Roger Pearse

You should look at the poems of Commodian. Dates given in the literature range from the 2nd to the 6th centuries.

One problem is that second century writers have a convention to be evasive about proper names (or so I am told -- I don't know what the basis for this is). It may have something to do with living in an unfree society, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Oh, I'm sure you do think so.

I don't see that Rev is necessarily relevant to the habits of another writer.

But let me ask you, if 2 Thes were written after 70 CE, how would you approach 2:4 and its apocalyptic reference to the temple?

Are errors "normal"? My comment was that errors based on grammatical gender are not as transparent as with the logical gender of English, which is much more transparent, either it's "he", "she" or "it" (or in our case "who" or "which". It's much simpler than with a language which has grammatical gender. She is always going to be she in English, an it always an it and its itness is essential, but in grammatical gender the sheness or itness is not essential to the noun -- the is nothing about the noun itself that requires a certain gender. In fact in one language a word might be feminine, but neuter in another. A writer who is not well-versed in a language casually makes errors of grammatical gender.

I gather you're referring to estws which immediately follows a masculine noun and that noun may have simply tainted the writer's or scribe's choice of participle form (yes, it could have simply been a scribal error). I think it's a case of overhopeful weight on the error.

Let's be more literal: the writer was not in Jerusalem at the time of writing, was he? If not, he didn't have the ex-temple in sight, a place which needed rededication in order for it becoming a temple again. It still presents the temple as a trope.

Hang on a second there, Ben C. Stephen paraded someone else's piece of apologetics aimed at getting sense out of Paul's basket scene, by assuming its conclusions. Andrew posited something that has no evidence whatsoever to support it and which requires strange geography, as well as a contradictory policy of the Romans towards an external kingdom which had waged war on a Roman client (giving the Nabataeans temporary possession of Damascus).

Both efforts had nothing going for them other than trying to massage the source text. The reference to Aretas in 2 Cor 11:32 seems inappropriate in the light of the available evidence, which says that Damascus had been in the hands of the Romans since Pompey's time, that the Nabataeans were at the time not particularly in the Roman good books to get possession of Damascus, that Aretas III actually had control of the city briefly over a century earlier.

If you think that I have mischaracterized them, please feel free to show me how. Otherwise, it would appear that you are being partisan.


spin

Ben C Smith

If 2 Thessalonians were written after 70, I would take 2.4 as an attempt by the author to make it look as if the epistle had been written before 70.

How frequent is this error in Greek, do you suppose?

Is masculine a typo here? The participle is εστηκοτα (the nominative form of which would be your εστως or εστηκως); this participle is in the accusative case and is masculine. The accusative noun to which I am referring is βδελυγμα, which is neuter, not masculine. That is the problem.

By rights, the noun should have influenced the choice of participle; the participle is modifying the noun (there is nothing else available for the participle to modify). The participle should be agreeing with the noun in gender, case, and number. It agrees in case in number, but not in gender. That is the problem.

But it is not really a problem. The noun is neuter, but Mark is evidently thinking of a person, a male. This is a bit like the noun πνευμα being neuter, but John referring to it (or him) with masculine pronouns. That is what happens when one has a neuter noun but is thinking of it (or him) as a person instead of as an object.

What makes you think the author of 1 Maccabees was not in Jerusalem? But, whatever the case, I think the author of Maccabees had the temple in Jerusalem in mind, whether he could physically see it from the window of his writing room or not.

By calling their efforts apologetics. By your standard, it would seem that defending any position at all qualifies as apologetics. More to the point, calling the opposing argument apologetics, whether rightly or wrongly, does nothing to resolve the matter at hand. Apologists are not always wrong, nor are their opponents always right. The label is independent of the truth value of the claim. Stick to the relevant facts.

Ben.

spin

Makes sense to me. That seemed the most likely possibility.

Dunno. Got statistics?

I understood the grammatical problem. I tried to explain the possibilities of confusion, either by the writer or the scribe.

This is merely one rationalisation of the issue. As it is not analogous to errors of gender in English, one point I tried to make, there is less drama. The problem can arise either in writing or copying, through lack of concentration. It's not that a noun is inherently one gender or another in Greek. It was a grammatical imposition.


This was the period of the pollution of the temple, when according to the same 1 Macc 3 the faithful priests and their dependents left the city.

One that had been "trampled down and profaned", like that in Jerusalem?

Rubbish. Apologetics to me is argument based on unstated dispositions (which are apparently solely religiously motivated) rather than evidence.

I tend to call a spade a spade. When discussion is not based on facts, it should be pointed out. I'm all for sticking to the facts wherever possible


spin

angela2

First you'd need to reach agreement on which letter Paul actually wrote.

angela2

From what I've read, first/second century writers used the name of some other person to honor them. There was no concept of intellectual property or for that matter plagiarism at that time.

Ben C Smith

Well, all I can say is that it was a pretty fortuitous accident to run so neatly into my theory.

Less... drama? I was not trying to be dramatic.

Well, color me confused. You think that 1 Maccabees was written during the time of the pollution of the temple? Even though it describes the end of the pollution in 4.42-51, and well beyond?

The part of my disposition that often goes unstated in my debates is my tendency to give the (extant) text the benefit of the doubt. But that goes for Christian texts, Jewish texts, pagan texts, the lot.

I have no idea what you think is religiously motivating me to make the arguments I do. My stances on history have nothing to do with my religion (indeed, according to some, that is a serious flaw of mine); they have to do with the methods I use to extract history from the sources. My methods most assuredly differ from yours; that does not make them religiously motivated. You simply could not be more mistaken. So again, let us deal with the facts of the case, and the facts only.

Ben.

spin

When you look at it that way, I can see your point.

The error is dramatic in English. You call an it a he and you'll get a reaction. Grammatical gender I think is a little more lenient, at least inthe living languages I've had to deal with.

True. The text was written under the Hasmonean kings. I guess I was still living with Daniel.

It's very hard to give the reference to Aretas in charge of Damascus the benefit of the doubt. It points so vividly to anachronism.

You sound like you're in a political dilemma: campaign as a republican and for some you're too hardline, but for others too liberal (they'd prefer Genghiz Khan).

If you support the veracity of the Aretas reference in 2 Cor, not based on evidence nor dealing with the evidence against it, then would it be surprising that you get considered apologetic in approach on the matter?

Then why exactly do you say the following?

1 Clement 5-6 can IMHO only be referring to the Neronian persecution,

spin

Ben C Smith

I am proud to say that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

But yes, I get your meaning.

That statement is based on a number of factors. One factor would be the dating of 1 Clement, but that would, I think, take us very far afield.

Ben.