FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-10-2001, 03:44 PM   #11
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Nomad - I think I understand you all too well.

Here we have a text dated to 50 C.E., but our earliest copy dates to 200 C.E. You give the highest weight to the fact that all extant copies have the passage in question, and say this indicates that the text is original - but then allow as how the last sentence may have been added, because it is so clearly ahistorical. If the last sentence was added, why not the whole thing?

Perhaps inerrancy was not the issue. But it does seem that Wallace bends over backwards to find a reason to justify the text as Paul's words.

I still say that this is not real science. There may be some scientific aspects to it, but there is too much room for bias, preconceptions, ideological predispositions, etc. And in the end you only have probabilities or possibilities, and you have presumably reasonable people differing on very basic matters, with no way to resolve the disagreements since you can't burn people at the stakes anymore.

I think I've spent too much time on this today already.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-10-2001, 04:09 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:

Here we have a text dated to 50 C.E., but our earliest copy dates to 200 C.E. You give the highest weight to the fact that all extant copies have the passage in question, and say this indicates that the text is original - but then allow as how the last sentence may have been added, because it is so clearly ahistorical. If the last sentence was added, why not the whole thing?</font>
I really am left to wonder how you reach your conclusions Toto. Layman has already showed you why the passage may not be ahistorical. I have further stated that even if it is an interpolation, it has no real impact on the passage as a whole. Now, on that basis, you wish to argue that the entire passage may still be an interopolation?

I suppose we could argue that the entire letter is an interpolation if you like, but in the absense of any evidence to support your argument, this becomes more than a little silly. My suggestion is that if you wish to argue your point, then please address my questions and points. Just telling me that you do not think I am right does not really further the discussion.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Perhaps inerrancy was not the issue. But it does seem that Wallace bends over backwards to find a reason to justify the text as Paul's words.</font>
Keep reading Wallace's site. You will find plenty of examples where he agrees that the text is highly problematic. This just doesn't happen to be one of them is all.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I still say that this is not real science. There may be some scientific aspects to it, but there is too much room for bias, preconceptions, ideological predispositions, etc. And in the end you only have probabilities or possibilities, and you have presumably reasonable people differing on very basic matters, with no way to resolve the disagreements since you can't burn people at the stakes anymore.</font>
And here you merely confess that we cannot evaluate my arguments, nor yours, nor Earl's, nor anyone elses in anything approaching a satisfactory manner (in your view), so the whole debate really is pointless.

On that basis, what was your point on this thread?

Nomad

 
Old 05-10-2001, 05:27 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
And here you merely confess that we cannot evaluate my arguments, nor yours, nor Earl's, nor anyone elses in anything approaching a satisfactory manner (in your view), so the whole debate really is pointless.

On that basis, what was your point on this thread?

Nomad
</font>
It is not an uncommon approach to the debate. When you start losing the argument, you bail, but claim that despite the weight of the evidence against you, the merest possibility of a doubt justifies disbelief in the proposition offered.
 
Old 05-10-2001, 05:58 PM   #14
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
. . .And here you merely confess that we cannot evaluate my arguments, nor yours, nor Earl's, nor anyone elses in anything approaching a satisfactory manner (in your view), so the whole debate really is pointless.

On that basis, what was your point on this thread?

Nomad

</font>
Oh - my point. You and your sidekick Layman are always heaping abuse on people who don't side with your experts and agree with your "scientific" interpretation of ancient history, as if your own biases had nothing to do with your position. This annoys me. (I assume that is why you do it.) I just wanted to point out that you do not have the sort of scientifc consensus or certainty in textual criticism that would allow you to do that. The quality of the evidence is such that there are many scenarios consistent with the small amount of hard evidence. But this is the basis of your debate with Doherty.

The main reason I wrote up what I did was that I tracked down all of your Bible cites, and I decided they didn't say what you stated or implied that they said. The passage in 1 Thessalonians that is in dispute has a level of hostility to "the Jews" that is not reflected in any of the other passages, and is inconsistant with them.

I just found the first post by Layman (there was some delay in updating the page.) Interesting speculation - but the wrath of God towards the Jews who have not listened to their prophets is a common theme among Old Testament prophets, so I don't see why you need to bring Q into the picture. You don't cite anything resembling the finality of "wrath has overtaken them at last".



[This message has been edited by Toto (edited May 10, 2001).]
Toto is offline  
Old 05-10-2001, 06:15 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hey, Cisco!
 
Old 05-10-2001, 08:27 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Hey Poncho!

Ooops. That was Nomad's line, right?

Great post, Nomad. I was going to follow my post up with something along these lines on the "Comments" thread, but I think you've made a much more eloquent case than I would have.

Ish
 
Old 05-10-2001, 11:54 PM   #17
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

I see that Earl Doherty in the Formal Debates Forum takes about the same position that I do on the "scientific" nature of textual criticism. I will wait for Nomad's response on that thread.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.