Re: Galatians 1 & Mark 1
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:01 am
Tarazi. I have not read him, but does he say in his book, possibly on page 168, that the name Joses (from Mark 6.3; 15.40, 47) does not actually exist as a name?
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Tarazi. I have not read him, but does he say in his book, possibly on page 168, that the name Joses (from Mark 6.3; 15.40, 47) does not actually exist as a name?
very good reading, Irish1975. The spirit of Gustav Volkmar lives in Tarazi (and in Dykstra, and in Adamczewski), just as he lived in Hermann Raschke. Radical paulinist, "almost to the point of absurdity".
Yep.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:01 am Tarazi. I have not read him, but does he say in his book, possibly on page 168, that the name Joses (from Mark 6.3; 15.40, 47) does not actually exist as a name?
While the name Joses is not attested to even in the LXX, it is cast in a way that brings to mind the Greek noun ios meaning “poison/venom.” Mark’s intention may then be to allude to someone named Ioseph (Joseph) whom he wishes to suggest is poisonous. The fact that Matthew changes this name to Joseph lends credence to this suppostion.
footnote: Ioseph is undeclinable, whereas Ioses is declined into iosetos, which draws attention in the direction of a Greek word.
Thanks for checking. He is mistaken, but I wanted to make sure he had not been misquoted.Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:14 amYep.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:01 am Tarazi. I have not read him, but does he say in his book, possibly on page 168, that the name Joses (from Mark 6.3; 15.40, 47) does not actually exist as a name?
While the name Joses is not attested to even in the LXX, it is cast in a way that brings to mind the Greek noun ios meaning “poison/venom.” Mark’s intention may then be to allude to someone named Ioseph (Joseph) whom he wishes to suggest is poisonous. The fact that Matthew changes this name to Joseph lends credence to this suppostion.
footnote: Ioseph is undeclinable, whereas Ioses is declined into iosetos, which draws attention in the direction of a Greek word.
I’ll have to look those guys up, thanks.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:08 amvery good reading, Irish1975. The spirit of Gustav Volkmar lives in Tarazi (and in Dykstra, and in Adamczewski), just as he lived in Hermann Raschke. Radical paulinist, "almost to the point of absurdity".
If Mark is not read in the way Tarazi read it, then only Marcion's proto-Luke is the only viable alternative to resolve the Synoptical enigma.
You’re not going to give us a text?? So out of character, lol.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:19 am Thanks for checking. He is mistaken, but I wanted to make sure he had not been misquoted.
Do you discount the private revelations to “Paul,” 2 Corinthians 12 and so forth? Are they not his primary source?Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:06 am It would make sense that Paul read Mark (even though this is not what is being proposed I think). Paul speaks in such supernatural terms that it is hard to believe he is referencing a historical source - a source which even he admits he never saw or witnessed. The only think that Paul could be an authority on would be a text (although not our text, something more like secret Mark) - one of many people claiming to understand the ambiguities of this elusive narrative.
For reference, the final sigma/ς in Greek is just the Greek nominative case ending:Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:34 amYou’re not going to give us a text?? So out of character, lol.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:19 am Thanks for checking. He is mistaken, but I wanted to make sure he had not been misquoted.