Comments on: Discovering the Sources for the First Gospel, 2

By: Bob Carlson

Bob Carlson — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:19:05 +0000

Correction. As I read further in Detering's book, I encountered a subtitle "From Baur to Bauer." The Bauer was Bruno Bauer, who was a bit younger than Baur. Bauer was so radical (for example saying that an historical person named Jesus probably never existed) that he was removed from office in 1842.

By: Markus

Markus — Sun, 06 May 2012 21:05:54 +0000

Nothing by Rook Hawkins/Tom is “excellent.” He’s another hack job making sloppy errors in his smear campaign against Acharya S, influenced by Carrier, his “hero.”

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25753#p25753

By: Bob Carlson

Bob Carlson — Sun, 06 May 2012 18:18:26 +0000

But Detering wasn't writing about Paul in this case but about the author of Acts, who was, at least per the Acts Wikipedia, thought to be a Gentile speaker of Koine Greek. Detering doesn't appear to discuss this case further in his book. It is just one small bit in his argument discounting Acts as presenting anything of historical value, at least with respect to Paul. He asserts that although the author of Acts claims to have known Paul that there are many things showing that he really did not. Detering cited "Bauer" as being "convinced that not only that the Paul in Acts represents an imaginary historical figure, but also that the representation of the apostle in the letters 'sprung from the same ground of deliberate reflection.'"[64] The "Bauer" he cited was writing in 1850 and is evidently Ferdinand Christian Baur.

By: sahansdal

sahansdal — Sun, 06 May 2012 17:27:27 +0000

That’s complete b.S. Michael. Paul didn’t even KNOW Hebrew. How else would he have gotten the Genesis 15:6 Septuagint version for his faith salvation assertion if he did? He would have read the Hebrew if he could, like any good Pharisee.

By: J. Quinton

J. Quinton — Sun, 06 May 2012 16:02:04 +0000

I’m pretty sure that, given the author didn’t know he was using a Greek turn of phrase in a supposed Hebrew conversation, he wasn’t knowledgeable enough to know that Hebrew was only a liturgical language at the time and Jews conversed in Aramaic, nor did he know how to tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic.

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Sun, 06 May 2012 10:08:47 +0000

Uh huh.
Perhaps I am thick, but I fail to spot any relevance at all to my original enquiry regarding a supposedly Aramaic-speaking Jew, speaking to a crowd of solely base Aramaic-speaking Jews, employing a privileged[1] Greek idiom where an Hebrew idiom would be far more apposite.

_________________
[1] Privileged in the respect of being a common coinage amongst the owners of oxen & horses, not that of shepherds, nor camel drivers.
One had to be above a common desert herdsman to own cattle or horses. That makes the phrase even more suspect than it at first seems.

By: mP

mP — Sun, 06 May 2012 09:54:20 +0000

I recall watching a doco from perhaps Nat Geo describing the many mechanical devices that Heron of Alexandria constructed and sold to the local and remote temples. Besides his famous clocks, and coin operated holy water dispenser, he also created and sold jugs that accepted water and poured wine. Apparently within this device he had some clever but simple piping and pressure assisted mechanism to achieve this. Im guessing you might be able to find it on YouTube. The reason i mention this is because turning water into wine, was a popular trick that many temples in the ancient world performed. My memory seems to recall the narrator saying that people expected grand amazing things to be seen at the local temple, and this was the business motivator for inventor like Heron. Thus if tricks like this were present, then one could consider them a standard performance that holy men performed, so it makes sense that Jesus was required to also do the same. Much of the gospel is written in this spirit where Jesus is said to repeat a miracle of some famous prophet but on a larger better more impressive way.

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Sun, 06 May 2012 08:47:11 +0000

But that scenario assumes that the gospel authors had no idea of that to which they were relaying or inventing, nor what the idioms should have been.
(They weren’t writing for a 3rd century audience, just the ignorant schmucks and dupes of their day. Not much sophistication required to con a plebeian in those days. Historical and factual consistency was that very low level that would suffice to fleece the redneck sheeples.)

Oh, I now see ‘where you are coming from’! ;)
We concur.

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Sun, 06 May 2012 08:36:50 +0000

I suspect that my attempt at a reply has fallen into the elektron abyss that is the intertoobz.
It essentially amounted to: “Eh?”
Are you able to elaborate on this verb-form please?

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Sun, 06 May 2012 08:33:22 +0000

Simplest hypothesis (and saves you any Bayesian headaches): The author made it up.

I concur most wholeheartedly!

Also, Hebrew wasn’t a conversation language at the time
so it would have been Aramaic anyway.

But the concordance is clear: “Ἑβραΐς” (Hebraïs) (Dative, singular feminine), not Aramaic, nor Coptic nor Latinate nor Syriac.
Definitely and pointedly Hebrew!, to the point where the author felt obliged to emphasise such!
In Acts 21:40, 22:2 as well as the currently “under the spotlight” 26:14.
These are the only places in which I can find the absolute emphasis on the speaker employing Hebrew.

In fact, Paul appears to have used that to his advantage:

ἀκούσαντες δὲ ὅτι τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ προσεφώνει αὐτοῖς μᾶλλον παρέσχον ἡσυχίαν καὶ φησίν

, naturally implying that he astonished the crowd and kept them enthralled by speaking in the Hebrew dialect, (not Aramaic)

And I keep having to return to this basic fact.
One which makes me confident that the passage in question is, as you suggest, a transparent fabrication.

By: mcduff

mcduff — Sun, 06 May 2012 06:07:52 +0000

Good point Michael, I think J.Quinton has the answer.
Its similar to the mix of languages [Aramaic and Hebrew] that gospel authors “Mark” and “Matthew” use when purportedly quoting JC’s words on the cross ie Eloi to Eli etc.
They muddle things up cos they are not quoting.

By: J. Quinton

J. Quinton — Sun, 06 May 2012 06:01:23 +0000

Simplest hypothesis (and saves you any Bayesian headaches): The author made it up. Also, Hebrew wasn’t a conversation language at the time so it would have been Aramaic anyway.

By: J. Quinton

J. Quinton — Sun, 06 May 2012 05:59:05 +0000

There’s also 2 Peter 2.4 where the author uses the verb form of Tartarus to describe god casting disobedient angels to hell.

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Sun, 06 May 2012 05:55:41 +0000

I think that I understand what you are saying, but your remark does not seem to bear upon my primary ‘niggle’.
As the Gospels were written in Greek, I do expect them to be loaded with idiomatic Greek.
But in this particular passage, it goes out of its way to state that Paul is speaking Hebrew when he utters this Greek idiom.
It is that discrepancy of someone speaking Hebrew, (which has its own idioms for the concept of futile resistance), that he employed the Greek version, translated into Hebrew.
It is not that it is a shared cultural element that bothers me, but that In my opinion) a Jew speaking Hebrew would surely have employed an idiomatic Hebrew phrase.
It just makes me suspicious of the provenance of the verse, that is all.
I would apply Bayesian analysis to my dilemma, but cannot be bothered at the moment!
My gut feeling is that a Jew, speaking in Hebrew, would be far more likely to use an Hebrew idiom than a Greek idiom.
That is all that I am suggesting.
Even Shakespeare employed English idiomatic sayings in preference to Latinate ones.

By: J. Quinton

J. Quinton — Sun, 06 May 2012 05:52:32 +0000

He has his contact info on his blog http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/

By: mP

mP — Sun, 06 May 2012 04:43:47 +0000

Its amazing how so many holy writings, use the same source for their wisdom, grand speaches, magnificent stories. No matter how far away these lands are these stories manage to travel the distance. Why is it there is so little originality and so much copying, and people say the internet is full of piracy…

By: Neil Godfrey

Neil Godfrey — Sun, 06 May 2012 03:36:37 +0000

Hey, slow up here! I have had a draft sitting in my list of “to complete” posts about the relationship between Aesop (in particular the Life of Aesop) and the Gospels and other comparisons. Don’t steal all my thunder just yet. ;-)

By: mcduff

mcduff — Sun, 06 May 2012 03:27:10 +0000

To provide a reference for my comment above I did some googling and found this:
http://jgrchj.net/volume5/JGRChJ5-5_Wojciechowski.pdf
Title:
“AESOPIC TRADITION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT”
I haven’t read it yet, got more weeding to do in the garden, just taking a break.

By: mcduff

mcduff — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:30:37 +0000

There are at least a couple of places where Gk classics have been incorporated into the gospels.
Aesop gets a cameo when “Matthew” has JC quote one of his fables ‘we piped to and you did not dance, we wailed and you did not mourn” [11.17].
Cana in “John” is a retelling of the familiar Dionysian story of priests turning water into wine.

Such are integrated elements of the culture of the authors of the gospels.
As you say such are ‘common Gk idiom[s]“.
If Shakespeare had written in the pre-christian era he would probably have rated a mention somewhere.

By: sahansdal

sahansdal — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:26:34 +0000

Can you tell me how to contact Thomas?