Stephen said
Judith said
Robert and Steefen,
Where are both of you that it’s already tomorrow???
It’s gotta be one of those time/space warps!
No, seriously!
And why aren’t any of you on the webinars where we could get to see you? After all these years that would be interesting!
Robert said
Steefen, . . . Form an actual argument or give it up. Otherwise you will merely embarrass yourself further.
I am not sure that either of these statements are possible.
It is almost always a problem to do a very close reading from translations, even if most of us can function quite well at a more general level using translations. I also wonder how even when we are reading words that we seem to be able to understand, our very distant ancestors just thought very differently in ways that are harder to appreciate.
Steefen said
And more to the point. You cannot articulate the benefit of your ability to translate Greek into English.Where is your translation of (** you do not have permission to see this link **) since it is so different from what Professor Tabor is using?
The goal of this part of the website is not to see who can translate Greek. We are having discussions in English.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The reply was to go off topic: “…I knew James Tabor when…”
First: fail to address the issue by attempting to make a non-translation issue a translation issue.
Second: fail to address the issue by attempting to go off topic.
1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, verses 23-24 stand:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
James Tabor’s comment stands without serious opposition:
[Paul’s] language is clear and unequivocal. He is not saying, “I received it from one of the apostles, and thus indirectly it came from the Lord,” or “I learned [this] in Antioch [or church tradition], but they had gotten it by tradition from the Lord.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist and Editor
Staying on topic and not setting examples of rudeness, the correct reply would be:
While James Tabor says that, Larry Hurtado says, Paul was not emphasizing his vision source; nevertheless, Paul identifies the Lord as his source for knowing there was a betrayal and an injunction to remember the Lord by metaphorical cannibalism which runs afoul of Leviticus 17: 10. Even if we go to Luke where verses are removed, before Jesus is cut off
And taking bread he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body
Jesus gives bread to his disciples to eat and that bread he says is his body; so, Jesus still presents metaphorical cannibalism which runs afoul of Lev. 17: 10.
In a topically tight conclusion: Hurtado’s discussion of prepositions does not render the translation 180 degrees as “I did not receive it from the Lord.”
Hurtado Reference: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
A person does not need to get a bachelor’s, master’s, or a doctorate in Greek when, for example, Hurtado is explaining the grammar.
Pros and Cons following Robert’s advice: Con it is not necessary. There is no great initiation of secrets, scholars will explain, Hurtado has explained, Ehrman has explained. Getting on a high horse? I see no valid reason for that.
Robert said
Steefen, you are the one asking for a translation, you are the one making it into an issue of translation. I am merely showing you in the Greek the actual extent of your ‘remarkable verbal similarities’ and ‘precisely the same language’. Tabor would not, could not disagree with this as he too is able to read the Greek. But he certainly does not draw the same conclusion from the degree of similarity as you.
I have accepted the translations found in Bibles and in Tabor’s article. You are the disagreeing with me and Tabor.
You have been given ample opportunity to provide a different translation since your opposition had something to do with my ability to translate Greek.
I quoted Tabor’s conclusion. Tabor wrote the statements.
I am no persuaded by your response. I am persuaded by Tabor’s blog post. Some people will try to vicariously disagree with a scholar by disagreeing with someone who quotes the scholar. That is not good form.
Porphyry said
Is the whole “argumentation specialist” schtick meant ironically?
Go through this thread in detail and you will know there is no irony.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
or
Buy the course and study it.
For me studying that course was simply covering material I already knew but I wanted to repeat, do drills. Argumentation/effective reasoning makes me an excellent communicator and an excellent editor.
I have quality standards. People have come to expect quality communication in my work. I deliver that. Second, I have been in situations where I was among people of a certain level of sophistication. I must know how to distinguish differences in style after I judge excellence of sophistication. Sometimes competition is so tight among finalists, winners are separated by the smallest of reasons.
When one looks carefully at the Greek, the similarities are no doubt there, but it is not as striking as one might think.
1 Cor 11,23-26 ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο* ἔλαβεν ἄρτον 24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ.
Mark 14,22-25 Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν· λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά // μου. 23 καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. 24 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τοῦτό // ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά // μου // τῆς // διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. 25 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.
Did Mark have any direct familiarity with 1 Corinthians or another, lost letter of Paul or did he perhaps have some familiarity with the practice of the Lord’s supper in a community founded by Paul? Or was he more indirectly familiar with this tradition? Who can say?
= = =
Reply
Only when you can read the Greek can you fully see the differences between 1 Cor 11,23-26 and Mark 14,22-25. I tried to illustrate this for you above by bolding only those words and parts of words that are actually identical and also indicating the many transpositions of words in these passages.
Steefen
Hurtado’s blog post went into the Greek to English translation with explanation.
The above compares different Greek passages then asks questions. Explanation is not provided.
Those passages are translated in what(?) millions of Bibles and you do not even attempt to explain what you posted–unlike Hurtado’s blog post?
1 Cor 11th Chapter 23
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread,
24
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25
In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
Mark 14th Chapter 22
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take it; this is My body.”
23
Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24
He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Reply
Did Mark have any direct familiarity with 1 Corinthians or another, lost letter of Paul or did he perhaps have some familiarity with the practice of the Lord’s supper in a community founded by Paul?
Steefen
Dr. Ehrman does not know who the author/s of Gospel of Mark is/are. He does not know, therefore, if the author/s went to Corinth.
Dr. Ehrman does not know if the author/s went to Rome to the community not founded by Paul. Did that community practice remembering the Last Supper?
Did Paul tell the community not founded by him that they should remember Jesus by re-enacting the Last Supper?
You did not make a point. You asked questions; hence, you are not making statements for persuasion.
Reply
There is one point on which you and Tabor agree, ie, that the author of this passage meant to indicate that Paul, whoever he was, had received this story about the last supper directly from the Lord in some kind of spiritual revelation. Tabor is among a rather small number of Pauline scholars to hold this view.
Steefen
Furthermore, the scholars of the NET Bible footnoted 1 Cor 11: 23 as evidence that Tabor stands alone? Answer: No.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Answer: no. There is a footnote #7 for verse 19 and there is a footnote #8 for verse 27.
Apparently, there were not a large number of Pauline scholars on the NET translation panel.
Again, you are not persuasive, Robert.
We agree to disagree.
You do not impress me with argumentation and reasoning.
You do not impress me with your knowledge of Greek. If a matter needs to leave English bibles and turn to the Greek, I’ll rely on Ehrman or Hurtado to be good professors who satisfactorily explain the significance of the underlying Greek. In this case, both 1 Cor and Mark have Jesus saying the bread is his body and the liquid in the cup is his blood.
Robert said
Steefen said
Hurtado’s blog post went into the Greek to English translation with explanation.
The above compares different Greek passages then asks questions. Explanation is not provided.
Those passages are translated in what(?) millions of Bibles and you do not even attempt to explain what you posted–unlike Hurtado’s blog post?
Steefen, I have tried to explain to you multiple times that my point here is not about translation. It’s about being able to read the actual Greek text and only then being able to see to what degree the words are actually identical in the two passages. That is the point I have been making here.
You did not make a point. You asked questions; hence, you are not making statements for persuasion.
Just because you still are unable to see the point does not mean I did not make one.
Furthermore, the scholars of the NET Bible footnoted ** you do not have permission to see this link ** as evidence that Tabor stands alone? Answer: No.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Answer: no. There is a footnote #7 for verse 19 and there is a footnote #8 for verse 27.
Apparently, there were not a large number of Pauline scholars on the NET translation panel.
I don’t think Tabor stands alone. In the minority, yes. Alone, I doubt it. The lack of footnote in the NET translation at 1 Cor 11,23 is completely irrelevant. The Footnotes #s 7 & 8 at Verses 19 & 27 are also completely irrelevant to the point I made.
Again, you are not persuasive, Robert.
We agree to disagree.
You do not impress me with argumentation and reasoning.
You do not impress me with your knowledge of Greek.
You can’t really disagree with a point you have not even understood.
If a matter needs to leave English bibles and turn to the Greek, I’ll rely on Ehrman or Hurtado to be good professors who satisfactorily explain the significance of the underlying Greek.
You do realize that I am the one who cited Hurtado at the beginning of this thread precisely because I agree with him on his point, right? You do not agree with Hurtado’s point. You realize that, right?
Anything of quality to respond to here?
Answer: no.
Second, is the response polite?
Answer: no.
Maybe next time you might post something worthy of me.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)