Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
I don't think that Doherty allows for enough interpolations. He has tried to work with mainstream liberal scholarship, which puts a heavy burder on proof on anyone claiming an interpolation in sacred text, even if that academic does not consider it sacred any more.
|
Not only sacred. Most scholarship is generally disdainful of interpolations altogether. Many emendations, though generally accepted, are hardly considered to be as original, and when working with an ambiguous passage, certainly I am not aware of very many accepted theses resting upon the nature of the passage as interpolated. In fact, despite the many arguments for the third stanza of Catullus as interpolated, most scholars assume it isn't. I, for one, think it's authentic. That should come as no surprise to those who know my dealings with interpolations.
Quote:
|
But it is reasonable to accept the possibility that there were many interpolations between the original document and what we have now. Certainly in a court of law, the burden would be on anyone claiming that a copy of a copy (many times over) of a disputed document had not been altered.
|
That's a very misleading statement. I don't know any scholar who wouldn't agree that the Bible contains an interpolation. But the burden of proof lies with anyone who wants to argue that it doesn't belong, i.e. the one making a positive statement. Otherwise what's to stop you from removing
anything as you please?
Quote:
|
But that does not mean that all those references in Paul are not interpolations, does it? We have no very early copies of Paul's letters, the earliest possibly being the disputed reconstructed Marcionite versions or their orthodox counterparts.
|
Once again, it's still on you to demonstrate their inauthenticity.
03-27-2007, 01:35 PM
