aa5874

All these long winded "liguistics" arguments resolve nothing.

We have Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 with a character Jesus who was called Christ.

All writers of antiquity that ever used Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 were Christians and they all STILL claimed Jesus who was called Christ was the Son of a Ghost.

Non-Apologetic sources did NOT ever use Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 to argue that Jesus was a mere man.

Apologetic writers ARGUED against those who claimed Jesus was a man with a human father but NEVER argued against Josephus' supposed statement in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 MUST be a forgery because we have NO arguments against the passage.

It makes ZERO sense that Skeptics and so-called Heretics never ever used Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 AGAINST Christians who claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost unless there was NO such passage in Antiquities.

DCHindley

At the time, an argument was raging about whether Josephus always introduced new characters with some sort of patronymic or other identifier, or if he sometimes did not. We were also trying to see if there was a previously identified Jesus who might fit the bill for the Jesus in Ant 20:200. The name "Jesus" seemed to me like a logical place to take a sample.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "gone through." Did you systematically identify every single case (say, through a concordance of Josephus' works) or sample a few cases of each? I have to imagine that there are hundreds of different individuals named, many of whom are named repeatedly.

Maybe it's just me, but a simple "I think you (Spin) are mistaken about this," give your reasons in brief, and moving back to your critique of Doherty, whould have spared the rest of us the pain of a flame war between you and Spin.

Hmmm, maybe on or before Jan 29, 2008, the date of that post? More specifically, sometime between 12/28/07 and 1/29/08. At the moment, that e-mail exchange is in a HDD from my old laptop, and is not currently hooked up to a computer. I can say that I mentioned to him that I had read his Josephus in the NT (1993 ed) and he noted that he had published a 2nd edition in 2004.

I passed on the list of names and identifiers and some details about my hypothesis. He said that it opened an issue he had not thought of before, but would not be comfortable making a public statement about the "called christ" clause without further investigation (which he may or may not have followed up on, I don't know).

He indicated that his opinion on the authenticity of the James passage in 20:200, expressed in the 2nd edition of Josephus & the NT, was that based on style alone. He added that the James passage in 20:200 conforms to Josephus' known usage much more than the TF about Jesus in Ant 18.

DCH

maryhelena

Interesting opinion from Steve Mason. I've thought for some time that Josephus did not write the material that is known as the TF. I think he used it - updated it - but did not originate the core story. (Yep - ahistoricist/mythicist here - following storyline - with a bit of help from the linguistic experts.....)

LegionOnomaMoi

Vagaries? Your entire argument relies on the "marked" form. So are you using markedness the way functional linguistics does (in which case, the only reason to apply it to 20.200 is to determine what Josephus means to convey here), or do you want to continue to apply your made up version? Which part of markedness theory dictates that when the descriptive analysist fails to come up with a reason for a form that the analyist claims is "marked" dictates that the answer lies in a problem with the text, rather than the analyist? (Hint: no part. That's just your misuse).



I did. Here's what you said:What you cut out was his reference to BJ 1.180-1//AJ 14.121. In neither case is there any familial relation identification in the text. In BJ 1.180 we have only Antipater's name, and then in 1.181 his sons are named. Same with AJ 14.121. So how does this, according to you, mean that Cohen: When he isn't referring to syntactic structure at all? There is no "Herod, son of Antipater" or "Antipater, father of Herod", just the name, and then another line describing the fact that he has children, and giving their names. So again, where does he talk about syntactic structure?

You used the term "marked". This term has specific meaning. Now you've indicated which theory of markedness you are applying by referring to the dissertation you did. Only, like every other use of the theory, it doesn't do you any good, but it especially fails here because the entire purpose of functional markedness is to determine what the author means by using marked linguistic elements. That's it. Not "I can't see why the author does, therefore it's suspect". THAT is prescriptive.

Right. First, the "basic notion" was split into two quite different uses by formalist and functionalist approaches. Second, most linguistic theories no longer use the term at all. Some continue to use something like it, and some continue to use the term itself, but nobody uses it like you do when you apply it to AJ 20.200, and especially not functionalists. As I said earlier, when Andreas Willi uses it in The Languages of Aristophanes, he does what you did (badly) in the other instances of "marked" word order in Josephus: determine what it means. In fact, he differentiates Greek grammar from Aristophanes' "grammar" (and includes a "grammar" of Aristophanes in the appendix) in order to better seperate "marked" linguistic elements to analyze their function (you do realize that's what underlies funactional linguistics, right?). Not to decide "hey, I can't figure out what the author is doing with this marked form, so it much be interpolated."


You are the one claiming it's marked, and using functionalist theories to do so. As convenient as it would be for you to suddenly switch theories and disciplines here (from functionalist to some formalist branch), markedness theory doesn't suddenly become prescriptive because you want it to.

But to answer your question (again), Josephus' "unmarked" word order that you wish to imply exists does so at most only when it comes to patronymics (and here, again, there is variability). When it comes to other forms of identification, he's all over the place. And when he uses some form of "whose name was X" then typically the identifying information comes first, as it does in AJ 20.200. In other words, what we see in AJ 20.200 is typical of Josephus when he leaves the realm of patronymic identification especially when he includes some form of onoma. So if I were to apply a markedness analysis (even stylistic), this wouldn't be marked.


My god. You have studied greek before, correct? You do know that in, say, commentaries on patristic fathers Denniston is used as a reference? I still have my old "Patristic Greek Reader" from when I was switching from classical to "koine" or hellenistic Greek. You know what the reference grammars are? Everything from Denniston and the LSJ to Smyth. Why? First, because so much which is described in works like Denniston and Smyth applies to centuries of Greek (and was intended to), and second because later Greek authors, especially the more erudite, modelled themselves on classical Greek authors.

But more importantly, the fact that Viti's analysis begins with Homer goes forward through Herodotus is not a problem here at all. First, Herodotus was the model for ancient historiography, and a standard method used to to analyze greek prose. Second, Viti's analysis demonstrates the shift over the centuries, and that shift goes from no difference between GN and NG to a preference for GN. Third, Bakker's study on the NP in Greek is in complete agreement with preposed modification being more typical. Fourth, reference grammars of later Greek also agree, as noted in the BDG, where we find that although "word order in Greek and so in the NT is freer by far than in modern languages" (p. 248) the tendency for modifiers is for them to be preposed (or no tendency at all): sect. 474 and all subsections (esp. 4. which notes the attributive genitive coming first. e.g. theou sunergoi), sect. 476, and sect 477 all cover word order and are the sections relevant here (some more than others, but the point is that we continually find not only word order variation/freedom, but a tendency towards forward shifts, both in clauses and modifiers).

Seriously? You go to English genitives to convey what preposed in Greek means? Let me clear this up for you: a postposed genitive is when the genitive follows the head, as in Viti's example duo paidia andron epichorion ("two children of the local people") whereas a preposed genitive is when the genitive comes before the head, as in aigliochoioi Dios tekos ("of Aegis-bearing Zeus" the child").

When was the last time you looked at a Greek grammar or analysis of hellenistic Greek? Or better yet, a history of the language? Take Horrock's Greek: A History of its Language and its Speakers (2nd Ed; Wiley-Blackwell; 2010). First, as he notes in his introduction to Koine after concluding with Attic (pp. 80-83) that Koine Greek for the most part retained the features of older Greek, in particular of Ionic Greek, the language of Herodotus. What changes did occur were mainly phonological, but for the most part the dialect of Herodotus became Koine (or, a sort of Ionic blended with literary Attic). This is not true so much of the NT, because of the education level of the authors (combined with semiticisms) as Horrocks covers. The same goes for the LXX. However, even here the difference can be quite slight: "Thus Hebrews and James are in some respects quite "classical'". Even the tendency for early christian authors to model themselves on the "koine" of the NT went the way of the rest of educated authors: to literary Atticisms with the Ionic blend (see, e.g., sect. 5.11.2).

But let's turn specifically to Josephus. Redondo published a paper in Hermes on this: "The Greek Literary Language of the Hebrew Historian Josephus" (2000). He not only notes Josephus' reliance specifically on authors like Thucydides and "the Attic rhetoric of the IVth cent. BC" (p. 425). He spends a great deal of time on the various semitic and other influences, as well as the differences between Josephus and attic, but 1) many of these involve Josephus' relation to the Papyri of his day, which Dickey has analyzed and in which preposed modification (including kinship) is still, if not the norm, extremely common, and 2) he concludes that despite the differences, Josephus "is very close to the best Greek prose writers, that is to say, to the Attic literary patterns."

Ward, in his 2007 study which was designed to detect even more differences in Josephus (especially Latinisms) found lexical differences but as far as syntactic, the only differences which could be seen at all were temporal constructions, the middle, and the use of indirect discourse (ironically, Ward notes that his use of indirect discourse is greater than most classical authors, but the biggest exception is...wait for it...Herodotus).


1) "Decent analogue" according to your bullshit structural analysis. You managed to reference something which used markedness (albeit not like you do), but you can't find anything which "brackets" Greek structures the way you did? Of course, if your framework for analysis is functional, then you have a reaallly big problem with your little "bracketing" exercise which goes far beyond the fact that transformationalist analyses wouldn't follow you. From Dik onward functionalist analyses don't rely on constituent analysis the way you did. But even if we ignore your odd blend of misuse of two vastly different approaches to language, we don't get your structural analysis, because you divided the examples contra even older transformationalist theories, let alone modern ones. So not only does your conclusion concerning "decent analogues" rely on abandoning your use of markedness, it also relies on your made-up version of constituent analysis.

2) I'm looking at the Greek language. You want to impose Josephus' use of patronymics on an identification which doesn't use a patronymic. That not only flies in the face of every functional approach to grammar, but also every pragamatic, socio-linguistic, and similar approach to language and texts.

3) If you were applying some actual functionalist linguistic theory, then you would be looking to see what word order is used for identification when patronymics aren't used, and also the position of modifiers when Josephus uses the phrase "whose name was X" (or some version of this). And instead of your careful (and arbitrary) transformationalist bracketing of constituents, you would be making pragmatic comparisons between what comes first or after. For example, when Josephus uses "whose name was X", regardless of "bracketing" structures, does the identifying information tend to be pre- or postposed? The answer is preposed, as in AJ 20.200.


Not a sausage, no. But plenty of examples where the "descriptor" comes before the subject. In fact, in the majority of cases where Josephus uses "by name x", including the times when he also uses a familial relation (even a patronymic) the identifying information comes first.

Well if I wasn't dealing with a tale told by an idiot, strutting and fretting, I'd have less fury. If you'd only use more matter with less art, we'd all be better off.

Yes. Prescriptive linguistics (leaving aside pedagogical aspects) seeks to identify "correct" forms rather than describe. And, with one exception, that's your entire approach. You made up some rule about fame and "common to lead with old information", despite the fact that as far as patronymics are concerned, it isn't "common" at all. You made up ad hoc reasons for the exceptions to examples which have both preposed patronymic genitives and a "whose name was X" identification, but when it comes to AJ 20.200, all of the sudden your descriptive approach, as creative as it is, suddenly fails you.


Which is why you referred to an example in which word order doesn't play a role at all? Really?

1) I have found them. You claim they aren't analogues based on bullshit structuralist analysis which runs counter to the very markedness theory you are trying to use.
2) That "prior reader knowledge" is again more bullshit. It doesn't hold true for patronymics (the "unmarked" structure you are desperately trying to cling to here) in which Josephus tends to stick to "son first" regardless of "reader knowledge" or fame.


How is it straightforward? There is your ad hoc explanation:There's just a few problems here. First, Josephus doesn't "link Keargis to the verb". He has to introduce a subordinate clause in order to actually put another verb in there. The main verb is προεπήδησαν, and in his parenthetical explanation of the meaning of the name, which is so convoluted he has to go beyond the participle "called" and actually insert a whole subordinate clause just to have the verb you claim he links it to, he introduces a level of complexity and irregularity that goes well beyond 20.200. But what is really amusing about your explanation is that you describe this "pragmatic solution" as linking "not just Keargaris but all three actors in the subject with the rest of the sentence". Let's look at whether or not that's accurate.

First, the two characters who come before:
Τεφθέος δέ τις ἀπὸ Γάρις πόλεως τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ Μαγάσσαρος τῶν βασιλικῶν Μαριάμμης θεράπων/A certain Tephtheus from Garis city of Galilee, and Megassarus of the servents of Mariamne.

Now, how does Josephus "link" these two and Keargiras with his "pragmatic solution"? With the first two, he states where they are from, both times giving the name first and then the place. Then he introduces our third character, only here he starts with the place of origin, then gives the patronymic, then states "being called from his ill-fortune" and THEN finally we get the name. But because this "pragmatic solution" has created such a syntactical quagmire, he has to insert a parenthetical subordinate clause just to explain the meaning of the name ("which means "lame"), before going on with the rest of the sentence.

Why did he not simply do what he did with the other two, and give the name and place of origin, with the name first? Or the name and origin and father? Instead, he not only puts origin, father, and the origin of the name BEFORE the name. Moreover, he could have done ALL of this and STILL kept the "name first" approach, simply by writing "Chagiras son of Nabateus, whose name ....blah blah blah..." or any number of less awkward ways. But he doesn't. He doesn't "link" the other two to the main verb, which thanks to his discussion of not only Chagiras' name, but also his place of origin AND his patronymic, now seperates the other two from the main verb by over a dozen words including an entire clause.

I never said this. But evidentiality is relevant to linguistics, as is ergativity. That doesn't make it relevant here. The question is whether your bullshit rules are anything more than ad hoc inventions. So far, all you've done is take patronymics, called that structure "unmarked", and then make-up reasons for any exceptions. The only time your imagination fails you is with AJ 20.200.

I'm denying that you are using any method of "bracketing" consistent with a modern linguistic theory and that it fits your "functional" analysis. As for my own views, as I said, I follow what has become the majority among linguists in adopting a construction grammar approach or something close to it. Regardless, where "bracketing" and tree-structures and so forth are still used, your method is not.

Let's look back at this: I gave as much reason as you did. Again, you have a "descriptive" and functionalist approach that, as ad hoc as it is and as imaginative (rather then sound) as it is, suddenly fails you with AJ 20.200. I already gave Mason's reasons, which included the possibility that this was a key as to why James was in trouble: linking James to Jesus called christ may have notified the reader what James and these "others" were in trouble for. Or it could be something completely different. But from a markedness/functionalist point of view, you can't validly argue that the structure here is suspicious just because you can't dream up a reason for it to be so.

Right. See above.

I don't think it is marked, nor do I find markedness a very useful tool (and modern linguistics has left you behind here). But regardless, the entire point is, again, to attempt to identify the purpose of the supposedly "marked" element. It runs against the entire functionalist enterprise to assume that because you can't imagine a reason behind what you consider a marked structure, that it is somehow suspicious.



You haven't. What you have done is claimed that there exists an unmarked and marked form here. You haven't demonstrated it exists apart from patronymics. You haven't demonstrated that fame or previous mention tend to have any effect whatsoever on the form of patronymics or identification. You simply claimed they do. And then, after making these claims, your use markedness prescriptively for AJ 20.200.

The fact that it is the typical word order used by Josephus when he uses the "whose name is X" construction rather than a patronymic. The fact that it gives us a clue as to the reason for the trial (per Mason). The fact that it hearkens back to the original form of the TF (per any number of analyses, from Feldman to Meier). Or the fact that word order is simply very, very free in Josephus and in Greek. You are using markedness theory, remember? If you can't come up with a reason, then it's either because you incorrectly identified marked vs. unmarked structures, or because you simply don't know. But no part of the theory states "I can't figure out why this doesn't fit into my marked/unmarked theory, so I'm going to say it's the text, not me, that's the problem."

As have I. What you've done is conflate patronymics with identification and "unmarked" structure, and then misused markedness to claim things about AJ 20.200.

You do realize that these aren't preposed genitives, right? They are postposed. Let me quote Viti here again just to clear things up for you:

"In this phrase, the genitive is postposed
(7) duo paidia andron epichorion
Two chilrden of the local people" (p. 211).

You can't even get the difference between pre- and postposed right. How can we expect you to adequately apply a whole linguistic theory?

But in any event, despite your confusing pre- vs. postposed and inadequate attempt at constituent analysis, you are ignoring the fact that in AJ 20.200 we have an instance where Josephus uses the name as well: "by name James". In these instances, even when he uses origin and a patronymic, Josephus typically preposes the modifiers.

Additionally, this is where you keep messing up your naive transformationalist analyses and markedness along with other aspects of functionalist grammars (not to mention formalist). Viti addresses some of this in footnote 4, where the structure can be more complicated and "seemingly" postpositions are really appositive.

Most importantly, this is why your bracketing is a problem. Because if I were one to follow such generative offspring theories, and use "bracketing" here, then I'd make sure to do it correctly. While there is variance among such theories, what we might see is something like
{(brother of [Jesus called christ]) [by name James]}
because brother governs Jesus which governs "called Christ" while "by name James" would be on a sister node or on the same level.


Moreover, the entire construction is a identification modifier preposed in front of the "by name James" construction", as is typical of such modification in Josephus when we see the word onoma jn an identification.

aa5874

The authenticity of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 cannot be resolved by linguistics because a forger would have imitated the phrases of Josephus.

In the very same Antiquities of the Jews 20, the very same phrase "who was called" is found.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.11 Based on the same writings of Origen Antiquities of the Jews 20 MUST have been manipulated or Origen is NOT credible because statements made by Origen about James and Jesus in Antiquities CANNOT be found.

It is horribly myopic to use "linguistics" alone to determine authenticity of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 when there is abundance of evidence to show that ALL mention of a Jesus called Christ during the time of Pilate is FALSE.

thief of fire

You swing from hyper-skepticism to the most immovable conviction you are right about something or other. Would you like some examples?

thief of fire

Believers think he is christ not that he was merely called christ,so apart from the odd instance where it may suit it's not the best way.
This is why we don't see it except and handful of times, in particular circumstances.

EarlDoherty

Yes, it was Albinus who was procurator, Ananus the high priest. A slip of the mental tongue with both names occurring together. I'm surprised Legion hasn't sued me yet. Perhaps that's yet to come.

Did I say identical? What was common to the three references was Origen's word order, placing James first. That was the only issue in view. It hardly matters how often he included "the Just" or anything else.

What was your purpose in bothering to bring up these points?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

I have never heard in my entire life except by LegionOnomaMoi that because Christian writers hardly used a phrase in Josephus that is unlikely that a Christian forger could have IMITATED the phrase used over 40 times in Antiquities.

Any one with just a basic understanding of forgeries know that it is imperative that forged WRITINGS MUST appear to be of the same writing style and phrasing of the original.

The short-ending gMark and the long-ending gMark are PERFECT examples of a massive forgery where 16 CHAPTERS were forged almost WORD-FOR-WORD, the very same writing style and phrasing, and then 12 verses were added and was claimed to be written by the same author of the original.

thief of fire

Here's an example of you swinging to to your immovable certainty. He certainly can't be, unless of course, that what he was being called by some people.
But no lets not consider anything that may ruin your darling theory. Not lets just be "certain" about it.
Why didn't all the scholars (even jewish ones) understand we can be "certain" about this. Were they just fools to the "hegemony"?