Peter Kirby

CARR
The actual verse can be seen at
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek01.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek01.jpg</a>

Does anybody know enough Greek to translate this please? I'm pretty sure King Arthur is translating the wrong verse, but it would be nice to have that double checked.

I took an intensive course in Greek at college. Here is my amateur's unpolished literal translation.

... wherever it was the young child. And he held of hand of the young child saying to her: 'taliqa koum'.

OK, I stopped there. I got a C in the Greek course, and I haven't practiced since then, so this is slow work for me. Besides, my knowledge of the story would now influence my translation. I recognize this passage as Mark 5:41-43. Which, come to think of it, I could have seen from the chapter division at the top of the page.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think that Carr meant to refer to
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek03.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek03.jpg</a>

The greek01.jpg is marked "kata markon", and is the corresponding passage in Mark.

The greek03.jpg does seem to contain the same words, but the translations do not refer to anything like "amazement".

King Arthur

Whaddya know... 'ol King Arthur is right...

That's because a similar word can have different meanings in (totally) different contexts, especially when extra words are stuck in between.

And no, Steven, I did not use the wrong verse. I know that there are discrepancies in chapter/verse division within the Septuagint. The first was the Septuagint quotation from Brenton (which I labeled as Septuagint). The other two are translations from the Hebrew (YLT and NRSV). However, don't forget that the Greek is supposed to be a translation of the Hebrew.

The contexts between the two books is different, so it makes no sense at that part in Kings for the woman to be "amazed with amazment". She was "troubling herself with trouble" as most translations have it, even those of the Septuagint.

Bede

King Arthur,

"How can you believe that Christianity is not the only one way to God, and yet call yourself a Christian?"

Easy, by neuron's firing in a certain way. .

Actually, I see no contradiction between being sceptical of the church's exclusivist claims over my faith in the overriding mercy of God. I do not know who can be saved and who isn't but I'm confident that God will gather in as many as he can. I always have hope although in some cases I have more hope than in others.

"How can you reject the OT as mostly fictional stories when even Jesus did not seem to, and yet call yourself a Christian?"

Mostly? Not sure I'd go that far. But I don't think a belief in the historical truth of all the scriptures is essential to Christianity. Likewise, what I think are historical facts is a much narrower criterion than what I accept as true because I trust God.

"What kind of a Christian are you?"

A morally liberal, theologically conservative rational Catholic fideist with universalist tendancies.

Incidently, I think both Steven and yourself are both wrong on this thread. Steven talks about plagiarism which is silly in the cultural context while you seem to be insisting on no dependence at all.

In fact, the situation is almost certainly as Shakespeare is to us. If I say this argument is all Greek to me, I'm quoting from Julius Caesar but most probably wouldn't know it. We have huge numbers of Shakespearisms in our speech we unconsciously use when appropriate. We have nearly as many from the KJV. I expect the situation was similar for Greek speaking early Christians/diaspora Jews with the septuagint. They made connections because they really couldn't help it.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Toto

Why do you think that you are right? I cannot confirm that the Greek word that looks like it was the root for our "ecstasy" can mean "amazement" in one context and "trouble" in another. I think it is more likely that the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew scriptures, either in meaning or numbering of the verses.

Randall Helms, in <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=99" target="_blank">Gospel Fictions</a>, p. 66, translates Mark as "ecstatic with great ecstasy" and the Septuagint phrase as "ecstatic with all this ecstasy."

King Arthur

What do you make of Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Lord, except through me." (or something like that)? There are plenty of other verses like this.

Also, doesn't that make your Christianity just a mere social construct? By this I mean that it is not necessary. You could go off and become a member of another religion and it would make no difference as long as you do "what is right"? Doesn't this make God's sacrifice of his only son (supposedly the ultimate base of Christianity) somewhat cruel and purposeless?

I'll let you off the hook on this one, but I sure don't know how you pick and choose which ones a real and which ones aren't. Those prophecies in the OT are pretty important for Christ to actually have been Christ.

Excellent debating move. Attempt to stick yourself dead center. Everyone likes a moderate!

Actually, I think you need to re-read my posts. I have never said that there is no dependence on the Septuagint, but that the dependence has nothing to do with rewriting OT stories to create a fictional life account for Jesus (which is what Steven seems to imply rather strongly).

I maintain that Steven's arguments are worthless. The phrases he chooses are common and do not show the links that he intends. If he has an argument at all, it is in the use of "and he gave him back to his mother", which I still believe is a relatively common phrase. It's easy to defend the strongest (weak) assertion, but much harder to defend the rest of his poor "examples".

He never did quite figure out that the p52 thing was meant as a joke to show him how silly he was being (there was even a "but seriously or something like that after I had finished it"). I had no idea whether he had copied that phrase from Finegan. Only he knows that, and he ain't tellin' because he doesn't have any footnotes detailing his sources.

Amen! Look back through my posts and you'll see that this is exactly what I have been saying (you may have to look at The King Arthur Challenge thread as well).

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

I don't think. I know.

Did you read above? I said that I am well aware of the chapter/verse division problems within the Septuagint. This is not one of them. How can I prove it to you if you don't know Greek?? Get Carrier out here and maybe he'll admit that I'm right. Maybe... He claims to know Greek.

The Greek phrase (exestesas hemin pasan ten ekstasin) in this verse (2Ki 4:13) is difficult to translate. However, if you will look at the previous context. This widow-woman worked to get her house prepared for Elisha. It makes little if any sense in this context to use "amazed" and "amazement". Most, if not all, translations have "care" or "trouble".

[/qb][/quote]

Who the .... is Randall Helms and why do I care what he says??

King Arthur

Finally, you guys could use a few lessons on the Septuagint. By the way, out of the three of the best and most thorough text books on the Septuagint, I couldn't find Steven's textual "borrowings" mentioned. Perhaps someone else will have more luck.

Swete's Intro to the OT in Greek is a classic to which scholars still refer (yes I know the dates and that does not make any difference to scholars). Go ahead and let me know if you find anything about it in there (I don't think that Swete is particularly friendly to Christians either, though I could be wrong on that count). Check out the Index to Biblical References at the end of the book. This is the ultimate authority that most modern books still refer to:

<a href="http://rosetta.atla-certr.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/SweteIntro" target="_blank">http://rosetta.atla-certr.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/SweteIntro</a>

I doubt that you will find much in there about Jesus' stories being retellings of OT stories. You will however, find that the NT quotes the Septuagint text a lot and uses some of the common language.

An update to Swete's Introduction came in the '60s, I believe with Jellicoe's book. It basically brought Swete up-to-date with the current scholarly debates. Good luck finding it. I had to go to a seminary bookstore and beg.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0931464005/qid=1027388558/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/103-8770935-9083862" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0931464005/qid=1027388558/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/103-8770935-9083862</a>

Finally, the text that I presented earlier:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801022355/qid=1027388636/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-8770935-9083862" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801022355/qid=1027388636/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-8770935-9083862</a>

Read these, and then you'll be a little more up to speed though there are other excellent books you could read on the subject. Right, Peter, Carrier, Bede?

BTW, if you don't know Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, then these books might be just a little tough on you.

Toto

<a href="http://www.asu.edu/clas/english/who/helms.htm" target="_blank">Dr. Randel McCraw Helms</a>, Biblical Studies and Literature Professor, Arizona State University

How can you show me that you are right? Find an on line dictionary in Koine Greek that gives an alternate meaning for exestesas or ekstasin that would be translated "trouble" or "ecstasy".

Otherwise, one conservative apologist disagrees with you, plus one liberal commentator. Maybe they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Peter Kirby

King Arthur writes: Read these, and then you'll be a little more up to speed though there are other excellent books you could read on the subject. Right, Peter, Carrier, Bede?

If the books do not discuss at all the issue of imitation of OT Septuagint stories in the New Testament, then how do you propose that these books are going to bring us 'up to speed' with respect to the topic that is the current issue?

It is impolite to beat people over the head with book recommendations as though the person is irresponsibly ignorant for not reading these particular books. We all have our particular interests, and we all have read many books that others have not. It would be nicer if you were recommending these books with the understanding that we would find them interesting, or even with reference to a particular point on which these books would elaborate at length that is relevant to the current discussion. As a generalized command to get an education or something in that spirit, your book recommendations are not going to be well received (and is a bit hypocritcal, again because each one of us has read books that you haven't as a matter of course). I for one have plenty of books on my shelves that are in the process of being read, and I am not going to add to these some titles which I do not find of pressing interest just because some guy says 'Read these, and then you'll be a little more up to speed' because 'you guys could use a few lessons on the Septuagint'. How arrogant!

best,
Peter Kirby