Vorkosigan

Lessee.... One source from 1898, 1927, 1988, and 1991. Anything in the last couple of decades?

Vorkosigan

DCHindley

When I was in my teens, an acquaintance who was living in Bangkok, Thailand, with her diplomat parents, would tell stories about the weird teachers at the International School of Bangkok. One was an old lady who spoke Thai, French & English fluently. When excited, this acquaintance said, she would unconsciously slip French or Thai words/verbs into her English sentences, which amused her students beyond measure.

Latinisms themselves mean nothing. Even the Gemara of the Talmud has them.

As for the last point, R H Charles's opinion that Aramaic was the original language of the Ethiopic translation of the Books of Enoch (1 Enoch), based on Aramisms, turned out to be spot on.

DCH

Chili

Language is often a problem and for good reason as according to Erickson in "Adulthood" (1978) the English language does not have a word for what he described as "yellow maturity" after the ripening of humanity (jen-shu). I think he tried to show that it is something he found all over the world except in English where it just seems to mean 'grow older' . . .. And then of course the best we can do is call a poustinic a hermit and that should tell you enough.

spin

Oh, rubbish, DCH. I've been through only some of these Latinisms here. They are much more than just a few Latin words transliterated. So, unless you want to show Latin loan translations (such as satis facere and give or take counsel), bound Latin morphemes (-ian, as in Herodian or christian) or Latin syntax in the Gemara, you seem to be talking rot.

judge

It's interesting to take not of what Spins has done here.

All he has done is make an assertion. He has provided no actual evidence.
He just makes the claim that the greek phrase must have come from the Latin, satis facere.
Why? As usual because Spin says so.

There is no attempt in any way to show that it can't come from a semitic tongue.
This is what Spin needs to demonstrate.

I'd venture to say Spin hasn't even considered it. So now he can either ignore or stubbornly stick to his error and go and make up a reason why this can't be the case.
And that's where it will get interesting

Adam

This sentence seemed to stand by itself. I guess you mean that I should include in your argument that you dismissed everything else you mentioned. I was supposed to infer that this exhausted all the possibilities? No creative thinking allowed? Only appeals to authority? When speaking of the Passion Narrative as a source, these items disappear as they are not shared in gJohn. Following Teeple I defined John Mark's contribution here in my OP:

John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii.
From which John 20 can be subtracted as Resurrection accounts not well enough paralleled in the Synoptics, and they are not listed by Teeple in his "S" portion. In gJohn the ear of the slave is not restored, either.
Now you're contradicting what you said above. You said above that earthquakes, sun darkening etc. argued against the Passion Narrative as a source. You echo me when you say here, "the supernatural claims are meaningless as far as attestation is concerned." But you yourself can only consider gMark as a fiction precisely because of so much of the supernatural, and you and spin as dogmatically argue that the final chiastic text cannot allow for earlier sources. You're argueing in a circle.Strange, gMark as we have it was produced by a clever writer who adapted many Ot passages within it, but this same person was not skilled enough to incorporate passages in sources written in his own generation, perhaps written by himself? (And spin does not answer questions.) Of course. But when source texts are found within larger documents, it's harder just to dismiss them all as just made up. How do you account for a number of people agreeing together to perpetrate a fraud and then keep this lie going for over a generation? Therefore you and spin keep arguing for unitary authorship (just as Fundamentalists do, for opposite reasons), it keeps the conspiracy manageable. You can wave away your problem by insisting all the gospels are late, but then that leaves the field open to those who date the gospels early.You're the one insisting a priori that gMark is fictional. I show that it is composite and that the earliest sources reveal their subjective viewpoints, hence indicating eyewitness testimony.

hjalti

Adam, I don't think anyone is against "creative thinking". The problem is that you seem to think that other people should accept your "creative thinking".

So next time you put forward one of your creative thoughts, follow it either with: "This is of course just an unsupported assertion." or "We know this, because... [and present arguments]".

judge

Should this apply to everyone I wonder?

Vorkosigan

Adam, the "supernatural" indicates that the events as related could not have occurred. it does not mean the text is a fiction.

I dont like your constant shifting. YOU said there is no supernatural in the Passion. I pointed out there is. Then YOU suddenly come back with this nonsense about what I think.

I think the Passion is a fiction because of its literary features, not because it contains the supernatural. A story may have supernatural occurrences but still fundamentally be true -- the Roman historians like Tacitus frequently discuss supernatural events but no one would call their works fiction.

So let's not hear that claim that I think the tale is fiction because it has the supernatural. It's not totally not true.

Why certainly he could have, but it is up to you to show that.

spin thinks you're a complete waste of time. I think you might be teachable.

No one is arguing for a fraud. The mythicist position I subscribe to is that the early Christians believed in a cosmic savior who later became a historical figure.

Such reconstructions of history, especially in quasi-Leninist organizations like the early Christian church, are common. Historical legitimacy is a key source of social authority in such groups.

No, you haven't.

What I'd like to see, for once, is the complete argument for any passage, as I've asked dozens of times. The Passion would be great. Pick some passages from the Passion and derive, step by step, how you know that they come from a source.

Don't bother to write about post #XYZ or refer me to a document elsewhere. Show me the step by step procedure.

Vorkosigan

Adam

So mythicists believe that a quasi-Leninist organization produced the New Testament, Vork? So that's so commonly known that you don't even have to mention anyone who has established that?

What you used to say was impossible, you now admit as possible, which undermines your claims that there were no eyewitnesses. You don't dismiss them a priori now. Apparently you just dismiss a priori any parts you "know" can't happen. Then what prohibits believing that Q, Nicodemus's Discourses, and the Passion Narrative are very early and from eyewitnesses? Anything supernatural can easily be sorted out from them. In my Post #516 I listed the John 18 and 19 verses that would work for you for the Passion Narrative.

You admit there could be contemporary sources for gMark, but you overlook my previous work showing that there are seven layers to gMark. Up to now you had just flatly denied this. Why should I develop this again so that you and spin can once again focus on this peripheral thesis to my main thesis that there are seven written gospel eyewitness records? Neither one of you seem to admit comparative analysis with the other gospels. You just reiterate that gMark has uniform style throughout, which is not the issue. Rather it is that one element of that style, the Latinisms, was mostly quite naturally introduced when gMark was presented to a Roman audience. "That is", if you need explanation of what I am saying.

Your concluding demand is unreasonable. If you don't believe what top scholars like Temple, Nicol, Freed, Fortna and Teeple have done with the Signs Source, why would you beliieve me is establishing what even a greater number of scholars have done with the Passion Narrative? They remain hung up debating whether there is dependence on the Synoptics, there is a mutual source, or each gospel is independent. It's mostly a matter of deciding who you can believe and who is just arguing for a dogma. There's mostly the latter whether you look at Fundamentalists, atheists, or the middle. "Consensus" seems to be the standard dogma, quite apart from evidence--as I have pointed out, and you yourself fell into it after denying it, there is no evidence that gLuke must have been written after gMark was completely finished and published in Rome, yet scholars say so all the time.