| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Neand. caves linked hearth and cemetery |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Daryl Krupa
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Neand. caves linked hearth and cemetery |
|
|
On Jun 27, 11:07am, Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]Balkan caves, gorges were pre-Neanderthal haven
Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:25am EDT
By Ljilja Cvekic
BELGRADE (Reuters Life!) -
snip
"It is a pre-Neanderthal jaw that we believe is
between 130,000 to 250,000 years old,"
snip
The jaw might belong to homo erectus,
snip
or homo sapiens, and
the separate species of Neanderthal man.
[/quote]
Hmm... they don>t recognise
_Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_ ...
splitters ...
[quote]The jaw was found at a depth of four meters,
below a Neanderthal village in a linked cave,
snip
The remains of a hearth, primitive stone and bone tools and
animals indicated an 80,000 year old home base.
snip
"The fact we found a jaw
so many layers below the settlement
is additional proof the jaw is much older."
snip
"We were looking for Neanderthals," Roksandic said,
"but this is much better."
snip[/quote]
Unless, of course, they did, as mentioned above,
possibly find the Neanderthal that they were looking for.
The jaw was from 4 m below a surface that was
not necessarily the same surface as that which held
the dated Neanderthal settlement.
The jaw was "many layers below the settlement", but
maybe not as much as 4 m lower than the settlement level.
The bases for dating the jaw are not given.
Most importantly, it is not shown that the jaw was
not the remains of an individual who inhabited
the Neanderthal settlement in
the "linked" cave (whatever "linked" might mean).
The jaw might be the result of an interment of
a related individual by
members of the Neanderthal settlement.
Does anybody have a link to
some sort of scientifc information
on this subject?
- Daryl Krupa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
In message <4865cea1$0$12015$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Just learn to read Greek and Hebrew, and all will be clear.
That is a clear invitation to read into the preconception without an external
basis for the claim.
[/quote]
No, it is an invitation for you to become less ignorant.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
======================================================== |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Daryl Krupa
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: Small College>s "Physical Anthrpology" department>s authorit |
|
|
On Jun 27, 11:07am, Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]Balkan caves, gorges were pre-Neanderthal haven
snip
"This is the earliest evidence we have of humans in the area,"
Canada>s
Winnipeg University
anthropology professor Mirjana Roksandic told Reuters.
snip[/quote]
Hmm ... One wonders why the Reuters correspondent
didn>t refer to Roksandic as a professor of
"Physical Anthrpology",
as her esteemed Winnipeg University does:
http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/faculty/anthropology/pages/museumhome.html
And before anybody objects that I>m nit-picking,
isn>t the subject of the article supposed to be
the result of inferences from context?
Hmm?
- Daryl Krupa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tom McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: Re: Dr. Thiering refutes a charge of using "special pleading |
|
|
Eric Stevens wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:57:15 -0500, Tom McDonald
tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:40:11 +0200, Peter Alaca
p.alaca@purple.invalid> wrote:
--- snip -----
Go ahead. Ask him questions.
I will if I can engage in polite conversation.
Will you stay out of it with your truculent interjections?
I can>t make such a promise, and you can>t expect one
from anybody. You haven>t the right to ask such a question.
I can ask whatever I like.
That>s what I said: Go ahead. Ask him questions.
That looks like evasion to me.
Your statement that "You haven>t the right to ask such a question" is
patently false. I can ask whatever I like.
Then do so.
Or is it your pleasure just now to rag on Peter?
Why not?
That>s what he does to David.
[/quote]
OK, now I know.
[quote]Good for the news group, isn>t it?
[/quote]
Actual discussion on the topic of the thread would be better. I
think you agree.
I>m curious as to why you have taken the tack you have, instead
of actually discussing the topic of the thread. Will you tell me?
[quote]I suppose it must be, as you obviously don>t mind.
[/quote]
I have suggested you reply to David on the topic of the thread,
to the degree you are interested in doing so. You indicated that
you had some interest in something to do with David>s ideas.
Obviously, I do mind.
I am on the record as not caring about Thiering or the DSS--at
least as presented by David on s.a. You are on record otherwise.
Yet you don>t follow through, but rather bite the biter.
Why is that, Eric? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ruud Harmsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:53:51 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quote]We have been providing the differences for months, but you are
incapable of understanding (or remembering) them, because you have no
frame of reference to fit them into.
If you hate Hebrew, then learn Arabic. It will give you the necessary
background.
[/quote]
I still don>t understand why it would be necessary to _learn_ a
language in order to learn (pun intended) about its features.
Example: to understand what is said in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_language , do I need to learn
Moabite, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic or Akkadian? I know none of these
languages and have no intention of ever learning them, yet I find the
desciption of these difference quite clear and understandable.
Another example: to understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language#Historical_sound_changes
, I don>t need to learn Aramaic.
--
Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
On Jun 28, 11:28am, Ruud Harmsen <realemailons...@rudhar.com.invalid>
wrote:
[quote]Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:53:51 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
We have been providing the differences for months, but you are
incapable of understanding (or remembering) them, because you have no
frame of reference to fit them into.
If you hate Hebrew, then learn Arabic. It will give you the necessary
background.
I still don>t understand why it would be necessary to _learn_ a
language in order to learn (pun intended) about its features.
Example: to understand what is said inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_language, do I need to learn
Moabite, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic or Akkadian? I know none of these
languages and have no intention of ever learning them, yet I find the
desciption of these difference quite clear and understandable.
Another example: to understandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language#Historical_sound_changes
, I don>t need to learn Aramaic.
[/quote]
The Giwer doesn>t believe anything anyone says. He needs to see for
himself. (But he refuses to look.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
On Jun 28, 4:46 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Anyone who has ever met a real academic knows NEVER to ask a question in
their field without an hour or two to spend listening to the detailed answer.
[/quote]
If _that>s_ what you want, you should ask me a question in my field.
I could then refer you to my own writings on the subject. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: Dr. Thiering refutes a charge of using "special pleading |
|
|
On Jun 28, 11:25am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
[quote]Eric Stevens wrote:
...
Good for the news group, isn>t it?
Actual discussion on the topic of the thread would be better. I
think you agree.
[/quote]
The thread is poisoned. The responsible parties are easy
to identify in the record. I don>t name them because I hope
to reason differences out with them within the educational
process, requiring interpersonal skills, diplomacy, and
proper timing for moving the argument in steps.
To review, is Dr. Thiering right in the matter of C14 dating?
Eric stated that this is his first focus. Nobody is talking
about the interesting non-archaeological offshoots yet.
My opinion is that they should not be precluded when
the time comes and is ripe.
[quote]I>m curious as to why you have taken the tack you have, instead
of actually discussing the topic of the thread. Will you tell me?
[/quote]
The merit of Eric>s tack was to expose truculent
opposition or sniping. Also, people hide their real
reasons for opposition or disinterest. The lack of
straight talk is a barrier to on topic communication
for those matters of Qumran Studies that touch on
SA and SHA. Both news groups need clarity,
especially for arguments with a high technical content.
Not a sea of rage.
BTW you sadly underestimate when you see a
group failure to engage me in conversation. I propose
that people did not like the way I defended myself
from attack. IOW you yourself can engage me in
conversation if you put your mind and heart into it.
[quote]I suppose it must be, as you obviously don>t mind.
I have suggested you reply to David on the topic of the thread,
to the degree you are interested in doing so. You indicated that
you had some interest in something to do with David>s ideas.
Obviously, I do mind.
[/quote]
OK, now I know Tom says he minds what is good
for the news group. I leave it to the reader to decide
whether it is true. I propose not only Tom has a
selective blind spot.
[quote]I am on the record as not caring about Thiering or the DSS--at
least as presented by David on s.a. You are on record otherwise.
Yet you don>t follow through, but rather bite the biter.
Why is that, Eric?
[/quote]
Eric has said all he can do is watch because he knows
very little about the topic of the thread.
For starters, I suggest Eric read my reply to Doug
Weller in close detail. Then, Eric would have a basis
to reply to me and it doesn>t have to be only Eric.
Please note that my proposed basis is not limited
to Dr. Thiering>s side of C14 dating but also includes
De Vaux>s "stone disk", the pros and cons of the case
for Essenes at Qumran, Joe Zias on the Qumran
cemetary, and Doudna>s single generation theory.
For starters, on the Scrolls there is material there on
4QTQahat
1QpHab
4QpPs
namely, paleography and DSS contents with a
focus on ending up with correct dates of composition.
BTW there are definitely more Scrolls I want to
discuss.
You should know for general background that in the
scholarly world any Christian connection has been
resisted for decades for a small number of Scrolls
mentioning 2 DSS figures - Teacher of Righteousness
and Wicked Priest.
However, the case for Christian connection is
extremely strong, if not airtight.
I can>t count on you to give me an opening to present
my evidence; so, if necessary, for SA conversation I
will make my own opening for a paradigm shift. Of
course, there are "formidable theological objections,
especially on the identification of Jesus, so it does
seem to be a matter of the greatest public interest."
Last but not least, I ask people to read my links,
which are often Thiering articles, but may include
other authorities.
If people>s eyes glazed over after all the work I put
into this post, somebody (Eric) can ask me about
the issue of contamination in C14 dating and I
will respond with a satisfactory presentation.
David Christainsen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Larry Swain
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:01 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:53 pm, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jun 25, 11:51 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com
wrote:
Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:55 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Your view is? Like Socrates, I>ll stil be asking questions
when the
Thought Police catch up with me.
My view is, of course, that the Septuagint is a Greek
translation of a
Hebrew original, and I am entirely confident in this view.
Upon what physical evidence is that confidence based?
Upon the physical evidence of the ink-markings on the parchment. They
show that the language of the LXX is translated from a Hebrew
original, whereas nothing in the Hebrew text betrays any sign of
translation from a Greek original.
Now you have really got me going. How would ink marks show something
like that?
They are, of course, the physical embodiment of the texts under
discussion, which abound with the evidence requested.
So some of the Greek letters look slightly Hebrew, or what?
Let>s try the simple-minded version.
The letters record the text.
The text is in Greek.
There are passages in the Greek text that don>t make sense.
If you put them literally, word by word or morpheme by morpheme, into
Hebrew, they do make sense as familiar idiomatic expressions in
Hebrew.
Thus, the Greek is translated from the Hebrew.
For "Hebrew" read "a Semitic language". Nobody, not even, I think, Mr
G, is saying that the Septuagint was created /ex nihilo/.
[/quote]
Are you sure? In my previous "discussions", and I use that term ever so
loosely, he said precisely that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Larry Swain
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Larry Swain wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Larry Swain wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Larry Swain wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:50 pm, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jun 25, 6:16 am, Matt Giwer
jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Kendall Down wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Nobody has brought that up before. Do you know much about
their content?
They are a collection of letters and legal documents, from
which it is
possible to reconstruct the story of the Jewish colony at
Elephantine.
Please quote the contents of the letters which shows
they were Jews as
described in the OT.
Please provide the references to where "the OT" "describes"
"Jews."
Maccabees II.
Even if it were in "the OT" (which it isn>t, given that "the OT"
has
previously been used here instead of "the Hebrew scriptures"),
it>s a
pretty long book, so that>s not much of a reference.
I could have given the reference: I tend to post quickly.
However, I just stumbled over IIKings, 28 in the KJV: Then
Rabshakeh [an Assyrian] stood and cried in a loud voice in the
Jews' language......... On the other hand, the Septuagint has
someone called Akhima talking to a queen, of all things, called
Irini (EIRHNH). Now what was a queen regnant with a Greek name
doing there?
Your problem could be that neither I or II Kings has 28 chapters,
nor do the LXX versions, III and IV Basileiwn (nor does II
Basileiwn for that matter).
You could be talking about II Kings 18:28, but in the LXX I see no
EIRHNH there. Here>s the verse:
αι εστη ραψακης και εβοησεν φωνη μεγαλη ιουδαιστι και ελαλησεν και
ειπεν ακουσατε τους λογους του μεγαλου βασιλεως ασσυριων
Nope, no Irini there.
It is the clause before. My copy puts the 28 there.
Here>s the entire previous verse:
και ειπεν προς αυτους ραψακης μη επι τον κυριον σου και προς σε
απεστειλεν με ο κυριος μου λαλησαι τους λογους τουτους ουχι επι τους
ανδρας τους καθημενους επι του τειχους του φαγειν την κοπρον αυτων
και πιειν το ουρον αυτων μεθ' υμων αμα
Yeah, sorry, still no Irini or Akhima there.....I have no idea where
you may be getting Akhima from unless you>ve confused Aiguptos with
it, and might you be confusing Ioudaisti for Irini? In either case
neither Akhima nor Irini is in the LXX text of II Kings (IV
Basileiwn) 18.
I note you fail to provide the reference in II Maccabees.
2Mac.1
[1] The brethren, the Jews that be at Jerusalem and in the land of
Judea, wish unto the brethren, the Jews that are throughout Egypt
health and peace:
οις αδελφοις τοις κατ' αιγυπτον ιουδαιοις χαιρειν οι αδελφοι οι εν
ιεροσολυμοις ιουδαιοι και οι εν τη χωρα της ιουδαιας ειρηνην αγαθην
Now there>s an EIRHNH there, but it isn>t to a queen with the
name......
Anyway, so you and Giwer think this is the first mention of "Jews"?
I am devastated. II Kings in the Greek is II Samuel in translation,
so my bad. On the other hand, what was she doing there?
Indeed, but II Samuel does not have Rabshakeh in it.
II Basilewn (II Samuel) 18:28 reads:
και εβοησεν αχιμαας και ειπεν προς τον βασιλεα ειρηνη και προσεκυνησεν
τω βασιλει επι προσωπον αυτου επι την γην και ειπεν ευλογητος κυριος ο
θεος σου ος απεκλεισεν τους ανδρας τους μισουντας την χειρα αυτων εν
τω κυριω μου τω βασιλει
This is why I doubt your ability to read Greek, not only did you
conflate two stories from two different books but you>ve missed some
obvious things in the text.
How the blazes did you think I read it at all, having got the reference
wrong and not read the English?
[/quote]
If you didn>t read the English, why did you cite the KJV of all things?
Note that you didn>t address the issues raised....
[quote]Note that Achimaas speaks προς τον βασιλεα ειρηνη; first, what>s the
Accusative singular ending of third declension nouns in -eu-, -au-, or
-ou-? Think carefully now....ok, I>ll tell you: its -a. The paradigm
is: basileus, basilews, basilei, basilea, naus, news, nhi, naun
(except in Homer who has acc. sg. veu, and Herodotus who has acc. sg
vea)==check any standard classical or Homeric Greek grammar. The
basilea of II Basilewn 18:28 is simply the accusative singular of
basileus.
Your clue to this was TON, the accusative singular (or nom/acc
singular neuter) masculine article preceding the noun...were it a
female being referred to we>d have the accusative singular FEMININE
form of the article. We>d have also expected the accusative singular
form of the noun baileia (note the loss of the -eu- in the stem) which
becomes basileian.
Likewise, you take the EIRHNH as the "queen>s name", in which case it
must be part of the prepositional phrase with pros, and also in the
accusative rather than the nominative. Or if you took it as the
vocative, how you explain the masculine article. More importantly,
I>d ask how many times in ANY ancient literature a messenger comes and
addresses a king, queen, or other dignitary by their first name and
then prostrates himself before said dignitary? The context might have
suggested that EIRHNH here was the noun, "peace", not a proper name.
In short, your objection is based not on the text, but on a
misunderstanding of the text.
Turning to the II Maccabees bit, I ask again, so you think with Giwer
that this is the first mention of "Jews"?
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
On Jun 28, 4:28pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:36:32 -1000, Bart Mathias
math...@hawaii.edu> wrote in
news:UtOdnS1Fpf1eD_vVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net> in
soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology,sci.lang:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[...]
So you now claim that when someone says he witnessed a
miracle, he is lying?
There are no miracles. QED
I don>t think you>ll fine many native speakers of English
who interpret "lie" as "say something that isn>t true."
Normally it is understood as "say something that one
*knows* isn>t true."
As one online dictionary puts it, "to make an untrue
statement with intent to deceive," though that is a wee
bit strong.
It does seem to exclude the white lie whose purpose is to
spare someone>s feelings rather than to deceive. But 'say
something that one knows isn>t true' also doesn>t quite
work, since it fails to distinguish a lie from, for
instance, a deliberate oversimplification for paedagogical
purposes. Not the easiest word to define in a way that
accurately captures usage.
However, I>ve noticed that it>s not too unusual for the type
of argumentative Usenet habitu whose cleverness is greatly
exceeded by his perception thereof to use 'to lie' to mean
'to make an untrue statement'. Giwer is certainly a
representative of the type, but in this case a simpler
interpretation is also possible: he may be ignorant enough
to believe that the impossibility of miracles entails the
impossibility of honestly believing that one has observed
one.
[/quote]
Which brings us back to the "theoy of mind" problem. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Larry Swain
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Larry Swain wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Larry Swain wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Larry Swain wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:50 pm, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jun 25, 6:16 am, Matt Giwer
jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Kendall Down wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Nobody has brought that up before. Do you know much about
their content?
They are a collection of letters and legal documents, from
which it is
possible to reconstruct the story of the Jewish colony at
Elephantine.
Please quote the contents of the letters which shows
they were Jews as
described in the OT.
Please provide the references to where "the OT" "describes"
"Jews."
Maccabees II.
Even if it were in "the OT" (which it isn>t, given that "the OT"
has
previously been used here instead of "the Hebrew scriptures"),
it>s a
pretty long book, so that>s not much of a reference.
I could have given the reference: I tend to post quickly.
However, I just stumbled over IIKings, 28 in the KJV: Then
Rabshakeh [an Assyrian] stood and cried in a loud voice in the
Jews' language......... On the other hand, the Septuagint has
someone called Akhima talking to a queen, of all things, called
Irini (EIRHNH). Now what was a queen regnant with a Greek name
doing there?
Your problem could be that neither I or II Kings has 28 chapters,
nor do the LXX versions, III and IV Basileiwn (nor does II
Basileiwn for that matter).
You could be talking about II Kings 18:28, but in the LXX I see no
EIRHNH there. Here>s the verse:
αι εστη ραψακης και εβοησεν φωνη μεγαλη ιουδαιστι και ελαλησεν και
ειπεν ακουσατε τους λογους του μεγαλου βασιλεως ασσυριων
Nope, no Irini there.
It is the clause before. My copy puts the 28 there.
Here>s the entire previous verse:
και ειπεν προς αυτους ραψακης μη επι τον κυριον σου και προς σε
απεστειλεν με ο κυριος μου λαλησαι τους λογους τουτους ουχι επι τους
ανδρας τους καθημενους επι του τειχους του φαγειν την κοπρον αυτων
και πιειν το ουρον αυτων μεθ' υμων αμα
Yeah, sorry, still no Irini or Akhima there.....I have no idea where
you may be getting Akhima from unless you>ve confused Aiguptos with
it, and might you be confusing Ioudaisti for Irini? In either case
neither Akhima nor Irini is in the LXX text of II Kings (IV
Basileiwn) 18.
I note you fail to provide the reference in II Maccabees.
2Mac.1
[1] The brethren, the Jews that be at Jerusalem and in the land of
Judea, wish unto the brethren, the Jews that are throughout Egypt
health and peace:
οις αδελφοις τοις κατ' αιγυπτον ιουδαιοις χαιρειν οι αδελφοι οι εν
ιεροσολυμοις ιουδαιοι και οι εν τη χωρα της ιουδαιας ειρηνην αγαθην
Now there>s an EIRHNH there, but it isn>t to a queen with the
name......
Anyway, so you and Giwer think this is the first mention of "Jews"?
I am devastated. II Kings in the Greek is II Samuel in translation,
so my bad. On the other hand, what was she doing there?
Indeed, but II Samuel does not have Rabshakeh in it.
II Basilewn (II Samuel) 18:28 reads:
και εβοησεν αχιμαας και ειπεν προς τον βασιλεα ειρηνη και προσεκυνησεν
τω βασιλει επι προσωπον αυτου επι την γην και ειπεν ευλογητος κυριος ο
θεος σου ος απεκλεισεν τους ανδρας τους μισουντας την χειρα αυτων εν
τω κυριω μου τω βασιλει
This is why I doubt your ability to read Greek, not only did you
conflate two stories from two different books but you>ve missed some
obvious things in the text.
Note that Achimaas speaks προς τον βασιλεα ειρηνη; first, what>s the
Accusative singular ending of third declension nouns in -eu-, -au-, or
-ou-? Think carefully now....ok, I>ll tell you: its -a. The paradigm
is: basileus, basilews, basilei, basilea, naus, news, nhi, naun
(except in Homer who has acc. sg. veu, and Herodotus who has acc. sg
vea)==check any standard classical or Homeric Greek grammar. The
basilea of II Basilewn 18:28 is simply the accusative singular of
basileus.
Your clue to this was TON, the accusative singular (or nom/acc
singular neuter) masculine article preceding the noun...were it a
female being referred to we>d have the accusative singular FEMININE
form of the article. We>d have also expected the accusative singular
form of the noun baileia (note the loss of the -eu- in the stem) which
becomes basileian.
Likewise, you take the EIRHNH as the "queen>s name", in which case it
must be part of the prepositional phrase with pros, and also in the
accusative rather than the nominative. Or if you took it as the
vocative, how you explain the masculine article. More importantly,
I>d ask how many times in ANY ancient literature a messenger comes and
addresses a king, queen, or other dignitary by their first name and
then prostrates himself before said dignitary? The context might have
suggested that EIRHNH here was the noun, "peace", not a proper name.
In short, your objection is based not on the text, but on a
misunderstanding of the text.
Thanks. I am self taught. Every little helps.
[/quote]
That>s good to know. I applaud your efforts. A general rule to keep in
mind is that the article ALWAYS matches the noun it is modifying in
gender, number, and case....so even in those cases where you have a
masculine noun in the first declension, you>ll have a masculine article
matching in number and case. Same goes for those few feminine nouns of
the second declension. The best thing to do is as you memorize
vocabulary, or look up vocab in the lexicon, is to note the form of
article as you memorize, and also to always memorize the genitive
singular form (really helps with third declension nouns and adjectives.)
That means you need to know the paradigm of the article backwards and
forwards and able to sing in the shower to the toon of "Can>t Get No
Satisfaction".
Greek, like any language, absorbs some vocabulary from indigenous and
neighboring languages, and basileus is thought to be one of those words;
the vast majority of such words get squished into the third declension
and it always lends itself to odd forms in the oblique cases, and
depending on what period of Greek you>re reading, the form may or may
not be more or less standardized.
The EIRHNH threw you; the trick there is to watch the prepositions: if
it had been an appositive (...to the queen, Irene) it would need to be
an accusative object of pros just as basilea is (and again, because you
had pros there, and even not knowing the odd accusative ending for nouns
in -eu-, look up what cases pros takes and then dig for why basilea
doesn>t fit that). If it had been a vocative, well, that>s possible
grammatically IF basilea were the feminine form (basileian), but again
context is just as important as morphology and syntax in translating.
[quote]
Turning to the II Maccabees bit, I ask again, so you think with Giwer
that this is the first mention of "Jews"?
No, I was pointing out to him that this is earlier than he has argued.
In fact I think I posted another example yesterday.
[/quote]
Ah, good, thanks for clarifying. IN point of fact, the term in GREEK
appears in the fourth century, and the Greek sources mention the Jews
living in "southern syria" which for them was anything north of the
Sinai Penn. They borrow the name of course, it isn>t a native Greek word. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
In message <FZk9k.129124$NN3.97635@newsfe08.ams2>
Martin Edwards <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]For "Hebrew" read "a Semitic language". Nobody, not even, I think, Mr
G, is saying that the Septuagint was created /ex nihilo/.
[/quote]
Then you are wrong: that is precisely what your hero Matt the Pratt
claims.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
======================================================== |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: Re: On the matter of authority vs evidence |
|
|
In message <L4edndcEsJl6-fvVnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@rcn.net>
Larry Swain <giles@poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]Ah, good, thanks for clarifying. IN point of fact, the term in GREEK
appears in the fourth century, and the Greek sources mention the Jews
living in "southern syria" which for them was anything north of the
Sinai Penn. They borrow the name of course, it isn>t a native Greek word.
[/quote]
For the benefit of Matt the Pratt, his hangers-on, and anyone who may
think that he has a shred of sense about him, would you care to
clarify, please Larry, that you mean the fourth century *BC* in the
above? If you can cite the sources, that will be good as well - except
that it will bring down the wrath of Matt the Pratt on your head.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
======================================================== |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
