-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion
- Thread starter Mars Man
- Start date
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 4,45 Loeb 1,457-59 (c. 170 CE)
" Here too is a miracle which Apollonius worked; A girl seemed to have died just in the hour of her marriage, and the bridegroom was following here bier lamenting as was natural, his marriage left unfulfilled, and the whole of Rome was mourning with him, for the maiden belonged to a consular family.
Apollonius then witnessing their grief, said, "Put down the bier, for I will stay the tears that you are shedding for this maiden." And with that he asked what her name was. The crowd accordingly thought that he was about to deliver such an oration as is commonly delivered as much to grace the funeral as to stir up lamentation; but he did nothing of the kind, but merely touching her ad whispering in secret some spell over her, at once woke up the maiden from her seeming death; and the girl spoke out loud, and returned to here father's house, just as Alcestis did when she was brought back to life by Hercules. And the relations of the maiden wanted to present him with the sum of 150,000sesterces, but he said that he would freely present the money to the young lady by way of dowry.
Now whether he detected some spark of life in her, which those who were nursing her had not noticed--for it is said that although it was raining at the time, a vapour went up from her face--or whether life was really extinct, and he restored it by the warmth of his touch, is a mysterious problem which neither I myself nor those who were present could decide.
" Here too is a miracle which Apollonius worked; A girl seemed to have died just in the hour of her marriage, and the bridegroom was following here bier lamenting as was natural, his marriage left unfulfilled, and the whole of Rome was mourning with him, for the maiden belonged to a consular family.
Apollonius then witnessing their grief, said, "Put down the bier, for I will stay the tears that you are shedding for this maiden." And with that he asked what her name was. The crowd accordingly thought that he was about to deliver such an oration as is commonly delivered as much to grace the funeral as to stir up lamentation; but he did nothing of the kind, but merely touching her ad whispering in secret some spell over her, at once woke up the maiden from her seeming death; and the girl spoke out loud, and returned to here father's house, just as Alcestis did when she was brought back to life by Hercules. And the relations of the maiden wanted to present him with the sum of 150,000sesterces, but he said that he would freely present the money to the young lady by way of dowry.
Now whether he detected some spark of life in her, which those who were nursing her had not noticed--for it is said that although it was raining at the time, a vapour went up from her face--or whether life was really extinct, and he restored it by the warmth of his touch, is a mysterious problem which neither I myself nor those who were present could decide.
There are many instances of conversations recorded in the Talmuds, in the same nature of the historical records which are included in the Palestinian Canon. The following is an example from the Yerushalmi Talmud Demai 1; 21d-22a. I don't have a pecise date on this, but it thought to be fourth generation Tannaim--the redactation was in 350 CE,--putting it somewhere between 160-200 CE.
(NOTE: this transaltion uses a more direct scriptive style, looking more like the Hebrew; there are no quotation marks used.)
R Mana said: At that time, he said: I do not even resemble the she-ass of R Pinhas b Yair. Robbers stole the se-ass of R Pinhas b Yair at night and she was hidden with them for three days and did not eat anything. After three days, they decided to return her to her master.
Thye said: Let us send her back to her master, so that she does not die with us and smell up the cave. They let her go and she went; arriving at the gate of her master, she went braying.
He said to them: Open up for that poor wayfarer for it is three days now that she has not eaten anything. They opended upfor her and she came in.
He said to them: Give her something to eat. They put barley before her but she did not want to eat.
They said to him: Rabbi, she does not want to eat.
He said to them: Have you made it fit?
They said to him: Yes.
He said to them: Have you paid the demai [tax for when in doubt about matters]?
They said to him: But did not fabbi teach that he who purchases grain for beasts, flour for [tanning] hides, oil for light, or oil for pouring on vessels is exempted from the demai?
He said to them: But what can we do with this poor beast when she is so very strict with herself? They paid the demai and she ate.
And one older example from the Babylonian Talmud (first generation; 1-90 CE)
Berakot 34b
Our masters taught: It happened that the son of Rabban Gamaliel fell sick. He sent two disciples to R Hanina b Dosa to ask mercy for him. As soon as Hanina saw them, he mounted to an upper room and asked mercy for him. When he came down, he said to them: Go, for the fever has left him.
They said to him: Are you a prophet?
He said to them: I am not a prophet nor a son of a prophet; but I have learned this: if my prayer is fluent in my mouth I know that it is accepted, and if not, I know that it is rejected. They sat down and noted, determining the exact hour. And as they were coming in to Rabbon Gamaliel, he said to them: By the worship! You are not too soon or too late, but as it happened, it was exactly at that hour that the fever left him and he asked us for some water to drink.
From these and the many stories and historical works of Jewish origin, it is clear that direct quotations were just as much direct quotations in that day and age as they are today--the matter, as earlier implied (#41, par. 1) is clearly beyond a reasonable doubt, actually,
(NOTE: this transaltion uses a more direct scriptive style, looking more like the Hebrew; there are no quotation marks used.)
R Mana said: At that time, he said: I do not even resemble the she-ass of R Pinhas b Yair. Robbers stole the se-ass of R Pinhas b Yair at night and she was hidden with them for three days and did not eat anything. After three days, they decided to return her to her master.
Thye said: Let us send her back to her master, so that she does not die with us and smell up the cave. They let her go and she went; arriving at the gate of her master, she went braying.
He said to them: Open up for that poor wayfarer for it is three days now that she has not eaten anything. They opended upfor her and she came in.
He said to them: Give her something to eat. They put barley before her but she did not want to eat.
They said to him: Rabbi, she does not want to eat.
He said to them: Have you made it fit?
They said to him: Yes.
He said to them: Have you paid the demai [tax for when in doubt about matters]?
They said to him: But did not fabbi teach that he who purchases grain for beasts, flour for [tanning] hides, oil for light, or oil for pouring on vessels is exempted from the demai?
He said to them: But what can we do with this poor beast when she is so very strict with herself? They paid the demai and she ate.
And one older example from the Babylonian Talmud (first generation; 1-90 CE)
Berakot 34b
Our masters taught: It happened that the son of Rabban Gamaliel fell sick. He sent two disciples to R Hanina b Dosa to ask mercy for him. As soon as Hanina saw them, he mounted to an upper room and asked mercy for him. When he came down, he said to them: Go, for the fever has left him.
They said to him: Are you a prophet?
He said to them: I am not a prophet nor a son of a prophet; but I have learned this: if my prayer is fluent in my mouth I know that it is accepted, and if not, I know that it is rejected. They sat down and noted, determining the exact hour. And as they were coming in to Rabbon Gamaliel, he said to them: By the worship! You are not too soon or too late, but as it happened, it was exactly at that hour that the fever left him and he asked us for some water to drink.
From these and the many stories and historical works of Jewish origin, it is clear that direct quotations were just as much direct quotations in that day and age as they are today--the matter, as earlier implied (#41, par. 1) is clearly beyond a reasonable doubt, actually,
That is interesting and without background, I can't really address the identical wording issue. I can't account for why it occurs here, nor can I say if this is an anomoly or a regular practice. There is no second or third account to compare this to. It is not clear to me that another account would use the exact wording unless like some of the NT quotes of the OT, they were quoting something that is written. It is also not clear to me that a slight variation in wording would make much of a difference in this context.
sabro san,
Please forgive me, I couldn't quite catch just what understanding/perception your concerns were from in that last post.
The extra-biblical material presented in several recent posts of mine have been primarily for the pupose of providing evidence of the nature of writings and narratives that were fairly well known in the time period in which those which made their ways into the Gospel Narratives were made.
One point is in regards to direct quotations; they are common enough, and the intention to present what one has spoken is clear enough to demand the understanding that the Gospel writers also, equally intended to present the conversations given, as having occured in history.
Another point which is being brought out (I have just a few more to add to the evidence file [from among the many more possible]) is the nature of such stories from the point of view of the acceptance of the public at large. In this matter, the charge that one could not embellish, make largely unknowable, grandiose claims, or tell out-right lies without getting public condemnation, is unfounded--especially when it came to matters of a religious nature.
That there are motifs which the Gospel writers, for example, among others, borrowed and used, is a known thing. Of course, the motif borrowing may be in the way of either embellishment, use, attribution, or transposition, but I'm not really focusing on that. I'm just presenting the evidence showing that we are to take the 'scenes' that the Gospel authors give as their presentation of what happened, and what words were spoken, by whom.
The matter of punctuation, should already have been set aside, as it holds no weight at all in this matter. The point about going from Aramaic into Greek should have been understood, by now, to of course leave some margin for variance, but only to a certain degree. Linguistical understandings can be applied there to determine to just what degree any possible original can be deduced--and there are without reasonable doubt, claims which cannot be reduced to any original statement, in the Gospel accounts.
From here I will post a few more pieces of such evidence, and then give notice of the results of my thinking about this thread and the procedure I've been using, as mentioned in my #81 (esp. " I'll let this sit for a while, think about what to do, then come back...On hold--for a while.")
Thanks for your thoughts sabro san! The above is intended for the information of all, as well.
(I kind of wonder just why it is that our pal and friend Mike doesn't like these little cute things? Hummmmmmm? :souka: ) See you 'round !!
Please forgive me, I couldn't quite catch just what understanding/perception your concerns were from in that last post.
The extra-biblical material presented in several recent posts of mine have been primarily for the pupose of providing evidence of the nature of writings and narratives that were fairly well known in the time period in which those which made their ways into the Gospel Narratives were made.
One point is in regards to direct quotations; they are common enough, and the intention to present what one has spoken is clear enough to demand the understanding that the Gospel writers also, equally intended to present the conversations given, as having occured in history.
Another point which is being brought out (I have just a few more to add to the evidence file [from among the many more possible]) is the nature of such stories from the point of view of the acceptance of the public at large. In this matter, the charge that one could not embellish, make largely unknowable, grandiose claims, or tell out-right lies without getting public condemnation, is unfounded--especially when it came to matters of a religious nature.
That there are motifs which the Gospel writers, for example, among others, borrowed and used, is a known thing. Of course, the motif borrowing may be in the way of either embellishment, use, attribution, or transposition, but I'm not really focusing on that. I'm just presenting the evidence showing that we are to take the 'scenes' that the Gospel authors give as their presentation of what happened, and what words were spoken, by whom.
The matter of punctuation, should already have been set aside, as it holds no weight at all in this matter. The point about going from Aramaic into Greek should have been understood, by now, to of course leave some margin for variance, but only to a certain degree. Linguistical understandings can be applied there to determine to just what degree any possible original can be deduced--and there are without reasonable doubt, claims which cannot be reduced to any original statement, in the Gospel accounts.
From here I will post a few more pieces of such evidence, and then give notice of the results of my thinking about this thread and the procedure I've been using, as mentioned in my #81 (esp. " I'll let this sit for a while, think about what to do, then come back...On hold--for a while.")
Thanks for your thoughts sabro san! The above is intended for the information of all, as well.
(I kind of wonder just why it is that our pal and friend Mike doesn't like these little cute things? Hummmmmmm? :souka: ) See you 'round !!
Last edited:
I'm not certain that two people of that time recording the same conversation especially in two different languages (Aramaic and Greek) might not record the wording of specific quotes differently. The use of an accurate paraphrase might be acceptable to those writers in such cases. I would need more background and more examples, but I am almost certain, at least in my study of English literature that direct quotation is a modern convention in our language.
I always seem to run out of time these days--a little too many things keep popping up on the daily 'to-do' list, I guess--along with an occasional student coming in my office for whathaveyou reason.
sabro san, again thanks for your thoughts and the insight contained it them. I understand the idea you presented about two different people going from one same language into a different same language in a manner of paraphrasing. I would reason that there would surely be some examples of this among the many quotes that we find in the Gospel accounts, although not that that negates those for which strained or no original wording can be deduced. (It is important to continually keep in mind that it cannot be determined to what degree the three may or may not have used a Greek source called 'Q', and possibly added their penchant to that.)
Going back to 'Historical Errors ' #1 (post 12, pg 1), for example, Luke's claim that Jeshua had said, "What do you (sing) want me to do for you (sing)?" is presented as the words spoken within the context of that historical situation. It is because there has to be coherence within that contextual understanding that the words were given. (Lk 18:41)
The record in Matthew of the very same historical event (as understood to be so by that author) claims that Jeshua had said, "What do you (pl) want me to do for you (pl)?" It is here that we would have to admit that an original Aramaic wording cannot be deduced, because we are forced to choose one understanding of quantity over the other, and we cannot know what the reality had been. In this case, I don't reason that we could appeal to paraphrasing of an original. (Mt 20:32)
Well, I just ran out of time. I had wanted to give a few more examples here and expain them thoroughly (I feel that that has been one miss on my part from back with post #12; to not explain thoroughly enough--I had wanted to cover ground.) Well, I'll get back to that as soon as possible (it'll be tomorrow J-time) and then put those other extra-biblical examples in the evidence box as well. I'M SORRY....I JUST COULDN'T GET IT ALL IN ONE GO.
(that may be easier for reading though) See you
sabro san, again thanks for your thoughts and the insight contained it them. I understand the idea you presented about two different people going from one same language into a different same language in a manner of paraphrasing. I would reason that there would surely be some examples of this among the many quotes that we find in the Gospel accounts, although not that that negates those for which strained or no original wording can be deduced. (It is important to continually keep in mind that it cannot be determined to what degree the three may or may not have used a Greek source called 'Q', and possibly added their penchant to that.)
Going back to 'Historical Errors ' #1 (post 12, pg 1), for example, Luke's claim that Jeshua had said, "What do you (sing) want me to do for you (sing)?" is presented as the words spoken within the context of that historical situation. It is because there has to be coherence within that contextual understanding that the words were given. (Lk 18:41)
The record in Matthew of the very same historical event (as understood to be so by that author) claims that Jeshua had said, "What do you (pl) want me to do for you (pl)?" It is here that we would have to admit that an original Aramaic wording cannot be deduced, because we are forced to choose one understanding of quantity over the other, and we cannot know what the reality had been. In this case, I don't reason that we could appeal to paraphrasing of an original. (Mt 20:32)
Well, I just ran out of time. I had wanted to give a few more examples here and expain them thoroughly (I feel that that has been one miss on my part from back with post #12; to not explain thoroughly enough--I had wanted to cover ground.) Well, I'll get back to that as soon as possible (it'll be tomorrow J-time) and then put those other extra-biblical examples in the evidence box as well. I'M SORRY....I JUST COULDN'T GET IT ALL IN ONE GO.
(that may be easier for reading though) See you
Kaminari
Regular Member
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
Oh dear ...
It seems that the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John were not written by the people whose names they bear, but by some one (or more) of their students (for want of a better term). The accounts of those gospels do not describe key points in the first person, but in the third.
... and my speech and message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (Common Bible, 1 Corinthians 2:4-6)
It seems that the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John were not written by the people whose names they bear, but by some one (or more) of their students (for want of a better term). The accounts of those gospels do not describe key points in the first person, but in the third.
First and foremost; Greetings there Kaminari san !! You may now understand just how behind I am. I have made an honest effort to greet all newcomers, because I felt so good, and welcomed with the greetings I recieved from some in the forum. I apologize, and will make myself work harder today in order to catch up with that.
The first quote you'd given there (my #1, par. 2) was referring to Christianity today, rather than that of the first century--there is some background to why it was not explained better, which lies in where this thread came from, but that's old now. While it is quite certain, almost absolutely known fact, that the first centry Christians used the LXX, I would think that probably more of the copies of that were of the Palestinian canon rather than the Samaritian canon--as reagards the Torah, at least.
If this area of consideration interests you, I look forward to your following and reasoning with us.
CONTINUING from yesterday's post #108
In HE (Historical Errors) #2 (post 13,pg 1) The writer of Luke claims that Jeshua had told two of his disciples to, "Be going (you [pl]) into the the yonder village in which you (pl) will find (a) colt having been tied, upon which no one at any time (of) men (have) sat down, and having loosened, it (you [pl]) lead . . . " Whereas the writer of Matthew's narrative presents the conversation as follows: "Be going (you [pl]) your way into the village the (one) opposite you (pl) and at once you (pl) will find (an) ass having been tied and (a) colt with her. Having loosed, lead (you [pl]) to me. . . " (Lk 19:?R0; Mt 21:2)
The conflict here is that both, the idea of the modifiying phrase which comes within the flow of the communication, and the understanding of quantity, lie outside the boundry of simply paraphrasing an original Aramaic sentence. The modifying phrase, "...upon which no one at any time (of) men (have) sat down..." is tightly embedded within the overall communicated perception, and to paraphrase it would have had to have led to a similar clause in both quotes. If we were to take any possible original Aramaic wording to have included the concept in that embedded phrase, we would equally, and logically, be required to acquiesce that a paraphrase, even, which did not include that concept would be a misquote--or error.
Of course, with the matter of quantity, as well, it can only be said that the wording in any original statement would have had only one quantity identified. It is most unreasonable, and unrealistic to attempt to argue that an 'either or' concept could have been in the original because the overall context provided by both wordings given do not allow for such. It is equally unfounded to say that it had simply been a matter of one writer having paid more attention to count, for the very same reason--as well the absurdity that anyone cannot distinguish between one and two. (seven versus nine having been the difference, may have been understandable, of course)
As a minimum requirement for witness, if you will, I present only these two, although all the quotes which prove to be errors, presented so far in those HE presentations, have been reasoned on in the same manner which is why I had presented them as historical errors--one claim, among the two or several, cannot be reduced into a likely original communication.
Sabro san, I do not know enough about English literature to make any claims about how direct quotations have been seen through the history of that language. I would depend our your knowledge there, but would voice the suggestion that it may be important to try to figure out just how quotes were seen by those of any language throughout the history of human kind. It is most obvious that we have the quotes, and it is most understandable that writers were giving the word spoken with the intention of saying, 'this is what was said' by whomever that writer is quoting. (and I mean writers of that age and location, esp.)
The thing to work out, just as you have highlighted, basically, is to what degree the writers and the audience at large considered a quote to have to be verbatim. I would tend to think that that is what may have changed over time. Yet, with that considered, even, to be historically correct, you could not just have a person saying any ole thing you'd want them to say, right?
The first quote you'd given there (my #1, par. 2) was referring to Christianity today, rather than that of the first century--there is some background to why it was not explained better, which lies in where this thread came from, but that's old now. While it is quite certain, almost absolutely known fact, that the first centry Christians used the LXX, I would think that probably more of the copies of that were of the Palestinian canon rather than the Samaritian canon--as reagards the Torah, at least.
If this area of consideration interests you, I look forward to your following and reasoning with us.
CONTINUING from yesterday's post #108
In HE (Historical Errors) #2 (post 13,pg 1) The writer of Luke claims that Jeshua had told two of his disciples to, "Be going (you [pl]) into the the yonder village in which you (pl) will find (a) colt having been tied, upon which no one at any time (of) men (have) sat down, and having loosened, it (you [pl]) lead . . . " Whereas the writer of Matthew's narrative presents the conversation as follows: "Be going (you [pl]) your way into the village the (one) opposite you (pl) and at once you (pl) will find (an) ass having been tied and (a) colt with her. Having loosed, lead (you [pl]) to me. . . " (Lk 19:?R0; Mt 21:2)
The conflict here is that both, the idea of the modifiying phrase which comes within the flow of the communication, and the understanding of quantity, lie outside the boundry of simply paraphrasing an original Aramaic sentence. The modifying phrase, "...upon which no one at any time (of) men (have) sat down..." is tightly embedded within the overall communicated perception, and to paraphrase it would have had to have led to a similar clause in both quotes. If we were to take any possible original Aramaic wording to have included the concept in that embedded phrase, we would equally, and logically, be required to acquiesce that a paraphrase, even, which did not include that concept would be a misquote--or error.
Of course, with the matter of quantity, as well, it can only be said that the wording in any original statement would have had only one quantity identified. It is most unreasonable, and unrealistic to attempt to argue that an 'either or' concept could have been in the original because the overall context provided by both wordings given do not allow for such. It is equally unfounded to say that it had simply been a matter of one writer having paid more attention to count, for the very same reason--as well the absurdity that anyone cannot distinguish between one and two. (seven versus nine having been the difference, may have been understandable, of course)
As a minimum requirement for witness, if you will, I present only these two, although all the quotes which prove to be errors, presented so far in those HE presentations, have been reasoned on in the same manner which is why I had presented them as historical errors--one claim, among the two or several, cannot be reduced into a likely original communication.
Sabro san, I do not know enough about English literature to make any claims about how direct quotations have been seen through the history of that language. I would depend our your knowledge there, but would voice the suggestion that it may be important to try to figure out just how quotes were seen by those of any language throughout the history of human kind. It is most obvious that we have the quotes, and it is most understandable that writers were giving the word spoken with the intention of saying, 'this is what was said' by whomever that writer is quoting. (and I mean writers of that age and location, esp.)
The thing to work out, just as you have highlighted, basically, is to what degree the writers and the audience at large considered a quote to have to be verbatim. I would tend to think that that is what may have changed over time. Yet, with that considered, even, to be historically correct, you could not just have a person saying any ole thing you'd want them to say, right?
And now, some more of the stories of that era:
Flavius Josephus Jewish Antiquities 8,2,5 Loeb 5, 595-97
(in a section where Josephus is talking about King Solomon, of old, he interjects a short description of one contemporary, Eleazar)
There was no form of nature with which he (Solomon) was not aquainted or which he passed over without examining, . . . He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return. And this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day, for I have seen a certain Eleazar, a contryman on mine, in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, tribunes and a numbere of other soldiers, free men possessed by demons, and this was the manner of the cure: he put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon's name and reciting the incantations which he had composed. Then, wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed a cup or footbasin full of water a little way off and commanded the demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make know to the spectators that he had left the man. . .
Pausanias Description of Greece 6,26,1 (mid 2nd century) Loeb 3,157-59
Between the market-place and the Menius is an old theatre and a shrine of Dionysus. The image is the work of Praxiteles. Of the gods the Eleans worship Dionysus with the greatest reverence, and the assert that the gods attends their festival, the Thyia.
The place where they hold the festival they named the Thyia, is about eight stades from the city. Three pots are brought into the building by the priests and set down empty in the presence of the citizens and of any strangers who may chance to be in the country. The doors of the building are sealed by the priests themselves and by any others who may be so inclined. On the morrow (the next day, ie) they ( all the peoples) are allowed to examine the pots filled with wine.
I did not myself arive at the time of the festival, but the most respected Elean citizens, and with them the strangers also, swore that what I have said is the truth. The Andreans too assert that every other year at their feast of Dionysus wine flows of its own acord from the sanctuary. If the Greeks are to be believed in these matters, one might with equal reason accept what the Aehtiopians above Syene say about the table of the sun.
Lucian The Lover of Lies 11 (2nd century) Koeb 3,335-37
(There is a conversation about the topic of men's love for lying and believing strange tales, where some are trying to justify their existence, then...)
"Never mind him," said Ion, " and I will tell you a wonderful story. I was still a young lad, about 14 years old, when someone came and told my father that Midas the vine-dresser, ordinarily a strong and industious servant, had been bitten by a viper toward midday and was lying down, with his leg already in a state of mortification. While he was tying up the runners and twining them about the poles, the creature had crawled up and bitten him on the great toe; then it had quickly gone down again into its hole, and he was groaning in mortal anguish.
"As this report was being made, we saw Midas himself being brought up on a litter by his fellow-slaves, all swollen and livid, with a clammy skin and but little breath left in him. Naturally my father was distressed, but a friend who was there said to him: 'Cheer up, I will at once go and get you a Babylonian, one of the so-called Chaldeans, who will cure the fellow.' Not to make a long story of it, the Babylonian came and brought Midas back to life, driving the poison out of his body by a spell, and also binding upon his foot a fragment which he broke off from the tombstone of a dead maiden.
"Perhaps this is nothing out of the common: although Midas himself picked up the litter on which he had been carried and went off to the farm, so potent was the spell and the fragment of the tombstone." (and it continues with some other wonder stories of the Babylonians.)
There are some other really interesting ones, some funny ones too, but as for evidence, I'll offer these only, at the moment. Next I hope to present my thoughts on this thread, as talked about earlier.
Flavius Josephus Jewish Antiquities 8,2,5 Loeb 5, 595-97
(in a section where Josephus is talking about King Solomon, of old, he interjects a short description of one contemporary, Eleazar)
There was no form of nature with which he (Solomon) was not aquainted or which he passed over without examining, . . . He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return. And this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day, for I have seen a certain Eleazar, a contryman on mine, in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, tribunes and a numbere of other soldiers, free men possessed by demons, and this was the manner of the cure: he put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon's name and reciting the incantations which he had composed. Then, wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed a cup or footbasin full of water a little way off and commanded the demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make know to the spectators that he had left the man. . .
Pausanias Description of Greece 6,26,1 (mid 2nd century) Loeb 3,157-59
Between the market-place and the Menius is an old theatre and a shrine of Dionysus. The image is the work of Praxiteles. Of the gods the Eleans worship Dionysus with the greatest reverence, and the assert that the gods attends their festival, the Thyia.
The place where they hold the festival they named the Thyia, is about eight stades from the city. Three pots are brought into the building by the priests and set down empty in the presence of the citizens and of any strangers who may chance to be in the country. The doors of the building are sealed by the priests themselves and by any others who may be so inclined. On the morrow (the next day, ie) they ( all the peoples) are allowed to examine the pots filled with wine.
I did not myself arive at the time of the festival, but the most respected Elean citizens, and with them the strangers also, swore that what I have said is the truth. The Andreans too assert that every other year at their feast of Dionysus wine flows of its own acord from the sanctuary. If the Greeks are to be believed in these matters, one might with equal reason accept what the Aehtiopians above Syene say about the table of the sun.
Lucian The Lover of Lies 11 (2nd century) Koeb 3,335-37
(There is a conversation about the topic of men's love for lying and believing strange tales, where some are trying to justify their existence, then...)
"Never mind him," said Ion, " and I will tell you a wonderful story. I was still a young lad, about 14 years old, when someone came and told my father that Midas the vine-dresser, ordinarily a strong and industious servant, had been bitten by a viper toward midday and was lying down, with his leg already in a state of mortification. While he was tying up the runners and twining them about the poles, the creature had crawled up and bitten him on the great toe; then it had quickly gone down again into its hole, and he was groaning in mortal anguish.
"As this report was being made, we saw Midas himself being brought up on a litter by his fellow-slaves, all swollen and livid, with a clammy skin and but little breath left in him. Naturally my father was distressed, but a friend who was there said to him: 'Cheer up, I will at once go and get you a Babylonian, one of the so-called Chaldeans, who will cure the fellow.' Not to make a long story of it, the Babylonian came and brought Midas back to life, driving the poison out of his body by a spell, and also binding upon his foot a fragment which he broke off from the tombstone of a dead maiden.
"Perhaps this is nothing out of the common: although Midas himself picked up the litter on which he had been carried and went off to the farm, so potent was the spell and the fragment of the tombstone." (and it continues with some other wonder stories of the Babylonians.)
There are some other really interesting ones, some funny ones too, but as for evidence, I'll offer these only, at the moment. Next I hope to present my thoughts on this thread, as talked about earlier.
Last edited:
Kaminari
Regular Member
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
It is hard work picking up on the thread at so late a date, so I will apologise in advance for any repetition of prior comments that I may make.
From what I understand of Koine Greek practice, a near miss was as good as a hit when it came to quotes. There was not the same emphasis on exactitude that exists in English. To present a restricted example: "He said to her in the presence of them all" could very easily in one report be "He said to her" and in another "He said to them" without, under the rules of Koine Greek grammar, any concept of inaccuracy arising.
To further illustrate - The LXX did in fact translate the books of the law from the Palestinian* texts, but the prophetic and poetical works (the bulk of the Old Testament) predominantly came from the Samaritan. However, the translation was by no means exact: for example, the Hebrew "Man is born to trouble as (in the same way that) the sparks fly upward," becomes in the LXX "Man is born to toil and the vulture to its nest." For all that**, the Septuagint was regarded as authoritive both generally and in the temple until somewhen in the 2nd Century CE. It was then realised, that the variances introduced in the LXX gave greater credence to Jesus as Messiah than did the originals. Note also that a couple of the quotes of scripture (OT) in the New Testament do not refer to anything that can be found in the OT, nor in the apocrypha - scripture seems to have a somewhat more restricted definition today than it did back in the when.
*and while I am typing this, I see why Palestinian is used rather than Hebrew, given that both Palestinian and Samaritan texts were written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
**Rules of translation for the time being that if the concept was accurately conveyed, the translation was valid.
Biblical errors are well documented and real, however, the key issue is - What precisely constitutes scripture? The standard churches teach that everything in the Bible is scripture. That simply is not the case: the basic foundation for scripture is that it must be established as fact. And by the rule laid down in the Bible, fact is established on the testimony of two or more (reliable) witnesses. Exeunt the women are inferiors precept...only one witness, and he in opposition to more than one recorded demonstration to the contrary.
From what I understand of Koine Greek practice, a near miss was as good as a hit when it came to quotes. There was not the same emphasis on exactitude that exists in English. To present a restricted example: "He said to her in the presence of them all" could very easily in one report be "He said to her" and in another "He said to them" without, under the rules of Koine Greek grammar, any concept of inaccuracy arising.
To further illustrate - The LXX did in fact translate the books of the law from the Palestinian* texts, but the prophetic and poetical works (the bulk of the Old Testament) predominantly came from the Samaritan. However, the translation was by no means exact: for example, the Hebrew "Man is born to trouble as (in the same way that) the sparks fly upward," becomes in the LXX "Man is born to toil and the vulture to its nest." For all that**, the Septuagint was regarded as authoritive both generally and in the temple until somewhen in the 2nd Century CE. It was then realised, that the variances introduced in the LXX gave greater credence to Jesus as Messiah than did the originals. Note also that a couple of the quotes of scripture (OT) in the New Testament do not refer to anything that can be found in the OT, nor in the apocrypha - scripture seems to have a somewhat more restricted definition today than it did back in the when.
*and while I am typing this, I see why Palestinian is used rather than Hebrew, given that both Palestinian and Samaritan texts were written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
**Rules of translation for the time being that if the concept was accurately conveyed, the translation was valid.
Biblical errors are well documented and real, however, the key issue is - What precisely constitutes scripture? The standard churches teach that everything in the Bible is scripture. That simply is not the case: the basic foundation for scripture is that it must be established as fact. And by the rule laid down in the Bible, fact is established on the testimony of two or more (reliable) witnesses. Exeunt the women are inferiors precept...only one witness, and he in opposition to more than one recorded demonstration to the contrary.
Last edited:
As the sun softly and ever so subtly shifts its light rays toward only the tips of the mountians, I sit back down at my desk, and open the forum to just check, and LO and BEHOLD a new post already. Wow, then I looked and it caught my deeper attention, oh The Land Down Under is still quite lined up with Japan--rather than on the other side of the globe, I see... I've been used to the opposite side of the clock for activity to come in; for the most part. Interesting.
I know exactly where you are coming from Kaminari san, on that checking out the thread thing. . . it's like a real, real task, and it's just so easy to, well, let it slide. No problem here.
Thanks for your input there. I think I can get the point that's being made about the 'near miss' being as good as 'a hit', but would offer the concept that that is not a grammatical matter, but rather a usage, or social matter. Of course your point is well taken, although I would still tend to reason, that to fairly show that the intention of any writer of that day would not have been to state what that particular writer had thought or taken or recalled the one being quoted to have said, would require further notice from that writer him/herself, or from the tone of the written work within which any quote comes. Since context plays a definitive role in determining meaning and intent, it becomes necessary to take that all into consideration too.
I'm not so sure about the other scrolls of the LXX, there is some confusion and debate there which I haven't shifted out yet, but I would think that it may not really be determinable where the LXX had actually came from. The letter of Aristeas is considered most likely a pseudo-writing. From what I have studied about those several translations, maybe Origen's Hexapla, although terse reading and grammatically strange (for Greek) may have well been an attempt to correct what the Jewish church (Palestine) considered weak translation in other LXX works. But a number of commentors on these works have pointed out that to some extent, and especially in some areas, there is more interpretation of the Hebrew than translation. There is also some degree of leaving the spirit of the Hebrew works as well. (My sources are in the dozo, not in my office here) The Jewish religious leaders fixed the canon around 98-100 CE at the council of Jabneh.
That appears to be an interesting, and somewhat unusual idea on the what constitutes 'scripture'. You may have to define how you had been using the term 'Biblical errors', if you had not been using it as defined so far in the thread, in order to help me see just what may mean by 'scripture'.
I appreciate your pitching in and letting us know what your thoughts are. I need to go do a little catching up on the New Members thread. See you all !!
I know exactly where you are coming from Kaminari san, on that checking out the thread thing. . . it's like a real, real task, and it's just so easy to, well, let it slide. No problem here.
Thanks for your input there. I think I can get the point that's being made about the 'near miss' being as good as 'a hit', but would offer the concept that that is not a grammatical matter, but rather a usage, or social matter. Of course your point is well taken, although I would still tend to reason, that to fairly show that the intention of any writer of that day would not have been to state what that particular writer had thought or taken or recalled the one being quoted to have said, would require further notice from that writer him/herself, or from the tone of the written work within which any quote comes. Since context plays a definitive role in determining meaning and intent, it becomes necessary to take that all into consideration too.
I'm not so sure about the other scrolls of the LXX, there is some confusion and debate there which I haven't shifted out yet, but I would think that it may not really be determinable where the LXX had actually came from. The letter of Aristeas is considered most likely a pseudo-writing. From what I have studied about those several translations, maybe Origen's Hexapla, although terse reading and grammatically strange (for Greek) may have well been an attempt to correct what the Jewish church (Palestine) considered weak translation in other LXX works. But a number of commentors on these works have pointed out that to some extent, and especially in some areas, there is more interpretation of the Hebrew than translation. There is also some degree of leaving the spirit of the Hebrew works as well. (My sources are in the dozo, not in my office here) The Jewish religious leaders fixed the canon around 98-100 CE at the council of Jabneh.
That appears to be an interesting, and somewhat unusual idea on the what constitutes 'scripture'. You may have to define how you had been using the term 'Biblical errors', if you had not been using it as defined so far in the thread, in order to help me see just what may mean by 'scripture'.
I appreciate your pitching in and letting us know what your thoughts are. I need to go do a little catching up on the New Members thread. See you all !!
Is there a difference between the plural greek in LK 18:41 or the singular aramaic in MK 20:32? Jesus is reputed to say something to the effect of "what do you want me to do for you?" In this context, it seems like it makes no difference.
I dropped by the uni today, (Sat.) which is something I don't usually do, so I've only time for a jot or two.
Thanks for the comments, questions, and thoughts there. Regarding the concept of a singular, second person versus a plural, second person in accusative or dative modes, the general meaning of any accompanying phrase may not change, in most cases, but the communicated understanding of the non-linguistical, real-time situation would definitely be different.
In our language it's a bit hard to feel since we have usually grown up with only one second person which plays the dual role of singular and plural, while those who have grown up with, say, usted as opposed to ustedes, or anata against anatagata, si and himeis (and I wish I had the soft in this machine to show the actually script too--although most readers, by far, would have trouble getting some of it)
Actually there are no remains, really, of any 'Matthew' in Aramaic, and the text we have is in Greek. Of course, like the greek, the Hebrew and Aramaic basically have the singular and plural forms, so going from the Aramaic into Greek would have no problem. The context, and thus historical situation presented in Matthew, all work to uphold an understanding that there had been two men present there--who had been spoken to as a group, thus plural. That of Luke upholds the understanding that there had only been one man present and spoken too.
My argument and understanding has been that both scenarios cannot represent a single historical truth, and in that manner within the several presentations there is one presentation which must be thrown out as being in error. In this sense, I call it an 'historical error'. The writers have long been dead so we cannot verify their degree of insistence on accuracy of acts and words beyond what can be determined in the writings they left (again we must hold in mind, all the while, that all three could have used one same written source (Q) for their bases, and that there have been second and third hands involved since the original autograph.) For that reason, even when giving room for paraphrasing in some cases, there can still be historical error when a single original, likely Aramaic phrase cannot be deduced.
This got kind of long for such a short jot, huh? I'll get back with you Kaminari after the weekend--if not tomorrow from the house. I got what you meant, almost 100%, I think, at least--did you go over post #2 on pg.1?
It was nice spending this rather long, little time with you two. I'll catch you later. I've gotta run do some private classes--yes, even on Saturdays I have to work. It's called the 'three eating machines and an old house place' sink blues. (sink as in 'money sink') See you 'round !!
Thanks for the comments, questions, and thoughts there. Regarding the concept of a singular, second person versus a plural, second person in accusative or dative modes, the general meaning of any accompanying phrase may not change, in most cases, but the communicated understanding of the non-linguistical, real-time situation would definitely be different.
In our language it's a bit hard to feel since we have usually grown up with only one second person which plays the dual role of singular and plural, while those who have grown up with, say, usted as opposed to ustedes, or anata against anatagata, si and himeis (and I wish I had the soft in this machine to show the actually script too--although most readers, by far, would have trouble getting some of it)
Actually there are no remains, really, of any 'Matthew' in Aramaic, and the text we have is in Greek. Of course, like the greek, the Hebrew and Aramaic basically have the singular and plural forms, so going from the Aramaic into Greek would have no problem. The context, and thus historical situation presented in Matthew, all work to uphold an understanding that there had been two men present there--who had been spoken to as a group, thus plural. That of Luke upholds the understanding that there had only been one man present and spoken too.
My argument and understanding has been that both scenarios cannot represent a single historical truth, and in that manner within the several presentations there is one presentation which must be thrown out as being in error. In this sense, I call it an 'historical error'. The writers have long been dead so we cannot verify their degree of insistence on accuracy of acts and words beyond what can be determined in the writings they left (again we must hold in mind, all the while, that all three could have used one same written source (Q) for their bases, and that there have been second and third hands involved since the original autograph.) For that reason, even when giving room for paraphrasing in some cases, there can still be historical error when a single original, likely Aramaic phrase cannot be deduced.
This got kind of long for such a short jot, huh? I'll get back with you Kaminari after the weekend--if not tomorrow from the house. I got what you meant, almost 100%, I think, at least--did you go over post #2 on pg.1?
It was nice spending this rather long, little time with you two. I'll catch you later. I've gotta run do some private classes--yes, even on Saturdays I have to work. It's called the 'three eating machines and an old house place' sink blues. (sink as in 'money sink') See you 'round !!
Kaminari
Regular Member
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
I did examine that possibility some years ago, but for reasons now forgotten, I rejected it. I'll try to resurrect the reasons during the next few days.
I'm not sure of the meaning.
With regard to points 2 - 4 of the first post:
I have determined that English language translations do have a tendency in places to be determined by prior held tenets rather than by strict rules of translation. Two are particularly worthy of note...2 Chronicles 3:15 "thirty-five cubits" miraculously becomes "18 cubits" in the New English Translation, and "(together) 35 cubits" in the NIV. It seems that someone(s) noticed that the Chronicles record doesn't line up with the other records (at 1 Kings 7:15, 2 Kings 25:17, Jeremiah 52:17) and decided to correct the error. Fortunately, those same someones overlooked the fact that the chapiters of those pillars are recorded as being 3 cubits in 2 Kings 25:17, and 5 cubits in the other records. However, that error in the so called "without error" Bible is a mere trifle.
The only Bible I have encountered which accurately translates deisidaimonesteroV (Acts 17:22) as "god fearing" or similar, is the TEV English/Japanese Bible. Every other Bible I have seen translates the word as "too superstitious." That the use of "too superstitious" turns the passage into little more than gibberish seems to have escaped the notice of translators from 1611 (if not earlier) until today. In that same passage, most Bibles translate (I note the the New King James renders it correctly) "the unknown god" as "an unknown god." The absence of the definite article in Koine Greek could leave open that second possibility only if the unknown god was not a part of the Greek mythos of the time. In fact, "the unknown god" of Athens was the creator. In sum, going by the majority of the translations (and worst is the New King James) Paul is declaring that the men of Athens are too superstitious because they have an altar dedicated to the god that Paul is proclaiming - that is, the creator.
There is no doubting that Paul was a bonafide apostle (on my part at least). However, none of the apostles were immune to making mistakes. The problem with Paul and the promulgation of his betimes erroneous concepts is - he was the strongest. No-one could stand against him when he was wrong. (Or is it that some of the concepts attributed to Paul were in fact forgeries and escaped detection?) However, there is no excuse for taking any one person's writings as fact when a number of opposing views recorded.
Every fact is established upon the testimony of two or more reliable witnesses. Is a precept scriptural? Where are the other witnesses?