Toto

I'm just the moderator here. I know that Richard Carrier has academic credentials in this area and I suspect used many sources for what he wrote on KATA. I know that he has in the past retracted things he has written when he has decided that he was wrong. I know that he is concerned about his reputation.

I don't read what he wrote about KATA as being necessarily inconsistent with the LSJ. He spoke about "common usage" and you are talking about "range of meaning."

I think you owe him the courtesy of allowing him to answer your concerns.

jgibson000

Yes. But surely you have an opinion on the matter.

OK. But since LSJ is regarded by those in Academia as one of the sources (if not (next to BAGD/BDAG) the starndard source, that anyone working in Greek would consult (indeed, would have to consult -- or risk the correct charge that one has not done one's homework), do you suspect that LSJ was one of them?

Then that is another reason -- beyond the evidence found by comparing what Richard said on KATA as wellas the way Richard says it with what we find in the LSJ entry -- forsaying that he did consult it. No classicist worried about his reputation would ever think of not doing so.

I didn't ask you whether you thought that what Carrier wrote on KATA was inconsistent with what is in LSJ. I aksed you whether you thought that Carrier used LSJ as the source for what he said.t

I agree -- and I never said otherwise. Nor have I done anything to prevent him from having his own say on the matter

But since this particular question is being addressed to you and is about what you think, how about you giving me the courtesy that you say I owe Richard?

So I ask again, do you think that LSJ is the source for what Richard says about KATA?

Or to put this another way: I think that the LSJ entry on KATA is the sole source, and basis for, the remarks he made on KATA in his review of Dorherty. I even think he deirived a great dealof his wording of those remarks from LSJ. Do you think I'm wrong? If so, why?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

He didn't identify it and he is the only one who can.

I asked before and obtained no reply but could you be more specific about what you are claiming Carrier has neglected? Like Toto, I just don't see what you think justifies the accusation.

GakuseiDon

If that is now deemed to be a mythicist belief, then maybe so.

TedH, you've raised some good points, but I'm afraid I'm just not interested in this topic at this stage. I appreciate the effort you put into it, so I apologise. I'll reproduce your conclusion here, with the link to your full article:

Toto

No thanks. I have no information to add to the question. I think that Richard Carrier will be replying to you at some point.

Clivedurdle

I thought Josephus was quoting a doctrine - he does not have to confirm his agreement to it.

jgibson000

Why should he? And so what if he didn't? Does someone not identifying what his/her source is negate the fact that he/she used a source or that the source was a particular one?

You mean if I hear someone say "to be or not to be, that is the question, whether it is nobler, etc. .." , that I and/or no one else except the speaker can event identify or be right or have any clear idea about what the source of that saying is?

Please do not confuse "identify" with "confirm an identification".

You don't? (and by the way, Toto has actually prescinded from any judgemnt on whether or not I have justification for what I have said. So an appeal to him as someone who is your counterpart in this matter is unwarranted here).

Before I go on, and to make sure I'm not misunderstood when I reply and appeal to the text of (and the Greek within) the LSJ entry on KATA, may I ask if you read/understand Greek? And if so, at what level?

Jeffrey

rlogan

It is pretty clear it is not an example of Josephus using the term to describe something himself - merely reporting what others believe - and why you insist on using it as a response to my point is a mystery.

It is not an example responsive to my observation, period. So please stop responding to me personally with your point that is not addressed to what I have said.


It isn't Josephus' own words and the case is closed - so again please stop coming back to me and making some other irrelevant point.

Please, Ted - what's the big deal? I was happy to look at this. I have an open mind. But it isn't an example contrary to what I said and so you need to just drop it insofar as any interaction with me on it is concerned.

Maybe you would like to use this passage as evidence of something different for others here. Fine. but could you do me the courtesy of not addressing me with points indended for others?

Thanks.

Amaleq13

If he had, you would not have to speculate about his source.

No, it just means you have to speculate about the identity of the source.

A direct quote of a very familiar piece of literature does not seem at all analogous.

I'm not but I don't see how you can claim you've identified his source unless you confirm that identification and there can be no question that the most reliable way to do so would be to ask the guy. Polling the opinions of the forum membership seems to me like a really poor way to accomplish the goal.

I wouldn't have asked (twice) it if I didn't.

I don't care what else Toto has said. I'm in agreement with the above statement. It is not an "appeal" but simply an observation that I am not alone in my confusion. Please ignore it rather than indulge in pedantic lecturing.

I'm just asking you to highlight what you consider to be the specifically relevant portions of the large quote you offered. That's it.

In answer to your question, you must have missed this earlier post of mine.

jgibson000

It's one way. But it has it's limitations.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But consider the following, where I've placed Carrier's words in bold and those taken from the LSJ entry on KATA in italics, and then let me know whether you think my claim that Carrier's source for his claims about KATA (and KATA SARKA) is LSJ, is not without merit.

Jeffrey

kata with the accusative literally means "down" or "down to" and implies motion

of motion downwards

usually over or through its object

motion, on, over, throughout

hence it literally reads "down through flesh" or "down to flesh" or even "towards flesh.


of direction towards an object or purpose

It very frequently, by extension, means "at" or "in the region of,"

in the region of

"It only takes on the sense "in accordance with" in reference to fitness or conformity via using kata as "down to" a purpose"

of fitness or conformity, in accordance with

of direction towards an object or purpose

I have only seen it mean "according to" when followed by a cited author (e.g. "according to Euripedes,"

in quotations, according to, kat' Aischulon Ar.Th.134 ; k. Pindaron Pl.Phdr.227b , etc.

The word kata can also have a comparative meaning, "corresponding with, after the fashion of,"

in Comparisons, corresponding with, after the fashion of