Quote:OK, here's a suggestion: you don't have the intrinsic right to answer a post which took hours to research with a one-liner. That would be a good start
.
I'm assuming, then, that the following "one-liners" are acceptable on this forum:
"i think you're being humble -- aren't the ramifications of this HUGE for pushing Peshitta primacy? i was reading it with jaw hanging open..."
"Greek primacy is finished...however one must take to heart the words of Max Planck."
"This is fascinating!"
Etc.
C'mon, Paul. Now, all of a sudden, there are rules behind one-liners? Is it or is that not a double standard? Yes or no and why. No sidestepping.
Quote:Suppose, after an hour-long extensive lecture on the expansion of the universe via a wave function, Mr. Hawking's attention is turned to me in the audience with a microphone shouting:
".....or it could have been an orbital function."
Would he not be reasonable in ignoring me and moving along to the next questioner?
Stephen Hawking, heck,
most professors would either:
a) Prove how the rival cause is wrong because of (x) reasons
OR
b) Invite me to his office if explaining would take too much time from the other students at the lecture hall.
Sidestepping and/or dodging the question completely would damage his ethos alongside the credibility of his research. It'd make him look
sensitive. Thus, to answer your question, no, he would be unreasonable.
Based on your last response, I doubt you know the politics of the lecture hall.
Quote:Yes, he probably would dismiss you if it were as readily apparent to him as it was to Andrew and I that you really didn't have any substance to your argument, other than to argue.
And not because of a shattered ego, trust me that neither Andrew nor I have egos.
For the last time,
I wasn't arguing for anything, thus there was no substance. I was asking questions and producing rival causes for an event/situation that Andrew "unquestionably" proved with a string of quotes. Again, I wasn't arguing for anything. I was asking questions and producing rival causes. I cannot emphasis that enough.
Secondly, he
does have an ego, otherwise he wouldn't feel personally attacked by my questions. Andrew's usually cool, collected, and ready to see the happy medium between two contentious parties. He's the guy who relaxes everyone after a heated debate. But
as soon as I question
his research, it's all fire and brimstone. Why the shift in behavior? Probably because he felt embarrassed in front of his peers; it's hard to realize you don't
really know what you thought you knew. Hence, to veil his inability to answer the questions that should've been asked
prior to publishing a book, he makes
me look crazy because I questioned his "self-evident" truths about the Talmud and Matthew. That's the sign of an ego.
Quote:Let me bring something to your attention, Kara, that may not be readily apparent to you. Nothing you could do or say would hurt Andrew's feelings, trust me on this. I've seen Andrew easily hand people far more qualified and learned in this topic their proverbial derriere on a silver platter. I doubt Andrew shed one tear over your post. Who has the ego? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
You can promote Andrew all you want, but everyone sees how sensitive he is about his work.
Quote:Again, Andrew needs no defending from me. My intention in bringing up that other post was to bring to your attention the fact that you are being hypocritical. Not to defend Andrew.
You failed to show me. When
I play the communicator, then you can hold me to my own criteria.
Quote:The "friends" argument you keep bringing up is getting rather stale. Of course Andrew is a friend, as are a lot of people here with whom I've had many disagreements in the past. But you are clearly in the wrong on this thread and on the other one, and I call it like I see it.
Andrew blew a fuse and you're here to make me look like the bad guy. If him and I switched positions--me being the communicator and he the listener, and he asked those
same questions with the same approach, you'd say something like "if you can't handle constructive criticism, then...." or "Andrew's an intellectual giant, this is what intellectuals do...." If you want to appear neutral, try to step in my shoes for once.
He said his proved "unquestionably" that the Talmud incorporated quotes from Matthew, probably based on 1) Rodkinson, one of Andrew's sources, who said in his introduction of the Talmud:
Thus, if R. Johanan b. Zakkai had not, risking his life, petitioned Vespasian to spare the Sanhedrin, who had been compelled during the tumults at Jerusalem to move with their college to Jamnia, there would have remained no vestige of the Talmud, since most of those who cherished it had passed away by the sword, by hunger and by the plague.
Besides, the disciples of Jesus who then believed in his Messiahship, but not in his divinity, began secretly to undermine the Talmud, which laid more stress on external ceremonies than they deemed necessary, and endeavored with all their might to weaken its influence among the populace, but R. Jehanan b. Zakkai and the Sanhedrin in Jamnia, with Rabban Gamaliel, the son of the slain Simeon, at their head, restored the Talmud to its prestige, and took pains to raise up others in the places of the murdered sages.
Thus the study of the Talmud flourished after the destruction of the Temple, although beset with great difficulties and desperate struggles. All his days, R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to dispute with Sadducees and Bathueians
and, no doubt, with the Messiahists also; for although these last were Pharisees, they differed in many points from the teaching of the Talmud after their master, Jesus, had broken with the Pharisees and their doctrines in public. So R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to introduce many reforms; and Rabban Gamaliel of Jamnia, notwithstanding his office of Nasi, and his lofty bearing towards his colleagues and adversaries, was compelled to go many times to Rome to ask for mercy for his college and the Pharisaic sages. And this first Nasi, after the Temple's destruction, also had to witness the evil consequences of quarrels in the midst of his own nation, added to the calamities from without. (Babylonian Talmud, Book 10: History of the Talmud, Michael L. Rodkinson)
& 2) Acts (I forget the ch and verse). He wants me to assume Acts is historically accurate and unanimously agreed upon by people in those areas, at that time period.
But is Rodkinson qualified to make this statement? If so, what qualifies him? He was a American-Jewish publisher. For starters, what he needs, in order to make this statement (and remain credible), is an advanced
history degree. I mean, seriously, where is Rodkinson getting this information from? He doesn't list his sources. Did scholars, at the time, agree with him? Did they disagree? If so, why did he omit their dissenting views? We don't know. What do scholars say now?
Let's turn to Ben Zion Bokser, a Rabbi ordained at Jewish Theological Seminary of America in 1931, obtaining his Ph.D at Columbia University in '35:
The Talmud arose during the epoch when Christianity began its secession from Judaism, and
when the Christians were looked upon as dissident Jews. Against that background, there must have been extensive controversy between the adherents of traditional Judaism and the advocates of the new doctrine. The Talmud generally avoids polemics; but some echoes of that controversy survived in the Talmud, principally a prayer against sectarianism, the prayer Velamalshinim, as it is known in the present Jewish liturgy. This now became a cause of serious charges against Judaism, above all against its revered classic, the Talmud.
And Joseph Barclay, who in his preface says how his "residence of several years in the East, of which ten were passed in the Holy Land, enabled me to gather the opinions of some of the most learned Rabbis with regard to disputed points in the interpretation of the Talmud," says:
In the later editions of the Talmud the allusions to Christ and Christianity are few and cautious,
compared with the earlier or unexpurgated copies. The last of these was published at Amsterdam in 1645.
In them our Lord and Saviour is "that one," "such an one," "a fool," "the leper," "the deceiver of Israel," etc. Efforts are made to prove that He is the son of Joseph Pandira before his marriage with Mary. His miracles are attributed to sorcery, the secret of which He brought in a slit in His flesh out of Egypt. His teacher is said to have been Joshua, the son of Perachiah. This Joshua is said to have afterwards excommunicated him to the blast of 400 rams??? horns, though he must have lived seventy years before His time. Forty days before the death of Jesus a witness was summoned by public proclamation to attest His innocence, but none appeared. He is said to have been first stoned, and then
hanged on the eve of the Passover.
His disciples are called heretics, and opprobrious names. They are accused of immoral practices; and the New Testament is called a sinful book. The references to these subjects manifest the most bitter aversion and hatred. (
The Talmud, Joseph Barclay)
Admittedly, his credentials are a bit shaky, but does recent scholarship confirm the greater part of his statements? You decide:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8383.html">http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8383.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2008/10/jesus-in-talmud.html">http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2008/10/ ... almud.html</a><!-- m -->
In light of this, I am justified in questioning Andrew's "cross-pollenization" theory. If Pharisaic Jews generally considered the disciples of Jesus, a man called "a leper," to be "heretics" who observed "immoral practices" and whose principal teachings "a sinful book," what is there for the two groups, namely, early Christians and Jews, to talk about? Is it tenable that they'd put in the mouth of Hillel, known as the
second Ezra, something Jesus is famous for saying?
Or was the rival cause, namely, that Jesus studied the Talmud tenable? Or that perhaps Paul (disciple of Gamaliel) and his followers determined, to a greater or lesser degree, what Jesus said as a way of commemorating his former master? Interestingly enough, Rodkinson says:
Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud? . . .
The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions. What sort of book is it? The answer is at first sight discouraging to flesh and spirit. The Talmud appears to view in form of fourteen heavy folio volumes, of thick, solid Hebrew and Aramaic consonants, without a vowel to be seen from the first word of the first volume to the last word of the last. Such is the Jewish Talmud, including both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian. Who can read it? It can be read, for it has been read . . .The Talmud is the great repository of the mental products of a most vigorous and vivid race of thinkers, through long ages of degradation, persecution, oppression, and sorrow; and, as such, few human works are more worthy of, or will better repay, the student of human nature . . .
What light it may shed on the words of Jesus and Paul to know the modes of thought which were such a perfect world in their time! When Paul speaks of his studies at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the principal authors of the Talmud, of his profiting in the matters of law above many of his equals, we see him, an ardent young enthusiast, on the way to become an accomplished rabbi, perhaps even a Nasi, in some future day, and we understand what he means when he says, "But what things were gain tome, these I counted loss to Christ." It was a whole education and a whole life's work that he threw at the feet of his new Master (ibid).
Chew on that.
Quote:Appealing to authorities is fantastic. Why did you choose not to do so on this thread? Instead, you throw out a one liner and we are all supposed to gasp?
I wasn't trying to prove a point. Besides, I didn't know you'd get so serious on me. You did say "comments are welcomed," not arguments. Adoration, of course, is welcomed. My comments have to be immediately substantiated, but "that's fascinating!" can fly? C'mon, Paul.
Quote:Evidence is anything substantial you can bring forward to support your argument.
Here is a bad example: (what you did)
".....or it could have been (snip, blah blah"
Here are some good examples:
"How do you explain Ode 42:17, where the wording is more like....."
"Prof. So-and-So, in his article in So-and-so journal, argues for a different origin to the idiom in the Odes...."
As I mentioned earlier, supposedly, Mingana found a direct parallelism between the Syriac reading of Psalm 88 and Ode 42. It's possible, then, that the scribes' rendering of the Psalm was influenced by their possession of the Odes. If that's so, it's possible that they altered Jesus' saying, using the aforementioned. I don't assume the early scribes were angels, thus unable to change this word or that around. They were probably under certain pressures and influences of the time; changing a word here or there will go unnoticed, given the COE buries old copies of the Peshitta and no one memorizes the text. I don't want to assume; was there a legitimate safeguard against corrupt scribes under, perhaps, the influence of the fancies of an archbishop in COE tradition? Another possibility is that the Peshitta preserves an idiom, known to either Jesus or to early scribes, also retained in the Odes.
Now you can either show me how these rival causes are untenable or you can continue "poisoning the well" with sarcastic quips in order to make me look silly without
actually answering me. That's your common tactic.
Quote:Strong evidence: Direct quotes from the primary texts, or from an authority.
Weak evidence: Any one-liner beginning with "Or", "But", "Well", etc.
No you are not getting away with spending 2 minutes responding on something that took me hours to formulate and research. At least put in a reasonable amount of time fleshing out your ideas with actual facts and some sort of reasonable evidence, before wasting our time just because you feel you need to get a word in.
At the end of your research, you said "the evidence suggests..." I made a suggestion too. Unsubstantiated, but a suggestion, nevertheless. I admittedly didn't have evidence. And I could have avoided this misunderstanding if I quoted Max Planck! That's the type of response you're looking for!
Quote:Whether or not my research suffers from extreme bias, and distorting influences I will leave it up to others to decide for themselves, as always. I hide nothing. I am who I am, and everyone knows what that is. None of us knows who you are, none of us heard of you before you barged in here with little more care than the proverbial elephant in a china shop.
Contrary to your opinion, I have nothing to sell you or anyone else. I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your mind, evangelizing you or being your internet buddy. I do this for a love of the language of my Saviour, and for other personal reasons I would rather not share with you at the moment. I have done this for a decade of my own time, sweat and effort. And I have asked for nothing from anyone in way of support. I don't have a book to sell you, and the 10-15 regulars here are hardly a cult following fit for my huge ego. I manage to mess up making Kool-Aid, so don't shed a tear worrying about that.
You know, the other day I received an email from a marketing company wanting to pay a substantial amount of money to advertise on peshitta.org. My response to them was that it was important to me that our readers not be bothered with distractions such as advertising, so I turned them down despite the fact that the monetary compensation based on our traffic and importance was substantial. I have in fact turned down many such offers in the past.
Allowing you to become an unchallenged distraction would be far worse. If you have anything constructive to add we would all certainly welcome it. But please, don't just argue for the sake of arguing. Add something to the mix. Stir up ideas. Flesh out your hypotheses. Challenge, if you must, in a substantial manner.
Don't sidestep using pathos. What exactly qualifies you to translate the Peshitta (without Church approval) and spread Aramaic primacy? What makes you an "expert" of this subject and ones akin to it?
Quote:Are you saying that Andrew hurt your feelings because he said it was readily apparent to him that you are illiterate (by way of Aramaic)?
You're right. I'll drop that particular charge against him.