spin

You haven't been reading the thread. The δε has a purpose which is one described in L&S and that is to resume after a digression. Low and behold the JtB material is just such a digression.

You still haven't dealt with the L&S entry regarding causal connection. You understandably ducked responding to this issue because it requires philological knowledge. The question I asked you regarded this from L&S:

3. implying causal connexion, less direct than γαρ

In what way is δε similar to γαρ that for L&S to mention γαρ here? How do the L&S examples help to clarify the issue?

You have merely asserted that δε functions like English "so" and done none of the work to justify yourself.

Rubbish. I raised the issue of δε because there was an interruption in the text and L&S states that δε can indicate resumption from such an interruption. My reference to δε was descriptive, not prescriptive.

We know that Josephus doesn't always use δε to resume from an interruption. You don't need to rehearse the fact. You need to justify your claim that, given the text of Josephus as it is, δε indicates a causal connection.

I'm glad you've discovered that.

It was the laughter.

:hysterical:

spin

Wrong again. My position is that after the interruption of the JtB material we would expect a δε to make the change of focus back to the topic.

:boohoo:

You still haven't shown a need. You made up some nonsense that δε would end up "so" in English as you persisted in asserting, yet you still haven't shown that that reflects the L&S entry at all.

Umm, υποτελει is a verb. "Agent" is merely a generic term I used to describe "he who is in the pay of her father". If you want to call him a "vassal" hey, well, maybe. You are trying to eke out some advantage here on the value of my use of "agent"? Don't be silly.

You need a reason for your views of the text. Whether you agree or not is insignificant without the reasoning behind it.

Just keep a steady hand on that joystick.

I'm glad that you are starting to come to terms with the text, though it doesn't say Herod sent her to her father's vassal. That is your unsupported assertion. It says that Herod sent her there, ie to Machaerus. There is nothing in the text to let you think that Herod knew anything about the wife going to the agent of Aretas. You just made that up.

Perceived condescension, arrogance, superiority, etc. If I had an ego as fragile as yours, I'd trade it in for a stronger model.

You're a clever one, Grog, but you're only part of the way there. Why did the wife make her to Aretas in secret, ie "before any information reached him that she had discovered everything"? Note what Josephus says next: "Herod let her go, since he had no notion that the poor woman saw what was afoot." (Whiston: "thinking his wife had not perceived any thing".) It was because he didn't know she was on to him that he allowed her to go. He certainly did not send her to her father's agent. He wanted her out of his hair, but under his control, otherwise there would be strife with Aretas, which of course is what there was.

Grog

It's a circular argument.

We know there is an interruption in the text because δε, we know which connotation of δε because there is an interruption in the text.

Ah. But that isn't what you first implied, is it?

In fact you first said that there wouldn't be δε unless there was an interruption.

Do I? I think a causal connection can be inferred with or without δε. That being said, I do think δε in the instances I cited do indicate a "a weak causal connection" that is less direct than γάρ. My observation was that it seems Paragraph 3 precedes from paragraph 1 in just such a way and not because of an interruption. To that you say:



Let me give you some much needed advice, spin, old chap. Common courtesy would suggest that you don't attempt to interject your arrogant superiority into any discussion in which someone deigns to question your invulnerable intellect. That is a discussion killer. Instead of encouraging dialogue, it kills it. You are not the arbiter of worthy dialogue, so get the *fuck* off your high *fucking* horse N/A My guess is that I am not the first to think the things I am writing right now.

When you have a discussion with someone whom you disagree with, even when you know they are wrong, you can still treat them with respect. You can also allow them to continue to disagree with you without making it clear that you are looking down that finely tuned nose of yours at them. I point to Toto who frequently reminds users to cite sources properly. Try to learn from people who are better than you are.

You are no better than anyone else.

I recognize that you have "status" here on this board. However, what I see is that when you are pressed, your MO is to attempt to trump arguments by entering essentially "secret wisdom" mostly known to you. If you don't like Whiston's translation, then enter, "debates" about that from which you will select the correct answer and, wow, isn't that person stupid for using Whiston's "centuries-old" translation. Yes, nobody uses that anymore.

Every interaction with you causes me to lose more respect for you. I think you are a sad, lonely, bitter human being.

In this discussion, whether you admit or not, you have made a series of blunders which you have attempted to cover with derision and a tactic that I frankly think is demonstrative of a fragile ego unwilling to be challenged.

N/A

Wow. I feel a whole lot better.

N/A

:wave:

Toto

Personal comments violate the terms of use.

It is often the better course to self-edit posts that go over the line. It saves a lot of work for your moderators.

Thanks for your attention to this.

spin

We know there is an interruption because the text goes from Herod and his doings with Aretas to JtB and back to Herod and Aretas.

No.

Once again misrepresentation. I said "There would be no need for the δε had there been no interruption."

You assert that the following section from L&S is relevant to you understanding. Please demonstrate the relevance.

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

Can you show how the references to Il.6.160, Od.1.433 help your case?

You still haven't explained how the use of δε here relates to that of γάρ. Could you please answer this? Until you do, you won't show that you have a clue about what L&S indicate.

You aren't making sense.


:vomit:

It would be better if you tried to deal with the issues you are supposed to be engaged with, rather than spending your time vomiting in public.

Iskander

You are a bad loser and a <edit>, nothing more than a petulant child full of hot air

hjalti

Isn't that a trivial remark? I.e. isn't that exactly why Eisler put that phrase in there, to make it fit in the context?

andrewcriddle

Eisler certainly knew Norden's work and explicitly responds to him (See eisler )

I don't know what positive arguments (if any) Eisler brings forward to support the original presence of this phrase.

(I agree Eisler's work is extremely speculative but this is a thread about Eisler.)

Andrew Criddle