mountainman

Look out LM spin moves pedantically another few microns towards the megaphone of the "Ignore Button". LOL.

But really this so-called "rebuttal to Doherty’s case for the mythicist argument" has demonstrated no sound knowledge of the mythicist arguments, and specifically those addressed at the cold hard evidence itself. I have to agree with Earl on this and repeat this rebuttal sounds like the defence of a personal hegemony.

That's cool. I can live with that. But you need either see and discuss the cold hard "myth" evidence and/or admit your personal hegemony is patently unrelated to it. The concept of negative evidence is critical to understanding certain aspects of the "myth" evidence. Most people seek the positive evidence that supports their claims. It is natural.

However critical and skeptical examination insists that we also examine the negative evidence against these claims, in an objective [non hegemonic] manner.

LegionOnomaMoi

You mean, according to both the structure and context you have defined. Not backed by any actual theory of linguistics, just your opinion, which was particularly amusing when you claimed the following:
The author "links" the characters by somehow dividing one character from the others not only by a large number of unnecessary words, but an introduction so syntactically convoluted he has to introduce an entirely seperate clause just to finish his "pragmatic" solution to this introdcution.

But more importantly, make up your mind: are you going to apply markedness theory here, as used in the only actual reference you have given to support your use of the theory (in which case, the best you can do is attempt to come up with the reason for the marked structure; stating that the structure is "marked" and therefore questionable contradicts the entire theory you are using), or are you going to rely on your intro to transformationalist approach to structure (while refusing to back up your claims about it with references to linguistic theory)?

Wrong. I've repeatedly said that when Josephus uses the phrase "by name X" or some variant, the modifying information comes first. Rarely does this include kinship information, but when it does (such as in the examples I gave) the preposed modification tendency holds true. But rather than apply your own fucking theory (markedness) to AJ 20.200, you continually apply it (badly) to every other "marked" structure and explain why we have these marked structures, no matter how ridiculous your explanation is (you really want to argue that the verb in a subordinate clause "links" characters to the narrative despite the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with them?). What you have done is made some claim about markedness and used it in a manner which directly contradicts the single reference you've given concerning your usage.
You mean like your bullshit claim about "fame" and so forth, which you have yet to back up with a single reference, let alone show how there is any tendency in Josephus to alter word order based on either fame or previous mention? Hell, you just gave examples of nearly identical word order referring to the same people, and Josephus is FILLED with these.

In the conditions? Meaning?

Such as actual linguistics.
1) Josephus tends to put modifying information first when he uses some form of onoma
2) He ignores your ad hoc "rule" about fame or whatever, and when it comes to patronymics he simply tends to put the son first
3) In addition to your little "structural" analysis, you have been claiming all this time that AJ 20.200 is "marked". If this is true, then according to your own use of the theory you should be telling us why it is (descriptive) not why we should expect something else.

All you've done is make claims about syntax in Josephus, and backed them up with your own "bracketing" combined with your private interpretation of markedness (refuted by the single reference on the theory you've used).



According to your "bracketing" anyway. The fact that it contradicts your own use of linguistic theory is apparently unproblematic. Just like your creative ad hoc approach to transformationalism. Seriously, are you just depending on the fact that people will agree with you because they want to, and thus overlook the fact that you haven't cited a single source upon which you base any part of your linguistic analysis (apart from your biblical hebrew dissertation, which doesn't help you as the author quite clearly demonstrates how misuse markedness)?

1) Markedness isn't about "form" (that's formalist) but function. Make up your mind
2) Josephus tends to rely on patronymics. There are barely any uses of identifcation by brother with which to compare.



Right. You led with a counter-example to your own point deliberately. Just like you referenced Cohen about syntax which he doesn't discussed, and used markedness prescriptively.

You should really stick to correcting my spelling. I make plenty of mistakes there. Linguistics I know.

tanya

Is that correct? Why couldn't our extant copy of Origen have been manipulated, too--i.e. both Origen, and Josephus? If I had been Constantine, I would have left no stone unturned, and I doubt he did, either. This was a guy who could dispatch folks to Hades, (including his wife, and son) with a nod of his head, is it really so far fetched to imagine his instruction to "clean up" the new state religion?

If I have understood this exchange with spin, and I am not certain that I have, you are suggesting that since Paul is self appointed, whereas Matthew was presumably appointed by Jesus, that therefore, it is peculiar for Matthew (1:16) to employ λεγομενος in describing Jesus as Christ?

Your tete a tete there, was a tad too terse for tanya. Maybe everyone else on the forum, followed the discussion, if so, fine, need not bother to elaborate. Probably just my obtuseness. When I read Matthew 1:16, what I observe is a verse focused on MARY (and Joseph), not Jesus. Therefore, to me, there is nothing peculiar about writing, "who is called Christ".

Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας ἐξ ἧς ἐγέννηθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός

as opposed to Jesus who is called jones, or smith, or whoever. It is a narrative focused not on Jesus, but on MARY.

But why, given the lowly status of females, especially in semitic cultures, and in those days a couple thousand years ago?

Does anyone know Matthew's mother? Josephus' mother? Paul's mother?
BUT WE KNOW THE MOTHER OF HERACLES!!!!

and, in my opinion, you can strengthen that argument, by showing how Josephus accomplished the same "support" for other "storyboards". I assume that Josephus' text represents either:

accurate historical narrative;

political propaganda;

interpolated nonsense.

I don't understand why Josephus would have written something deliberately misleading, obtuse, arcane, or plain wrong. Was he tortured, or threatened?

Every participant on this forum is intelligent.
Some folks, but not all, are also WELL EDUCATED.

I may, or may not be "intelligent", as you would define that term, but I do acknowledge being inadequately educated. Most of us, on this forum, understand that we are all, to varying degrees, still seeking to improve our knowledge base, and become "more intelligent". There are very few forum members, who arrived on planet earth, omniscient. You may be one of the chosen ones....who knows?

Duvduv

It's interesting to note that there are TWO aspects to the apostleship of "Paul." One is that he was not an apostle through the earthly Christ and second, that he was to be an apostle to the gentiles who he had been persecuting for only a very short time if he had the revelation only a couple of years after the crucifixion.

Yet he acknowledges that others were in Christ BEFORE HIM and yet there was nothing wrong with their Christianity even if they became Christians only by those who knew an earthly Christ, AND YET Galatians insists on the truth ONLY of his gospel of the risen Christ which ostensibly has its superiority by virtue of not being from men.

I guess the authors never bothered to iron out this contradiction. Indeed no one else in the epistles or Acts who he associates with is deemed to not be in Christ as long as they get along with him So is a revelation from the risen Christ superior or not? He never says. And of course in neither Acts nor Galatians does an author ever explain what exactly made the content of his gospel of the Christ better than earthly gospels of his actual opponents or logically even of others who were not his opponents !

maryhelena

This is what you wrote:



Perhaps you need to edit your original statement?

Duvduv

Imagine anyone commenting on the story of a savior who gets no discussion at all as to what that means in context. So it's just a little interpolation to tell readers merely that this Christ was known to exist in the first century, rather than about his greatness, which is not as important overall as providing "testimony" that he was a historical figure in the first century.

maryhelena

tanya - I made a suggestion re an alternative way in which to approach the Josephan texts that relate to the gospel JC story. I don't think this thread is the place to investigate that suggestion as its main focus is linguistics.

Threads related to questions regarding Josephus:


PUTTING JOSEPHUS IN THE DOCK
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=312405


Was John the Baptist a historical figure spilit from Mythicist Position

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=289562

aa5874

That was my predicted outcome of the "linguistic" experiment. It was a combination of "shit" methods and "self righteous assholery".

Please, cut the crap.

Let us do history. Let us examine writings of antiquity.

1. Not even the supposed Jesus publicly called himself Christ in the short-ending gMark, the long ending gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

2. The so-called Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples he was Christ until Peter did so in a PRIVATE conversation.

3. The so-called Jesus did NOT even want anyone to know he was Christ in the short ending gMark, the long-ending gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

In effect, the very Jesus story in the Canonised Bible contradicts Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.


Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 with Jesus who was called Christ is a most blatant forgery--even in the Bible Jesus was NOT called Christ when he was supposedly on earth.

Even the supposed Peter who PRIVATELY called Jesus the Christ PUBLICLY denied ever knowing the man.

Examine the LAST words of Peter in gMark.

Mark 14:71 KJV.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is a MASSIVE forgery which Contradicts the very Jesus story in the Canonised Bible.

Please, remember that gLuke is believed to have been written AFTER Antiquities of the Jews.

Luke 9:21 KJV

maryhelena

aa, I've got to hand it to you - you so often come up with just the right few words.......thanks - that was my one big laugh for the day ......:hysterical:

spin

Nothing comes of no thing. Speak again.

Deliberate misrepresentation is wasting your own typing time.

You are merely faking this discourse now. If you like I can write a script for a version of Parry that reflects your behavior.

Still faking reality. I pointed to the fact that "X by name" usually attaches to an immediately prior noun. Now note the word "usually". (You seem to miss out on words like "usually" and assume rock solid rules that fit your prescriptions of linguistics, often coming to silly conclusions like the botched bleed over "presposed" and "usually preposed". Remember your blunders??)

You didn't give one that resembles the structure of 20.200. Neither BJ 5.474 nor 6.387 are similar to 20.200. You don't even seem to understand what you are supposed to be looking at. 5.474 with its preposed genitive allowing normal "noun+X+by name" is structured nothing like 20.200 and 6.387 is like nothing else. Both have a τις which is not present in 20.200. They're no tangible help for your posturing at all.

More of the same contentless assertions. Now that you've used your irrelevant references about Homer (remember Viti and GN vs NG? what a red herring!), Herodotus and Cohen's difficulties with Josephus's introductions, you're running on empty.

The evidence seems to be in that Josephus usually puts the name of the person first with a brother identifier, with the known exceptions when the brother has just been mentioned or when the brother is famous! These two exceptions are often rendered by marked syntax, though not necessarily. However, the brother identifier as old information in AJ is not like AJ 20.200, but of this form: του Ηρωδου αδελφου Φασαηλης (AJ 17.257); note the difference from τον αδελφον Ιησου λεγομενου χριστου Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω. Preposed genitive attached to αδελφου vs postposed.

You can kid yourself as much as you like, but in the end you don't seem to have any way to make 20.200 fit and you can't explain the form.

Calling obvious issue "bullshit" is merely handwaving.

Context, both immediate and within a few sentences, dealing with a brother identifier.

With τις. Scratch this.

We aren't taking about patronymics. Strike two.

Wrong. The issue is that while it is marked in form, there is no apparent function for that form. Strike three.



You keep trying to con yourself. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

It's easy for you to check. Recently mentioned: you know--within the last few sentences. Fame: people like Nicolaus or Herod. Coming up with structures that look nothing like 20.200 is desperate.

Oh, wouldn't you know, bait and switch! How inventive!

Yeah, right. How the fuck do you note function without there being something to indicate it?

Utter rubbish. You're just spouting nonsense. You haven't even looked. Try AJ 18.134 which I didn't mention earlier. I've got at least a dozen relatively simple examples of identification by brother and there are lots more to be found in BJ.

Doh! Had you paid any attention at all,you'd have noted that the list was ordered according to where the reference appeared in AJ. You were too busy tripping over yourself trying to point out the error to notice your blunder.

I gave your citations more credit than they were due. They mostly turn out to be useless to you. Just the contentless cappuccino froth to go with your waffle.

Spelling just shows your lack of knowledge. Your attempts at the linguistic knight inerrant have proven to be quixotic.