Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 12-12-2011, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

If Vork is implying that this device runs over my layers and would thus invalidate my case, several eyewitness sources could have been in the original form "we....he" etc.

It's fascinating how many times you can explain something simple to someone, they still can't get it.
Vorkosigan

Replying to your #449, maybe the historiography you champion is not so straightforward as you say. Two of your heroes, Gerd Theissen and Stanley Porter, reviewed favorably Michael Licona's The Resurrecton of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Historiography is apparently one thing for skeptical theologians and quite another for history in general. Among the reviewers, Daniel Wallace says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallace

What is new is the application of genuine, rigorous historical investigation--methods and theories as defined by professional historians, not biblical scholars--to the question of whether Jesus was raised from the dead.

Vorkosigan · 12-12-2011, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It's fascinating how many times you can explain something simple to someone, they still can't get it.
Vorkosigan

Replying to your #449, maybe the historiography you champion is not so straightforward as you say. Two of your heroes, Gerd Theissen and Stanley Porter, reviewed favorably Michael Licona's The Resurrecton of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Adam, neither of them is my "hero"; I don't agree with their conclusions for sound methodological reasons. I pointed you to them because they can teach you quite a few things about methods you need to know. Jesus was never resurrected, there aren't any gods, and historiographical approaches that attempt to prove that are madness.

Vorkosigan

hjalti · 12-12-2011, 03:38 PM

Adam, your case is absurd. There are actually 10 written eye-witness records in 17 layers!

Adam · 12-12-2011, 07:37 PM

You're my man, hjalti! Right on target! First sensible thing anyone has said here. Except drop the "eye-witness" and hold for the other three as not eye-witnesses. There's the M portions of Matthew and the Redactor in John and the first two chapters of Luke.

Adam · 12-12-2011, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It's fascinating how many times you can explain something simple to someone, they still can't get it.
Vorkosigan

Replying to your #449, maybe the historiography you champion is not so straightforward as you say. Two of your heroes, Gerd Theissen and Stanley Porter, reviewed favorably Michael Licona's The Resurrecton of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Click link and scroll down slightly to see short reveiws]

Adam, neither of them is my "hero"; I don't agree with their conclusions for sound methodological reasons. I pointed you to them because they can teach you quite a few things about methods you need to know. Jesus was never resurrected, there aren't any gods, and historiographical approaches that attempt to prove that are madness.

No, you pointed out Thiede and Porter specifically for their historiographical method, not their conclusions. Both applauded Licona's method. I had hoped you would read the reviews. (Sorry I did not explain that the link also included the reviews.)Now I have copied them in:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thiessen

I once learned that historiography is limited to events with analogies, immanent causality and sources that must be criticized. These are, according to Ernst Troeltsch, the great theologian and philosopher of historicism, the three principles of modern historical research. Must we revise these principles? Must we reformulate them? Perhaps! In any case, it is refreshing to be confronted with quite another approach that evaluates carefully the historical data, discusses respectfully the arguments of opponents and demonstrates a humility concerning the results, claiming only historical degrees of plausibility for its own hypothesis. Many arguments are valuable also for readers who do not agree. It is a necessary book, and I recommend it to all who are interested in a responsible way to interpret the Bible and the Christian faith." (Gerd Theissen, University of Heidelberg )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porter

"The resurrection of Jesus is--in many ways--too important a topic to be left to theologians! In this thoroughly researched and well-argued volume, Mike Licona brings the latest in discussion of historiography to bear on the question of Jesus' resurrection. In a discipline that is often overwhelmed by theological special-pleading, it is refreshing to have this sober and sensible approach to the resurrection that evaluates the historical data and the arguments of many of the scholars writing on the subject. There are few biblical scholars who will not learn something from this important book." (Stanley E. Porter, president, dean and professor of New Testament, McMaster Divinity College )

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...eeratidiscb-20

sschlichter · 12-12-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Mark is famous for its Latin forms, words transliterated from Latin, words explained through Roman terms and Latin idioms translated into Greek. I shall consider the Latin idioms, which are the most unexplainable forms. Why should idioms in Latin be used in Greek, if the audience is mother-tongue Greek? The most reasonable explanation is that they were written for Mother-tongue Latin speakers of Greek.

There is an idiom in Latin used to give a simple explanation for something, "hoc est" ("that is") rendered in Greek as ο εστιν, which is used across Mark as follows:

[T2]Mark 3:17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);
Mark 5:41 He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha cum," which means, "Little girl, get up!"
Mark 7:11 But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God)—
Mark 7:34 Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened."
Mark 12:42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny.
Mark 15:16 Then the soldiers led him into the courtyard of the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters); and they called together the whole cohort.
Mark 15:22 Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull).
Mark 15:34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[/T2]
Along with this simple idiom, there are a number of others to be found, including:

[T2]hodon poiein = make one's way (Lat. loan translation: iter facere)
Mark 2:23 One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

sumboulion epoioun = take counsel (Latin loan translation: consilium dederunt)
Mark 3:6 The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

esxatws exei = be at the point of death (Lat. loan translation: ultimum habere)
Mark 5:23 and begged him repeatedly, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live."

katakriousin Qanatw = condemn to death (Latin loan translation: capite damnare)
Mark 10:33 saying, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles;

ikanon poisai = satisfy (Latin loan translation: satis facere)
Mark 15:15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.[/T2]
These idioms cut across Adam's sources, suggesting that either many of those writing these sources used Latin idioms or else they weren't separate sources. I would tend to think that the Latinisms are the responsibility of one layer of the text, unless all of Mark was written in Rome, the only place where one would find a sizable Latin audience educated in Greek.

Excellent, thank you, Spin.
The two blocks are of contrasting nature. The latter group, the phrases, are all from Layer 2, Petrine Ur-Marcus. (Yes, I had to dig into my marked NJB Bible to track down chapter 15 that I did not put into Post #230.) These Latinisms would then have been picked up when Ur-Marcus came to be in Greek. If I am correct that John Mark composed this in Aramaic, then he apparently had a Latin speaker do the translation into Greek.
The former box illustrates the Latin hoc est equivalent in Greek, but merely
introducing translations or other explanatory material. They all seem most likely to have been inserted into the text during late redaction. They could be called footnotes added by a scribe, or even later by whoever published Mark in Rome. The latter is probably the usual case, as only 15:34 appears comparably in Mt. 27:47.

there may be an idiom in Latin for that is, but the phrase o estin appears throughout the NT and (likely) the LXX as well. It is hardly helpful here.

~Steve

spin · 12-12-2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

there may be an idiom in Latin for that is, but the phrase o estin appears throughout the NT and (likely) the LXX as well. It is hardly helpful here.

Oh my. Someone else who doesn't know when not to speak.

Can you find one instance in the LXX where ο εστιν is used in the same way as quod est is in giving an explanation?? Would anyone expect you could?

The structure is used nine times in Mark, but only twice in Matthew and one of those is lifted from Mark. Not once in Luke, so those using Mark removed nearly every trace of the Latinesque use of ο εστιν. Just once in John. Then only three times more in the rest of the christian scripture (Acts 4:36, Col 1:24, Heb 7:2). That's nine times in Mark and six times in the rest of the new testament. If you want to call that "throughout the NT" that's not very significant.

ο εστιν is used elsewhere, but with a different usage, eg 2 Tim 1:16,

For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

stephan huller · 12-13-2011, 01:06 AM

Stupid question. Has anyone checked out to see if Irenaeus used this same Latinized Greek. There is a statement at the beginning of Against Heresies where he apologizes to his readers for the barbarous nature of his Greek (presumably) because of his having liked with the brothers (other manuscript 'Celts') for so long. I wonder whether the Latinism are part of a correcting effort on the part of Irenaeus. He seems to know of other versions of Mark and points to his with the long ending as the correct one. Do the Latinisms also occur in the long ending. This perhaps would settle it?

Massuet says, "there are some who believe that Irenaeus himself first wrote [Against Heresies] in Greek and then translated it into Latin."

Quote:

In Greek S. Irenaeus wrote : but he says he was writing barbarously (και περί βάρβαρον διάλεκτον). And there is a patent proof of it. His work was translated, we conceive, very soon after its publication, into Latin, if Latin it can be called. It is a unique language ; and we should find it difficult to justify the introduction of the words used by the translator of Irenaeus, into any dictionary, except it were of provincial or colonial Latin. The Latin of Africa, as represented by Tertullian, comes most near to it. In the words of Mr. Harvey, ' The translator must have been one to whom neither Latin nor Greek was his mother tongue ' — a Gaul, one of the Celtic race, who undertook this work — and considered it most safe to translate the Greek words by those Latin ones which in etymology, or primary meaning, were most like them ; and to be so strict in his renderings as to sacrifice the idiom of the Latin to that of the Greek text before him. [http://books.google.com/books?id=fQv...in%22&f=false]

I think the Latinized Greek of Mark may well belong to someone like Irenaeus.

Vorkosigan · 12-13-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Adam, neither of them is my "hero"; I don't agree with their conclusions for sound methodological reasons. I pointed you to them because they can teach you quite a few things about methods you need to know. Jesus was never resurrected, there aren't any gods, and historiographical approaches that attempt to prove that are madness.

No, you pointed out Thiede and Porter specifically for their historiographical method, not their conclusions. Both applauded Licona's method. I had hoped you would read the reviews. (Sorry I did not explain that the link also included the reviews.)Now I have copied them in:

Vorkosigan: "I don't agree with their conclusions for sound methodological reasons. I pointed you to them because they can teach you quite a few things about methods you need to know."

Adam: No, you pointed out Thiede and Porter specifically for their historiographical method, not their conclusions.

Why the 'no'? We just said the same thing!

It's nice that three people with fruitcake beliefs in the supernatural can agree that it sure is great to explore the supernatural using historiographical methods. That's hardly surprising, in fact. Lincona's conclusion is that Jesus really was resurrected, a case of special pleading if there ever was one. No sound historical analysis could ever reach such a conclusion, only ideology.

Vorkosigan

sschlichter · 12-13-2011, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

there may be an idiom in Latin for that is, but the phrase o estin appears throughout the NT and (likely) the LXX as well. It is hardly helpful here.

Oh my. Someone else who doesn't know when not to speak.

Can you find one instance in the LXX where ο εστιν is used in the same way as quod est is in giving an explanation?? Would anyone expect you could?

The structure is used nine times in Mark, but only twice in Matthew and one of those is lifted from Mark. Not once in Luke, so those using Mark removed nearly every trace of the Latinesque use of ο εστιν. Just once in John. Then only three times more in the rest of the christian scripture (Acts 4:36, Col 1:24, Heb 7:2). That's nine times in Mark and six times in the rest of the new testament. If you want to call that "throughout the NT" that's not very significant.

ο εστιν is used elsewhere, but with a different usage, eg 2 Tim 1:16,

For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

No, it is not very significant. that is my point. I agree that the intended readership probalby spoke Latin but there is much more compelling evidence than this. We can also conclude that the semitisms in Mark force us to come to the most reasonable explanation is that they were written by Mother-tongue Latin Aramaic speakers of Greek.

~Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2011, 03:38 PM	#463
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	Adam, your case is absurd. There are actually 10 written eye-witness records in 17 layers!

12-12-2011, 07:37 PM	#464
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	You're my man, hjalti! Right on target! First sensible thing anyone has said here. Except drop the "eye-witness" and hold for the other three as not eye-witnesses. There's the M portions of Matthew and the Redactor in John and the first two chapters of Luke.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.