Amaleq13

Stephen offers a translation of Luke 2:2 that arguably eliminates the apparent conflict between the nativities. I think my previous post provides the relevance given that context.

JoeWallack

JW:
Current Inventory of reasons why "foremost" is Unlikely for 2:2:

1) Lexicon = The offending word has a Root and Primary meaning of "First".

- The Secondary meaning of "foremost" is a common one although unlike
"first", it's not always the specific secondary meaning. Obviously by
itself the Lexicon is not determinative of the meaning of a specific
usage but is useful when other determinants are ambiguous.

- Qualification = Jeff Gibson currently disputes that the offending word
does or does not have a Primary meaning. He is currently doing a
meaning count in Koine and Attic (because that's where Stephen's
Primary example is from) and will report the results to us after he is
resurrected.

2) Usage = "Luke" normally uses the word to mean "first".

- Note that in Luke's two uses of "foremost", 15:22 and 19:47, the
construction is a simple combination of adjective next to common noun
which gives the appearance of an idiom.

3) Communication Logic =

"This was the Foremost registration while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The argument for Translating "foremost" here is "Luke" wanted to distinguish between the Census of Quirinius and the Census Joseph responded to. If this was "Luke's" motivation than using a word with a Primary meaning of "first", with a normal grammatical construction of "first", that the author normally uses to mean "first" would be a very poor choice to describe the Census that you want to Communicate Was Not First!. There are other Greek words to Communicate "most important". And of course what reason could "Luke" possibly have to try and avoid using an Equivocal word here who's primary meaning is the opposite of what "Luke" wished to communicate since it only helps establish the Date of Jesus' birth. I mean it's not like it was an important date or anything.

- This seems to be a reason all by itself to prefer "first" over "foremost".

4) Early Witness Testimony = Understanding of "First".

And the best reason I've seen so far for 2:2 not being "foremost":

5) Resident Professional Greek expert Jeff Gibson has not given one word of support for it.

6) The offending word has a time qualification "was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." which goes better with a superlative rather than an absolute superlative.

7) "First" is the Simpler, more straight-forward translation as opposed to "foremost". If the other evidence is ambiguous than the Simpler Translation should be Preferred.

And now the next Problem, Josephus:

Appian Testifies that Israel was established as a Tributary Kingdom:

Appian, BC 5.75

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...l_Wars/5*.html

"75 After these events Octavian set forth on an expedition to Gaul, which was in a disturbed state, and Antony started for the war against the Parthians. The Senate having voted to ratify all that he had done or should do, Antony again despatched his lieutenants in all directions and arranged everything else as he wished. He set up kings here and there as he pleased, on condition of their paying a p507prescribed tribute: in Pontus, Darius, the son of Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates: in Idumea and Samaria, Herod:"


JW:
Josephus makes it clear that Quirinius was connected with the First Census of Judea and gives weight to his testimony by providing us not only with Sources but potentially the two Greatest sources for all things Herod. Emphasis mine saith the Lord:

Antiquities of the Jews

14.9

"[8] But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his good-will to Hyrcanus. It is true that Nicolatls of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews, whose history we shall give you in its proper place hereafter."

JW:
In order to consider the General Weight of an author, Provenance of the author must be identified. What do we know about an author? Generally, the more we know, the better the Provenance and the greater the Weight.

Generally, we can tell from the above, that Josephus writes like a Historian and is interested in Herod's family and leaders/rulers of the time and area. Specifically, Josephus appears to give a '''Source''' for some of his information here, Nicolatis of Damascus, which again has the Mark of a Historian.


15.174

"[174] And this account we give the reader, as it is contained in the commentaries of king Herod: but other historians do not agree with them,"

JW:
Josephus identifies another Source, the commentaries of Herod, potentially the best source of information about Herod, and indicates an ability to '''critically evaluate''' Sources by noting disagreement with other historical accounts.


17.355

"[354] Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."

JW:
We are told that Archelaus' Kingdom was made part of the Syrian Province and Quirinius was put in charge of the liquidation of Archelaus' estate.


18.1

"HOW CYRENIUS WAS SENT BY CAESAR TO MAKE A TAXATION OF SYRIA AND JUDEA; AND HOW COPONIUS WAS SENT TO BE PROCURATOR OF JUDEA; CONCERNING JUDAS OF GALILEE AND CONCERNING THE SECTS THAT WERE AMONG THE JEWS.

NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money;"

JW:
We are told that Quirinius was sent to be in charge of Syria at this time, to inventory Judea and dispose of Archelaus' assets.


18.26

"[26] WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."

JW:
We are told that Quirinius settled Archelaus' estate and concluded a taxation Census. Josephus again provides a Fixed date and multiple time references.


20.102

"[100] Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book."

JW:
We are told that there was a revolt when Quirinius conducted a Census with the Implication being this was the only related Census under Quirinius.


Wars Of The Jews

2.433

"[433] In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,)"

JW:
Another reference to '''Resistance''' to Quirinius.

7.252

"[252] WHEN Bassus was dead in Judea, Flavius Silva succeeded him as procurator there; who, when he saw that all the rest of the country was subdued in this war, and that there was but one only strong hold that was still in rebellion, he got all his army together that lay in different places, and made an expedition against it. This fortress was called Masada. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one;"

JW:
And finally, reference to Resistance to a Taxation administered by Quirinius on Judea and again, Implication that there was only one related Census under Quirinius.

Richard Carrier has indicated it is Likely that "Luke" used Josephus as a Source:

Luke and Josephus (2000)

Since per Josephus the Quirinius' census was the First in Judea and Josephus appears to be the or at least a Source for "Luke's" knowledge of the Quirinius' census a Translation of "First" puts 2:2 closer to "Luke's" Probable Source (Josephus). Josephus gives a picture of a Judea incensed by Roman intrusion represented and exacerbated by "Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea". Ultimately this lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and, per Josephus, all goes back to the First Census of Judea per Roman decree.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Chris Weimer

I don't see how that resolves anything. Quirinius wasn't governer of Syria where Matthew places Jesus' birth...?

JoeWallack

JW:
Current Inventory of reasons why "foremost" is Unlikely for 2:2:

1) Lexicon = The offending word has a Root and Primary meaning of "First".

- The Secondary meaning of "foremost" is a common one although unlike
"first", it's not always the specific secondary meaning. Obviously by
itself the Lexicon is not determinative of the meaning of a specific
usage but is useful when other determinants are ambiguous.

- Qualification = Jeff Gibson currently disputes that the offending word
does or does not have a Primary meaning. He is currently doing a
meaning count in Koine and Attic (because that's where Stephen's
Primary example is from) and will report the results to us after he is
resurrected.

2) Usage = "Luke" normally uses the word to mean "first".

- Note that in Luke's two uses of "foremost", 15:22 and 19:47, the
construction is a simple combination of adjective next to common noun
which gives the appearance of an idiom.

3) Communication Logic =

"This was the Foremost registration while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The argument for Translating "foremost" here is "Luke" wanted to distinguish between the Census of Quirinius and the Census Joseph responded to. If this was "Luke's" motivation than using a word with a Primary meaning of "first", with a normal grammatical construction of "first", that the author normally uses to mean "first" would be a very poor choice to describe the Census that you want to Communicate Was Not First!. There are other Greek words to Communicate "most important". And of course what reason could "Luke" possibly have to try and avoid using an Equivocal word here who's primary meaning is the opposite of what "Luke" wished to communicate since it only helps establish the Date of Jesus' birth. I mean it's not like it was an important date or anything.

- This seems to be a reason all by itself to prefer "first" over "foremost".

4) Early Witness Testimony = Understanding of "First".

InKarnate The Magnificent

I have here in my hand a Gospel, sealed by Hermas, which has been sitting on
Robert Funk 's porch for two thousand years. I shall now attempt to divine the contents of this Gospel in my borderline mystical way without ever having
studied extant early manuscripts, quotes from Church Fathers or through the use of deductive reasoning.

(Putting sealed Gospel to forehead) A shroud, a cloud, right-hand of goud.

(Opening envelope) Where won't we be seeing Jesus anytime SOON?

Perhaps even more miraculous than Christianity's claim of the Incarnation of
Jesus is Christianity's claim of the Incarnation of "Church Fathers" who can
magically incarnate as credible witnesses in support of Christian assertions
and then can just as magically disincarnate when either the specifics of what
they wrote or the omission from their writings does not support Christian
assertions. Unlike Jesus who apparently was only able to incarnate once there
appears to be no such limit on the ability of "Church Fathers" to incarnate and
disincarnate at the whim of apologists as easily as the Cable Company guy who Incarnates to pick up your check for the installation but then disincarnates when you report a subsequent problem.



And the best reason I've seen so far for 2:2 not being "foremost":

5) Resident Professional Greek expert Jeff Gibson has not given one word of support for it.

6) The offending word has a time qualification "was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." which goes better with a superlative rather than an absolute superlative.

7) "First" is the Simpler, more straight-forward translation as opposed to "foremost". If the other evidence is ambiguous than the Simpler Translation should be Preferred.

8) Josephus = A translation of "First" makes 2:2 closer to "Luke's" likely Source, Josephus.

And now, a consideration of Direct reference vs. Indirect reference. First, the offending verses:

Luke 1:1-2

"Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.

This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

If we use Stephen's "foremost" translation we have:

"This was the foremost enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Than the Absolute Superlative, "Foremost", is not used to describe the Census which is the primary Subject here, the one Joseph responded to, but the Census it's being compared to. Since the Point of an absolute superlative is to emphasize, it would be normal to simply use it for your main subject. To use an absolute superlative to describe a subject that you are comparing to your primary subject would be like saying:

"Jeff Gibson was not foremost in his class."

This type of Indirect usage of an absolute superlative sounds a little Sophisticated for Koine Greek. In Stephen's Primary example:

"And this turned out to be a primary catalyst of the war."

We have a Direct reference (surprise). So how about it Stephen. Can you textcavate a few examples of Indirect usage of absolute superlative? This is one of several Textual Markers you have ignored so far regarding Context.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

You seem to be assuming what actually needs to be proved, namely, that that PRWTH in Lk. 2:2 is an absolute superlative (as opposed to a simple or a relative one).

Can you provide your reasons for assuming that this is the case -- or that Stephen is asserting that this is the case?

More importantly, can you actually show, by adducing for us both (1) the particular grammatical/inflectional forms that in Greek were characteristic of the absolute superlative" and (2) the syntactical or morphological markers that indicated that an adjective was being used with the absolute superlative sense, that PRWTOS is being used in Lk. 2:2 in the sense of "most foremost" (which is what PRWTH would be conveying if it were being used as an absolute superlative).

And would you be kind enough to show, by citing the relevant discussion in any authoritative Greek Grammar (i.e., Smyth, BDF), that there was in Greek such a category or syntacical feature as "Indirect Usage of the Absolute Superlative"?

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey Gibson

Amaleq13

I think you need to read Stephen's entire argument on his blog. The "Josephus connection" only involves one small portion.

Rick Sumner

There's a UBS Greek NT, interlinear with morphology on Logos. It does not, incidentally, say what Joe suggests it does, though I doubt he had it on hand to begin with.

αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.
This--enrollment--first---became---leading------of the-Syria--Cyrenius

The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Interlinear With Morphology). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993; 2006, S. Lk 2:2

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh Jesus, what a surprise, Avoidance of my point and instead, more detailed questioning of my details. Yes, this is the Mark of an Apologist, Ignore the Points and keep asking more and more detailed questions and than posture that the point is irrelevant because an excruciatingly detailed (and Never before asked) question was not answered to your satisfaction.

Uh, Superlative generally emphasizes Comparison within a Group while Absolute superlative emphasis the extreme for the Group. But you already knew that didn't you. Regarding "Indirect Usage of the Absolute Superlative", uh yes Jeff, if it's not a Defined Technical Greek grammar usage specifically identified in a Greek grammar book than it can not possibly have any meaning. And perhaps there is a reason why it would not be identified specifically. Hmmmm?

More stupid questions avoiding a Direct Commentary on Carlson's claim. Tell you what, let's Limit you to one stupid question per day.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Rick, does "Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft" sound anything like "UBS"? I already explained this. They just used the UBS text (Greek) for their English linear translation.

More importantly is there a reason why you don't mention that this translation also has an implied verb in Engish which agrees with the one I showed and was Stephen's original objection?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

In other words you can't do what I asked.

Yes. But please note that giving a definition of either the superlative or the absolute superlative is not what I asked of you.

Rather what I asked was for you to show, by pointing to the syntactical and/or morphological markers that in Greek indicate that an adjective is being used with an absolute superlative sense, as opposed to any other form of the superlative, that the PRWTH of Lk. 2:2 is (or is not) an absolute superlative.

I take it from your answer that you cannot do this. And I also take it that the reason you can not do this is that you have no idea what these Greek syntactical and/or morphological markers are, and, moreover, that you do not have sufficent Greek to be able (1) to read or understand what the Grammars say they are or to (2) to assess whether the morphology in which PWTOS appears in Lk. 2:2 bears any of them. Otherwise, you would have actually answered my question instead of characterizing it.

But you could always prove me wrong.

So far as I can see, I didn't ask anything about whether it can be, let alone is, identified or unidentified. I asked whether you could produce some evidence that "an indirect usage of the absolute superlative" is something that actually occurs in Greek and to cite some Greek texts where it appers

So again, I take it by your equivocation and your failure to produce what was any such evidence and citations, that you can't do what I asked of you, and that this is because you have no idea what to look for or where to look even if you were able to read Greek.

But again, I would be happy to be proven wrong on these points. The question is: Can you do so?

Jeffrey Gibson