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.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Though I am ignorant of the relevant botany, an interesting post.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

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

Post by lsayre »

It brings new meaning to "the bread of life".

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/w ... -centuries
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

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

Post by robert j »

lsayre wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:50 am It brings new meaning to "the bread of life".

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/w ... -centuries
Thanks for that link. Here's the title of the article ---

"Wheat’s Evil Twin Has Been Intoxicating Humans For Centuries
Darnel is poisonous, but in small enough doses can give food a special kick."

The title of the intriguing painting at the beginning of the article is "Parable of the Wheat and the Tares", by Abraham Bloemaert. The fine painting is chock-a-block with symbolism, but it clearly represents Matthew 13:25 ---

And while the people are sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds in the midst of the wheat, and went away.

If you can expand or magnify the image, the figure in the field behind the sleeping people has two horns and a tail. The devil sowing his seed (Matthew 13:38-39), sowing intoxicating and poisonous darnel seed among the sown wheat.

Providing a bountiful harvest of symbolism.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

While I was waiting for mlinssen to post his theory on the origin of the word ZIZANION from the Parable of the Wheat and Weeds (Matt 13/Thomas 57), I decided to look at the paper on the Wheat and Weeds that he he uploaded to his Academia.edu site to see if I could find it there. The explanation he offers there is different from the one he's suggested on this forum, so I assume he's changed his mind since 2021. But I want tor draw attention to his interaction with the scholarship on the subject. Reasonably enough, he interacts mostly with Simon Gathercole's commentary on Thomas. The book is, of course, not completely comprehensive nor above criticism in the positions for which it argues, but I think as a function of those two things it's the best work out there. On Gathercole's comment on ZIZANION, Linssen writes:

I disagree completely with most interpretations in [Simon] Gathercole's Commentary, but his is the most elaborate, detailed, meticulous and precise work that I have seen on Thomas. And he tries, hard, and when he doesn't succeed he just says so. He actually does address the text, he goes by every single sentence, and last time I checked, Thomas wasn't his specialty - yet after these he has yet another two full pages on analysing this logion, and most of that is his own. And that's not all, he even dares to touch the weed(!), albeit it with a few layers of gloves
The use of the word for weed (ⲍⲓⲍⲁⲛⲓ[ⲟ]ⲛ) probably reflects the influence of Matthew.10
The footnote there points to another fine example of bright shining wit and perception:

[John] Meier, ‘The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds’, 726–727:
‘This Greek noun (probably of Semitic origin) does not occur in the LXX, in other Greek versions of the OT, in secular Greek before the Christian era, or in the Apostolic Fathers. In the NT, it occurs only in this parable of Matthew and its interpretation.’
Apparently, biblical scholars do research but when they find something they can't compute, they merely state their findings at best. Well, while disclosing nothing Meier still says a thousand times more here than Miss April [Deconick] and [Stevan?] Davies, and it is astonishing what he states here, of course: the word ⲍⲓⲍⲁⲛⲓⲟⲛ didn't exist at all! So there are two chances here: either their Jesus made it up, or Thomas made it up - but let's not address any of that, by all means, why should we? [Martijn Linssen, The Parable of the Seed and the Weed (2021) 15-16].

John Meier did not, of course, say that that the word ZIZANION did not exist at all. He said that it was probably of Semitic origin. He did not, however, lay out the case its Semitic origin. That issue is discussed in other places, such as scholarly commentaries on Matthew. Here is Dale Allison's discussion of ZIZANION from William David Davies and Dale Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. (The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989-1997) 2.412.
Zizanion - W.D. Davies & Dale Allison, Matthew, ICC, 2.412.JPG
Zizanion - W.D. Davies & Dale Allison, Matthew, ICC, 2.412.JPG (2.41 MiB) Viewed 1160 times
It is not certain, but it appears likely that the word is related to the Syriac ZIZONE and the Rabbinic Hebrew ZONIN.

Here is the entry on ZIZONE from R. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (1903, 2013) 115.
Zizanion - Tares - R. Payne Smith - A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (1903, 2013) 115 Highlighted.png
Zizanion - Tares - R. Payne Smith - A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (1903, 2013) 115 Highlighted.png (211.45 KiB) Viewed 1160 times
Here is a link to the entry on the Hebrew ZONIN from seraia.com, with the reference Allison gave to Gen. Rab. 6.7, and another reference from Mishnah Kilayim 1.1:

http://www.seraia.com/seraiauk/lexicon/Zonin.htm

Mishnah Kilayim 1.1, with Hebrew text and English translation is online at the Sefaria site here:

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Kilayim.1.1?lang=bi

ZONIN is the second word (from the right) in the first line.

On the basis that the word ZIZANION has parallels that seem to be close in form and meaning in two Semitic languages - Syriac ZIZONE and Rabbinic Hebrew ZONIN - we might reasonably infer that all three go back to some Semitic original.

This is not, of course, certain. Syriac literary texts post-date Matthew (at least by my dating of Matthew). Genesis Rabbah is usually dated to the third through fifth centuries and I do not know the date of the earliest manuscript. The Mishnah is generally accepted to have been compiled c. 200 CE by Rabbi Judah the Prince, but the earliest complete manuscripts of the Talmuds containing it are the Leiden 1289 CE manuscript of Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud) and the 1342 CE Munich manuscript for Bavli (Babylonian Talmud).

This means it is theoretically possible that Matthew or Thomas invented the word ZIZANION which went viral and made it into Syriac and Rabbinic Hebrew in different forms . Such a scenario is maybe a bit more plausible for the Syriac than for the Hebrew. But while it may not be a certainty that Matthew's ZIZANION is derived from the same Semitic root as ZIZONE and ZONIN, it remains a strong inference.

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

FWIW there is some thought that it goes back to a kind of worm that eats plants as we see in BT Chullin 67b:

לימא מסייע ליה דתני חדא על הארץ להוציא את הזיזין שבעדשים ואת היתושים שבכליסים ותולעת שבתמרים ושבגרוגרות ותניא אידך כל השרץ השורץ על הארץ לרבות תולעת שבעיקרי זיתים ושבעיקרי גפנים

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a comparison of the following two baraitot supports Shmuel’s opinion. As it is taught in one baraita: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth” serves to exclude zizin, a type of insect that is found in lentils, and mosquitoes that are in kelisim, a type of bean, and worms that are in dates and in dried figs. All of these are permitted for consumption because they do not swarm on the earth itself. And it is taught in another baraita that when the verse states: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” the word “every” serves to include as non-kosher worms that are in the roots of olive trees and that are in the roots of vines.

Also PJ Deut14:19 :

וזיבורי וזיזי דטלופחי ופולי דפרשין מן אוכלא ופרחין הי כעופא

‏hornets and worms of lentils and beans that come out of the food and fly like fowl

Jastrow's entry:

I m. (זוּז or זעזע) 1) ז׳ שבעדשים name of a mite in lentils.—Pl. זִיזִים, זִיזִין. Ḥull. 67ᵇ; Sifra Sh’mini Par. 10, ch. XII; Y. Ter. VIII, 45ᵇ bot. —2) spider.—Pl. as above. Y. Sabb. XIV, beg. 14ᵇ (differ. in Bab. Sabb. 106ᵇ, a. Tosef. ib. XII (XIII), 4).—[Tosef. Bekh. I, 8 דבש הזיזין ed. Zuck. Var. הגוזין, v. הִגְזִין.] —3) name of a fabulous bird (ref. to Ps. L, 11). Lev. R. s. 22, end. B. Bath. 73ᵇ
זִיז II m. (= זוזו, v. זְוִי, זָוִית)an attachment, a projection from the door frame serving as a shed over the entrance, or a moulding projecting from a window-sill serving as a bracket. Ohol. XIV, 1 (difference betw. our w. a. גיזרה, v. גְּזוּזְטְרָא). Ib. 4 ז׳ שהוא סובב וכ׳ a moulding which runs around the entire building (or room) and forms a part of the door frame. Erub. X, 4 ז׳ שלפני חלון וכ׳ a bracket in front of a window. Yalk. Deut. 898 והז׳ עליו אכילה וכ׳ and on the bracket (in front of the palace) are spread eatables, drinks &c.; a. v. fr.—Pl. זִיזִים, זִיזִין. Ohol. VIII, 2. B. Bath. III, 8; a. fr.
זִיזָא I ch. same. Targ. I Kings VI, 5 (ed. Wil. a. oth. זִיוָא). Targ. Ez. XLI, 6 (ed. Lag. pl.).—B. Mets. 83ᵃ; Yalk. Ex. 346 ז׳ דמחוזא (not זו׳) a Maḥuza balcony or bay-window (cmp. גִּבְלִית). B. Bath. 60ᵃ—Pl. זִיזִין, זִיזַיָּיא. Targ. I Kings VI, 6. Targ. Ez. XLII, 5; a. e., v. זְוִי. [B. Bath. l. c. זיזין דהוה נפיק, read with Ms. M. זיזא … מפיק.]
זִיזָא II ch. = h. זִיז I, 1. Targ. Y. Deut. XIV, 19.
זִיזָא III, בַּר ז׳ pr. n. m. Bar-Ziza. Y. B. Kam. VI, 5ᶜ bot.; Y. Shebu. VI, 37ᵈ
זִיזְיוֹן, זִיזְיָן, זִיזְיָין pr. n. pl. Zizyon, Zizyan. Tosef. Shebi. IV, 8 זיזין ed. Zuck. (Var. זיזיין, ed. זיזיון); Y. Dem. II, 22ᵈ top חיויון.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

From the Hebrew Wikipedia entry: https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%96%D7%99%D7%96

גיזרון
הוצע לפרש זיז בהוראת "ארבה" משום המצלול האומנוטפאי, ועפ"י הפסוק: ”יְכַרְסְמֶנָּה חֲזִיר מִיָּעַר וְזִיז שָׂדַי יִרְעֶנָּה“ (תהלים פ, פסוק יד) הפסוקים הקודמים מזכירים את הגפן ובפסוק זה נמנים המזיקים לה: עוברי אורח האורים אותה, החזיר מכרסם בה, והזיז (ארבה) שרועה מעלוותה לפיכך הבטוי "זִיז שָׂדַי" מקביל בפירושו לארבה השוכן בשדי קרי -בהרים הוא ארבה-ההר . ביטוי "זִיז שָׂדַי" משמש דימוי אגדי-דמיוני לבעייה מציאותית-חקלאית קשה עימה התמודדו בעבר ובהווה

It was proposed to interpret a locust in the commandment "locust" from the name of the umnotfai, and according to the verse: "A hog will devour a forest and a boar will devour it" (Psalms 5, verse 10). , and the grasshopper (locust) that spreads from its leaf, therefore the phrase "Ziz Shadai" is parallel in its meaning to the locust that dwells in the mountains - in the mountains it is the mountain locust. The expression "Ziz Shadai" is used as a legendary-imaginary image for a difficult real-agricultural problem that has been faced in the past and in the present
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

Will you tell me where Matthew got it from when I tell you where Thomas got it from?
I just have to ask, given the fact that I have given you all of this material, in all its forms, and you have done nothing but circumvent it in every possible way. Which truly surprises me

So please Ken, when I provide my elaborate, kind, academic, well argued and certainly non polemic exposition of why and how Thomas invented Zizanion - will you give me your best?
"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

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

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.

Matthew 13:24-30: Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field;
but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds [zizanion] among the wheat, and went away.
So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds [zizanion] appeared also.
And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds [zizanion]?'
He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'
But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds [zizanion] you root up the wheat along with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds [zizanion] first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

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): http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html

Cordially, Bernard
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

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

Post by robert j »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 4:22 pm But while it may not be a certainty that Matthew's ZIZANION is derived from the same Semitic root as ZIZONE and ZONIN, it remains a strong inference.
A possibility for the origin of the Greek ‘zizanion’ (Matt 13:24-30, Thomas 57), going back even further in time ---

Emmer was one of the earliest wheat-like plants to be domesticated. The ancient Sumerian word for emmer was ‘ziz’, and the word was often found in a compound form such as ‘ziz-babbar’ (white emmer) ---

Resources ---

ziz [EMMER] N (4385x) Early Dynastic I-II, Early Dynastic IIIa, Early Dynastic IIIb, Ebla, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Old Babylonian, Middle Assyrian, Neo-Assyrian, Hellenistic … (more)
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/epsd2/o0042863


ziz [EMMER] (2856x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. ziz2 "emmer wheat" Akk. kiššātu; kunšu … (more)
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/e6553.html


This 86 year old article discusses a text from a Sumerian cuneiform tablet from about 4,000 years ago, with ‘ziz’ and ‘ziz-an’ as emmer. This short article reviews the etymology of certain Semitic terms, including ‘zonin’, in relation to a possible Sumerian origin. This author seems quite confident in the conclusion (I'm still digesting this) ---

“It is obvious that ziz-an must be the origin of all these Aramaic and Arabic words, and of the Greek zizanion …” (p. 88)


Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland for 1936
(Under “Miscellaneous Communications”, A Business Record from the Dungi Period, pp. 87-92)

https://books.google.com/books?id=SwAFA ... iz&f=false


The article is also available on JSTOR ---
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25182041


How could darnel ryegrass, a problematic weed in wheat in some regions throughout the long millennia, come to have a name derived from an ancient word for a cultivated wheat-like grain from the very cradle of agriculture? Well, actually makes a lot of sense.

For starters, darnel (Lolium temulentum) is still sometimes called “false wheat”.

Slapped together in a hurry, and I’ve barely had time to skim this information, but I wanted to just put it out there for now.

ETA: I'm still pondering this. I wonder if in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares in Matthew, and in the Thomasine version, the term zizanion simply meant emmer? Emmer could be seen as a weed when growing amongst the much more desirable (more modern-type) wheat that was commonly grown in the relevant region and time period associated with the parable. Emmer could fit quite well with the agronomic details of the parable. Some emmer in the wheat wouldn’t be all that bad, but a lot would significantly reduce the yield and especially the quality, and hence the return for the farmer. Having been sown by the “enemy”, at least some potential symbolism would be lost with emmer vs. the intoxicating and poisonous darnel ryegrass.
Last edited by robert j on Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:12 am
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:32 am
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:00 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:37 pm When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?
What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn"

Sorry Ken, I have nothing but praise and respect for you, and you deserve nothing but from my point of view. But what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?
You appear to have misunderstood me Ken, given the fact that you took this quote from another thread and used it to start this one - and I would very much like you to set things straight because you give a completely wrong impression of the facts: not only of what I have stated but most importantly of what Mark and Simon have stated

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn" is the actual sole response from both Mark Goodacre as well as Simon Gathercole to me when I sent them my paper on the abundantly overwhelming presence of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ and related forms with an ETA (ⲏ) in the Nag Hammadi Library

So please, do follow up on this, as you wholly misrepresent what Mark Goodacre did, what Simon Gathercole did, and what I said they did - thank you
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:43 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:00 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:37 pm When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?
What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn"

Sorry Ken, I have nothing but praise and respect for you, and you deserve nothing but from my point of view. But what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?
You appear to have misunderstood me Ken, given the fact that you took this quote from another thread and used it to start this one - and I would very much like you to set things straight because you give a completely wrong impression of the facts: not only of what I have stated but most importantly of what Mark and Simon have stated

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn" is the actual sole response from both Mark Goodacre as well as Simon Gathercole to me when I sent them my paper on the abundantly overwhelming presence of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ and related forms with an ETA (ⲏ) in the Nag Hammadi Library

So please, do follow up on this, as you wholly misrepresent what Mark Goodacre did, what Simon Gathercole did, and what I said they did - thank you
I do appear to have misunderstood what you intended to convey with the highlighted line. If I am understanding you correctly now, the highlighted line you placed in quotation marks following your question 'What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?' was not, in fact, what you wanted Gathercole, Goodacre, and me, to stand up and shout, but rather the sole response you had actually received from both Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole. I admit I did not understand that to be what you were saying. I do not think you communicated your meaning very well.

Could you restate what you were actually asking a bit more clearly? I see three or four questions there:

(1) When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?

(2) What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?

(3 or 3 & 4) what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?

I think I more or less understand the first question.

On the second, what is it that Gathercole, Goodacre, and I, should be standing up and shouting?

On the third, I don't quite understand what 'all of this' is. Is it everything you have ever argued on this forum and your Academia.edu site in general, or one or more of the particular issue you have addressed such as the dating of Chrestian/Christian terms like 'catholic', the origin of nomina sacra, or the direction of dependence between the synoptics and Thomas?

On the fourth, I may or may not have understood you on what the right thing is and who should be doing it who is not. I think you were asking why Gathercole and I have not come forward and publicly admitted that you are right about 'all of this' (whatever that happens to be). (If that is what you are saying, then I would guess that was also what you think G., G., I, and our likes should stand up and shout).

Best,

Ken
Post Reply