FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-06-2006, 07:38 PM   #101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson View Post
I appreciate the effort you've taken to bring this matter to Carrier's attention, but, since Carrier is a member of IIDB, I think it would be best to dispense with the middle-man who is condensing both our arguments. My web posts are not long nor overly technical for someone of Carrier's education, so I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be dealing with them directly rather than through an intermediary, where things can get garbled.

Nevertheless, I'll try to address some of Carrier's remarks in this less than ideal medium.
JW:
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:
Originally Posted by Carrier
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Earlier in this thread, however, I argued against the genitive absolute being chronological in Luke 2:2. I suppose this is another reason why Carrier should be joining the discussion on IIDB rather than meditating his analysis through a proxy.
JW:
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
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 07:38 PM   #102
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
The following is a critique of Stephen's argument for "Foremost" for 2:2@

Hypotyposeis

I've learned in this Thread that all of Stephen's claims need to be checked and that every time Richard Carrier has disagreed with Stephen on this issue Richard Carrier has been right. So for some of the following I'll merely provide Richard Carrier's related comments without checking it for myself.

Stephen has not organized his argument or even explicitly identified his key points (or significantly dealt with all of the arguments I presented here for a translation of "first). Therefore, I've gone through Stephen's Blog and picked out what I think he would consider to be his best arguments:
Joseph,

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
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 08:16 PM   #103
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW
The following is a critique of Stephen's argument for "Foremost" for 2:2@

Hypotyposeis

I've learned in this Thread that all of Stephen's claims need to be checked and that every time Richard Carrier has disagreed with Stephen on this issue Richard Carrier has been right. So for some of the following I'll merely provide Richard Carrier's related comments without checking it for myself.

Stephen has not organized his argument or even explicitly identified his key points (or significantly dealt with all of the arguments I presented here for a translation of "first). Therefore, I've gone through Stephen's Blog and picked out what I think he would consider to be his best arguments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Joseph,
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.
Jeff
JW:
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.
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 09:48 PM   #104
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
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.
If you "have not condensed anything for Richard Carrier," then what did you mean when you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
Therefore, I've gone through Stephen's Blog and picked out what I think he would consider to be his best arguments:
And why did you not clarify this point for Jeffrey when he specifically asked you about it?

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 09:50 PM   #105
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
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?
Nope. I just want to know what it was that Richard was responding to. Was it or was it not your own summary of (with some selected quotes from) all that Stephen has written on Lk. 2:2?

I'd be grateful for a direct answer to this question.

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 07:33 AM   #106
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
If you "have not condensed anything for Richard Carrier," then what did you mean when you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JW
Therefore, I've gone through Stephen's Blog and picked out what I think he would consider to be his best arguments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
And why did you not clarify this point for Jeffrey when he specifically asked you about it?
JW:
I can see what I have to look forward to here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW (emphasis added)
I've learned in this Thread that all of Stephen's claims need to be checked and that every time Richard Carrier has disagreed with Stephen on this issue Richard Carrier has been right. So for some of the following I'll merely provide Richard Carrier's related comments without checking it for myself.

Stephen has not organized his argument or even explicitly identified his key points (or significantly dealt with all of the arguments I presented here for a translation of "first). Therefore, I've gone through Stephen's Blog and picked out what I think he would consider to be his best arguments:
JW:
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
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 07:41 AM   #107
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
Nope. I just want to know what it was that Richard was responding to. Was it or was it not your own summary of (with some selected quotes from) all that Stephen has written on Lk. 2:2?
I'd be grateful for a direct answer to this question.
Jeff
JW:
Okay, but first:

How do you keep a protes TRIMALAKA in suspense?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 08:12 AM   #108
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
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.
That's why your debate-by-proxy idea (though well-intentioned, I'm sure) is doomed to frustration. You won't even tell us what you told Carrier.

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 09-08-2006, 07:21 AM   #109
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson View Post
That's why your debate-by-proxy idea (though well-intentioned, I'm sure) is doomed to frustration. You won't even tell us what you told Carrier.
JW:
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:
Originally Posted by JW
I have not condensed anything for Richard Carrier. I referred him to your Blog and that was the basis for his critique.
JW:
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:
Originally Posted by Carrier
"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)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Again, Carrier appears to be a victim of the condensation, and Carrier's claim of "no such rule" is a case in point. I don't expect Carrier (nor anyone else) to have memorized every rule of grammar in Smyth, which is why I tend to cite the rules I apply. In this case, I had cited Smyth section 1178, which I now quote:

1178. οὗτος, ὅδε, ἐκεῖνος sometimes omit the article.

a. Regularly, when the noun is in the predicate: αὕτη ἔστω ἱκανὴ ἀπολογίᾱ let this be a sufficient defence P. A. 24 b, οἶμαι ἐμὴν ταύτην πατρίδα εἶναι I think this is my native country X. A. 4. 8. 4.

Because Carrier still seemed unaware of a rule that Smyth called "regularly," the inference most favorable to Carrier's critique is that my citation of Smyth must not have been in the condensation of my case he was presented with.
JW:
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
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 09-08-2006, 07:39 AM   #110
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW
What other reason could Stephen have for reading 2:2 with Rosary tinted contacts? Does "Luke's" infancy Narrative sound like she was concerned with not Contradicting "Matthew's"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Because it explains how Luke could know Matthew without suggesting the infancy was interpolated. It helps a Mark without Q reconstruction.
JW:
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
JoeWallack is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.