ficino

Your last sentence is incoherent. If you think that "and so" is a functional definition of δέ, it is up to you to do the hard work of proving that. Citing Whiston's translation is beside the point.

You are right that δέ often shows that Josephus is going back to resume talking about someone he was talking about before. The reason why δέ signals such things is not because it is an inferential particle, as you suggested earlier that it is.

For what it is worth, the phrase "Vitellius δέ" appears four times in Josephus. Each time, δέ marks a shift in Topic from Tiberius, the priest, or whoever to Vitellius. That's all it does.

These observations may well fit your larger argument. But don't pretend that you have knowledge in areas where you don't control the material.

Grog

Tell me what the shift in topic was here:
ταῦτα Ἡρώδης γράφει πρὸς Τιβέριον. ὁ δὲ ὀργῇ φέρων τὴν Ἀρέτα ἐπιχείρησιν γράφει πρὸς Οὐιτέλλιον πόλεμον ἐξενεγκεῖν καὶ ἤτοι ζωὸν ἑλόντα ἀναγαγεῖν δεδεμένον ἢ κτεινομένου πέμπειν τὴν κεφαλὴνἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

Isn't a fact that ὁ δὲ refers directly back to Herod's writing to Tiberius? In fact, as I said, it has a causal connotation? We do not have here, as spin is attempting to say, a parenthetical followed by ὁ δὲ. Herod writes to Tiberius, so Tiberius then takes some sort of action. Am I wrong about that?

That is what I am proposing could have been the similar case here:

καὶ Τιβέριος μὲν ταῦτα πράσσειν ἐπέστελλεν τῷ κατὰ Συρίαν στρατηγῷ.

This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

Οὐιτέλλιος δὲ παρασκευασάμενος ὡς εἰς πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Ἀρέταν δυσὶ τάγμασιν ὁπλιτῶν ὅσοι τε περὶ αὐτὰ ψιλοὶ καὶ ἱππεῖςσυμμαχοῦντες ἐκ τῶν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίοις βασιλειῶν ἀγόμενος, ἐπὶ τῆς Πέτρας ἠπείγετο καὶ ἔσχε Πτολεμαΐδα.

So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais.

It is the "so" here in this translation that spin wants to demolish (remember, your argument isn't just against me, it is also against William Whiston, the professional translator of the most widely used english edition of Josephus.

spin wants us to accept that not only does δὲ not connote "so" here, but that it is entirely unreasonable and, in fact, a mark of ignorance to suggest it does. In fact, he initially said Josephus doesn't use δὲ in exactly the way I have documented in the very paragraph preceding the John the Baptist material, and he does so numerous times. Look back at the entire exchange and from where it started.

Do you believe that Vitellius just woke up one morning and decided to go to war with Aretas? or could this be related to Tiberius charging him to do so? In fact, isn't there a causal connection between Vitellius preparing for war and Tiberius ordering him to do so? Isn't there a causal connection between Herod writing to Tiberius and Tiberius writing to Vitellius?

Notice that the construct of ὁ δὲ and Οὐιτέλλιος δὲ is exactly the same and used in the same fashion. It was spin's contention that δὲ was only used in the latter because of the JtB interruption. i showed that, in fact, Josephus uses it in the former case in exactly the same way as uses it in the latter case.

I don't actually give a flying fuck if δὲ means "so." I also could care less about whether or not JtB material was inserted here. I have spent more time in the last 24 hours thinking about this than I ever have in my entire life before all together. The point is that the beginning of paragraph 3 is directly linked to the end of paragraph 1. There is no indication before or after paragraph 2 of a digression. The only indication comes from within the proposed insertion itself. i do think, with Whiston apparently, that "so" does connote what josephus was saying here.

You will see, that, in fact, I have made my case.





We are speaking about specifics, though. Please address the content and context of the passage in question.

I think if you look more carefully at what I am saying, you will see that spin is having trouble admitting to an error...an overstatement of his case.

Grog

You aren't reading very well today, are you?

Here:

δέ

I can't really make out where you are addressing my argument at all, other than playing fanboy to spin.

Grog

Here is what spin initially said:

He is abundantly and clearly wrong as I showed in the very same chapter, Josephus says this:

ταῦτα Ἡρώδης γράφει πρὸς Τιβέριον. ὁ δὲ ὀργῇ φέρων τὴν Ἀρέτα ἐπιχείρησιν γράφει πρὸς Οὐιτέλλιον πόλεμον ἐξενεγκεῖν καὶ ἤτοι ζωὸν ἑλόντα ἀναγαγεῖν δεδεμένον ἢ κτεινομένου πέμπειν τὴν κεφαλὴνἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

Where ὁ δὲ refers directly back to ταῦτα Ἡρώδης γράφει πρὸς Τιβέριον. spin, then, complicated his error by assuming that I was following Whiston's translation which places "So" at the start of the sentence (again, there's no "so" here). Once again, he thought he had a gotcha, but did not.

My point here is that Οὐιτέλλιος δὲ that starts paragraph 3 refers back to, and is casually connected to, the last sentence of Paragraph 1:

καὶ Τιβέριος μὲν ταῦτα πράσσειν ἐπέστελλεν τῷ κατὰ Συρίαν στρατηγῷ.

And you think that, no, Josephus is just changing the topic. Really? You really do not think that the Οὐιτέλλιος δὲ connotes a causal connection between these two passages?

Remember, spin's point is that δὲ would only be there as an indication of a return from a parenthetical digression. My point is that, no, Josephus uses it multiple times differently from how spin is demanding that it be used. And, yes, here in L&S:

3. [select] implying causal connexion, less direct than γάρ, Il.6.160, Od.1.433.

I don't think you are looking carefully enough at what is being said.

The main problem here is that spin really likes what he sees in the mirror.

spin

I was in the process of responding to you when I saw the developing tension. Can we stop this? I'll accept that I've wasted my time trying to communicate with you on this topic and hopefully bring a halt to the escalation. If it is amenable to you, ie if you don't really want to continue calling people fanboys, I will refrain from further discussion on the topic. Together we have ruined Dave's tread, so I think enough damage has already been done. Can we both just shut the fuck up? If you think that we are beyond the point of stepping back from the brink, you'll let me know.

Grog

What, by the way, do you assume my "larger argument" is?

Grog

Nice, spin. And typical. You mean you wasted my time with your pointless quibbles?

spin

I await a response, my friend. (I wasted my time. You wasted yours.)

Grog

I have been looking at this but I got derailed by the JtB subthread. Thank you for this lead.

Grog

Look, spin. Just allow people to find their way. Your air of superiority does not help that.