Luke 2:2 Carlson

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

JW: The following is a critique of Stephen Carlson's argument for "Foremost" for 2:2@

Hypotyposeis

One thing I've learned during this critique is that all of Stephen's claims need to be checked and that every time Richard Carrier has disagreed with Stephen on an issue Richard Carrier has been right. So for some of the following I'll merely provide Richard Carrier's related comments without checking it for myself.

Stephen has not organized his argument or even explicitly identified his key points (or significantly dealt with all of the arguments I presented here for a translation of "first). Therefore, I've gone through Stephen's Blog and picked out what I think he would consider to be his best arguments:

Stephen: "Nevertheless, the standard interpretion still leaves me cold with a number of problems, the chief among them is why would Luke specify that it was ????? ("first"). If Luke merely wanted to tell when the registration happened, presumably under Quirinius (c. AD 6), there is little need to use ?????. What does that word do for the text? Of course, the census under Quirinius was hugely important. Josephus had recognized it as as a major factor ultimately leading to the Jewish War in the 60s. In fact, this census is so important that Luke could merely refer to it in Acts 5:37 as "the census" ??? ?????????."

JW: Let's look at the offending verses:

Luke 2:1-2

"Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

What the word does for the text is Emphasize. “First” indicates this was the first census for Judea and the first of more than one census for Judea. This was the start of the Roman census system in Judea. It's strange for Stephen to even claim this issue as support for "foremost" as "foremost" creates mention of a census that is unecessary for the narrative and therefore a much bigger digression.

Ironically, I agree with Stephen that this is his "best" evidence here. But for a different reason ;) . For this to be the best evidence for "foremost" is pretty weak considering all the evidence I have for "first".


Stephen: "Another problem for me is the rather weak rendering of ??????? as "was." It seems that ?? would do a better job.""

JW: Richard Carrier: "Carlson also seems unaware of the ubiquitous use of egeneto as a form of "be." He seems to think "was" is a "weak" translation of this verb when in fact it's a common one, especially when used in a chronological sense (e.g. Luke 1:5, 2:13, 4:25, etc.; or Luke 1:8, 1:23, 1:41, 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, etc.). In fact, this connotation of the verb appears over a hundred times in Luke-Acts alone, so I don't understand why he thinks it peculiar."


Stephen: "I think that it is a parenthetical digression to the effect that, though Joseph's travel to Bethlehem was occasioned by Augustus's decree (i.e. the registration of 8 BC), the most important registration from Augustus's policies was the one that took place when Quirinius was governor (and that led to the revolts in Galilee). Thus Luke is distinguishing the registration that Joseph obeyed from that most prominent one in AD 6, not confusing it. The reason this parenthetical would have been important is the view that Josephus published in his books on the Jewish War in 75 or so and in his Jewish Antiquities around 93, identifying the AD 6 census as a major cause of the Jewish War sixty years later. Since I date the composition of Luke to be quite a few years after 70, it is only natural that Luke would want to mention it, even if it was not the census Joseph was responding to."

JW: Luke’s audience probably wouldn’t have known much about the history of Judea let alone the Quirinius census in Judea 70-100 years earlier. Besides, if "Luke's" audience was familiar with Josephus than they would know there was no earlier census in Judea than Quirinius'.


Stephen: "So how should ???? ???????? ????? ??????? of the critical text in Luke 2:2 be parsed? Without the definite article ?, the subject of the clause should simply be the demonstrative ???? and the predicate is ???????? ????? ???????. The noun phrase ???????? ????? is anarthrous (lacking an article) and ????? follows the noun, making it an absolute superlative; see Smyth § 1085: §1085. The superlative expresses either the highest degree of a quality (the relative superlative: ? ????????? ???? the wisest man) or a very high degree of a quality (the absolute superlative, which does not take the article: ???? ????????? a very wise man). The relative superlative is followed by the genitive of the person or thing surpassed (1315, 1434). On the agreement, see 1050. It is interesting how the two main senses of ????? interact with being a relative or an absolute superlative. The sense of being first in time etc. would almost certainly be expressed by a relative superlative, while the sense of being foremost or prominent could be either absolute (e.g., a most important person) or relative (e.g., the most important person). Looking at occurrences of ?????? and ????? in the New Testament, it appears to me that all (other) instances of this word as an absolute superlative (including Mark 12:28 ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??????; and Eph. 6:2 ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????????? which I had cited earlier) has the sense of being foremost, prominent, or important, not being first in a chronological or other sequential sense. Thus, from a grammatical perspective, it is increasingly clear to me that taking ????? in the sense of being prominent for Luke 2:2 is not only plausible, but probable."

JW: Richard Carrier: "Carlson commits other gaffs in "Parsing Luke 2:2" (2004), incorrectly claiming that without a definite article the intensifier hautê becomes the subject and apographê prôtê becomes the predicate, but there is no such rule. In Greek, it could be read that way, or the reverse (hautê apographê the subject and prôtê the predicate), or neither (hautê apographê prôtê as subject with no predicate). Moreover, in Koine Greek, articles are often omitted, hence Carlson is incorrect to cite its absence as a reason to reject an attributive or predicate position for the intensifying pronoun (just see Luke 20:42, 24:15; or Acts 15:32, 20:34). In fact, such a usage could even serve as an intensified definite article (e.g. Luke 1:35)."


JW: And while I Am attic, why not throw the whole kitchen sink at Stephen:

[1] The Date of the Nativity in Luke (5th ed., 2006)]

"[10.6] This is attempted by Stephen Carlson, "Luke 2:2 and the Census" (2004). Carlson incorrectly identifies the preposition en as an adverb in Ephesians 6:2, although that may simply have been a slip. More seriously, Carlson falsely claims Ephesians 6:2 shares the same structure as Luke 2:2, but they aren't even close: there is no prepositional clause following protê in Luke 2:2 but instead a verb followed by a genitive absolute. The prepositional phrase in Ephesians establishes the context of comparison as conceptual rather than chronological, whereas the genitive absolute in Luke establishes the context as chronological rather than conceptual (it reads as when Quirinius was governing Syria). Carlson is thus ignoring contextual markers. Carlson also seems unaware of the ubiquitous use of egeneto as a form of "be." He seems to think "was" is a "weak" translation of this verb when in fact it's a common one, especially when used in a chronological sense (e.g. Luke 1:5, 2:13, 4:25, etc.; or Luke 1:8, 1:23, 1:41, 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, etc.). In fact, this connotation of the verb appears over a hundred times in Luke-Acts alone, so I don't understand why he thinks it peculiar. Carlson also repeats the mistake of citing an example of the genitive of comparison (Mark 12:28) as a parallel for Luke 2:2, which cannot be a genitive of comparison, thus eliminating any relevant parallel.

Carlson commits other gaffs in "Parsing Luke 2:2" (2004), incorrectly claiming that without a definite article the intensifier hautê becomes the subject and apographê prôtê becomes the predicate, but there is no such rule. In Greek, it could be read that way, or the reverse (hautê apographê the subject and prôtê the predicate), or neither (hautê apographê prôtê as subject with no predicate). Moreover, in Koine Greek, articles are often omitted, hence Carlson is incorrect to cite its absence as a reason to reject an attributive or predicate position for the intensifying pronoun (just see Luke 20:42, 24:15; or Acts 15:32, 20:34). In fact, such a usage could even serve as an intensified definite article (e.g. Luke 1:35). Carlson also incorrectly thinks he can cite an Attic author (Thucydides) to establish an idiom for a Koine author (Luke), even though these dialects often differ in their use of articles and intensifying pronouns."


JW: Here are all the reasons Carlson ignores for a translation of "First"

Argument Why "First" is the Likely Translation for 2:2 with Key Points in order of importance:

1) Lexicon = The offending word has a Root and Primary meaning of "First".

   - The Secondary meaning of "foremost" is a common one although unlike    
      "first", it's not always the specific secondary meaning. Obviously by 
      itself the Lexicon is not determinative of the meaning of a specific
      usage but is useful when other determinants are ambiguous.
      Raymond Brown, on page 395 of The Birth Of The Messiah,   
      specifically discusses the word meaning in connection with attempts to 
      defend against Lukan Dating error and says, "The last two translations, 
      which are further attempts to preserve Lucan accuracy, involve 
      translating protes, which normally means "first," as equivalent to the 
      comparative proteros, "earlier than," or to proteron or pro, "before". (For
      objections to this, see Ogg, "Quirinius," 233.)"
      Thus without any Textual Markers indicating Context or with ambiguous 
      Textual Markers, the Default translation is "First".


2) Usage = "Luke" normally uses the word to mean "first".

  - I count 16 meanings of "first" without 2:2 and two of "foremost". Note 
    that in Luke's two uses of "foremost", 15:22 and 19:47, the
    construction is a simple combination of adjective next to common noun                 
    which gives the appearance of an idiom. 


3) Communication Logic =

"This was the Foremost registration while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The argument for Translating "foremost" here is "Luke" wanted to distinguish between the Census of Quirinius and the Census Joseph responded to. If this was "Luke's" motivation than using a word with a Primary meaning of "first", with a normal grammatical construction of "first", that the author normally uses to mean "first" would be a very poor choice to describe the Census that you want to Communicate Was Not First!. There are other Greek words to Communicate "most important". And of course what reason could "Luke" possibly have to try and avoid using an Equivocal word here who's primary meaning is the opposite of what "Luke" wished to communicate since it only helps establish the Date of Jesus' birth. I mean it's not like it was an important date or anything.


4) Textual Marker = "while Quirinius was ruling Syria" = Chronological context. Stephen has yet to provide an example of "Foremost" translation with a Chronological Textual Marker. Even if he finds one it is still only one. Why don't there appear to be any? Because an author would use other words to indicate "most important" to avoid this problem.

Further, the Absolute Superlative, "Foremost", would not be used to describe the Census which is the primary Subject here, the one Joseph responded to, but the Census it's being compared to. Since the Point of an absolute superlative is to emphasize, it would be normal to simply use it for your main subject. This type of Indirect usage of an absolute superlative sounds a little Sophisticated for Koine Greek. Another Textual Marker indicating "First". Stephen also needs to find an example of this usage.

Another Textual Marker is that "Luke" seems to give a Chronological Marker for each significant Event in the Infancy Narrative, The Birth of John the Baptist, the Birth of Jesus and the Baptism of Jesus that includes the Ruler of Judea at the time.

The final Textual Marker is in Acts 5:37 where "Luke" refers back to 2:2 by saying "the census" and using very similar surrounding descriptive language.


5) Early Witness Testimony = Understanding of "First".

Justin Martyr, The Gospel Of Pseudo-Matthew, Diatessaron, and Emperor Julian are all evidence that Early Christianity understood 2:2 as "First" and there is no good evidence of an early understanding of "foremost".

Regarding the value of Early Christian opinion to me, an unbeliever, I wouldn't necessarily give it that much weight by itself, but to Stephen, a believer, it should have some weight.


6) "First" is the Simpler, more straight-forward translation as opposed to "foremost". If the other evidence is ambiguous than the Simpler Translation should be Preferred. A translation of "foremost" would create a Digression at 2:2, a later census that was unnecessary for the narrative. "Luke" does not appear to have any such unnecessary digressions in the Infancy narrative as a whole and the problem with arguing that "Luke's" incentive here was to avoid confusion on the part of Readers who were familiar with Quirinius census of Judea, is that "Luke's" audience was Likely not familiar with Judea in general or with a census in Judea held 70-100 years earlier.

"First" makes 2:2 a Direct sentence while "Foremost" makes it Indirect.

Raymond Brown comments to the effect that if it wasn't for "Matthew" no one would dispute the "first" translation.


7) Josephus = A translation of "First" makes 2:2 closer to "Luke's" likely Source, Josephus. Josephus provides multiple references indicating the First and Notorious Roman census in Judea was when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.


8) Appeal to Authority = Every translation I Am aware of has "First".


In Summary, what earns Carlson a place at the bottom of the list is his Ignoring of all the Problems above and trying to argue based Souly on Grammar but also Ignoring the more important grammatical considerations and making wrong or at least questionable conclusions to support lesser grammatical considerations.

--JoeWallack 08:47, 4 Sep 2006 (CDT)