TedM

You may be right, but telling me that I 'should' know something and believing that I should be embarrassed suggests otherwise.


Thanks for your explanation of spin's post. The reason I could not decipher his post are as follows:

1. His post assumes the reader knows the relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew
2. It assumes the reader knows that Q in Aramaic (or is it Hebrew?) is somehow related to QOF, and that the reader knows what QOF even is (is it the way a Hebrew letter is pronounced in English?
3. Similarly it assumes the reader knows what YOD is referring to. Spin never links it to QYP or QP introduced in the prior paragraph.
4. It assumes the reader knows what eta is and what kappa is.

Now that I know these things--thanks to you Toto--, here is my response:

1. Is YOD commonly transliterated as eta?
2. How do you go from khfas to Cephas? Is 'k' commonly translitrated as 'c'? Is 'f' commonly transliterated to 'ph'.
3. Does Paul commonly transliterate the other names from Aramaic to Greek in his writings?
4. GMat, GJohn, and Josephus all reference Caiaphas without having changed it into Cephas. Why? Why should we expect Paul to have done so?

ted

ynquirer

False proposition. John 1:42 mentions Cephas as being a name of Simon given by Jesus and meaning Petros, that is, “a stone.”

Vorkosigan

Naw. Mark was writing waaaayyyyyy too late for that. Unless you mean "known" in the sense that you and I might know that A Lincoln had a son named Todd -- known as a piece of history. People seem to reach for the "known personally" mode as a only possible "known" mode. Further, even in the "known personally" mode, Simon of Cyrene may have been a current member of the writer's community, whom the writer has placed in the story for whatever personal reasons.

But IMHO all are fiction. That seems to work much better from the story and structure point of view.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

If that is true, then that may explain why Caiaphas is not named in Mark. In Mk 14, when Peter denies Jesus, that would have Kephas denying him while Caiaphas is attacking him. The writer has hidden the wordplay so only those who understand the history can get his little joke.

What are the implications of this reading that it Kephas could equal Caiaphas, spin?

spin

When you complain that a technical analysis is "so unclear", you are required to know enough about the material to make such a call. You however proceeded show you didn't have the starting material to understand the content to decide whether it is unclear or not, that is embarrassing. If you had asked for an explanation without saying what you were asking about was "so unclear", then you might have got further elucidation.

You can see that you didn't have the starting material to decide if something was unclear or not. Does this give you reason to insult?


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
You take GP as support of the above but I take GP as support that "Mark" originally ended at 16:8 and that "Mark" intended to communicate that Peter, James and John had lost their Jesus' authority.

GP represents a logical Transition from my "Mark". "Mark" gives no Rehabilitation of The Three to go with a Narrative which gives every good reason to think they were never rehabilitated. Editing of "Mark" is driven by the Desires of the Editors. Don't underestimate the power of "The Verse" and don't underestimate the power of Motivation and Opportunity. This is what "Matthew"/"Luke" are, Motivation and Opportunity. What Subsequent Christianty wanted most from "Mark" was rehabilitation of The Three. The simplest Transition is that the Rehabilitation was a gift and the simplest Editing is to add it at the End. Hence all the different Endings. This is what GP is. The missing finale of GP is probably not an accident. Don't be so gullible about these "accidents" McSmith. You're too gullible.

JW:
Yes (see how easy that was).

JW:
I call you something else. As you know generally the Negative charaters in "Mark" are named while the Positive charaters are unnamed. This dovetails nicely with my observation that a priMary purpose of "Mark" is to remove the authority of The Three. To try and restore the Jesus' movement back to its supposed founder and away from its supposed hierarchy (just like Christianity has been doing for the last two thousand years). The Irony here though is that The Three really knew the Historical Jesus while "Mark" and "Paul" set Christianity on its current course of not being based on a Historical Jesus.

Regarding Replacements in "Mark" which is a Major theme, in order to make the Literary connection "Mark" has to use the Same name. The two groups of Insiders "Mark" does this for are Jesus' Family and Disciples. "Mary", Jesus' supposed mother, is replaced by the Mother Mary who witnessed the crucifixion. "Simon", the supposed disciple, is replaced by Follower Simon who carries the cross. Both Mary and Simon are attributed children which just represents their family of fellow followers.

"Mark" has intentionally Replaced "Peter" Simon with only Simon because According to "Mark", that's where the Jesus movement went wrong, having a hierarchy based on supposed appointment authority.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

TedM

Spin, the bottom line is that it wasn't clear to me because I don't have the tools to understand it, and that is what I meant--illustrating that by saying That was the call I was making--saying it was unclear TO ME.

You apparantly need a reminder to overcome your rationalizing. You didn't write that I should be embarrassed about making the call of clear or unclear. You wrote that I should be embarrased that I didn't know what eta meant. Here is what you wrote:

That was insulting.

Well, you overreacted. I only spoke the truth. It was unclear to me. If you really had been writing for anyone who was interested, as you said, you would have given the elucidation upfront. Why in the world you think all of us interested people should have been able to understand what you wrote is beyond me.

Perhaps I shouldn't have displayed my frustration in my first reply to you, but I thought you were attempting to write for anyone to understand. I don't think I should be embarrassed at all because I didn't have the tools to understand it, though as you suggested.

Now, are you going to address my questions about it now that I do understand it?

ted

Toto

Mod note: please avoid this sort of personal, undiginfied tiff. Assume that there was a miscommunication; don't make things worse.

Ted's questions to spin:

==> spin's original post said "YOD can be transliterated as an eta." You may infer from this that it was not the most common transliteration.

==> k = kappa, translated to Latin as 'c'. 'f' would be transliterated to the Greek letter phi, transliterated to 'ph' in Latin/English.

==> He's writing in the Greek alphabet, so he has no alternative.

==> It's not a matter of expectations. Remember that all of these documents have been worked over by generations of scribes, and transliteration is not exact. It is only recently that spelling has become standardized, and transliterations of different alphabets are still not standard.

Spin may have corrections to this, but you can start here.

Solo

No, it is not valid, Ted. You believe you can compute the origin of Cephas' name for one or both of the individuals, on the assumption Paul and the gospels talk about two different people....as per your earlier table:

That is manifestly illogical.

I don't have to argue that it is common; all I have to do is to point out that the either-or proposition is compromised by that possibility, and therefore any conclusion that you make in that matter based on that premise is invalid. That premise is false.


Ted, you cannot conclude that on the basis you have presented. You can work with it as a hypothesis, or as the overwhelming Christian tradition would be on your side, you can simply assume it. But you don't prove anything by simply converting your assumptions into conclusions. All you manage to do is to make a strong case weak.

I don't have to strain to disprove there were two Cephas'es because the case for 'Cephas' not being 'Peter' does not strike me as something needing my intervention. It's simply not worth my time.


Jiri

TedM

I'm not assuming they are talking about two people. Read my assumptions again. They are that there is a Paul Cephas and a Gospel Cephas. One has an unknown origin and the other a stated origin. They could be the same person with the same name origin. My conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two assumptions. Of course, as you point out, there are other assumptions one can start with, and I've offered you an opportunitiy to do so. If you want to throw those assumptions out or add in some which include a Cephas who named himself Cephas due to some unusual brain condition, feel free, but I don't think you'll end up with a different conclusion.

If you are right, you are going to have to demonstrate it for me to see it, because to me it is perfectly fine. Basically all it boils down is this:

IF we assume the name Cephas is unusual AND there is a reasonable alternative which doesn't require that an unusual event occurred, it is preferable.

I"m not proving anything Solo. My conclusion was not a 'conversion'. It was a logical consequence of the assumptions and the possibilities they allow. Again, if you want to provide a more complete list of assumptions that is reasonable and then work it through, be my guest.

Fair enough.

ted