Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Giuseppe »

vocesanticae wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:42 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:21 pm
vocesanticae wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:00 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:53 am
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
of 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).
Thanks for calling my attention to this. Do you have a citation for Turnel's published work on this?
As reported in the link above, Turmel comments so the passage in question about 18:39-19:6 as interpolation in John:

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.
Access to a digital version would be great. Thank you!
Then I expect via mp your email address.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

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.
*irony on*

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 :cheers: ;)
User avatar
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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:55 am
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.
*irony on*

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 :cheers: ;)
I live and die by the Harvard comma. :cheers:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:17 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:55 am
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.
*irony on*

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 :cheers: ;)
I live and die by the Harvard comma. :cheers:
You live, but the implied author of the sentence "Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan were great Presidents" would not use the Harvard comma :D
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Bilby responds to re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Jax »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:30 am
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.
How about explaining your overall theory in plain English i.e. no reliance on Greek (don't have any...)

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.....
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.

Thanks

Lane
Post Reply