Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 09-19-2013, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But you Americans don't speak another language. Words don't have just 'one' corresponding term in another language. It's a hard thing to translate a passage especially when you are not trained in that language.

An inaccurate generalization. There are many Americans conversant in other languages. I have friends and family members that are multilingual.
Even 'trained in a language', or being a native speaker is no guarantee of correctly interpreting every sentence composed in that language.
Many written statements remain ambiguous and open to differing interpretations no matter how familiar one is with the language.
Many idioms may be purposely employed in fashions holding a double or even triple entendre that not even a native speaker can positively select a single sense or interpretation of.
It doesn't hurt to keep an open mind ...that is unless you were to fall into the hands of an Inquisition.
They have demonstrated that they could make being so open minded quite painful.

stephan huller · 09-19-2013, 10:59 PM

Well in Europe everyone would understand that you aren't going to find one word in English for every single word in another language. I was saying that you were demonstrating 'dumb-Americanism' rather than all Americans being dumb

stephan huller · 09-19-2013, 11:03 PM

And the sense with the prefix assumed to be ἀ- or ανα- the sense is still the same with respect to Markan primacy. In other words, either Clement said that the other gospels 'only slightly did not acknowledge' Mark or 'did acknowledge again slightly (or 'to varying degrees') Mark. Mark is first and the other gospels followed in either interpretation.

aa5874 · 09-20-2013, 12:16 AM

If Clement argues for Markan primacy then Irenaeus is NOT credible.

Examine Irenaeus "Against Heresies 3.1.1[/u]

Quote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

It is most fascinating that Irenaeus claims that gMark was composed AFTER Peter and Paul were dead.

In Church History attributed to Eusebius, gMark was supposedly already composed since the time of Philo or before c 50 CE.

Vorkosigan · 09-22-2013, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

After a lengthy citation from Mark 10:17 - 31 Clement writes:

Quote:

These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly (ἀνωμολογημένοις); although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning. [QDS 5]

But this Greek word means "come to terms" or "agree upon." It is used when settling an amount owed when a note is pre-existent. I can't help get the sense that Clement is saying Mark wrote his gospel first and the others did their best to come to terms with what he wrote, but I wonder if I am reading too much into this. If it is true, Clement is the first to witness what scholarship has discovered by textual criticism.

It seems to me more likely that he means that they agree because that is the natural outcome of them talking about the same events. I don't think he is positing Markan priority.

stephan huller · 09-22-2013, 08:27 AM

But how else is 'recorrespondingly' explained? The meaning is that Mark wrote something and then the other gospels copied it out.

stephan huller · 09-22-2013, 09:51 AM

Another way the LSJ translates the root of this word is recapitulate - "summarize and state again the main points." I am increasingly confident about this claim

aa5874 · 09-22-2013, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Another way the LSJ translates the root of this word is recapitulate - "summarize and state again the main points." I am increasingly confident about this claim

"Church History" contradicts you. It is specifically stated that Clement claimed the Gospels with the genealogies were composed before gMark.

Church History 6

Quote:

5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.

According to Clement, gMark was composed AFTER Peter was preaching in Rome or AFTER gMatthew and gLuke.

stephan huller · 09-22-2013, 06:29 PM

Stephen Carlson has questioned the traditional translation of Clement's reference to Matthew and Luke being prographein as meaning 'first.' Carlson has persuasively argued that the same word should be interpreted as meaning 'openly' and thus that Clement was really saying that Matthew and Luke were preached publicly - an understanding we should take to mean that the dissemination of the gospel was originally done out in the open in contradistinction to Mark's gospel was done privately and 'in secret.' And so, when we go back to Clement's original statement in the Hypotyposeis we read:

Quote:

Again, in the same books Clement set forth, in the following manner, a tradition of the early elders about the order of the gospels: Clement said that those of the gospels which contain genealogies have been published openly, but that the Gospel according to Mark had this arrangement: after Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome, and expressed the gospel by the spirit, those who were present, being many, urged Mark, since he had followed Peter from way back and remembered what had been said [by him],to write down what was said. After doing so, Mark imparted the gospel to those who were asking him [for it]. When Peter learned of this, he used his powers of persuasion neither to hinder nor to encourage it.

In other words, Clement was making no statement either way as to which gospel - i.e. Mark and Matthew - was published first or last but specifically only comments upon the different means by which each text was disseminated.

aa5874 · 09-22-2013, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Stephen Carlson has questioned the traditional translation of Clement's reference to Matthew and Luke being prographein as meaning 'first.' Carlson has persuasively argued that the same word should be interpreted as meaning 'openly' and thus that Clement was really saying that Matthew and Luke were preached publicly - an understanding we should take to mean that the dissemination of the gospel was originally done out in the open in contradistinction to Mark's gospel was done privately and 'in secret.' And so, when we go back to Clement's original statement in the Hypotyposeis we read:

Quote:

Again, in the same books Clement set forth, in the following manner, a tradition of the early elders about the order of the gospels: Clement said that those of the gospels which contain genealogies have been published openly, but that the Gospel according to Mark had this arrangement: after Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome, and expressed the gospel by the spirit, those who were present, being many, urged Mark, since he had followed Peter from way back and remembered what had been said [by him],to write down what was said. After doing so, Mark imparted the gospel to those who were asking him [for it]. When Peter learned of this, he used his powers of persuasion neither to hinder nor to encourage it.

In other words, Clement was making no statement either way as to which gospel - i.e. Mark and Matthew - was published first or last but specifically only comments upon the different means by which each text was disseminated.

Even if you attempt to change the words 'written first' to 'preached openly' you still cannot show the Clement was arguing for Markan primacy.

In the very passage that you quoted you must have noticed that it is claimed many urged Mark to write what he had remembered Peter said from way back.

There is no argument for Markan primacy at all by Clement.
gMark was WRITTEN after the Gospels with genealogies was preached according to the very passage you posted.

By the way, you are not arguing for Markan primacy but instead now arguing for Markan PRIVACY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan huller

..... Clement was really saying that Matthew and Luke were preached publicly - an understanding we should take to mean that the dissemination of the gospel was originally done out in the open in contradistinction to Mark's gospel was done privately and 'in secret.'

Your argument for Markan PRIVACY is fundamentally flawed.

It is claimed that Mark did WRITE his Gospel and gave it to those who asked for it.

Quote:

.... many, urged Mark, since he had followed Peter from way back and remembered what had been said [by him],to write down what was said. After doing so, Mark imparted the gospel to those who were asking him [for it].

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

09-19-2013, 10:59 PM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well in Europe everyone would understand that you aren't going to find one word in English for every single word in another language. I was saying that you were demonstrating 'dumb-Americanism' rather than all Americans being dumb

09-19-2013, 11:03 PM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And the sense with the prefix assumed to be ἀ- or ανα- the sense is still the same with respect to Markan primacy. In other words, either Clement said that the other gospels 'only slightly did not acknowledge' Mark or 'did acknowledge again slightly (or 'to varying degrees') Mark. Mark is first and the other gospels followed in either interpretation.

09-22-2013, 08:27 AM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But how else is 'recorrespondingly' explained? The meaning is that Mark wrote something and then the other gospels copied it out.

09-22-2013, 09:51 AM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another way the LSJ translates the root of this word is recapitulate - "summarize and state again the main points." I am increasingly confident about this claim

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.