Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 10-02-2002, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
This grammatical save is discussed and rejectd in Richard Carrier's essay <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word" target="_blank">The Date of the Nativity in Luke (4th ed., 2001): Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?</a>

It does not appear that Carrier is aware of Nigel Turner's treatment of this issue. Professor Turner is one of the leading scholars of ancient Greek, having published widely used textbooks on the subject. I'll try and track this particular discussion down and see if we can develop on his reasoning.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0567010171/qid=1033603384/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5601136-9383207" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0567010171/qid=1033603384/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5601136-9383207</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0567010112/qid=1033603463/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5601136-9383207" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0567010112/qid=1033603463/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5601136-9383207</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840752547/qid=1033603463/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-5601136-9383207?v=glance" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840752547/qid=1033603463/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-5601136-9383207?v=glance</a>

And I'm not sure what to make of Carrier's claim that the Greek is "clear and unambiguous" when "most commentators agree that Luke's use of the word 'first' is grammatically awkward." Luke, Craig Evans, at 43.

Starboy · 10-02-2002, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
This is a mess of non-sequiturs and bald unsubstantiated statements, and the inevitable
personal credo "God only exists in the minds of men"....The OP at least is INTERESTED in the relative historical record of Alexander and Julius
Caesar as compared to that of Jesus. The "context"
of your full post only indicates that you are too
prejudiced to consider the historical record of ANY of those persons...

Cheers!

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

Leonarde,

Do not accuse me of non-sequiturs and bald unsubstantiated statements when you do not bother to make and substantiate any of your own or offer any facts to refute any of my statements. Your tactics are childish and Christian, it is obvious to a five year old that my statements are unsubstantiated. They are stated without substantiation because they are widely known to be the case. You may object to the conclusions I draw, such as Christians are liars and frauds, however your manner of argument does nothing to disabuse me of this point of view, and would make onlookers think it might be so.

Starboy

NOGO · 10-02-2002, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Bede
I think Toto is right to point out the hyperbole in comparing Alex the Great and Caesar to Jesus. After all, we are talking about men who ruled enormous largest Empires and were responsible for personally conquering much of it. Jesus was practically unknown until well after he died.

...

In fact, the methods we use to untangle the myths of Alexander and try to get to the historical Alex are exactly the same ones as we use for Jesus.

Nonsense!
As Bede says Alexander and Caesar ruled large empires. From this we conclude that many people knew them, they had an impact on many, many more and had also an impact on other nations.

For these reasons just imagine how difficult it would be to fabricate a character such as Caesar or Alexander the Great and make it stick, historically speaking.

Next we must consider motive. Why would someone fabricate a story of Alexander the Great and pass it off as history?

Compare that with Jesus.
Since Jesus was totally unknown during his life except to his disciples, Jesus did not influence many people nor did he make any history while he was alive.

This means that we have to totally rely on his disciples for information.

We must understand also that due to the circumstances above it is much easier to fabricate stories about Jesus than ALexander or Caesar.

Finally the issue of motive. It is rather easy to see why people that are in the business of spreading a new religion would fabricate stories about their founder. They need to convince!

Bede wants us to use the same methodology...
and if we refuse based on very good reasons indeed then according to Bede we are not worthy and biased.

It comes as no surprize to discover that no two scholars can agree on who the HJ was.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

Toto · 10-02-2002, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


It does not appear that Carrier is aware of Nigel Turner's treatment of this issue. Professor Turner is one of the leading scholars of ancient Greek, having published widely used textbooks on the subject. I'll try and track this particular discussion down and see if we can develop on his reasoning.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0567010171/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Grammatical Insights into the New Testament</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0567010112/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume I: Prolegomena</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840752547/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Christian Words</a>

And I'm not sure what to make of Carrier's claim that the Greek is "clear and unambiguous" when "most commentators agree that Luke's use of the word 'first' is grammatically awkward." Luke, Craig Evans, at 43.

Hi Layman, neither one of us reads Greek, so I have emailed Richard Carrier. (His essay states that he intends for it to be comprehensive, and invites anyone with any arguments he has overlooked to email him.)

Luke, of course, is written in Koine Greek, not ancient Greek. I tried to find Turner's credentials, and found <a href="http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1964/v21-2-bookreview3.htm" target="_blank">this review</a>:

Quote:

In his general orientation, Tumer indicates a certain preference for the old theory, expressed, for example, by the theologian Rothe (Dogmatik, 1863, p. 238), that the language of the New Testament is sui generis, and that one may refer to it as the language of the Holy Ghost (p. 9).

and <a href="http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1981/v38-1-booknotes3.htm" target="_blank">this</a>:

Quote:

By "Christian words," the author explains, "I have in mind Greek terms which so far as I know the first believers devised for themselves." In addition to these he includes a far greater number of terms. some common enough in general usage, which "acquired a deeper sense and a new consecration within the Christian vocabulary."

Somehow this does not build confidence in Turner's objectivity.

I also found this refernence to Turner's argument <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1995-09/10431.html" target="_blank">on ibiblio</a>, which dismissed it.

Quote:

I don't see this way of reading Lk 2:2 as ordinary Greek, certainly not the kind of good Greek that Luke normally wrote. The phrase hHGEMONEUONTOS ... KURHNIOU is the sort of genitive absolute that Luke uses elsewhere when he's trying to pinpoint the exact date of something (cf baptism of Jesus, Lk 3:1). In ordinary Greek we often find the superlative with an ablatival (perhaps partitive? I really think ablatival) genitive in the sense "far removed in x quality from y." I think L&S are absolutely right on this matter and that, had Lk wanted to say before the governorship of Quirinius, he would have written either PRIN hHGEMONEUSAI TON KURHNION THS SURIAS or PRO TOU hHGEMONEUSAI TON KURHNION THS SURIAS.

But I will wait for Carrier's comment.

Layman · 10-02-2002, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Somehow this does not build confidence in Turner's objectivity.

Why? You don't even seem to know what it means.

Turner seems to advocate a theory that the vocabulary of Christians should be studied with a mind towards the unique ways Christians developed to write about different concepts, doctrines and items.

How you think this applies to the present discussion is a mystery.

Peter Kirby · 10-02-2002, 05:47 PM

mfaber,

Are you the author of this web page?

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html</a>

"The date of the census, like the death of Herod, can also be dated with some precision," etc.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 10-02-2002, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Why? You don't even seem to know what it means.

Turner seems to advocate a theory that the vocabulary of Christians should be studied with a mind towards the unique ways Christians developed to write about different concepts, doctrines and items.

How you think this applies to the present discussion is a mystery.

Koine Greek was the language of the street and of commerce in the ancient world. To see it as the language of the Holy Ghost indicates to me that Turner may be prepared to interpret the language to fit his theology. It's been known to happen. But I will wait for more technical expertise.

Layman · 10-02-2002, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


Koine Greek was the language of the street and of commerce in the ancient world. To see it as the language of the Holy Ghost indicates to me that Turner may be prepared to interpret the language to fit his theology. It's been known to happen. But I will wait for more technical expertise.

AH, he uses a scary word! "Holy Ghost!"

The theory is not unreasonable and its not indicitive of bias. He's not claiming that scholars must interpret the Greek in the Bible as the inspired words of the Holy Ghost, but is claiming that scholars should be mindful that Christians had their own way of referring to such words.

Berenger Sauniere · 10-02-2002, 06:36 PM

Alexander the Great was involved with countless atheistic/secular works being destroyed and in many cases being reworked and given a pro-theist slant. Never mind the fairy tales of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. The truth is it was destroyed by Alexander. Sorry for the whacky post, but there's something there if you know what to look for.

Kosh · 10-02-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


First, it's rather silly to claim that one error renders a historical account "unreliable." It just shows -- at the most -- one mistake.

Then why is it such a favorite tactic of lawyers in a court of law?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2002, 05:47 PM	#36
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	mfaber, Are you the author of this web page? <a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html</a> "The date of the census, like the death of Herod, can also be dated with some precision," etc. best, Peter Kirby

10-02-2002, 06:36 PM	#39
Berenger Sauniere Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: et in Arcadia ego... Posts: 406	Alexander the Great was involved with countless atheistic/secular works being destroyed and in many cases being reworked and given a pro-theist slant. Never mind the fairy tales of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. The truth is it was destroyed by Alexander. Sorry for the whacky post, but there's something there if you know what to look for.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.