jgibson000

Could you please quote me the passage from Sanders in which he engages in the "flight of numerical fancy" you say he does and then show me that it is based on the claim you say it's based on and why this "flight of fancy" is as you say it is? I'd like to see you argue your claim with evidence, rather than just assert it.

Thanks.

JG

RED DAVE

No proof at all.

In any event, it would have been difficult.

(emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon..._Empire_Period

RED DAVE

jgibson000

Yes, it was. But I never disputed that. However, the question was why it was that you didn't know, as you said you didn't, what your source (Campbell) based his claim on, and whether the reason for your ignorance on this matter was because your source for Campbell's remark is not Campbell himself, but is instead the online edition of the 1956 crank "work" of B.H. Bernard entitled Apollonius The Nazarene.

I note that nothing you wrote in message 4394765 answers that.

So let me as again:

Is the reason you don't know what source or evidence Campell used to substantiate his claim that Apolilonius was born in 4 BCE that your source for Campbell's remark is not Campbell himself, but is the online edition of the 1956 "work" of Walter Seigmeister?

This is a simple yes or no question. May I have your answer?

JG

Steven Avery

Grammatical scope, surely.
Contextual scope, knowing his history and the geography, nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin When the Philistines came and dwelt in the cities that the men of Israel forsook (1Sa 31:7, 1Ch 10:7), is there any scope for them to be just returning there??

Same as above.

Note that spin craftily omits the other major Bible example.

2 Kings 17:27-28
Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying,
Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence;
and let them go and dwell there,
and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.
Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from
Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel,
and taught them how they should fear the LORD.

about which John Gill adds simply..

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/...l/2kings17.htm
"and as seems also by his choosing to dwell in Bethel,
where probably he formerly dwelt"

(Surely part of the great commentary conspiracy, seeing this
thread's grammatical claim coming forth some centuries later.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin When Jesus left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum (Mt 4:13), is there any scope for him to be just returning there??

Surely there was a good chance that he had visited there and had family there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin ... The text would not use the verb katoikew, but said something else, such as "returned" as in the case of Naomi (Rt 1:22).

A perfect example of context, exactly what I pointed out in my previous post using my own example.

The whole story explains why and how Naomi left, so surely the the word would best be "return".

And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, .... his wife Naomi... And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there... 7 Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.... So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin When will you get to doing Linguistics 101??

spin, you should learn to look at a text with sense and context
(and not hide the example which refutes your claim).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Reading only Matthew's birth account, what would ever make you think that Joseph and Mary moved before the birth?

I would simply have no idea one way or another. Matthew is focusing on the annunciation and the Isaiah prophecy and then the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. And then the situation with Herod and the Micah prophecy and the slaughter of the innocents. As I pointed out before Matthew simply is not writing a diary or a travelogue, his emphasis is different.

Context is basileus.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

3DJay

After 40 days...they took him to Jerusalem.
Hrrrmmm.


Peace

Amaleq13

Your apparent inability to comprehend the answer does not render the offered answer non-existent.

Surely he doesn't just assert this and expect it to be taken on faith. What is the evidence or argument upon which Gill bases this conclusion?

spin

Would you care to explain "grammatical scope" for what I was talking about? Linguistic context is quite a simple idea.

Bad imputation, "craftily omits". It was not purposeful. I merely searched for "came and dwelt" for a cross section. However, this didn't catch infinitives. You get kudos for doing a better search.

The problem is that the king of Assyria isn't sending the person back to their own town, just back to live in Samaria. We later find that the priest is sent to live in Bethel. Would you like to argue that the priest came from Bethel? Naaa.

From your reading of Matt what would make you think that?

I agree. Just as it would if Joseph were taking his family back to Nazareth (as in Lk 2:39), seeing as you claim through your knowledge of Luke that Joseph must have lived in Nazareth before hand and going there would be a return.

I do appreciate the irony now of your first statement in the post.

False imputation means you have no better argument you could cogitate.

Well, that's a step ahead. There is a vague understanding of the problem. I don't believe what you said, because I think you cannot help but taint your response, but it seems honest in comparison to a lot of what you say.

One could remove the Isaiah prophecy and make little change to the flow of the narrative -- perhaps a slight improvement.

You do agree though that -- contrary to what you tried to argue at the end of #95 -- the change from the first chapter to the next doesn't change the place of birth which would normally be seen, as a logical consequence of the narrative, as being in the home where Joseph took Mary to be his wife (1:24b-25), don't you?

Now you are getting away from your more spontaneous honesty <edit>.

But obviously not tetrarch. It's not interchangeable.


spin

andrewcriddle

Philostratus may imply that Apollonius of Tyana was born in 4 BCE.

In book 8 chapters 27-29 Apollonius dies (in one account of his end) during the reign of Nerva probably around the middle ie in 97 CE.
In chapter 29 Philostratus gives various ages for Apollonius at death from 80 to over 100 without deciding between them.

Philostratus has Apollonius active a number of years after age 20 during the reign of Tiberius so his narrative probably excludes Apollonius being much under 90 at death.

In Book 1 chapter 14 in the context of Apollonius remembering his early meditations throughout his life it says Indeed when he reached the age of a hundred he still surpassed Simonides in point of memory. This means that he reached at least 100 and may imply that he only reached that.

With death in 97 CE and an age at death of at least 100 this has a birthdate of 4 BCE or maybe a year or so earlier.

NB This is about what Philostratus implies. IMO Marie Dzielska in Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History makes a strong case that the historical Apollonius was born around the end of the reign of Tiberius and died around the end of the reign of Trajan. If Philostratus implying a date of birth for Apollonius of 4 BCE or slightly earlier has any significance it may be a deliberate attempt by Philostratus to draw parallels between Apollonius and Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

Amaleq, please. That is not really the consequent question. The point is that "came to dwell" by no means excludes an earlier sojourn or living situation. Not for the Lord Jesus to Nazareth, not for the priest in Bethel and not for me in the New York area.

In fact the Bible does say "whom ye brought from thence" giving a pretty good basis for the John Gill conjecture that they returned to their earlier locales. Along with a bit of common sense.

However the basic point, which you obviously miss, is that there is nothing in "came to dwell" that excludes an earlier period.

Spin was simply wrong about this inceptive claim,
that the phrase "came and dwelt" as in -

Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
He shall be called a Nazarene.

- would require no earlier dwelling therein.
The Kings example is a simple Biblical disproof while a basic
understanding of English usage should have been enough
as well to discard this theory.

And ironically, the super-clincher. Jesus himself had never
lived in Nazareth, so even by the spinning we saw from Sander
and spin the Matthew statement is 100% consistent.
There is no grammatical concern whatsoever, that theory
is doubly refuted.

And this nonsense spin used to try to prop up the flagging
accusations from Sander against Matthew and Luke.

On the other major Sander's problem being discussed -

I do wonder if anyone is going to try to defend Sander on the
lineage claim. Or agree that his writing was off. His using of
an implied, unstated and dubious assumption in order to go
into numerical flights of fancy.

These two scholarship mistakes of Sander are a major part
of his attempt to attribute error to Matthew or Luke.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Explanation accepted and imputation fully withdrawn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin You do agree though that -- contrary to what you tried to argue at the end of #95 -- the change from the first chapter to the next doesn't change the place of birth which would normally be seen, as a logical consequence of the narrative, as being in the home where Joseph took Mary to be his wife (1:24b-25), don't you?

The annunciation and Isaiah prophecy is given as an event, not a location. There is no 'place of birth' indicated.

Then the narrative switches to the birth in Bethlehem, the Micah prophecy, the troubling of Herod. You could try to conjecturally go geographically backwards, however it would only be a conjecture.

What we have here is a difference in perspective. I look at all the books of the New Testament as a unit, a beautiful intermix of inspired writing. There is no pizazz in conjectures that are simply disharmonious to the whole.

While you look at such conjectural extrapolations as a lever to attempt to show error. Our perspectives are different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin But obviously not tetrarch. It's not interchangeable.

Right, many usages of tetrarch and basileus are not interchangeable, as they are used in Matthew 14.

Shalom,
Steven Avery