spin

Stephan, I haven't asked you to convince me. You can easily ignore me. I'm just trying to state my observations and interact with what you are saying by attempting to clarify.

I don't know after that introduction if you'll welcome anything I might say.

aa5874

I don't think you understand my position.

My conclusion is Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 with Jesus who was called Christ is a massive forgery but my position is NOT based on "linguistics".

"Linguistics" resolves NOTHING, that is, Josephus or an interpolator could have written AJ 20.9.1.

"Linguistics" is a hopeless MYOPIC analysis.

Now, there is an abundance of evidence that show Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 with Jesus who was called Christ is a blatant forgery.

1. The writer called Origen made claims about James and Jesus that was supposed to be in Antiquities of the Jews that cannot be found at all.

Those things could NOT have magically appeared and then vanished without a trace.

The writings of Origen is EVIDENCE that AJ 20.9.1 was manipulated.

2. The same writer Origen that made references to James and Jesus in Josephus still simultaneously claimed Jesus was FATHERED Ghost.

3. The same Origen who ARGUED Against the writings of Celsus that claimed Jesus was a man WITH a human father FAILED to make any arguments AGAINST the writings of Josephus who supposedly DEPICTED Jesus as an ordinary man in AJ 20.9.1

4. Celsus ARGUED that Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father yet Celsus FAILED to use Josephus to ARGUE that Jesus was human.

5. Apologetic Sources that mentioned James and Jesus in Josephus also claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

6. In Dialogue with Trypho, there is NO statement that Jews had claimed Jesus who was called Christ had already come.

7. There are NO DATED actual NT manuscripts from the 1st century or before c 70 CE with a Jesus who was called Christ.

8. There are NO DATED non-apologetic sources with a Jesus story from the 1st century.

9. Joesephus, Suetonius and Tacitus all claimed that it was predicted in Hebrew Scripture that Messianic rulers would come at around c 70 CE.

10. Joesphus declared that Vespasian was the Predicted Messianic ruler in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4. and CORROBORATED by Suetonius and Tacitus.

11. In the short-ending gMark, the long-ending gMark, gMatthew, and Luke Jesus was NOT called Christ by the Jews.

The phrase Who was called Christ does NOT belong to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

It would appear that the phrase the brother of Jesus whose name was James may be the likely original.

LegionOnomaMoi

Right.


Comparable how? Why can't we colorfully "bracket" it differently?

[Αντιοχος] [ο( Σελευκου )αδελφος]

And at least this has the support of an actual IE specialist (in one of the most comprehensive analysis available): Brugmann (vol. 2 part 2.). Well, not the "bracketing" but the the notion that the structure is equivalent to a preposed genitive. But I'm sure you have loads of linguistic analysis of...something...to back up your constituent analysis.

The problem here is you keep using words and you don't appear to know what they mean: "marked", "preposed", etc.
Not at all. That's why I think the "structuralist"/transformationalist approach (constituent combinatorics) is completely inadequate. In fact, if you actually used it correctly, I would agree with most of an application of Dik's grammar or similar functionalist models. But applying your markedness theory only up to the point where it is inconvenient, and then utterly abandoning not just the theory, but the entire linguistic framework in favor of one so utterly in opposition just because then it becomes convenient for you is intellectually dishonest and indefensible, especially for someone who so enjoys tirades against the "hegemony" whose epistomologies are so "lacking" or whatever.

You are so consistent in your critique of those who use "shit" methods, but somehow when it comes to your own ad hoc amateur use of a colorful mix of half-developed linguistic models...well, I guess "shit" methods aren't a problem anymore.

spin

LegionOnomaMoi has fallen on his face over his attack on comments of mine below.

I would not have thought that anything above was particularly strange. However, it would seem that LegionOnomaMoi has decided to totally ignore the word "usually" in the statement and go for the jugular because two examples out of ten (17.220 & 18.31 are separate examples) below have a postposed genitive rather than a preposed genitive, such that it must be that eight out of ten doesn't represent "usually".

Listen to this hollow rubbish:

"You do realize that these aren't preposed genitives, right?" (This is after quoting the first two examples below of which one was clearly preposed. It would seem that LegionOnomaMoi just doesn't understand what he is talking about.)

"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" (Talking about irony!)

LegionOnomaMoi also comments

I have already indicated that I attempted to clarify things to the reader who doesn't necessarily understand what is talked about in parts of this discussion. It was in this context that I supplied a "jargon buster" to make clear to other readers what "preposed" meant. For some reason he has taken this as me going "out of [my]way to correct" him. Far from it, I was merely elucidating a technical notion that was being used.

Either he was confused or he was trolling. Given the following comment, I'm inclined to think that he is trolling.

And this is a gem:

This guy so falls over himself in his self-righteous assholery that he can't be bothered to read what is actually said, as he clutches his six gun ready to shoot.

LegionOnomaMoi

I addressed the issue of "called Christ" quite seperately, in response to Toto.


Because saying someone is known as/called X doesn't really matter.
This too was already addressed in an article in the 30s. Not very well, mind you, but just as convincingly as your own argument (and using much the same methodology). Perhaps it was there, and was removed for being to contentious (something like, according to Eisler, Jesus called Christ "who under pilate stirred up the masses to rebellion and prevented them from paything the taxes"). Personally, I doubt it was there at all, and Eisler's argument is pure speculation based on nothing other than, well, the same thing yours is: guessing.

In the end, what we have is a line in Josephus, which is almost utterly foreign to christianity (so foreign that scribes and those who quoted Matt. 1:16 actually altered it) in 6+ centuries of documented christian writings, from letters to edicts to histories.

You are assuming quite a bit about Josephus' readers without any basis (not to mention Josephus).

How on earth does that follow?


There's no indication that Origen didn't. In fact, his wording suggests that he absolutely did. The only reason you give for denying he did seems to be that he attributes to Josephus conclusions Josephus never intended. How that is atypical of a the patristic authors...


Yes, and it could have referred to "Jesus the one called Doherty." Only we have no reason to think so. Every line in every text could be, or could be part of, an interpolation or alteration. Your basis for thinking this one is seems to be simply that it is inconvenient for your "neither god nor man" hypothesis. Also, if this were the brother of Jesus of Damneus, it seems odd that someone with such connections that they replaced the high priest couldn't prevent the execution of his brother. Given the strength of familial ties, the fact that the brother of the next high priest could be executed so easily is rather unlikely.

stephan huller

How could I hate one of the only intelligent people at the forum? No I like you very much and welcome discussing and listening to what you have to say. Happy times.

LegionOnomaMoi

Only it isn't "eight out of ten". At best, it's 7 (the article? Kind of important if you want to use an underlying preposed genitive structure to defend your uses where you lead with a nominative). Now, why on earth would you say:
And immediately follow your "for example" with a postposed genitive? That was your first one. You just finished saying what Josephus usually does, you are giving us examples, but you decide just for the hell of it to lead with one that isn't an example at all? Or are you covering your ass (again)? And then, out of your 10 examples, at most only 7 are preposed.
Hoo boy. You keep forgetting about that pesky little article. There's all the difference in the world between antiochos ho ...adelphos (or the genitive equivalent) and no article corresponding to the head at all. Now, if you want to argue that in 13.222 the article is meant to go with the kinship term, that's one thing. But then why did you put it in italics?

That's the same excuse you used for your bullshit "bracketing":I don't quite see how your colorful bracketing there, just so you could claim that some crap about "structural analogues" are somehow "helpful" other than that they can mislead someone. Wait...that's not helpful at all...

Right. I've noticed you didn't respond to where Cohen says anything about syntax, or refer to anything to support your "structural" analysis, or do anything refer to anything to support your utter misuse of markedness.


Thank you. I thought so myself.

Interesting, coming from someone steadily dropping their each and every defense. From Cohen and his nonexistant comments on "syntax" to your entire basis for commenting on Josephus (markedness), now you are left defending the fact that not all of your examples of preposed structures were actually postposed (and this wasn't a mistake on your part, despite the fact that you actually led with a counter-example. All part of your ingenius plan). And not once, despite post after post after post, have you referred to anything other than a dissertation on biblical hebrew to defend any part of your analysis. At best you've claimed that my references are somehow inapplicable (but biblical hebrew is? And don't bother to say that you were just using it to illustrate markedness, because the author actually uses it correctly; he doesn't suddenly abandon it because he finds a "marked" structure he can't make up a reason for).

thief of fire

Well then why do you keep avoiding the questions. If you wanted to be clear then you would explain and answer questions. Why did you avoid the questions about your reference to Cohen, if you wanted to be clear and help you audience.

This is a very educational thread. One can learn a lot, if one follows the references. I have already gone to the effort to obtain papers referened by LegionOmonaMoi in his discussions here, to try and learn. He leaves a very clear trail for someone interested in learning. I appreciate that.

I'm also interested in learning why you believe what you believe but you keep avoiding. You keep avoiding explaining what you mean be markedness and you keep avoiding explaining why you imagine Cohen is any help to you.

So rather than say how much you wish to help the reader why not do something and deal with it rather that avoid. This is not some religious forum where we are asked to take things on faith.
Is that too much to ask?

spin

We have seen that there is nothing comparable to the word order of "the brother of Jesus called christ James by name" in the context of 20.200. LegionOnomaMoi has attempted one giant bait and switch to cover the fact that he has no reason to see the phrase as reflective of Josephus's syntax. He merely plead foul when obvious issues are pointed to which affect the word order. He has shown no similar forms in the conditions and cannot explain the form other than through sad attempts at misrepresentation. We are left with a phrase that doesn't fit the range of examples of similar statements in half of AJ (in fact I've finished 3/4 without a comparable example). No observed examples of an identification as brother reflect the form found in 20.200.

I don't consider LegionOnomaMoi capable of dealing with the issue. He has consistently smokescreened through this thread with non-stop ad hominem in lieu of dealing with the problem of the word order of 20.200. He responds "problem, what problem?" followed by his incessant bait and switch maneuvers. One cannot expect anything better from him, given his intent to act as an inerrant knight in the lists championing the undertrodden minions with his conservative christian interpretations.

:horsecrap:

The quibbling about seven examples I supplied just helps to underline his unwillingness to read what is written. Blathering about italics because I accidentally included an article or two is as petty as we can expect. And for some strange reason this guy just hates it when I attempt to clarify stuff for other readers.

spin

I worked under the assumption that Cohen had something to do in the discourse. LegionOnomaMoi later indicated that this was not true. He has nothing to do with the syntax in 20.200. It was just noise from LegionOnomaMoi about Josephus's inconsitencies.

He's no help to the discussion, as LegionOnomaMoi has demonstrated. He is irrelevant to the word order issue.

What do you have in mind exactly?