FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-28-2013, 07:23 PM   #51
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ficino View Post
On the other hand, Grog rightly shows examples where δέ shifts the Topic from that of the immediately preceding sentence to a new one. I agree with him that a causal connection can often be inferred, as in the shift in 115 from Herod writing to Tiberius to Tiberius being angry.
The inference would come merely by placing the sentences in sequence. That is not a function of δε.

Consider,

1. the whole of Herod's army was destroyed when some refugees... played him false.

2. Herod sent an account of these events to Tiberius.

You can infer that because Herod's army was destroyed he wrote to bleat to Tiberius. And that's why Whiston inserted a "so" to mark the inferred connection, but there is no δε. It is purely the sequence of clauses.
You raised the issue of δε in the first place. It was my point that the "so" inferred connection. There is a δε, however, it just isn't where Whiston put it.
You haven't been reading the thread. The δε has a purpose which is one described in L&S and that is to resume after a digression. Low and behold the JtB material is just such a digression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
My point in the very beginning was that 18.1.120 is causally connected to 18.1.115.
You still haven't dealt with the L&S entry regarding causal connection. You understandably ducked responding to this issue because it requires philological knowledge. The question I asked you regarded this from L&S:
3. implying causal connexion, less direct than γαρ
In what way is δε similar to γαρ that for L&S to mention γαρ here? How do the L&S examples help to clarify the issue?

You have merely asserted that δε functions like English "so" and done none of the work to justify yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
It is, just as this one is. Whiston inserted "so" to demonstrate that causal connection. You raised the issue of δε to say that there had to be an interruption there.
Rubbish. I raised the issue of δε because there was an interruption in the text and L&S states that δε can indicate resumption from such an interruption. My reference to δε was descriptive, not prescriptive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
My point is that, no, there doesn't--Josephus doesn't always use δε that way, there is no need to infer an interruption.
We know that Josephus doesn't always use δε to resume from an interruption. You don't need to rehearse the fact. You need to justify your claim that, given the text of Josephus as it is, δε indicates a causal connection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
I also suggested that there are other connotation of δε that could apply.
I'm glad you've discovered that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
That challenge apparently sent you off your rocking chair, though.
It was the laughter.

:hysterical:
spin is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 08:17 PM   #52
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
This of course is not my position. As I pointed out earlier Grog is simply wrong in his presentation of my views.
yes, I did not word that correctly. Your position was that there would be no δέ in 18.1.120 unless there had been an interruption.
Wrong again. My position is that after the interruption of the JtB material we would expect a δε to make the change of focus back to the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
I showed that that was not necessarily the case. I suggested that was [ed: NOT] only one possible use of δέ there and that there were other connotations. I gave exact references demonstrating instances where Josephus uses δέ directly, not after an interruption. Woo boy.

Here is what you said (note the bold):


Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
There is no "so" in the Greek text. In fact, looking into the Greek we find a different indicator, that is often left untranslated, δε.
Vitellius δε got himself ready for war...
The normal place for δε is the second element in the clause. It has a number of conjunctive uses, but one seems most relevant here according to L&S, see II.2

to resume after an interruption or parenthesis

which is what is to be expected if the narrative is interrupted by the John detail. There would be no need for the δε had there been no interruption.
That is what I responded to which has since caused spin to heap derision on me.
:boohoo:

You still haven't shown a need. You made up some nonsense that δε would end up "so" in English as you persisted in asserting, yet you still haven't shown that that reflects the L&S entry at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
We note that commentators have had problems with this passage, so some have suggested changing the text as shown above. Not one single manuscript contains what is claimed. As I said in an earlier response:

Neither Neil or Zindler is here to respond. It makes little sense that Herod should send her out of his kingdom, if he needed to keep control of her (such marriages were treaties of sorts). Machaerus as Josephus indicates was on the border with Aretas. At Machaerus there was an agent of Aretas ("him who was subject to her father"), who was informed and who prepared for her onward journey, so she went forth (from Machaerus) into Arabia (καὶ ἀφωρμᾶτο εἰς τὴν Ἀραβίαν), ie out of Herod's territory. Machaerus was not under the control of Aretas.

The wife sends messengers to Machaerus where there was an agent of Aretas. The text certainly does not say that Machaerus was in the hands of Aretas. So Grog's argument falls apart.
Once again, we have to rely on spin's own preference of translation, and based on that, spin will feel himself superior. Good for you. EDIT: And once again, spin's case is weaker than he will initially have you believe. It seems he wants to turn ὑποτελεῖ into "agent" when a more appropriate term would be "vassal" one who holds lands and pays tribute to a lord.
Umm, υποτελει is a verb. "Agent" is merely a generic term I used to describe "he who is in the pay of her father". If you want to call him a "vassal" hey, well, maybe. You are trying to eke out some advantage here on the value of my use of "agent"? Don't be silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
At any rate, it's a case of a disputed translation, yet spin will insist that I don't know what I am talking about because I don't agree with him.
You need a reason for your views of the text. Whether you agree or not is insignificant without the reasoning behind it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Think of the cordiality that would reign if I just agreed with him!
Just keep a steady hand on that joystick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
You seem to have missed reading the whole story though:

his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing;

You need this spelled out? Herod sent her to her father's vassal because he did not yet know. He did not have a reason to not send her. She deceived him into allowing her to go. Why would it matter otherwise?
I'm glad that you are starting to come to terms with the text, though it doesn't say Herod sent her to her father's vassal. That is your unsupported assertion. It says that Herod sent her there, ie to Machaerus. There is nothing in the text to let you think that Herod knew anything about the wife going to the agent of Aretas. You just made that up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
You could tone down your condescension. I have asked for that since nearly the beginning of this conversation.
Perceived condescension, arrogance, superiority, etc. If I had an ego as fragile as yours, I'd trade it in for a stronger model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
. It makes little sense that Herod should send her out of his kingdom, if he needed to keep control of her (such marriages were treaties of sorts).
oh spin. You are grasping at any straw you can in your attempts to belittle and ridicule. He wants to divorce her. That is his plan. You get that, right?
You're a clever one, Grog, but you're only part of the way there. Why did the wife make her to Aretas in secret, ie "before any information reached him that she had discovered everything"? Note what Josephus says next: "Herod let her go, since he had no notion that the poor woman saw what was afoot." (Whiston: "thinking his wife had not perceived any thing".) It was because he didn't know she was on to him that he allowed her to go. He certainly did not send her to her father's agent. He wanted her out of his hair, but under his control, otherwise there would be strife with Aretas, which of course is what there was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Once again, though, you can't mess with spin on these boards.
spin is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 08:37 PM   #53
Grog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

You raised the issue of δε in the first place. It was my point that the "so" inferred connection. There is a δε, however, it just isn't where Whiston put it.
You haven't been reading the thread. The δε has a purpose which is one described in L&S and that is to resume after a digression. Low and behold the JtB material is just such a digression.


You still haven't dealt with the L&S entry regarding causal connection. You understandably ducked responding to this issue because it requires philological knowledge. The question I asked you regarded this from L&S:
3. implying causal connexion, less direct than γαρ
In what way is δε similar to γαρ that for L&S to mention γαρ here? How do the L&S examples help to clarify the issue?

You have merely asserted that δε functions like English "so" and done none of the work to justify yourself.


Rubbish. I raised the issue of δε because there was an interruption in the text and L&S states that δε can indicate resumption from such an interruption. My reference to δε was descriptive, not prescriptive.
It's a circular argument.

We know there is an interruption in the text because δε, we know which connotation of δε because there is an interruption in the text.

Quote:
We know that Josephus doesn't always use δε to resume from an interruption.
Ah. But that isn't what you first implied, is it?

In fact you first said that there wouldn't be δε unless there was an interruption.

Quote:
You don't need to rehearse the fact. You need to justify your claim that, given the text of Josephus as it is, δε indicates a causal connection.
Do I? I think a causal connection can be inferred with or without δε. That being said, I do think δε in the instances I cited do indicate a "a weak causal connection" that is less direct than γάρ. My observation was that it seems Paragraph 3 precedes from paragraph 1 in just such a way and not because of an interruption. To that you say:



Quote:
It was the laughter.

:hysterical:
Let me give you some much needed advice, spin, old chap. Common courtesy would suggest that you don't attempt to interject your arrogant superiority into any discussion in which someone deigns to question your invulnerable intellect. That is a discussion killer. Instead of encouraging dialogue, it kills it. You are not the arbiter of worthy dialogue, so get the *fuck* off your high *fucking* horse N/A My guess is that I am not the first to think the things I am writing right now.

When you have a discussion with someone whom you disagree with, even when you know they are wrong, you can still treat them with respect. You can also allow them to continue to disagree with you without making it clear that you are looking down that finely tuned nose of yours at them. I point to Toto who frequently reminds users to cite sources properly. Try to learn from people who are better than you are.

You are no better than anyone else.

I recognize that you have "status" here on this board. However, what I see is that when you are pressed, your MO is to attempt to trump arguments by entering essentially "secret wisdom" mostly known to you. If you don't like Whiston's translation, then enter, "debates" about that from which you will select the correct answer and, wow, isn't that person stupid for using Whiston's "centuries-old" translation. Yes, nobody uses that anymore.

Every interaction with you causes me to lose more respect for you. I think you are a sad, lonely, bitter human being.

In this discussion, whether you admit or not, you have made a series of blunders which you have attempted to cover with derision and a tactic that I frankly think is demonstrative of a fragile ego unwilling to be challenged.

N/A

Wow. I feel a whole lot better.

N/A

:wave:
Grog is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 08:46 PM   #54
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Personal comments violate the terms of use.

It is often the better course to self-edit posts that go over the line. It saves a lot of work for your moderators.

Thanks for your attention to this.
Toto is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 09:13 PM   #55
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

You raised the issue of δε in the first place. It was my point that the "so" inferred connection. There is a δε, however, it just isn't where Whiston put it.
You haven't been reading the thread. The δε has a purpose which is one described in L&S and that is to resume after a digression. Low and behold the JtB material is just such a digression.


You still haven't dealt with the L&S entry regarding causal connection. You understandably ducked responding to this issue because it requires philological knowledge. The question I asked you regarded this from L&S:
3. implying causal connexion, less direct than γαρ
In what way is δε similar to γαρ that for L&S to mention γαρ here? How do the L&S examples help to clarify the issue?

You have merely asserted that δε functions like English "so" and done none of the work to justify yourself.


Rubbish. I raised the issue of δε because there was an interruption in the text and L&S states that δε can indicate resumption from such an interruption. My reference to δε was descriptive, not prescriptive.
It's a circular argument.

We know there is an interruption in the text because δε, we know which connotation of δε because there is an interruption in the text.
We know there is an interruption because the text goes from Herod and his doings with Aretas to JtB and back to Herod and Aretas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
We know that Josephus doesn't always use δε to resume from an interruption.
Ah. But that isn't what you first implied, is it?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
In fact you first said that there wouldn't be δε unless there was an interruption.
Once again misrepresentation. I said "There would be no need for the δε had there been no interruption."

You assert that the following section from L&S is relevant to you understanding. Please demonstrate the relevance.
3. implying causal connexion, less direct than γάρ, Il.6.160, Od.1.433.
Can you show how the references to Il.6.160, Od.1.433 help your case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
You don't need to rehearse the fact. You need to justify your claim that, given the text of Josephus as it is, δε indicates a causal connection.
Do I? I think a causal connection can be inferred with or without δε. That being said, I do think δε in the instances I cited do indicate a "a weak causal connection" that is less direct than γάρ.
You still haven't explained how the use of δε here relates to that of γάρ. Could you please answer this? Until you do, you won't show that you have a clue about what L&S indicate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
My observation was that it seems Paragraph 3 precedes from paragraph 1 in just such a way and not because of an interruption. To that you say:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog
That challenge apparently sent you off your rocking chair, though.
It was the laughter.

:hysterical:
You aren't making sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Let me give you some much needed advice, spin, old chap. Common courtesy would suggest that you don't attempt to interject your arrogant superiority into any discussion in which someone deigns to question your invulnerable intellect. That is a discussion killer. Instead of encouraging dialogue, it kills it. You are not the arbiter of worthy dialogue, so get the *fuck* off your high *fucking* horse you *fucking* low life piece of shit. My guess is that I am not the first to think the things I am writing right now.

When you have a discussion with someone whom you disagree with, even when you know they are wrong, you can still treat them with respect. You can also allow them to continue to disagree with you without making it clear that you are looking down that finely tuned nose of yours at them. I point to Toto who frequently reminds users to cite sources properly. Try to learn from people who are better than you are.

You are no better than anyone else.

I recognize that you have "status" here on this board. However, what I see is that when you are pressed, your MO is to attempt to trump arguments by entering essentially "secret wisdom" mostly known to you. If you don't like Whiston's translation, then enter, "debates" about that from which you will select the correct answer and, wow, isn't that person stupid for using Whiston's "centuries-old" translation. Yes, nobody uses that anymore.

Every interaction with you causes me to lose more respect for you. I think you are a sad, lonely, bitter human being.

In this discussion, whether you admit or not, you have made a series of blunders which you have attempted to cover with derision and a tactic that I frankly think is demonstrative of a fragile ego unwilling to be challenged.

Furthermore, you are pathetic example of a socioanarchist. You should take that off.

Wow. I feel a whole lot better.

Now, spin, back to your regularly scheduled meeting with your bottle of mental lotion. oooooo aaaaahhhh

:wave:

:vomit:

It would be better if you tried to deal with the issues you are supposed to be engaged with, rather than spending your time vomiting in public.
spin is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 02:28 AM   #56
Iskander
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
N/A
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
:vomit:
You are a bad loser and a <edit>, nothing more than a petulant child full of hot air
Iskander is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 03:50 AM   #57
hjalti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
It may be worth noting that if Eisler is correct and the TF originally contained the phrase ἀρχὴ νέων θορύβων a source of new disturbances then one of Norden's main arguments would be substantially weakened.

Andrew Criddle
Isn't that a trivial remark? I.e. isn't that exactly why Eisler put that phrase in there, to make it fit in the context?
hjalti is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 12:15 PM   #58
andrewcriddle
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
It may be worth noting that if Eisler is correct and the TF originally contained the phrase ἀρχὴ νέων θορύβων a source of new disturbances then one of Norden's main arguments would be substantially weakened.

Andrew Criddle
Isn't that a trivial remark? I.e. isn't that exactly why Eisler put that phrase in there, to make it fit in the context?
Eisler certainly knew Norden's work and explicitly responds to him (See eisler )

I don't know what positive arguments (if any) Eisler brings forward to support the original presence of this phrase.

(I agree Eisler's work is extremely speculative but this is a thread about Eisler.)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:44 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.