Steven Carr

Kings Arthur writes about my web page
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.ukk/mirc1.htm</a>


King Arthur writes

Anyhoo, to get on to it, Steven attempts to compare the following: Mark 5:42 & 2 Kings 4:13.
Steven Carr
Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale),
...while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten)

King Arthur continues
There are two words in common between each of these completely different phrases and they are even separated by different words. The phrases mean two totally different things, and this is obvious from the context. As a matter of fact, the respected English versions of the Septuagint bear this out.


Brenton's Septuagint (2Kings 4:13):
And he said to him, Say now to her, Behold, thou hast taken all this trouble for us; what should I do for thee? Hast thou any request to make to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she said, I dwell in the midst of my people.


Carr (now)
Actually, I found this translation on the web at

<a href="http://www.ccel.org/b/brenton/lxx/f.rtf" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/b/brenton/lxx/f.rtf</a>

What King Arthur forgets to tell us, is that Brenton himself has a footnote , which says that 'been astonished with all this astonishment' is also a valid translation. Footnote Y to be precise.

And King Arthur has the sheer gall to accuse *me* of misleading people by ommitting information.

His very own source says that my translation is perfectly valid! But he left that out of his posting!

Perhaps King Arthur would like to give us the lexicon entries for 'ecstasin', which he says should be translated 'trouble', and for which, his own source says 'amazement' is also a good translation. I would be interested to see King Arthur gives us the lexicon entries for 'ecstasin'

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

King Arthur

The point is that, though they are comprehensive studies of the Septuagint (used in courses by nearly every school that teaches responsibly about the Septuagint), they make no mention of Steven's "examples" as far as I can find. And since they are comprehensive, that says a lot, like his examples aren't considered good by scholars of the Septuagint.

Peter, Peter, Peter... Haven't you figured out yet that this is my style??

I figured that you, Carrier, and Bede might know of these books, that's why I directed the question at you three. But if you're not familiar with them, then I guess you can't corroborate what I am saying.

Peter, just because people have read books doesn't mean they've read the best and most appropriate books. You may have read 10 books on the Septuagint, but if you haven't read the right ones, then you'll still be in the dark.

Here: I recommend that everyone read the above books on the Septuagint so that they can rise to enlightenment. Better?

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

Ok. That's fair. My translation does not have this.

Nope. To be very precise, that would be footnote gamma. You really don't know Greek, do you?

Fair to say, but untrue and jumping the gun a little. Besides, you still have the vast majority of that page and your other work to account for even if you decide this is a valid translation which I still disagree with.

It does not say that it is "perfectly valid". There is a reason that it is in a footnote. It is a literal translation. As you should well know, literal translations do not always get the correct information across.

Explain why in the context of 2Ki 4:13 that this widow-woman can be "amazed with all this amazement" (which still doesn't seem to follow exactly the Greek to me because of the "hemin" [to us] in there). Also, explain why the Hebrew which the Septuagint translates does not have "amazed"? Finally, explain why nearly every English translation has in the actual flowing text "care" or "trouble". Then, you'll be off the hook.

Regardless, it obviously does not parallel the situation in which a similar (not the same) phrase is used in Mark. In 2Kings a woman has done a bunch of stuff to get ready for the prophet Elisha and Elisha has someone ask her why she has gone to all that trouble and what can he do for her because of it. In Mark, a little girl is raised from the dead and every one is "amazed" at what has been done.

Quite different in context, don't you think??

Nope, I wouldn't because lexicons do not tell you the whole story of how to go about translating. Try using babelfish sometime and see just how well that works! "Trouble" or "care" is the correct sense and I suppose it is derived from a number of things - the Hebrew, the stories' context, and lexicon definitions like that of Friberg and Lidell-Scott who mention that it can mean something like "displacement" or "being put out of its spot" which would reflect better what the woman had done in moving all of her furniture around for Elisha. As a matter of fact, if you look at this word in context in other places in the OT, you will see quite a lot of variation like Genesis 2:21 where "ekstasin" translates as "deep sleep". Perhaps the woman fell into the mother of all deep sleeps? Or perhaps context determines the meaning, Steven.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

The following website is a great resource on Septuagint studies. I don't even see 2 Kings listed and it looks like Mark agrees more with the MT than any other Gospel. Yet more swiss-cheese-holes in your theories...

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm</a>

By the way, those books on the Septuagint that I mentioned... So you know I'm not blowing smoke:

<a href="http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/LXXFAQ.htm" target="_blank">http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/LXXFAQ.htm</a>

Look at the FAQ toward the bottom. Ok, so I forgot Tov's... As with his book on Textual Criticism, this one shouldn't be missed either.

From this site on the Septuagint:
<a href="http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/" target="_blank">http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/</a>

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Steven Carr

CARR
What King Arthur forgets to tell us, is that Brenton himself has a footnote , which says that 'been astonished with all this astonishment' is also a valid translation.


Footnote Y to be precise.

KA
Nope. To be very precise, that would be footnote gamma. You really don't know Greek, do you?

CARR
It was very small on the screen! My eyes are not so good.

KA
It does not say that it is "perfectly valid". There is a reason that it is in a footnote. It is a literal translation. As you should well know, literal translations do not always get the correct information across.

CARR
SO King Arthur apparently agree that it literally means what I said it did.


KA
Explain why in the context of 2Ki 4:13 that this widow-woman can be "amazed with all this amazement" (which still doesn't seem to follow exactly the Greek to me because of the "hemin" [to us] in there). Also, explain why the Hebrew which the Septuagint translates does not have "amazed"?

CARR
Because the Septagunit is not always accurate?

KA
Finally, explain why nearly every English translation has in the actual flowing text "care" or "trouble". Then, you'll be off the hook.

CARR
Because they are translating the Hebrew,, rather than the Greek?

CARR
Perhaps King Arthur would like to give us the lexicon entries for 'ecstasin', which he says should be translated 'trouble', and for which, his own source says 'amazement' is also a good translation. I would be interested to see King Arthur gives us the lexicon entries for 'ecstasin'

KA
Nope, I wouldn't because lexicons do not tell you the whole story of how to go about translating.

CARR
Then perhaps I will, and King Arthur can tell us where he can find a translation of the phrase as 'trouble' or 'care'. I'm sure he has an example somewhere. Anywhere. I'm sure he can find one, if I ask hum very nicely.


KA
"Trouble" or "care" is the correct sense and I suppose it is derived from a number of things - the Hebrew,

CARR
But we are talking about the Greek Septaguint!

KA
the stories' context, and lexicon definitions like that of Friberg and Lidell-Scott who mention that it can mean something like "displacement" or "being put out of its spot" which would reflect better what the woman had done in moving all of her furniture around for Elisha.

CARR
How does 'displacement' equate to 'trouble' or 'care'?

Here is part of a posting by a *Christian* on uk.religion.christian

'But why do you want to know? If it's something to do with differences in the way ekstasis is translated, here's some clarification, AIUI.

It actually means literally "to be out of place", but clearly from context esp in the NT is used to mean "amazed" - I think the closest
modern equivalent is "knocked sideways". Exestesas is a compound of ek- meaning "out of" and istemi which means "cause to stand out",
perhaps dislodge.'


KA
As a matter of fact, if you look at this word in context in other places in the OT, you will see quite a lot of variation like Genesis 2:21 where "ekstasin" translates as "deep sleep". Perhaps the woman fell into the mother of all deep sleeps? Or perhaps context determines the meaning, Steven.

CARR
And King Arthur is still translating the Hebrew, rather than the Greek! His *own* source , Brenton' translates it as 'trance', which is part of the lexicon entries I give here.

Lexicon entry for 'ecstasin' -

any casting down of a thing from its proper place or state, displacement
a throwing of the mind out of its normal state, alienation of mind, whether such as makes a lunatic or that of a man who by some sudden emotion is transported as it were out of himself, so that in this rapt condition, although he is awake, his mind is drawn off from all surrounding objects and wholly fixed on things divine that he sees nothing but the forms and images lying within, and thinks that he perceives with his bodily eyes and ears realities shown him by God.
amazement, the state of one who, either owing to the importance or the novelty of an event, is thrown into a state of blended fear and wonderment

Translated Words
KJV (7) - amazement, 1; astonishment, 1; be amazed + (3083), 2; trance, 3;
NAS (7) - amazement, 1; astonishment, 2; completely, 1; trance, 3;


So Genesis 2:21 is *perfectly* consistent with what I wrote on my web page, and with lexicons!

Perhaps King Arthur can find a Greek lexicon or example which supports his claim that my translation of 'amazed with all amazement' is wrong!

Does nobody else think it suspicious that King Arthur refuses to give lexicon entries for his favoured translation?

Steven Carr

CARR
Of course they did. That is why the invented the miracle stories - to make connections between Jesus and the OT prophets. Word for word copying, great similarities in the plots - what more do you need? Certainly, Christians dismiss the Book of Mormon out of hand because of exactly the same thing.

I'm still baffled why King Arthur has never attempted to attack my Mormon examples.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Peter Kirby

King Arthur writes: The point is that, though they are comprehensive studies of the Septuagint (used in courses by nearly every school that teaches responsibly about the Septuagint), they make no mention of Steven's "examples" as far as I can find. And since they are comprehensive, that says a lot, like his examples aren't considered good by scholars of the Septuagint.

I think you are exaggerating the import of your argument from silence. We don't know why these authors did not mention these alleged cases of imitation of the Old Testament in the four Gospels. Although I would not want to claim that the authors were not aware of the examples given by Carr, it is quite plausible that the authors did not find it both important enough and relevant enough to mention in an introduction to the Septuagint.

What you need is very simple: references from scholars who actually mention these supposed cases of imitation of the OT in the Gospels and who argue that such examples are not sound. And when you do find these references, be sure to post them to an appropriate thread so that we can examine the basis on which these scholars make their claims. We can't play Poker if you don't show your hand.

And, again, reading these books on the Septuagint will not bring us 'up to speed' on this issue because, according to you, these books do not mention this issue at all. The only marginally relevant fact that we might find in these books would be that Carr's examples are not mentioned. But I already learned that from you, and I am not calling you a liar here.

So, go look up some commentaries on Luke and the other gospels, or even better a book that addresses the subject of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Find the passages in which Carr's examples are mentioned, and then quote or summarize their arguments. Then we would have something to chew on.

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

And the NT writers really paid attention to context, didn't they? When they took Isaiah 7:14 and applied it to Jesus, or when Matthew took Rachel weeping and used it in his Gospel. Or the 30 pieces of silver etc etc

The author of Mark took the phrase from 2 Kings 4 and used it out of context (changing it slightly as he did so). So what? When did context matter to the Gospel writers?

Remember 2 Kings 4:13 is just a few verses before Elisha miraculously feeds a crowd of people with just a few loaves of barley bread and a little other food, despite protests that it could not be done, and there was food left over after the miracle. Remarkably similar to a Jesus miracle!

This is a smoking gun that perhaps other stories from 2 Kings 4 might have been looked at. And when you see phrases which are very similar.....

King Arthur

Literal only, true meaning, no. I'm not sure I even believe Breton's footnoted translation here, though. Can you, perhaps, explain the use of hemin in there? I don't see that translating as "amazed with all amazement".

Literally, that phrase seems to be "amazed to us all this amazement".

So, according to you, this is the way the verse would sound:

"And he [Elisha] said to him [Gehazi], Say now to her, Behold, amazed to us all this amazement,what should I do for thee? Hast thou any request to make to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she said, I dwell in the midst of my people."

Comeon', this doesn't make any sense... It's obvious that the translators were attempting to literally render the Hebrew and it didn't come out quite right. Again, from context, it is obvious that the lady went through trouble to get a room set up for the prophet and he is asking her what he can do for her because she went to all the trouble, not all the amazement.

Obviously, the literal definition just does not seem to fit here contextually. This is why I do not give more lexical definitions.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

Let's analyze Steven's claim again:

Now if what he is saying, that the Gospels reinvented the Septuagint miracle stories for Jesus by copying, then you should probably know as I do that this would be extrememly big for Septuagint studies. I cannot imagine that an author I quoted above, knowing of Steven's examples, would not have mentioned them, much less all of them. How could three major, comprehensive [i.e. giving the full Greek and Latin texts of Church fathers uses of the Septuagint, etc.] books on the Septuagint leave these examples out? The website that I gave does not even list 2Kings in its lists! Does this mean that Steven Carr (or someone) has duped them all and found extremely important examples that they missed even though computers were available to some of them?

Sometimes arguments from silence are incredibly powerful. As you should be able to tell, this is one of the more powerful ones.

BTW, Steven, would you please give your source for these? Did you really "find" them yourself or are you borrowing the examples from a book? If a book or scholar, whom? As a hint, this might lend more credibility to your case.

That's kind of hard to do if there is no important scholar who mentions them. Perhaps there is, but I do not know of them off the top of my head, and I do not have the time to spend digging through mounds of books in the library to find a reference, if there is one.

These books will give you more of an understanding of exactly how the NT used the Septuagint, which was mostly in quotes.

Silva and Jobbes, p.183:
"The importance of LXX Greek for understanding the language of the NT is widely acknowledged, although the influence of the former on the latter has sometimes been exaggerated."

Steven's examples of influence very much seem to be a case of this kind of exaggeration.