Haran

I should have listed Herod under the category of Greek and not Hebrew. It is a dynastic name which probably has its roots in the Hellenization of the area after Alexander the Great.

Miriam is quite obviously a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name.

The problem, as I see it (if he was truly referring to Ignatius here), is that Ignatius wrote in Greek. Though Greek is an Indo-European language, it does not (to my knowledge) contain a word similar to the Latin "mare" meaning "sea" in English. The Greek word for "sea" is "thalassa". If we are referring to Ignatius, then he uses the genitive "Marias" in the Greek text (my Greek text of Ignatius is from the esteemed Harvard <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/L024.html" target="_blank">Loeb Library edition</a>).

I would think that the Latin "pontus" (sea) is more closely linked to the Greek "pontos" (sea) than is the Latin "pons" (bridge), but then that's just my thinking.

If "Pontius" is derived from "pontus" or "pontos" then it is more than likely because Pilate came from the region near the Black (or Euxine) Sea known as Pontus. I find this doubtful, however, as nearly every respected source I pick up simply mentions "Pontius" as coming from the Roman "Pontii" family.

You definitely don't think "Pontius" is derived from "pontus", but you do think it is dervied from "pons"?

Are you saying here that Ignatius uses the Greek word "pontos"? As you can see above, I have the original source and already knew that Ignatius wrote in Greek, however, I also knew that "Pontius" appears to be a Roman name transliterated into Greek. In the original Greek, it is not "pontos". It is (so far as I've found) only used in the genitive and given as "Pontiou Pilatou". If, as Iasion's source states, there is manuscript evidence to the contrary, then I challenge him to produce it. I don't think there is, but I'm willing to take a look.

Naughty?! Please...

Just like many scholars do, I make use of dictionaries such as the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226039331/qid=1018320063/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-1554664-1357667" target="_blank">BDAG</a> (considered the best out there), Louw-Nida, Friberg, UBS, Lidell-Scott, Thayer, and yes also Bible software called <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/" target="_blank">Bibleworks</a>.

If you happen to know the meaning of every Biblical name or the definition of every Biblical word, then you are a better man than I.

I assume, by your tone, that you are implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. You're certainly entitled to think that. However, I know a good amount of Greek and can read many of the actual <a href="http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/bibel.html#pap" target="_blank">ancient manuscripts</a> (see my new <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/P52trans.html" target="_blank">P52 page</a> on <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/" target="_blank">my website</a> - the red Greek transcription on the picture is mine as are parts of the translation - believe it or not).

Honestly, Spin. If you are smart enough to call me "naughty" for using Bible software, then I'm sure you can figure out how to use UBB code. After all, I have...

Haran

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

spin

spin:
-----
Mary, as written in Greek, may indeed come from the Hebrew.
-----

Haran:
-----
Miriam is quite obviously a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name.
-----

Simon is Greek not Hebrew but it is associated with Shimeon for obvious reasons. Yeshua, the high priest in 170 BCE called himself Jason, a near equivalent in Greek. Connections get made between one language and another purely on form. If Ignatius, as I said, knew more than one I-E language he could have made the connection.

spin:
-----
However, this wasn't the basic problem, but how in ancient times phonological similarities were taken to have other intrinsic similarities. There are many Indo-European languages which use(d) some form of mare to mean sea, Slavs, Celts, early Germanic tribes, and Italic languages. If Ignatius knew more than one I-E language he could have made the connection. (Again I don't endorse it.)
-----

Haran:
-----
The problem, as I see it (if he was truly referring to Ignatius here), is that Ignatius wrote in Greek. Though Greek is an Indo-European language, it does not (to my knowledge) contain a word similar to the Latin "mare" meaning "sea" in English. The Greek word for "sea" is "thalassa". If we are referring to Ignatius, then he uses the genitive "Marias" in the Greek text (my Greek text of Ignatius is from the esteemed Harvard Loeb Library edition).
-----

This is a major reason why I wouldn't endorse the proposal.

spin:
-----
pons in Latin means "bridge", but could also mean "way". To the ancient Greeks that way was the sea, hence the name pontos.
-----

Haran:
-----
I would think that the Latin "pontus" (sea) is more closely linked to the Greek "pontos" (sea) than is the Latin "pons" (bridge), but then that's just my thinking.
-----

Sadly etymology is a funny thing. They all come from the same source. There is even a Sanscrit word, panthas, meaning "way". And thinking about it that's where the English word "path" comes from -- I have just checked it in an etymological dictionary, but "way" = "panthas" seemed a good lead.

Haran:
-----
If "Pontius" is derived from "pontus" or "pontos" then it is more than likely because Pilate came from the region near the Black (or Euxine) Sea known as Pontus. I find this doubtful, however, as nearly every respected source I pick up simply mentions "Pontius" as coming from the Roman "Pontii" family.
-----

Pontius is a Samnite family name -- Samnites were a tribe nearby Rome. There is no doubt about that. What was being talked about, I thought from Kuhn, is a well-known ancient process of making linguistic connections based on phonology, ie not what a word really meant, but what it's phological similarity leads to. (Still, I don't endorse the ideas.)

Haran:
-------
I don't think Pontius derives from pontus.
-------
Spin:
-----
It definitely doesn't but that was not really the claim, I don't think. What was of interest are the connections that Ignatius made. And the Greek word is pontos! (That's the language Ignatius was writing in.)
-----

Haran:
-----
Are you saying here that Ignatius uses the Greek word "pontos"? As you can see above, I have the original source and already knew that Ignatius wrote in Greek, however, I also knew that "Pontius" appears to be a Roman name transliterated into Greek. In the original Greek, it is not "pontos". It is (so far as I've found) only used in the genitive and given as "Pontiou Pilatou". If, as Iasion's source states, there is manuscript evidence to the contrary, then I challenge him to produce it. I don't think there is, but I'm willing to take a look.
-----

I am of the same opinion here.

spin:
-----
Haran, I think you've been naughty. Your definitions seem to have come from your bible software and you accuse Kuhn of not knowing the languages. Naughty indeed.
-----

Haran:
-----
Naughty?! Please...

Just like many scholars do, I make use of dictionaries such as the BDAG (considered the best out there), Louw-Nida, Friberg, UBS, Lidell-Scott, Thayer, and yes also Bible software called Bibleworks.

If you happen to know the meaning of every Biblical name or the definition of every Biblical word, then you are a better man than I.

I assume, by your tone, that you are implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. You're certainly entitled to think that. However, I know a good amount of Greek and can read many of the actual ancient manuscripts (see my new P52 page on my website - the red Greek transcription on the picture is mine as are parts of the translation - believe it or not).
-----

I wouldn't accuse you of not knowing what you are talking about. My tone was due to your cursory response by attacking Kuhn for not knowing his languages. You may know what you say -- I have no reason to disbelieve you -- but you didn't do the footwork to make a claim about the cited author. Perhaps, you should have restrained yourself and commented on Iasion and left Kuhn out of it. This is why I said you were naughty.

Haran
-----
Honestly, Spin. If you are smart enough to call me "naughty" for using Bible software, then I'm sure you can figure out how to use UBB code. After all, I have...
-----

I don't like this UBB crap. The only things I find useful now and then are the bold and the italic. The rest can be forgotten about. If you cite someone using UBB QUOTE, it disappears when you go to respond: in fact I just pressed reply (the quotation marks at the top of the post) and all I got was your last paragraph. It's general of little use to me and I'm amazed that so many people have problems reading without it.

Anyways, I hope I have made it clear I don't support any of the original ideas, though there may be some possibility behind it -- I just don't know and don't care (not my field, but noone wants to talk about OT). And I have no intention of impugning your scholarly capabilities, just your hastiness in attacking Kuhn. It might be good for us both to see what he actually wrote, but then again, do we care?

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

Haran

I'm not sure I'd call my judgement on Kuhn something made in haste. I'm also still not impressed with his understanding and unwarranted expansion in his translation and his unsupported claims of MS evidence which backs it up.

Perhaps I should read his book. However, I'm quite with you..."do we care?"

(P.S. - My expertise is in NT Textual Criticism, but I know some Hebrew and some about OT Textual Criticism - I have Wurthwein's and Tov's Intros to OT Crit. - so I'm not sure if I can keep up with you on OT stuff, but I might try if the topic were interesting enough...)

Thanks,
Haran

CX

Yes, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but as usual it has little merit and relies only on your own imagined authority. I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who will agree with you here. I can be dismissive and condescending when I get heated up. I acknowledge that and try to keep it in check, but that hardly constitutes being a troll.

Liddell & Scott is a comprehensive Greek Lexicon which covers pre-classical through Hellenic (i.e. Koine) greek. As such it is the final authority, for me anyway, on the greek language as a whole. It is not necessarily a tool for breaking out Koine from other greek. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was "is PILETAS a Greek word". Clearly it is not. The original statement said that the original Greek MSS of Ignatius had Pontus Piletas and made etymological hay of that. As to your question regarding an entry in Liddell & Scott if you look up the entry for IHSOUS you will see the following:

You'll note that L&S refers to the LXX and NT, as the only sources containing this name. L&S contains entries for every word in both and as such can be regarded as a proper authority for biblical Greek.


Firstly, Koine is an Attic-Ionic dialect and so L&S IS a reasonable reference. Secondly the unabridged L&S lexicon covers both the LXX and the NT. Your assertion therefore that it is of no use for lexical work concerning biblical Greek is without merit.

And yet it covers both the LXX and the NT. Thus if one does not find a particular word in an NT specific lexicon one is reasonable to consult L&S. Your continued references to identifying specifically Koine language is a non-sequitur.


And what, pray tell was your reason for assailing me? Because you didn't like the tone I took with Iasion? Boo hoo. As to your assertion that I have no authority for Koine Greek, let's take a different tack as you suggested. If you do not accept any NT lexicon, nor the NA27, nor Liddell&Scott, where precisely would you suggest one go for references on biblical Greek?

Firstly you assume too much, since you have no basis for knowing my age. Secondly I have read carefully, but you continual prevarication and shifting of the argument, not to mention your subborn refusal to use the formatting standards employed here makes it near impossible to find a coherent argument in your prolix word salad.

Fair enough. I freely acknowledge that am I rude to you. I find you to be a tiresome pedant with an inflated sense of your own expertise. In general I am only rude to people who deserve it. I was not, however, rude to Iasion, I was merely severely critical of his arguments. I find him personally to be a bright, articulate and friendly person. You would do well to try and emulate him.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

spin

As cx continues to duck the basic question, I guess he'll never admit that he has no solid basis to say much about Koine Greek at all.

His recourse to Liddell and Scott has been seen as escapism, for the reference doesn't deal with Koine in any form. It merely cites some writers who would be considered users of that form of Greek, though L&S are quite prepared to deal with Ionian, Attic and Dorian Greek. Naturally, he is unable to find any reference to Koine in the dictionary, so his citing of ihsous doesn't help much there is no way of getting any coherent idea of Koine Greek from the dictionary. It was not meant for the purpose he claims that he can use it for.

cx hasn't cottoned onto the idea that I don't give a fig about pontius pilatus. This is just his monorail thinking. Here is my original post. One will note that I didn't care about the substantive content of cx's post. What I did care about as one will note is his crass rudeness. And here he is still farting on about piletas. He says, "The issue was "is PILETAS a Greek word"." If he had read my original letter he would know that that was not the issue I was posting about. When cx recovers from his selective alexia, he might acknowledge that he has been being obstreperous for no good reason. His last post is one long series of attempted insult, the last of which, "I find you to be a tiresome pedant with an inflated sense of your own expertise", is just plain ironic.

---------------

cx after his rude posts to me complained about my not treating him with the respect I gather he thinks he deserves.

Now we have a series of posts from him which are downright rude to someone else.

"This is absurd."
"And to make something of it is senseless."
"This is even sillier."

Ultimately, cx might be correct in the substantive parts of is postings, but his rhetoric renders his posts simply insulting.

Finally cx writes:

"Now can we please dispense with this ridiculous discussion?"

One gets the impression that cx feels forced to read the discussion. Remember Nancy Reagan? When you go to click on a thread which might do you harm, "just say 'no'."

---

Incidentally, here is one of cx's dicta:

"Lastly there is no word PILETOS in Koine Greek."

He may be right, but what does he use as his authority for Koine Greek? The collection of words in the NT?? There are not enough words in that collection to be able to draw such a conclusion, so what is his authority for what is and is not Koine Greek? -- Your bet is as good as mine.

CX

Who do you think you're kidding?

CX

For those who are interested. Here is the inside flap from the most recent edition of L&S. Note that it specifically says it includes words and forms from every papyrus and inscription discovered up to the present day. That includes all the Oxyrhynchus finds and the whole of known Koine literature which is substantial.

spin

Haran:
----------
My expertise is in NT Textual Criticism, but I know some Hebrew and some about OT Textual Criticism - I have Wurthwein's and Tov's Intros to OT Crit. - so I'm not sure if I can keep up with you on OT stuff, but I might try if the topic were interesting enough...
----------

At the moment I'm grubbing through all the sources I can because over the years I have come across too many indications of Canaanite religion behind things in the old testament and I am now interested in the possibility that one can reconstruct a Canaanite pantheon behind the old testament, featuring, amongst others,

• El (or El qone erets and the various others)
• Yhwh
• Asherah
• Mot
• The hosts of heaven
• Baal
• Leviathan/Lotan/Tiamat/tehom
• Yamm

There is also the possibility of Anat and Bethel being part if we can go by the Elephantine Aramaic texts.

(One can also find other Canaanite deities at Ugarit, showing more of a common religious substratum, which didn't make it into my hypothetical Hebrew pantheon.)

The notion of the pantheon partly comes from the idea that the Hebrew language is most similar to Moabite and Ammonite, though not too dissimilar to Phoenician, so that we can find a probable emergence of Hebrew sometime well after 1000 BCE to allow for a separation from Phoenician (the Gezer calendar, which is supposed to have been in an early Hebrew has also been analysed as in Phoenician, so there may not have been a distinguishable Hebrew in 900 BCE). It needs to have had a separate development from the remaining Canaanite languages after that time.

With the archaeological evidence of a local development of the Israelite (Samarian) culture (no conquest whatsoever, even for Dever), we have the Jews as an indigenous culture manifesting an indigenous language and apparently manifesting an indigenous religious substratum.

This is what is taking up my time at the moment.

But there are lots of things that need resolving:

• What is the full relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew? (I know one scholar who even denies that Hebrew was ever a spoken language -- a bit extreme for me)
• Did the theocratic city state of Jerusalem really maintain the royal records of from before the exilic period?
• How can we date texts back before the Qumran corpus?
• What is the true nature of the relationship of Samaria with Jerusalem up to the schism (and when did that happen)?

Of course there are others but these are the ones which come readily to mind.

spin

CX:
---
For those who are interested.
---

Nobody's interested.

CX

If you do not accept any NT lexicon, nor the NA27, nor Liddell&Scott, where precisely would you suggest one go for references on biblical Greek?