Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-06-2007, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Spin I know you too well. When desperate you resort to this. But really it is just information about yourself.

Clueless, as usual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Information irrelevant to this discussion.

Cheap avoidance tactic, judge. I guess by now that you know you cannot defend your worse than weak position rationally.

Why will you not deal with anything asked of you? Ducking and weaving only makes to display your inability to cope with reality.

spin

judge · 05-06-2007, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Clueless, as usual.

Sorry, you will have to find someone else to play with you.

spin · 05-06-2007, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Sorry, you will have to find someone else to play with you.

Next time, judge, you decide to play defender of the faith, forget it.

Facts remain:

The Latin background to the writing of Mark in Greek needs an explanation. The Semitic contextualisation holds nothing in surprise. A text set in Palestine should contain some Semitic input. But why Latin? Why use a term "Herodian" which requires a Latin context to form?

You slithered away from the problems regarding the so-called error in translating "talitha kumi" after bitching about it. Another one of those things you can't defend, defender.

spin

Ben C Smith · 05-06-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

There are loan word sure...but so what.

It goes beyond loan words. Did you read that link I gave citing Gundry?

Ben.

Amaleq13 · 05-06-2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

The translator (from Aramaic to Greek) was not proficient enough in Aramaic, and makes an error.

Can you offer a specific answer as to how this particular error might have been created?

It is not obvious to me how that would happen.

Quote:

Again and again we find perfect grammar and no translation errors in the peshitta. Time and time again we find errors have crept into the greek versions through translation error.

Or again and again we find corrections of the Greek in a subsequent translation. As far as I can see, you've offered nothing to establish that your view is more likely.

jakejonesiv · 05-06-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

True. There are a couple of other points that people might wish to consider, which pertain equally to all literary texts from antiquity.

The idea of an 'original manuscript' rather infers something like the modern process of producing a manuscript which is then sent to the printers for dissemination. Once we consider that no such thing was involved, in the era of hand-copying, it becomes obvious that a lot of questions are being begged here. For the "Life of St. Columba" by Adomnan, for instance, there isn't one; Adomnan worked on the text throughout his life and copies were taken at various stages, whenever anyone wanted one.

Likewise the idea of a manuscript reflects a written culture. But since most works of the period would have been dictated, possibly to several scribes, this also raises various questions.

No authorial manuscript of any ancient literary text exists for any work composed before the 13th century (so Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Wrong again Roger, unless you think the Pyramids Texts were copied from non-extant pyramids.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv · 05-06-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Next time, judge, you decide to play defender of the faith, forget it.

Facts remain:

The Latin background to the writing of Mark in Greek needs an explanation. The Semitic contextualisation holds nothing in surprise. A text set in Palestine should contain some Semitic input. But why Latin? Why use a term "Herodian" which requires a Latin context to form?

You slithered away from the problems regarding the so-called error in translating "talitha kumi" after bitching about it. Another one of those things you can't defend, defender.

spin

spin,

You make a good point. The best explanation is that canonical Mark is a product of the Latinized church.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv · 05-06-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Who do you think he had in mind when he wrote that the gospels were written by apostles and their followers? (Just asking.)

Ben.

Materials attributed to the apostles as a group. The designation Gospel of the Hebrews also seems to lack individual attribution.

The word "gospel" is even suspect in Justin. The occurance may be an interpolation.

Jake

jgibson000 · 05-06-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The word "gospel" is even suspect in Justin.

It is? Who says so?

Quote:

The occurance may be an interpolation.

Only "may be", huh?. Are "may be's" sufficient grounds on which to base an argument or a claim?

In any case, what reasons are there for saying that the word "gospel" has been interpolated into Justin?

JG

sharrock · 05-06-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

The fact that they were written in Greek has always struck me as bizarre.

RED DAVE

Greek evangelion, a technical term meaning "good news of military victory."

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/summary.html

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.