LegionOnomaMoi

I saw your post. And I noted your exception about famous persons. That would apply here. Additionally, I already addressed hyperbaton in Greek in general (including when it comes to kin terms) as well as the change in address during the Roman period. Furthermore, this kind of prenominal modification is dicussed extensively by Bakker (The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek), chapters 3 and 6. For example, in discussing prenominal modification early on he gives some simple examples such as Herodotus 2.981.1, in which the town Anthylla is mentioned regarding its reputation for having provided shoes to the consort of the Egyptian king. Literally, the line reads that the city gave "of the reigning king of Egypt the consort her shoes" rather than gave "the consort of the reigning king her shoed". Bakker specifically states "modifiers may be prenominal if the author wants to stress the importance or relevance of the information expressed by the modifier. In the case of a genitive or possessive, the preposition of the modifier may indicate that the exact nature of the relation between the referent of the genitive/possessive and the referent of the head noun is less relevant than the fact that a relation exists. A comparison of some examples of modifier-noun and noun-modifier orderings giving expression to interpersonal relationships will illustrate the difference between the two options." (p.46). On p. 231, he provides a table of all reference specifying modifiers broken down by type (adjective, adverb, genitive, numeral, participle, prepositional phrase, possesive, and relative clause) and by position (prenominal or postnominal). In every type of modification, with the exception of relative clause, there were more prenominal than postnominal modifiers. With the genitive in particular, things can get odd, for example Herodotus 3.63.4 lit. "the magi are the rebels, both the one left being a steward of your house Patizeithes and the of him brother Smerdis" rather than "the rebels are the Magi, Patizeithes the one left stewarding/guarding your house and his brother Smerdis." And more than once we find a person identified by referent first, and name last, e.g. Hdt. 2.141.1 "and the next one to rule was the priest of Hephaistos, the name to hom Sethos" (his name was Sethos).

In fact, the very idea of using word-order in Greek to make an argument is often quite problematic, as Helena Kurzová makes clear in her paper "Morphological semantics and syntax in the non-formalized sentence structure of Greek" (in In the footsepts of Raphael Kühner): "Since syntactic relations are separately and repeatedly marked on all words- nouns, adjectives, and verbs in attributive and predicate syntagms-, the non-contigous position of noun-adjective and noun-verb is not only possible, but regular in Greek. Thus, adjectives and participles may be appositionally added to the head noun and seperated from it by other words not belonging to the syntagm...And it is this same quality which was observed by Aristotle when he argued that a Greek sentence in simple, continuous, non-periodical style had no beginning and no end." Also, "Word order transformations do not form a well-organized paradigmactical system either...The projectivity of syntax onto word order is very low in Greek, due to several factors: the pragmatic motivations connected with the functional sentence perspective, which is already multidimensional in itself, are complicated by the non-contiguity as a result of the periodical sentence structure and the positional frames." She concludes "In a language like Greek where even the syntactic structure of the sentence is non-formalized and non-explicity, where much is left to be understood on the basis of semantics, we cannot expect any rigid rules, ready to be formalized..."

Grog

So your argument seems to be that 1) Paul learned about the life of Jesus during 15 days with Peter. They were not talking about the weather. 2) Paul chose to disregard all of that and maintain that he learned his Gospel from no man. 3) Paul studiously avoids mentioning everything he learned from Peter and asserted that Peter knew of Jesus in exactly the same way that he, Paul, did: through revelation.

Is that right? I think 1) might be tentative because we can't say for sure, but we would think they might have discussed Jesus, that being their only (as far as I can tell) shared interest. Maybe they were both Manchester United fans?

spin

Yet still you claimed falsely, "Only my argument is supported by Josephus' own word order elsewhere".

This is one of those examples of standing on your own shoulders to get a better view. The whole historical Jesus farce is based on Jesus not being famous. Crock of shit.

And so you are supposed to be justifying the marked word order in Josephus.

This is text wall, pure and simple. If you want to deal with the issue of word order in Josephus, you need to look at, ummm,... Josephus. Good luck there, LegionOnomaMoi.

LegionOnomaMoi

No. My argument is that Doherty's claim about what evidence we have concerning Paul's opportunity to learn about an earthly Jesus is incorrect. It is certainly true that we can't plausibly explain his visit with Peter as just an informal friendly visit, but rather a time spent learning from him. However, there is no direct evidence in Galatians or elsewhere that what he learned there was anything about the Jesus tradition. In fact, it is unlikely (IMO) that even if he did learn teachings of Jesus then, that this is all he learned.

In any case, if Jesus did have an earthly existence, and Peter was his head disciple, Paul would have every reason to downplay Peter's importance, Peter's relationship with Jesus, and at the same time focus on the "good news" of Christ as revelation, which was all he could claim to have direct access to.


Papyri evidence suggests that Peter was, but according to p32b, Paul may have been a Leeds United supporter. The evidence is unclear because of lacunae in the manuscript.

James The Least

Given all the astrological references in the texts, I think Paul and Peter were talking about the weather for 15 days.

LegionOnomaMoi

Because it did. You assert that the fact that the same James was introduced far earlier licenses the different introduction here, but profer no reason for this conclusion. And it seems others don't share your appraisal: "The uneven method of introducing and re-introducing characters and places is particularly conspicuous in [book] V. Cestius Gallus, the governer of Syria, is mentioned first in V 23 but his title does not appear until V 30. V49 and 214 record only the name, V 347 and 373 add the title...Jesus ben Sapphia is introduced in V 134 as if he were a new character although he appeared at least once before (V 66). We meet Ananias, a member of the delegaion, in V 197, but Josephus describes him in V 290 as if for the first time. Elsewhere, too, Josephus employs this same non-technique...Judas the Galilean, the son of Ezekias is introduced twice (BJ 2.56//AJ 17.271 and BJ 2.118//AJ 18.4) Anipater the father of Herod is described as if a new character in BJ 1.180-81//AJ 14.121." p. 111

from Shayne J.D. Cohen's Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Brill Academic Publishers; 2002).

So while you seem to regard the second introduction of James as different in syntax because of a previous introduction, Cohen finds such re-introductions odd and indeed describes them as if the character being introduced has not been introduced before. So on what basis do you claim that the difference in syntax is because of a second introduction, rather than a first?

So the references to a Christ in Roman sources are also interpolations, or what?

And I did. Then you made some claim about secondary introductions, which stands in direct conflict to the analysis of Josephus quoted in which his tendency for secondary introductions has nothing to do with syntax, and as they appear to as if they are not secondary, but novel introductions, there is no reason to suppose that the syntax differs because of this.
Text wall. Why do you use that term when confronted with actual scholarship you aren't familiar with? I referred you to a comprehensive analysis of the greek noun phrase in which the syntax found in Josephus is shown to be quite unremarkable, as well as another linguistic analysis of Greek asserting that the freedom within the Greek language for structural variation is so great that "we cannot expect any rigid rules" period. So first we have Cohen against your "second introduction" argument, and then the comprehensive analyses of Greek syntax and the placement of reference modifiers. But as you appear unable to respond to either, we get the "text wall" complaint again. I suppose I should expect this by now. When are you going to start referring to me in the third person again?

spin

You seem to forget that you specifically mentioned "introduction". Ummm, I think it's wriggle time. Here we have a lengthy bout of ass-covering....

If we were dealing with a "re-introduction" in AJ 20.200 then perhaps you might be able to raise a grumble. But we aren't. Either you have a comparable introduction of a one-off mentioned figure with marked syntax or you don't.

Which Roman sources? Tacitus A.15.44? At best 2nd c. hearsay, but almost certainly a poor interpolation. What else do you have to offer? Umm, Suetonius with his reference to Chrestus in Rome?

Emperor loves new clothes.

Just on terminology, I said nothing about "secondary introductions", so stop the misrepresentation. I made no such claim. I pointed to the fact that your citation of the son of Sosa was not an introduction and I pointed you to where he was introduced. Now you are reconstructing reality to cover up.

Fasckinating. In AJ 20.200 we are not dealing with a figure who had been introduced elsewhere. Yes, yes, another bait and switch by you.

Why are you confusing scholarship with noise? The louder the noise doesn't hide the ducking and weaving. Perhaps you just didn't mean to say the erroneous statement, "In 6.92, he first introduces this James, identifying him by his father." As I indicated, Josephus did not introduce this James where you claimed, but two books earlier. Can you get that into your head? All this droning on to cover up won't change the starting fact that you fucked up.

Wriggle, wriggle. See LOM, wriggle.

LegionOnomaMoi

Because he does introduce him. The fact that he has before doesn't change anything except in your head. As Cohen points out, often times when Josephus "introduces" someone it is actually someone he already introduced. Nor does the effect on occur as you state it does:
Yet in Vita, Jesus ben Sapphia is introduced first in V 66 by Iesous ho tou Sapphia pais, with the name of the kin used to identify follows the name Jesus, yet when he is (as Cohen puts it) "introduced in V 134 as if he were a new character" we find the inverse order: ho tou Saphia pais Iesous with an article followed by the entire genitive of relation and finally the name. Now, if this order is because there is some relevant difference between introductions and re-introductions, such that it matters that the example I gave originally is a re-introduction, why on earth does Cohen describe it as if Josephus is introducing hims "as if he were a new character"? In BJ II, Judas the Galilian is first introduced with en de Sephorei tes Galilaias Ioudas hious Ezekia where the place of origin used to identify Judas precedes his name and this is followed by a further identification via his father. However, later on in 2.118 we find tis aner Galilaios Ioudas onoma where again the identification through place of origin precedes the name, and this time there is no father mentioned. Even more interesting is how Josephus "reintroduces" Judas: "a certain Galilian, Judas by name" as if he hadn't already discussed him before. Again, even though it is a technically a re-introduction, as Cohen notes here as well there is nothing to indicate that it is anything other than an introduction. So (again) what is your basis for distinguishing the two?



Then there is the variety in terms of word order/syntax in Josephan identification constructions/introductions in general. In both BJ and AJ a certain Ptolemy is twice identified by his brother, and both times his name appears last: ton adelphon Nikolaou Ptolemaion and adelphon ton Nikolaou Ptolemaion. In AJ 11.7.1 (297), we also find a certain Jesus introduced by his brother John: ἀδελφὸς ἦν τῷ Ἰωάννῃ Ἰησοῦς/"brother was to John Jesus." with the name of the person introduced again found last.

So again, given the quotation from Cohen of Josephus' tendency to "introduce" people more than once, and the wide variety in terms of word order of these introductions (and of Greek in general, such that Kurzová argues there are no hard-and-fast rules governing syntax we can use, not to mention Bakker's analysis and the frequency of prenominal referent modifiers) I ask again, what is your basis for asserting that the word order in AJ 20.200 is problematic?


As you well know, according to most Josephan scholars (Feldman, Vermes, etc.) we ARE dealing with a "re-introduction", but that hardly matters. The point Cohen makes is that these "re-introductions" appear as plain old introductions. Josephus writes as if he hasn't ever introduced the character before. So, again, what is your basis for objecting to the syntax in AJ 20.200? Can you cite any Greek specialists or Josephan scholars you are relying on for your analysis? Or are we to just take your word for it?




Yes, hearsay, but why an interpolation? And the point is not that Tacitus was relying on good information or that this is somehow evidence for a historical Jesus, but rather that he was known enough outside of Jewish and early Christian circles such that we have no good reason to think Josephus couldn't have expected his audience to know who this Jesus called Christ was (as Doherty asserted). Pliny and Tacitus both refer to this Christus and both have at least some vague knowledge of who he was thought to be, and that both Tacitus and Seutonius report persecutions of Christians by Nero (meaning that the emperor knew who these individuals were in the 60s) is good reason to think that Josephus' audience would know as well. However, if you have good reason to assert that all these references aren't just Romans who knew little about Christians and still less about this Christus, but are interpolations, I'd love to hear your evidence for that. Of course, I'm still waiting for the basis of your claim concerning Josephan syntax, so I won't hold my breath for an analysis of the roman sources.





I was referring to "the relative has already been stated part". But no matter. Again, the point still stands: what is the basis for your objection to the syntax in AJ 20.200? I've given you multiple different methods Josephus uses, where he begins with place or origin, or a brother (for Jesus, brother of John), with place and father, along with Cohen's descriptions of Josephus' tendency to "introduce" characters he has actually already introduced, such that these are no different from actual first introductions. And there is no consistency between word order and whether or not the person has already been introduced before. You have asserted that the word order is questionable, but have yet to refer to a single source by a specialist to support this claim.



You don't get it, do you? If, as Cohen argues, there is no indication in Josephus' re-introductions that they are re-introductions, and not just plain introductions, then what basis do you have for making the distinction? Why does it matter?

Is logic like kryptonite to you, or what? I don't know why you are having so much trouble with this. Let's break it down:

1) Cohen argues that Josephus often introduces a character as if he hasn't already done so
2) If these "re-introductions" appear to be plain introductions, then of necessity there can be no discernible differences between them
3) The re-introductions do not differ from the introductions. If they did, then Cohen wouldn't describe them as identical to introductions.

Conclusion: It doesn't matter if the example I gave was a re-introduction or not, because (as Cohen notes) these do not differ from introductions. I've demonstrated that not only by citing Cohen but by quotations from Josephus (including when Jesus, brother of John, is introduced with the brother preceeding Jesus). Is this sinking in yet?
The wriggling is merely due to the anticipation as I eagerly await any evidence you have for your claim.

Grog

That would help explain Antioch, at least.

spin

LegionOnomaMoi, it really doesn't matter about all the huffing and puffing you go on with after the fact, you messed up and you've just spent many hundreds of words waffling on to excuse yourself. Grow some, please.

Why do you cite Nicolaos of Damascus's brother Ptolemy as some sort of support? Or again John's brother Jesus (11.298)? John had just been mentioned (297). Pay attention and you won't waste our time. You just found the marked syntax and didn't read the passages.

Tacitus A.15.44. You asked, "why an interpolation?" Tacitus provides substantive evidence that Claudius was responsible for allowing procurators to govern provinces, yet 15.44 makes the blunder of calling Pilate a procurator. Tacitus has Nero giving his gardens for the homeless to dwell in until new housing can be arranged (15.39.2), yet 15.44 has Nero setting up festivities with christians crackling into the glowing night and him trapsing around on his chariot. Tacitus who had spend several paragraphs building up to his character assassination of Nero over the fire, but 15.44 ends it discussing the horrid treatment of the christians. The passage is a confused martyrdom story, which is unable to say what exactly the christians confessed to. After Tacitus summarized that everything that Nero did to quash the rumor that he started the fire failed, 15.44.2f tells us that Nero tried to shift the blame onto the christians, forgetting what was just said. Again this is one of those passages with so many problems that ad hoc solutions only convince the willing. The consilience of problems make ad hoc resolutions seem... well,... ad hoc excuses. (And I'm not going to argue any of this with you: you wanted to know.)

Pliny Y. is obviously no help to the cause.

What has sunk in is the lengths that you go to covering up simple blunders. Next you'll be telling me Nicolaos of Damascus was not famous or that preposed placenames are relevant to the syntax of 20.200. Oops, sorry you basically did the last.

I really don't understand why you are taking diehard rabid apologetic positions on things. Why are you defending the syntax under discussion in 20.200, when it is clearly marked and there is no reason to expect the markedness? You have looked for counter-evidence and come up wanting. So is this an exercise in showing that you're a good boy and standing on the shoulders of giants? You're here at a skeptic site and all you've done here is defend the status quo. Surely your task is to test it rather than defend it.