Posted: May 08, 2012 8:39 pm
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
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.
Sure. I agree. There is perhaps no better method. And method is better than no method. And thorough method is best of all. But there are the general questions of (a) whether there is enough raw material in the sample and (b) how much 'this fits a formula' can be taken to mean 'is probably same as general formula'. I am still puzzled. What makes us think 'Paul' uses the phrase the way it is used outside Paul and/or outside Christianity? Paul seems, arguably, to have his own 'internal' language, to a large extent.
By the way, I think there is more than just a possibility of missing something. I think that Sander's comparison with Alexander and Ehrman's unwarranted degree of certainty are de facto examples of missing something. That was my point.
IgnorantiaNescia wrote: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.
Sure. Carrier has his shortcomings. Ehrman has his shortcomings. And?
