Posted: May 07, 2012 5:49 pm
by Cito di Pense
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
The meaning of a word can only be decided by looking at its context. Without any doubt you know there are words with multiple meanings and that words can be used non-literally. Good luck establishing what is meant without the context.

The issue is not that the Greek lexicography of ancient historians is irrelevant compared to that of NT scholars (and the fields are obviously not as demarcated as you imply, though there clearly is specialisation), but whether interpretations should be based on research and thus evidence, or whether it shouldn't.

Richard Carrier has described lexicographical research as counterfactual, so that clearly indicates he hasn't done quantitative research on "brother of the Lord. Such research can not credibly be called merely "reading words", it is actually rather time-consuming. But if you insist on questioning such research, what alternative method would you suggest?

I thought you understsood: I'm willing to bin all of it. How then would be the bin laden?

You're still assuming that philological research is determinate. That's fine, but you and I are on different frequencies, leaving you still a quest for philological (i.e., contextual) authority, so that you can read a text to me and tell me what it means. The problem is not that we cannot ever decide the meanings of words from context, but who is to be the Humpty-Dumpty. I can be perfectly happy with the meaning I take away from a text, including context. I'm so sorry if you cannot be happy with that.

You don't really expect me to follow you through every step of your search for the meaning of 'brother of the Lord', do you? Your search for what limits the context of that phrase? Your authority to limit that context is necessarily limited.