| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Yuri Kuchinsky" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM |
| Object: |
translated from the Greek? |
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
18 Nov 2003 12:07:45 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA57B4.71334C30@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:<vrikdk3pl9jld5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311170924.44fe0a05@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some idea
/
purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'.
Huh ? Propaganda is either/neither true/untrue. Where do people get
such
wierd ideas ?
Well, in the world I live in, calling something 'propaganda' is not a
compliment, and infers that it is untrue.
Would you like me to call your posts, 'propaganda'? I wouldn't like
you to call mine this.
The word does have a pejorative meaning in contemporary usage, and I
felt the definition given did not cover this.
(Libertarius, I am well aware of the origins and initially neutral
meaning of the word).
===>Glenn gave the NEUTRAL definition, which is correct
either way. The pejorative sense is only secondary.
The term found extensive POSITIVE use in e.g. the Church, in the
Soviet Communist movement, Goebbels'
"Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda", etc. -- L.
Oddly, in all of the three cases you cite, propaganda is an English
translation of Latin, Russian, and German. Can all of these non-English
words be translated accurately with the same English word?
Is not the English word propaganda a form of the participle for of the first
conjugation Latin verb, propago, propagare, propagavi, propagatus, in the
1st person singular, indicative, active, present; present active infinitive,
1st person singular, indicative, active, perfect; and the perfect passive
participle? More specifically, the English word propaganda appears to me to
be a quite literal (in form but not meaning) cognate of the future passive
participle in the nominative or accusative plural. The etymology of the
word seems to indicate the act of spreading, and in Latin was specifically
applied to plants in the Golden Age and before. I also found meanings in
cognate nouns of propagator, -oris, an extender or enlarger; and
propagatio, -onis, defined as a spreading or an extension or an enlargement.
In Latin, which I suggest your first use of the word propaganda applied to
as your refereence was to the medieval Church, there is no connotation of
falsification or shading the truth. That, I submit, is a modern slant on a
neutral word, and to apply a modern meaning to a medival or ancient word is
to impose a modern cultural meaning that was not at all in the older
cultures. To impose the modern on the past is always incorrect method as
well as an attempt to falsify the evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
18 Nov 2003 12:34:54 PM |
|
|
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA57B4.71334C30@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:<vrikdk3pl9jld5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311170924.44fe0a05@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some idea
/
purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'.
Huh ? Propaganda is either/neither true/untrue. Where do people get
such
wierd ideas ?
Well, in the world I live in, calling something 'propaganda' is not a
compliment, and infers that it is untrue.
Would you like me to call your posts, 'propaganda'? I wouldn't like
you to call mine this.
The word does have a pejorative meaning in contemporary usage, and I
felt the definition given did not cover this.
(Libertarius, I am well aware of the origins and initially neutral
meaning of the word).
===>Glenn gave the NEUTRAL definition, which is correct
either way. The pejorative sense is only secondary.
The term found extensive POSITIVE use in e.g. the Church, in the
Soviet Communist movement, Goebbels'
"Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda", etc. -- L.
Oddly, in all of the three cases you cite, propaganda is an English
translation of Latin, Russian, and German. Can all of these non-English
words be translated accurately with the same English word?
===>"PROPAGANDA" is NOT an "English word".
Originally Italian (from the Latin), derived from the
agency of the Church assigned to missionary activities.
It has become one of the international words, like
many others.
Is not the English word propaganda a form of the participle for of the first
conjugation Latin verb, propago, propagare, propagavi, propagatus, in the
1st person singular, indicative, active, present; present active infinitive,
1st person singular, indicative, active, perfect; and the perfect passive
participle? More specifically, the English word propaganda appears to me to
be a quite literal (in form but not meaning) cognate of the future passive
participle in the nominative or accusative plural. The etymology of the
word seems to indicate the act of spreading, and in Latin was specifically
applied to plants in the Golden Age and before. I also found meanings in
cognate nouns of propagator, -oris, an extender or enlarger; and
propagatio, -onis, defined as a spreading or an extension or an enlargement.
In Latin, which I suggest your first use of the word propaganda applied to
as your refereence was to the medieval Church, there is no connotation of
falsification or shading the truth. That, I submit, is a modern slant on a
neutral word, and to apply a modern meaning to a medival or ancient word is
to impose a modern cultural meaning that was not at all in the older
cultures. To impose the modern on the past is always incorrect method as
well as an attempt to falsify the evidence.
===>That is just your extreme bias speaking.
In fact it is clear from statements of the NT authors,
as well as from the way they attempt to back up their
teachings with twisted citations from the Hebrew
literature, that their intention was, indeed,
PROPAGANDA.
Of course so are the pronouncements of the "prophets"
of the Hebrew material, obviously YAHWIST
propaganda, promoting their centralist, dictatorial
ideas of strict worship of Yahweh and no other'
deity, in the Temple and nowhere else, according to
the rules supposedly given by Yahweh, and no other
way.
(See e.g. the Samaritan vs. Jewish controversy).
Of course you don't like it, but in fact most of the
material in the Bible is clearly PROPAGANDA, in
every sense of the word. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
30 Nov 2003 06:27:35 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA664E.1447A5B0@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA57B4.71334C30@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrikdk3pl9jld5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311170924.44fe0a05@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some
idea
/
purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'.
Huh ? Propaganda is either/neither true/untrue. Where do people
get
such
wierd ideas ?
Well, in the world I live in, calling something 'propaganda' is not
a
compliment, and infers that it is untrue.
Would you like me to call your posts, 'propaganda'? I wouldn't like
you to call mine this.
The word does have a pejorative meaning in contemporary usage, and I
felt the definition given did not cover this.
(Libertarius, I am well aware of the origins and initially neutral
meaning of the word).
===>Glenn gave the NEUTRAL definition, which is correct
either way. The pejorative sense is only secondary.
The term found extensive POSITIVE use in e.g. the Church, in the
Soviet Communist movement, Goebbels'
"Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda", etc. -- L.
Oddly, in all of the three cases you cite, propaganda is an English
translation of Latin, Russian, and German. Can all of these non-English
words be translated accurately with the same English word?
===>"PROPAGANDA" is NOT an "English word".
Where do you see that I wrote that "'PROPAGANDA' is NOT an 'English word'"?
I merely wrote that you used the English word propaganda to translate Latin,
German, and Russian words used by the Catholic Church, Joseph Goebbels'
Ministry, and various arms of the Communist International and Soviet
Government. Or did these agencies use the English word "propaganda" in
their titles?
Originally Italian (from the Latin), derived from the
agency of the Church assigned to missionary activities.
It has become one of the international words, like
many others.
No, it is not "Originally Italian." I can point you to Latin manuscripts
that predate the Italian language. The earliest use of the word propaganda
was in Latin. The papacy never issued any official documents or bulls or
councillor minutes or proclamations in Italian. The Church still does not.
The official and determinant version of every document is in Latin even now.
Is not the English word propaganda a form of the participle for of the
first
conjugation Latin verb, propago, propagare, propagavi, propagatus, in
the
1st person singular, indicative, active, present; present active
infinitive,
1st person singular, indicative, active, perfect; and the perfect
passive
participle? More specifically, the English word propaganda appears to
me to
be a quite literal (in form but not meaning) cognate of the future
passive
participle in the nominative or accusative plural. The etymology of
the
word seems to indicate the act of spreading, and in Latin was
specifically
applied to plants in the Golden Age and before. I also found meanings
in
cognate nouns of propagator, -oris, an extender or enlarger; and
propagatio, -onis, defined as a spreading or an extension or an
enlargement.
In Latin, which I suggest your first use of the word propaganda applied
to
as your refereence was to the medieval Church, there is no connotation
of
falsification or shading the truth. That, I submit, is a modern slant
on a
neutral word, and to apply a modern meaning to a medival or ancient word
is
to impose a modern cultural meaning that was not at all in the older
cultures. To impose the modern on the past is always incorrect method
as
well as an attempt to falsify the evidence.
===>That is just your extreme bias speaking.
Oh really? What specific part? What bias is that?
In fact it is clear from statements of the NT authors,
as well as from the way they attempt to back up their
teachings with twisted citations from the Hebrew
literature, that their intention was, indeed,
PROPAGANDA.
And exactly what statements by the "NT authors" would those be? Would that
be the modern American english definition of propaganda? Or the Latin
meaning of the future passive participle in the nominative or accusative
plural?
Does any Greek word approximating the modern meaning of "propaganda" occur
anywhere in the New Testament? Does the Latin form of the word "propaganda"
appear in any Latin New Testament? In any Latin Old Testament? Can you
please provide chapter and verse?
Of course so are the pronouncements of the "prophets"
of the Hebrew material, obviously YAHWIST
propaganda, promoting their centralist, dictatorial
ideas of strict worship of Yahweh and no other'
deity, in the Temple and nowhere else, according to
the rules supposedly given by Yahweh, and no other
way.
(See e.g. the Samaritan vs. Jewish controversy).
Of course you don't like it, but in fact most of the
material in the Bible is clearly PROPAGANDA, in
every sense of the word. -- L.
What I like or dislike is not terribly relevant. Only the evidence counts.
And you inappropriately apply a modern meaning to am ancient word. That is
a methodological no-no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
30 Nov 2003 07:14:53 PM |
|
|
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA664E.1447A5B0@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA57B4.71334C30@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrikdk3pl9jld5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311170924.44fe0a05@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some
idea
/
purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'.
Huh ? Propaganda is either/neither true/untrue. Where do people
get
such
wierd ideas ?
Well, in the world I live in, calling something 'propaganda' is not
a
compliment, and infers that it is untrue.
Would you like me to call your posts, 'propaganda'? I wouldn't like
you to call mine this.
The word does have a pejorative meaning in contemporary usage, and I
felt the definition given did not cover this.
(Libertarius, I am well aware of the origins and initially neutral
meaning of the word).
===>Glenn gave the NEUTRAL definition, which is correct
either way. The pejorative sense is only secondary.
The term found extensive POSITIVE use in e.g. the Church, in the
Soviet Communist movement, Goebbels'
"Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda", etc. -- L.
Oddly, in all of the three cases you cite, propaganda is an English
translation of Latin, Russian, and German. Can all of these non-English
words be translated accurately with the same English word?
===>"PROPAGANDA" is NOT an "English word".
Where do you see that I wrote that "'PROPAGANDA' is NOT an 'English word'"?
I merely wrote that you used the English word propaganda to translate Latin,
German, and Russian words used by the Catholic Church, Joseph Goebbels'
Ministry, and various arms of the Communist International and Soviet
Government. Or did these agencies use the English word "propaganda" in
their titles?
Originally Italian (from the Latin), derived from the
agency of the Church assigned to missionary activities.
It has become one of the international words, like
many others.
No, it is not "Originally Italian." I can point you to Latin manuscripts
that predate the Italian language. The earliest use of the word propaganda
was in Latin. The papacy never issued any official documents or bulls or
councillor minutes or proclamations in Italian. The Church still does not.
The official and determinant version of every document is in Latin even now.
Is not the English word propaganda a form of the participle for of the
first
conjugation Latin verb, propago, propagare, propagavi, propagatus, in
the
1st person singular, indicative, active, present; present active
infinitive,
1st person singular, indicative, active, perfect; and the perfect
passive
participle? More specifically, the English word propaganda appears to
me to
be a quite literal (in form but not meaning) cognate of the future
passive
participle in the nominative or accusative plural. The etymology of
the
word seems to indicate the act of spreading, and in Latin was
specifically
applied to plants in the Golden Age and before. I also found meanings
in
cognate nouns of propagator, -oris, an extender or enlarger; and
propagatio, -onis, defined as a spreading or an extension or an
enlargement.
In Latin, which I suggest your first use of the word propaganda applied
to
as your refereence was to the medieval Church, there is no connotation
of
falsification or shading the truth. That, I submit, is a modern slant
on a
neutral word, and to apply a modern meaning to a medival or ancient word
is
to impose a modern cultural meaning that was not at all in the older
cultures. To impose the modern on the past is always incorrect method
as
well as an attempt to falsify the evidence.
===>That is just your extreme bias speaking.
Oh really? What specific part? What bias is that?
In fact it is clear from statements of the NT authors,
as well as from the way they attempt to back up their
teachings with twisted citations from the Hebrew
literature, that their intention was, indeed,
PROPAGANDA.
And exactly what statements by the "NT authors" would those be? Would that
be the modern American english definition of propaganda? Or the Latin
meaning of the future passive participle in the nominative or accusative
plural?
===>Sure. ALL of the above.
Does any Greek word approximating the modern meaning of "propaganda" occur
anywhere in the New Testament? Does the Latin form of the word "propaganda"
appear in any Latin New Testament? In any Latin Old Testament? Can you
please provide chapter and verse?
===>PROPAGANDA is "the systematic widespread
promotion of a particular doctrine or idea."
Or "material distributed to
win people over to a particular doctrine."
Do you insist that the material distributed in the Bible
was NOT produced "to win people over to a particular
doctrine"??? Do you insist it is NOT meant for
"the systematic widespread
promotion of a particular doctrine or idea"???
If so, I have nothing further to say to you, other than
that you have a biased view of the Bible material.
Of course so are the pronouncements of the "prophets"
of the Hebrew material, obviously YAHWIST
propaganda, promoting their centralist, dictatorial
ideas of strict worship of Yahweh and no other'
deity, in the Temple and nowhere else, according to
the rules supposedly given by Yahweh, and no other
way.
(See e.g. the Samaritan vs. Jewish controversy).
Of course you don't like it, but in fact most of the
material in the Bible is clearly PROPAGANDA, in
every sense of the word. -- L.
What I like or dislike is not terribly relevant. Only the evidence counts.
And you inappropriately apply a modern meaning to am ancient word. That is
a methodological no-no.
===>False.
I was using the word in its ORIGINAL sense. And whatever
OTHER meaning you are thinking of is also applicable.
There is a very good article re. this at
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/rhet-nt.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
01 Dec 2003 12:41:43 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FCA960D.80F3321F@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA664E.1447A5B0@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FBA57B4.71334C30@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrikdk3pl9jld5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311170924.44fe0a05@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote
in
message
news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate
some
idea
/
purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only
material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'.
Huh ? Propaganda is either/neither true/untrue. Where do
people
get
such
wierd ideas ?
Well, in the world I live in, calling something 'propaganda' is
not
a
compliment, and infers that it is untrue.
Would you like me to call your posts, 'propaganda'? I wouldn't
like
you to call mine this.
The word does have a pejorative meaning in contemporary usage,
and I
felt the definition given did not cover this.
(Libertarius, I am well aware of the origins and initially
neutral
meaning of the word).
===>Glenn gave the NEUTRAL definition, which is correct
either way. The pejorative sense is only secondary.
The term found extensive POSITIVE use in e.g. the Church, in the
Soviet Communist movement, Goebbels'
"Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda",
etc. -- L.
Oddly, in all of the three cases you cite, propaganda is an English
translation of Latin, Russian, and German. Can all of these
non-English
words be translated accurately with the same English word?
===>"PROPAGANDA" is NOT an "English word".
Where do you see that I wrote that "'PROPAGANDA' is NOT an 'English
word'"?
I merely wrote that you used the English word propaganda to translate
Latin,
German, and Russian words used by the Catholic Church, Joseph Goebbels'
Ministry, and various arms of the Communist International and Soviet
Government. Or did these agencies use the English word "propaganda" in
their titles?
Originally Italian (from the Latin), derived from the
agency of the Church assigned to missionary activities.
It has become one of the international words, like
many others.
No, it is not "Originally Italian." I can point you to Latin
manuscripts
that predate the Italian language. The earliest use of the word
propaganda
was in Latin. The papacy never issued any official documents or bulls
or
councillor minutes or proclamations in Italian. The Church still does
not.
The official and determinant version of every document is in Latin even
now.
Is not the English word propaganda a form of the participle for of
the
first
conjugation Latin verb, propago, propagare, propagavi, propagatus,
in
the
1st person singular, indicative, active, present; present active
infinitive,
1st person singular, indicative, active, perfect; and the perfect
passive
participle? More specifically, the English word propaganda appears
to
me to
be a quite literal (in form but not meaning) cognate of the future
passive
participle in the nominative or accusative plural. The etymology
of
the
word seems to indicate the act of spreading, and in Latin was
specifically
applied to plants in the Golden Age and before. I also found
meanings
in
cognate nouns of propagator, -oris, an extender or enlarger; and
propagatio, -onis, defined as a spreading or an extension or an
enlargement.
In Latin, which I suggest your first use of the word propaganda
applied
to
as your refereence was to the medieval Church, there is no
connotation
of
falsification or shading the truth. That, I submit, is a modern
slant
on a
neutral word, and to apply a modern meaning to a medival or ancient
word
is
to impose a modern cultural meaning that was not at all in the older
cultures. To impose the modern on the past is always incorrect
method
as
well as an attempt to falsify the evidence.
===>That is just your extreme bias speaking.
Oh really? What specific part? What bias is that?
In fact it is clear from statements of the NT authors,
as well as from the way they attempt to back up their
teachings with twisted citations from the Hebrew
literature, that their intention was, indeed,
PROPAGANDA.
And exactly what statements by the "NT authors" would those be? Would
that
be the modern American english definition of propaganda? Or the Latin
meaning of the future passive participle in the nominative or accusative
plural?
===>Sure. ALL of the above.
You do not seem to get the point. The definition and translation of the
Latin future, passive, participle form of propaganda is not the same as the
modern American English definition of the modern English word propaganda.
Does any Greek word approximating the modern meaning of "propaganda"
occur
anywhere in the New Testament? Does the Latin form of the word
"propaganda"
appear in any Latin New Testament? In any Latin Old Testament? Can you
please provide chapter and verse?
===>PROPAGANDA is "the systematic widespread
promotion of a particular doctrine or idea."
Or "material distributed to
win people over to a particular doctrine."
That is all real nice but does not answer the questions concerning Latin and
Greek words in the New Testament. Your definition is modern English, and
not Classical Greek or Latin, nor even Church Latin. And those definitions
are different.
Do you insist that the material distributed in the Bible
was NOT produced "to win people over to a particular
doctrine"??? Do you insist it is NOT meant for
"the systematic widespread
promotion of a particular doctrine or idea"???
If so, I have nothing further to say to you, other than
that you have a biased view of the Bible material.
I insist only that the modern and premodern definitions of the word
"propaganda" are different and that you are conflating the two, and imposing
a modern definition on an ancient word.. That is an error of method.
Of course so are the pronouncements of the "prophets"
of the Hebrew material, obviously YAHWIST
propaganda, promoting their centralist, dictatorial
ideas of strict worship of Yahweh and no other'
deity, in the Temple and nowhere else, according to
the rules supposedly given by Yahweh, and no other
way.
(See e.g. the Samaritan vs. Jewish controversy).
Of course you don't like it, but in fact most of the
material in the Bible is clearly PROPAGANDA, in
every sense of the word. -- L.
What I like or dislike is not terribly relevant. Only the evidence
counts.
And you inappropriately apply a modern meaning to am ancient word. That
is
a methodological no-no.
===>False.
No, it is not false at all.
I was using the word in its ORIGINAL sense.
No, you are not. You keep quoting Webster's dictionary at me. The
information at issue is not in there. I already explained that, and
provided some information on the etymology of the word including some
concrening usage in the Golden Age of Latin Literature. You have yet to
falsify any of those points, and merely proclaimed my information was false
without offering anything but your unsupported statement of "False." If you
don't believe me, go find yourself a Latin grammar or two and a reliable
lexicon and look it up yourself. Perhaps you will forgive me for not taking
your unsupported proclamation as undisputed truth. Or not, whatever . . .
And whatever
OTHER meaning you are thinking of is also applicable.
There is a very good article re. this at
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/rhet-nt.html
Did I miss the part in that article concerning the ancient and medieval
meanings of the Latin word or does that article merely not discuss the point
at issue here?
Besides, the Roman Piso pages . . . .geez . . . . . you call that a reliable
source? Why not look in real books and peer-reviewed journals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
02 Dec 2003 06:27:35 PM |
|
|
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FCA960D.80F3321F@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA664E.1447A5B0@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FBA57B4.71334C30@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrikdk3pl9jld5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311170924.44fe0a05@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote
in
message
news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate
some
idea
/
purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only
material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'.
Huh ? Propaganda is either/neither true/untrue. Where do
people
get
such
wierd ideas ?
Well, in the world I live in, calling something 'propaganda' is
not
a
compliment, and infers that it is untrue.
Would you like me to call your posts, 'propaganda'? I wouldn't
like
you to call mine this.
The word does have a pejorative meaning in contemporary usage,
and I
felt the definition given did not cover this.
(Libertarius, I am well aware of the origins and initially
neutral
meaning of the word).
===>Glenn gave the NEUTRAL definition, which is correct
either way. The pejorative sense is only secondary.
The term found extensive POSITIVE use in e.g. the Church, in the
Soviet Communist movement, Goebbels'
"Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda",
etc. -- L.
Oddly, in all of the three cases you cite, propaganda is an English
translation of Latin, Russian, and German. Can all of these
non-English
words be translated accurately with the same English word?
===>"PROPAGANDA" is NOT an "English word".
Where do you see that I wrote that "'PROPAGANDA' is NOT an 'English
word'"?
I merely wrote that you used the English word propaganda to translate
Latin,
German, and Russian words used by the Catholic Church, Joseph Goebbels'
Ministry, and various arms of the Communist International and Soviet
Government. Or did these agencies use the English word "propaganda" in
their titles?
Originally Italian (from the Latin), derived from the
agency of the Church assigned to missionary activities.
It has become one of the international words, like
many others.
No, it is not "Originally Italian." I can point you to Latin
manuscripts
that predate the Italian language. The earliest use of the word
propaganda
was in Latin. The papacy never issued any official documents or bulls
or
councillor minutes or proclamations in Italian. The Church still does
not.
The official and determinant version of every document is in Latin even
now.
Is not the English word propaganda a form of the participle for of
the
first
conjugation Latin verb, propago, propagare, propagavi, propagatus,
in
the
1st person singular, indicative, active, present; present active
infinitive,
1st person singular, indicative, active, perfect; and the perfect
passive
participle? More specifically, the English word propaganda appears
to
me to
be a quite literal (in form but not meaning) cognate of the future
passive
participle in the nominative or accusative plural. The etymology
of
the
word seems to indicate the act of spreading, and in Latin was
specifically
applied to plants in the Golden Age and before. I also found
meanings
in
cognate nouns of propagator, -oris, an extender or enlarger; and
propagatio, -onis, defined as a spreading or an extension or an
enlargement.
In Latin, which I suggest your first use of the word propaganda
applied
to
as your refereence was to the medieval Church, there is no
connotation
of
falsification or shading the truth. That, I submit, is a modern
slant
on a
neutral word, and to apply a modern meaning to a medival or ancient
word
is
to impose a modern cultural meaning that was not at all in the older
cultures. To impose the modern on the past is always incorrect
method
as
well as an attempt to falsify the evidence.
===>That is just your extreme bias speaking.
Oh really? What specific part? What bias is that?
In fact it is clear from statements of the NT authors,
as well as from the way they attempt to back up their
teachings with twisted citations from the Hebrew
literature, that their intention was, indeed,
PROPAGANDA.
And exactly what statements by the "NT authors" would those be? Would
that
be the modern American english definition of propaganda? Or the Latin
meaning of the future passive participle in the nominative or accusative
plural?
===>Sure. ALL of the above.
You do not seem to get the point. The definition and translation of the
Latin future, passive, participle form of propaganda is not the same as the
modern American English definition of the modern English word propaganda.
===>I could not care less about "the Latin future, passive, participle form."
THAT is why I gave you the MODERN, DICTIONARY DEFINITION.
Does any Greek word approximating the modern meaning of "propaganda"
occur
anywhere in the New Testament? Does the Latin form of the word
"propaganda"
appear in any Latin New Testament? In any Latin Old Testament? Can you
please provide chapter and verse?
===>PROPAGANDA is "the systematic widespread
promotion of a particular doctrine or idea."
Or "material distributed to
win people over to a particular doctrine."
That is all real nice but does not answer the questions concerning Latin and
Greek words in the New Testament.
===>How is that relevant???
That word is NOT in the "New Testament", as far as I know.
Your definition is modern English, and
not Classical Greek or Latin, nor even Church Latin. And those definitions
are different.
===>I never claimed it was. Did I?
So, what on earth is your point?
Do you insist that the material distributed in the Bible
was NOT produced "to win people over to a particular
doctrine"??? Do you insist it is NOT meant for
"the systematic widespread
promotion of a particular doctrine or idea"???
If so, I have nothing further to say to you, other than
that you have a biased view of the Bible material.
I insist only that the modern and premodern definitions of the word
"propaganda" are different and that you are conflating the two, and imposing
a modern definition on an ancient word.. That is an error of method.
===>When did I imply that I was using an "ancient word"???
How "ancient" do you think that word is?
Of course so are the pronouncements of the "prophets"
of the Hebrew material, obviously YAHWIST
propaganda, promoting their centralist, dictatorial
ideas of strict worship of Yahweh and no other'
deity, in the Temple and nowhere else, according to
the rules supposedly given by Yahweh, and no other
way.
(See e.g. the Samaritan vs. Jewish controversy).
Of course you don't like it, but in fact most of the
material in the Bible is clearly PROPAGANDA, in
every sense of the word. -- L.
What I like or dislike is not terribly relevant. Only the evidence
counts.
And you inappropriately apply a modern meaning to am ancient word. That
is a methodological no-no.
===>False.
No, it is not false at all.
I was using the word in its ORIGINAL sense.
No, you are not. You keep quoting Webster's dictionary at me.
===>Of course. That is where you find the accepted meaning of the word.
The
information at issue is not in there.
===>The information at issue is my use of that word.
And no one but I can decide whether it is there or not.
I say it is there.
I already explained that, and
provided some information on the etymology of the word including some
concrening usage in the Golden Age of Latin Literature.
===>Etymology has nothing to do with it.
You have yet to falsify any of those points,
===>I don't CARE to "falsify" anything.
It is patently false to claim that I am applying
"a modern meaning to am (sic.) ancient word".
and merely proclaimed my information was false
without offering anything but your unsupported statement of "False."
===>It is false because I say it is false.
I am NOT applying any meaning to any "ancient word".
If you
don't believe me, go find yourself a Latin grammar or two and a reliable
lexicon and look it up yourself.
===>What has Latin grammar got to do with it?
The English language is FULL of words derived from
Latin and often not used in the sense speakers of
Latin would have used them In fact there are many
ENLISH words that are not used in the sense even
King James would have used them.
Perhaps you will forgive me for not taking
your unsupported proclamation as undisputed truth. Or not, whatever . . .
===>I don't care how you take it.
By ANY recognized definition of the word "propaganda",
much of the material in the Bible, especially in the "New
Testament" happens to BE propaganda.
And whatever
OTHER meaning you are thinking of is also applicable.
There is a very good article re. this at
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/rhet-nt.html
Did I miss the part in that article concerning the ancient and medieval
meanings of the Latin word or does that article merely not discuss the point
at issue here?
===>It does NOT discuss the "ancient and medieval meanings" of
Latin words. Even if that word had existed in "ancient and medieval"
Latin in some other sense, that is IRRELEVANT to the subject.
Besides, the Roman Piso pages . . . .geez . . . . . you call that a reliable
source?
===>Did I "call that a reliable source?"
I don't think so.
I wrote that it was a "very good article".
Why not look in real books and peer-reviewed journals?
===>For what?
Which dictionary would you accept?
(Webster's, the Oxford English Dictionary, Funk and Wagnalls...)
Those are "real books".
You must not be well acquainted with the literature to think
that I am alone in recognizing much of the Bible material as
PROPAGANDA pieces.
Libertarius
==============
P.S. Some quick examples:
E.g. "The synoptic gospels are equally unsatisfactory as they
have more the character of propaganda than of biography."
(Portable Jung (Viking Portable Library (Paper))
by Carl Gustav Jung, et al (Paperback - December 1976)
Page 573)
Also from Publishers Weekly (commenting on the book
"Who Killed Jesus? : Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in
the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus" by
John Dominic Crossan):
"In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy,
John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the
historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence
on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie."
....Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the
Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda
against the Jews... as Christianity and the Roman Empire became
inextricably linked, that propaganda became the lethal basis for
transition from a theological controversy within a religious community to
propaganda directed by one religious community against another to genocidal
anti-Semitism. What may have been relatively harmless propaganda at its
origins has become, Crossan argues, "the longest lie."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
18 Nov 2003 12:57:06 PM |
|
|
Me thinks a mountain is being made of a mole-hill
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Rdtub.5888$n56.575@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA57B4.71334C30@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrikdk3pl9jld5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311170924.44fe0a05@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message
news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some
idea
/
purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'.
Huh ? Propaganda is either/neither true/untrue. Where do people get
such
wierd ideas ?
Well, in the world I live in, calling something 'propaganda' is not a
compliment, and infers that it is untrue.
Would you like me to call your posts, 'propaganda'? I wouldn't like
you to call mine this.
The word does have a pejorative meaning in contemporary usage, and I
felt the definition given did not cover this.
(Libertarius, I am well aware of the origins and initially neutral
meaning of the word).
===>Glenn gave the NEUTRAL definition, which is correct
either way. The pejorative sense is only secondary.
The term found extensive POSITIVE use in e.g. the Church, in the
Soviet Communist movement, Goebbels'
"Reich Ministry for People's Enlightenment and Propaganda", etc. -- L.
Oddly, in all of the three cases you cite, propaganda is an English
translation of Latin, Russian, and German. Can all of these non-English
words be translated accurately with the same English word?
Is not the English word propaganda a form of the participle for of the
first
conjugation Latin verb, propago, propagare, propagavi, propagatus, in the
1st person singular, indicative, active, present; present active
infinitive,
1st person singular, indicative, active, perfect; and the perfect passive
participle? More specifically, the English word propaganda appears to me
to
be a quite literal (in form but not meaning) cognate of the future passive
participle in the nominative or accusative plural. The etymology of the
word seems to indicate the act of spreading, and in Latin was specifically
applied to plants in the Golden Age and before. I also found meanings in
cognate nouns of propagator, -oris, an extender or enlarger; and
propagatio, -onis, defined as a spreading or an extension or an
enlargement.
In Latin, which I suggest your first use of the word propaganda applied to
as your refereence was to the medieval Church, there is no connotation of
falsification or shading the truth. That, I submit, is a modern slant on
a
neutral word, and to apply a modern meaning to a medival or ancient word
is
to impose a modern cultural meaning that was not at all in the older
cultures. To impose the modern on the past is always incorrect method as
well as an attempt to falsify the evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
18 Nov 2003 03:43:39 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
Me thinks a mountain is being made of a mole-hill
===>Of course. Such are badly needed, for
those are the only kind of mountains that can be
moved with faith. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Cooper" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
18 Nov 2003 04:06:03 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
Me thinks a mountain is being made of a mole-hill
===>Of course. Such are badly needed, for
those are the only kind of mountains that can be
moved with faith. -- L.
Well, you can think of it this way, if the molehills weren't turned into
mountains, all you would have to do is stamp them out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
17 Nov 2003 09:17:14 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<vrfphp8m267k57@corp.supernews.com>...
Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some idea / purpose
But does this not omit the key pejorative note? only material we
believe to be untrue is 'propaganda'. Material we believe to be true
is 'education'.
===>Read the dictionary on the word "propaganda".
http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization
established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related
institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a
person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a
public action having such an effect
The very purpose of propaganda IS to make people
believe it to be true. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
14 Nov 2003 08:10:22 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FD9F.6715D4BD@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes.
How do you know?
===>Luke 1:1,3
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account
of the things accomplished among us...
it seemed fitting for me as well,
having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,
to write it out for you in consecutive order,
most excellent Theophilus"
This does not demonstrate that the gospels were "written and edited,
probably numerous times, for religious propaganda purposes."
===>It sure sounds like that to me.
But perceptions do differ.
John 20:31
"but these have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God".
Indeed. But this does not demonstrate your statement either.
Those are just two obvious admissions of the purpose of
those writings.
===>I.e. PROPAGANDA.
Well, they do not say what you represent them as saying, unless no-one
ever writes anything except as propaganda.
===>Most ancient texts were not written to convert anybody to a
new religion. If they were, they were also propaganda.
What IS "propaganda"???
PRIMARILY a religious activity.
See Merriam-Webster:
" pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide
Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established
by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction
over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose
of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's
cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having
such an effect."
This does not mean that some
portions of earlier pieces were not included. Indeed, it appears
that several earlier pieces may have been combined at times,
some of which may have been translations from Aramaic.
Possibly.
Originally there were no doubt only one or two copies of anything,
written for the use of one particular religious community, which were
either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately if the new version was
to replace its predecessor. -- L.
How do you know?
===>They did not have printing presses or copy machines,
as far as I know.
The same applies to every ancient document. I don't see how it
relates to your statement, which supposes deliberate destruction in
order to replace them. Sorry.
===>What do you think was the purpose of hiding e.g. the Nag Hammadi
scriptures? Anyway, your argument does not address what I wrote:
"either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately".
Are you familiar with the statement by Celsus?
"Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of
wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original
text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost
indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of
worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they
might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions".
In his CONTRA CELSUS, Origen as much as admits that
this has been happening, when he writes:
"... it is not at all fair to bring this charge against the Christian
religion as a crime unworthy of its pretended purity; only those
persons who were concerned in the fraud should, in equity, be
held answerable for it"
Speaking of the copyists, Jerome already observed:
"They write down not what they find
but what they think is the meaning; and while
they attempt to rectify the errors of others,
they merely expose their own" (Epist. LXXI.5).
Prof. Eberhard Nestle of the famous NESTLE TEXT
wrote in Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen
Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were,
following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected
by the church authorities to scrutinize the
sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct
their meaning in accordance with the views which the
church had just sanctioned."
And Prof. Bart D. Ehrman wrote:
"...theological disputes, specifically disputes over
Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the
words of scripture in order to make them more
serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified
their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and
less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy" --
(The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture)
Similarly, Dr. Vincent Taylor writes,
"The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve
traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations:
those which involve the elimination or alteration of
what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient,
and those which introduce into the Scriptures proof for a favorite
theological tenet or practice".
(The Text of the New Testament)
Finally, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary says:
"Jerome had not been long in Rome (A.D.
383) when Damasus asked him to make a revision of the
current Latin version of the New Testament with the help of the
Greek original. 'There were,' he says, 'almost as many forms of
text as copies.' The gospels had naturally suffered most. Jerome
therefore applied himself to these first. But his aim was to revise
the Old Latin and not to make a new version. Yet, although he
had this limited objective, the various forms of corruption that
had been introduced were, as he describes them, so numerous
that the difference of the old and revised (Hieronymian) text is
clear and striking throughout. Some of the changes Jerome
introduced were made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is
impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this
respect. Others involved questions of interpretation. But the
greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by
which especially the synoptic gospels were disfigured".
I could cite more, but this shoud suffice to show that I was
not simply stating my own opinion. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
15 Nov 2003 09:03:00 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB58B0E.AD386095@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FD9F.6715D4BD@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes.
How do you know?
===>Luke 1:1,3
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account
of the things accomplished among us...
it seemed fitting for me as well,
having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,
to write it out for you in consecutive order,
most excellent Theophilus"
This does not demonstrate that the gospels were "written and edited,
probably numerous times, for religious propaganda purposes."
===>It sure sounds like that to me.
But perceptions do differ.
John 20:31
"but these have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God".
Indeed. But this does not demonstrate your statement either.
Those are just two obvious admissions of the purpose of
those writings.
===>I.e. PROPAGANDA.
Well, they do not say what you represent them as saying, unless no-one
ever writes anything except as propaganda.
===>Most ancient texts were not written to convert anybody to a
new religion. If they were, they were also propaganda.
I am sorry that you cannot differentiate between a statement of fact
and a piece of propaganda, but, with respect, I'm not sure it is for
me to point out that these are not the same thing.
This does not mean that some
portions of earlier pieces were not included. Indeed, it appears
that several earlier pieces may have been combined at times,
some of which may have been translations from Aramaic.
Possibly.
Originally there were no doubt only one or two copies of anything,
written for the use of one particular religious community, which were
either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately if the new version was
to replace its predecessor. -- L.
How do you know?
===>They did not have printing presses or copy machines,
as far as I know.
The same applies to every ancient document. I don't see how it
relates to your statement, which supposes deliberate destruction in
order to replace them. Sorry.
===>What do you think was the purpose of hiding e.g. the Nag Hammadi
scriptures?
Do we know that they were 'hidden'?
We do not *know* why those documents ended up in a jar. You can
speculate, and so can I. Can we stick to statements of fact, please?
Anyway, your argument does not address what I wrote:
"either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately".
I did. I denied that you knew.
Are you familiar with the statement by Celsus?
I am familiar with Contra Celsum, and also the bogus 'translation' by
R.J.Hoffmann.
"Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of
wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original
text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost
indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of
worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they
might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions".
In his CONTRA CELSUS, Origen as much as admits that
this has been happening, when he writes:
"... it is not at all fair to bring this charge against the Christian
religion as a crime unworthy of its pretended purity; only those
persons who were concerned in the fraud should, in equity, be
held answerable for it"
Before I respond to this, perhaps you would indicate the portion of
Contra Celsum involved? It is a big book. Furthermore, I smell the
falsification of Hoffmann in the citation above.
Speaking of the copyists, Jerome already observed:
"They write down not what they find
but what they think is the meaning; and while
they attempt to rectify the errors of others,
they merely expose their own" (Epist. LXXI.5).
Did *you* read this? Jerome is talking about the NT, is he?
Prof. Eberhard Nestle of the famous NESTLE TEXT
wrote in Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen
Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were,
following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected
by the church authorities to scrutinize the
sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct
their meaning in accordance with the views which the
church had just sanctioned."
I do not believe Nestle said any such thing -- where did you find this
nonsense? -- and it is untrue in point of fact.
[Various proof-texts from some uncited document snipped]
In view of the dubious nature of the previous two quotes, pardon me if
I skip over the next two.
Finally, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary says:
"Jerome had not been long in Rome (A.D.
383) when Damasus asked him to make a revision of the
current Latin version of the New Testament with the help of the
Greek original. 'There were,' he says, 'almost as many forms of
text as copies.' The gospels had naturally suffered most. Jerome
therefore applied himself to these first. But his aim was to revise
the Old Latin and not to make a new version. Yet, although he
had this limited objective, the various forms of corruption that
had been introduced were, as he describes them, so numerous
that the difference of the old and revised (Hieronymian) text is
clear and striking throughout. Some of the changes Jerome
introduced were made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is
impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this
respect. Others involved questions of interpretation. But the
greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by
which especially the synoptic gospels were disfigured".
What has this to do with the question?
I could cite more, but this shoud suffice to show that I was
not simply stating my own opinion. -- L.
I'm afraid that you are, tho!
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
15 Nov 2003 02:37:05 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB58B0E.AD386095@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FD9F.6715D4BD@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes.
How do you know?
===>Luke 1:1,3
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account
of the things accomplished among us...
it seemed fitting for me as well,
having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,
to write it out for you in consecutive order,
most excellent Theophilus"
This does not demonstrate that the gospels were "written and edited,
probably numerous times, for religious propaganda purposes."
===>It sure sounds like that to me.
But perceptions do differ.
John 20:31
"but these have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God".
Indeed. But this does not demonstrate your statement either.
Those are just two obvious admissions of the purpose of
those writings.
===>I.e. PROPAGANDA.
Well, they do not say what you represent them as saying, unless no-one
ever writes anything except as propaganda.
===>Most ancient texts were not written to convert anybody to a
new religion. If they were, they were also propaganda.
I am sorry that you cannot differentiate between a statement of fact
and a piece of propaganda, but, with respect, I'm not sure it is for
me to point out that these are not the same thing.
===>I know they are not the same thing.
But I also know what "propaganda" is.
That is why I gave you the dictionary definition, so you
would know.
It was a term having to do with the propagation of the
Christian religion to begin with.
This does not mean that some
portions of earlier pieces were not included. Indeed, it appears
that several earlier pieces may have been combined at times,
some of which may have been translations from Aramaic.
Possibly.
Originally there were no doubt only one or two copies of anything,
written for the use of one particular religious community, which were
either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately if the new version was
to replace its predecessor. -- L.
How do you know?
===>They did not have printing presses or copy machines,
as far as I know.
The same applies to every ancient document. I don't see how it
relates to your statement, which supposes deliberate destruction in
order to replace them. Sorry.
===>What do you think was the purpose of hiding e.g. the Nag Hammadi
scriptures?
Do we know that they were 'hidden'?
We do not *know* why those documents ended up in a jar. You can
speculate, and so can I. Can we stick to statements of fact, please?
===>Read THE OTHER BIBLE.
Anyway, your argument does not address what I wrote:
"either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately".
I did. I denied that you knew.
===>They don't exist, so what else could have happened to them,
other than being "lost or destroyed"??? Did they ascend to heaven?
I have some as yet unverified quotes that support my position:
"Edgar Hennecke says: "It is known that the wording of the Greek texts,
which we use as a base, originate from the 5th century"
(see Neutestamentlische Apokryphen, p. 8 also in English:
Edgar Hennecke and William Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocrypha, 2 Vols., (Philadelphia: the Westminster
Press, 1963)). At this time one made an
assault upon all old manuscripts that the Church had not accepted and
sanctioned by canon law. As a result, unrecoverable material was destroyed.
Alphred Resch (Agrapha p. 352) says: "Probably many of these manuscripts
were kept in old monastaries in the 4th century, like Codex Cantabrigeniensis
D. and Codex Syrus Sinaiticus which both marvellously survived. At the time,
382 AD during the pope Damasos, the canonical texts were adopted and in this
connection all old documents were destroyed."
Are you familiar with the statement by Celsus?
I am familiar with Contra Celsum, and also the bogus 'translation' by
R.J.Hoffmann.
"Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of
wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original
text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost
indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of
worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they
might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions".
===>Here is the entire quote:
Book 2, Chapter XXVII.
"After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers,
like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon
themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity,
to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have
remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.
Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save
the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think,
also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against
the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with
the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against
philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics,
or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false
opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are
some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce
heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus."
You will find the entire work at
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-56.htm#P8156_2019644
Speaking of the copyists, Jerome already observed:
"They write down not what they find
but what they think is the meaning; and while
they attempt to rectify the errors of others,
they merely expose their own" (Epist. LXXI.5).
Did *you* read this? Jerome is talking about the NT, is he?
===>The Gospels are a major part of the NT.
Prof. Eberhard Nestle of the famous NESTLE TEXT
wrote in Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen
Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were,
following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected
by the church authorities to scrutinize the
sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct
their meaning in accordance with the views which the
church had just sanctioned."
I do not believe Nestle said any such thing -- where did you find this
nonsense? -- and it is untrue in point of fact.
===>Once again, you only believe what you wish, but the quote is
from Nestle's "Einfuehrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments".
[Various proof-texts from some uncited document snipped]
In view of the dubious nature of the previous two quotes, pardon me if
I skip over the next two.
===>I have a good source for blinders of various sizes,
if you wish me to cite the suppliers.
Finally, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary says:
"Jerome had not been long in Rome (A.D.
383) when Damasus asked him to make a revision of the
current Latin version of the New Testament with the help of the
Greek original. 'There were,' he says, 'almost as many forms of
text as copies.' The gospels had naturally suffered most. Jerome
therefore applied himself to these first. But his aim was to revise
the Old Latin and not to make a new version. Yet, although he
had this limited objective, the various forms of corruption that
had been introduced were, as he describes them, so numerous
that the difference of the old and revised (Hieronymian) text is
clear and striking throughout. Some of the changes Jerome
introduced were made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is
impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this
respect. Others involved questions of interpretation. But the
greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by
which especially the synoptic gospels were disfigured".
What has this to do with the question?
===>The "question" was changes in the text of the Gospels.
I could cite more, but this shoud suffice to show that I was
not simply stating my own opinion. -- L.
I'm afraid that you are, tho!
===>That is the way you see it because you refuse to admit
the truth.
One final quote:
Sources say St. Faustus (a.k.a. Faustus of Riez), Fifth--Century French Bishop
wrote:
"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord
which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--
as already it has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ,
nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I
know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made
up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon
the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow
the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits
according to them."
See also: "New Testament Alterations" by Yesai Nasrai for other relevant details.
http://www.essenes.crosswinds.net/New%20Testament%20Alterations.htm
Peace,
Libertarius
===========
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
10 Nov 2003 06:18:56 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFADAB.42F9475A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAEDE44.65552E92@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>To make a long story a lot shorter, IMO the material in the Bible
SHOULD be give the same treatment as any other literature, but IT IS NOT!
It is called "inspired", "inerrant", the "Word of God". No one makes
similar assertions about those other pieces.
I think this is to confuse two different topics, if you don't mind my
suggesting this. We've been talking about the preservation of the
text.
Issues of inspiration, etc, are theological points, on which no
non-Christian can legitimately have an opinion, I'd have thought. If
it doesn't bother them, how can it bother us? We have no test for
inspiration, after all.
However, if the argument is that a text which is preserved in the
normal way for all texts cannot be inspired, since it involves copying
by fallible human beings, well, I would ask why. How do you determine
that a text is inspired?
a. Did the fathers think this, living in the manuscript world as they
did?
b. If not, if they did not think this, how can it worry us?
Just imagining a parallel case, I know that if I had to 'beam down' a
text to a primitive people, I would write it in such a way that exact
wording wasn't crucial, so I could deal with this. If I can imagine
such, no doubt an all-powerful God can do something better.
Whatever the situation, the Christians, knowing the problems of
transmission, nevertheless consider their book inspired. I don't see
how anything discussed so far can be relevant.
Your agreement re. "evolution" is exactly what I have been attempting to
show: i.e. that the only full story we have is from the second and even the
third century. That reductions, amplifications and changes were made during
those centuries is obvious. What else was changed and added is impossible
to say, but to expect that the Gospels represent historical data is simply
naive. -- L.
Does this apply to non-Christian texts also?
===>Of course it does.
This won't work, you
know. The confusion is between the critical history of the text, and
the presumption that these affect in any significant way the story
being told. They do not.
===>How do you know that?
Pardon? Trying looking at the examples. A good guide is whether or
not they make it into the footnotes in translation.
No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
have contained.
Excuse me, but I don't quite see how you can argue from what we do not
know.
===>I am not.
I am simply saying that, although there are a few "fragments" from earlier
versions, the only information we have is from material
contained in books from the third century and later. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
10 Nov 2003 02:06:58 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAEDE44.65552E92@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Didymos wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Besides, my point is that the "evolution" of the New
Testament is not significantly different than the "evolution" of any other
text from antiquity, and the same rules of evidence must apply across the
board to all manuscripts. To apply one set of rules to the Bible and
another to non-Christian manuscripts is hypocritical, manifestly unfair, and
*****-poor scholarship at every level. And by attempting that fraud, you,
sir, are committing the same offences against learning that you have accused
the King James Only and creationist adherents of committing. But that is
just my personal opinion, and we all know what that is worth . . .
===>To make a long story a lot shorter, IMO the material in the Bible
SHOULD be give the same treatment as any other literature, but IT IS NOT!
It is called "inspired", "inerrant", the "Word of God". No one makes
similar assertions about those other pieces.
Your agreement re. "evolution" is exactly what I have been attempting to
show: i.e. that the only full story we have is from the second and even the
third century. That reductions, amplifications and changes were made during
those centuries is obvious. What else was changed and added is impossible
to say, but to expect that the Gospels represent historical data is simply
naive. -- L.
Quoting Dr. Thiering, a retired Professor of Religious Studies with
whom Libertarius diagrees ---
"Theologians and biblical scholars have long held that the NT
miracle stories are the result of growth of tradition, the
kinds of legend that grow up about a charismatic figure. But
that does not really explain why so much trouble was taken
to preserve and record them, thus setting up an apparent conflict
with the rest of the New Testament. They also cannot account for
their appearance over such a short time, in circles that were
literate. There is nothing similar to this in the scrolls,
where the Teacher is given a status like that of Jesus."
Luke gives 12 historical parables (in the form
of a narrative in the past).
The first 4 -
the Sower 8:4-8
the Good Samaritan 10:30-37
the Rich Fool 12:16-21
the Figtree 13:6-9
deal with Essene history, in chronological order,
starting from the millennium of the Davids, AD 1.
The next 6 -
the Great Banquet 14:15-24
the Prodigal Son 15:11-32
the Dishonest Steward 16:1-8
the Rich Man and Lazarus 16:19-31
the Widow and the Judge 18:1-8
the Pharisee and the Tax Collector 18:9-14
deal with Herodian history, in chronological order,
starting with the Herodian millennium, 41-40 BC.
The final 2 -
the Ten Pounds 19:11-27
the Vineyard 20:9-16
deal with the whole first generation of the
millennium of the Davids.
Speaking selectively, let it be understood Jesus -
was born into the royal priestly line of a
strict Jewish sect at Qumran, not Bethlehem
as a hated outcast, befriended the poor, the
sick, women, and gentiles and rejected the
harsh legalism of his sect
preformed no miracles
Best,
David Christainsen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
10 Nov 2003 08:55:36 PM |
|
|
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15910715.0311101206.a7b01ac@posting.google.com...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:<3FAEDE44.65552E92@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Didymos wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Besides, my point is that the "evolution" of the New
Testament is not significantly different than the "evolution" of any
other
text from antiquity, and the same rules of evidence must apply across
the
board to all manuscripts. To apply one set of rules to the Bible and
another to non-Christian manuscripts is hypocritical, manifestly
unfair, and
*****-poor scholarship at every level. And by attempting that fraud,
you,
sir, are committing the same offences against learning that you have
accused
the King James Only and creationist adherents of committing. But that
is
just my personal opinion, and we all know what that is worth . . .
===>To make a long story a lot shorter, IMO the material in the Bible
SHOULD be give the same treatment as any other literature, but IT IS
NOT!
It is ca | | |
