If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

[neilgodfrey]

A few quotes from his work (because I am way, WAY more knowledgeable on Thomas than Perrin and you together, of course):

You are missing my point entirely. Disagreement and debate are fine. Just cut out calling those you disagree with "fools" and "idiots". A little civility and respect would go a long way to giving you some credibility. Others disagree with you. They are not fools or idiots for doing so. And disagreement does not mean you know more than somebody else. Ever consider the value of a little humility?

You remind me of my days as an arrogant dogmatic Christian believer who knew "way more" than those idiotic and foolish scientists who believed in evolution. Nothing wrong with a little humility and learning even from those we disagree with.

[mlinssen]

A few quotes from his work (because I am way, WAY more knowledgeable on Thomas than Perrin and you together, of course):

You are missing my point entirely. Disagreement and debate are fine. Just cut out calling those you disagree with "fools" and "idiots". A little civility and respect would go a long way to giving you some credibility. Others disagree with you. They are not fools or idiots for doing so. And disagreement does not mean you know more than somebody else. Ever consider the value of a little humility?

You remind me of my days as an arrogant dogmatic Christian believer who knew "way more" than those idiotic and foolish scientists who believed in evolution. Nothing wrong with a little humility and learning even from those we disagree with.

Neil, you don't engage with my arguments when I'm being polite.
Neither do you engage with them when I'm being less polite

I have given you more than enough arguments for seriously doubting not only the quality of perrin's "Syriac Thomas", but even his intentions. And yet, you still choose to refrain from engaging with my arguments, and continue the "ad hominem", so to say, even projecting your arrogance onto me

Let me quote you, Neil, beause it is very apt:

Nothing wrong with a little humility and learning even from those we disagree with.

Now read my post (viewtopic.php?p=124067#p124067), and respond to its content. For just once

[neilgodfrey]

Neil, you don't engage with my arguments when I'm being polite.
Neither do you engage with them when I'm being less polite

I'm not interested in your arguments about Thomas. One of the reasons I only occasionally drop into this forum is the frequency of people reacting with their intestines rather than their craniums. Just try being polite and civil, okay? -- and even go so far as to trying to understand someone else's argument from their point of view -- without assuming they have some "attitude" or "agenda" problem. Maybe they do, but demonstrate that rationally, not reflexively. (And you're not "less polite" -- you're outright insulting.)

Actually I did quote a line about Perrin's argument that applied in principle specifically to the point of this thread. . . .

To his credit, Perrin recognizes the difficulties inherent in his approach and even raises the question himself of whether his reconstructions will be tendentiously skewed. He responds that since Syriac offers a limited range of lexicological options, this is not as big a problem as first appears. . . .

Now that's a point I'd like to address -- in relation to the canonical gospels and Hebrew.

[neilgodfrey]

the immediate context seems to be a rehabilitation of Reinach's minimalist view (I remember that Reinach was a Jesus Agnostic until he arrived to believe that the Slavonic Testimonia, recently discovered, were genuine) against Loisy's criticisms. For example:

Reinach, for instance, sees much of the language and conceptual framework of belief in the New Testament as a result of misunderstandings of Hebrew as a language, a way of thought, and a means of exegetical playfulness.
...
If I were to teach a seminar on the Jewish Jesus, it would look like the section part of this chapter.

(my bold)

Interesting. Can you give me the source of that quote?

Am I right in thinking that this approach has not been taken up in English language venues?

You can say it strong.

This is the second time I see that the French research had overcomed, at least on a point, the English scholarship.

The first time has been when Doherty wrote that he was influenced more by Couchoud than by Drews or W.B.Smith.

Yes, I am disappointed that there appears to be no interest in English language circles in the Hebrew language option behind the gospels. Sure there are problems, but not nearly as many as the hypothesis that "memory theory" explains the gospel content.

As for Doherty -- he certainly acknowledged that Couchoud anticipated many of his own ideas, but did not think he was influenced by him:

(Incidentally, while I read Couchoud a few years before I embarked on my own concentrated research, I did not subsequently review him, and am now a bit chagrined to realize just how much of my own independently arrived at ideas were anticipated by him!)

-- Doherty, Earl. “Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case. Four: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism. Part One: Introduction, Shirley J. Case, Maurice Goguel.” The Jesus Puzzle, October 13, 2003. http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/ ... Refut1.htm.

[neilgodfrey]

Reinach, for instance, sees much of the language and conceptual framework of belief in the New Testament as a result of misunderstandings of Hebrew as a language, a way of thought, and a means of exegetical playfulness.
...
If I were to teach a seminar on the Jewish Jesus, it would look like the section part of this chapter.

(my bold)

Reinach is someone I have overlooked. Can you give titles of his to follow up? Thanks

(So far I only have: Orpheus, histoire générale des religions. Chapitre VIII ― Les Origines chrétiennes and Salomon Reinach - The Tortured King )

[Giuseppe]

I refer you always to the Norman Simms' article in the book mentioned above (Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, Zev Garber, Routledge, 2014).

As to Reinach, on archive.org I have found the entire set of versions of his monumental Orpheus. What I have found more interesting is his analysis of Ignatius' epistles where there are strong clues of an ancient polemic against anti-Christian mythicist accusations (and not only docetic). See for example his articles published in Revue moderniste.

A book I am expecting along the same lines, by an our contemporary author, is: Jésus ? Une histoire qui ne peut pas être de l'Histoire, by Michel Gozard.

[Giuseppe]

Read this about Gozard:

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisa ... hel_Gozard

[mlinssen]

Neil, you don't engage with my arguments when I'm being polite.
Neither do you engage with them when I'm being less polite

I'm not interested in your arguments about Thomas. One of the reasons I only occasionally drop into this forum is the frequency of people reacting with their intestines rather than their craniums. Just try being polite and civil, okay? -- and even go so far as to trying to understand someone else's argument from their point of view -- without assuming they have some "attitude" or "agenda" problem. Maybe they do, but demonstrate that rationally, not reflexively. (And you're not "less polite" -- you're outright insulting.)

Actually I did quote a line about Perrin's argument that applied in principle specifically to the point of this thread. . . .

To his credit, Perrin recognizes the difficulties inherent in his approach and even raises the question himself of whether his reconstructions will be tendentiously skewed. He responds that since Syriac offers a limited range of lexicological options, this is not as big a problem as first appears. . . .

Now that's a point I'd like to address -- in relation to the canonical gospels and Hebrew.

It is striking, Neil - let's use a neutral word shall we? - that I start with insulting Nicholas Perrin, accusing him of being a foolish idiot: viewtopic.php?p=124035#p124035
That doesn't prevent you from merely lightly countering that insult, and reacting to the content of his booklet while citing positive reviews: viewtopic.php?p=124058#p124058
And only after I cite negative reviews (viewtopic.php?p=124062#p124062) is it that you follow up with addressing none of the content, and only stick to my labelling of Perrin (viewtopic.php?p=124066#p124066)

And now, after the overwhelming evidence of Perrin being either a foolish idiot or a fraud (viewtopic.php?p=124067#p124067), given the demonstrated fact that he uses an English translation of Thomas as a basis for his "Syriac thesis" (and it is likely that of Michael Grondin, given the odd word choice of 'districts', although Grondin had "woman" in logion 15 in 1997, 2002 and now), you suddenly decide to refuse to address the content, and revert to the OP?

I'll leave you to it then, Neil. I'll block some time in the future, looking forward to your attempts to "restore" an Aramaic or Hebrew version of some of the NT.
I will give you solid advice on translating: the only valid way to do so is via a fully normalised one, which is demonstrated and verifiable via a double (reverse) index (preferably concordance, of course).
https://www.academia.edu/42110001 is a splendid example of such

[Charles Wilson]

Two "Oddities" from our time:

1. What is the most cited Paper by Albert Einstein?

"Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?"

The strange thing about this paper is that Einstein was not aware that his name had been attached to it. Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky worked with Einstein and added Einstein's name in an effort to get a little more notice for their work. The paper was evidently written by Podolsky, who was Russian. The Title does not carry the Definite Article (Perhaps more properly, "Can THE Quantum-Mechanical..."), giving an indication of Non-English (Russian) Authorship.

2. I remember Saint Al Haig, Savior of the United States (OK, OK... "/S", in Bold, no less), gave a speech at the United Nations in which he stated that someone was "...waiting for the other the other shoe to drop..." which sent UN Translators to the hospital for heart pains, trying to make sense of the statement in some other native tongue.

Haig, BTW, has apparently undergone Damnatio Memoriae as every Search I've made gives a rote definition of the phrase with nary a mention of Al Haig. If anyone has the correct citation, please tell me where it is.

Cross-Linguistic work is hazardous stuff.

Mo' laytah.

[Stuart]

I think we've gotten off into the weeds.

There is more consensus when we scale back the definition of the original synoptic. If we are talking about a pre-canonical prototype, and not using biased language then we see many differences start to diminish.

For example, many substitute Mark for a "Mark like" pre-canonical gospel, when they accept a layer of Mark beyond the prototype, but want to tilt the argument in favor of Markan priority. If we don't do that, and instead neutrally refer to a prototype or prototypes. Personally I favor two prototypes being in circulation when the sectarian gospel (writing) evangelism era began. [1] This era was Greek, and probably even the final stages of the prototype gospel(s) was also Greek. [2]

But I fully acknowledge Christianity grew out of some splinter of Judaism. And that of course it had to have started with at least some Aramaic speakers and Hebrew writers. The question for me is, at what stage of the prototype gospel formation did the language switch to Greek? Was the entire project Greek, or was there some earlier core that was Hebrew/Aramaic?

If the debate is framed in the terms of this early prototype phase, of a very stripped down prototype gospel, lacking LXX specific building blocks (so it must be much smaller) then I'm open to the possibility. But when the debate includes the sectarian layers, then I know it's impossible.


Notes:
[1] IMO sectarian gospel evangelism started in the 2nd quarter of the second century, completing by the start of the 3rd century, with our canonical gospels largely in the form we have them now.
[2] factors weighing in my estimation are technical, such as scribal corrections are all Greek. Also use of the LXX almost exclusively says much of the work was done in Greek, by Greek speakers.