Eric Svendsen refuses to concede that we have handily dismantled his thesis. His comments are in red. David Palm's are in black. My comments are in blue.
And not citing a document that the majority of 20th cent scholars dates mid-2d cent would be a significant point to make about a study of the literature composed between 100BC and 100 AD because of what particular reason, Mr. Palm?
Mid-Second century? Ya' mean like 150 A.D., Eric? A whole 50 years outside of your bogus range? Man, this is rich. But just for the record, I won't let this pass, uncontested. The FACT is, folks, that the majority and the most eminent scholar within that majority place the dating ON AVERAGE right in Svendsen's range. Burchard says it's BETWEEN 100 B.C. to 135 A.D. That means the mean average is 18 A.D. And the other sources say basically the same thing. Svendsen's attempt at picking the later date in order to save his thesis, although quite expected, is nonetheless another act of unbridled gratuity. Furthermore, throughout his responses, Mr. Svendsen seems to have a difficulty understanding the words "consensus", "majority", and "most". If he cannot grasp these concepts and apply them honestly in his responses, how can we possibly trust his scholarship?
In the case of any word or phrase, if the usage has been shown to favor a certain semantic nuance in the literature under consideration, then the burden of proof always--always, always, always--falls on those who are posit an unlikely usage. Mr. Palm, I have now read several of your posts here, and each one is shallower than the previous. Are you going to present a real argument against my thesis, or continue throwing red herrings of supposed possibilities? Still awaiting a response that has substance.
But Mr. Svendsen, where precisely have you shown us that the usage of heõs is demonstrably different than the usage of heõs hou? Have you tabulated the results of heõs between continuation and cessation and compared it to the usage of heõs hou for these same meanings? I don't believe you have. So it is beyond me how you can say, with any sort of authority, why you think heõs hou is more likely to mean cessation than heõs by itself. We already know that continuation under heõs alone is less common. What does that prove? And even if you did DO THE WORK, which you did not, and proved a tendency of heõs hou to favour cessation more than heõs alone, all you have succeeded in doing is showing us that "heõs hou-continuation" is less common than "heõs-continuation". And how does this conclusion, even if you prove it, win the day for you on Mary's perpetual virginity?
[Regarding the Life of Adam & Eve text:] But on the contrary, the immediate context implies that they will not [touch Adam's body] and the larger context shows that they do not.
Patently false. Your suggestion is ridiculous. The immediate context implies no such thing, and the broader context implies no such thing either. It is rather assumed that Adam's body would be buried--hence "touched"--after the fact. In fact, we are specifically told that he was buried in the second passage from AoM that I cite in my book.
Yes, it does say that he was buried, but the question, Eric, is BY WHOM is he buried? He is buried by THE ANGELS and not Adam's followers! That makes a critical difference to the meaning of heõs hou as I write in my piece:
But after all this, the archangel asked concerning the laying out of the remains. And God commanded that all the angels should assemble in His presence, each in his order, and all the angels assembled, some having censers in their hands, and others trumpets. And lo ! the 'Lord of Hosts' came on and four winds drew Him and cherubim mounted on the winds and the angels from heaven escorting Him and they came on the earth, where was the body of Adam. And they came to paradise and all the leaves of paradise were stirred so that all men begotten of Adam slept from the fragrance save Seth alone, because he was born 'according to the appointment of God '. Then Adam's body lay there in paradise on the earth and Seth grieved exceedingly over him. (38:1-5)...Then God spake to the archangel(s) Michael, (Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael): 'Go away to Paradise in the third heaven, and strew linen clothes and cover the body of Adam and bring oil of the 'oil of fragrance' and pour it over him. And they acted thus did the three great angels and they prepared him for burial. And God said: 'Let the body of Abel also be brought.' And they brought other linen clothes and prepared his (body) also. For he was unburied since the day when Cain his brother slew him; for wicked Cain took great pains to conceal (him) but could not, for the earth would not receive him for the body sprang up from the earth and a voice went out of the earth saying: 'I will not receive a companion body, till the earth which was taken and fashioned in me cometh to me.' At that time, the angels took it and placed it on a rock, till Adam his father was buried. And both were buried, according to the commandment of God, in the spot where God found the dust, and He caused the place to be dug for two. And God sent seven angels to paradise and they brought many fragrant spices and placed them in the earth, and they took the two bodies and placed them in the spot which they had digged and builded. (38:1-40:7)
As the bolded text above clearly indicates, God sent his angels to recover Adam's body and to bury it. This means that, in the preceding chapter referred to by Svendsen, Adam did indeed expect his body to be retrieved by God, and instructed his followers therefore NOT to touch him - either before his death or after it. As such, the main action of "not touching" continues through heõs hou.
First, give us a methodologically and linguistically sound reason why your date range was not centered on the writing of St. Matthew's Gospel, rather than on the birth of Christ.
That's easy. Because later usage is irrelevant to the point, but earlier use shows us the etymological changes that led to the current usage. I could have stuck to the NT period itself and that would have been completely acceptable to the issue of usage, but I wanted to note the kinds of changes in the phrase that led up to its usage in Matthew's day. All subequent usage is, of course, completely anachronistic to first-century usage and is therefore irrelevant. How is it you don't know this, Mr. Palm?
What kind of non-answer is this? If "later usage is irrelevant to the point", Mr. Svendsen, then why did you bother with 50 years after Matthew's Gospel? If it is "completely anachronistic", Mr. Svendsen, then why did you include 50 years after Mattthew's gospel? If 50 years, why not 100 or 150? What is the rationale for using simply 50 years? Secondly, it is completely bogus to EVEN claim that "all subsequent usage is completely anachronistic to first-century usage". Why do you believe this Mr. Svendsen? Where is the linguistic basis for saying that such Grammar shifted remarkably between 100 A.D. and 200 A.D.? There is none of course. And, you know it, Mr. Svendsen. Finally, Mr. Svendsen, you still have not sufficiently acknowledged how absurd the implication of your thesis range really is. You effectively claim that there is nothing at all exceptional with heõs hou meaning continuation in, say, 120 B.C.; losing that meaning at 1 B.C.; and then regaining the continuation meaning at 120 A.D. This is scholarship? No. This is a joke. That's what Eric Svendsen's thesis is - a joke.
The Catholic Legate
December 12, 2003