Ignatius and mare, pontos piletas, Herut [Archive I]

Iasion

April 4, 2002, 12:07 AM

Greetings all,

Ignatius occupies a special place in Christian history - he is the first to say anything about a historical Jesus - i.e. the very first to place Jesus in time, the very first to name any names - see my page here to see how Ignatius stands out :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html</a>

Ignatius is the very first to cite these NAMES : Herod, Mary and Pontius Pilate (its another 50 years before anyone mentions the other names and places etc.)

Yet oddly, he does NOT mention ANY other details of the Jesus Story - there is no reference to Joseph, Judas, Lazarus, John the Baptist, Peter, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, r. Jordan, Capernaum, no mention of the events in the life of Jesus, no sayings, no miracles, no baptism, no triumphal entry, no trial, no ascension etc.
He does talk about the 'flesh' of Jesus in very odd ways, as I mention elsewhere. He does talk about being 'raised from the dead' - but its the disciples who are raised - his views are Gnostic, not orthodox.

He shows NOT the slightest suggestion that Jesus is an actual person who lived recently, in fact, he explicitly talks of Jesus and the cross as 'ancient' :
Phil. : " Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity, "

Ignatius writes in distinctly Gnostic terms - mysteries, initiation, personal passion, attaining Christ himself.

Our copies of Ignatius are known to be corrupt, we have several different versions, all late copies - so our 3 references to Herod, Mary and Pilate are uncertain - we are not really sure what he actually wrote.

So,
here is the punch-line :
according to Kuhn, these 3 names are all corruptions of mythological entities -

Mary = mare (the sea, which means 'matter')
Pontius Pilate = pontos piletas (dense sea (of matter))
Herod = Herut (egyptian monster who threatens the child-god)

Considered along with these points:
* Ignatius wrote in Gnostic terms,
* born of Mare and pontos piletas are Gnostic conceptions,
* Ignatius' are notoriusly corrupt writings
* Ignatius mentions ONLY those 3 names

I think it is reasonable to assume that the original writings DID in fact have mare, pontos piletas, and Herut - and that later these were mis-understood or deliberately falsified into the current Mary, Pontius Pilate and Herod.

Quentin David Jones

P.S.

Here are some relevant quotes from Kuhn's "Who Is This King a Glory" (useful reference, available online) :

Herod:
"There is a perfect match between the flight of the parents of Jesus into Egypt for the safety of the divine child from the Herod menace and a similar protection for Horus. The god Taht says to Isis, the mother: "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with the child," and the place of concealment indicated was in the marshes of Lower Egypt--bringing the Moses analogy to mind at once! This is pure evolutionary symbology and not personal history. That there is any vital significance in the fact that Jesus fled to Egypt to escape the Herod menace, while Horus had to be saved from the Herut menace in Lower Egypt will probably be shouted down by hostile critics."
"It must be left then to rest upon the strong presumptive probabilities inherent in the situation. It must be held deeply suggestive, however, that the name Herod occupies exactly the same place, role and significance in the Gospel "incident" that the Herut reptile fills in the Egyptian allegory! It is the Herut menace to our young divine souls in the one instance, and the Herod menace to the young divinity in the other"

Pontius Pilate
"... our amazement when we turn to the Greek and find a similarity of name even closer to identity than the Herod-Herut one-- "dense sea" in the Greek manuscripts is given as (pontos pil�tos)! "He suffered under pontos pil�tos: he suffered under the dense sea" (of matter)."

Mary :
"Now matter, as has been set forth fully elsewhere, was typified universally and ubiquitously in ancient symbolism by water, so that even the name most generally applied to the mothers of the Christs was in whatever language the word for water, sea, ocean. Mary is incontestably of this origin, being Mare, Maria in Latin, and Thallath, "the sea" (name of a Hellenic "Mother of God"), in Greek"

April 4, 2002, 10:21 AM

Mary = mare (the sea, which means 'matter')

Mary :
"Now matter, as has been set forth fully elsewhere, was typified universally and ubiquitously in ancient symbolism by water, so that even the name most generally applied to the mothers of the Christs was in whatever language the word for water, sea, ocean. Mary is incontestably of this origin, being Mare, Maria in Latin, and Thallath, "the sea" (name of a Hellenic "Mother of God"), in Greek"

This is absurd. The name mary is rendered in the Greek manuscripts MARIAS and is a transliteration of a Hebrew name. It bears no etymological resemblance to QALASSA the Greek word for sea. That there is a resemblance in the English transliteration of both the Greek MARIAS and the Latin MARE is irrelevant. And to make something of it is senseless.

Pontius Pilate = pontos piletas (dense sea (of matter))

Pontius Pilate
"... our amazement when we turn to the Greek and find a similarity of name even closer to identity than the Herod-Herut one-- "dense sea" in the Greek manuscripts is given as (pontos pil�tos)! "He suffered under pontos pil�tos: he suffered under the dense sea" (of matter)."

This is even sillier. Pontius Pilate is well known figure from antiquity. There is both archeological and extra-biblical text evidence for his reign as the 5th Roman procurator of Judaea. Not only that but the etymological significance outlined above is unfounded. In the NT Pilate is only referred to 3 times by his full name (in all other cases he is called simply "Pilate") Twice in the genitive PONTOU PILATOU and once in the nominative PONTIOS PILATOS. The context and case makes clear that a person is referred to. Furthermore the Greek word PONTUS is used twice in the catholic epistles both times the obvious context implies a place name (PONTUS was a region of Asia Minor). That the Latin etymology of the name PONTUS (it is derived from Latin in the Greek) is "the sea" is again irrelevant since it is unconnected to the Greek. The authors of 1 Peter and Timothy are simply referring to a place that has a Latin derived name (since it was part of the Roman empire in Asia Minor). Lastly there is no word PILETOS in Koine Greek.

Ultimately even a cursory check of the Greek texts demonstrates these notions to be unsupportable. I cannot comment on the Herod/Herut connection toher than to say that the Herodian kings are well known historically and fit the picture of 1st century palestine and any similarity between the Hebrew name Herod which would be written in Hebrew and the Egyptian name Herut which would be written in Pharonic heiroglyphics is purely a matter of coincidence.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

Iasion

April 4, 2002, 10:42 PM

Greetings,

thanks for your comments,

Yes, the Mare part of the argument is pretty weak.

Pontius Pilate is well known figure from antiquity.

Pardon? so what?
I said nothing about Pontius Pilate not being real - the issue is whether his name is original to Ignatius' writings.

In the NT Pilate is only referred to 3 times by his full name

Pardon? so what?
the issue is Ignatius's writings - the very FIRST to mention his name - and in full.

the Herodian kings are well known historically

Pardon? so what?
I said nothing about Herod not being real - the issue is whether the name is found in Ignatius's writings.

Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't read my post properly ;)

Quentin David Jones

Haran

April 5, 2002, 01:26 AM

I don't know Kuhn, but Kuhn doesn't know the languages...

Hebrew
------
Mary = Miriam = Rebellion
Herod = Heroic

Latin (Cassell's)
-----
Pontius = Roman Name
Pilatus = "spear/javelin carrier"

pontos piletas (dense sea (of matter))

I don't think Pontius derives from pontus.
I don't think the word piletas exists in Latin. Even if there is such a word and it does mean "dense", which I doubt since Cassell's gives many words for the english word "dense" and "think" and "piletas" is not one of them, great liberty is taken in adding "of matter"...

in the Greek manuscripts is given as (pontos pil�tos)

I have never seen this. Can you provide the name/number of this manuscript?

Thanks,
Haran

Alexis Comnenus

April 5, 2002, 01:52 AM

Iasion,

I fear your argument is already dead in the water and no number of 'what abouts' is going to save it. (CX - <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> ). Perhaps you should try another track.

By the way, Pilate is attested by a contempory inscription from Caesaria and mentioned by Josephus so Ignatius is not the first time he is mentioned. Finally Tacitus mentions Pilate as crucifying Jesus before your dating of Ignatius so it was clearly well known enough to reach the ear of a Roman senator.

Regards

Alex

April 5, 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Iasion:
Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't read my post properly ;)

I read it. I am merely pointing out that NT writings which precede Ignatius clearly use these names without the bizarre Gnostic interpretation you offer. You can counter with your apparent position that the gospels are mid to late 2nd century inventions, but that argument is not compelling (if you'd like to present it here instead making everyone traipse over to your website and sort through it all, we could begin another thread). Lastly the word "piletas" appears to be neither Greek nor Latin so you need to present evidence to the contrary. I don't mean to seem dismissive but your positions and argumentation strike me as so much eisegetical crack pottery despite the fact that I have no particular allegiance to the orthodox position.

April 5, 2002, 12:04 PM

Another difficulty I have with your assessment is that in the Epistle to the Trallians, which is regarded by scholars as part of the "middle recension" and thereby the most reliably authentic (mentioned by Eusebius) the context in which we see the names Pontius Pilate and Mary is one wherein the author is speaking against the heresy of docetism and arguing specifically for a human Christ who was crucified and buried. In that framework your hypothesis that Ignatius was actually gnostic is utterly incomprehensible as is the assertion that Mary and Pilate are actually corruptions of gnostic ideas. Ignatius is making a lengthy effort of refuting gnosticism in the very context in which these names occur. Have you actually read the Epistles of Ignatius or are you just picking and choosing bits gleaned from the internet to support your position?

April 5, 2002, 12:08 PM

One more thing. You claim that Ignatius is not aware of or concerned with the earthly life of Jesus and yet the aforementioned Epistle to the Trallians says the following:

Chapter IX.-Reference to the History of Christ.

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with60 Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with61 Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly assumed a body; for "the Word was made flesh,"62 and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, "Which of you convicteth me of sin? "63 He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. By those in heaven I mean such as are possessed of incorporeal natures; by those on earth, the Jews and Romans, and such persons as were present at that time when the Lord was crucified; and by those under the earth, the multitude that arose along with the Lord.

Now can we please dispense with this ridiculous discussion?

ju'iblex

April 6, 2002, 01:40 AM

piletas -noun, : condition of being; makes abstract noun.

this wont help at all though considering his name was Pontius Pilatus, as has been already said by Haran, and his definitions of the words were indeed correct.

Anything is possible when you swap letters in words, as Iasion has shown us very well indeed.

im sure we can think of a hidden meaning for the word "ship" or "disk" too if we tried hard enough and did the fantastic letter exchange technique.

Haran

April 6, 2002, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by juiblex:
piletas -noun, : condition of being; makes abstract noun.

Thanks. In Latin? What did you look it up in?

Piletus in Spanish means "sink" or "pool" I think...

Maybe Pontius Pilate was originally Spanish and meant something like Kitchen Sink. ;)

Haran

ju'iblex

April 6, 2002, 04:23 PM

Thanks. In Latin? What did you look it up in?

i have a program on my computer, i cant for the life of me remember where i got it from. depending on the size <its only text>, i'll see if i can send it to you if you like.

Toto

April 6, 2002, 05:02 PM

From <a href="http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words?piletas" target="_blank">an on line Latin - English dictionary</a>

piletas
tas SUFFIX
-ness,
condition of being; makes abstract noun

spin

April 6, 2002, 10:23 PM

Alexis Comnenus:
-----------------
By the way, Pilate is attested by a contempory inscription from Caesaria and mentioned by Josephus so Ignatius is not the first time he is mentioned. Finally Tacitus mentions Pilate as crucifying Jesus before your dating of Ignatius so it was clearly well known enough to reach the ear of a Roman senator.
-----------------

I really love it when modern people quote this bit of Tacitus when none of the ancients did. Tertullian for example knew Tacitus. Don't you find that it is exceptionally strange that he doesn't cite the specific reference??

ju'iblex

April 6, 2002, 11:49 PM

thanks for that Toto, thats what i was looking for.

spin

April 7, 2002, 01:24 AM

Haran:
-------
I don't know Kuhn, but Kuhn doesn't know the languages...
-------

I would not be so hasty, Haran, to make such statements.

Haran:
-------
Hebrew
------
Mary = Miriam = Rebellion
Herod = Heroic
-------

If Herod means "Heroic" then it doesn't come from Hebrew, does it? but from `hrws. (I don't endorse the alternative proposed here.)

Mary, as written in Greek, may indeed come from the Hebrew. 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:
-------
Latin (Cassell's)
-----
Pontius = Roman Name
Pilatus = "spear/javelin carrier"
-------

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

iason:
------
pontos piletas (dense sea (of matter))
------

Haran:
-------
I don't think Pontius derives from pontus.
-------

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, 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.

<Edited because the text box editor doesn't allow indentations, so Haran's more complex stuff ends up in bold.>

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

spin

April 7, 2002, 01:57 AM

OFF TOPIC SLAGGING

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.

ju'iblex

April 7, 2002, 05:20 PM

Haran:
-------
Latin (Cassell's)
-----
Pontius = Roman Name
Pilatus = "spear/javelin carrier"
-------

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

where on earth did you get "pons" from?

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: juiblex ]

Alexis Comnenus

April 8, 2002, 07:35 AM

I really love it when modern people quote this bit of Tacitus when none of the ancients did. Tertullian for example knew Tacitus. Don't you find that it is exceptionally strange that he doesn't cite the specific reference??

Hello Spin,

No I don't find it remotely strange. Tacitus calls Christianity a 'pernicious superstitition' and an 'evil' like other 'hideous and shameful' things. Christians themselves are 'hated for their perversions'. If Christian apologists had used this to put their case - now that would be strange.

Also, I'm no Tacitus expect, but neither of the editions I have, nor my professor when we had it in Latin reading class ever expressed any doubt about the authenticity of this passage. In fact, it seems the only people who do are the usual suspects of fringe pseudo historians trying to argue Jesus never existed. If you have some solid textual evidence about the passage then tell us. Otherwise you are just engaging in innuendo like Toto did on Eusebius.

Regards

Alex

April 8, 2002, 08:18 AM

Let's dispense with the invective shall we?

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.

Are you truly ignorant of the history of Koine Greek? It is not attested to solely in the Xian New Testament. Koine was establish by Alexander the Great around 300 BCE as a universal Greek for the common people (Koine means common). Koine enjoyed widespread popularity from roughly 300BCE to 300CE and is found in not only the New Testament, but also the histories of Polybius and the discourses of Epictetus. Not only that, but some of the best lexical evidence for Koine comes not from literary sources, but from notes and household letters and records from the excavations at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. There were literally found thousands of papyri and fragments covering all manner of subjects from lists of weights and measures to financial documents etc. Where on earth did you get the notion that Koine is only found in the NT?

spin

April 8, 2002, 08:34 AM

An attestation, Alex, is an attestation, and this one is pretty good. For a religion that had (has) so little to support it historically, anything which gave some historical back-up was worth citing. After all, Annals XV.44.2-8 is a relatively complete witness in a classical text, with "Christus" who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". There is nothing like it elsewhere in classical literature. Its lack of use by early Christians is a guarantee that it was a late addition.

Pseudo-historians trying to intimate that Jesus existed without doing the necessary work is simply bad scholarship, isn't it?

Being agnostic, I'm quite prepared to explore the possibility that Jesus didn't exist. I already know from the ancient sources that there is no evidence that such a person existed.

All fundamental positions need to be able to face scrutiny. Try analysing the material you consider provides a historical basis for Jesus, from an agnostic (in this case, not working from any presuppositions) point of view, using good historical methodology.

spin

April 8, 2002, 08:57 AM

cx:
----
Let's dispense with the invective shall we?
----

After you, cx.

cx:
----
Are you truly ignorant of the history of Koine Greek?
----

As I said, cx, after you. When you stop the invective, I'll consider treating you like a human being, until then, I see no reason to consider you as anything but a nasty piece religious aggression, as your rhetorical question here displays.

cx:
----
It is not attested to solely in the Xian New Testament. Koine was establish by Alexander the Great around 300 BCE as a universal Greek for the common people (Koine means common). Koine enjoyed widespread popularity from roughly 300BCE to 300CE and is found in not only the New Testament, but also the histories of Polybius and the discourses of Epictetus. Not only that, but some of the best lexical evidence for Koine comes not from literary sources, but from notes and household letters and records from the excavations at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. There were literally found thousands of papyri and fragments covering all manner of subjects from lists of weights and measures to financial documents etc. Where on earth did you get the notion that Koine is only found in the NT?
----

Thanks for telling me stuff I already know, cx. You're good at that. Now, tell me, what were the sources for the Koine information you use? How much of the Oxyrhynchus or Tebtunis texts have made it into materials provided for NT study?

Alexis Comnenus

April 8, 2002, 09:19 AM

Spin, as I told Pandora, I'm not going to get into a silly 'did Jesus exist?' argument. Why should Tert quote Tacitus's hostile text when the facts were clearly set out in the Gospels? He would not and did not. You claiming that the Tacitus passage is fake simply on that basis sadly means you are not worth speaking to.

Regards

Alex

April 8, 2002, 09:24 AM

cx:
----
Are you truly ignorant of the history of Koine Greek?
----

As I said, cx, after you. When you stop the invective, I'll consider treating you like a human being, until then, I see no reason to consider you as anything but a nasty piece religious aggression, as your rhetorical question here displays.

On the contrary. It is a legitimate question. Your previous statements implied that the only basis for knowing Koine Greek comes from the NT itself. This is not so. It was the lingua franca for the period in question. The P.Oxy manuscripts of the NT cited heavily in NA27 were found along side other literary and non-religious works in the rubbish heaps excavated at Oxyrhynchus. Paloegraphers and linguists including Nestle & Aland used the finds to great advantage in compiling a critical text of the Greek NT. Is it your claim that because such texts aren't actually used in the GNT that they are not used as a framework for understanding Koine? Your original statement that we have little basis for establishing a baseline for Koine Greek is simply false. Given that what else could I conclude but that you don't know what you're talking about?

Secondly I fail to see how you read "religious aggression" into my posts. I'm not religious. I'm not even a theist. I am simply frustrated because you seem to regularly write whereof you do not know and that with authority and arrogance.

Thanks for telling me stuff I already know, cx. You're good at that. Now, tell me, what were the sources for the Koine information you use? How much of the Oxyrhynchus or Tebtunis texts have made it into materials provided for NT study?

Whatever. For someone who professes to know so much, you offer very little in the way of evidence to support it. Here is a list of Oxyrhynchus texts cited in NA27:

P.Oxy 2
P.Oxy 208
P.Oxy 402
P.Oxy 209
P.Oxy 657
P.Oxy 1008
P.Oxy 1009
P.Oxy 1078
P.Oxy 1170
P.Oxy 1171
P.Oxy 1227
P.Oxy 1228
P.Oxy 1229
P.Oxy 1230
P.Oxy 1354
P.Oxy 1355

And on and on. This list is far from exhaustive. But "Oh!" you say, "These are all NT texts." Well what would be the purpose of citing non NT texts in a critical edition of the NT? The point is these texts were all discovered alongside non-biblical texts all of which are used by linguists and paleographers to develop a proper understanding of Koine. You clearly implied that there were no sources for Koine Greek aside from the NT and that could not be more wrong. Even so you pretend as though you knew this all along and refuse to admit when you have made an honest error.

April 8, 2002, 09:55 AM

Not that there is much point in rebutting you further, but the original statement I made was that PILETAS is not a word in Koine Greek. This is further attested by the fact that the word is not listed in Liddell & Scott which, I'm sure you know, is THE greek lexicon. It draws upon EVERY greek text discovered up to 1940 (thereby including the Oxyrhynchus finds).

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

spin

April 8, 2002, 10:36 AM

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Spin, as I told Pandora, I'm not going to get into a silly 'did Jesus exist?' argument. Why should Tert quote Tacitus's hostile text when the facts were clearly set out in the Gospels? He would not and did not. You claiming that the Tacitus passage is fake simply on that basis sadly means you are not worth speaking to.
----------------

I love value judgments like these. Someone who cannot live up to his own responsibilities, passes the buck.

There is no better testimony for Jesus in classical literature than that found in Tacitus. So, Alexis Comnenus finds no problem in the fact that Tertullian who knew Tacitus didn't cite such a testimony. Fine. Go away and sulk.

spin

April 8, 2002, 10:57 AM

This is what I said of cx:
--------------------------
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?
--------------------------

This is his interpretation:
--------------------------
Your previous statements implied that the only basis for knowing Koine Greek comes from the NT itself.
--------------------------

Hopefully, cx can see that it is unrelated to my statement, which was about his knowledge of Koine Greek, and not about Koine Greek itself.

Citing from Oxyrhynchus papyri of NT documents achieves little with regard to the problem I posed to him, ie that one doesn't have a sufficient body of Koine in NT sources so say much about the language [and note, I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that NT is all that there is in Koine, clear?]. That NA27 does use these sources is good for the standard of textual representation, yet irrelevant to the discussion.

cx asks:
--------------------------
Is it your claim that because such texts aren't actually used in the GNT that they are not used as a framework for understanding Koine?
--------------------------

No, it is not my claim. I was asking about what sources you were using for your knowledge of Koine Greek.

cx:
--------------------------
Given that what else could I conclude but that you don't know what you're talking about?
--------------------------

That you are partially alexic.

cx:
--------------------------
Secondly I fail to see how you read "religious aggression" into my posts. I'm not religious. I'm not even a theist.
--------------------------

I was being hopeful, cx, that there was some reason for your general belligerence.

cx:
--------------------------
I am simply frustrated because you seem to regularly write whereof you do not know and that with authority and arrogance.
--------------------------

Pot calling kettle black.

First I recommend that you learn to read what people say rather than consistently going off half-cocked. Your overlong post would not have been necessary had you read with a little perception.

cx:
--------------------------
This list [of Ox.Rh. NT texts] is far from exhaustive. But "Oh!" you say, "These are all NT texts."
--------------------------

Naturally. They are irrelevant to passing comment I made, which you have decided to make a big affair out of. What are your sources of knowledge of Koine Greek outside NT sources? Is that so difficult for you to understand?

cx:
--------------------------
Well what would be the purpose of citing non NT texts in a critical edition of the NT?
--------------------------

So you can now see the irrelevance to citing them.

cx:
--------------------------
The point is these texts were all discovered alongside non-biblical texts all of which are used by linguists and paleographers to develop a proper understanding of Koine. You clearly implied that there were no sources for Koine Greek aside from the NT and that could not be more wrong.
--------------------------

More demostration of alexia.

cx:
--------------------------
Even so you pretend as though you knew this all along and refuse to admit when you have made an honest error.
--------------------------

cx, when you get over your reading problems, please reread your stuff before posting, so that you don't waste your and other people's time.

Now can you answer the question: what are your sources for Koine Greek other than materials prepared for and based on NT? This material is usually not readily available to dilletantes as you admit yourself to be.

April 8, 2002, 11:47 AM

Now can you answer the question: what are your sources for Koine Greek other than materials prepared for and based on NT? This material is usually not readily available to dilletantes as you admit yourself to be.

Nonsense. I don't believe that was your original point, based on other statements you have made here and I submit that you are backpedaling. In any case if YOU know anything about Greek period, then you might have surmised that I would make use of Liddell and Scott in addition to NT sources. The notion that other sources "[aren't] readily available to dilletantes" is absurd. At this point there is almost no source that isn't available to anyone who's looking for it. You continually make pronouncements regarding Koine texts as if you actually know what you are talking about and yet is abundantly clear that you know very little about it. Whatever "work" you've been doing in the OT is irrelevant (not that I buy that line either).

spin

April 8, 2002, 12:37 PM

CX:
----
Nonsense. I don't believe that was your original point, based on other statements you have made here and I submit that you are backpedaling.
----
Don't you love these geniuses who can mindread over the internet?

I cited the text you are trying to interpret. As you have problems interpreting it, I even gave you the inside understanding, ie what I intended. Here it is again for you:

-------------------------
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?
-------------------------

Why do you persist in your erroneous interpretation of my words? Please cite from what I said, instead of simply insisting you know better about what I intended.

CX:
----
In any case if YOU know anything about Greek period, then you might have surmised that I would make use of Liddell and Scott in addition to NT sources.
----

Strangely enough I have an old copy of Liddell and Scott (Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Would you like to tell me an entry which gives you any information about Koine forms or collocations?

CX:
----
The notion that other sources "[aren't] readily available to dilletantes" is absurd. At this point there is almost no source that isn't available to anyone who's looking for it.
----

I gather you refuse to answer my question again. Not surprizing. Is it so difficult to explain what your sources are for Koine Greek? Let's try again: where does the data for your knowledge of Koine Greek come from besides the NT?

CX:
----
You continually make pronouncements regarding Koine texts as if you actually know what you are talking about and yet is abundantly clear that you know very little about it.
----

Which "pronouncements regarding Koine texts" are you referring to? Are you talking about what I have cited above? What are you talking about?

CX:
----
Whatever "work" you've been doing in the OT is irrelevant (not that I buy that line either).
----

I don't really care what you buy. You have shown so little qualification to talk about anything, that you wouldn't expect your opinion to be given much value, would you?

cx, your belligerence is quite amusing. I understand that you know a little about the Greek in the NT, but that doesn't give you licence to attack anyone that doesn't agree with your pearls of wisdom.

I came into this thread because I noted that once again you were being downright rude and I wanted to draw your attention to the fact. Your response was to attempt to deflect the post you were responding to by clutching at straws, claiming I said something which you cannot demonstrate, even when I cite the words to you to help you make your point. I asked what "[you] use as [your] authority for Koine Greek". If, as I guess, you won't answer the question, is there any point in your responding at all?

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

April 8, 2002, 02:18 PM

Strangely enough I have an old copy of Liddell and Scott (Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Would you like to tell me an entry which gives you any information about Koine forms or collocations?

Are you trying to be cute or pedantic? If you truly do have the abridged version and have used it then you know that it is a comprehensive lexicon covering Greek from the pre-classical period through the Hellenic. It is not a specifically Koine lexicon. I freely admit that I have to go to a local college library to use it or else use the online version at the Perseus project. But you, as usual are shifting the argument. According to Strong's and Thayer's and a searchable version of WH there is no greek word PILETAS. This is corroborated by Liddell and Scott. Lidell and Scott covers the entire LXX and NT. Consequently if the word in question is not found there nor in any of the NT specific lexica it isn't a word. Why do you persist in this tiresome pedantry?

spin

April 8, 2002, 02:56 PM

I'm pretty sure this cx person is just a troll. He is off the wall.

spin:
------
Strangely enough I have an old copy of Liddell and Scott (Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Would you like to tell me an entry which gives you any information about Koine forms or collocations?
------

cx:
----
Are you trying to be cute or pedantic?
----

No, I asked you a simple question and you duck yet another one. You're a master of not answering any questions.

cx:
----
If...
----

Here's one of his dubious ifs.

cx:
-----
...you truly do have the abridged version and have used it then you know that it is a comprehensive lexicon covering Greek from the pre-classical period through the Hellenic.
-----

If I quote the text, matey, why should you doubt it? I asked you to cite an entry which makes reference to Koine Greek. Can you show me where L&S make space for Koine? I see lots of references to Ionian, Doric and Attic. But Koine? You can't get any idea at all about Koine from that dictionary. You're just trying to pull everyone's leg.

cx:
-----
It is not a specifically Koine lexicon.
-----

In fact, it makes no reference to Koine at all.

cx:
-----
I freely admit that I have to go to a local college library to use it or else use the online version at the Perseus project. But you, as usual are shifting the argument.
-----

From what to what?

cx:
-----
According to Strong's and Thayer's and a searchable version of WH there is no greek word PILETAS.

Here is what I said in my first post:
--------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------

I wouldn't expect, cx, that you read what is written. I didn't bother to look the word up. I didn't really care, hence "he may be right". I was more interested in you taking a mechete to iasion. I asked what your authority for Koine Greek was. You still haven't answered except maybe by saying that you have to go to the local college library or whatever as an indication that you have no authority for Koine Greek.

cx:
----
This is corroborated by Liddell and Scott. Lidell and Scott covers the entire LXX and NT. Consequently if the word in question is not found there nor in any of the NT specific lexica it isn't a word. Why do you persist in this tiresome pedantry?
----

I guess you're too old to start learning to read carefully.

If you get rude responses, I think it's because you are just plain rude yourself, so don't take it to heart, change tack.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

Haran

April 8, 2002, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by spin:
If Herod means "Heroic" then it doesn't come from Hebrew, does it? but from `hrws. (I don't endorse the alternative proposed here.)

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.

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

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

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.)

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>).

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

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.

Haran:
-------
I don't think Pontius derives from pontus.
-------

Spin:
It definitely doesn't...

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

...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.)

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.

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.

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).

[Edited because the text box editor doesn't allow indentations, so Haran's more complex stuff ends up in bold.]

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 ]

spin

April 9, 2002, 02:40 AM

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 ]

Haran

April 9, 2002, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by spin:
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?

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

April 9, 2002, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by spin:
I'm pretty sure this cx person is just a troll. He is off the wall.

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.

spin:
------
Strangely enough I have an old copy of Liddell and Scott (Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Would you like to tell me an entry which gives you any information about Koine forms or collocations?
------

cx:
----
Are you trying to be cute or pedantic?
----

No, I asked you a simple question and you duck yet another one. You're a master of not answering any questions.

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:

IHSOUS , OU , dat. OI , Joshua, LXXJo.1.1, al., Act.Ap.7.45; in NT, with dat. -OU , JESUS, Ev.Matt.9.27, al.

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.

Can you show me where L&S make space for Koine? I see lots of references to Ionian, Doric and Attic. But Koine? You can't get any idea at all about Koine from that dictionary. You're just trying to pull everyone's leg.

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.

cx:
-----
It is not a specifically Koine lexicon.
-----

In fact, it makes no reference to Koine at all.

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.

Here is what I said in my first post:
--------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------

I wouldn't expect, cx, that you read what is written. I didn't bother to look the word up. I didn't really care, hence "he may be right". I was more interested in you taking a mechete to iasion. I asked what your authority for Koine Greek was. You still haven't answered except maybe by saying that you have to go to the local college library or whatever as an indication that you have no authority for Koine Greek.

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?

I guess you're too old to start learning to read carefully.

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.

If you get rude responses, I think it's because you are just plain rude yourself, so don't take it to heart, change tack.

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 ]

spin

April 9, 2002, 10:36 AM

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.

April 9, 2002, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by spin:
[blah, blah, blah]

Who do you think you're kidding?

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?

April 9, 2002, 10:56 AM

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.

http://lookinside-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35lerKQt/DcDjPpVPgJ5i9LQN0b3NEHWARuBAPfgmX9isNO9hPggsXNN4hmm3pEi6s8EDowM6uq7iOU/rngizKksex1gEcOX91S3Ga5r1NsghJEWjbyC5v8os/YXSJE8XcKYfBk2qa7UUZDw==

spin

April 9, 2002, 11:02 AM

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

April 9, 2002, 11:04 AM

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

Nobody's interested.

April 9, 2002, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by spin:
CX:
---
For those who are interested.
---

Nobody's interested.

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?

April 9, 2002, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by spin:
CX:
---
For those who are interested.
---

Nobody's interested.

Incidentally, can you provide a definitive explanation of what constitutes Koine?

spin

April 9, 2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by 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?

It's not that I don't accept this or that. The task is what is a suitably large body of data which reflects what might be called Koine Greek. As I once pointed out to you there was a comparative in the nt which didn't even have the positive form in the corpus

1) An NT lexicon only provides stuff about NT.
2) The NA27 apparatus provides variations of NT.
3) Liddell&Scott provide basic Greek tools.

Where is the generic authority for Koine? Nowhere in this list, though there are works dedicated to it. Perhaps this is a little more useful.

Baur, Arndt & Gingrich "A Gk-Eng Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Lit".

It does include a fair amount of other text sources to raise the corpus of vocabulary.

But why do I have to do the work for you?

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

April 9, 2002, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by spin:


It's not that I don't accept this or that. The task is what is a suitably large body of data which reflects what might be called Koine Greek. As I once pointed out to you there was a comparative in the nt which didn't even have the positive form in the corpus

1) An NT lexicon only provides stuff about NT.
2) The NA27 apparatus provides variations of NT.
3) Liddell&Scott provide basic Greek tools.

Where is the generic authority for Koine? Nowhere in this list, though there are works dedicated to it. Perhaps this is a little more useful.

Baur, Arndt & Gingrich "A Gk-Eng Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Lit".

It does include a fair amount of other text sources to raise the corpus of vocabulary.

But why do I have to do the work for you?

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

Nonsense. L&S is a comprehensive Greek Lexicon covering all words and forms including during the Hellenistic period covering every Greek MSS discovered up to 1940 with a supplement in recent editions that includes discoveries after 1940 and including the vast body, if not all, of Koine literature.

You act as though Koine sprung out of a vacuum. Though you will no doubt assert that you already know this, Koine is largley a synthesis of Attic-Ionic dialects with limited additions from other regional dialects. It further stands as the precursor to what we would call modern Greek. It was THE national language of the Empire all the way through the Hellenistic period and is attested to by the termendous body of literature from that period not limited only to Xian sources. I'm sure the Baur text is a terrific resource, for biblical language, but it in no way supercedes L&S as a comprhensive lexicon suitable for the study of Hellenistic Greek. I would imagine it does not include any of the secular/non-Xian sources found at Oxyrhynchus. You are quibbling because you have no clue what you are talking about. Your objections don't even make sense.

April 9, 2002, 01:36 PM

Baur, Arndt & Gingrich "A Gk-Eng Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Lit".

Amazing! If one does a search of Amazon.com, this is the first title that comes up. Isn't that a strange coincidence?

Don't get me wrong, this looks to be a fine resource. But I find it ironic that someone who professes little knowledge of Koine would just happen to come up with the first item in a list at Amazon.com. Surely you don't own this $125 tome do you? Have you consulted it? I submit that you are an unmitigated fraud. Not only that but it still isn't any more valuable than L&S. Save possibly for detailed understanding of the NT itself which is exactly what you were originally objecting to.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

Haran

April 9, 2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by CX:
Amazing! If one does a search of Amazon.com, this is the first title that comes up. Isn't that a strange coincidence?

Don't get me wrong, this looks to be a fine resource. But I find it ironic that someone who professes little knowledge of Koine would just happen to come up with the first item in a list at Amazon.com. Surely you don't own this $125 tome do you? Have you consulted it? I submit that you are an unmitigated fraud. Not only that but it still isn't any more valuable than L&S. Save possibly for detailed understanding of the NT itself which is exactly what you were originally objecting to.
[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: CX]


CX, I think you and spin are both being a little silly (no serious offense meant since I have been in other threads).

I'm not sure I completely understand spin's rejection of the Lidell-Scott for Koine, but here is an interesting source:

<a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/NTBib/lexicon.html" target="_blank">Lexicons</a>

If you'll notice, it mentions: "Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. New edition revised and augmented in 2 vols. by H. S. Jones, et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948. Covers both classical and Koine Greek. There is an abridged edition which the serious scholar cannot afford to substitute."

However, I doubt that spin knew of BAG from amazon.com. It has been considered one of the premier lexicons for quite some time (see above website: "Bauer, Walter. A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Also listed under the names Arndt and Gingrich and is commonly so called from these authors who were associated with the revision of the work; sometimes designated BAG. Still the best Lexicon, to date, for the NT student and scholar. An abridged edition is now available but should not be used as a substitute for the larger work."

However, the BAG is now outdated and has been superceded by the BDAG which I also linked to at amazon.com in a previous post. It is $125 from what I remember and I do have it. It is also included in the newest version of Bibleworks software.

Perhaps spin intended the most recent edition, BDAG but he left out Danker which seems to indicate to me that he is thinking of the previous edition, the BAG.

Here is a couple of interesting reviews of the BDAG, one from <a href="http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue3/Book_Review/bdag_review.htm" target="_blank">JBS</a> and one from <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2001/2001-06-01.html" target="_blank">Bryn Mawr</a>.

Hope this helps.

Oh yeah, CX, I'm not sure if you've read the Intros to NT TC by the Alands and by Metzger, but if you have then you'll have heard of the Von Soden and Tichendorf critical editions of the NT. They are quite old now, but still contain much information that can't be found in the NA27 or UBS4. Anyway, they are both on-line at <a href="http://rosetta.atla-certr.org/TC/TC.html" target="_blank">TC: A Journal of Biblical Criticism</a> which you might be interested in.

<a href="http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/vonSodenGNT" target="_blank">Von Soden</a>
<a href="http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/Ebind/docs/TC/" target="_blank">Tichendorf</a>

Enjoy,
Haran

April 9, 2002, 02:24 PM

I imagine I am being a little silly, but I really do think that spin is an annoying pseudo-intellectual who, as someone else on this forum said, "argues by assertion and belittlement". I don't beleive he knows the first thing about Koine Greek and his tiresome and nonsensical objections in this thread only serve to reinforce that. I admit I have perhaps only heard mention of the Baur lexicon. My primary lexicon is Thayer's which I find adequate for NT study. If I get really hung up I use the online version lf L&S provided by the Perseus project or go to the library. The notion that L&S is not a suitable lexicon for the study of Hellenistic greek could only be put forward by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I admire your abiltiy to be much more generous than I, but perhaps it is because I am most disgust by self-professed non-theists who are ignorant and dismissive as a matter of course (I acknowledge that I become dismissive when someone rubs me the wrong way, but I try to be respectful. I have wasted too much time on this already.

Incidentally the Tischendorf critical text is mentioned in the intro to NA27. I've never consulted it, but it might be interesting. I didn't realize they had it at TC. I haven't been there in some time.