Apikorus

Better translation: you are being childishly petulant.

The web site in question has been shown erroneous on a number of issues. I had my own reasons for suspecting it (its rather tendentious and suspiciously abbreviated treatment of the Flavian citations). You asked me for some better web sites dealing with some of the same material and I provided them. If you would like to search them for errors, be my guest!

rodahi

Apparently, Polycarp is still laughing. He HAS NOT presented "the vast array of gross misrepresentations and outright misinformation" he alluded to.

But, I stand corrected, he HAS correctly pointed out a COUPLE of MINOR errors; however, I suppose if someone were to knit-pick the works of John P. Meier or Raymond Brown, as examples, he/she could find errors and possibly differences of opinion with respect to SOME of their respective interpretations and conclusions.

To this point, I think any neutral reader can see that Polycarp's opening comment was unwarranted.

rodahi

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polycarp:
To your credit, the Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts site is a fairly decent one. One of the few things I don’t like about it is the format they used for listing the “chapters and verses” appearing on each manuscript. It’s impossible to read clearly. Why they used all commas instead of the usual colon between chapter and verse makes no sense to me.

I asked him about that, exampling the normal format that you I had both used in this discussion. He answered:

"I appreciate your reminding me of the
difficulties that table presents for people and I should at least give an explanation of how to read the references."

Michael

rodahi

Apikorus: Better translation: you are being childishly petulant.

You are entitled to your biased, immature opinion.

Apikorus: The web site in question has been shown erroneous on a number of issues.

YOU have presented ZERO errors, Apikorus. And your hyperbole doesn't cut it.


Apikorus: I had my own reasons for suspecting it (its rather tendentious and suspiciously abbreviated treatment of the Flavian citations).

BIAS? What do you actually KNOW about the Testimonium Flavianum? So far, you haven't shown you know anything.

Apikorus: You asked me for some better web sites dealing with some of the same material and I provided them.

Better? How so? I asked for websites that contain NT timelines that contain virtually no errors, are by scholars, and are non-controversial. Ostensbly, that is what you expected of the site Michael offered. Otherwise, you have no grounds to criticize.

Apikorus: If you would like to search them for errors, be my guest!

Why? You have done nothing but complain about the site Michael offered, but you have yet to present anything but your OPINION.

At this point,if you want to knit-pick the site to death and find a couple more inconsequential errors like Polycarp has, be my guest.

rodahi

Bede

Ron,

You are making a fool of yourself.

B

Toto

Thanks, Bede.

The web site was an amateur enthusiast's own laundry list of his study of NT history. I don't think it was meant to be much more than that - just a useful way of organizing his own self-study. Trying to make it a primary source of all knowledge or expecting it to be an unbiased summary of all scholarship from all points of view is missing the point. The author has obviously already accepted Doherty's arguments, which he links, so he does not discuss Josephus in detail.

rodahi

Jesus said, "I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to hell fire." (Mt. 5:22)

Nice to hear from you, Bede. I know you are one of the few neutral, sensible, and quite kind commentators on this board, so I value your opinion highly. I would never wish to appear foolish in your eyes.

Have a nice day and thanks for your comment.

rodahi

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: rodahi ]

SingleDad

Apikorus

You are being dismissive and snooty. This website is for interested amateurs; it is not a professional scholarly publication. If you are here to share your learning with interested amateurs, you are welcome to do so. We do not maintain this site so you can flog us with your credentials. If you merely wish to criticize us because we are not professional scholars, you are free to go elsewhere.

Apikorus

rodahi, I am an atheist. In what way am I "biased"?

You insisted that Polycarp's initial assessment of the website cited by Michael was "unwarranted" and that "any neutral" reader would see that. Well, I'm an atheist, so if anything it should be Polycarp suspecting me of bias, yet I thought that Polycarp's comments were rather trenchant. Your knee-jerk initial reaction, in which you deemed the information so important as to warrant memorization, seems consistent with a "cheerleading" approach to these arguments. (Do you still think it is important to "memorize" the "fact" that Paul wrote Ephesians?)

My remarks concerning the inadequate reference to Josephus were right on the mark, of course. It is transparently tendentious at best, and outright dishonest at worst, to cite only the TF and to dismiss it as "not reliable evidence". The prevailing scholarly opinion is that the passage does contain an authentic reference to Jesus, but it has incurred later Christian interpolation.

The author childishly dismisses "Christian" Josephean scholars when he asserts that scholarly opinion generally rejects the TF (by implication in its entirety). I suspect that even this is wrong. Louis Feldman, whose reputation as a Josephus scholar is about six orders of magnitude greater than Doherty's, believed that the passage was substantially authentic but had incurred some Christian interpolation. Again, I am not dismissing Doherty as a crackpot; I am simply insisting on some much-needed scholarly context for these issues.

The author is also silent on the other relevant Flavian passage, Ant. 20.9.1, which is overwhelmingly accepted as authentic. Of course there are those who dissent, but detailed arguments are not the point here. The point is that the author fails to mention this passage at all. This borders on dishonesty.

Another very childish tactic of yours was to insist that all these errors and misrepresentations are minor and inconsequential, and furthermore to imply that anyone with enough time on his hands could find similar errors in the works of giants like Raymond Brown and John Meier. I invite you to do so!

rodahi

Apikorus: rodahi, I am an atheist.

So you say.

I agree with EVERYTHING SingleDad said. You have no idea how much irreparable harm you have done here. IN MY OPINION, you are an arrogant, know-it-all. You have advanced the cause of theism and hurt SecWeb atheists with your commentary.

This is my last posting.

rodahi