neilgodfrey

Everything Earl said in his most recent posts about your style of response is spot on. I admire his patience in taking the time to spell it out in detail.

Your reply to Earl's explanation is a caricature of yourself.

Your reply to my post here is just one of many instances where you reply by ignoring the meaning of what is expressed in the target post and simply repeating your own point.

Anyone who reads Earl's discussions of the Greek knows that when he refers to various published translations he does so by way of illustration and support for what he has understood and argued.

Your attempt to depict him as some sort of "translation-picker" is unwarranted.

The crap that provoked me was your puerile responses to Earl's arguments that indicated you have no interest in even wanting to comprehend his argument and are only interested in debunking anything and everything he says.

spin

I'm sure Earl will appreciate your defense.

One thing a philologist or linguist can discern is the basic language knowledge of someone they are talking to. And version jockeying is sad.

So we had no beef when you decided you had to defend Earl's honor. It's hard to make balanced critical analyses under such conditions. If you don't like any of my analyses, that may not have much to do with those analyses. But I try to deal with cases rather than people. Beside that I give what I get.

judge

Ok Neil. So you don't like Spin's style. Well that's a personal preference I guess. But have you noticed all you did was have a go at Spin personally. Do you have anything at all to say about the evidence?
Anything at all apart from broad generalisations?

You have tried to come to earls defence but with no substance, no specific comment about evidence .
All your defense seems to ammount to is "please don't pick on poor old Earl".
Do you have anyhing to say about the evidence ?

Doug Shaver

Oh, please. I haven't joined this discussion because I have nothing to say that would be the least bit helpful to Earl, but that doesn't mean I don't still agree with him.

judge

Fair enough but as earl had been asking for support, it did seem that you had.

EarlDoherty

Name us one scholar who in any given study/commentary on the epistles (or any other document) sticks to one single translation (even his own), and never refers to any other translation to illustrate a point or to agree or disagree with it. I doubt you’ll find one. Any scholar who would not survey different translations/interpretations as part of his own study wouldn’t be worth much. Rejoinders like yours are beyond desperation.

And I agree that any writer will discern or assume his readers’ basic language knowledge. For Paul, or any other philosopher / religious writer in antiquity, part of the basic knowledge he could assume in most of his readers was an understanding of the word “man” in regard to a heavenly man, in the Zoroastrian/Platonic/Philonic sense. I provided direct examples of that, even in this thread. I guess we can all assume that this item of philosophical and cosmological thought in the ancient world is something that is not part of your own basic language knowledge. Perhaps a remedial course is in order.

And thanks for proving me right in regard to my two analogies in my last post.

Earl Doherty

mountainman

What evidence?
What evidence?
You have my attention.




The evidence is that we are dealing with a Greek literate bunch of "Apostles" who were writing to the Greek literates all about a new god. Not only would these authors each assume some measure of basic knowlege of the Platonic understanding of the word "man", but they could also assume some measure of basic knowlege of the Platonic understanding of the word "divinity" or "god".


But what was the relationship between man and god?

Plato had his "Holy Trinity" to provide these understandings. Everyone was probably familiar with Plato to some degree at that time when the new testament authors were autographing their literary works.

Plotinus also followed Plato. The following is basically the metaphysics of Plato.





A diagramatic remedial course in the education system in antiquity

Schematic of the Education System derived from Antiquity

The three basic elements of the "Trivium" -- Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric --
(rhetoric being further sub-classified into Ethos, Pathos and Logos)
are the prerequisites for the four subjects of the Quadrivium
- Arithetic, Geometry, Music and Astronomy.



This core system was then expanded in the Medieval epoch and these become the preparatory for
the "serious Higher education" involving Philosophy and "Christos" Theology.





The evidence cannot be seen as exclusively resident
in the "forged and interpolated texts" of "Dear Paul".

The evidence suggests to me and others that a pre-existing "Chrestos" Theology was altered by the orthodox Christians into a "Christos" Theology. The question of course, is not whether Chrestic archaeology preceeded Christic archaeology, because the evidence strongly suggests that it did. The question is when did this change happen, and was the change gradual or was it some kind of "boundary event". When did the orthodox christians ever get such cultural power as to bend the course of the mighty Platonic river of philosophy and theology?

Which figure in "Early Christian History" said "Plato's critical questioning is a menace to the state".

HINT: The same one that burnt the literature of the lineage of the academy of Plato - the books of Porphyry.
HINT: The same one that publically executed the head of the academy of Plato, Sopater, c.336 CE

DCHindley

To be honest, Earl, they would be referring to the Greek text for their analysis, and provide usually only one English (or whatever) translation version for the benefit of non-specialist readers. There will be a note by the copyright info of the monograph saying "All scriptural citations follow the NRSV (or whatever) except as indicated."

The only person who I recall used all sorts of English translations was Robert Eisenman in James the Brother of Jesus. No one translation captures every nuance of the original language, so one translation might be preferred over another in certain circumstances if it illustrates a point about the original Greek better than the other. I thought he went overboard by using different translations of the same passage to tease out possible "facts" to use in his analysis, but if one is trying to make a point from the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, one might use the KJV. If one is trying to make a point based on the Nestle Aland text, one uses the RSV or whatever. If it were up to me, I'd stick to one translation as best as possible, or alter it to incorporate the alternate reading with a note like "following Vaticanus" or "following p46" or whatever.

There is a similar problem using various translations of classical works. No one translation captures every nuance of the original. A while back there was a thread on a passage from Plato's Republic as preserved in the Nag Hammadi Library. I provided side by side first the Greek text, and two translations, one from a modern translator and another from the late 19th century. The difference was striking. Some times one translation was closer to the Greek and at times the other one was, as each translator tried to capture the essential meaning, more or less literally as he saw fit. One should always rely on translations with caution. If one doesn't have sufficient original language skills (and I count myself among those who do not, to be honest), sometimes all one can do is compare several to get an idea of what was meant by the original, and proceed accordingly.

DCH

DCHindley

Earl & Spin, at this point you two are just engaging in a pissing match.

Spin, we mortals cannot see as clearly as you feel you can do (and even then it is hard to tell just how serious you are at times). Stop pushing Earl's buttons (and you know what I mean).

Earl, stop taking every criticism so personally that you feel compelled to get super defensive. Just acknowledge positive criticisms or points that can be used by you to sharpen your arguments. Accept the fact that some folks will disagree, even vehemently. Negative criticism should roll off of you like water on a duck's back.

Deeeeep breath, everyone. Ahhhhhhhh

DCH

judge

Here are some questions you avoided earlier Earl.

Its all very well to make assertions that people would have seen things this way or that, but can you show from pauls writings where he uses the word man in that way?
You cant which is why you avoid it.

Can you show how many times in ancient writings the word "man" was used in that way?

can you show even ONE example of either. And I dont mean a reference to "heavenly man" or the like.