Re: [Synoptic-L] Fun with languages
- Well, at least I'm getting a response...
But given the general lack of positive interest, I'll shortly give it a
rest in this venue.
I'll respond to some points here, however.
J: Problem is, you haven't demonstrated in any way or form that you even
minimally understand what "acceptable" methodology is,
D: I know you are looking for a deductive "proof".
J: let alone (and
more importantly), that it **hasn't** produced the "right" answer. I
have yet to see any evidence from you that you have examined what
commentators on the salt saying have actually said.
D: My commentaries say it is semi-random bit added because the key word
A scan for journals by keyword salt and/or verse produced one article on
Mark's salt saying related to gay rights.
I should have some new books waiting for me tonight, but if there are
some better answers out there then I wish someone would just tell be
rather than being cryptic about it.
J: And I certainly
haven't seen you make any case whatsoever, let alone an informed and
convincing one, that what they say is wrong.
D; I demonstrated that it is unlikely to just be a random bit. What you
call "no case at all" is a Bayesian statistical argument. And cases like
that lie at the heart of all scientific investigation. Jaynes -
"Probability Theory, the Logic of Science" is an excellent source. And
as far as argument all you've said is salt has destructive properties,
and so does fire, so you think the first saying is about destruction.
And you probably find that a superior argument because you can use
deduction from the text. I would say that all you show that way is a
possible reading, and that you have done almost nothing to render it
probable. If that's the acceptable methodology, it sure does not look
much like a science here. It might be the right approach if you are
looking for doctrine, but I'm doing a literary approach. I want to know
what the *author* *probably* meant. And you've not said anything about
the second saying.
J: Leaving aside the question of why an alleged meaning of a Latin word
should be taken as definitive for determining the meaning with which a
Greek word was used,
D: It shouldn't be of course. It is informative as to how the author
might have used it, when say writing a little puzzle in a multi-lingual
environment. You are doing deduction. I'm doing induction.
J: Let's note that salax does NOT mean "in a salted
state", let alone "in a state of love".
D: O.K. Thanks for the information, I'll assume my source was wrong,
investigate more, and make a correction.
J: Is it? You not only neglect -- or are unaware of the fact -- that
Greek word for salt is ALAS (not HALAS ),
D: Yes I know it is hALAS.
J: and that it is absolute
nonsense to claim that because two words in entirely different languages
have some similarity of sound, that the meaning of one word transfers to
D: Now why in the world would you think I was claiming that? You must
think that having a lot of education in an area other than biblical
studies makes one stupid. I suggested that it might possibly be relevant
- the author would have to be intentionally playing linguistic games. It
*is* possible that Mark had a creative bone. And since I think he meant
"salt of the old covenant" for other reasons, the word similarity makes
it even a bit more clever. I actually think Mark was an *author*.
> I'm sorry you felt my post was a waste of time.J: But it, and the above, clearly is.
D: Maybe a little extra "salt" with dinner tonight?
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Dave Gentile
> Riverside, IL