Jill_L said
Thanks for the Wikipedia articles, BJH. By the reading of these, I think, like you, I am more drawn to the systemic school. So . . . for now, to avoid spending money on another book, I’ve taken a look through the MelCat. I’ve been able to find an earlier edition of the Halliday book, Intro to Functional Grammar. I couldn’t find the exact title of the Matthiessen and Teruya collaboration, but I did find a couple titles that struck me as possibly similarly oriented: Matthiessen & Teruya, Key Terms in System Functional Linguistics (2014) here.; also, Matthiessen, System in System Functional Linguistics: A System Based Theory of Languages (2023) here.
I found another available title, Continuing Discourse of Language : a functional perspective (2005), edited by Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian Matthiessen, and Jonathan Webster. This is a two-volume work. (I just thought I’d post this one because Ruqaiya Hasan was left out above.)
So I’ve ordered ** you do not have permission to see this link ** in his writing feeling for literature his term ‘associative’ rather than ‘paradigmatic’ is more applicable. The Geller is proving to be a large enjoyable read full of detail.
Thanks for the references.
A Video Super Chat starts at 3:33.49:
Will you guys cover some of the claims made by Joseph Yahuda’s ‘Hebrew is Greek’ given Ammon counts him as supporting his position? Thanks for the vid
= = ==
Steefen:
I’ll start the remainder of my viewing of this video at the point.
One Gnostic Informant guest (1) said:
I only know Greek. I’m only beginning to learn Hebrew. I can only knit pick the Greek. I’ll take his word for the similarities between Greek and Hebew. The book is very detailed. He’s done some homework. Ammon does know Hebrew, he just likes the conclusion.
Neal Sendlak:
I agree: you have to be qualified to read this book: you have to know Greek and Hebrew. But I agree what you said. Those I know who know Greek and Hebrew have said: Yahuda has done a lot of research and homework for “Hebrew is Greek.” He’s made good comparisons.
= = =
There’s nothing wrong with self-publishing a book. The problem with this book, and Gnositc Informant guest (1) agrees, there are editorial mistakes in the book. Something this technical needs to be peer-reviewed.
= = =
Ian Young, Ph.D, Professor of Biblical Studies in Ancient Languages (knows Hebrew and Greek) at timestamp: 3:42.30
makes a statement about Hebrew being post-exilic as per Neal Sendlak.
= = =
Another superchat:
WE know the Bible/Book is Hellenistic because before Hellenism, there is no biblical corpus/literature: it’s all oral, and the oral tradition is theatrical, meant to be read aloud.
Gnostic Informant guest (1):
We all agree that Hebrew took its final form in the Hellenistic period.
Neal Sendlak:
Line up Hebrew to Ugaritic, it’s like comparing the language of Mycenae to Greek.
In the Ugaritic texts you have Baal defeating the Leviathan. Then in Psalms, Yahweh defeats the Leviathan. Hebrew is borrowing from Ugarit. Hebrew also borrows from the texts of Ancient Sumer.
Steefen:
Why a while back I wanted to include Atrahasis in my research.
= = =
End of video
If I were to supplement my dive into Atrahsis with Ugaritic texts …
- The Baal Cycle (KTU 1.1–1.6): The most famous myth, detailing the storm god Baal’s struggle for power against Yam (sea) and Mot (death) to establish his kingship.
- The Legend of Keret (Kirta): An epic following King Keret as he loses his family and is instructed by the god El to marry, sharing themes with the biblical Book of Job.
- The Tale of Aqhat (Danel): Relates the story of a righteous man named Danel (or Dnʾil), his son Aqhat, and the tragic death of his son.
- The Rephaim Texts (KTU 1.20–1.22): Poetic texts concerning deceased heroes or ancestral spirits (Rephaim).
- Wedding Song of Nikkal and Yarih (KTU 1.24): A mythological poem describing the marriage of the moon-god to a goddess.
Sacred Enigmas looks absolutely fascinating.
It does!
I agree: you have to be qualified to read this book: you have to know Greek and Hebrew.
You don’t have to be aeronautical engineer to critique UFOs or an evolutionary biologist to see what’s wrong with the Loch Ness Monster.
WE know the Bible/Book is Hellenistic because before Hellenism, there is no biblical corpus/literature: it’s all oral, and the oral tradition is theatrical, meant to be read aloud.
You mean other than say, Isaiah or the Priestly source in the Torah? In an oral culture everything was read aloud.
Steefen, serious as a heart attack, if you describe Ammon’s “ideas” to specialists in Hebrew or the LXX, they’re not going to debate with you. They’re going to laugh at you.
Steefen, serious as a heart attack, if you describe Ammon’s “ideas” to specialists in Hebrew or the LXX, they’re not going to debate with you. They’re going to laugh at you.
As well they should. The ideas are utter nonsense.
I do find it interesting, however, that he continues to explore them despite accepting Ammon’s methodology as outdated (** you do not have permission to see this link ** language at the time of the Septuagint.
Steefen, why do you still find what he says worth taking note of?
One Gnostic Informant guest (1) said:
I only know Greek. I’m only beginning to learn Hebrew. I can only knit pick the Greek. I’ll take his word for the similarities between Greek and Hebew. The book is very detailed. He’s done some homework. Ammon does know Hebrew, he just likes the conclusion.
should be
One Gnostic Informant guest (1) said:
…Ammon doesn’t know Hebrew, he just likes the conclusion.
If anyone is interested, one can take a look at Yahuda’s conclusions, which can be found beginning at the bottom corner of this ** you do not have permission to see this link **that follow.
Of course, complete and utter balderdash.
Perhaps, my favorites are:
“…the Hebrews were Asiatic Greeks and their language was Continental Greek.”
“…the primitive grammatical structures to be found in the Bible….”
However, that is not to say that the following doesn’t hold a special place in my heart:
“That only by my theory is it possible to establish securely the true meaning of obscure biblical words, and the right interpretation of puzzling passages.”
Regarding Comment 66
In the review video, there is mention of how Mark was a play. I remember that because I kept thinking of the movie Jesus of Montreal.
Let’s see what this youtube creator adds to this topic.
Mark was a Roman Street Play
and Why Scholars Think the Gospel of Mark was a Roman Stage Play
I recall something Porphyry mentioned when we were coming up with the rules about a year ago.
A person shouldn’t just post a video but tell us why they are posting it. What do they want us to get out of it? What arguments is it advancing and why do they find it convincing?
I’d like to see posters make their own arguments instead of having a YouTube video make it for them.
What does everyone think?
Dr. James Tabor and other scholars like Danila Odor have been exploring how Mark’s narrative could follow the very structure of Greco Roman theater.
. His analysis, featured in his course “Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten,” presents Mark not as a simple biography, but as a “counter-gospel” written in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE.
- Three-Act Structure: Tabor views the narrative as a deliberate, three-act, or three-part drama.
- Act I (Galilee): Focuses on Jesus’s ministry, characterized as an aretalogy or act of mighty deeds.
- Act II (The Journey): Features discussions with disciples centered on suffering.
- Act III (Jerusalem): Culminates in the Passion, death, and the empty tomb.
- Theatrical Elements: Tabor identifies specific literary motifs that move the story along, similar to scenes in a play. The narrative is described as fast-paced and dramatic.
- Post-War Context: He argues that Mark was designed to be read in a context where the Jewish Temple was destroyed, focusing on a “dead messiah, forsaken by God, his contemporary Jewish culture, and even his closest followers and disciples”.
- Antithetical Nature: Tabor’s interpretation suggests Mark is a “counter-gospel” that opposes the later, more orthodox narrative of Jesus that emerged in Matthew, Luke, and John.
Steefen:
So far, I’m getting the sense that “Oral Tradition to Written Word” is not holding up very well.
= = = = =
play designed for performance in a Greek-style theater. In her book, The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text, Oder argues that the author (“Mark”) first created a dramatic, stageable work to be performed in Rome around 90–95 CE, which was later adapted into the written text known today.
- Stageable Production: Oder, drawing on her background in theater, argues that the narrative structure and content of Mark are fully stageable in a Greco-Roman theater with a two-level stage, an orchestra, two side entrances, and a minimal set.
- Structure of the Play: She argues the play was a “journey story” that culminated in the Passion, which she suggests was an originally separate tragedy.
- Performance Elements: Oder identifies specific stage directions in the text, such as the consistent, logical movements of actors on and off stage.
- Performance vs. Text: Oder proposes a distinction between the “two gospels”: the original live performance (the play) and the subsequent written, narrated text (the Gospel of Mark we have), which she argues was “novelized” from the original performance.
- Genre: She categorizes the original performance as being in the genre of Roman mime.
- Source Material: The performance was built on, and intended to dramatize, scenarios from Scripture, mythology, and Homer.
>> And it is in Mark, that there is a quick appearance of a young male running across “the stage” losing his clothes.
I’m really amused by how interpreting Mark as a stage play would explain that mysterious detail: First century playwright has to include some utterly gratuitous nudity to keep those Greek pederasts entertained.
Nihil novum sub solum.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)