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 04-13-2001, 10:28 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink Omnedon

Om:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> "Another lie.

Evidently you didn't bother to look at the link. The link specifically mentions these authors:

R. Eisler
Shlomo Pines
James H. Charlesworth </font>
I did not ask if the article "mentions" any authors, what I asked was this:

Layman:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> By the way, I visited your link. I didn't see WHICH scholars claimed that the Arabic version was more original than the commonly accepted *reconstructed* version. Perhaps you could clarify it for me. Or perform another internet search on it. </font>
&

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> It appeared to me that the author (whoever he might be) was unclear if he meant that many scholars find that the Arab version is more authentic than the interpolated Christian version (which is how I read it), or if many scholars find that the Arab version is more authentic than the redacted version.

The author also failed to mention WHICH scholars held this view. </font>
After visiting the link a fourth time, I still fail to see where the article provides any scholarly sources for his opinion that some scholars believe the Arabic version to be the original Josephus account, especially when compared with the reconstructed version.

Now you accuse me of lying and claim that the three scholars you listed were "mentioned." Well, yes they were, but not for as authors of the article itself OR for the proposition that the Arabic version was most likely the original Josephus reference.

NONE of the scholars you list make this claim. In fact, the article is clear that Eisler favors a Reconstruction of the Josephus reference, NOT the Arabic version:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> R. Eisler has made an effort to reconstruct an 'original' that might have, given Christian revision, served as a base for the version that survives in Greek. </font>
So why did you mention R. Eisler Om? He is not an author of the article and does not support the contention I was asking about.

I ask you the same question regarding Schlomo Pines and James Charlesworth. They are listed as interpreters of the Arabic version, but
NOWHERE in the article are they mentioned as supporting YOUR claim that the Arabic version was most likely the original version.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism. </font>
So, Eisler explicitly rejects your position. And Pines and Charlesworth are listed only as interpreters of a version of Josephus that I don't deny exists. I was asking you which scholars at the link you provided, supported your statement that the Arabic version was most likely the original version.

Care to retract the accusation that I was lying?
 
Old 04-13-2001, 10:38 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

As a reminder, here is what you owe the audience:


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
It appears that Layman started this post, but then left it to founder. I'm just wondering if Layman is ever going to respond to the problems with:

1. the criterion of embarrassment, since it is unfalsifiable and can be explained by other things;

2. the criterion of "coherence" and why it should be valued since it is highly subjective;

3. the criterion of "dissimiliarity" and how it differs from creativity or simple error;

4. the argument from authority (overused);

5. the disconnect between large numbers of followers and proving a historical truth;

6. the difference between magic and miracles;

7. the fact that differences in Matthew and Luke do not demonstrate independence;

</font>
You posted your busted Miracle Worker thread on the 16th of February. You've been promising ever since to revise it and fix the flaws.

It's now the 13th of April. What's the delay, deLayman?

 
Old 04-13-2001, 10:43 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
As a reminder, here is what you owe the audience:


You posted your busted Miracle Worker thread on the 16th of February. You've been promising ever since to revise it and fix the flaws.

It's now the 13th of April. What's the delay, deLayman?
</font>
So I'm slow and you are a liar?

I'll take slow.

And you are under the mistaken delusion that because you raise a point I am somehow obligated to respond to it at your liesure. Some issues have been addressed. Some have no need of a response. And some I do intend to discuss, such as the difference between miracles and magic. However, I'm afraid you will have to wait on my schedule, not yours. If you would like to do your own research in the meantime and post something on this issue feel free.

As a down payment, however, please review my "Other Jewish Miracle Workers" post. It will be incorporated into the Jesus, The Miracle Worker thread.

Will you retract the accusation that I lied regarding the Josephus/Arabic version?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 13, 2001).]
 
Old 04-13-2001, 11:33 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
So I'm slow and you are a liar?
</font>
Excuse me? You're the only one saying I am a liar. Which is, quite honestly, nothing more than your infantile frustration showing through.

However, the evidence for you being delinquent in revising you Miracle Worker thread is unambiguous and available for everyone to see.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I'll take slow.
</font>
Take liar as well.

 
Old 04-14-2001, 11:10 AM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So you have no plans to explain your references to Eisler, Pines, or Charlesworth?
 
Old 04-14-2001, 12:09 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
As a reminder, here is what you owe the audience:

You posted your busted Miracle Worker thread on the 16th of February. You've been promising ever since to revise it and fix the flaws.

It's now the 13th of April. What's the delay, deLayman?
</font>
This is getting silly. We discuss something and argue about it for dozens of posts, then you start an independent thread as if I had ignored all of the points and just not addressed them. That is, of course, untrue.

Here is my first, direct response to your post. I also note that we discussed the criteria of dissimilarity and embarrassment for many, many posts before even this response:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Perhaps you could elaborate on your objections.

Do you deny the utility of the criterion of embarrassment in general? Or, is there a specific application in this post that you objected to. If so, which one? If you object in general, why should your opinion matter more than John P. Meier's? [Or Michael Grant's, or E.P. Sanders, or the Jesus Seminar?]

I understand and agree with some of the objection to the Coherence argument. However, I believe that it is at its strongest in this case when explaining the disciples adherance to Jesus, even after his death and their persecution. There were other leaders who claimed to be disciples and promised miracles. When they died, their disciples abandoned them. Even John the Baptist's disciples did not carry on.

The criterion of dissimilarity. Again, do you deny the utility of this criteria overall, or just in specific applications? And if you do, why should your opinion carry more weight than E.P. Sanders? [Or Michael Grant's, or The Jesus Seminar's?] And you are wrong that it does not take into account the creativity of the author, that is precisely what it does.

The miracles v. magic difference is a good question. I need to follow up on that.

As for the differences of M and L. You fail to address the independence of Q, Paul, Mark, and John. You also fail to discuss Josephus and the Talmud. As for M and L. It is not just that they are different, it is that
they rely on separate sources. Of course, if you are fluent in Koine Greek, perhaps you could refute Robert Van Voorst's or Kim Poffenroth's conclusions as to their independence.

As for my use of authority, guilty as charged. Not being an expert in this field, I do believe that reference to them is appropriate. However, if you believe that I Have incorrectly or inaccurately referred to authority on a specific point (such as the independence of L and M), I would be happy to
adress your concern. </font>
Now. Your turn. Why did you continue to claim that Eisler supported a point that he explicitly contradicts in the source you referred me to? Even after I repeatedly questioned you on this and have provided you with Eisler's quotes contradicting the proposition?

Oh, and where do Pines and Charlesworth support the contention you have offered (that the Arabic version is most likely original, even as compared to the redacted version)?



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 14, 2001).]
 
Old 04-15-2001, 09:33 AM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
So you have no plans to explain your references to Eisler, Pines, or Charlesworth?
</font>
So you have no plans to address the seven flaws in your so-called methods of "criticism"?

Which, of course, predate any quotations to Eisler, Pines and Charlesworth by TWO MONTHS?And additionally, for which there have been multiple requests by more than one individual, asking you to come clean and either (a) revise your criteria, or (b) disavow them?
 
Old 04-15-2001, 10:01 AM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
This is getting silly. We discuss something and argue about it for dozens of posts, then you start an independent thread as if I had ignored all of the points and just not addressed them. That is, of course, untrue.
</font>
What is untrue here is your claim to have addressed this. You're lying again, Liarman. As evidenced by the fact that you have promised to address and revise your essay, to directly speak to the seven issues.

First you tell us that you will address these issues in future revisions of the "Miracle Worker" post. Now you claim that you have already addressed them. Which is it?

Have the seven points already been addressed (in the past)? Or are they going to be addressed in a future re-write of "Miracle Worker"?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Here is my first, direct response to your post. I also note that we discussed the criteria of dissimilarity and embarrassment for many, many posts before even this response:
</font>
Yes, and in none of those earlier posts did you ever refute the fatal flaws identified in those two criteria either. So those earlier posts are of no help to you.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Perhaps you could elaborate on your objections.
</font>
1. Unnecessary, because the reason (elaboration) was already contained in the original post; and

2. They are not my objections in the first place; I copied from SingleDad's devastating critique of your essay. I can certainly add my own thoughts; but you owe your response to SingleDad, not to me. That is something that you have consistently failed to understand. (Why to SingleDad? Because he was the first one to identify the noted seven flaws in your "criteria".)


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I understand and agree with some of the objection to the Coherence argument.
</font>
Then you should realize (a) why it holds no water, and (b) find some other criterion. The subjectivity of the criterion as well as the uncertain application of it are sufficient reasons to toss it on the junkpile of broken toys.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The criterion of dissimilarity. Again, do you deny the utility of this criteria overall, or just in specific applications?
</font>
Objections to this already noted. Dissimilarity is useless as a criterion because it is unfalsifiable. If the story is consistent with what we are to expect given the historial milieu, then we are asked to accept it for that very reason. If the story is dissimilar, howevever, then we are asked to accept it on those grounds.

SingleDad may have other reasons why he rejects it, that are different from my thoughts (above).


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
And if you do, why should your opinion carry more weight than E.P. Sanders? [Or Michael Grant's, or The Jesus Seminar's?] And you are wrong that it does not take into account the creativity of the author, that is precisely what it does.
</font>
I'm not impressed with multiple, tedious references to your half-dozen scholars. If you do not understand their arguments well enough to defend their positions, then the skeptics win.

As for creativity - you're flatly wrong here. Even though this was SingleDad's objection, I believe I understand what he meant here; he meant creativity in the sense of taking extreme literary license to stray from whatever the original material was, in an effort to either make the story more interesting or insert a personal bias or viewpoint. Which, of course, calls into question the reliability of the material and its preservation against edits and other non-original changes. But of course, you already knew that was what SingleDad intended here; you merely played dumb in order to hand-wave this away.

And I noticed that you chickened out of answering SingleDad's 3rd objection: how does dissimiliarity differ from simple error? This is yet another reason why I insist you have not, in fact, answered these objections.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The miracles v. magic difference is a good question. I need to follow up on that.
</font>
Yes, and we're still waiting two months later.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for the differences of M and L. You fail to address the independence of Q, Paul, Mark, and John.
</font>
The objection, however, was to yoru claim that differences in Matt. and Luke do not demonstrate independence (contrary to what you said).


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for my use of authority, guilty as charged. Not being an expert in this field, I do believe that reference to them is appropriate.
</font>
Again: neither SingleDad nor I am impressed with multiple, tedious references to your half-dozen scholars. If you do not understand their arguments well enough to defend their positions, then the skeptics win.

Whenever your only response becomes, "But a whole lot of christian writers agree with me," it neither addresses the objections, nor does it buttress your argument. Appeal to biased authority is pointless and just a camouflaged version of special pleading.




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 15, 2001).]
 
Old 04-15-2001, 10:27 AM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Can someone tell me where Singledad wrote this critique of these criteria (multiple attestation, dissimilarity, etc)? Perhaps a link can be provided. Which thread is it in?
 
Old 04-15-2001, 10:44 AM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
Can someone tell me where Singledad wrote this critique of these criteria (multiple attestation, dissimilarity, etc)? Perhaps a link can be provided. Which thread is it in?</font>
It's in the "Jesus, the Miracle Worker" thread. Fifth post, first page. Also, read turtonm's de-construction of Layman's article first; it gives useful context on Layman's errors.

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000238.html
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:13 PM.

Top

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