I never intended to suggest that you aren't aware of such hazards. If that is what you thought I meant, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I found your initial post ambiguous, so I have been asking more questions for the sake of clarity.Stirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 3:37 pmYes, it's possible παρουσία represents a collection of semantic features for which there is no English equivalent, in such a manner that arrival, coming and presence could be collected in one semantic package. What I'm suggesting is we not be blinded by the translation options in any particular modern language. I'm very much aware of the hazards involved with trying to impose a modern English semantic network on an ancient language.Wes Wood wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 2:53 pm I can appreciate the sentiment. I suspect that there may be a common element linking these two thoughts (and perhaps others) that is currently obscured from us. At the very least, it seems to me that the word doesn't have to refer to a literal presence or imply any kind of motion toward an intended destination, even if one or the other of these elements is explicit in the context of a given passage. Is it fair then to say that your reticence pertains to the general meaning of the word rather than how it should be understood here?
I think this thread now contains two separate issues (at least) in two different dialogues. On the one hand, there is the lexical issue you and I are currently discussing about which we seem to agree more than we disagree. On the other hand, there is the discussion between Bernd Strauss and me in which I have assumed that he is more concerned with understanding the passage than he is about understanding the lexical domain of παρουσία. I fully admit that this may be a misunderstanding on my part, but it exposes my thoughts to correction if need be. It should be noted that in my response on this matter I rejected the idea that the text can support the idea that Josephus sent the courier after he arrived, but I did so without appealing to the specific meaning of παρουσία. I think the text is sufficiently clear without knowing the exact shade of meaning that it provides.
Even before now, I have wondered if the translation I offered is at least partially to blame for the confusion that has arisen. It was deficient in at least one area because of my ignorance of the context. When I wrote it, I very nearly translated the future participle with a purpose clause, and now I wish sincerely that I had. I don't think my rendering is wrong, but it isn't the best translation in context.