TF: Thank you very much for your affirmative constructive speech. My first question is did you really just quote Judas in Mt 26:9 to support your case?
Dan: Yes I did.
TF: Ha Ha. OK, I thought so, I just wanted to make sure. So the point of that was what?
Dan: That Judas believe something else could have happened with the perfume. Mary poured the perfume out on Christ’s feet but Judas believed something else was possible; namely that it could have been sold.
TF: Isn’t what Judas was actually trying to convey was that the item was very valuable?
Dan: That’s what enabled Mary. That opened up that alternative for Mary. Yes, Mary was able to sell it for lots of money because it was worth that.
TF: Was his point that the thing was a valuable item and it was being wasted?
Dan: That was not his whole point. But yes that’s a part of it.
TF: What was the whole point?
Dan: That the perfume could have been sold.
TF: And his point with regard to that was not that there was a philosophically sturdy basis for saying this was a possibility that could have happened. But rather simply that she made an unwise and wasteful choice, right?
Dan: Yes, his point was exactly what he said. It could have been sold. I am not sure how more specific I can get.
TF: He wasn’t trying to make a philosophical point.
Dan: Not particular, no. Obviously there’s a lot predicated on it. He assumes that there’s a market to sell it; he assumes that Mary exists. So if you want to call those philosophical points, sure. But the basic statement in scripture is she could have sold it and I believe that’s true.
TF: Turning to a different topic, you mentioned in your affirmative constructive that 17 times the dictionaries defined choose as to prefer or decide or to select and that these are synonyms rather than definitions. Is that an accurate statement of what you said?
Dan: yes, that’s correct.
TF: Which definition was the one you went with?
Dan: To select from a number of possibilities and I was also OK with to select from a number of alternatives.
TF: Both of those definitions use the word select. Is that correct?
Dan: That’s correct.
TF: And that’s one of those words that’s a synonym.
Dan: That’s right.
TF: So how do you escape your own criticism that those are synonyms rather than definitons?
Dan: Because it’s more complete. It adds more. We are almost out of time.
TF: If you would like to complete your answer it’s OK with me.
Dan: Ok fair enough. Synonyms do kind of work as definitions but they are not complete in a verbal sense. What completes them is that they refer to something we know and experience in everyday life. So if it’s something you deal with all the time there’s almost an implied understanding of what it is. Let’s take an armadillo. Just saying the word armadillo calls to mind the creature with a hard shell and a little tail that walks around. So you don’t need a full description if it’s something like that. On the other hand, it’s incomplete, and what you want is a real description; he’s grey; he’s got toenails and all that stuff. So synonyms are somewhat helpful, but they are abbreviated.
TF: Alright. Thank you very much.