From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 10:39:48 -0700, The Horny Goat
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:11:27 -0700, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 21:27:13 -0700, The Horny Goat
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 08:34:54 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> wrote:
>>>>The RSV ends Mark at 16:8. It's footnotes have what I suppose is the
>>>>"long ending" as 16:9--19. It also gives a shorter addition to 16:8.
>>>>This is old news to readers of the RSV, at least.
>>>
>>>Which is one of the reason I consider the RSV a rather dodgy
>>>translation that being the only major translation of the era (1952)
>>>was adopted by most Protestant denominations that were tired of ye old
>>>1611 King James despite some sections that were sketchy at best.
>>
>>Which is strange, since the ASV was available from 1901. And the RV
>>was even earlier.
>
>Yup - at one point in his life my father was a seminarian who wanted
>to be a US Navy chaplain (unfortunately for him he graduated right at
>the end of the Korean war when their ranks were very full with almost
>no new ones till the Vietnam era by which time he was working
>elsewhere) and he kept his textbooks so I had access to a pretty good
>library on this stuff in my teens. So yes I know both the
>abbreviations and dates you cite.
>
>>The RSV was very controversial in some quarters, with little booklets
>>(and perhaps not so little books) published showing all the Evil
>>Changes to the KJV.
>
>No question most evangelicals hated the RSV - but most weren't eager
>to go on using the KJV forever.
>
>>>I personally think the 2001 English Standard Version handled it better
>>>by inserting a paragraph explaining the situation then giving the
>>>"long ending".
>>
>>The footnote has a brief indication of the problem.
>>
>>At least a footnote is not likely to be confused with the actual text.
>
>I'd rank the ESV as the best translation since the 1950s.
>
>>Part of this was a switch in how the original text was to be
>>determined: Erasmus used "majority rule", but that was replaced by
>>"oldest is best" supplemented by "hardest to understand is best" (the
>>theory here being that the less hard to understand versions were
>>someone's attempt to figure out what the original was actually
>>saying). This affected the Greek text used, which affected the meaning
>>of the Greek, which was reflected in the English.
>
>One of the things our generation has lost is an interest in Greek and
>Latin - and being Canadian the main language taught in the western
>portion of the country (where I grew up) was French so while I can
>mostly read it I can't follow French language TV or speak it.
Which is a great pity.
>>Interestingly, support for this ("textual criticism") is much more
>>widespread than the "higher criticism". Possibly because it is pretty
>>clear how manuscripts differ, relative age can be determined up to a
>>point, and the criteria make sense.
>
>All of which were emphasized in the McDowell video I cited earlier.
Well, good for him.
>>>>Well, maybe. The general memory I have of what I have read on this is
>>>>that Hitler was concerned about Roehm's ambitions and the number of
>>>>troops he had available to pursue them with.
>
>On top of that of course Hitler wanted a German population of 200
>millioni + and thus wasn't keen on encouraging those of Roehm's sexual
>persuasion.
>
>>>>Hegseth might want to watch himself carefully. /He/ has a large number
>>>>of troops available as well.
>>>>
>>>>I've been watching /I, Claudius/ a disk a week for the last few weeks
>>>>(I expect tol finish up this week), and it had Tiberius removing
>>>>Sejanus for much the same reason.
>
>I never really followed I Claudius but know the history of Tiberius
>and Sejanus - in the Roman world a victorious general (the best way to
>be a popular general) was a potential threat and there were plenty of
>Caesars who were removed from 44BC onwards.
Well, after 68AD, anyway. Augustus was the first Emperor ("Caesar").
Of course, the /original/ Caesar was assinated in 44BC and rather a
lot of war between 1%-ers (you had to be /very/ rich to raise your own
army) followed, but Nero was the first Caesar-by-title to be removed.
Followed by three others within the next year. Marching on Rome became
very popular for a while.
And this happened later on as well, of course.
However:
Sejanus was "prefect of the Praetorian Guard".
has this interesting note:
The Praetorian prefect (Praefectus praetorio) began as the military
commander of a general's guard company in the field[.]
Of course, Sejanus guarded the Emperor, not a mere general, but it
appears he was not a general himself.
>>>>It has occurred to me that the only reason the Roman Empire was not a
>>>>totalitarian state is that they simply did not have the technology
>>>>required to create one. But they certainly gave it the old college
>>>>try!
>
>Heh heh - good way of putting it though obviously given the technology
>of that age how did a Caesar embrace the ambition of a victorious
>general without endangering himself? Even Julius himself marched on
>Rome.
The same way it is always done: after being publicly displeased with
him, making him discouraged and fearful, invite him to meet you, show
him friendship, embrace him, and then stab him in the back. "Keep
your friends close, and your enemies closer" indeed!
IIRC, eventually the Praetorians took the process over and declared
Emperor whoever paid them best.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
