Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios" in Paul generally

Expand Messages
  • David Cavanagh
    ... Really? I think a quick check will show that brother and Lord tend to appear together as brother(s) in the Lord . If Lord = YHWH then I think no
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On 12/11/2010 23:31, yeshua666 wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:crosstalk2%40yahoogroups.com>, David Cavanagh
      > <davidcavanagh@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Well, I think I would move this argument away from the complex
      > > grammatical issues, and ask JA to provide contemporary evidence for the
      > > use of the idiom "the Lord's brother" as referring to a follower
      > > of/believer in YHWH - I think he would be hard pressed to find any.
      >
      > That's been done. He replies that Paul uses "brother" to refer to
      > fellow believers in many places and so to assume "the Lord's brother"
      > means a sibling and not a believer is naive.
      >
      >
      >
      Really? I think a quick check will show that "brother" and "Lord" tend
      to appear together as "brother(s) in the Lord". If "Lord" = YHWH then I
      think no second-Temple Jew would ever contemplate speaking of "the
      Lord's brother" -does YHWH have brothers and sisters?

      David Cavanagh
      Major (The Salvation Army)
      Florence (Italy)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Cavanagh
      ... I ve now done what I suggested earlier this morning, checking out the occurences of brother in the Pauline literature. The term itself is common enough,
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 12/11/2010 23:31, yeshua666 wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:crosstalk2%40yahoogroups.com>, David Cavanagh
        > <davidcavanagh@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Well, I think I would move this argument away from the complex
        > > grammatical issues, and ask JA to provide contemporary evidence for the
        > > use of the idiom "the Lord's brother" as referring to a follower
        > > of/believer in YHWH - I think he would be hard pressed to find any.
        >
        > That's been done. He replies that Paul uses "brother" to refer to
        > fellow believers in many places and so to assume "the Lord's brother"
        > means a sibling and not a believer is naive.
        >
        I've now done what I suggested earlier this morning, checking out the
        occurences of "brother" in the Pauline literature. The term itself is
        common enough, appearing 18 times in the indisputed Paulines (ie.
        excluding Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastorals) but
        it occurs as "the Lord's brother" only in Galatians 1:19. That is
        perhaps a smallish sample to be dealing with for analytic purposes, but
        I suggest your interlocutor has no evidence at all for the assertion
        that "Lord" in that phrase refers to YHWH. I really do think that if he
        wants to argue that he needs to provide a detailed analysis of just what
        that phrase would imply for the individual believer's relationship with
        God - the NT as a whole tends to go no further than identifying the
        believer as a "son" (whether as one who has been adopted in Christ -so
        Paul- or through rebirth in the Spirit -so John).

        David Cavanagh
        Major (The Salvation Army)
        Florence (Italy)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David C Hindley
        Tim, Sounds like Spin from FRDB. Based on my observations of the Pauline corpus, if a form of KURIOS refers to Jesus/Christ, a definite article is almost
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Tim,

          Sounds like "Spin" from FRDB.

          Based on my observations of the Pauline corpus, if a form of KURIOS refers to Jesus/Christ, a definite article is almost
          always associated with it. If it does not, it mainly refers to YHWH, although most of these instances are quotations from the
          LXX/OG where a form of KURIOS pretty much has to refer to YHWH. None of these quotations occur in Galatians, but some
          examples from Romans are 4:8 "makarios anêr hou ou mê logisêtai *kurios* hamartian" (Ps 31:2 OG), 9:28 "logon gar suntelôn
          kai suntemnôn poiêsei *kurios* epi tês gês" (Is 10:23 not OG, as the OG translation renders the Hebrew "Lord YHVH of Hosts"
          as "ho qeos"), etc. I believe I can identify several other cases of anarthrous KURIOS that are not quotations and certainly
          seem to refer to YHWH, if I had the time and inclination.

          There are 6 instances of some form of KURIOS in N/A (parentheses mean the words are added in English but not in the Greek,
          square brackets mean I added the word to the RSV translation to bring it closer to the Greek, and the curly brackets mean I
          have reworded the RSV translation to bring it closer to the Greek):

          Galatians 1:3 charis humin kai eirênê apo theou patros hêmôn kai *kuriou* Iêsou Christou (anarthrous, but with Jesus Christ)
          RSV: Grace to you and peace from God (the) Father {of us} and Lord Jesus Christ

          Galatians 1:19 heteron de tôn apostolôn ouk eidon ei mê Iakôbon ton adelphon *tou kuriou* (definite article)
          RSV: But I saw none of the other apostles except James the brother *{of the Lord}*

          Galatians 4:1 Legô de, eph' hoson chronon ho klêronomos nêpios estin, ouden diapherei doulou *kurios* pantôn ôn (anarthtrous,
          referring to a master)
          RSV: I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is (the) *owner* of all (the
          estate)

          Galatians 5:10 egô pepoitha eis humas en *kuriô* hoti ouden allo phronêsete: (anarthrous)
          RSV: I have confidence in (the) *Lord* that you will take no other view than mine

          Galatians 6:14 Emoi de mê genoito kauchasthai ei mê en tô staurô *tou kuriou* hêmôn Iêsou Christou (definite article)
          RSV: But far be it from me to glory except in the cross *of the Lord* {of us} Jesus Christ

          Galatians 6:18 Hê charis *tou kuriou* hêmôn Iêsou Christou meta tou pneumatos humôn, adelphoi: amên. (definite article)
          RSV: The grace *of [the] Lord* {of us} Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.

          There might be a tie-in between the singular "brother" in 1:19 & the plural "brothers" in 6:18, but there might not.

          It looks like while 4:1 is anarthrous, KURIOS clearly refers to the master of household slaves who is too young to weild
          control over his household. Gal 5:10 might be a case where "in KURIOS" **could** mean "in YHWH". Gal 1:3 has always come
          across to me as a case of a greeting calling on God being amended to make it refer to Jesus Christ, as do several other
          blessings and doxologies in the corpus. "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and Lord" + "Jesus Christ". Of course,
          this would still make it a reference to God's position as master over the faithful.

          Given the above, I'm inclined to think that in 1:19 the phrase "ton adelphon tou kuriou" ("the brother of the lord") is
          intended to refer to Jesus/Christ. Whether it is original to the rest of the passage is another question.

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Newton Falls, Ohio USA


          -----Original Message-----
          From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of yeshua666
          Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:12 PM
          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios" in Paul generally

          First of all, hello to the group since I am a new member and this is my first post.

          I am currently in a discussion/debate with someone who is not so much a dreaded Jesus Myther but more of a dogmatic
          hyper-sceptical agnostic when it comes to a historical Jesus. He doesn't fall into the trap of claiming Jesus didn't exist
          (thus avoiding the onus of then having to explain how the Jesus stories came into existence in their current form without a
          HJ), but gets aggressively vehement with anyone who dares to decide that they think a HJ is probable or likely, since he
          believes there is nothing in the evidence to support this. The debate in question is on a forum for atheists and sceptics,
          which makes his vehemence against those of us who feel an HJ was likely more intense, since he claims this makes us all dupes
          of some kind of "Christian cultural hegemony" that is warping our perceptions.

          The discussion keeps coming back to Galatians 1:19 – the "smoking gun" where Paul casually mentions meeting Jesus' brother
          James. Our Jesus Agnostic counters that this is us reading "hegemonic theology" into the evidence, since "brother" may not
          mean a sibling but may be a title and Paul says "the Lord's brother" and this most likely refers to Yahweh, not Jesus. The
          Jesus Agnostic (let's call him "JA") writes:

          "I'm sure you wouldn't have problems with distinguishing between "god" (unqualified) and "the god of medicine", "the god of
          Heliopolis", "the black god", "the dying god". The way we use "god" is analogous to the way Jews of the period used "the
          lord". When someone says "god is dead", we know who is being referred to, just as the early Greek speaking Jew would have
          known what the unqualified ï êõñéïò referred to, but then, when it was qualified, eg "my lord", "the lord Jesus", it
          obviously didn't refer to the same thing, the god of the Jews."

          I've countered by pointing out that this black and white assertion that Paul's unqualified uses of "kyrios" must all refer to
          Yahweh and can't refer to Jesus is too simplistic by pointing to 1Cor 16:22-24:

          "If anyone does not love the Lord, let that person be cursed! Maranatha! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love to
          all of you in Christ Jesus."

          I note that it's far from clear that "the Lord" in the first sentence refers to Yahweh and not Jesus, considering that the
          second and third sentences are clearly talking about Jesus and not Yahweh. Finally I note that Geza Vermes argues "kyrios"
          was also used to translate the Aramaic title "mar" meaning "respected teacher, master, lord" and that we find the same word
          here in the Aramaic formula "Maranatha!"

          Of course, JA is having none of this, sneering:

          "If the Aramaic passage were in some way relevant, you'd notice that there is a pronominal suffix on the `mar', rendering
          your abysmal attempt at contradiction useless. You do need to know something about what you are dealing with."

          Personally, I can't see how the pronominal suffix changes what I've noted. But anyway. He goes on:

          "Consider the several references to "the lord" in 1 Cor 7: Paul is happy to use this non-titular "kyrios" and there is
          nothing to indicate what the reference is. If there is not a single overt meaning for his readers, how can he expect them to
          know what it means? Please, think about this. It might be reasonable to people brought up to accept the trinity without much
          question to be able to flit from god to Jesus in a single bound, but it is not reasonable to accept the non-trinitarian Paul
          to do the same."

          I have my own thoughts about this, but am curious as to what others think about what this guy is claiming. He seems to be
          saying that unless any use of "kyrios" by Paul is "qualified" (ie "Our Lord Jesus" etc) then ANY reference to "the Lord" by
          Paul must be to Yahweh and not Jesus.

          This strikes me as a contrived argument to make clear references to recent, historical Jesus by Paul disappear, but I'm
          wondering if there is some linguistic argument against what he is saying that I may have missed.

          Tim O'Neill

          Armarium Magnum – Ancient and Medieval history books reviewed http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/




          ------------------------------------

          The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

          To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

          To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Rikk Watts
          BTW: This might not be directly relevant, but has anyone had a look at Gordon Fee s THE PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY? Perhaps the most extensive and painstaking
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            BTW:

            This might not be directly relevant, but has anyone had a look at Gordon
            Fee's THE PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY? Perhaps the most extensive and painstaking
            exegesis of Paul on this matter by a front rank Pauline scholar, it's been
            out for a number of years and was well reviewed/received by a panel of
            scholars at SBL.

            His comments on Paul's use of KYRIOS and of OT texts normally applied to
            YHWH but now to Jesus might repay some close attention.

            Best

            Rikk Watts


            > From: David C Hindley <dhindley@...>
            > Reply-To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:00:03 -0500
            > To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            > Subject: RE: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios"
            > in Paul generally
            >
            > Tim,
            >
            > Sounds like "Spin" from FRDB.
            >
            > Based on my observations of the Pauline corpus, if a form of KURIOS refers to
            > Jesus/Christ, a definite article is almost
            > always associated with it. If it does not, it mainly refers to YHWH, although
            > most of these instances are quotations from the
            > LXX/OG where a form of KURIOS pretty much has to refer to YHWH. None of these
            > quotations occur in Galatians, but some
            > examples from Romans are 4:8 "makarios anêr hou ou mê logisêtai *kurios*
            > hamartian" (Ps 31:2 OG), 9:28 "logon gar suntelôn
            > kai suntemnôn poiêsei *kurios* epi tês gês" (Is 10:23 not OG, as the OG
            > translation renders the Hebrew "Lord YHVH of Hosts"
            > as "ho qeos"), etc. I believe I can identify several other cases of anarthrous
            > KURIOS that are not quotations and certainly
            > seem to refer to YHWH, if I had the time and inclination.
            >
            > There are 6 instances of some form of KURIOS in N/A (parentheses mean the
            > words are added in English but not in the Greek,
            > square brackets mean I added the word to the RSV translation to bring it
            > closer to the Greek, and the curly brackets mean I
            > have reworded the RSV translation to bring it closer to the Greek):
            >
            > Galatians 1:3 charis humin kai eirênê apo theou patros hêmôn kai *kuriou*
            > Iêsou Christou (anarthrous, but with Jesus Christ)
            > RSV: Grace to you and peace from God (the) Father {of us} and Lord Jesus
            > Christ
            >
            > Galatians 1:19 heteron de tôn apostolôn ouk eidon ei mê Iakôbon ton adelphon
            > *tou kuriou* (definite article)
            > RSV: But I saw none of the other apostles except James the brother *{of the
            > Lord}*
            >
            > Galatians 4:1 Legô de, eph' hoson chronon ho klêronomos nêpios estin, ouden
            > diapherei doulou *kurios* pantôn ôn (anarthtrous,
            > referring to a master)
            > RSV: I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a
            > slave, though he is (the) *owner* of all (the
            > estate)
            >
            > Galatians 5:10 egô pepoitha eis humas en *kuriô* hoti ouden allo phronêsete:
            > (anarthrous)
            > RSV: I have confidence in (the) *Lord* that you will take no other view than
            > mine
            >
            > Galatians 6:14 Emoi de mê genoito kauchasthai ei mê en tô staurô *tou kuriou*
            > hêmôn Iêsou Christou (definite article)
            > RSV: But far be it from me to glory except in the cross *of the Lord* {of us}
            > Jesus Christ
            >
            > Galatians 6:18 Hê charis *tou kuriou* hêmôn Iêsou Christou meta tou pneumatos
            > humôn, adelphoi: amên. (definite article)
            > RSV: The grace *of [the] Lord* {of us} Jesus Christ be with your spirit,
            > brethren. Amen.
            >
            > There might be a tie-in between the singular "brother" in 1:19 & the plural
            > "brothers" in 6:18, but there might not.
            >
            > It looks like while 4:1 is anarthrous, KURIOS clearly refers to the master of
            > household slaves who is too young to weild
            > control over his household. Gal 5:10 might be a case where "in KURIOS"
            > **could** mean "in YHWH". Gal 1:3 has always come
            > across to me as a case of a greeting calling on God being amended to make it
            > refer to Jesus Christ, as do several other
            > blessings and doxologies in the corpus. "Grace to you and peace from God our
            > Father and Lord" + "Jesus Christ". Of course,
            > this would still make it a reference to God's position as master over the
            > faithful.
            >
            > Given the above, I'm inclined to think that in 1:19 the phrase "ton adelphon
            > tou kuriou" ("the brother of the lord") is
            > intended to refer to Jesus/Christ. Whether it is original to the rest of the
            > passage is another question.
            >
            > Respectfully,
            >
            > Dave Hindley
            > Newton Falls, Ohio USA
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            > Of yeshua666
            > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:12 PM
            > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios" in
            > Paul generally
            >
            > First of all, hello to the group since I am a new member and this is my first
            > post.
            >
            > I am currently in a discussion/debate with someone who is not so much a
            > dreaded Jesus Myther but more of a dogmatic
            > hyper-sceptical agnostic when it comes to a historical Jesus. He doesn't fall
            > into the trap of claiming Jesus didn't exist
            > (thus avoiding the onus of then having to explain how the Jesus stories came
            > into existence in their current form without a
            > HJ), but gets aggressively vehement with anyone who dares to decide that they
            > think a HJ is probable or likely, since he
            > believes there is nothing in the evidence to support this. The debate in
            > question is on a forum for atheists and sceptics,
            > which makes his vehemence against those of us who feel an HJ was likely more
            > intense, since he claims this makes us all dupes
            > of some kind of "Christian cultural hegemony" that is warping our perceptions.
            >
            > The discussion keeps coming back to Galatians 1:19 – the "smoking gun" where
            > Paul casually mentions meeting Jesus' brother
            > James. Our Jesus Agnostic counters that this is us reading "hegemonic
            > theology" into the evidence, since "brother" may not
            > mean a sibling but may be a title and Paul says "the Lord's brother" and this
            > most likely refers to Yahweh, not Jesus. The
            > Jesus Agnostic (let's call him "JA") writes:
            >
            > "I'm sure you wouldn't have problems with distinguishing between "god"
            > (unqualified) and "the god of medicine", "the god of
            > Heliopolis", "the black god", "the dying god". The way we use "god" is
            > analogous to the way Jews of the period used "the
            > lord". When someone says "god is dead", we know who is being referred to, just
            > as the early Greek speaking Jew would have
            > known what the unqualified ï êõñéïò referred to, but then, when it was
            > qualified, eg "my lord", "the lord Jesus", it
            > obviously didn't refer to the same thing, the god of the Jews."
            >
            > I've countered by pointing out that this black and white assertion that Paul's
            > unqualified uses of "kyrios" must all refer to
            > Yahweh and can't refer to Jesus is too simplistic by pointing to 1Cor
            > 16:22-24:
            >
            > "If anyone does not love the Lord, let that person be cursed! Maranatha! The
            > grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love to
            > all of you in Christ Jesus."
            >
            > I note that it's far from clear that "the Lord" in the first sentence refers
            > to Yahweh and not Jesus, considering that the
            > second and third sentences are clearly talking about Jesus and not Yahweh.
            > Finally I note that Geza Vermes argues "kyrios"
            > was also used to translate the Aramaic title "mar" meaning "respected teacher,
            > master, lord" and that we find the same word
            > here in the Aramaic formula "Maranatha!"
            >
            > Of course, JA is having none of this, sneering:
            >
            > "If the Aramaic passage were in some way relevant, you'd notice that there is
            > a pronominal suffix on the `mar', rendering
            > your abysmal attempt at contradiction useless. You do need to know something
            > about what you are dealing with."
            >
            > Personally, I can't see how the pronominal suffix changes what I've noted.
            > But anyway. He goes on:
            >
            > "Consider the several references to "the lord" in 1 Cor 7: Paul is happy to
            > use this non-titular "kyrios" and there is
            > nothing to indicate what the reference is. If there is not a single overt
            > meaning for his readers, how can he expect them to
            > know what it means? Please, think about this. It might be reasonable to people
            > brought up to accept the trinity without much
            > question to be able to flit from god to Jesus in a single bound, but it is not
            > reasonable to accept the non-trinitarian Paul
            > to do the same."
            >
            > I have my own thoughts about this, but am curious as to what others think
            > about what this guy is claiming. He seems to be
            > saying that unless any use of "kyrios" by Paul is "qualified" (ie "Our Lord
            > Jesus" etc) then ANY reference to "the Lord" by
            > Paul must be to Yahweh and not Jesus.
            >
            > This strikes me as a contrived argument to make clear references to recent,
            > historical Jesus by Paul disappear, but I'm
            > wondering if there is some linguistic argument against what he is saying that
            > I may have missed.
            >
            > Tim O'Neill
            >
            > Armarium Magnum – Ancient and Medieval history books reviewed
            > http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
            >
            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
            >
            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: yeshua666 Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:36 PM To: Subject: Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the Lord
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              --------------------------------------------------
              From: "yeshua666" <t.c.oneill2@...>
              Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:36 PM
              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios"
              in Paul generally

              >
              >
              > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
              >
              >> I have been having this same conversation on "Jesus Mysteries" concerning
              >> Josephus XX on James, Galatians 1:19 and Mark 6:3. The problem that
              >> mythers
              >> have is that every Josephan scholar in the local cluster of galaxies in
              >> the
              >> Orion Spur of the Milky Way (well, there is this one guy on Alpha Cetus
              >> 4)
              >> affirms what is obvious about the language that it is authentic and,
              >> unlike
              >> the Testimonium in XVIII, unscrewed around with by Christians.
              >
              > And this guy would dismiss that as an argument from authority, an appeal
              > to truth by democracy and evidence of a cultural Christian hegemony that
              > even has atheists like me in its crushing grip.

              I don't know why there is always confusion on what the Argumentum Ad
              Verecundium means. It refers to an appeal to "authorities" (in quotes) who
              are not really authorities. If I appeal to scholars like Thackery, Feldman
              and Klausner on this issue, it is not a logical fallacy.


              >
              >
              > The biggest
              >> problem for the mythers is that the James passage (which I also think
              >> gives
              >> us a clue what happened to John Zebedee) is predicated on a previous
              >> treatment of "Jesus, the so-called Christ" as a witness to an earlier
              >> unedited TF.
              >
              >
              > Agreed. But he dismisses that as an assumption.
              >
              > Most mythers have their agenda but have no Greek and certainly
              >> no Aramaic. ADELFON IHSOU TOU LEGOMENOU XRISTOU IAKWBOS ONOMA AUTW.
              >> Literally, "...brother of Jesus who was said to be the Messiah, himself
              >> Jacob by name 'is in the syntactic structure of Josephus' Aramaic draft
              >> of
              >> Antiquities.
              >
              > Now this is interesting. Could you elaborate?

              Greek and the Semitic languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, have different
              structures and word orders. Whenever Aramaic is translated into Greek, it
              can be somewhat cumbersome as evidenced by the Gospel of Mark which is a
              Greek text written by a bilingual Aramaic speaker (see Maurice Casey,
              "Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel). The Aramaic interference in
              Translational Greek leaves an obvious signature in the word, order or the
              occurrence of casus pendens, asyndeton, partitive de and a Semitic
              orthography. In the case of the Gospels, for example, there were Aramaic
              oral and written source materials for their authors (See Matthew Black, An
              Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts). Because Aramaic was the
              "language of the street" in 2nd temple Palestine, it is even more idiomatic
              than the more literate Hebrew. Since my studies have always focused on the
              sayings of Jesus which were certainly voiced originally in Aramaic and
              orally transmitted the same, reconstructions in Aramaic from their Greek
              translations in the New Testament can be revealing. Aramaic is a language
              with a number of meanings for one word. Greek has a number of word forms
              for one meaning. As a consequence the Greek texts of the NT often display
              variations in their reading. Reconstructions in Aramaic often clarifies the
              reading by distilling to one meaning. An example to be precise, the Aramaic
              word mishtutha has a double meaning, 1. banquet, 2. wedding. Of course, in
              this 1st century Middle Eastern context, a wedding was about the only time
              the am-ha'aretz had a banquet. In Luke 14:8 the Aramaic word was translated
              to GAMOUS in Greek while in the mss D it Syr-c Matthew it is translated to
              DEIPNHSAI but both Greek words crystallize to to m$twt) in Aramaic. You can
              see, therefore, how a banquet room can become a "place of marriage" in
              Coptic Thomas and then a "bridal suite" in English. This, like "HATE" ones
              father, and mother, etc in Luke 14:23 in an Aramaism of mistranslation.
              "Banquet" or "feast" is the correct reading.

              Since historical Jesus research has been based on the sayings materials, it
              has been a mistake (IMO gross negligence) to ignore the Aramaic background
              and interference in the Greek of the MSS (See M. Casey, An Aramaic Approach
              to Q and Joseph Fitzmyer, The Semitic Background of the New Testament).

              So also for Josephus who wrote his works in his own language (Aramaic) and
              employed "synergoi" to translate them into Greek with which Josephus writes
              that he was uncomfortable. As in the New Testament for its "Jesus stuff,"
              Aramaisms in Josephan Greek are signatures of the pen of Josephus himself.
              The James Passage in Ant. XXX is in Aramaic word order. Josephus wrote it,
              not some later Christian monk/scribe abusing his wine ration.



              >
              >> The problem for mythers is quite clear. Someone that has siblings,
              >> multiply
              >> attested by historical contemporaries, cannot be a myth.
              >
              > He dismisses that as simply a "tradition" and says it's like the
              > "traditions" about King Arthur and Robin Hood and so says that kind of
              > thing can't be used as evidence there was a genuine historical Jesus.

              No ONE thing or single tool is certain evidence of a genuine historical
              Jesus. Even if there had been a skeleton showing forensic evidence of
              crucifixion in a Yeshua Bar Yahosef ossuary, it would be provocative but not
              certain evidence on the level I am accustomed to in science. What can be
              said is that the combination of many critical historical and text-critical
              tools makes it most likely that an historical Jesus existed.

              shlama amek

              Jack Kilmon
              San Antonio, TX



              >
              > Tim O'Neill
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
              >
              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
              > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > List managers may be contacted directly at:
              > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Jack Kilmon
              A discussion list, even one for strictly scholarly discourse, will not last long in this era of blogs, if one will not engage. As long as one s interlocutor
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                A discussion list, even one for strictly scholarly discourse, will not last
                long in this era of blogs, if one will not engage. As long as one's
                interlocutor is not a crackpot and has a viewpoint that is rational, it
                should be engaged. I would certainly not place Tim in the same league as
                "birthers" and "truthers." What I call the "extreme mythist position" is
                not just the reasonable opinion that the pre-existent, virgin born, water
                walking, resurrecting "Christ of Faith" was an accretion of myths but that
                also the historical personage of Jesus of Nazareth is a myth. This is a
                position that should be engaged and as long as the person is not a whack
                job, I will engage.

                Jack Kilmon

                --------------------------------------------------
                From: "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...>
                Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:42 PM
                To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios"
                in Paul generally

                > Why bother arguing with the fellow? He's apparently in the same category
                > as
                > "Birthers" or "Truthers" -- no amount of evidence would convince him.
                > Unless dealing with him happens to be fun, just stop debating him.
                >
                > Jeffery Hodges
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: yeshua666 <t.c.oneill2@...>
                > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Sat, November 13, 2010 7:36:16 AM
                > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of
                > "kyrios" in
                > Paul generally
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                >
                >> I have been having this same conversation on "Jesus Mysteries" concerning
                >> Josephus XX on James, Galatians 1:19 and Mark 6:3. The problem that
                >> mythers
                >> have is that every Josephan scholar in the local cluster of galaxies in
                >> the
                >> Orion Spur of the Milky Way (well, there is this one guy on Alpha Cetus
                >> 4)
                >> affirms what is obvious about the language that it is authentic and,
                >> unlike
                >> the Testimonium in XVIII, unscrewed around with by Christians.
                >
                > And this guy would dismiss that as an argument from authority, an appeal
                > to
                > truth by democracy and evidence of a cultural Christian hegemony that even
                > has
                > atheists like me in its crushing grip.
                >
                >
                > The biggest
                >> problem for the mythers is that the James passage (which I also think
                >> gives
                >> us a clue what happened to John Zebedee) is predicated on a previous
                >> treatment of "Jesus, the so-called Christ" as a witness to an earlier
                >> unedited TF.
                >
                >
                > Agreed. But he dismisses that as an assumption.
                >
                > Most mythers have their agenda but have no Greek and certainly
                >> no Aramaic. ADELFON IHSOU TOU LEGOMENOU XRISTOU IAKWBOS ONOMA AUTW.
                >> Literally, "...brother of Jesus who was said to be the Messiah, himself
                >> Jacob by name 'is in the syntactic structure of Josephus' Aramaic draft
                >> of
                >> Antiquities.
                >
                > Now this is interesting. Could you elaborate?
                >
                >> The problem for mythers is quite clear. Someone that has siblings,
                >> multiply
                >> attested by historical contemporaries, cannot be a myth.
                >
                > He dismisses that as simply a "tradition" and says it's like the
                > "traditions"
                > about King Arthur and Robin Hood and so says that kind of thing can't be
                > used as
                > evidence there was a genuine historical Jesus.
                >
                > Tim O'Neill
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                >
                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                >
                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                I don t know Tim and was relying on Yeshua666 s description of his interlocutor s stubbornness, which seemed excessive, but if he s rational, then my advice
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I don't know "Tim" and was relying on Yeshua666's description of his
                  interlocutor's stubbornness, which seemed excessive, but if he's rational, then
                  my advice would be different.

                  Jeffery Hodges




                  ________________________________
                  From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                  To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sun, November 14, 2010 3:59:26 AM
                  Subject: Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios" in
                  Paul generally

                  A discussion list, even one for strictly scholarly discourse, will not last
                  long in this era of blogs, if one will not engage.  As long as one's
                  interlocutor is not a crackpot and has a viewpoint that is rational, it
                  should be engaged.  I would certainly not place Tim in the same league as
                  "birthers" and "truthers."  What I call the "extreme mythist position" is
                  not just the reasonable opinion that the pre-existent, virgin born, water
                  walking, resurrecting "Christ of Faith" was an accretion of myths but that
                  also the historical personage of Jesus of Nazareth is a myth.  This is a
                  position that should be engaged and as long as the person is not a whack
                  job, I will engage.

                  Jack Kilmon

                  --------------------------------------------------
                  From: "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...>
                  Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:42 PM
                  To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of "kyrios"
                  in Paul generally

                  > Why bother arguing with the fellow? He's apparently in the same category
                  > as
                  > "Birthers" or "Truthers" -- no amount of evidence would convince him.
                  > Unless dealing with him happens to be fun, just stop debating him.
                  >
                  > Jeffery Hodges
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: yeshua666 <t.c.oneill2@...>
                  > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Sat, November 13, 2010 7:36:16 AM
                  > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Is Jesus the "Lord" in Gal 1:19 and the use of
                  > "kyrios" in
                  > Paul generally
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >> I have been having this same conversation on "Jesus Mysteries" concerning
                  >> Josephus XX on James, Galatians 1:19 and Mark 6:3.  The problem that
                  >> mythers
                  >> have is that every Josephan scholar in the local cluster of galaxies in
                  >> the
                  >> Orion Spur of the Milky Way (well, there is this one guy on Alpha Cetus
                  >> 4)
                  >> affirms what is obvious about the language that it is authentic and,
                  >> unlike
                  >> the Testimonium in XVIII, unscrewed around with by Christians.
                  >
                  > And this guy would dismiss that as an argument from authority, an appeal
                  > to
                  > truth by democracy and evidence of a cultural Christian hegemony that even
                  > has
                  > atheists like me in its crushing grip.
                  >
                  >
                  > The biggest
                  >> problem for the mythers is that the James passage (which I also think
                  >> gives
                  >> us a clue what happened to John Zebedee) is predicated on a previous
                  >> treatment of "Jesus, the so-called Christ" as a witness to an earlier
                  >> unedited TF.
                  >
                  >
                  > Agreed.  But he dismisses that as an assumption.
                  >
                  > Most mythers have their agenda but have no Greek and certainly
                  >> no Aramaic.  ADELFON IHSOU TOU LEGOMENOU XRISTOU IAKWBOS ONOMA AUTW.
                  >> Literally, "...brother of Jesus who was said to be the Messiah, himself
                  >> Jacob by name 'is in the syntactic structure of Josephus' Aramaic draft
                  >> of
                  >> Antiquities.
                  >
                  > Now this is interesting.  Could you elaborate?
                  >
                  >> The problem for mythers is quite clear.  Someone that has siblings,
                  >> multiply
                  >> attested by historical contemporaries, cannot be a myth.
                  >
                  > He dismisses that as simply a "tradition" and says it's like the
                  > "traditions"
                  > about King Arthur and Robin Hood and so says that kind of thing can't be
                  > used as
                  > evidence there was a genuine historical Jesus.
                  >
                  > Tim O'Neill
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                  >
                  > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                  > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                  > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                  >
                  > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                  > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                  > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  ------------------------------------

                  The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                  To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

                  Yahoo! Groups Links



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • yeshua666
                  First of all I d like to thank everyone who responded to my initial inquiry for their comments and contributions. Several people asked why I m bothering to
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 14, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    First of all I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my initial inquiry for their comments and contributions. Several people asked why I'm bothering to debate this HJ Agnostic and suggested that if he is as irrational and doctrinaire as he seems that this is a waste of time. Sorry to say, but he's actually rather more irrational and doctrinaire than I've made out and vicious and spiteful into the bargain. I am under no illusions at all that I am ever going to get him to back down about anything, let alone change his mind.

                    So why bother talking to him at all? In the years I've been reading on the historical Jesus I've noticed a slow rise in these evangelical ahistoricists. They have gone from being a tiny handful on Usenet 15 years ago to dominating the conversation in some quarters. As an atheist and secular humanist myself, it's been dismaying to see these people virtually take over any discussion of the origins of Christianity on atheist and sceptics' fora and slam anyone who dares suggest that there was a Jewish preacher as the origin of the Jesus stories.

                    I learned long ago that virtually none of these people are convinced by argument. Most of them stick to the idea that there is no way we can say a HJ was likely in the face of all evidence. A few, such as this guy, have carefully constructed a position over many years that means he has standard replies to any objection and counter-argument, backed up with scorn, sarcasm and insinuation that no-one is as learned and well-read as he is.

                    I bother with him and people like him because there are others on the sidelines who are not convinced either way and who, unlike the fanatics, actually *can* be swayed by good argument. So far these observers are unconvinced by this guy's bluster, but he posts (cut and paste) contributions of many thousands of words several times a day and it's hard to counter everything he says because the sheer volume of his contributions all but drowns out counter-arguments. So I'm choosing to concentrate on his arguments' weakest points – the number of supposed "Christian interpolations" his position requires and the mentions of James in both Josephus and Galatians.

                    Since several here have been good enough to make some suggestions to me, I hope you all don't mind if I respond to them in one post:

                    --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, David Cavanagh <davidcavanagh@...> wrote:

                    > Well, I think I would move this argument away from the complex
                    > grammatical issues, and ask JA to provide contemporary evidence for the
                    > use of the idiom "the Lord's brother" as referring to a follower
                    > of/believer in YHWH - I think he would be hard pressed to find any.

                    Which he knows. So he broadens things by noting that Paul does use the term "brother"/"brothers" in several places to mean simply "a fellow believer" and asks why it can't mean that here. When it's noted that he also refers to "the Lord's brothers" in 1Corinthians 9:5 he claims this is simply a group of non-apostles who are equal to "Cephas" and "the other apostles". When it's pointed out that this group is otherwise unattested, he points out that there are a lot of otherwise unattested people mentioned in Paul's letters.

                    --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:

                    > > Now this is interesting. Could you elaborate?
                    >
                    > Greek and the Semitic languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, have different
                    > structures and word orders. Whenever Aramaic is translated into Greek, it
                    > can be somewhat cumbersome as evidenced by the Gospel of Mark which is a
                    > Greek text written by a bilingual Aramaic speaker (see Maurice Casey,
                    > "Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel).

                    [snip]

                    > So also for Josephus who wrote his works in his own language (Aramaic) and
                    > employed "synergoi" to translate them into Greek with which Josephus writes
                    > that he was uncomfortable. As in the New Testament for its "Jesus stuff,"
                    > Aramaisms in Josephan Greek are signatures of the pen of Josephus himself.
                    > The James Passage in Ant. XXX is in Aramaic word order. Josephus wrote it,
                    > not some later Christian monk/scribe abusing his wine ration.

                    Jack – thanks very much for that. I was aware of Casey's work (though not that of Fitzmeyer) but thanks for the insight. I did guess this was what you were referring to, but I was actually asking for some more specific detail on how "ADELFON IHSOU TOU LEGOMENOU XRISTOU IAKWBOS ONOMA AUTW" is identifiably Aramaic in its syntactic structure rather than Greek. How does the syntax here differ from what we would expect for a Greek speaker and how does it conform better to Aramaic? Apologies, but my grasp of Greek is poor and my Aramaic is non-existent. But it strikes me that this line of inquiry is potentially a very useful argument against the persistent claims that any mention of Jesus in Josephus has to be an interpolation.

                    I also wasn't aware that Josephus wasn't comfortable writing Greek and had his works translated from Aramaic – do you have a reference for that?

                    Thanks also to David Hindley's analysis of the uses of the word "KURIOS". And yes David, this is FRDB's "spin" we're talking about. It seems he's declared some kind of internet vendetta against me and is now following me to other fora to pursue it relentlessly. I suppose I should be flattered or something.

                    Thanks again to all,

                    Tim O'Neill
                  • ehub035
                    [from Geoff Riggs; not Liz H., my better half] ... on the historical Jesus I ve noticed a slow rise in these evangelical ahistoricists. They have gone from
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 15, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      [from Geoff Riggs; not Liz H., my better half]

                      --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "yeshua666" <t.c.oneill2@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > So why bother talking to him at all? In the years I've been reading
                      on the historical Jesus I've noticed a slow rise in these evangelical
                      ahistoricists. They have gone from being a tiny handful on Usenet 15
                      years ago to dominating the conversation in some quarters. As an
                      atheist and secular humanist myself, it's been dismaying to see these
                      people virtually take over any discussion of the origins of Christianity
                      on atheist and sceptics' fora and slam anyone who dares suggest that
                      there was a Jewish preacher as the origin of the Jesus stories.
                      >
                      > I learned long ago that virtually none of these people are convinced
                      by argument. Most of them stick to the idea that there is no way we can
                      say a HJ was likely in the face of all evidence. A few, such as this
                      guy, have carefully constructed a position over many years that means he
                      has standard replies to any objection and counter-argument, backed up
                      with scorn, sarcasm and insinuation that no-one is as learned and
                      well-read as he is.
                      > Tim O'Neill
                      >

                      And I must urgently second everything that Mr. O'Neill has stated here,
                      with an added concern. Everything that these evangelical ahistoricists
                      habitually write in these days has not only had the effect of sabotaging
                      serious discussions on the Web concerning the latest professional
                      historical research, again and again. Their increasing numbers also
                      seem to both reflect and propel a burgeoning "movement" (I can think of
                      no other word) aimed at discrediting any "taint" of intellectualism in
                      addressing any Scriptural or non-Scriptural materials related to the
                      Historical Jesus whatsoever. While I am aware that many view certain
                      kinds of Christian fundamentalisms as also tantamount to an attempt at
                      "terrorizing" intellectual inquiry into Scripture off the "public
                      square", these militant ahistoricists are now doing essentially the same
                      thing from a rigorously materialistic perspective. In other words, they
                      disrupt any and all such serious discussions by proclaiming with all the
                      fervour of the most fanatic zealot that every jot and tittle of material
                      on the historical Jesus of Nazareth, Scriptural and non-Scriptural
                      alike, is purely and entirely made up, right down to the most multiply
                      attested saying and the most mundane detail in the most purely Roman
                      chronicle or letter.

                      Some, like Mr. O'Neil and myself, are frankly growing alarmed by this
                      trend. It is starting to smack of a fanatic type of would-be thought
                      control as bad as anything ever imputed (rightly or wrongly) to the most
                      orthodox and/or fanatical fundamentalist. Where some fundamentalists
                      proclaim adamantly that every word in every text in Scripture is pure
                      history precisely as it really happened and therefore not appropriate or
                      proper for modern historical analysis and research, these ahistoricists
                      proclaim just as adamantly that every word in every Roman chronicle and
                      every Roman letter related to Jesus of Nazareth is just as much -- and
                      as uniformly -- pure fiction, from A to Z, as anything in Scripture and
                      therefore not appropriate or proper for modern historical analysis and
                      research. The end result is the same as with the most intolerant
                      fundamentalist: an attempt at de-legitimizing any attempt at serious
                      discussion and give-and-take on historical research into the Historical
                      Jesus and Christian Origins.

                      Tied to this is an apparent willingness to trash the very discipline of
                      history itself, as if the rigorous conclusions by the most recent
                      historians related to, say, the more probable versus the less probable
                      details for a Hannibal or a Boadicea (sp.?), are merely grounded on
                      assumptions pulled out of thin air! This is tantamount to would-be book
                      burning aimed at whole schools of historical research. It is growing
                      quite terrifying, frankly, and I applaud posters like Mr. O'Neill who
                      are ready to see the urgency of taking a stand and challenging an
                      outlook as profoundly ignorant as this one, once and for all. Too many
                      are being hoodwinked by this growing outlook today, and I'm starting to
                      see younger and increasingly inexperienced "students" of history
                      adopting this outlook on the Web unquestioningly. It's getting worse
                      for not being properly challenged.

                      It is no exaggeration to suggest that, if unchallenged, this profoundly
                      anti-intellectual outlook against most modern serious historians and
                      scholars of the ancient world might soon imperil freedom of inquiry way
                      beyond the parameters of the online world.

                      Seriously,

                      Geoffrey Riggs
                    • E Bruce Brooks
                      To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG, WSW In Response To: Geoff Riggs On: Trashing History From: Bruce I am much in sympathy with the tone of Geoff s recent post. Here is one
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 15, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To: Crosstalk
                        Cc: GPG, WSW
                        In Response To: Geoff Riggs
                        On: Trashing History
                        From: Bruce

                        I am much in sympathy with the tone of Geoff's recent post. Here is one
                        extract from it:

                        GEOFF: Tied to this is an apparent willingness to trash the very discipline
                        of history itself, as if the rigorous conclusions by the most recent
                        historians related to, say, the more probable versus the less probable
                        details for a Hannibal or a Boadicea (sp.?), are merely grounded on
                        assumptions pulled out of thin air!

                        BRUCE: Just so, and unfortunately this is no new thing. The textual
                        sciences, and with them my own specialty of philology, have been under
                        worldwide attack since approximately 7 July 1937, and the trend has now
                        reached what can fairly be called alarming proportions. A recent article in
                        the Chronicle of Higher Education thought that there might be a future for
                        the humanities, but probably outside academe. I have been pointing to this
                        probability for some years now, and if the Chronicle (never the fastest car
                        on the track) is catching up, things must be really far advanced.

                        The methodological crisis for the historical discipline was perceived long
                        ago, and registered in several book-length treatments. I might mention Keith
                        Windschuttle, The Killing of History, Encounter 1996. There are some
                        possibly helpful notes in the Methodology section of the Warring States
                        Project web site:

                        http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/index.html

                        One of those pages, The Attack on History, picks up on Windschuttle and a
                        few like indictments.

                        As Geoff notes, inflexible anti-intellectuallism simply fouls and stymies
                        discussion. What to do? Convincing the errants is not a realistic prospect;
                        they are already happy (or viably unhappy) where they are. It seems to me
                        that there are roughly two options, or rather two sides of one option, that
                        option being separation:

                        1. Banish the offenders. 1 Cor 16:22. With adequate list management this can
                        be done; it is what list managers are there for. It takes a certain amount
                        of nerve.

                        2. Withdraw and start a more productive conversation elsewhere. This happens
                        all the time. The history of government in England (or in China) is simply a
                        series of replacements of obsolete and dysfunctional institutions by new and
                        at least briefly functional ones. There is no reason to expect E-discourse
                        to pattern any differently, over the long haul.

                        It was some years ago, if memory does not deceive me, that dissidents
                        seceded from the American Historical Association and its increasingly
                        PC-clotted discourse, and formed their own group.

                        http://www.bu.edu/historic/about.html

                        That the new and functional discussions will be small is not necessarily a
                        disadvantage. We know from Parkinson that the ideal size of a committee
                        which has to decide things (and otherwise it is just talk, and talk is a
                        waste of our time on the planet), is five. Under careful management, that
                        number can be exceeded, but not necessarily for long. My rule of thumb: if
                        your discussion group is too large to fit into a booth at the local
                        pizzeria, it is too large, period.

                        Not that the whole field needs to be reduced to that size, but that this is
                        the ideal discussion module. The field, ideally, is the result of linkage
                        between the different discussions. Ask the next naval architect you meet, Do
                        you design an ocean-going ship as one watertight unit? The answer will
                        probably be, No, but as many such units dynamically linked together.

                        How the different groups link up is a question with many answers, all of
                        them cheap and easy. Journal, E, conference calls, pony express,
                        miniconferences. Our group has used all of them, at one time or another, and
                        can speak to their practicability.

                        Seriously suggested,

                        Bruce

                        E Bruce Brooks
                        Warring States Project
                        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                        http://www.umass.edu/wsp
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.