Diogenes the Cynic

What part of "there couldn't have been a census in Judea before 6 CE" do you not understand?

Luke was not based on eyewitness accounts, by the way. Even if he thought his sources were eyewitness accounts, he was wrong.

JoeWallack

JW:
Better. You agree now that direct examination is better evidence than reliance on authority. You also agree that based on the grammatical construction "first" is indicated. The following (NA), which isn't necessarily for your benefit, shows that all the uses of the specific Form prwth (πρώτη) in the Christian Bible are as Adjectives = First:

" adjective, feminine, singular, nominative, no degree or
a positive degree πρώτη �*(12)‬ Matthew 22:38 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μεγάλη καὶ πρώτη ἐντολή.
Mark 12:28 Καὶ προσελθὼν εἷς τῶν γραμματ�*ων ἀκούσας αὐτῶν συζητούντων, ἰδὼν ὅτι καλῶς ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτόν, �*οία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων;
Mark 12:29 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι �*ρώτη ἐστίν, Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,
Luke 2:2 αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγ�*νετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.
Ephesians 6:2 τίμα τὸν πατ�*ρα σου καὶ τὴν μητ�*ρα, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ,
Hebrews 8:7 Εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτ�*ρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος.
Hebrews 9:1 Εἶχε μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν.
Hebrews 9:2 σκηνὴ γὰρ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη ἐν ᾗ ἥ τε λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτις λ�*γεται Ἅγια·
Hebrews 9:18 ὅθεν οὐδὲ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐγκεκαίνισται·
Revelation 4:1 Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα �*νεῳγμ�*νη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἡ πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ λ�*γων, Ἀνάβα ὧδε, καὶ δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γεν�*σθαι μετὰ ταῦτα.
Revelation 20:5 οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.
Revelation 21:1 Καὶ εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν. ὁ γὰρ πρῶτος οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ πρώτη γῆ ἀπῆλθαν καὶ ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι."


JW:
Spin gave you a link to Liddell's Broader usage but I don't think there is any clear example of this Form being "before".

Carrier writes:
"Some have tried to argue that the Greek of Luke actually might mean a census "before" the reign of Quirinius rather than the "first" census in his reign. As to this, even Sherwin-White remarks that he has "no space to bother with the more fantastic theories...such as that of W. Heichelheim's (and others') suggestion (Roman Syria, 161) that prôtê in Luke iii.2 means proteron, [which] could only be accepted if supported by a parallel in Luke himself."[10.1]

...What is usually argued is that prôtê can sometimes mean "before," even though it is actually the superlative of "before" (proteros), just as "most" is the superlative of "more." Of course, if "before" were really meant, Luke would have used the correct adjective (in this case, proterê)"

Carrier also writes:
"Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a "reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun, but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying," "filing," hence "ruling") in the genitive case with a subject (Kyrêniou) also in the genitive."

So in summary:

1) The root word πρῶτος has a dominant meaning of "first".

2) The Form used by "Luke", prwth, always means "first" in the Christian Bible.

3) Per Carrier this would be the wrong Form if "before" was meant.

4) Per Carrier the grammatical construction of the phrase does not support a meaning of "before".

"Luke's" use of this Form to mean "before" wouldn't just be "odd", it would be incorrect and "Luke" otherwise has excellent grammatical usage.


JW:
You are trying to answer my questions so I'll try to answer yours. As I indicated above I think prwth meaning "before" here would be otherwise unknown and not "rare". As to the possible connection between an incorrect usage of "before" here and when we otherwise think Jesus was born I Am not sure what you are trying to say. You have to tell me how you are using "before" in 2:2. Before the census, before Quirinius was govenor, before something else?

I can tell you now though that in my opinion "Luke" was primarily interested in Promoting Belief in Jesus and properly researching historical events was relatively less important. So I don't find it odd that "Luke" would either intentionally or at least carelessly make up in total or in part a supposed historical event to fit Narrative that had Theological points as its priMary objective.



Joseph

spin

I guess one should also say that prwth, a nominative feminine singular adjective, is grammatically in agreement with apografh, a nominative feminine singular noun, so that it is clearly an adjective which qualifies the property registration (census). It was the first census made (or that "came to pass"), and here we have to attach the genitive phrase literally "of the governing of Quirinius of Syria".

Lk 2:1 talks of Augustus ordering the world to be registered for property (apografh usually refers to property and is the reason why the verse usually has "taxed" in it). Augustus only carried out three censuses, as has been said, and the purpose of these was not economic.

The Lucan writer is confused about the censuses of Augustus. He relates the apografh directly to Quirinius whose known apografh related to the annexation of Judea, not Galilee, so again the writer is confused between an Augustan census and the apografh of Quirinius, which had nothing to do with the whole world. There was no reason based on the Quirinius census for someone to go from non-Roman controlled Galilee to Roman controlled Judea for the apografh.

By relating it to the time of Quirinius in Syria, we have a solid dating of 6 CE, which would not be a problem in itself, but, because some people want to treat the gospel texts as historical, they compare Luke with Matt which says that the birth of Jesus happened during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, and therefore not ten years later in 6 CE. This is how the knickers get knotted.


spin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gamera,

Your statement that ancient Graeco-Roman novels are "execrable literature" shows a profound ignorance of the subject matter. They are quite fascinating and wonderfully constructed tales that still engage readers two millenia after being written. Nobody who studies the gospels seriously can afford not to study them.

The main examples that we possess are all from the 1st and 2nd centuries, including Petronius' Satyricon, Apuleius' Golden Ass, Chariton's Loves of Chaereas and Callirhoe, Achilles Tatius "Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon and Longus' Daphnis and Chloe. I don't know the evidence behind your comments that the vast majority are from the 3rd and 4th century. We cannot put the gospel of Luke any earlier than 180-200, so we cannot dismiss the notion that he was influenced by them.

While my book Evolution of Christs and Christianities(evoc.com) points to a mime play as the probable source of the gospels, I would suggest that the Roman Romance Novel was a major influencial element in that play. Your description of the genre as a beatiful couple facing hardships and adventures in some travels fits the original play about Mary Magdalene and the Jesus quite nicely.

As far as people of that time not confusing literature and history, we may point to the fact that Virgil's Aenead was accepted as history as sufficient to discredit that point of view.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Gamera

[QUOTE=PhilosopherJay]The Satyricon is not a Graeco-Roman novel, but a distinctly separate genre, a Menippean satire. It has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. And it is a good read, unlike the novels. The Golden Ass, the only other worthwhile item in your list, also doesn't fit quite into the GR novel. It somewhat sui generis. In any case, with its picaresque structure and recourse to magic (not to mention the fact that it was in Latin and is mid-2nd century) it had no influence on Luke.

The other works yo umention are in fact execrable.

I think your stretching things a bit. I missed the original play about Magdalene and Jesus in any case. We're focusing on Luke.

No, since the Aenaed is an epic poem, which purports to be history and was not conceived as fictive. We don't think it's history now. They intended it as history. Unlike the Graeco-roman novel.

Gamera

I agree that the surviving examples of the use of proti suggest the meaning "first", but that it has other meanings in other grammatical contexts, so an alternate meaning isn't ruled out. The grammatic context that support those alternate meanings are not in Luke 2. However, that may be a sample problem. We simply may not have enough grammatic contexts to make a full analyse. It is a fact that proti can mean foremost in other grammatic contexts (just like it does in English), which changes the reading to accord with apparent historical facts. And that should raise doubts in one's mind.

I'm refering to the use of term to mean "foremost," not "before."

This doesn't follow. You're assuming a perfectly normalized grammatic world, a common philologist's error. Using that approach, you could argue that Shakespeare's use of double superlatives is an error in the text. But to do so assumes the rule that you use the text to establish. Don't assume a grammatical rule based on texts and then exclude in establishing the rule texts that vary from the rule. Luke's usage might be a variant of the rule. I'm not making the case here, I'm just saying your principle is suspect.

I understand that the grammatical context is not conducive to the alternative meaning.

Again, deriving grammatic usage from a text that excludes the usage you want to apply it to is not a good methodology.

Like I say, the "before" formulation is not what I'm arguing.

You impute motives but not competency. Luke is a pretty good writer and presumably could do better than that. Assuming you conclude, as I do, that he's a pretty good writer, and in fact appears to be a pretty good historian for the time, Luke 2 appears garbled to me, not incompetently fictive.

Gamera

The part about there couldn't have been a census in Judea before 6 CE.

Well that settles that. We're you an eyewitness?

darstec

I can understand Philosopher Jay's confusion. It's those damnable universities that are teaching students that those are in fact Graeco-Roman novels.

http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/...s/GRLT2302.pdf

http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/2002/pdf/ACLASS.pdf

http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/cmc...labus_sp06.pdf

http://www.ancientnarrative.com/PSN/...es&reviews.htm

https://my.colgate.edu/DesktopDefaul...ex=4&tabid=645

I'm going to stop here as there are far too many of those secular institutions to list in this post who are in on the conspiracy to call Philosopher Jay's examples Graeco-Roman novels.

Vorkosigan

Gamera, this is a mess. The Greco-Roman novels probably predate the first century AD. A fragment of Ninos has been found on a papyrus that dates from the late first century. The heyday of the GR novels is the second and third centuries.

As for mistaking them, there is now a considerable body of literature comparing the two sets of works. The gospels were heavily influenced by them, and Acts incorporates many of their techniques and conventions. See Hock's recent book on the topic.

Um. Wrong. As we have seen. I suggest you curl up with a copy of Stephens and Winkler's collection of the Greek Novels, and read them all again. I don't know if one could call the gospels greek novels, but they certainly utilize many of their techniques and story and plot elements.

I guess you missed that in my other post. The audience that recognized that it was fabulist history paid it no attention and thus left no mark on history. It was the others, the ones who experienced it as history, that were misled by Luke. Plus I suspect that when Mark was first read both audience and writer knew it was fiction and enjoyed it that way. It was Luke who decided to turn it into real history.

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack

JW:
The existing evidence indicates that prwth in Luke 2:2 means "first". This is also a common word so as samples go for this time period we have a very good sample. I'll remind again that "Luke" is considered to have excellent and consistent grammatical skills for this time period. Of course a broader sample of literature here will tend to expand definitions but I Am already only dealing with the Probable and not the Certain.

JW:
You still have all the same problems, wrong form, wrong grammatical context, not so excellent Theofideis grammar and you removed the only saving grace, "before". How does a translation of "foremost" avoid the problem of Jesus' birth being connected with Quirinius' ruling of Syria? Now you have to reach up to touch "fantasticating".

JW:
Dorothy, the Tinman and the Lion are waiting to take you to Glenn Miller, the Wizard of Odds, to give you a degree in Apologetics. Shakespeare was known as something of a poet and words were building blocks for him that could be constructed in entertaining fashion because he had a poetic license to perchance dream:

What is Love one another?
Tis not hereafter.
Present mirth hath present laughter.
What's to come is still unsure.
In delay there lies no plenty.
Then come kiss me sweet and twenty.
Youth's the stuff, will not endure.

"Luke's" grammar is by The Book so to speak.

JW:
PJ (Philosoper Jay) is on the right track here. You are on the wrong one, like the scene at the start of Stardust Memories where Woody Allen is on the wrong train heading in the wrong direction. "Luke" is Incompetent as a Historian. The predominant Supernatural claims impeach the credibility of the Natural ones. Most of the Narrative was copied from "Mark" without attribution and the author dishonestly rehabilitated "Mark's" "The Disciples" from total failures as Jesus witness to the witnesses for all things Jesus. Similarly in Acts the author has rehabilitated the Historical Paul, short on the Supernatural and Long in confusing explanations, into an articulate magnet for the Supernatural.

On the other hand of God, even as a member of the loyal opposition I can appreciate "Luke" as a skilled and stylish author of Myth. The idea of a worldwide Accounting of all souls ordered by "The King" at the time The Saviour was created is beautifully creative and fits "Luke's" theme of Jesus being the Saviour for everyone. If rape of the historical Mary is inevitable, just sit back and enjoy the Story.

Your attempted defense of Inerrancy for 2:2 regarding prwth is dead Jim. I have successfully excorcised your Uncertainty regarding What the Evidence is. Rather than go Christian Midevil on your Acts, I leave you with your Uncertainty towards a Conclusion based on the Evidence.



Joseph