Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-05-2021, 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-05-2021, 08:03 PM)Free Wrote:
(02-05-2021, 07:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You forgot to post your references.

Don't need them. The argument is implied.

Quote:It's likely an Arabic and Syrian translation of what's in Church History according to the latest research.


So then, you have no references for that assertion.

None are required for something that is self evident.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 12:08 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-05-2021, 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-05-2021, 08:03 PM)Free Wrote: Don't need them. The argument is implied.

Quote:It's likely an Arabic and Syrian translation of what's in Church History according to the latest research.


So then, you have no references for that assertion.

None are required for something that is self evident.

That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 12:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 12:08 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-05-2021, 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: [/size]

So then, you have no references for that assertion.

None are required for something that is self evident.

That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 12:53 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 12:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 12:08 AM)Free Wrote: None are required for something that is self evident.

That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.

So you can't point to the research .
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Quote:Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work?


Does it have to be an intentional, almost criminal, act?  Languages are intricate things and translations are are dependent on the skill and knowledge of the translator.  Some are better than others.  Someone with a desire to translate something into Syriac is probably a native Syriac speaker who might not be as accomplished in Greek as he thought he was.

IOW, he could simply have fucked up the translation.  Then add in the obvious issues of translating from Syriac into English and who knows what a mess you come up with?

I once posted a side-by-side translation of the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon by two different groups of scholars.  You would have thought they were speaking different languages, which they may have been.  The paleo-Phoenician script was apparently utilized by different ethnic groups speaking different languages/dialects.  I wonder if I can find it again.  It is illustrative of the point.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 01:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 12:53 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 12:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.

So you can't point to the research .

To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 01:50 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 01:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 12:53 AM)Free Wrote: How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.

So you can't point to the research .

To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.

You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

Quote:You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 02:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 01:50 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 01:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So you can't point to the research .

To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.

You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

Quote:You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

Dude ... you posted a link to Carrier's website where he quotes Alice Whealey and others. You yourself posted a link that leads to the latest research.

Jesus.H.Christ.

Also, this Swedish scholar makes a compelling argument:

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/...ns-jerome/
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 02:46 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 02:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 01:50 AM)Free Wrote: To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.

You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

Quote:You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

Dude ... you posted a link to Carrier's website where he quotes Alice Whealey and others. You yourself posted a link that leads to the latest research.

Jesus.H.Christ.

Also, this Swedish scholar makes a compelling argument:

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/...ns-jerome/

It's from 2017 ... "the latest research" ?. 
You failed to mention that Viklund just happens to be the only listed "comment" in the Carrier reference I posted. 
You're so full of shit.
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 03:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 02:46 AM)Free Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 02:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

Dude ... you posted a link to Carrier's website where he quotes Alice Whealey and others. You yourself posted a link that leads to the latest research.

Jesus.H.Christ.

Also, this Swedish scholar makes a compelling argument:

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/...ns-jerome/

It's from 2017 ... "the latest research" ?. 
You failed to mention that Viklund just happens to be the only listed "comment" in the Carrier reference I posted. 
You're so full of shit.

How fast do you think this research on this topic goes?

Okay so you didn't read your own link.

That figures.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Here is a link to the post referenced above about the oddities of translating ancient writing.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid189960
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 04:15 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Here is a link to the post referenced above about the oddities of translating ancient writing.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid189960

I don't think we can fairly compare the knowledge and resources we have for translating a proto-Phoenician script to the knowledge and resources we have translating Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc.

We are really not translating, but interpreting, and since we have so many ancient resources and so much modern scholarship for peer review to draw from in regards Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc, the difference is night and day.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Language is not precise like math. Language means different things to different people, in different times, holds different connotations and is easily bent to fit a pre-conceived narrative.

Unless you have simple descriptions of things and situations in one short phrase (Mary goes to school, the mountain is big, etc. ) the meaning can be manipulated.

To wit computerized translation. Computers are too logical to understand language with all it's idioms, inflections, colloquialisms etc.

In translation, you are always guessing at meanings and fine points, while staying as close to the original as you can. So, even translation from languages we think we understand are defective. One can only work with what one can see and understand.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Free
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 05:11 PM)Dom Wrote: ... even translation from languages we think we understand are defective ...

One has only to read the degree of misunderstanding embodied in the posts of just this thread to recognize that "mis"translation hobbles communication within a common language itself, let alone across multiple languages.

Voice recognition software will only reach a bare utilitarian effectiveness, good for opening doors or setting the temperature.  But when we can't even perfectly communicate between ourselves using a shared language how on earth would we program a computer to do it?

A farmer was asked how he spent the day.  "We rayzd  the south barn" he said.  Did he say they'd "razed" the barn, or "raised" it.  The meaning is impossible to determine from the spoken sentence - yet the possible meanings are exactly opposite.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Dom
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Many moons ago I taught German language and English composition at a Junior college, then I taught German and English at Berlitz, then moved on to becoming a court interpreter. On the side I worked on a computer program teaching German, written in basic back then.  Tongue

So, I looked at language from several perspectives, and the court interpretations were the most challenging. By far. Apart from requiring instantaneous translation, it required perfect precision. Even almost unintelligible testimony had to be rendered with the exact same unintelligibility. It was often very tempting to clean it up, for speed and clarity. That would not have been a proper translation and is a no-no for simultaneous translators.

Translators in less pressured situations do often clean things up to make them easier to comprehend in the other language.

I don't think I have ever seen a written translation that was truly accurate.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Free
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(02-06-2021, 04:28 PM)Free Wrote:
(02-06-2021, 04:15 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Here is a link to the post referenced above about the oddities of translating ancient writing.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid189960

I don't think we can fairly compare the knowledge and resources we have for translating a proto-Phoenician script to the knowledge and resources we have translating Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc.

We are really not translating, but interpreting, and since we have so many ancient resources and so much modern scholarship for peer review to draw from in regards Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc, the difference is night and day.


True, but all rely on the inherent biases of the interpreter.  I recall one time trying to get an exact reference to a quote by Cicero.  I found multiple translations, all differing to one degree or another.

Of course, Eddie Izzard has explained some of the problems with Latin!

Big Grin 


Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Many parallels between this jesus guy and Romulus. 

From the Bullshit Makes The Flowers Grow school of archaeology.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51587892

Quote:Romulus mystery: Experts divided on 'tomb of Rome's founding father'

Quote:A sarcophagus discovered in the remains of an ancient temple in Rome is causing a stir among historians who cannot agree if it belongs to the Italian city's legendary founder, Romulus.
The stone tomb, along with circular altar, dates from the 6th Century BC.
According to legend, Romulus founded the city on Palatine Hill in 753 BC after killing his twin brother Remus.
But experts are divided over whether the empty tomb can be linked to Romulus - or if the brothers even existed.

It wont hurt tourism, of course.  And that is what matters!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • mordant
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)