Rick Sumner

Heh. I must confess that I don't read his posts as a general rule in the first place. Though this might be due to my own shortcomings, since I rarely understand what he's saying.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

JoeWallack

JW:
And as far as Rating Rick I don't remember him ever writing anything of substance here so I don't have any good basis to rate him on. I do find myself usually disagreeing with him although there have been a few times where the Moderators seemed to gang up on Rick (I suppose they would call it "disagreeing with Rick at the same time") and Rick stood up for himself, which I admired. I think for the most part Rick's participation in this Thread is Typical for him, Insignificant commentary on comments that are Insignificant to an OP in the first place.

I now leave Jeff and Rick to that "Special Room" in the snobby Fraternity house with Rhafsenjani, Mahmoud and Chili.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Argument Why "First" is the Likely Translation for 2:2 with Key Points in order of importance:

1) Lexicon = The offending word has a Root and Primary meaning of "First".

- The Secondary meaning of "foremost" is a common one although unlike
"first", it's not always the specific secondary meaning. Obviously by
itself the Lexicon is not determinative of the meaning of a specific
usage but is useful when other determinants are ambiguous.

Raymond Brown, on page 395 of The Birth Of The Messiah,
specifically discusses the word meaning in connection with attempts to
defend against Lukan Dating error and says, "The last two translations,
which are further attempts to preserve Lucan accuracy, involve
translating protes, which normally means "first," as equivalent to the
comparative proteros, "earlier than," or to proteron or pro, "before". (For
objections to this, see Ogg, "Quirinius," 233.)"

Thus without any Textual Markers indicating Context or with ambiguous
Textual Markers, the Default translation is "First".


2) Usage = "Luke" normally uses the word to mean "first".

- I count 16 meanings of "first" without 2:2 and two of "foremost". Note
that in Luke's two uses of "foremost", 15:22 and 19:47, the
construction is a simple combination of adjective next to common noun
which gives the appearance of an idiom.


3) Communication Logic =

"This was the Foremost registration while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The argument for Translating "foremost" here is "Luke" wanted to distinguish between the Census of Quirinius and the Census Joseph responded to. If this was "Luke's" motivation than using a word with a Primary meaning of "first", with a normal grammatical construction of "first", that the author normally uses to mean "first" would be a very poor choice to describe the Census that you want to Communicate Was Not First!. There are other Greek words to Communicate "most important". And of course what reason could "Luke" possibly have to try and avoid using an Equivocal word here who's primary meaning is the opposite of what "Luke" wished to communicate since it only helps establish the Date of Jesus' birth. I mean it's not like it was an important date or anything.


4) Textual Marker = "while Quirinius was ruling Syria" = Chronological context. Stephen has yet to provide an example of "Foremost" translation with a Chronological Textual Marker. Even if he finds one it is still only one. Why don't there appear to be any? Because an author would use other words to indicate "most important" to avoid this problem.

Further, the Absolute Superlative, "Foremost", would not be used to describe the Census which is the primary Subject here, the one Joseph responded to, but the Census it's being compared to. Since the Point of an absolute superlative is to emphasize, it would be normal to simply use it for your main subject. This type of Indirect usage of an absolute superlative sounds a little Sophisticated for Koine Greek. Another Textual Marker indicating "First".
Stephen also needs to find an example of this usage.

Another Textual Marker is that "Luke" seems to give a Chronological Marker for each significant Event in the Infancy Narrative, The Birth of John the Baptist, the Birth of Jesus and the Baptism of Jesus that includes the Ruler of Judea at the time.

The final Textual Marker is in Acts 5:37 where "Luke" refers back to 2:2 by saying "the census" and using very similar surrounding descriptive language.


5) Early Witness Testimony = Understanding of "First".

Justin Martyr, The Gospel Of Pseudo-Matthew, Diatessaron, and Emperor Julian are all evidence that Early Christianity understood 2:2 as "First" and there is no good evidence of an early understanding of "foremost".

Regarding the value of Early Christian opinion to me, an unbeliever, I wouldn't necessarily give it that much weight by itself, but to Stephen, a believer, it should have some weight.


6) "First" is the Simpler, more straight-forward translation as opposed to "foremost". If the other evidence is ambiguous than the Simpler Translation should be Preferred. A translation of "foremost" would create a Digression at 2:2, a later census that was unnecessary for the narrative. "Luke" does not appear to have any such unnecessary digressions in the Infancy narrative as a whole and the problem with arguing that "Luke's" incentive here was to avoid confusion on the part of Readers who were familiar with Quirinius census of Judea, is that "Luke's" audience was Likely not familiar with Judea in general or with a census in Judea held 70-100 years earlier.

"First" makes 2:2 a Direct sentence while "Foremost" makes it Indirect.

Raymond Brown comments to the effect that if it wasn't for "Matthew" no one would dispute the "first" translation.


7) Josephus = A translation of "First" makes 2:2 closer to "Luke's" likely Source, Josephus. Josephus provides multiple references indicating the First and Notorious Roman census in Judea was when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.


8) Appeal to Authority = Every translation I Am aware of has "First".



JW:
Christ Walken, what do you think?

Christ:
Wooww!

JW:
Here's my argument than Stephen as to why "First" is Likely for 2:2. It has to be better than your argument at this point because you don't have an argument. Just a few assertions at different places on your Blog that don't consider the related problems. It's not necessary but just to be complete I'll summarize your assertions here later (since you haven't).



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page[/QUOTE]

JoeWallack

JW:
The following is a critique of Stephen's argument for "Foremost" for 2:2@

Hypotyposeis

I've learned in this Thread that all of Stephen's claims need to be checked and that every time Richard Carrier has disagreed with Stephen on this issue Richard Carrier has been right. So for some of the following I'll merely provide Richard Carrier's related comments without checking it for myself.

Stephen has not organized his argument or even explicitly identified his key points (or significantly dealt with all of the arguments I presented here for a translation of "first). Therefore, I've gone through Stephen's Blog and picked out what I think he would consider to be his best arguments:

Stephen:
"Nevertheless, the standard interpretion still leaves me cold with a number of problems, the chief among them is why would Luke specify that it was πρώτη ("first"). If Luke merely wanted to tell when the registration happened, presumably under Quirinius (c. AD 6), there is little need to use πρώτη. What does that word do for the text? Of course, the census under Quirinius was hugely important. Josephus had recognized it as as a major factor ultimately leading to the Jewish War in the 60s. In fact, this census is so important that Luke could merely refer to it in Acts 5:37 as "the census" τῆς ἀπογραφῆς."

JW:
Let's look at the offending verses:

Luke 2:1-2

"Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.
This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

What the word does for the text is Emphasize. “First” indicates this was the first census for Judea and the first of more than one census for Judea. This was the start of the Roman census system in Judea. It's strange for Stephen to even claim this issue as support for "foremost" as "foremost" creates mention of a census that is unecessary for the narrative and therefore a much bigger digression.

Ironically, I agree with Stephen that this is his "best" evidence here. But for a different reason . For this to be the best evidence for "foremost" is pretty weak considering all the evidence I have for "first".


Stephen:
"Another problem for me is the rather weak rendering of ἐγένετο as "was." It seems that ἦν would do a better job."

JW:
Richard Carrier:
"Carlson also seems unaware of the ubiquitous use of egeneto as a form of "be." He seems to think "was" is a "weak" translation of this verb when in fact it's a common one, especially when used in a chronological sense (e.g. Luke 1:5, 2:13, 4:25, etc.; or Luke 1:8, 1:23, 1:41, 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, etc.). In fact, this connotation of the verb appears over a hundred times in Luke-Acts alone, so I don't understand why he thinks it peculiar."


Stephen:
"I think that it is a parenthetical digression to the effect that, though Joseph's travel to Bethlehem was occasioned by Augustus's decree (i.e. the registration of 8 BC), the most important registration from Augustus's policies was the one that took place when Quirinius was governor (and that led to the revolts in Galilee). Thus Luke is distinguishing the registration that Joseph obeyed from that most prominent one in AD 6, not confusing it.
The reason this parenthetical would have been important is the view that Josephus published in his books on the Jewish War in 75 or so and in his Jewish Antiquities around 93, identifying the AD 6 census as a major cause of the Jewish War sixty years later. Since I date the composition of Luke to be quite a few years after 70, it is only natural that Luke would want to mention it, even if it was not the census Joseph was responding to."

JW:
Luke’s audience probably wouldn’t have known much about the history of Judea let alone the Quirinius census in Judea 70-100 years earlier. Besides, if "Luke's" audience was familiar with Josephus than they would know there was no earlier census in Judea than Quirinius'.


Stephen:
"So how should αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο of the critical text in Luke 2:2 be parsed?
Without the definite article ἡ, the subject of the clause should simply be the demonstrative αὕτη and the predicate is ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο. The noun phrase ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη is anarthrous (lacking an article) and πρώτη follows the noun, making it an absolute superlative; see Smyth § 1085:
§1085. The superlative expresses either the highest degree of a quality (the relative superlative: ὁ σοφώτατος ἀνήρ the wisest man) or a very high degree of a quality (the absolute superlative, which does not take the article: ἀνὴρ σοφώτατος a very wise man). The relative superlative is followed by the genitive of the person or thing surpassed (1315, 1434). On the agreement, see 1050.
It is interesting how the two main senses of πρώτη interact with being a relative or an absolute superlative. The sense of being first in time etc. would almost certainly be expressed by a relative superlative, while the sense of being foremost or prominent could be either absolute (e.g., a most important person) or relative (e.g., the most important person). Looking at occurrences of πρῶτος and πρώτη in the New Testament, it appears to me that all (other) instances of this word as an absolute superlative (including Mark 12:28 ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων; and Eph. 6:2 ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ which I had cited earlier) has the sense of being foremost, prominent, or important, not being first in a chronological or other sequential sense. Thus, from a grammatical perspective, it is increasingly clear to me that taking πρώτη in the sense of being prominent for Luke 2:2 is not only plausible, but probable."

JW:
Richard Carrier:
"Carlson commits other gaffs in "Parsing Luke 2:2" (2004), incorrectly claiming that without a definite article the intensifier hautê becomes the subject and apographê prôtê becomes the predicate, but there is no such rule. In Greek, it could be read that way, or the reverse (hautê apographê the subject and prôtê the predicate), or neither (hautê apographê prôtê as subject with no predicate). Moreover, in Koine Greek, articles are often omitted, hence Carlson is incorrect to cite its absence as a reason to reject an attributive or predicate position for the intensifying pronoun (just see Luke 20:42, 24:15; or Acts 15:32, 20:34). In fact, such a usage could even serve as an intensified definite article (e.g. Luke 1:35)."


JW:
And while I Am attic, why not throw the whole kitchen sink at Stephen:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke (5th ed., 2006)

"[10.6] This is attempted by Stephen Carlson, "Luke 2:2 and the Census" (2004). Carlson incorrectly identifies the preposition en as an adverb in Ephesians 6:2, although that may simply have been a slip. More seriously, Carlson falsely claims Ephesians 6:2 shares the same structure as Luke 2:2, but they aren't even close: there is no prepositional clause following protê in Luke 2:2 but instead a verb followed by a genitive absolute. The prepositional phrase in Ephesians establishes the context of comparison as conceptual rather than chronological, whereas the genitive absolute in Luke establishes the context as chronological rather than conceptual (it reads as when Quirinius was governing Syria). Carlson is thus ignoring contextual markers. Carlson also seems unaware of the ubiquitous use of egeneto as a form of "be." He seems to think "was" is a "weak" translation of this verb when in fact it's a common one, especially when used in a chronological sense (e.g. Luke 1:5, 2:13, 4:25, etc.; or Luke 1:8, 1:23, 1:41, 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, etc.). In fact, this connotation of the verb appears over a hundred times in Luke-Acts alone, so I don't understand why he thinks it peculiar. Carlson also repeats the mistake of citing an example of the genitive of comparison (Mark 12:28) as a parallel for Luke 2:2, which cannot be a genitive of comparison, thus eliminating any relevant parallel.
Carlson commits other gaffs in "Parsing Luke 2:2" (2004), incorrectly claiming that without a definite article the intensifier hautê becomes the subject and apographê prôtê becomes the predicate, but there is no such rule. In Greek, it could be read that way, or the reverse (hautê apographê the subject and prôtê the predicate), or neither (hautê apographê prôtê as subject with no predicate). Moreover, in Koine Greek, articles are often omitted, hence Carlson is incorrect to cite its absence as a reason to reject an attributive or predicate position for the intensifying pronoun (just see Luke 20:42, 24:15; or Acts 15:32, 20:34). In fact, such a usage could even serve as an intensified definite article (e.g. Luke 1:35). Carlson also incorrectly thinks he can cite an Attic author (Thucydides) to establish an idiom for a Koine author (Luke), even though these dialects often differ in their use of articles and intensifying pronouns."


JW:
Oh, and by The Way Jeff, thanks. You were a big help.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

If not the proper translation of 2.2 (which seems to be the main theme of these many posts), then what?

As usual, you have made some good points. (And, also as usual, you have thrown in some real puzzlers. ) I am still inclined to regard this whole thing as a Lucan mistake, though there are better arguments on the other side than you seem to credit.

I find it interesting that, when Carrier disputes the need to translate γινομαι in a stronger sense, he includes examples in which γινομαι can be effortlessly read as bearing just such a sense (of changing states, not merely of being), such as in Luke 4.25. For the record, however, I think that γινομαι does indeed sometimes simply mean to be, and little or no more than that.

As for the term apologist... you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Asked and answered (by your last sentence).

JW:
Isn't it Likely that "Luke's" Infancy Narrative ἐγένετο as a result of a Theological birth rather than a Historical birth? The question is was Jesus born Great, did he achieve Greatness or did he have Greatness thrust upon him?

There's a Great scene in Batman Begins where the Oracle says to Baruch Wayne, First son of Gethlehem, "It's not Who you are. You are defined by What you do." So too, "Mark's" Jesus is not defined by Who he is, he's like a Higher Plane drifter in a Kugel Western who just shows up out of nowhere with no Past. "Mark's" Jesus is defined by What he does. Serve others (he literally does not have the Power to Save himself -Gethsemane). That's why you can't find the Resurrection Glory you keep looking for in "Mark". It's not there. "Mark's" Jesus' Glory was on the Cross and not in the Resurrection. Compare to "Luke" who sez Jesus was born Great. Doesn't really work with the Jesus rejected in Nazareth story, does it?

Stephen's argument is that based on a Grammatically impossible translation of "foremost" "Luke" is referring to a census that there is no evidence for and we have no reason to believe took place. Stephen makes no attempt to provide any evidence that this unknown, improbable census took place because of the evidence from an Impossible translation. Accordingly, I've placed this at the bottom of my rating of related Apologies.

"though there are better arguments on the other side than you seem to credit". Yea, not that easy to identify a specific one. So what's the best one Ben?

Regarding "Lucan mistake" if you read the related Professional Commentary the thinking on both sides (Skeptic/Believer) is that "Luke" is more Plausible and "Matthew" is more Contrived.

JW:
Oh Ben, Carrier was pointing out that it's often used in a Chronological context.

JW:
What other reason could Stephen have for reading 2:2 with Rosary tinted contacts? Does "Luke's" infancy Narrative sound like she was concerned with not Contradicting "Matthew's"?



Joseph

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

Rick Sumner

Because it explains how Luke could know Matthew without suggesting the infancy was interpolated. It helps a Mark without Q reconstruction.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

Yes.

Carrier wrote (emphasis mine):

Carlson also seems unaware of the ubiquitous use of egeneto as a form of "be." He seems to think "was" is a "weak" translation of this verb when in fact it's a common one, especially when used in a chronological sense (e.g. Luke 1:5, 2:13, 4:25, etc.; or Luke 1:8, 1:23, 1:41, 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, etc.).

Several of those references seem better taken (and are often translated) as happened or came (about) or appeared than as a simple was.

Again, however, I am not disputing that this verb can be a simple connective.

While speculating as to the motives of someone whom I have never even met in person is foolhardy, there are numerous hypothetical reasons one might defend the historicity of a notorious passage. One of those would be the reputation that would follow from having proven the mass of critics wrong. Another is that one might simply think it is the correct reading.

I think you assign your own favorite motive far too quickly.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

I appreciate the effort you've taken to bring this matter to Carrier's attention, but, since Carrier is a member of IIDB, I think it would be best to dispense with the middle-man who is condensing both our arguments. My web posts are not long nor overly technical for someone of Carrier's education, so I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be dealing with them directly rather than through an intermediary, where things can get garbled.

Nevertheless, I'll try to address some of Carrier's remarks in this less than ideal medium.

I am puzzled as to why Carrier would think I'm unaware of something I had called the "standard translation" nor why Carrier would ignore the evidence I cited in favor of my position that it is a weak one. Perhaps, it wasn't so clear in the condensation of my case that was given to Carrier.

Again, Carrier appears to be a victim of the condensation, and Carrier's claim of "no such rule" is a case in point. I don't expect Carrier (nor anyone else) to have memorized every rule of grammar in Smyth, which is why I tend to cite the rules I apply. In this case, I had cited Smyth section 1178, which I now quote:

1178. οὗτος, ὅδε, ἐκεῖνος sometimes omit the article.

a. Regularly, when the noun is in the predicate: αὕτη ἔστω ἱκανὴ ἀπολογίᾱ let this be a sufficient defence P. A. 24 b, οἶμαι ἐμὴν ταύτην πατρίδα εἶναι I think this is my native country X. A. 4. 8. 4.

Because Carrier still seemed unaware of a rule that Smyth called "regularly," the inference most favorable to Carrier's critique is that my citation of Smyth must not have been in the condensation of my case he was presented with.

Carrier's counter-evidence, on the other hand, is irrelevant to the point at issue. Here we are dealing with the demonstrative οὗτος, not the intensive αὖτος nor the article ὁ. The syntax of these words is very different.

Looks like a slip from here too. Thanks.

I wrote "very similar" not "same" as Carrier characterizes it. Whether πρώτη is followed by a prepositional clause or a genitive absolute is immaterial to the grammatical point about the identification of the subject and predicate.

Earlier in this thread, however, I argued against the genitive absolute being chronological in Luke 2:2. I suppose this is another reason why Carrier should be joining the discussion on IIDB rather than meditating his analysis through a proxy.


Mark 12:28 was cited for the lexical scope of πρώτη, not for the different, syntactic issue of the genitive of comparison. In fact, I had explicitly argued against the genitive of comparison proposal:

The difficulties in Luke 2:2 have led to a number of proposals, but many are worse than the text they are trying to interpret. In particular, I disagree with the attempt to read πρώτη as a comparative ("before" or "earlier") followed by a genitive of comparison to get something like "before Quirinius was governing Syria" because Κυρηνίου has to be the subject of a genitive absolute ἡγεμονεύοντος.

In sum, I appreciate the effort Carrier has made into critiquing my argument, but, unfortuately, the exercise (aside from one typo he found, thanks) has not been productive as I hoped, because the counter-evidence to his points had already been cited in the posts themselves or on this thread. The best explanation for this lackluster critique is that Carrier seems to have relied on a condensation that omits the full case, such that Carrier had been ill-served by this indirect exchange of views.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

That is certainly a bonus. It also lessens the distance between Luke and Josephus in exploring their intertextual relationships. But ultimately, it reflects what I think Luke is trying to say here.

Stephen