Posted: May 08, 2012 4:52 pm
archibald wrote:IgnorantiaNescia wrote:It is about that phrase, yes. The point is that Carrier suggests a meaning for that word without bringing any evidence along. The only thing Carrier has shown on a charitable reading is that it is possible that it could mean fictive kinship, but he has not shown it is likely. He needs to do word research before suggesting such readings, otherwise we could all invent new meanings for difficult portions.
It does appear that Carrier's comparitive lack of knowledge let him down in that exchange. He is clearly not as expert in the matter as the person he is discussing with. He also strikes me as slightly unwilling to admit that.
But what I am more interested in is whether the lexicographical analysis does or can in fact lead to anything conclusive. This is not clear to me and I don't even need cito's level of skepticism to say that. It seems quite clear to me that 'brother/brothers of the lord' can easily mean something in Paul which 'X/X and Y the brother/brothers of Z' doesn't mean in wider literature of the time.
I'll readily admit there's the possibility we will miss meanings, especially if the surviving corpus of a language is small or if the meaning is extremely specific. However, what other sound method is there to determine the meaning of words in ancient texts except lexicographic research? If the usage is extremely divergent then there's a very good reason to suppose a diferent reason, but this formula ("X brother of Y") is rather common.
Anyway, my main issue is that Carrier made this claim without the necessary evidence. I think that is the reverse order of open-minded research.