maryhelena

All Josephus is stating in this quotation is that applying predictions, prophecies, to the Jews only, was not sufficient. These prophecies could be applied to the Gentiles as well - as in Vespasian. That is the simple reading of this quotation. Applying a prediction to Vespasian, to the Gentiles, did not mean these predictions, could not be applied also to the Jews. Josephus is seeking inclusion not exclusion. And that is the NT story is it not?

As to Josephus and Jewish messianic ideas - Josephus had already played his hand re Agrippa I.

Josephus has used the Joseph story with his account of Agrippa I.

Genesis 41: 41-46

So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck……Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Ant. book 18 ch.6 (re Agrippa I)

“I think it fit to declare to thee the prediction of the gods. It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power, and thou wilt be envied by all……”

“However, there did not many days pass ere he sent for him to his house, and had him shaved, and made him change his raiment; after which he put a diadem upon his head, and appointed him to be king of the tetrarchy of Philip. He also gave him the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and changed his iron chain for a golden one of equal weight.”

Daniel 9: 25

..to restore and rebuild Jerusalem….

Ant. book 19 ch.7 (re Agrippa I)

“As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, “…….

Numbers 24:17

I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A sceptre shall rise from Israel,

Ant.book 19 ch.8 (re Agrippa I)

…”he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature”.
---------------

Josephus was having it both ways - prophecies applied to Jews and to Gentiles.

Josephus is as much interested in messianic ideas re Agrippa I as he is regarding Vespasian. Sure, one man's messiah figure is another man's messianic pretender (as in freedom fighters and terrorists). All in the eye of the beholder...

Methinks, Earl, using the Josephan reference to Vespasian is not going to help your position re "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" , problem...

Also worth keeping in mind that Antiquities was written around 95 c.e. - long after Vespasian was dead. Using "called Christ" for another historical figure - or a figurative symbolic figure - is quite in order. 'Christ' is not a once off title or designation. Don't box in its application...

DCHindley

Or Spin, who usually pounces on any such misstatement ...

I just wanted to illustrate for those who watch from the shadows exactly how similar and dissimilar the three passages are. So many statements are bandied about without demonstrating them, that the average lurker looses track, then interest. Believe me, I'm not after you are anything.

LegionOnomaMoi

I went over your "pragmatic solution" in some detail. You conveniently failed to respond to any of it, but to the nice little summary you suddenly can respond? Maybe you'd like to go back and address where I actually responded to your "pragmatic solution" in detail.


You are pretty adept at creative writing, so I've no doubt. I'd prefer, however, that you write a post defending your use of markedness or your use of constituent analysis which uses some reference to actual linguistic theory, rather than your own bullshit.

Why is it that "usually" and "descriptive" work for you in every case EXCEPT AJ 20.200? I have no problem with "usually" as I'm not the one asserting that there is any strict rules Josephus is following. That's you. It's all very flexible for you until we see 20.200. Then all of this "usually" and "flexibility" suddenly disappears along with your creativity when it comes to "pragmatic solutions."

Yes. And noting your crap bit about preposed wasn't one of them.

That's because your structural analysis is bullshit. You are using a functionalist theory, but conflating it with a constituent analysis (which divides structure according a methodology you apparently invented) in order to determine functional "analogues" to AJ 20.200. Make up your mind: do you want to go with a functionalist analysis or not?

There are plenty of functional analogues to AJ 20.200. There are numerous times where Josephus puts the identifying information first, and follows with the name. In particular, this happens when he uses onoma. Now, as far as any functional analysis goes, the variability in precise consituent structure wouldn't matter, as the point would be function.

And what is similar to them? From the formalist analysis you used to compare them to 20.200?


Normal? Normally the entire "function" of "tis" with "by name" is when we don't have something like a patronymic. Here we do. Additionally, normal "preposed genitives" are only preposed to the kinship term, not the name. That's anything but normal for Josephus. Yet there it is.

Right. As long as you conflate function and form in the manner you do, thus disregarding your own linguistic framework (well, the one you claim to be using anyway).

τον αδελφον Ιησου λεγομενου χριστου Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω
the brother of Jesus called christ by the name of James

τις Θεβουθει παις Ιησους ονομα
a certain (of Thebuthi) boy, named Jesus

Now, from a functional perspective we can "bracket" the functional components of these identifying constructions:

[Identifying information] [Name+onoma]
That's the function of both 20.200, and from a functional perspective the order of "identifying info" followed by the actual [onoma and name] component is the schema josephus adheres to. The more we break up this basic schema, the more we suddenly find more and more unique methods Josephus uses. Where else, for example, does Josephus combine a preposed patonymic genitive with "tis" followed by [actual name + onoma]? Nowhere. Even more irregular is BJ 6.387. In fact, if we try to use your constituent (formalist) analysis functionally, oddly enough it fails over and over again (perhaps that's why functionalist don't use structural analyses based on generative theories, however poorly understood?)

But when we look at AJ 20.200 from an actual functionalist approach, we find plenty of parallels, each different in certain ways which would matter if we were concerned with identifying constituents, but if that were the case, then we wouldn't be concerned with the words at all, simply how they could be reordered.

BJ 1.181 τούτῳ γήμαντι [γυναῖκα τῶν ἐπισήμων ἐξ Ἀραβίας] [Κύπρον τοὔνομα]
"to this man [Antipater] was married a woman of those distinguished of Arabs, whose name was Cyprus.

Here, as with James in AJ 20.200, Cyprus is secondary to the narrative, where the focus is on her husband. So we are given all the information about her first, followed by "whose name was Cyprus".

We find the same thing in BJ 1.241

πρότερον μὲν γὰρ ἦκτο [γυναῖκα τῶν ἐπιχωρίων οὐκ ἄσημον] [Δωρὶς ἐκαλεῖτο]
for as he [Herod] had formerly married {a woman from his own country, not ignoble,} {called Doris}

Here again Josephus doesn't care about the person he's talking about, and places all the information about her first. Here also, rather than "by name X" he uses the verb kaleo. Now, if we were applying Spin's invented structural analysis, we'd have to say that Josephus here too has a "structure" without parallel. But if we apply, instead, a functional analysis, of the type markedness belongs to, then we find parallels, such as AJ 20.200, or even closer:

BJ 1.511: παλλακίδι ἥτις ἐκαλεῖτο Παννυχίς,
"a concubine the one called Pannychis"

Certainly, it isn't strictly "structurally" equivalent to BJ 1.241, but it is functionally equivalent. Whatever identifiers Josephus feels necessary are placed first, and after we get the person's name. Here again, we have the verb "called" rather than the word onoma ("name"). Also note that the verb in this case precedes the name, unlike in 1.241, but as we are interested in function, not form, this hardly matters.

Nor is Antiquities without such functional parallels:

AJ 6.244 παρῆν δὲ καὶ [Σαούλου δοῦλος γένει μὲν Σύρος] [Δώηγος δὲ ὄνομα]

"And there was then {a servant of Saul of the Syrian race} {whose name was Doeg}

Again, the person is unimportant, and everything which serves to identify this person comes first, followed by the person's name. Here we do have onoma again.

But Josephus can get much more complicated when it comes to supplying identifying information, so let's look at BJ 5.474 in full:

Τεφθέος δέ τις ἀπὸ Γάρις πόλεως τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ Μαγάσσαρος τῶν βασιλικῶν Μαριάμμης θεράπων, μεθ᾽ ὧν [Ἀδιαβηνός τις υἱὸς Ναβαταίου, τοὔνομα κληθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς τύχης] [κεἀγίρας], |ὅπερ σημαίνει χωλός,| ἁρπάσαντες λαμπάδαςπροεπήδησαν ἐπὶ τὰς μηχανάς.

And here a certain Tephtheus, of Garsis, a city of Galilee, and Megassarus of the queen Mariamne's servants, and with them {from Adiabene a certain son of Nabateus [his] name being called from his ill-fortune} {Keagiras}, |which means "lame"|, snatching torches they rushed at the engines.

Now, although he is never named again, Keagiras is much more focal than James is in AJ 20.200, in that he and the other two are central to the action of the following lines. Yet although Josephus knows his patronymic, and uses it, as well as his place of origin, which he also uses, he does not follow any structure he repeats anywhere else in any of his works. Notice that with the other two, we find what we would usually expect when the person (or people) is/are focal: name first, followed by identifying information. However, with the third individual Josephus abandons not only this pattern, but anything we find anywhere in his work. He begins his intro to the third individual of this group of focal characters with that individual's place of origin. Then he adds something we almost never find added when we have a patronymic: tis (a certain one/person). We find it with the first two as well, but there it precedes both their names and their place of origin, and with them we have no patronymic. With Keagiras, Josephus sandwiches tis between the origin and the patronymic. But the irregularity doesn't stop there. Josephus, breaking from his usual use of onoma, places the word "name" not simply before giving the name, but in the middle of his identifying information. He follows this with an explanation of the name, before even giving it. Then, when we finally learn the name, Josephus has so complicated his structure that he can't proceed using more modifiers, but has to add in a subordinate clause in order to give (because apparently he feels it necessary) the "definition" of the name. We find nothing even remotely close to this convoluted structure anywhere else in Josephus' works, or in Greek for that matter. Yet here it is.

But what about other times when Josephus breaks his normal pattern with using tis and/or onoma? Normally, we find these for people of little note and/or without patronymics. Yet in AJ 10.155 we find a leader from a noteworthly family identified by:

Γαδαλίαν ὄνομ᾽ Ἀϊκάμου παῖδα
Gedaliah by name, son of Ahikam

There would be nothing whatsoever atypical here, were it not for the unusual addition of onoma. Yet here it is, and from a "structural" Spin-analysis nowhere else do we find this "name+[word name]+ preposed kinship genitive + kinship term". From a functional point of view, it's just one added element that happens to appear after the name, and of little consequence. From a Spin-formalist/functionalist/markedness-custom blend linguistic theory, we'd have to say that it is without any "structural analogue".

I could go on and on, looking at various introductions and identifications which, if we use Spin's made-up "structural" analysis have no parallel in Josephus. But as with AJ 20.200, with the possible exception of BJ 5.474, there are plenty of functional equivalents to these.

In AJ 20.200, Josephus does what he typically does when the focus is not on the person he introduces/identifies: he puts all the identifying information first. Here, that identifying information happens to be a relative, but from a functional perspective, it may as well be a place of origin, a nickname (and according to Mason, that's one possibility: this use is basically James' nickname), or a job-title.

Spin wishes to use markedness theory, which is designed (as is detailed in the single reference he used) to identify what is conveyed by marked forms, not to determine that the marked forms are questionable. Whether or not this is marked (or whether markedness is even a valid theory) is very, very questionable. However, only by ignoring his own functional approach, and attempting to break up AJ 20.200 into constituents according to an invented formalist theory does he get what he wants: no "functional" analogue to a phrase he has "formally" broken down.



Red herring? It's an analysis of Greek structure, and useful here for demonstrating typical word order with genitives, including kinship. By contrast, your single reference to support your theory of markedness contradicts your own use and concerns biblical hebrew.


Let's go back to why I referred to Cohen. You made some claim about Josephus distinguishing between people he had introduced already, and this was the reason for certain structures. I cited Cohen to show that not only is this wrong, Josephus is so irregular with introductions that it often seems as if he doesn't even realize he has already introduced the person he is introducing, thus rendering problematic your explanation concerning structural differences due to previous mention. Now, your initial response to this was to claim that Cohen obviously recognized "marked" syntax. You were clearly wrong. But rather than admit that, you pulled a little "bait and switch" and made it seem as if I cited Cohen as a reference for word order. Only I didn't. I cited Cohen to show that your ad hoc explanation about "previous mention" was bullshit. Your entire argument concerning Cohen is basically:
"Cohen does recognize marked word order! Look at my reference where he doesn't say anything about marked word order if you don't believe me...oh wait...well, you're still wrong because he doesn't say anything about word order!"

Of course, now that you realize how wrong you were about Cohen, we're back to examining your little "rule" which says that we can somehow attribute exceptions to "previous mention". Instead of another "bait and switch", now that you realize you were wrong about Cohen and syntax, how about actually addressing him?


And back to ad hoc explanations. The problem is that Josephus usually doesn't identify people by their brother, and also that most people he mentions are famous. Additionally, you have no basis for saying that this is the reason for the exceptions (see, e.g., Cohen). Finally, if you wish to apply markedness theory, do so.

Form? I thought we were dealing with function here. In which case "form" is much more loose than you would have it. You are stuck on patronymic identification, and we don't have that here, nor do we have someone who is famous or the focus of attention. And thus what we get is a typical functional form: identifying information first.


We aren't dealing simply with a brother identifier though. We are dealing with a non-focal character, whom Josephus introduces with onoma. He rarely does this with kinship identification or patronymics, but when he does it typically comes first.



And now you are once again abandoning markedness theory. Let me ask this in a way you can't dodge anymore:

What part of markedness theory holds that if the analyst cannot explain the reason for which something the analyst has identified as marked is "marked" holds that there is any reason whatsoever to blame the text, rather than the analyst?? And by "markedness theory" I don't mean your made-up version. I mean refer to some use of the theory which accords with your own and which the analyst determines marked/unmarked structures, and then, having determined these, maintains that a structure the analyst can't explain is due to some problem with the text, not the analysis.

Otherwise, stop fucking around with linguistic theories you don't understand.

For one thing, there's lexical usage. In fact, that's central to much use of markedness in this kind of analysis. See, e.g., Willi's analysis of Aristophanes. For another, there's morphology. The use of moods which don't seem to fit, for example. And then there's the way that actual linguists use functional analysis of form. Here's a hint: they aren't formalists, so they don't use your pathetic naive transformationalist attempts at bracketing.

spin

I love it when guys fall back on the old size matters thing.

:hysterical:

spin

LegionOnomaMoi evincing a corpus callosotomy.

LegionOnomaMoi

Maybe I should have put the part before it in large type as well:
Because (suprise, suprise) we get yet another dodge.

EDIT: And yet another one in the following post. So I suppose that's a no to the request for a valid basis of your usage of markedness? (not to mention everything else I addressed in my last post).
How about if I ask using normal size font?

What part of markedness theory holds that if the analyst cannot explain the reason for which something the analyst has identified as marked is "marked" holds that there is any reason whatsoever to blame the text, rather than the analyst?

spin

Interesting, considering this was in what LegionOnomaMoi was responding to:
Reading skills are not one of LegionOnomaMoi's strong points.

LegionOnomaMoi

The "formula" you wish to apply is typical of patronymics. Identification by other kinship terms is unusual period. We could even call that "marked". And when we don't get a patronymic, we get more variability.

But none of this matters at all until you address the core problem with your entire argument:

What part of markedness theory holds that if the analyst cannot explain the reason for which something the analyst has identified as marked is "marked" holds that there is any reason whatsoever to blame the text, rather than the analyst?

The point of the question (for those who are not familiar with markedness as used in Spin's single reference) is due a fundamental component of markedness theory: the analyst seeks to use "marked" forms as a method to explain the extra "info" the author is conveying by using the marked form. For example, if I use a passive in English, e.g., "The apple was eaten by Adam" rather than "Adam ate the apple" I am making more focal the "apple". Someone using markedness theory can, so the theory goes, use the fact that the structure is "marked" to determine what pragmatic purpose this serves.

Spin has done that in every instance except 20.200. However, here he leaves markedness behind, abandoning with it the functionalist enterprise as well. If the analyst can't determine why a form is marked, all that means is that the analyst has failed somehow. Perhaps the analyst is wrong in identification of marked forms. Perhaps they are missing something else. Whatever the case, to conclude that the "marked" form is "marked" because the author didn't write it, rather than that the author meant to convey X, is to abandon the theory altogether.

When you have a reference for this, which is (after all) central to your entire argument (without markedness, everything you have said here and for years apparently is a waste of space), let me know.

spin

While it's true that Viti does demonstrate typical word order with genitives, it is a red herring, ie not at issue, here in this discussion. The genitive in our case is Ιησου... whose attachment to αδελφον is postposed. Viti shows that preposed genitives are more prevalent in Homeric Greek. This is all beside the fact that Ιησου... is attached to αδελφον and not to Ιακωβος. In short, Ιησου... is not attached to Ιακωβος so Viti is irrelevant.

LegionOnomaMoi

From her intro: "The label of (un)-markedness satisfies language description, but does not suffice for an explanation of word order variation."

Hmmm...