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
  • 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 1 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
      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 2 of 18 , Nov 13, 2010
        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 3 of 18 , Nov 14, 2010
          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 4 of 18 , Nov 15, 2010
            [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 5 of 18 , Nov 15, 2010
              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.