Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Verify", in relation to his proven existence, is a word that I don't think you'll find being used by a historian who studies Socrates very often. They are even tentative about attaching any ideas attributed to him TO him - after all, we don't have anything he ever wrote. Just second hand accounts, one of them extremely biased for him (Plato), another extremely biased against him (Aristophanes), and another one ....ugh (Xeonophon).
And I have no problem questioning whether Socrates existed... Just like the fictitious stories of Jesus, perhaps Socrates' and other philosophers' writings were actually compilations of ideals. Who knows? So if that was meant to be an "ah-hah!", it was sort of a fail.
The idea of attributing any and all pearls of wisdom to one locally or otherwise appointed "hero" of history (or villain, for that matter) isn't knew. I call it The King Arthur Effect. Urban legends become attached to whomever people *think* would have said/done the remarkable commentary/action.
OTOH, this conversation isn't about proving Socrates existed. It's about proving Jesus existed. If you're curious to examine evidence for or against Socrates existing, I think that would be its own thread. Feel free. I would be fascinated, personally.
None of this, BTW, makes me believe any more than before that a real Jesus existed as described in the Gospels. If I say "Santa Claus isn't real" and you said "Oh yeah? Well those two sisters in Practical Magic didn't exist either!" I won't suddenly see the light and decide Santa Claus does exist, or think, "Oh well, in that case, maybe I really should start believing in Santa Claus mythology." People's methods of trying to convince one another of something just boggle my tiny li'l mind sometimes.
If it were charted easily, the two (Hebrew Bible and New Testament) would look like this - notice I start with the document, not the original names before the document:
HB: Hebrew Manuscript 'Source' Name > Greek Name > English Name
NT: Greek Manuscript 'Source' Name > English Name
Then please explain why Maryam in Hebrew, Miriam in English, Mary in Greek becomes Maria in Italian and Spanish and Marie in French.
And I have no problem questioning whether Socrates existed... Just like the fictitious stories of Jesus, perhaps Socrates' and other philosophers' writings were actually compilations of ideals. Who knows? So if that was meant to be an "ah-hah!", it was sort of a fail.
The idea of attributing any and all pearls of wisdom to one locally or otherwise appointed "hero" of history (or villain, for that matter) isn't knew. I call it The King Arthur Effect. Urban legends become attached to whomever people *think* would have said/done the remarkable commentary/action.
OTOH, this conversation isn't about proving Socrates existed. It's about proving Jesus existed. If you're curious to examine evidence for or against Socrates existing, I think that would be its own thread. Feel free. I would be fascinated, personally.
None of this, BTW, makes me believe any more than before that a real Jesus existed as described in the Gospels. If I say "Santa Claus isn't real" and you said "Oh yeah? Well those two sisters in Practical Magic didn't exist either!" I won't suddenly see the light and decide Santa Claus does exist, or think, "Oh well, in that case, maybe I really should start believing in Santa Claus mythology." People's methods of trying to convince one another of something just boggle my tiny li'l mind sometimes.
See - I don't think you've been reading my prior posts, because
we seem to agree on this, in all actuality.
I, also, agree that there is no way to prove that "Jesus existed as described in the Gospels" - and I feel that it's highly unlikely that such a person "as described in the Gospels" existed. I clearly stated in most of my posts earlier that the Gospel tradition attributes fantastic qualities, events and claims onto someone who was probably a mere agitator.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.
I agree that a thread on Socrates would be interesting, as well. And my usage of Socrates as an example was not to show that the "Jesus as described in the Gospels" existed. Far from it. I hope that impression doesn't come across.
Then please explain why Maryam in Hebrew, Miriam in English, Mary in Greek becomes Maria in Italian and Spanish and Marie in French.
Walter - I already explained the concept behind it.
I assume you cannot read Hebrew, and are merely grabbing Hebrew names from whatever source you use online - for the names you frequently provide in your posts are usually quite strange "Maryam"? The proper transliteration of the Hebrew מִרְיָם would be "Miryam" if we are not using diacritical marks (in which case I would want to mark the long "a" in the final syllable). The root is mrym - this much is certain. Now, seeing the hireq (short "i") in the initial syllable - why are you using an "a"? And what "a" are you using? Long? Short? The correct transliteration, as shown, would be Miryam. The accent would be on the last syllable, for pronounciation: "Mir-YAM". Heck - looking on Wikipedia even shows this information, for those who cannot read Hebrew.
Now - one could argue that the Masoretes got it wrong with their vocalization. But the evidence we get from the LXX rendering of the name (and by LXX, in this example, I mean the original rendering of the Pentateuch) Miryam from Hebrew into Greek resulted in the eventual Miriam. And as I've pointed out, most of our "traditional" Eglish renderings of Hebrew names stem from the Greek.
The others examples you give are examples of the name further evolving in it's common usage, and how different languages encountered and used it.
I'm just not going to go into a concise history of "Mary" here. Are you really not seeing what I'm saying, concerning the transliteration of names?
Okay - so I know that we are on the same plane and aren't talking in circles, can you tell me if you are able to read Hebrew and the Masoretic Vowel-Pointing system? And do you have any experience in translating - especially foreign words that have no direct equivalent in the target language?
Okay - so I know that we are on the same plane and aren't talking in circles, can you tell me if you are able to read Hebrew and the Masoretic Vowel-Pointing system? And do you have any experience in translating - especially foreign words that have no direct equivalent in the target language?
Unfortunately, I can read Hebrew but I do not understand the words that I am speaking.
Unfortunately, I can read Hebrew but I do not understand the words that I am speaking.
Well, I suppose that's a little better than no knowledge of Hebrew. I have many friends who are the same way - this practice coming from being active in reading aloud during holidays, services, etc.; they are able to read and pronounce Hebrew (for the most part), but have no idea what they are saying.
I assume that along with being able to pronounce Hebrew, you are familiar with the vowel points - since these are used in modern editions of the Hebrew Bible, and many religious readings.
Names are a difficult thing to translate sometimes, more difficult than words in many ways. A word may be translated in it's English equivalent - be it something simple like "house" or "horse" - without problems stemming from pronounciation, scripts, etc. When transliterating or transcribing a personal name, however, one must take into account the original language's pronounciation, it's script (what letters are used, and whether or not these letters have direct correspondences in English), and whether diacritical marks are to be used or not. Translation does not apply here, or the issue might be simpler.
מִרְיָם, Miryām, Miryam
מִרְיָם
Take מִרְיָם for instance. To transcribe just the consonants into Roman Letters we would use mrym; no problems so far, since standard Semitic transcription practices have relatively simple Roman letters for these particular consonants: there's only one "m", "r", and "y" in Hebrew - soundwise, and we do not mark a Hebrew Final Letter in transcription: it's not necesarry.
The problem arises with the vowel pointing. We have two vowels in use: a hiriq and a qamats. In Roman transcription, we must use a diacritical mark for the qamats - since it is a long "a". The hiriq is okay, since it's a short "i". So, hiriq = "i", and qamats = ā.
Miryām
So to do a proper, transcription of the Hebrew name, including a diacritical mark (to aid in pronounciation and clarity or the original language), we would use Miryām. This shows the interested reader that the "a" used is a long a, and not a short one. This can be important for those who wish for an accurate transcription of a word - it allows them to reconstruct the original Hebrew version, if needed.
Miryam
This is used for several reasons. Sometimes the input device or printer does not have easy access to diacritical marks; sometimes the use of diacritical marks drives up the cost of printing; it is considered unnatractive in certain instances; pronounciation and clarity of the original is not desired. So we have the plain, ol' Miryam. It's nice and easy, but does not show us the difference between a long "a" and a short "a". It would be perilous to work backwards toward the original Hebrew using this form.
Miriam and Other versions of the name
Now we come to our issue, perhaps a little fore-armed. Where did "Miriam" come from, and why is it in the majority of our Bibles today - even many Jewish Bibles? Blame the translators of the Greek translation known as the Septuagint, who were attempting to find Greek equivalents to Hebrew pronounciations and scripts - they Hellenized them. The Septuagint and Vulgate gives us our English titles for the books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc.. You know that these are not the original names of the books. Wikipedia gives a good summation of how the Book of Genesis changed over the years:
from the Latin Vulgate, in turn borrowed or transliterated from Greek γένεσις, meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית, Bereʾšyt, "In [the] beginning")
(from Wikipedia Entry on Genesis)
You can see some perfect examples from there how it works. Refer to my previous diagram, for instance: Hebrew > Greek > Latin > English. The same thing happened with Personal Names from the Hebrew. Through a similar process, but not as drastically, מִרְיָם became Miriam and is now standard in most English versions of the Bible, and references to her. Almost all of the names in the Hebrew Bible underwent this transformation.
A similar thing is occuring with the name of Jesus, except instead of starting from a Hebrew original we are starting with the Greek version - since the New Testament is written in Greek. So, unfortunately - "Yeshuah" is not "Joshua" (what it would have ended up as if the translation process had started with a Hebrew original) - it is "Jesus". Again, Wikipedia gives a useful demonstration of how this happened:
I have been on a search for a while for the truth...which only brings more questions than answers it seems...some say he was created to keep people in line, to be productive moral citizens who would keep order. Some say he was really a Buddhist and he actually trailed to various lands preaching the same story.
all my life I believed he was gods son...but something just seemed off, I always denied that cause of the fear of hell...so I always just accepted it. As I got older, started to read more, did searches on the internet, did deep studies in politics and religion, esp reading about zeitgeist...well I am more confused than ever.
I now am agnostic and wish I weren't.
Just adding my two cents.
Jesus, as a human being, existed. However, the stories told from one generation to another, from mouth to mouth got lots of stuff wrong, and some other stuff was added by those who didn't really know first hand. The way rumors spread: they are never totally correct.
Those Jews who believed him to be the Messiah (as a human leader, not a god) believed in his leadership. So when he was crusified, they had to explain that away (either that or lose their belief that he was the Messiah). So I think that's how the story of his second coming was born.
Jesus was an exceptional man, brilliant, kind and a great teacher. He tried to help people by his teachings. But most people misunderstood what he was saying. And later generations ascribed his words to their own set of beliefs and interpreted them in view of their own beliefs.
If Jesus mentioned being God or a part of God, I believe that he was referring to the similar beliefs of modern people that we are all a part of God in some sense and in some ways. Jesus did say: don't you know that you are gods... and most Christians simply dismiss that statement, not knowing how to interpret it.
Christianity is a mixture of Judaism, reformed Judaism and something new. Christianity is reinterpretation of the old Jewish ideas and adapting them to the new Jewish world. Later generations changed it more and more and so finally it became our Christianity. I don't believe that Paul of the Bible believed the same way. Paul of the Bible, for example, never mentioned hell. Any time he mentioned God's gift and reward punishment system, he mentioned death and eternal life or God's wrath on earth during the last days for which he was waiting (and the rest of them too were waiting for that to happen during their days)
So Christianity is - a bunch of misunderstandings about Jesus and what he taught.
It was like a snowball, it started from the man Jesus and grew and grew with stories and descriptions that turned him into whom he was not.
I don't believe that Paul of the Bible believed the same way.
In her first piece as a columnist for Tablet, Judith Shulevitz writes about a new school of thought on Paul: The apostle, long considered the progenitor of anti-Semitism, may never have left his Judaism behind.
For the complete essay, "Was Paul a Jew?", please go to:
Was Paul a Jew? - by Judith Shulevitz (http://tinyurl.com/yhbps6s - broken link)
Judith Shulevitz was the editor of Lingua Franca and the founding culture editor of Slate. She wrote a daily column for Slate and a biweekly column for The New York Times Book Review. Her book, "The Sabbath World: Glimpses of a Different Order of Time", was published in March by Random House. This article is the first in a series rethinking the lives and legacies of prominent Jews.
Tablet is a daily online magazine of Jewish news, ideas, and culture. Launched in June 2009, it's a project of the not-for-profit Nextbook Inc. and the sister organization of Nextbook Press, which publishes a line of Jewish-themed books. Their archive holds all the articles and features that originally appeared on the website Nextbook.org.
H/T: jta.org
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like the fictitious stories of Jesus, perhaps Socrates' and other philosophers' writings were actually compilations of ideals. Who knows? So if that was meant to be an "ah-hah!", it was sort of a fail. 
