jgibson000

What is it I'm supposed to be clarifying?

You made a claim that the form of the word BASILEUS that appears in Ant. 18:93 was a verbal form of the noun BASILEUS. I asked you to let me know what it is that makes you say so.

But you have not only not answered this question; you have actively dodged answering it.

If anyone is not clarifying anything here, it's you.

So are you going to tell me why you think BASILEUS in Ant. 18.93 is a verbal form or not?

Jeffrey

jgibson000

When did I ever agree that "demonstrating that the Christian Bible is in error" is something that I am bound to do, or that doing this is something that should/must take precedence over anything else?

I'd be grateful if you'd leave off assuming that your agenda is something that I am obliged to abide by.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
I have no reference tool to use so I Am guessing that it refers to Archelaus ruling. Plus your criticism of Carrier implied it was not simply a noun. Jeffrey, it's this type of evasion on your part that calls into question your objectivity. Not that you don't know something, but that you do and won't say. But again, this is your choice.



Joseph

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

jgibson000

But that's not what I said, now, is it, let alone what I implied..

I'd be grateful if you didn't accuse me of something that is based not in what I actually said, but in a misreading/misunderstanding on your part of what I actually said and in your inability to read Greek.

Jeffrey

jgibson000

But you said -- or at least I took you to be saying when you noted, as you did, that you had told F. Till that "βασιλεὺs" was the verbal form of "BASILEUS" -- that you had made your argument about the form BASILEUS some time ago and certainly previous to seeing anything I said about R.C.'s claim.

If this is the case, were you guessing then as well? Or did you have actual grounds for saying what you said?

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
And you can probably guess that I will determine the usage and meaning without your help. In the meantime we can add another colorful character to our inventory here at II. A Professor of ancient Greek who may not want to explain ancient Greek to you.



Joseph

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

jgibson000

Assuming that I am the one to whom you are referring (and if I am, then you are wrong about my status), when within this message where you stated that "βασιλεὺs αρχέλαοs". "βασιλεὺs" is the verbal form of "BASILEUS" and that "it [i.e., βασιλεὺs] is the verbal form of 'King'" did you ask me to explain ancient Greek to you?

So why am I being excoriated for not doing something I was not asked to do?

And FWIW (and again, assuming that I am the "professor" to whom you are referring above) you are wrong in asserting what you assert about my amenability to answer questions about Greek. I'd be happy, so far as it is within my power, to answer your question about Greek. But you have to ask one first.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

Greetings. I Am your host, Josephus Barkus, of the most popular game show in ancient Rome, What's My Lysanias?. Our guest is a Professor of ancient Greek, Dr. Jeffrey B. Gibson, who has written this on the chalkboard:

"βασιλεὺs αρχέλαοs"

Our panel of resident non-experts will have 5 questions to try and determine the meaning or our guest will win the jackpot. Okay, Joseph, why don't you start us off with the first question?

Joseph:
Thanks Josephus. Dr. Gibson, is the "βασιλεὺs" part a noun?

jgibson000

Well, first off, Josephus, let me thank you for -- and chide you a bit for your inaccuracy in -- giving me a title that I have never claimed and which I do not possess. I'm flattered that you think so highly of my skills. Maybe someday you'll actually attempt to gain some yourself! You too, Joseph!

Now, Joseph, to answer your question: yes, the "βασιλεὺs" part of the expression you see on the board before you is a noun. A third declension masculine one at that, and the "form" you see it in is the nominative.

For your benefit -- and yours too, Josephus -- here's how the word is declined.

Singular

Nominative βασιλεύς
Vocative βασιλεῦ
Accusative βασιλέᾱ
Genitive βασιλέως
Dative βασιλεῖ

Plural

Nominative βασιλῆς
Vocative βασιλεῖς
Accusative βασιλέᾱς/βασιλεῖς
Genitive βασιλέων
Dative βασιλεῦσι

Now, may I ask a question of you, Joseph? Josephus has told me that you were mumbling something backstage about βασιλεὺs being a "verbal form of the noun βασιλεὺs". Can you tell me where you got the idea that in Koine or Classical Greek there ever was such a beastie as a "verbal form of a noun"? Indeed, I'll spot you one of the five correct answers toward the toward the cash prize if you can show me where any ancient or modern Greek grammarian says there is and you can give me all of its various conjugated forms. I'll spot you two if you admit that so far as your claim about there being such a beastie goes, you have no idea what you are talking about.

JG

Steven Avery

It is amazing that spin actually wrote this nonsense after it was shown in detail on this forum that Luke gets the titles right (matching not only the position, but the geographical locale and the time the titles were used) again and again.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...or#post4295327
Luke, historicity & Roman titles

Notice that spin gave no substantive response to these usages from Luke and Acts.

So we see that spin bases a lot of his theory on his own very false conception that Luke is not a solid historicity of titles, law, geography, history .. including the Roman titles, which we went into in some depth. (A Lukan precision which even Richard Carrier noted.)

The amazing thing here is not so much that spin was so ignorant of the Bible titles (apparently, when he was originally claiming that Tetrarch only was used by Luke) or that he made the original error that he repeats above.

The incredible point, one that should be noted carefully, is that spin (as is his wont, remember Vaticanus being 'directly derived from the Hebrew') will repeat the very same blunder with a straight face to the forum even after he knows (or should know, if he actually reads the posts) that his claim is completely false.

Shalom,
Steven Avery