Talk:Greek primacy

Project tags removed as page redirected In ictu oculi (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Q

I could not believe that there was no article on Q on WP as indicated in this article. I was correct. There is such an article and it predates this article by about four years.

I changed the reference to Q to include the internal link and eliminated the sentence that told the reader who is unfamiliar with Q do an Internet search to learn more. I do wonder about how a person could be concerned with which language was used in 1st century Judea and not know about Q. I wonder even more how a person could be concerned with which language was the original language of the gospels and not know about Q. JimCubb 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit Hebrew

There is so much bullshit said about what Hebrew word is what, that I think it would be good to provide the word that supposedly means "lust after" and "sign" at the same time. The word for lust intended here is "Teavah", I think, which is only vaguely like "sign", which is "Ot".75.24.127.154 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your ability to read is what's BS. The word in question for Lusts is "seeks after". - Mr. BS

Of course Jesus spoke Greek!

Assuming Jesus is God, it is only natural that he speaks and understands all languages on earth!

The same applies for the disciples, at least after they received the Holy Spirit.

--RememberHistory (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

I wonder if a move to Original language of the New Testament wouldn't be better. The existence of the WP:Fringe "Aramaic primacy" article is an evident Wikipedia:Content forking POVfork. It should be reduced to an "Other View" section at the bottom of this article, but with or without that this shouldn't be "Greek primacy" (sic).In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Original language of the New Testament would be a spinout of New_Testament#Language. 75.15.202.65 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the "Greek primacy" (Hellenism) content may(?) be worth preserving, what I did was create a new page language of the New Testament. Subsequent to this, and presumably without reading this Talk page, an editor from Talk:New Testament reverted the removal of the generic New Testament language content to language of the New Testament. He's subsequently not responded, other than "(→Greek primacy/Language of the New Testament: this conversation is over.)", so I'll leave this for a week or so, and if there's no other input will remove the duplication here. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the academic meaning of "Greek primacy"

Now that the mainstream view of the language of the New Testament has been moved to article language of the New Testament, that leaves the question of what to do with the stub left behind. Questions:

• 1. What/how to expand the article meaningfully according to the original meaning of the term. Sources could include e.g. Bezalel Bar-Kochva The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period 2009 "He does not respond to the implied claim of Greek primacy, presumably because he did not have, and could not have had, hard information about the beginnings of “ parallel” opinions among the Brahmans. " ...there are various more references/sources along this line, which could be a meaningful, short, article under category: Hellenism.
• 2. Whether/how much to list the second new meaning created in 2007 by a Wikipedia editor? So far the Wikipedia meaning has only been included in two books by advocates of an Aramaic original New Testament. Does it now, by circular sourcing, justify its own place on Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively, is the level of detail of discussing Megasthenes and so on so detailed/esoteric that the remaining stub should just be deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any value in the remaining article as it stands. I have no idea whether "Greek primacy" outside the NT discussion is anything like a fixed concept that would warrant an article – to me it sounds just like an ad hoc word combination that could mean all sorts of things in all sorts of contexts. The only thing that is now in the article, about the NT meaning being a Wikipedia neologism, is unfortunately completely WP:OR, so it can't stay either. I think I'll just redirect it to Language of the New Testament. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly it needs more than one person's input/opinion. I myself am in 2 minds, the idea of "Greek primacy" (per scholarly sense) is borderline notable, but Wikipedia has to bear some responsibility for generating/allowing a nonsense-neologism to flourish in Wikimirrors, and I'm not sure that erasing the traces is the best way to make amends. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Much as I sympathize with your view regarding the desire to "make amends" for prior mistakes caused by Wikipedia, I'm afraid the WP:NOR rule still precludes doing that in article space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am still not seeing that there really is any such thing as a "scholarly sense" of the phrase, apart from the bible-related neologism. All I'm seeing is two or three instances where somebody happens to use this as an ad-hoc word combination, each time in an entirely different context, with no indication of any fixed conceptual meaning over and above the incidental juxtaposition of the basic meanings of the two words. Further up in this thread you cited that Bezalel Bar-Kochva, which is one of these examples. I wonder, did you actually read that book and verified that it contains a substantial discussion of such a concept, or is it just an incidental match that came up in a Google search for these words? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the page, not the whole book. Yes it's evidently an incidental match, it clearly is only another way of saying "influence of hellenism" etc. but I just wanted to go slowly. When I first "discovered" this neologism and tried to fix it putting in the scholarly use was the first thing to do. As above it's not really notable. All things considered, on reflection I'm quite glad you've redirected. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)