aa5874

Who were the parents of the Historical Jesus the Obscure preacherman of Nazareth??

Who were the parents of Jesus called Christ the brother of James in Antiquities???

Is Jesus called Christ in Antiquities 20 the same Jesus called Christ in Galatians???

Jesus called Christ in Galatians was NOT human, was Born of the Spirit and was the Son of God.

See Galatians 1.1, 2.20, 4.4 and 4.29.

All Apologetic sources that mentioned Jesus called Christ the brother of James in Antiquities of the Jews 20. claimed Jesus was indeed the Son of a Ghost.

See "Against Celsus" 1 and 2, and "Church History".

The OBSCURE Historical Jesus could NOT be Jesus called Christ in Antiquities.

Jesus called Christ the brother of James was WELL KNOWN and that is PRECISELY why he needed NO introduction in Antiquities, forgery or not.

Forget about "word order".

Jesus called Christ the brother James in Antiquities is NOT Obscure HJ, whether or not it is a forgery.

LegionOnomaMoi

Not really, no. I discovered (thanks to the help of some others) that Spin has been using "linguistics" as a shield for a long time. However, more often than not, he's inaccurate (or just plain wrong) in both his application and description of linguistic theory. Here he didn't just "misuse" a technical term. He relied on an inadequate knowledge of linguistic theory to make an argument about the passage in question.

That wouldn't be a big deal (everbody makes mistakes, myself included), if it weren't for the fact that this seems to be a pattern: use linguistics to make an argument and hope that nobody calls you out on it. If they do, refuse to back up your claim, rely on rhetoric/insults, or simply ignore the rebuttals.

There is no "other word" he should have used, because his argument was specific to Josephan language, rather than Greek. One can certainly argue that this or that line or passage in an author does is not consistent with that authors' stlye. But that I already covered.

Well, readers with a background in Greek, anyway.

That you can thank Spin for. It was thanks to his initial criticism of my OP from the other thread that I decided to attempt to "keep my audience in mind".

Toto

No, you are wrong in your attribution of motives.

New rule: if you rely on the authority of scholars, YOU MUST NAME ONE SCHOLAR YOU HAVE READ AND WHOSE REASONING YOU CAN EXPLAIN.

thief of fire

LegionOnomaMoi pretty much covered it. Spin used the term then would not explain what he meant by it. Maybe, maybe you're consenting to the "anti hegemony" hegemony.
Yes, he's obviously with the anti "anti hegemony" hegmony.
I don't know but apparently so.
Maybe. Anything could conceivably be an interpolation if we are prepared to consent to being swayed by weak evidence. If this jesus was called a "christ" by some sect, then Josephus may have used it for that reason.

aa5874

Are you implying that the ordinary man cannot understand the Jesus story unless he has a backgroung in Greek???

Can a person be a Christian if he/she does NOT have a background in Greek??

Must a person have a background in Greek to argue whether or NOT Jesus did exist and had a brother called James??

It is the very SIMPLEST of matter to determine if Jesus called Christ the brother of James was the OBSCURE preacherman of Nazareth without "linguistics and word order".

Please IDENTIFY the Parents of OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth FIRST.

You DON'T know the parents of OBSCURE HJ so forget about "linguistics and word order".

You DON'T know the PARENTS of Jesus called Christ the brother of James in Antiquities 20 so forget about "linguistics and word order".

We cannot go through the same DEBUNKED HJ argument day after day.

Now, if Jesus called Christ the brother of James was a Jew perhaps you need a background in the Aramaic language and word order.

Who were the PARENTS of OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth.. In any language or word order.???

Who were the Parents of Jesus called Christ the brother of James in Antiquities 20 ......In any language or word order ???

We have SILENCE--NO word order.

Silence is understood in any language.

outhouse

new rule: refute it with scholars who claim its not "familial relation"



by the way your late to the party, debated this years ago in another forum when I took your side


this isnt my first rodeo, and on this topic, Legion nailed it

LegionOnomaMoi

I was just thinking about this (or rather, wondering how those who can't read Greek could evaluate any argument about patterns of usage) when I recalled a book I read for my undergrad thesis: The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek by Andreas Willi (Oxford University Press; 2003). The word "Languages" in the title is not a typo. The reason I thought of it was not simply because this was an analysis of the language of a particular author, but because it is aptly demonstrates the problems inherent in looking at "any pattern of usage" in an author:

"The concept of 'irregularity' or 'markedness', which is crucial for stylistic and statistical comparisons, presupposes a complementary concept of 'regularity', 'normative usage', or 'unmarkednesss'. It gradually became clear to me that my project would gain in usefulness if I drew a picture not just of linguistic variation qua deviation from the norm, but also of the Aristophanic norm itself: that is, if I made explicit what Aristophanes' language looks like when it is not employed to convery specific effect."

Willi, whose interest is in stylistic markedness (for example, Aristophanes usage of technical medical terms is "marked" in comedy, but would be "unmarked" in a medical treatise) rests his entire study on the use of stylistic "markedness" within Aristophanes. That is, he uses "marked" (irregular or unusual) language in Aristophanes which differs from (or we wouldn't expect of) both Attic Greek AND Aristophanes (he even includes a "grammar" of Aristophanes in an appendix). By looking at how "odd" uses of language appear in Aristophanes, he is able to examine particular registers (simply put, uses of language which differ because of context, such as religious discourse or scientific discourse).

In other words, his study is an examination of words, constructions, etc., which are irregular both for Greek and for Aristophanes. A similar analysis of irregularities (as I noted in the other thread) has been applied to Josephus for source criticism in addition to attempts to discern what parts of his works Josephus may have written without the help of any secretaries. In neither case are syntactical irregularities, even novel, irregular, and unrepeated lexemes, used to determine whether or not a particular line or passage is interpolated.

This is why textual criticism which relies heavily on stylistic and syntactical arguments is so problematic. Novelty, especially via metaphor and metonymy, is a fundamental component of language (written or no). Especially for an author like Josephus, who is using other sources (and adapting them, proficiently or not, for inclusion in his owrk), and who often relies on help from others for his writing, even unparalleled word order can be the result of so many different things. Of course, that's not the case here, as we do have parallels, but it is important to keep in mind if your criterion when approaching a text is "pattern[s] of usage".

tanya

I had quite a different thought: having survived the siege, during the first Roman-Jewish war, would not Josephus have been fully aware of the various sectarian movements in his homeland? In particular, weren't there several distinctive groups within his own tradition, arguing for various alternatives, in confronting the Roman army, occupying Jerusalem? Isn't it likely, that he knew VERY WELL, all of the disparate factions, alive and functioning at that time in Galilee?

Didn't "anointed" have a very specific meaning to Josephus? Wasn't he appointed governor of Palestine, and therefore, perhaps, anointed, himself?

It seems odd, to me, to imagine someone who had been to Rome, had the ear of the Emperor, had survived assassination attempts, had been a leader of the Jews, had been a military commander of distinction, had fought the Romans, and had access to all kinds of information not available to the general public, should have been stymied by the concept of Jesus of Nazareth, supposedly "anointed", sixty years before Josephus put quill to papyrus.

Christians intend this word to mean, anointed by God. That, however, was not the common usage of the day, in the era when Josephus ruled Palestine, as governor. In those days, no one argued that Hercules had been anointed by Zeus. No. He had been anointed by the people, for his heroism. I believe Josephus would have known of that distinction.


I acknowledge not yet understanding "Markedness", but, to emphasize just how far away I am, from comprehending LegionOnomaMoi's argument, I had thought, upon reading the title of this thread, that it had something to do with the gospel of Mark.

I regret being unable to comprehend the linguistic challenges here.

Ignoring, for the moment, the notion that the entire phrase/sentence found in Josephus, represents interpolation, I would ask a very mundane question, regarding word order in Syriac/Aramaic, since that would have been the language of Josephus:

Is there in that Semitic language, unlike Greek, apparently, a convention, strictly followed, for writing clearly, (i.e. not limited to "patronymics").

In English, Japanese, and Chinese, to pick three completely unrelated languages, the word order is quite specific (and distinctive):

English:
xyz (family relation) abc, TITLE of abc.
Here is Mary, mother of tanya, the leader of the gang of rebels.

Koine Greek: xyz (family relation) abc, TITLE of abc (same as English)
Is it possible, that in Syriac, Aramaic, this word order is reversed?

(family relation) abc, TITLE of abc, xyz
Japanese:
xyz, TITLE of abc, abc (family relation)
kare wa, mary, shinkeiseiri gakusha tanya san no okasan desu.

Iskander

The use of “linguistics” in this forum is an example of the use of hegemony.

Linguistic gibberish automatically replaces excellent existing translations to smother rational discussion and to pretend high academic standards.

LegionOnomaMoi

You clearly have no idea what that word means, do you?

1) Spin introduced the term. All I did was first ask him to defend his usage, and then when he couldn't, provided an explanation of the term.
2) Translations have nothing to do with this. You can't say that the word order in a translation somehow shows that a given line in a text is an interpolation. That's seems so blatantly obvious I have trouble understanding how you can possibly think you're statement has anything to it at all.