Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Why has Martijn not been thanked for his research by Goodacre, Gathercole, and me?

Post by maryhelena »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:46 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:46 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:03 am Scholars are less likely to engage 'academically' with your work if it's not published in academic [peer-reviewed] journals (and even then they mightn't: you have no right to expect anyone to respond)
Which raises the question - has any research by non-academics, non professionals in a particular field, ever been accepted - not just by an individual academic, but by their guild. ? Has any non-academic research moved the dial, so to speak, of an academic consensus position ?

Of course, individual academics can raise issues of their own, suggesting non-consensus positions, and get negative critique from their collogues. Thinking about Rachael Elior on the Essenes. Also of course, Ken Olson's Eusebius theory has not received overall academic acclaim. Probably a lot more academics research does not achieve total acceptance.

In a field like New Testament studies, a field in which theology and church history are able to cloud the waters, a consensus as to what lies at the root of christian origins remains a very subjective enterprise. For those of us prepared to undertake the task of unravelling the past - unravelling the past for our own satisfaction, our answers are our reward. Seeking academic interest might be welcome but our satisfaction rests in our own answers not any academic clapping of hands.

Over the years I sent some ideas to academics - and got much the same response as Martijn has got. I may do so again as I think I have something interesting to say. (and no, it's not anything I've posted on this forum). But my aim won't be to get an academic accolade - one offers something up and that is all one can do. If rejection hurts one then maybe one needs to question what it is one is trying to do. Trying to change the system is a difficult exercise if the system is not ready for change. What's that old saying - an idea whose time has come (don't know who said it or where it's from..) Research is an individual pursuit - and an individual is in it for it's own end - not for any academic say so.
Hear hear Maryhelena, and I fully agree. I don't consider myself a scholar or academic even though I formally am qualified to call myself an academic; I hold a Masters degree even, but expecting anything from the biblical academic cesspool but meek bleating from within its echo chamber is possibly even more naive than the vast majority of its occupants

Mind you, I will change the system, and all of it and entirely - and turn it into a blaze of fire of Apocalyptic proportions

Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions yet again...
Good luck then.... You've more fire in your belly than I've got..... Of course changing the system is a worthwhile aim. But methinks, in the case of NT scholarship, system change might require more than ideas. New Testament ideas have themselves multiplied as the sands on the seashore. Another new idea just adds more diversity. Christianity has well been called the 'mother of heretics'. All well and good. Thinking any new idea will cause systen change... In effect to win the New Testament lottery.... is hoping that lady luck will favor one's idea rather than the merits of the idea changed the system.

Another aspect of the NT academic problem is that NT ideas are not confined to academia. NT ideas have infiltrated western political thought. Consequently, what NT academics say about the NT and what non academics say about their consensus ideas. - is like riding a merry-go-round while Rome burns.

Which is simply to say there are bigger fish to fry than NT academics... 😁
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by StephenGoranson »

On the saying about an idea whose time has come, mentioned by maryhelena above, in case it's of interest, it is discussed in Fred Shapiro's New Yale Book of Quotations p. 397 #8 here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why has Martijn not been thanked for his research by Goodacre, Gathercole, and me?

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:03 am
mlinssen wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:17 pm
It had been 2 years since my initial discovery and I had set up a Discussion as I usually do for burning topics, which was frequented by quite a few professors and scholars - who all remained utterly silent

And that is when I, in despair after so many papers published by me on this topic, that went without any and all response, reached out to Mark and Simon with what I saw as splendid demonstration of blind bias that really and urgently had to be addressed "from within".
And I was well aware of the predicament there so I appealed to academic ethics, morals and values in general, and I called for a reaction from their side, if at least just a preliminary one to me

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn" was all I got

Scholars are less likely to engage 'academically' with your work if it's not published in academic [peer-reviewed] journals (and even then they mightn't: you have no right to expect anyone to respond)
mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:38 am Where did I say at any point something even remotely close to that?
Or even suggest that I did not get a response?
  • In green

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:38 am Worse, Ken has even explicitly stated that Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole have not thanked me for my research
  • I don't think this is true. Even if it is, why are you whinging about it ???

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:38 am Meanwhile Ken has admitted that he misunderstood my single comment.
  • I see no evidence of that there

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:38 am It would certainly seem that you have also done the latter (and then piled some others assumptions and misunderstandings on top of that)
  • You seem to be paranoid
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why has Martijn not been thanked for his research by Goodacre, Gathercole, and me?

Post by MrMacSon »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:46 am Research is an individual pursuit - and an individual is in it for it's own end - not for any academic say so.
  • It would depend on the nature of the research (and any potential market for it)

    If [some] research is an individual pursuit, an individual would be in it for their own end, even if that end included academic advance

    "academic say so" seems a nebulous concept (but would depend on the research)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:21 am On the saying about an idea whose time has come, mentioned by maryhelena above, in case it's of interest, it is discussed in Fred Shapiro's New Yale Book of Quotations p. 397 #8 here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover
I should have looked it up.......back of my mind I had come across it somewhere - and it's Victor Hugo.

Image


Yep, the new idea needs to get rid of the old idea that has long overstayed it's usefulness. However, ideas are often not just in a fight with one another but with reality itself. And, as reality throws up situations, circumstances, problems, crisis - necessity becomes the mother of invention. It is that, crisis time, wherein system change or system collapse is open to new ideas to replace the old and useless. So...we can't just think great ideas on our own - our ideas need to be in tune with the times.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Why has Martijn not been thanked for his research by Goodacre, Gathercole, and me?

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:47 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:46 am Research is an individual pursuit - and an individual is in it for it's own end - not for any academic say so.
  • It would depend on the nature of the research (and any potential market for it)
'market'? Research is not about a market, about selling. Its fundamentally for it's own end - truth for it's own sake - or something along those lines. No other reason, market sales, persuading others - are not the driving force for research.

If [some] research is an individual pursuit, an individual would be in it for their own end, even if that end included academic advance
See above.

Not everybody is interested in finding answers, that satisfy them, to the 'Why' question. For some it's like that mountain - it's there and some people want to climb it. Why? Because its there. The same with research - questions can be raised that need answers. Some people find the quest for answers to be worthwhile - for them. If others find value in the answers all well and good but the opinion or acceptance of others is not a goal. It is not the motivator for the hours or years a researcher will spend on his or her quest. The acceptance of others is a bonus that can never replace the satisfaction of finding answers that satisfy oneself.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to mlinssen,
There is a good reason why you have very little positive response advocating gospel of Thomas was the first gospel, despite all the work you put in order to make that point:
You are wrong (sorry to be so blunt)

http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html Dare to read it?
The gospel of Thomas was written with full knowledge of the four canonical gospels (and likely 2 Clement, 2 Peter, gospels of the Hebrews & to the Egyptians).

"Thomas" got logion 79 from Luke's gospel.

Logion 79: A woman in the crowd said to him, "Lucky are the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you." He said to [her], "Lucky are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it.

Luke 11:27: And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked

About Zizanion:

"Thomas" got Zizanion from Matthew 13:24-30,36-43.

Logion 57: Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who had [good] seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds [zizanion] among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds [zizanion]. He said to them: Lest you go and pull up the weeds [zizanion], (and) pull up the wheat with it. For on the day of the harvest the weeds [zizanion] will be manifest; they will be pulled up and burned.

The fact that Zizanion only appears in a very much Matthean parable [13:24-30,36-43] & ('lawlessness', 'furnace of fire', 'wailing', 'gnashing of teeth', 'righteous') points to "Matthew" got Zizanion (for weeds) from some ancient writing.

Cordially, Bernard
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:06 am The fact that Zizanion only appears in a very much Matthean parable [13:24-30,36-43] & ('lawlessness', 'furnace of fire', 'wailing', 'gnashing of teeth', 'righteous') points to "Matthew" got Zizanion (for weeds) from some ancient writing.
I agree with that. Nonetheless, imho Martijn saw correctly, that ζιζάνιον is an obscure word. Already in ancient times there were discussions about the meaning of the word and some variants of interpretation. The Latin and Syriac translators, apparently ignorant of the meaning, merely used a transliteration of the word, and the Copts merely translated it with the word "weeds" in the broad sense that follows simply from the overall context of the pericope. Nobody seems to have really known what ζιζάνιον means.

I don't think Matthew was unaware of that. Matthew may have used that obscure word on purpose, and one wonders why he did it.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by schillingklaus »

The gospels are no encyclopaedia of botanis but spiritual writings, and the zizis are to be understood allegoriacally rather than literally as Muller does. They are infiltrated by Marcion and his idol Paul. Therefore, the Ebionim used echthros anthropos as a synonym for Paul. There was no need for efforts to eliminate the heretics at that that time because they would find their appropriate punishment when the kingdom has come. Late-coming Mark's gospel mutilated the parable into 4:26-29.

The original gnostic parable, found in the Theodotian excerpts, uses the obnoxious herbs as a symbol for matter, which disturbs the pneumatic seed of the Father. It is destroyed eschatologically.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by Ken Olson »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 11:07 am
Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:06 am The fact that Zizanion only appears in a very much Matthean parable [13:24-30,36-43] & ('lawlessness', 'furnace of fire', 'wailing', 'gnashing of teeth', 'righteous') points to "Matthew" got Zizanion (for weeds) from some ancient writing.
I agree with that. Nonetheless, imho Martijn saw correctly, that ζιζάνιον is an obscure word. Already in ancient times there were discussions about the meaning of the word and some variants of interpretation. The Latin and Syriac translators, apparently ignorant of the meaning, merely used a transliteration of the word, and the Copts merely translated it with the word "weeds" in the broad sense that follows simply from the overall context of the pericope. Nobody seems to have really known what ζιζάνιον means.

I don't think Matthew was unaware of that. Matthew may have used that obscure word on purpose, and one wonders why he did it.
Hi Kunigunde,

Thanks for weighing in on this. Just to clarify, you are saying that ζιζάνιον was an obscure word, not a non-existent one at the time Matthew used it (and by implication, you think the direction went Matt=>Thomas rather than vice versa), right?

I understand the argument that the Latin and Syriac translators simply transliterated the word in Matthew and may not have known of it earlier. But what do you make of the the Hebrew זונין ZUNIN or ZONIN from Mishnah Kalayim 1.1 and Gen. Rab. 6.7? Is it also derived from Matthew (or possibly Thomas), or perhaps completely unrelated to Zizania? Or do you accept in general that ZIZANIA had a Semitic root, but that the word would have been obscure to Matthew's Greek readers (which I think is probably correct)?
Already in ancient times there were discussions about the meaning of the word and some variants of interpretation.
Could you be more specific about which ancient interpreters you mean? I'm familiar with Origen and Jerome in their commentaries on Matthew, and Augustine's Sermon 73. They all seem to be discussing what the Zizania within the parable should be taken to represent in the real world outside of the parable (i.e., they are interpreting the allegory), not discussing the usual meaning of the word in its non-metaphorical use. Origen, for example, also discusses whether 'the field' in the parable is meant to represent the Christian church or the whole world, but that does not mean that ἀγρός was an obscure word of unclear meaning. Are there ancient interpreters that disagree about or discuss what the usual, non-metaphorical meaning of the word ZIZANIA is?

Best,

Ken
Post Reply