Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 To use the noun BASILEUS "in reference" to Archelaus is not the same thing as declaring that Basileus was a title that anyone (including Jospehus) attributed to Archelaus , let alone that he bore and was known by.

Once you accept that basileus can be used for Archelaus and/or Antipas as ethnarch or tetrarch the burden of proof that a particular singular usage is "wrong" is on the accuser. That is the "fallback" position I mentioned above. If you want to take it fine .. however please do so in a straightforward manner, since you are the accuser of the NT text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 On what grammatical grounds can you justify that the expression actually means more than "was made ruler", especially in the light of the use of equivalent expressions in, say Polybius Hist 2.2.11.2; 3.106.2.3?

Every time you show that basileus is commonly used for becoming a ruler you have conceded the position that basileus has a wide usage. You are showing the wider semantical range that is given in the NT that was originally not considered on this thread. Again the case would then fall upon the accuser to say that "basileus means supreme ruler in these cases .. but cannot mean it in those". And that is your potential fallback position but it is not one that anybody has taken up to this point. As the accuser of the NT text, of Mark and Matthew, you are welcome to present the new argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 But the problem here is that Josephus does no such thing. And where do any NT writers refer to an EQNARCHS as a BASILIEUS??

The phrase should more accurately have been "NT writers and Josephus referring to a Roman ethnarch or tetrarch as a basileus". That you for the correction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Are you now saying that the title EQNARCHS was (or was believed in the first century to be) interchangeable with the title TETRARCHS, let alone that they were viewed as the same office???

Nope. See above.

They are both offices that are supreme rulers, could be called basileus in various context, and neither was the official Roman title.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 What claim? In case you didn't notice, I asked a question (which by the way, you dodged answering), and a question is not a claim, let alone a straw man claim!

And in case you didn't notice I never said that Josephus in the discourse refers to "only" kings.
Your strawman was to say that I did when you wrote ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 does the Greek of Josephus 17. 354 actually state, as you are here claiming it does, that the "discourse" Josephus refers to there concerned only kings?

eg. nobody except Jeffrey Gibson would strawman assume that a wife would not be included in the section based on what I had actually written.

Especially since I didn't write "only", the word that Jeffrey emphasizes again and again. Which I had already pointed out.

"Now since I didn't put "only" in the English there is no need
to go to the Greek. Context is basileus."

And I showed the summary from Josephus. Why don't you simplify
the matter and tell us what kings you say he was discoursing about.
Why play games with the forum when we have his summary of the
discourse right in front of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 If so, then what becomes of your claim that Josephus can be used as an instance that is on par with Matt. 14 and Mk. 6 where, as Luke recognized, BASILEUS is used in the technical Roman sense to show that Matthew and Mark were correct in calling Antipas "king"?

You will have to unpack this and try again.

You are welcome to give actual scholar claims about "fatigue".
Since I consider the whole shebang as of minimal interest
I will simply point out that -

a) I accept the NT text as given
b) And each book as deliberate and thoughtfully written by its author

And claims of theoretical supposed non-redactions start
with a presumption of worthlessness. Ergo I don't chase
them down to see how various claims compare one to
another. If somebody posts something substantive from
a scholar that is germane I will read it with some interest
and see how they get from A to Z.

Such non-redaction claims are about as worthwhile as the
interpolation claims that are made against all manuscript
and patristic evidence.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

praxeus for some reason totally ignores the fact I never refer to a person called "Luke", but to a work called "Luke" or to the "Lucan writer", ie the writer of "Luke". Doh! Getting irate over the sour fruits of his own bad assumptions, seems to be grief badly spent.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Spin barely makes one point in his normal nothing post, and one of his usual nothings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I guess it means nothing that Matt got rid of basileus three times. And that the last time is already noted in another case of fatigue.

This is typical spin manipulation. Matthew simply does not give the conversation that quoted Herod in two of the cases (the words quoted from Herod in Mark 6:22 and 6:25). To presume Matthew "got rid" of one word in a phrase he simply did not give is scholastic stupidity. Perhaps spin is presuming that Matthew omitted the whole sentence from Herod because of the title ? Pretty dense. Typical spin junque.

And if Matthew included those words it is very possible he would have used king (if he used any title) since that is what he used in Matthew 14:9. The closest point in the narrative of the murderous dance to the two sentences he omitted. However we do not know for sure. In the big picture Matthew used tetrarch and king interchangeably in Matthew 14.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin You showed nothing of the kind. WHat you showed was your incapacity to demonstrate your silly claim about the interchangeability of "tetrarch" and "king". It took the efforts of Joe Wallack to find one dubious example relating Archelaus to kingship.

Actually there are two quotes.

Anyway, we can take this as a defacto admission from spin that he did not know about the actual Josephus usages at the time of his original false accusation against Mark and Matthew. Oops. And I already thanked Joe.

It is one of the better aspects of email and web forums that folks can actually contribute information and share, iron sharpening iron, tin sharpening spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I want you to justify your silly interchangeability claim. This is what you said: "I already showed about that historically the two words were often used interchangably totally negating your presumption that one method is "preferred".

spin is going way back in the thread, and I have spoken about "interchangeable" many times since then. The context is basileus. Matthew uses tetrarch and king interchangeably as noted above. Josephus refers to the ethnarch as a basileus (and the emperor as well, and possibly even Cyrenius the governor). I discussed how tetrarch is a subset of the generic usage of basileus as supreme ruler. And how a subset usage can be interchangeable, giving the Nancy Pelosi example. And more. My original statement from many posts ago was easily misunderstood and an overstatement that has long been qualified and refined, as above.

The bottom line here should be noted carefully.

spin and Jeffrey Gibson are out on a limb with a false accusation against the NT texts of Mark and Matthew. spin especially relies on Josephus for his accusations and .. oops .. JW showed that Josephus ends up giving the NT support on the issue. spin also uses his own convoluted non-redaction theories which are simply a waste of time. In contrast Gibson will play word-parse and strawman and other games till the cows come home. Although Jeffrey is welcome to try to reformulate his own accusation against the NT text. If Jeffrey word-parses and strawmans and plays other games without a specific accusation (he who accuses must assert) on the table then we know he is suffering his usual case of Gibsonitis.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Leaving aside the matter of whether your conclusion follows from your premises, the whole point here is that we have no reason to accept that basileus can be used for Archelaus and/or Antipas as ethnarch or tetrarch. You have never yet provided any evidence that this was ever done.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is any primary evidence apart from the "data" in Matthew and Mark that anyone who was a TETRARCHS was ever also called BASILEUS.

The issue is also whether you have misquoted and misrepresented the "learned" commentators you have appealed to in order to claim that there is. Will you please provide the actual words of Fergus Millar that show him saying what you claimed he has said? Why have you continued to refuse to fulfill this request?

And I never said you did. But you did implicitly claim that what the summary of Book 18 says the focus and concern of Book 18 was was solely "kings".

Please show me where I said you wrote "only".

Um, as my producing the actual text of Josephus shows, you did not show the summary of Josephus, but only portions of it, and in such a way as to skew what this summary actually says.

Are you actually saying you "showed" us the whole of the summary of this section of Book 18 and that you didn't leave out sections of the summary in your "showing" of it?

Why, instead of this dodge, don't you answer the question that I asked you?

To wit:

Does the Greek of Josephus 17. 354 actually state, as you are here claiming it does, that the "discourse" Josephus refers to there [is] concerned only [with] kings?

I'm not the one playing games. And the only person who has provided the whole of the summary is me, not you.

Once more, here's the text of that summary. I've underlined what you've quoted. I've left not underlined what you left out of what you quoted.

εγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἀλλότρια νομίσαs αὐτὰ τω δε τω λόγw εἶναι διὰ τὸ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων αὐτὸν ἐνεστηκέναi καὶ ἄλλωs ἐπὶ παραδείγματι φέρειν τοῦ τε ἀμφὶ τὰs ψυχὰs ἀθανασίαs ἐμφεροῦs καὶ τοῦ θείου προμηθείʹ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια περιειληφότοs τῆ αὐτοῦ, καλῶs ἔχειν ἐνόμισα εἰπεῖν. ὅτώ δὲ ἀπιστεῖται τὰ τοιάδε γνώμηs ὀνινάμενοs τῆs ἑαυτοῦ κλυμα οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο τώ ἐπ' ἀρετὴν αὐτω προστιθεμένώ. τῆs δ' ἀρχελάου χώραs ὑποτελοῦs προσνεμηθείσηs τῆ σύρων πέμπεται κυρίνιοs ὑπὸ καίσαροs ἀνὴρ ὑπατικὸs ἀποτιμησόμενόs τε τὰ ἐν συρί καὶ τὸν αρχελάου ἀποδωσόμε νοs οἶκον.

So I ask, do you deny that you "gave" only a portion of it?

And I ask again: does the Greek of Ant. 17. 344 -- especially καὶ ἄλλωs ἐπὶ παραδείγματι φέρειν τοῦ τε ἀμφὶ τὰs ψυχὰs ἀθανασίαs ἐμφεροῦs καὶ τοῦ θείου προμηθείʹ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια περιειληφότοs τῆ αὐτοῦ, καλῶs ἔχειν ἐνόμισα εἰπεῖν -- actually state that the "discourse" Josephus refers to there [is] concerned only [with] kings?.

JG

jgibson000

Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about.

Could you please give primary evidence that anyone -- especially those who bore them -- ever thought that the offices of EQHNARCHS and TETRARCHS made those who bore these titles and were in these offices "supreme rulers: or invested them with "supreme" authority?

Did Luke think so?

JG

spin

In fact there was one point: his previous post was a total waste of time.

Now he goes back to previous comments of mine...
Typically hot air doesn't change much. We are left with the fact that Matt got rid of three references to tetrarch (as can be seen in post #334 of this thread).

That's why he felt the need to change the first reference in Mark of "king" to "tetrarch" and leave out two others.

He didn't read the analysis.

He still hasn't parsed the one citation he's trying to depend on.

In order for him to see that he cannot squirm crab-like from the original error, as he later tries to do.

He must like the mantra. Wrong, but appealing, right?

Out of several hundred usages of basileus in Josephus praxeus has been provided with one possible contender to demonstrate his ridiculous claim that baslieus and "tetrarch" were "interchangeable".

Is this some garbled reference to hgemoneuw, "to rule", in Luke 2:2 and 3:1 and hgemonia, "reign", in the latter? If not, I don't get much out of this statement.


spin

Steven Avery

And without the Josephus diversions (since Luke was way before Josephus anyway) I agree that this is quite important. To understand exactly how and why the Quirinius date and taxing is perceived by the high priest Theophilus and others involved gives insight to the Lukan narrative. The very first actual Roman taxing came to fruition ("was first made") under Quirinius with the earlier registration having not been taken to the point of a Roman-controlled oppressive taxation. Which, as you intimate above, led to the rebellions and the 70 AD. destruction. The Quirinius enterprise was indeed the moment of which all would be aware, the "beginning of the end".

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Once again assuming what needs to be demonstrated.


spin

Steven Avery

Supreme, top, rulers over their region, their subjects. Of course they were underneath Rome in the bigger picture.

Clearly to Luke and all believers the true supreme ruler is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

The New Testament and the Josephus references and the general usages of basileus that you mentioned and perhaps the Cicero reference.

Josephus says essentially .. I am talking of the kings (rulers) of the region .. and then refers specifically Cyrenius, Archelaus, Caesar. You want to turn around and say that although they are referred to generically as kings it is impossible to actually call them kings as rulers. This simply doesn't make sense and would imply a very restricted semantic range that would have to be demonstrated and has not been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is any primary evidence apart from the "data" in Matthew and Mark that anyone who was a TETRARCHS was ever also called BASILEUS.

And why is that the issue? By Gibson fiat ?

The issue is that the folks on this forum were making a totally false claim that a technical non-Roman-title-king like a tetrarch could not and should not be referred to as a basileus, and that Mark and Matthew had erred in so doing.. That was shown to be false so now you have set up a transparently artificial standard instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 And I never said you did. But you did implicitly claim that what the summary of Book 18 says the focus and concern of Book 18 was was solely "kings".

You are amazing, Jeffrey. You are still hoisted on your own petard of trying to claim that I was calling Glaphyra or Mariamne a king. Such nonsense.

And again, who are the "kings" to whom Josephus is referring ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 [Please show me where I said you wrote "only".

Here is what you wrote.

"does the Greek of Josephus 17. 354 actually state, as you are here claiming it does, that the "discourse" Josephus refers to there concerned only kings?"

Obviously you are out on a limb. Why not simply acknowledge that you read your own confusions into what I wrote. Only an idiot would think from what I actually wrote that Glaphyra or Mariamne was also a king, yet you belabor such a confusion because you got caught.

Now, Jeffrey, why don't you tell us what kings Josephus was in fact referring to ? That is simple and should not require any Greek. Can you communicate clearly and simply and responsively in English ?

Also in this regard what is your exact accusation against the New Testament texts of Mark and Matthew ? Please state it clearly. Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery