnomaMoi

That's my point. It isn't intended to make greek readable, and it isn't intended for people who don't already know greek.


Yes I know, I've done it. The issue is whether any transliteration schemata which represents omega with "w" and eta with "h" offers anything over the standard transliteration of greek. It does when writing to others who read greek already when communicating through email or similar electronic means. It doesn't when representing greek in a forum where most people can't read the original alphabet. It just requires another alphabet they can't read, except this one looks like their own and is therefore even more nonsensical.

That's simply not true. Why on earth do you think printed texts transliterate greek or any other non-latin based alphabet? It's so that the word can at least be read by those who don't read the language. You referenced (in another thread) the combined edition of Bailey's Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes. I own it. In the first "book" in this volume, Bailey gives the actual greek script (except where he occasionally quotes other authors who transliterate the greek). In the second, he transliterates it using the standard method. Why? After all, most of those reading it "don't really read Greek, so whether transliterated or not it is gibbirish." He does so because this is standard practice, as it allows non-greek readers to READ the words by presenting them in letters which allow them to be pronounced (the reason I didn't just teach myself Greek in high school, as I did latin, was because of this extra-difficulty). So even though writing somthing like hoi theoi anthropon doesn't enable the reader to know whether the "o"s are omicrons or not, it allows a non-greek reader something a lot more readable than oi qeoi anqrwpwn. Which is why Greek letters have been transliterated in a way like the former since the romans, and this is still true today even in some academic texts, while the latter method was invented for electronic communication between people who can read greek.

Nope. One of the first things our professors had us do back when I was a freshman was download some common fonts (that was before perseus switched to unicode).

aa5874

So, real Scholars can EDIT what you edited.

Now please tell us what real Scholars rely on???

The "EDITED" NT Canon??