Then I expect via mp your email address.vocesanticae wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:42 pmAccess to a digital version would be great. Thank you!Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:21 pmAs reported in the link above, Turmel comments so the passage in question about 18:39-19:6 as interpolation in John:vocesanticae wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:00 pmThanks for calling my attention to this. Do you have a citation for Turnel's published work on this?Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:53 amof probable interest about the Johannine strata, I remember the Turmel's argument for Barabbas being absent in proto-John (considered by Turmel a marcionite Gospel).vocesanticae wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:38 am I spent some more time yesterday looking into the crucifixion traditions in GMarc and across the synoptic and Johannine strata
Interpretation based on synoptics and adapted to the primitive version that, leaving the Jews outside the Praetorium, forced Pilate to go out every time he wanted to talk to them.
(My translation from Le quatrième Evangile, Joseph Turmel. F. Rieder, 1925)
If you like, I may send you the photos of this little book.
Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism
Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism
*irony on*Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:29 am What about something like this?
1. Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy were great Presidents.
2. Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy, and Reagan were great Presidents.
3. Presidents Lincoln and Reagan were great Presidents.
In this case, I would have no idea, because preferences for which Presidents are great can vary from person to person. Maybe person 1 made an assertion, person 2 added a name to the list, and then person 3 agreed with the addition but disagreed with one of the original names. Maybe that exact same process happened in the order 3, 2, 1. Maybe person 2 started with a full list, but persons 1 and 3 each removed the paradigmatic member of the political party opposite that to which each belonged (Republican or Democrat). Maybe person 3 named two Presidents, person 1 proposed an alternative for the more modern of the two, and person 3 said, "No, they were all great." Maybe that same thing happened in the order 1, 3, 2. I cannot tell.
It seems that the author of the second sentence made a mistake by putting a comma after "Kennedy". Originally he wanted to add another name, but then he didn't. Therefore "and Reagan" may be in the original reading and the order is 3 -> 2 -> 1
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism
I live and die by the Harvard comma.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:55 am*irony on*Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:29 am What about something like this?
1. Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy were great Presidents.
2. Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy, and Reagan were great Presidents.
3. Presidents Lincoln and Reagan were great Presidents.
In this case, I would have no idea, because preferences for which Presidents are great can vary from person to person. Maybe person 1 made an assertion, person 2 added a name to the list, and then person 3 agreed with the addition but disagreed with one of the original names. Maybe that exact same process happened in the order 3, 2, 1. Maybe person 2 started with a full list, but persons 1 and 3 each removed the paradigmatic member of the political party opposite that to which each belonged (Republican or Democrat). Maybe person 3 named two Presidents, person 1 proposed an alternative for the more modern of the two, and person 3 said, "No, they were all great." Maybe that same thing happened in the order 1, 3, 2. I cannot tell.
It seems that the author of the second sentence made a mistake by putting a comma after "Kennedy". Originally he wanted to add another name, but then he didn't. Therefore "and Reagan" may be in the original reading and the order is 3 -> 2 -> 1
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism
You live, but the implied author of the sentence "Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan were great Presidents" would not use the Harvard commaBen C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:17 amI live and die by the Harvard comma.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:55 am*irony on*Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:29 am What about something like this?
1. Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy were great Presidents.
2. Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy, and Reagan were great Presidents.
3. Presidents Lincoln and Reagan were great Presidents.
In this case, I would have no idea, because preferences for which Presidents are great can vary from person to person. Maybe person 1 made an assertion, person 2 added a name to the list, and then person 3 agreed with the addition but disagreed with one of the original names. Maybe that exact same process happened in the order 3, 2, 1. Maybe person 2 started with a full list, but persons 1 and 3 each removed the paradigmatic member of the political party opposite that to which each belonged (Republican or Democrat). Maybe person 3 named two Presidents, person 1 proposed an alternative for the more modern of the two, and person 3 said, "No, they were all great." Maybe that same thing happened in the order 1, 3, 2. I cannot tell.
It seems that the author of the second sentence made a mistake by putting a comma after "Kennedy". Originally he wanted to add another name, but then he didn't. Therefore "and Reagan" may be in the original reading and the order is 3 -> 2 -> 1
Re: Bilby responds to re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism
Hi Mary, when you say "writing of Marcion preceded the writing of Paul" I would love to know your thoughts on this. Please feel free to PM me so as not to derail this thread.maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:30 amHow about explaining your overall theory in plain English i.e. no reliance on Greek (don't have any...)vocesanticae wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:17 pm Saw a lot of web traffic to my blog coming from this thread, so here I am. Happy to verify my identity in any number of ways, including by writing in the next update/upload to my Gospel of the Poor book or my blogs something funny or cute that Giuseppe asks (within reason, of course).
Any questions I can answer? Problems with my methods or proofs in my book that I can address in the book itself? (Because I am treating it as an iterative Open Science publication to start, complete with hypotheses, scientific method, and lots of scientific proofs, I can make adjustments, corrections, retractions, etc., in the book as it evolves. Which is but to say, I'm sure I've made lots of errors, and I'm more than happy to correct them to improve the book. I'm committed to this work enacting a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement, rather than silly academic gotcha games.
So far, what I can figure out is that you are proposing that the gospels that we have contain various, for want of a better term, development cycles. I agree.
You also seem to be proposing that the writing of Marcion preceded the writing of Paul. If so, I agree.
If these two points are correct - how about writing a simple synopsis of your theory ?
I really don't want to get lost in another round of Bayes' Theorem or science type explanations. How you got to your theory might well be fascinating to you - I just want the results.... I either find the results interesting or I walk on. Not able to evaluable the results because of having no Greek - Greek is only the means to an end. It's the feasibility of the storyline that words have produced that becomes of primary concern. So - lets have your storyline.....
Thanks
Lane