“Jesus’ Wife” Fragment: The Collective Negative Judgment
CharlasChristianity
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1hf22
“Jesus’ Wife” Fragment: The Collective Negative Judgment (https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/07/20/jesus-wife-fragment-the-collective-negative-judgment/).
The latest issue of the journal New Testament Studies (vol. 61, no. 3, July 2015) contains a battery of commissioned articles from several scholars that collectively present the reasons that the putative Coptic fragment referring to “Jesus’ wife” (GJW) is a modern forgery. The small galaxy of scholars are of unquestioned expertise in the language and the texts, and here combine to show why the putative fragment cannot be accepted as a genuine early Christian text.
The latest issue of the journal New Testament Studies (vol. 61, no. 3, July 2015) contains a battery of commissioned articles from several scholars that collectively present the reasons that the putative Coptic fragment referring to “Jesus’ wife” (GJW) is a modern forgery. The small galaxy of scholars are of unquestioned expertise in the language and the texts, and here combine to show why the putative fragment cannot be accepted as a genuine early Christian text.
2timspalding
The window has closed. Nobody is paying attention. But the myth of this thing will continue on for decades.
3hf22
>2 timspalding:
Yeah, but that stuff hardly needs evidence to roll on, so I can't get overly worked up about it.
The larger concern for me is actually the putative fragment of the Coptic translation of the Gospel of John, which has also been pinned down as a forgery. Without the focus brought by the Jesus wife stuff, I doubt it ever would have been considered closely enough for its true nature to be identified.
And the existence of such common place forgeries, which are still presumably worth reasonable money, makes it harder to trust the data provided by meta-analyses of manuscript fragments (which are otherwise quite useful and interesting). Right pain really.
Yeah, but that stuff hardly needs evidence to roll on, so I can't get overly worked up about it.
The larger concern for me is actually the putative fragment of the Coptic translation of the Gospel of John, which has also been pinned down as a forgery. Without the focus brought by the Jesus wife stuff, I doubt it ever would have been considered closely enough for its true nature to be identified.
And the existence of such common place forgeries, which are still presumably worth reasonable money, makes it harder to trust the data provided by meta-analyses of manuscript fragments (which are otherwise quite useful and interesting). Right pain really.
5JGL53
> 1
There is also the question of whether Jesus was even heterosexual:
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1431
The canon of the bible that we have inherited was selected by the bishops to endorse their prejudices and preferences. Out of thousands of manuscripts only 66 were finally chosen, all by a majority vote. Some books only made the cut by one vote and no doubt there were some which missed by one vote. There is evidence that writings were excluded that either implied or actually stated a belief in pantheism, as were those which denied either jesus's human nature, saying he was pure god, or that he was not god from the beginning and was just a human who has his christ-nature conferred on him at the baptism by John the Baptist - aka dual nature.
More than a few of the huge number of manuscripts left out off the canon implied Jesus was gay - see above referenced website.
I myself look at all this as a game and not to be taken seriously - it's like arguing whether Zeus fathered all the half god/half human children he is said to have, or whether some of the alleged miraculous births are apocryphal. LOL.
Based on the evidence I would conclude jesus was gay - e.g., he lived at home until he was 30, never married (apparently), hung out with 12 other guys for the last 3 years of his life, and the only mentioned contact of his with a woman was when one washed his feet with perfume. Also he is depicted in all the paintings I have ever seen of him as having long hair, a trimmed beard, and wearing a long flowing white dress and wearing sandals. It is the perfect image of a transvestite homosexual. The only things we know are pretty low in probability are the blue eyes, pale skin, rosy cheeks and a straight-edged nose.
lol.
There is also the question of whether Jesus was even heterosexual:
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1431
The canon of the bible that we have inherited was selected by the bishops to endorse their prejudices and preferences. Out of thousands of manuscripts only 66 were finally chosen, all by a majority vote. Some books only made the cut by one vote and no doubt there were some which missed by one vote. There is evidence that writings were excluded that either implied or actually stated a belief in pantheism, as were those which denied either jesus's human nature, saying he was pure god, or that he was not god from the beginning and was just a human who has his christ-nature conferred on him at the baptism by John the Baptist - aka dual nature.
More than a few of the huge number of manuscripts left out off the canon implied Jesus was gay - see above referenced website.
I myself look at all this as a game and not to be taken seriously - it's like arguing whether Zeus fathered all the half god/half human children he is said to have, or whether some of the alleged miraculous births are apocryphal. LOL.
Based on the evidence I would conclude jesus was gay - e.g., he lived at home until he was 30, never married (apparently), hung out with 12 other guys for the last 3 years of his life, and the only mentioned contact of his with a woman was when one washed his feet with perfume. Also he is depicted in all the paintings I have ever seen of him as having long hair, a trimmed beard, and wearing a long flowing white dress and wearing sandals. It is the perfect image of a transvestite homosexual. The only things we know are pretty low in probability are the blue eyes, pale skin, rosy cheeks and a straight-edged nose.
lol.
6hf22
>5 JGL53:
The canon of the bible that we have inherited was selected by the bishops to endorse their prejudices and preferences. Out of thousands of manuscripts only 66 were finally chosen, all by a majority vote. Some books only made the cut by one vote and no doubt there were some which missed by one vote. There is evidence that writings were excluded that either implied or actually stated a belief in pantheism, as where those which denied either jesus's human nature, saying he was pure god, or that he was not god from the beginning and was just a human who has his christ-nature conferred on him at the baptism by John the Baptist - aka dual nature.
I assume you are being facetious, but given my OP related to scholarly views, let me just clarify a scholarly point regarding the non-canonical texts.
The scholarly consensus is that the only 1st century Christian texts we have are those in the Canon, plus maybe some proto-orthodox texts from late in that century like 1 Clement and the Didache#. Everything else, including those writings you refer to, are dated from the 2nd century and beyond. Accordingly, as sources for the historical Jesus, they are useless and treated as such by the scholarly consensus. Hell, even many of the 1st century Canonical texts are treated as useless from a historical perspective by some scholars, as not being sufficient contemporary.
# The Ascension of Isaiah, a possible late 1st century text used in some Jesus myth theories could be added, but it is considered to have been a Jewish text at that point (i.e. which was later reacted by a heterodox Christian or Christians).
The canon of the bible that we have inherited was selected by the bishops to endorse their prejudices and preferences. Out of thousands of manuscripts only 66 were finally chosen, all by a majority vote. Some books only made the cut by one vote and no doubt there were some which missed by one vote. There is evidence that writings were excluded that either implied or actually stated a belief in pantheism, as where those which denied either jesus's human nature, saying he was pure god, or that he was not god from the beginning and was just a human who has his christ-nature conferred on him at the baptism by John the Baptist - aka dual nature.
I assume you are being facetious, but given my OP related to scholarly views, let me just clarify a scholarly point regarding the non-canonical texts.
The scholarly consensus is that the only 1st century Christian texts we have are those in the Canon, plus maybe some proto-orthodox texts from late in that century like 1 Clement and the Didache#. Everything else, including those writings you refer to, are dated from the 2nd century and beyond. Accordingly, as sources for the historical Jesus, they are useless and treated as such by the scholarly consensus. Hell, even many of the 1st century Canonical texts are treated as useless from a historical perspective by some scholars, as not being sufficient contemporary.
# The Ascension of Isaiah, a possible late 1st century text used in some Jesus myth theories could be added, but it is considered to have been a Jewish text at that point (i.e. which was later reacted by a heterodox Christian or Christians).
7JGL53
> 6
And what would be the possible motivations of those forming the "scholarly consensus"? I would have as much trust (faith?) in that scholarly consensus as I would the scholarly consensus of protestant fundamentalist christian authorities concerning the time line of the "creation" being seven (24 hour) days approximately 7 thousand years ago, with the Adam and Eve story, not to mention the Noah and the ark story, being literal and historical.
On another question - if the "scholarly consensus" were to change in the next few years and they were to agree that my speculations above were correct, would you be willing to bow to the new "scholarly consensus" and agree they must be right? I doubt it.
Plus, the word "consensus"? If it is only 70 per cent or even 80 per cent, or perhaps even 90 per cent, that only tells us that the question is not settled but is still being disputed.
And BTW, I have read books written by an acknowledged biblical scholar and a university professor of some note that agree with my scenario stated above and contradicts all your points. Explain why should I accept you as a trustworthy authority and not him?
Are you an acknowledged biblical scholar? What are the titles of the books you have written on this subject?
And what would be the possible motivations of those forming the "scholarly consensus"? I would have as much trust (faith?) in that scholarly consensus as I would the scholarly consensus of protestant fundamentalist christian authorities concerning the time line of the "creation" being seven (24 hour) days approximately 7 thousand years ago, with the Adam and Eve story, not to mention the Noah and the ark story, being literal and historical.
On another question - if the "scholarly consensus" were to change in the next few years and they were to agree that my speculations above were correct, would you be willing to bow to the new "scholarly consensus" and agree they must be right? I doubt it.
Plus, the word "consensus"? If it is only 70 per cent or even 80 per cent, or perhaps even 90 per cent, that only tells us that the question is not settled but is still being disputed.
And BTW, I have read books written by an acknowledged biblical scholar and a university professor of some note that agree with my scenario stated above and contradicts all your points. Explain why should I accept you as a trustworthy authority and not him?
Are you an acknowledged biblical scholar? What are the titles of the books you have written on this subject?
8hf22
>7 JGL53:
And what would be the possible motivations of those forming the "scholarly consensus"?
The scholarly consensus, on this point, includes secular scholars. Including avowed atheists and those who think there never was a historical Jesus.
I would have as much trust (faith?) in that scholarly consensus as I would the scholarly consensus of protestant fundamentalist christian authorities concerning the time line of the "creation" being seven (24 hour) days approximately 7 thousand years ago, with the Adam and Eve story, not to mention the Noah and the ark story, being literal and historical.
The scholarly consensus is not determined by fundamentalists of any stripe. And indeed it already contradicts Christian claims on a number of point, for example the view that several Canonical letters of Paul are not by Paul.
On another question - if the "scholarly consensus" were to change in the next few years and they were to agree that my speculations above were correct, would you be willing to bow to the new "scholarly consensus" and agree they must be right? I doubt it.
If the "scholarly consensus" were to change on dating? Or previously unknown, older documents, were to come to light? Sure, that happens. I have no special insight which could override the scholarly consensus on the dating of particular documents.
On the rest? Well, there are late texts which say the things you indicate (2nd century +). No one is disputing that.
In any case, my agreement or not with the scholars does not change what they think. Even if I agreed with you, it would still be against the scholarly consensus, and thus not worth much.
Plus, the word "consensus"? If it is only 70 per cent or even 80 per cent, or perhaps even 90 per cent, that only tells us that the question is not settled but is still being disputed.
So the scientific consensus on climate change, which is I suppose technically disputed, is able to be dismissed because JGL53 says so? Don’t think so.
And BTW, I have read books written by an acknowledged biblical scholar and a university professor of some note that agree with my scenario stated above and contradicts all your points. Explain why should I accept you as a trustworthy authority and not him?
References or it does not exist. Because while there are scholars who have proposed earlier dates for various texts, they generally acknowledge it is a minority view. And unless they can change the minds of the scholarly consensus, it must be presumed their view is not persuasive to those able to judge.
Are you an acknowledged biblical scholar?
No, which is why I rely on the scholarly consensus, and do not pretend my amateur speculations should be given the same weight. Nor your amateur speculations for that matter.
And what would be the possible motivations of those forming the "scholarly consensus"?
The scholarly consensus, on this point, includes secular scholars. Including avowed atheists and those who think there never was a historical Jesus.
I would have as much trust (faith?) in that scholarly consensus as I would the scholarly consensus of protestant fundamentalist christian authorities concerning the time line of the "creation" being seven (24 hour) days approximately 7 thousand years ago, with the Adam and Eve story, not to mention the Noah and the ark story, being literal and historical.
The scholarly consensus is not determined by fundamentalists of any stripe. And indeed it already contradicts Christian claims on a number of point, for example the view that several Canonical letters of Paul are not by Paul.
On another question - if the "scholarly consensus" were to change in the next few years and they were to agree that my speculations above were correct, would you be willing to bow to the new "scholarly consensus" and agree they must be right? I doubt it.
If the "scholarly consensus" were to change on dating? Or previously unknown, older documents, were to come to light? Sure, that happens. I have no special insight which could override the scholarly consensus on the dating of particular documents.
On the rest? Well, there are late texts which say the things you indicate (2nd century +). No one is disputing that.
In any case, my agreement or not with the scholars does not change what they think. Even if I agreed with you, it would still be against the scholarly consensus, and thus not worth much.
Plus, the word "consensus"? If it is only 70 per cent or even 80 per cent, or perhaps even 90 per cent, that only tells us that the question is not settled but is still being disputed.
So the scientific consensus on climate change, which is I suppose technically disputed, is able to be dismissed because JGL53 says so? Don’t think so.
And BTW, I have read books written by an acknowledged biblical scholar and a university professor of some note that agree with my scenario stated above and contradicts all your points. Explain why should I accept you as a trustworthy authority and not him?
References or it does not exist. Because while there are scholars who have proposed earlier dates for various texts, they generally acknowledge it is a minority view. And unless they can change the minds of the scholarly consensus, it must be presumed their view is not persuasive to those able to judge.
Are you an acknowledged biblical scholar?
No, which is why I rely on the scholarly consensus, and do not pretend my amateur speculations should be given the same weight. Nor your amateur speculations for that matter.
9hf22
>5 JGL53:
Oh, and while we are on scholarly debate, it remains subject to debate if the "Secret Gospel of Mark" (referred to at your link) is genuine or a forgery (refer Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery: The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate edited by Tony Burke#.
I think the better view is likely that it is a genuine 2nd or 3rd century document, but there is no scholarly consensus on the precise dating, though suggestions that it is 1st century are distinctly a minority view (refer http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/ancient-gospel-or-modern-forgery/, https://ntmark.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/secret-mark/, http://synopticsolutions.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/emerging-consensus-on-secret-ma... etc).
#Interesting, one of the three Libarything members with Tony Burke's book is neilgodfrey, who has a mythicist leaning blog at http://vridar.org/ which deals with various fringe theories on the Historical Jesus. Richard Carrier, a published and professional mythicist, has given them a supporting blurb. Vridar is the very definition of crazy amateur speculations against the scholarly consensus, but he does a hell of a lot of obscure reading, so he can be interesting.
He also gave Libarything a shout out the other day (http://vridar.org/2015/07/12/what-is-vridar/), so he can't be all bad.
Oh, and while we are on scholarly debate, it remains subject to debate if the "Secret Gospel of Mark" (referred to at your link) is genuine or a forgery (refer Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery: The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate edited by Tony Burke#.
I think the better view is likely that it is a genuine 2nd or 3rd century document, but there is no scholarly consensus on the precise dating, though suggestions that it is 1st century are distinctly a minority view (refer http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/ancient-gospel-or-modern-forgery/, https://ntmark.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/secret-mark/, http://synopticsolutions.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/emerging-consensus-on-secret-ma... etc).
#Interesting, one of the three Libarything members with Tony Burke's book is neilgodfrey, who has a mythicist leaning blog at http://vridar.org/ which deals with various fringe theories on the Historical Jesus. Richard Carrier, a published and professional mythicist, has given them a supporting blurb. Vridar is the very definition of crazy amateur speculations against the scholarly consensus, but he does a hell of a lot of obscure reading, so he can be interesting.
He also gave Libarything a shout out the other day (http://vridar.org/2015/07/12/what-is-vridar/), so he can't be all bad.
10JGL53
> 8 "So the scientific consensus on climate change, which is I suppose technically disputed, is able to be dismissed because JGL53 says so? Don’t think so."
Once we eliminate the very few people with scientific credentials who have proven to be in the pay of Big Oil and similar interests, the consensus among climate scientists is 100 per cent. That is good enough for me. If the question were up in the air to the degree that religion disputes are then, yes, I would be a skeptic. So thanks for taking up our time with a false analogy.
> 8 "References or it does not exist. Because while there are scholars who have proposed earlier dates for various texts, they generally acknowledge it is a minority view. And unless they can change the minds of the scholarly consensus, it must be presumed their view is not persuasive to those able to judge."
Bart Ehrman - I believe he is a recognized biblical scholar. You of course have no use for him because he may not be part of your "consensus" and thus is anathema. lol. Well, I think he would dispute, quite effectively, your claim that all canonical texts are from the 1st century and all others are 2nd century or later. That would be an amazing fact if it were a fact. Seems like maybe it is not.
> 8 "No, which is why I rely on the scholarly consensus..."
So, then, you are no more an expert in the field than I am - we are just exchanging opinions based on what we have each individually read? Well, isn't that something? So, what shall we debate next - rocket science, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, brain surgery, cultural anthropology concerning the San, aka Bushmen, from the Kalahari Desert?
lol.
Once we eliminate the very few people with scientific credentials who have proven to be in the pay of Big Oil and similar interests, the consensus among climate scientists is 100 per cent. That is good enough for me. If the question were up in the air to the degree that religion disputes are then, yes, I would be a skeptic. So thanks for taking up our time with a false analogy.
> 8 "References or it does not exist. Because while there are scholars who have proposed earlier dates for various texts, they generally acknowledge it is a minority view. And unless they can change the minds of the scholarly consensus, it must be presumed their view is not persuasive to those able to judge."
Bart Ehrman - I believe he is a recognized biblical scholar. You of course have no use for him because he may not be part of your "consensus" and thus is anathema. lol. Well, I think he would dispute, quite effectively, your claim that all canonical texts are from the 1st century and all others are 2nd century or later. That would be an amazing fact if it were a fact. Seems like maybe it is not.
> 8 "No, which is why I rely on the scholarly consensus..."
So, then, you are no more an expert in the field than I am - we are just exchanging opinions based on what we have each individually read? Well, isn't that something? So, what shall we debate next - rocket science, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, brain surgery, cultural anthropology concerning the San, aka Bushmen, from the Kalahari Desert?
lol.
11timspalding
I love how people who aren't sure that there's evidence Jesus existed at all are perfectly willing to believe there's enough evidence to say he was homosexual.
12JGL53
> 11 "I love how people who aren't sure that there's evidence Jesus existed at all are perfectly willing to believe there's enough evidence to say he was homosexual if he existed."
There - fixed that for you.
There - fixed that for you.
13timspalding
Given the logical problems, it seems more likely to me that the real motive is just contrarianism, not good arguments.
14JGL53
> 13
Say what? Do you think atheists really care whether jesus was a real person or just apocryphal, or if real he was gay, straight, bi or asexual? We just assume he was not Mr. Magic Man (or rather Mr. Man/God - lol) because to even suspect otherwise seems pretty darned whacked.
Do you go to an amusement park to learn something or to have fun, Tim? To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli "supernatural claims and paranormal assertions are not just not true, they are not even false." The meaning here is that they are clearly nonsense.
Alan Watts once wrote a book entitled "Nonsense". It contains not a whit more nor a whit less sense than any "serious" religious tome you could name.
Theology is the process of providing an asinine answer to an absurd question. IOW - nonsense.
So - I know what you are but what am I? lol.
Say what? Do you think atheists really care whether jesus was a real person or just apocryphal, or if real he was gay, straight, bi or asexual? We just assume he was not Mr. Magic Man (or rather Mr. Man/God - lol) because to even suspect otherwise seems pretty darned whacked.
Do you go to an amusement park to learn something or to have fun, Tim? To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli "supernatural claims and paranormal assertions are not just not true, they are not even false." The meaning here is that they are clearly nonsense.
Alan Watts once wrote a book entitled "Nonsense". It contains not a whit more nor a whit less sense than any "serious" religious tome you could name.
Theology is the process of providing an asinine answer to an absurd question. IOW - nonsense.
So - I know what you are but what am I? lol.
15timspalding
>14 JGL53:
Yes, I think some atheists care. They'll embrace whatever theory seems to poke Christians in the eye best. "There's no evidence Jesus existed!" That sounds good. "Evidence says Jesus was gay!" That sounds good.
The trouble is that while they both poke traditional Christian belief in the eye, they're not logically compatible. To hold them both is unreasonable. It suggests another motive is at stake than a devotion of reason and evidence.
Yes, I think some atheists care. They'll embrace whatever theory seems to poke Christians in the eye best. "There's no evidence Jesus existed!" That sounds good. "Evidence says Jesus was gay!" That sounds good.
The trouble is that while they both poke traditional Christian belief in the eye, they're not logically compatible. To hold them both is unreasonable. It suggests another motive is at stake than a devotion of reason and evidence.
16JGL53
> 15
And that motive would be........knowingly or unknowingly doing the work of Satan, aka Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, The Adversary, The Fallen One, Angel of Darkness, Prince of Malignant Evil, Father of Lies, Son of Perdition, King of the Bottomless Pit of Hell ? lol.
But, my evil master aside, I am a compromiser at heart, always focusing on agreements rather than disagreements. So what say we compromise, Tim: I will concede that Jesus was probably a real person and was probably a heterosexual (and probably unmarried) - IOW, there's no good reason to think otherwise, and you will concede that Jesus was probably just a man just like any other man, biologically-speaking - IOW, there's no good reason to think otherwise.
Agreed?
And that motive would be........knowingly or unknowingly doing the work of Satan, aka Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, The Adversary, The Fallen One, Angel of Darkness, Prince of Malignant Evil, Father of Lies, Son of Perdition, King of the Bottomless Pit of Hell ? lol.
But, my evil master aside, I am a compromiser at heart, always focusing on agreements rather than disagreements. So what say we compromise, Tim: I will concede that Jesus was probably a real person and was probably a heterosexual (and probably unmarried) - IOW, there's no good reason to think otherwise, and you will concede that Jesus was probably just a man just like any other man, biologically-speaking - IOW, there's no good reason to think otherwise.
Agreed?
17timspalding
>16 JGL53:
I will certainly agree that by the methods of historical inquiry, everything you have said is very likely to be true. More to the point, even if some theoretical doubt remains, it is the best answer we can know by the methods of history--the same methods we use to discuss Alexander or Apollonius of Tyana.
By those measures we can know he existed. We can say that we don't know whether he was gay or straight (there's really no evidence either way, although the latter is statistically more probable). We can say that it's very unlikely he had a wife. As far as being more than a man, we can establish that his followers thought so (a certainty) and that he thought so (but that's harder to know). But we can't get into whether he was or not.
Obviously I believe Jesus was more than a man. But you can't use historical study to establish supernatural truth.
I will certainly agree that by the methods of historical inquiry, everything you have said is very likely to be true. More to the point, even if some theoretical doubt remains, it is the best answer we can know by the methods of history--the same methods we use to discuss Alexander or Apollonius of Tyana.
By those measures we can know he existed. We can say that we don't know whether he was gay or straight (there's really no evidence either way, although the latter is statistically more probable). We can say that it's very unlikely he had a wife. As far as being more than a man, we can establish that his followers thought so (a certainty) and that he thought so (but that's harder to know). But we can't get into whether he was or not.
Obviously I believe Jesus was more than a man. But you can't use historical study to establish supernatural truth.
18hf22
>10 JGL53:
Bart Ehrman is a good scholar, but I don't think he holds the views you ascribe to him. So again references - Where did he say what.
Also, I did not say the scholarly consensus says all canonical texts are 1st century, because it tags some as 2nd century. What I said was almost all 1st century texts which survive are in the canon, except for a couple of others including those I referred to.
Bart Ehrman is a good scholar, but I don't think he holds the views you ascribe to him. So again references - Where did he say what.
Also, I did not say the scholarly consensus says all canonical texts are 1st century, because it tags some as 2nd century. What I said was almost all 1st century texts which survive are in the canon, except for a couple of others including those I referred to.
19Limelite
Does this mean we have to learn about the grandson of god now? I see what's coming -- a whole genre of True Life Stories of the Descendants of Jesus, including their miracles and mind-bending extra-human powers. Dan Brown (to name but one of hundreds) will publish several ghastly books concerning Opus Dei attempts to eradicate all traces of Jesus DNA from humanity; then the conspiracy to hide the last living descendant in a frozen wasteland's ice cave because of the infinite mercy of Lapp reindeer herders; finally he will break gravity by writing the space western of the resurrected descendant who was disguised as an insignificant player in one of the "Dune" series.
Worse than all those Jane Austen knock-offs, worse than the efforts devoted to the care and feeding of the various undead, worse than volumes of unintelligible modern poetry, even, the endless stream of grandson of god books will plague us unto reading eternity.
I hope I'm dead.
Worse than all those Jane Austen knock-offs, worse than the efforts devoted to the care and feeding of the various undead, worse than volumes of unintelligible modern poetry, even, the endless stream of grandson of god books will plague us unto reading eternity.
I hope I'm dead.
20JGL53
> 19
Perk up, Limelite - if taking the fanciful stories in the bible didn't kill you I doubt that bad science fiction will.
Perk up, Limelite - if taking the fanciful stories in the bible didn't kill you I doubt that bad science fiction will.
21JGL53
>18 hf22:
The Bart Ehrman books I read were borrowed and I read them several years ago. It is my recollection that he was aware of thousands of manuscripts to chose from and only 66 made it, under the conditions I stated. And that there was no reason to chose one theology over another except as those that preferred one type gained an going hegemony over all others until, by hook or crook, an orthodoxy was established - the one extant. It was as haphazard a process as that. That is my main understanding and my main point.
As to the precise dates of the oldest manuscripts extant, exactly when or how many times it was copied, or if there is any way to precisely determine when the original was penned, not only am I not an expert on such, like you, but unlike you I have now lost interest in debating the trivial. I find religious disputation amusing up to a point but when it starts to smell like fish left outdoors too long, I need to go on to something else. So I will at this point gladly let you have the last word on this, if you're that type.
If you think Bart Ehrman is full of it you can confirm it by perusing his website if you wish: http://ehrmanblog.org/
There is a discussion forum there and I think a questions for Bart area. Forget me. I think you are ready for the big leagues. Go there and set Bart Ehrman straight. He reads the oldest existing documents in their original languages - him being a scholar and all - but perhaps you could just overpower him with your superior intellect. Yeah, that's the ticket.
The Bart Ehrman books I read were borrowed and I read them several years ago. It is my recollection that he was aware of thousands of manuscripts to chose from and only 66 made it, under the conditions I stated. And that there was no reason to chose one theology over another except as those that preferred one type gained an going hegemony over all others until, by hook or crook, an orthodoxy was established - the one extant. It was as haphazard a process as that. That is my main understanding and my main point.
As to the precise dates of the oldest manuscripts extant, exactly when or how many times it was copied, or if there is any way to precisely determine when the original was penned, not only am I not an expert on such, like you, but unlike you I have now lost interest in debating the trivial. I find religious disputation amusing up to a point but when it starts to smell like fish left outdoors too long, I need to go on to something else. So I will at this point gladly let you have the last word on this, if you're that type.
If you think Bart Ehrman is full of it you can confirm it by perusing his website if you wish: http://ehrmanblog.org/
There is a discussion forum there and I think a questions for Bart area. Forget me. I think you are ready for the big leagues. Go there and set Bart Ehrman straight. He reads the oldest existing documents in their original languages - him being a scholar and all - but perhaps you could just overpower him with your superior intellect. Yeah, that's the ticket.
22JGL53
> 17
"As far as being more than a man, we can establish that his followers thought so (a certainty) and that he thought so (but that's harder to know). But we can't get into whether he was or not."
Certain verses in the bible relate that his followers thought so and that he himself thought so. But what if all the supernatural stuff is made up pieties and interpolations years after his life? I would say the odds are greater that that was the actual case rather than actual violations of physical law took place. Thomas Jefferson thought so too - thus the Jeffersonian bible, which is the N.T. minus all the magic and miracles (the so-called supernatural events). Sure, Australian aboriginals believed in similar animistic/supernatural happenings for 40,000 years. That doesn't make it true or even more likely.
"Obviously I believe Jesus was more than a man. But you can't use historical study to establish supernatural truth."
Firstly, there seems to NO way to establish "supernatural truth" by definition. If you could it would be a science, not a religion.
Secondly you 'believe he was'. OK. Leave it at that and no problem. Try to intellectually defend that belief and that's where people like you always seem to trip, defecate, then fall back into it. Why don't you just leave well enough alone? Silence can sometimes be golden. E.g., if flat-earthers or racial superiority mongers would STFU they wouldn't have to be subjected to the insult of normals throwing their fuckbrained ideas back into their faces. Same goes with pious christians.
"As far as being more than a man, we can establish that his followers thought so (a certainty) and that he thought so (but that's harder to know). But we can't get into whether he was or not."
Certain verses in the bible relate that his followers thought so and that he himself thought so. But what if all the supernatural stuff is made up pieties and interpolations years after his life? I would say the odds are greater that that was the actual case rather than actual violations of physical law took place. Thomas Jefferson thought so too - thus the Jeffersonian bible, which is the N.T. minus all the magic and miracles (the so-called supernatural events). Sure, Australian aboriginals believed in similar animistic/supernatural happenings for 40,000 years. That doesn't make it true or even more likely.
"Obviously I believe Jesus was more than a man. But you can't use historical study to establish supernatural truth."
Firstly, there seems to NO way to establish "supernatural truth" by definition. If you could it would be a science, not a religion.
Secondly you 'believe he was'. OK. Leave it at that and no problem. Try to intellectually defend that belief and that's where people like you always seem to trip, defecate, then fall back into it. Why don't you just leave well enough alone? Silence can sometimes be golden. E.g., if flat-earthers or racial superiority mongers would STFU they wouldn't have to be subjected to the insult of normals throwing their fuckbrained ideas back into their faces. Same goes with pious christians.
23hf22
>21 JGL53:
If you think Bart Ehrman is full of it you can confirm it by perusing his website if you wish:
Bart Ehrman is a good scholar. You, however, are "full of it".
This is Bart Ehrman refusing precisely your argument (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Page 263):
Most recognise clear and certain reasons for dating the New Testament Gospels to the first century. But giving yet earlier dates to non-canonical Gospels that are, in most cases, not quoted or even mentioned by early Christian writers until many, many decades later seems to be overly speculative …
As to the precise dates of the oldest manuscripts extant, exactly when or how many times it was copied, or if there is any way to precisely determine when the original was penned, not only am I not an expert on such, like you, but unlike you I have now lost interest in debating the trivial.
If you don't know, stop confidently pushing crap like you do.
If you think Bart Ehrman is full of it you can confirm it by perusing his website if you wish:
Bart Ehrman is a good scholar. You, however, are "full of it".
This is Bart Ehrman refusing precisely your argument (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Page 263):
Most recognise clear and certain reasons for dating the New Testament Gospels to the first century. But giving yet earlier dates to non-canonical Gospels that are, in most cases, not quoted or even mentioned by early Christian writers until many, many decades later seems to be overly speculative …
As to the precise dates of the oldest manuscripts extant, exactly when or how many times it was copied, or if there is any way to precisely determine when the original was penned, not only am I not an expert on such, like you, but unlike you I have now lost interest in debating the trivial.
If you don't know, stop confidently pushing crap like you do.
24Limelite
>20 JGL53:
I've never read the entire Bible because it's a bad book, overall. Poorly written. Very amateurish. The authors could have benefited from better editing. There's nothing in it that can get me to suspend disbelief. Besides, the protagonist is way over the top -- hates everybody except for a select few among the Chosen in the first half of the book. Real vengeful. Then in the second half suddenly he's a new dad. He has a son who comes out of nowhere and goes on a PR campaign to change everybody's impression of the protagonist. Only he fails and is betrayed by god-now-a-father who allows those favored Chosen to kill his boy in his prime. The plot breaks down from then on. No wonder it was never nominated for any writing awards.
I'm familiar enough with a couple of the more action packed stories and I've been told by Hollywood and actual people quite a few other stories in it. But the truth of our Age is it's easier to avoid fiction behaving badly than religions behaving badly. Too many competing one true god teams. They just don't get the ill-logic of the fundamental fallacy. There can't be one true god if there are (at least) three competing for the title.
Anyway, life's too short to read bad writers, religious or otherwise. If you know the answer, could you tell me: Did any of the "books" in the Bible get selected because they were well written?
I've never read the entire Bible because it's a bad book, overall. Poorly written. Very amateurish. The authors could have benefited from better editing. There's nothing in it that can get me to suspend disbelief. Besides, the protagonist is way over the top -- hates everybody except for a select few among the Chosen in the first half of the book. Real vengeful. Then in the second half suddenly he's a new dad. He has a son who comes out of nowhere and goes on a PR campaign to change everybody's impression of the protagonist. Only he fails and is betrayed by god-now-a-father who allows those favored Chosen to kill his boy in his prime. The plot breaks down from then on. No wonder it was never nominated for any writing awards.
I'm familiar enough with a couple of the more action packed stories and I've been told by Hollywood and actual people quite a few other stories in it. But the truth of our Age is it's easier to avoid fiction behaving badly than religions behaving badly. Too many competing one true god teams. They just don't get the ill-logic of the fundamental fallacy. There can't be one true god if there are (at least) three competing for the title.
Anyway, life's too short to read bad writers, religious or otherwise. If you know the answer, could you tell me: Did any of the "books" in the Bible get selected because they were well written?
25hf22
>24 Limelite:
Did any of the "books" in the Bible get selected because they were well written?
No, it does not seemed to have been a criteria used in the process of canon formation, at least not directly.
Did any of the "books" in the Bible get selected because they were well written?
No, it does not seemed to have been a criteria used in the process of canon formation, at least not directly.
26JGL53
> 24 "Did any of the "books" in the Bible get selected because they were well written?"
No. And as you point out the stories in the christian bible are dull and boring fantasies. They seem to have been conjured up by people who had no television or internet - so it all probably started as needed entertainment. Then, horrifically, christianity became a scam for manipulating and exploiting the illiterate and the dull-minded - and it became in time the most successful of all the religious scams in history. It promises "pie in the sky by and by" as long as you pays your dues (with actual money) now. It essentially made a devil's pack with governmental power and conquered the known world with book and sword, the former used to justify the latter. And yet they pass themselves off as arbiters of morality, speaking for the creator of the entire universe - 26 sextillion galaxies and counting. But their day is rapidly coming to an end, thanks to societal and technological advances. Every day more and more people, by the droves - mainly the younger cohorts - are throwing off the mental chains of this moribund and sick ideology. There is light at the end of the very dark tunnel of human evolution. christian ideology is basically a transitory but painful stage from the evolution of caveman superstition to a modern scientific human race.
In a nutshell, christians in the modern world are analogous to a funny-carload of circus clowns plowing through a public library. They are not wanted, they are not needed, they just make a lot of noise and irritate the shit out of everyone else.
No. And as you point out the stories in the christian bible are dull and boring fantasies. They seem to have been conjured up by people who had no television or internet - so it all probably started as needed entertainment. Then, horrifically, christianity became a scam for manipulating and exploiting the illiterate and the dull-minded - and it became in time the most successful of all the religious scams in history. It promises "pie in the sky by and by" as long as you pays your dues (with actual money) now. It essentially made a devil's pack with governmental power and conquered the known world with book and sword, the former used to justify the latter. And yet they pass themselves off as arbiters of morality, speaking for the creator of the entire universe - 26 sextillion galaxies and counting. But their day is rapidly coming to an end, thanks to societal and technological advances. Every day more and more people, by the droves - mainly the younger cohorts - are throwing off the mental chains of this moribund and sick ideology. There is light at the end of the very dark tunnel of human evolution. christian ideology is basically a transitory but painful stage from the evolution of caveman superstition to a modern scientific human race.
In a nutshell, christians in the modern world are analogous to a funny-carload of circus clowns plowing through a public library. They are not wanted, they are not needed, they just make a lot of noise and irritate the shit out of everyone else.
27hf22
Oh, since we seem to have a few book loving people who like fringe theories about Jesus, there are these "rare fine bound" editions of Richard Carrier's various work on sale at the moment (http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8118).
Carrier mythicist views are very minority, but he does have a PhD in Ancient History, and his latest book was peer reviewed. And the editions look nice.
Carrier mythicist views are very minority, but he does have a PhD in Ancient History, and his latest book was peer reviewed. And the editions look nice.
28timspalding
Certain verses in the bible relate that his followers thought so and that he himself thought so. But what if all the supernatural stuff is made up pieties and interpolations years after his life?
Sure. I'm not disagreeing. Maybe it is. Now, I think we can rule in or rule out certain theories there--we can look at the textual tradition and establish that this belief is early or late. We can deep six silly theories that it was all made up hundreds of years later, or that all the New Testament was written by a cynical Roman, etc. But we can't know from the means of history alone whether or not Jesus was the son of God, etc.
In general, you can't use science to disprove religious truth either. But Christianity is an exception. Christianity makes certain historical claims, not just theological claims. So if we actually had a box of bones with his name on it, and we could demonstrate it wasn't a forgery, that would deep-six traditional Christian belief.
The same is true of fundamentalism. Science destroys their theories about the age of the earth, etc. It doesn't bother me that a silly and very recent heresy is so undermined, obviously.
Firstly, there seems to NO way to establish "supernatural truth" by definition.
Well, we disagree there. But certainly there is no way using the methods of history or science.
Try to intellectually defend that belief and that's where people like you always seem to trip, defecate, then fall back into it.
Well, we are perfectly within our rights to "intellectually defend" against people who make stupid claims. For example, many atheists have come to believe that there's no evidence that Jesus existed. This is stupid—more stupid even than fundamentalist, and often coming from people who don't have the excuse of being yokels.
As for the rest, we can defend the reasonableness of Christianity—that it makes sense, that it coheres with this or that reasonable thing, that it makes sense of moral intuitions, etc.. But we all agree it hangs on supernatural data which cannot be proved by historical analysis.
I've never read the entire Bible because it's a bad book, overall. Poorly written. Very amateurish. The authors could have benefited from better editing.
How much similar ancient literature have you read? My guess is that you simply do not understand literatures other than your own. It's true that the Bible makes a really shitty modern novel. Beethoven wrote shit Pop Songs too.
No, it does not seemed to have been a criteria used in the process of canon formation, at least not directly.
Oh, I don't know. Good writing and good content have a strong relationship on any body of work. If you looked at any secular collection (e.g., Hippocratic corpus), or something like Greek religious poems, you'd see that the stuff that made it in and the stuff that didn't were often different in quality, even if quality was not an explicit condition for inclusion.
Sure. I'm not disagreeing. Maybe it is. Now, I think we can rule in or rule out certain theories there--we can look at the textual tradition and establish that this belief is early or late. We can deep six silly theories that it was all made up hundreds of years later, or that all the New Testament was written by a cynical Roman, etc. But we can't know from the means of history alone whether or not Jesus was the son of God, etc.
In general, you can't use science to disprove religious truth either. But Christianity is an exception. Christianity makes certain historical claims, not just theological claims. So if we actually had a box of bones with his name on it, and we could demonstrate it wasn't a forgery, that would deep-six traditional Christian belief.
The same is true of fundamentalism. Science destroys their theories about the age of the earth, etc. It doesn't bother me that a silly and very recent heresy is so undermined, obviously.
Firstly, there seems to NO way to establish "supernatural truth" by definition.
Well, we disagree there. But certainly there is no way using the methods of history or science.
Try to intellectually defend that belief and that's where people like you always seem to trip, defecate, then fall back into it.
Well, we are perfectly within our rights to "intellectually defend" against people who make stupid claims. For example, many atheists have come to believe that there's no evidence that Jesus existed. This is stupid—more stupid even than fundamentalist, and often coming from people who don't have the excuse of being yokels.
As for the rest, we can defend the reasonableness of Christianity—that it makes sense, that it coheres with this or that reasonable thing, that it makes sense of moral intuitions, etc.. But we all agree it hangs on supernatural data which cannot be proved by historical analysis.
I've never read the entire Bible because it's a bad book, overall. Poorly written. Very amateurish. The authors could have benefited from better editing.
How much similar ancient literature have you read? My guess is that you simply do not understand literatures other than your own. It's true that the Bible makes a really shitty modern novel. Beethoven wrote shit Pop Songs too.
No, it does not seemed to have been a criteria used in the process of canon formation, at least not directly.
Oh, I don't know. Good writing and good content have a strong relationship on any body of work. If you looked at any secular collection (e.g., Hippocratic corpus), or something like Greek religious poems, you'd see that the stuff that made it in and the stuff that didn't were often different in quality, even if quality was not an explicit condition for inclusion.
29JGL53
> 28
I have no argument with much of that but....
"Well, we are perfectly within our rights to "intellectually defend" against people who make stupid claims."
And no one here, including me, has even insinuated that you have no such right. I understand the principle of free speech and freedom of thought. I would have thought that such was clear by now, but I suppose when you are grasping for straws such a verifiably false allegation is as good as any other straw, or rather claim based on utter hot air. For the record I accept that the most non-medicated paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur, bound in a straight jacket as an inmate of a rubber room in one of our fine mental institutions, has the same right to his opinion as do you and I. OK? Can we put this slur behind us now once and for all?
My point, clear to all I thought, was that it would be judicious to keep such opinions to yourself in order not to embarrass rational people, not to mention yourself. You are obviously free to disregard my kind advice. Sure, it is your life. Knock yourself out. You will not be called a fool for christ for nothing. But what the heck - go for it.
" For example, many atheists have come to believe that there's no evidence that Jesus existed. This is stupid...."
Maybe, maybe not. I am an agnostic on the subject. At worst that makes me uninformed, not necessarily stupid. If some atheists insist Jesus was apocryphal then maybe that does go too far. Fine. But it is my understanding that there is no real evidence that Moses, Noah, Adam, Eve, and a few more important figures in the christian bible were anything other than apocryphal. That sort of puts a dent in the concept of christianity as something to be taken seriously as non-fiction.
Maybe jesus was based on a real person who lived during the era considered. OK. But how does that justify belief that such a person cast out demons, multiplied food, walked on water, raised others from the dead and came back from the dead himself, healed the sick with a touch, was miraculously born to a virgin, etc.? Maybe the story of Hercules was based on a real person too. In both instances the story in telling got a little, shall we say, exaggerated? Is that not more likely? The actual occurrence of miracle events 2000 years ago for a time (but not much since then), back in a time when people were nearly complete scientific illiterates - is it more likely such stories are literal history - or legend and myth? - how credulous does one have to be to go with the latter and ignore the obvious likelihood of the former?
I have no argument with much of that but....
"Well, we are perfectly within our rights to "intellectually defend" against people who make stupid claims."
And no one here, including me, has even insinuated that you have no such right. I understand the principle of free speech and freedom of thought. I would have thought that such was clear by now, but I suppose when you are grasping for straws such a verifiably false allegation is as good as any other straw, or rather claim based on utter hot air. For the record I accept that the most non-medicated paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur, bound in a straight jacket as an inmate of a rubber room in one of our fine mental institutions, has the same right to his opinion as do you and I. OK? Can we put this slur behind us now once and for all?
My point, clear to all I thought, was that it would be judicious to keep such opinions to yourself in order not to embarrass rational people, not to mention yourself. You are obviously free to disregard my kind advice. Sure, it is your life. Knock yourself out. You will not be called a fool for christ for nothing. But what the heck - go for it.
" For example, many atheists have come to believe that there's no evidence that Jesus existed. This is stupid...."
Maybe, maybe not. I am an agnostic on the subject. At worst that makes me uninformed, not necessarily stupid. If some atheists insist Jesus was apocryphal then maybe that does go too far. Fine. But it is my understanding that there is no real evidence that Moses, Noah, Adam, Eve, and a few more important figures in the christian bible were anything other than apocryphal. That sort of puts a dent in the concept of christianity as something to be taken seriously as non-fiction.
Maybe jesus was based on a real person who lived during the era considered. OK. But how does that justify belief that such a person cast out demons, multiplied food, walked on water, raised others from the dead and came back from the dead himself, healed the sick with a touch, was miraculously born to a virgin, etc.? Maybe the story of Hercules was based on a real person too. In both instances the story in telling got a little, shall we say, exaggerated? Is that not more likely? The actual occurrence of miracle events 2000 years ago for a time (but not much since then), back in a time when people were nearly complete scientific illiterates - is it more likely such stories are literal history - or legend and myth? - how credulous does one have to be to go with the latter and ignore the obvious likelihood of the former?
30Limelite
>28 timspalding:
Hey, Big Guy, take it easy. No reason to get your panties in a wad when someone's obviously writing humor. If you don't think it's funny, pass on and ignore the post. There's no cause for an ad hominem smackdown.
You're right, I don't understand "literatures" (sic) other than my "own" because the sad truth is, I'm only fluent in modern English. I don't understand a word of ancient Egyptian (a language from which some of the first 5 books of the OT was lifted by bilingual Jewish scribes who also understood very ancient Hebrew or proto-Hebrew, or some other language not even Hebrew of any type, which also sadly, I don't understand).
I don't understand ancient Greek, either. Nor do more than a minute number of modern Greeks. But that sad fact doesn't keep us from enjoying appropriate translations of a story composed more than 3000 years ago. In our own "literatures."
Sadly, I bet you'd have to admit that, just like me, who you imply is an ignorant twit, you don't understand ancient Vedic Sanskrit, the original "literature" language of the Rigveda; sadly, too, you probably don't understand the Sumerian language that appears on a clay nail, the transcribed order of King Entemena who lived (and possibly wrote) around 2400 BCE. So, regarding ancient literature, I'm betting we're on equally sad footing. No?
Hey, Big Guy, take it easy. No reason to get your panties in a wad when someone's obviously writing humor. If you don't think it's funny, pass on and ignore the post. There's no cause for an ad hominem smackdown.
How much similar ancient literature have you read? My guess is that you simply do not understand literatures other than your own. It's true that the Bible makes a really shitty modern novel. Beethoven wrote shit Pop Songs too.
You're right, I don't understand "literatures" (sic) other than my "own" because the sad truth is, I'm only fluent in modern English. I don't understand a word of ancient Egyptian (a language from which some of the first 5 books of the OT was lifted by bilingual Jewish scribes who also understood very ancient Hebrew or proto-Hebrew, or some other language not even Hebrew of any type, which also sadly, I don't understand).
I don't understand ancient Greek, either. Nor do more than a minute number of modern Greeks. But that sad fact doesn't keep us from enjoying appropriate translations of a story composed more than 3000 years ago. In our own "literatures."
Sadly, I bet you'd have to admit that, just like me, who you imply is an ignorant twit, you don't understand ancient Vedic Sanskrit, the original "literature" language of the Rigveda; sadly, too, you probably don't understand the Sumerian language that appears on a clay nail, the transcribed order of King Entemena who lived (and possibly wrote) around 2400 BCE. So, regarding ancient literature, I'm betting we're on equally sad footing. No?
31cpg
>30 Limelite:
Here's some other examples of usage of "literatures" to refer to different bodies of literature:
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/prospective-graduates/masters-programmes/world-liter...
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/came20#.VbhJVotsCfQ
https://literature.ucsd.edu/ugrad/major/english.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/modern-languages-literatures
http://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/directory/mmmmmpelc
http://celtic.fas.harvard.edu
etc., etc., etc.
Here's some other examples of usage of "literatures" to refer to different bodies of literature:
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/prospective-graduates/masters-programmes/world-liter...
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/came20#.VbhJVotsCfQ
https://literature.ucsd.edu/ugrad/major/english.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/modern-languages-literatures
http://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/directory/mmmmmpelc
http://celtic.fas.harvard.edu
etc., etc., etc.
32timspalding
There's no cause for an ad hominem smackdown.
My apologies for the hostile tone.
a language from which some of the first 5 books of the OT was lifted by bilingual Jewish scribes
Uh, no.
Nor do more than a minute number of modern Greeks.
Yes and no. Almost all study it in school. But mastery varies widely, as you might expect.
But that sad fact doesn't keep us from enjoying appropriate translations of a story composed more than 3000 years ago. In our own "literatures."
Translating does not change the literature. An Egyptian hymn is still a Egyptian hymn whether you translate it or not. It follows certain rules of context and genre, and presumes certain information.
So, regarding ancient literature, I'm betting we're on equally sad footing. No?
Well, FWIW, I'm ABD from a Classics Ph.D, read Greek and Latin and have studied Hittite and Egyptian. No, I have not studied Sumerian, except insofar as you pick up a few Sumerian words when studying Hittite, and my Sanskrit goes no farther than linguistic trivia. Even so, I suspect that we are not on the same footing in this department.
More importantly, however, I've read a lot of ancient literature--in translation or not--and taught it to undergraduates who had no experience.
From that I know this: Ancient literatures present genres and approaches that are profoundly unfamiliar to someone who hasn't experienced them. The same is true of foreign literatures, or unfamiliar genres in general.
Ignorance makes things boring. Throw a high-school student into Aeschylus, Sei Shonagon or Stravinsky and they're liable to think them tiresome because their expectations have been set by the Hunger Games and Taylor Swift. Although I've been reading Greco-Roman stuff from a young age, I remember finding Stravinsky boring before I started to appreciate the idiom he's working in. And I remember how weird and hard I found Japanese literature when I first took a course in it.
With knowledge, however, grows appreciation. There is always a hard limit to persuading someone of literary quality. But people who devote effort to the thing—theists and atheists—tend to agree that the Bible contains lots of gorgeous literature (and some less compelling stuff too).
My apologies for the hostile tone.
a language from which some of the first 5 books of the OT was lifted by bilingual Jewish scribes
Uh, no.
Nor do more than a minute number of modern Greeks.
Yes and no. Almost all study it in school. But mastery varies widely, as you might expect.
But that sad fact doesn't keep us from enjoying appropriate translations of a story composed more than 3000 years ago. In our own "literatures."
Translating does not change the literature. An Egyptian hymn is still a Egyptian hymn whether you translate it or not. It follows certain rules of context and genre, and presumes certain information.
So, regarding ancient literature, I'm betting we're on equally sad footing. No?
Well, FWIW, I'm ABD from a Classics Ph.D, read Greek and Latin and have studied Hittite and Egyptian. No, I have not studied Sumerian, except insofar as you pick up a few Sumerian words when studying Hittite, and my Sanskrit goes no farther than linguistic trivia. Even so, I suspect that we are not on the same footing in this department.
More importantly, however, I've read a lot of ancient literature--in translation or not--and taught it to undergraduates who had no experience.
From that I know this: Ancient literatures present genres and approaches that are profoundly unfamiliar to someone who hasn't experienced them. The same is true of foreign literatures, or unfamiliar genres in general.
Ignorance makes things boring. Throw a high-school student into Aeschylus, Sei Shonagon or Stravinsky and they're liable to think them tiresome because their expectations have been set by the Hunger Games and Taylor Swift. Although I've been reading Greco-Roman stuff from a young age, I remember finding Stravinsky boring before I started to appreciate the idiom he's working in. And I remember how weird and hard I found Japanese literature when I first took a course in it.
With knowledge, however, grows appreciation. There is always a hard limit to persuading someone of literary quality. But people who devote effort to the thing—theists and atheists—tend to agree that the Bible contains lots of gorgeous literature (and some less compelling stuff too).
33Limelite
>32 timspalding:
I bow before your superiority and leave the field to you. Yes, there are parts of the Bible that are rhythmic and almost lyrical in King James translation. Too few to make it a Good Book. Heavy editing and pruning could have made the whole thing shorter and more meaningful. I remain unconvinced that rules, laws, admonitions and genealogies for a nomadic culture to live by and remember certain ancestors makes for "holy" work. Nor do I believe literary benefit exists in the NT, other than the biographical bits about and quotes of Jesus.
I will not disappoint you by citing the various works by Egyptians, Tibetans, Greeks and Romans who lived long before either of us that I've read. All in translation, all effectively modernized by such. Nor the other attempts I've made to read stuff in older versions of French and English -- a chore that's IS a bore to me. It does not sadden nor burden me to know El Cid, Tristan and Iseult, and The Dream of the Red Chamber only in modern English translation.
I'll never "enjoy" Tolstoy or the other Russian writers in their native tongues; nor authors like Mann in his; nor Eco in his; I'd insult Marquez if I tried to read Love in the Time of Cholera in Spanish as much as I'd insult Japrisot if I tried to read A Very Long Engagement in French. As for Rushdie -- thank god he writes in English! And I do envy those who are fluent in more than one language since they own an entire universe inaccessible to me.
I admire and respect translators who can bring dead and foreign languages to life in the language I understand. The only "translation" I've ever attempted is taking a stab at the Phaestos Disk for fun and entertainment and decoding the golden "Phaestos Disk" placed on the Voyager spacecraft. Oh, and having a rollicking good time discovering the hidden puzzles and jokes in the chapters of Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. That's sort of like reading a "dead" language -- one that few know and fewer speak (of).
I shall happily enjoy my own exciting life in spite of not knowing a word of Akkadian, the undiscovered joys of which I leave to your future study. And yes, whichever Jews borrowed so much of the content of the Egyptian "Instruction of Amenemope" (not to mention even earlier Egyptian texts some of which may have, in turn, been borrowed from Sumerians) I grant they may not have plagiarized from the original. Of course my error could have been that it was the Egyptians who were bi-lingual; I just tried to bestow credit on the Bible writers.
Who knew the Word of God was scripted by an Egyptian scribe? "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." -- Egyptian saying. I suppose Solomon was also a wise scholar who knew ancient languages and appreciated the gorgeous literature of other cultures. The ones contemporary to him. Who's the fool who sold believers on the idea that the Bible is "the Word of God," anyway? Lost to history is he, only his foolishness pervades.
Guide to Readers: Most of the above is intended humorously.
I bow before your superiority and leave the field to you. Yes, there are parts of the Bible that are rhythmic and almost lyrical in King James translation. Too few to make it a Good Book. Heavy editing and pruning could have made the whole thing shorter and more meaningful. I remain unconvinced that rules, laws, admonitions and genealogies for a nomadic culture to live by and remember certain ancestors makes for "holy" work. Nor do I believe literary benefit exists in the NT, other than the biographical bits about and quotes of Jesus.
I will not disappoint you by citing the various works by Egyptians, Tibetans, Greeks and Romans who lived long before either of us that I've read. All in translation, all effectively modernized by such. Nor the other attempts I've made to read stuff in older versions of French and English -- a chore that's IS a bore to me. It does not sadden nor burden me to know El Cid, Tristan and Iseult, and The Dream of the Red Chamber only in modern English translation.
I'll never "enjoy" Tolstoy or the other Russian writers in their native tongues; nor authors like Mann in his; nor Eco in his; I'd insult Marquez if I tried to read Love in the Time of Cholera in Spanish as much as I'd insult Japrisot if I tried to read A Very Long Engagement in French. As for Rushdie -- thank god he writes in English! And I do envy those who are fluent in more than one language since they own an entire universe inaccessible to me.
I admire and respect translators who can bring dead and foreign languages to life in the language I understand. The only "translation" I've ever attempted is taking a stab at the Phaestos Disk for fun and entertainment and decoding the golden "Phaestos Disk" placed on the Voyager spacecraft. Oh, and having a rollicking good time discovering the hidden puzzles and jokes in the chapters of Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. That's sort of like reading a "dead" language -- one that few know and fewer speak (of).
I shall happily enjoy my own exciting life in spite of not knowing a word of Akkadian, the undiscovered joys of which I leave to your future study. And yes, whichever Jews borrowed so much of the content of the Egyptian "Instruction of Amenemope" (not to mention even earlier Egyptian texts some of which may have, in turn, been borrowed from Sumerians) I grant they may not have plagiarized from the original. Of course my error could have been that it was the Egyptians who were bi-lingual; I just tried to bestow credit on the Bible writers.
Who knew the Word of God was scripted by an Egyptian scribe? "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." -- Egyptian saying. I suppose Solomon was also a wise scholar who knew ancient languages and appreciated the gorgeous literature of other cultures. The ones contemporary to him. Who's the fool who sold believers on the idea that the Bible is "the Word of God," anyway? Lost to history is he, only his foolishness pervades.
Guide to Readers: Most of the above is intended humorously.
34TotalBookcase
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
35John5918
>34 TotalBookcase: Wasn't it Spike Milligan who wanted, "I told you I was ill" engraved on his tombstone as an epitaph?
I believe Billy Connolly wants a horizontal tombstone with, "You're standing on my balls" engraved in the appropriate place.
Mind you there's not much that can beat Spike describing the Prince of Wales as a "little grovelling bastard" on live TV.
I believe Billy Connolly wants a horizontal tombstone with, "You're standing on my balls" engraved in the appropriate place.
Mind you there's not much that can beat Spike describing the Prince of Wales as a "little grovelling bastard" on live TV.
36TotalBookcase
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
37rolandperkins
The "I don't mind dying . . . . ." quote (34)
Outside of Aotearoa / New Zealand
isn't this usually attributed to Woody Allen?*
(with "be around" rather than "be there")
The (later) Episcopal Bishop of Hawai'i, I remember, used it, rather than a Biblical quote, for his text
in his Easter sermon of 1980
*Spike Millilgan/Woody Allen: Of course one may have gotten it
from the other.
Outside of Aotearoa / New Zealand
isn't this usually attributed to Woody Allen?*
(with "be around" rather than "be there")
The (later) Episcopal Bishop of Hawai'i, I remember, used it, rather than a Biblical quote, for his text
in his Easter sermon of 1980
*Spike Millilgan/Woody Allen: Of course one may have gotten it
from the other.
38timspalding
Could have been said about Jesus.
Pfft.
Pfft.
40John5918
>39 Limelite: I expect Spike would be able to make something out of it, especially if he had Harry Secombe and Peter Sellers to assist him. And even Michael Bentine.
41margd
Fascinating 2h NOVA video "The Bible's Buried Secrets" (2102), mentioned by rood in another thread, gave reason to think (towards the end), that if Jesus did have a wife, early Christians might have reason to deny her. Worth watching regardless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qalTJzk4kO0
