Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
09-06-2006, 07:38 PM | #101 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
I Am beginning to think that I'm wasting my time with you. I have not condensed anything for Richard Carrier. I referred him to your Blog and that was the basis for his critique. Next time I talk to him I'll tell him you responded here to his criticism. Ben, I'd really appreciate it if you'd read this: Quote:
Quote:
So since at least December 2004 you understood 2:2 as having a Chronological Textual Marker: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...nd-census.html "This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria." Now, in this Thread, when it was pointed out to you, that there is a Chronological Textual Marker indicative of "first", that you Ignored, you have decided that it is not a Chronological Textual Marker after all. Well isn't that...Special? Related to this, that it is much easier to find this construction with Chronological Context than Conceptual context now counts for nothing. [sarcasm] Everything must be determined by solely by Context.[/sarcasm] And now your translation is "This registration became foremost because Quirinius was governing Syria". Congratulations Stephen, now there's no distinction between censuses. You need the Chronological Context to establish a different census. The Causal Connects and the Chronological Separates. Ya know, I was going to ask you to give me your single best evidence that "Foremost" is Probable but why don't you think protes about whether the Genetive Absolute here is Chronological or Causal and get back to me First. Maybe there's a reason why Jeff said nothing in your favor. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
|||
09-06-2006, 07:38 PM | #102 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
|
Quote:
Woukd you please be kind enough to tell me if I have read you correctly as saying above that in his comments on Stephen Carlson's claims vis a vis Lk. 2:2, Carrier is not responding directly to all of what Stephen has written on Lk. 2:2, but, instead, only to a summary of it that you provided him. Jeffrey Gibson |
|
09-06-2006, 08:16 PM | #103 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
Quote:
Don't tell me, let me guess. You want to write a Post that only criticizes Richard Carrier's critique of Stephen and has no Direct comment whatsoever about Stephen's claim that "Foremost" is Probable for 2:2? If so please make sure that it characterizes Carrier in the worst possible way. Be sure not to mention any point that Carrier is right about. If Carrier is only probably right make sure to emphasize that he is overstating his conclusion and absolutely, under no circumstances, give Carrier any benefit of the doubt and if you think the evidence might be against him on a certain point posture that it means he should not be trusted or even taken seriously. You know, just like you do with Mr. Doherty. Now go to work Pal. I think Stephen could really use the distraction about now. So let's move the Spotlight from Stephen to Carrier. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page ProteS - I thought you were boycotting me. |
||
09-06-2006, 09:48 PM | #104 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Quote:
Quote:
Stephen |
||
09-06-2006, 09:50 PM | #105 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
|
Quote:
I'd be grateful for a direct answer to this question. Jeffrey Gibson |
|
09-07-2006, 07:33 AM | #106 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can see what I have to look forward to here. Quote:
Is there some obscure Greek grammatical rule that makes you think the "he" above could refer to anyone except you (Stephen). Changing your mind about the Textual Marker of the Genitive Absolute is all kind of sudden for you. Your previous argument (the one you had until a few days ago) was all based on relatively subtle grammatical observations that I have my doubts a first century illiterate fisherman would pick up on. And I Am sure you realize that even the "Before" crowd, much larger than yours, also takes Chronological Textual Marker. I really think you need to reconsider your grammatical arguments in light of your new understanding. A good start might be a new, definite translation. Than maybe another 2 years of accepting commentary from the unqualified and or sympathetic. Until than I'd really like to avoid Devolving into a he said, you said, Jeff said, Smythe said what Doherty didn't say Type discussion of subtle Greek grammatical issues that might not be relevant to your final understanding of 2:2. But I suppose, if you insist, you can just give me your new translation that you are sure about and than I will ask you again for your best piece of evidence. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
|||||
09-07-2006, 07:41 AM | #107 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, but first: How do you keep a protes TRIMALAKA in suspense? Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
||
09-07-2006, 08:12 AM | #108 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Quote:
Stephen |
|
09-08-2006, 07:21 AM | #109 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've embarrassed you here but now you're making it even worse. You are stuck on posturing that I won't tell you what I told Carrier and that his critique must have been based on what I told him but I've already Explicitly told you: Quote:
This was my reference to Carrier's critique: " 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: It Links to Carrier's featured online article and identifies two of your related Blogs, "Luke 2:2 and the Census" (2004) and "Parsing Luke 2:2" (2004), which are linked to Carrier's online article. For you to continue to posture that Carrier's critique can not be based on his reading of your Blogs but must be based on a summary I gave him which I am refusing to tell you about can only be categorized as you are ...[Mods, can I use the "L" word?]. What in God's name makes you think I even need Carrier here to demonstrate you are wrong about "foremost". I provided all the evidence for "First" that you Ignored. I've made you change your understanding from Chronological to Causal. And I've put you in a situation where you won't even give your current translation or what you think is your best evidence for "foremost". Regarding your response to Carrier that you think is so good it must mean that he didn't read your whole Blog let's take the following for example: Quote:
Quote:
I can already tell you how it would play out. You're going to argue that it's a "rule" because it's mentioned in a Grammar book. Carrier's going to argue that it's not a "rule" because it's not always the case and he provided contra-examples (that you ignored). So the conversation will go something like this: Stephen: Normally I try not to get involved with Absolutes that are Possessed. Carrier: Do you want this Body of evidence? Stephen: Actually, it's more of a Guideline than a Rule. JW: You summarized with: "In sum, I appreciate the effort Carrier has made into critiquing my argument, but, unfortuately, the exercise (aside from one typo he found, thanks)" Just off the top of my head you also didn't respond to his "Thucydides" observation. So pick your best piece of evidence for "foremost" and let's discuss it here. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
|||||
09-08-2006, 07:39 AM | #110 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, you are definitely interested. I have to Confess that I Am looking for every possible chance to re-use the "Rosary tinted contacts" phrase but let me also indulge you. I'm guessing at your meaning Rick but my guess is you are saying that a "Foremost" translation is evidence that "Luke" was familiar with "Matthew's" Infancy Narrative and deliberately used "foremost" to distinguish the Quirinius' census and avoid indicating a much different birth date than what "Matthew" indicated? Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|