Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-17-2009, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The NT gospels and Acts do seem to suggest that the writers thought that some or all of the early disciples/apostles of Jesus did not fully understand what Jesus taught (i.e., the authors felt their understanding was unquestionably right, so any difference of view expressed by the early disciples/apostles must therefor been "wrong." They just didn't "get" it. To the victors go the spoils.)

It's ironic, isn't it, that these dummies didn't get it, but somehow enough of the teaching has survived to show how much they were dummies, especially when you think it was them who preserved the teaching... Good stenographers. (Do I need to spell this out?)

spin

Steven Avery · 08-17-2009, 01:54 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Robert Price has a generally favorable review of Pritz here.

Price makes some good points about where the Ray Pritz analysis can have elements of his doctrinal perspectives pre-sup'd.

(Sidenote: His HTML needs a little help running words together and it is the first time I have seen a sentence started with "Mustn't".)

A related book:

Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (or via: amazon.co.uk) - Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik (Editors)

where the debate carries into the review section, with Michael Brown and Daniel Juster giving reviews in response to a review that is more 'skeptical'.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery · 08-17-2009, 02:39 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It should be plain to most that neither your nor spamandham's opinions on what is fraud is meaningful in a context for which neither of you show you have knowledge or grounds for such opinions.

If your concern here is specifically with the word "fraud" you can note that I prefer the word forgery and included that in my response. This avoids some of the extraneous connotations of fraud.

You may have other concerns, what you think is "plain to most" however they are not expressed in a coherent and understandable fashion.

As for my supposed "lack of knowledge" you are welcome to indicate what you consider proper "knowledge" on this question. (note that I am quite familiar with the scholarly arguments used to try to paint the pastorals as a forgery, that is one possibility you are hinting at). Hopefully you are not just talking about the "knowledge" of the expositions that consider Bible pseudonymity as acceptable or common practice.

As for your supposed "lack of grounds" .. this sounds like it is imbued with your presups and theories of choice (e.g. redactions of convenience) so it is not very relevant to trying to parse whatever you are trying to say.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 08-17-2009, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It should be plain to most that neither your nor spamandham's opinions on what is fraud is meaningful in a context for which neither of you show you have knowledge or grounds for such opinions.

If your concern here is specifically with the word "fraud" you can note that I prefer the word forgery and included that in my response. This avoids some of the extraneous connotations of fraud.

You may have other concerns, what you think is "plain to most" however they are not expressed in a coherent and understandable fashion.

As for my supposed "lack of knowledge" you are welcome to indicate what you consider proper "knowledge" on this question. (note that I am quite familiar with the scholarly arguments used to try to paint the pastorals as a forgery, that is one possibility you are hinting at). Hopefully you are not just talking about the "knowledge" of the expositions that consider Bible pseudonymity as acceptable or common practice.

As for your supposed "lack of grounds" .. this sounds like it is imbued with your presups and theories of choice (e.g. redactions of convenience) so it is not very relevant to trying to parse whatever you are trying to say.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

It is about making assumptions about text types without showing you are in a position to do so. Just because something is written in the first person, but not by the person who you want it to have been written by doesn't mean that in ancient times it should be considered either a fraud or a forgery. People wrote texts within schools that had a leading figure in whose name things may have been written. It could be that the use of a famous figure was an acceptable means of writing a text. We should not retroject modern ideas onto the past.

spin

Steven Avery · 08-17-2009, 06:07 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It is about making assumptions about text types without showing you are in a position to do so.

A conclusion is not an assumption, we are not talking about "text types" and what position should a person be in to make an "assumption about text types" ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Just because something is written in the first person, but not by the person who you want it to have been written

This represents a conclusion before any analysis, as to whether this hypothetical has any relevance at all to the epistles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

by doesn't mean that in ancient times it should be considered either a fraud or a forgery.

To give an example: I have not seen any examples of a letter written years later after a person was alive (the most effective timing to not get caught, since pretending to be somebody when they are alive has one obvious problem) that was like this :

"I was here and there and did this, went to Woodstock, met Sam and Louise and we went to Starbucks" - the only place I know of this genre is modern docu-drama, not ancient writings.

That would not be considered a forgery and/or a fraud, depending on the exact circumstances. If you have examples to consider, share away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

People wrote texts within schools that had a leading figure in whose name things may have been written.

Sure, in a philosophical or teaching document, oftentimes the labour would fall on the student or disciple and the signature could be the leader. It is hard to find any relevance to that to the Pastoral epistles or 2 Peter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It could be that the use of a famous figure was an acceptable means of writing a text.

"Could be" is very ambiguous. Context, context, context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We should not retroject modern ideas onto the past.

Agreed. Nor should we assume that the past was radically different about first person citations of events and personal directives and messages without direct and powerful evidence.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 08-17-2009, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It is about making assumptions about text types without showing you are in a position to do so.

A conclusion is not an assumption, we are not talking about "text types" and what position should a person be in to make an "assumption about text types" ?

As you do it below, you can answer your own questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This represents a conclusion before any analysis, as to whether this hypothetical has any relevance at all to the epistles.

Stop deflecting. I'm making no comment about a specific text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

To give an example: I have not seen any examples of a letter written years later after a person was alive (the most effective timing to not get caught, since pretending to be somebody when they are alive has one obvious problem) that was like this :

"I was here and there and did this, went to Woodstock, met Sam and Louise and we went to Starbucks" - the only place I know of this genre is modern docu-drama, not ancient writings.

That would not be considered a forgery and/or a fraud, depending on the exact circumstances. If you have examples to consider, share away.

You are forgetting that you were making claims about past literature that was not based on any literary values from that past literature. I merely point to the fact that you haven't shown why you make your assumptions and then I propose a few approaches to text that you apparently haven't considered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Sure, in a philosophical or teaching document, oftentimes the labour would fall on the student or disciple and the signature could be the leader. It is hard to find any relevance to that to the Pastoral epistles or 2 Peter.

Here's where you are talking about text types. But why only those types?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

"Could be" is very ambiguous. Context, context, context.

I am merely pointing in directions you obviously haven't considered. After all you are making definitive claims about things you don't show reasons for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We should not retroject modern ideas onto the past.

Agreed. Nor should we assume that the past was radically different about first person citations of events and personal directives and messages without direct and powerful evidence.

That "nor" is merely you assuming similarity. I don't have to show difference. The onus is on you who said stuff like: "can be properly and much more simply called fraud or forgery for any letter than has a 1st person authorship tag" to show the intention of the author(s), as both "fraud" and "forgery" are about intention.

You get a B- in your burden shifting efforts.

spin

spamandham · 08-17-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It should be plain to most that neither your nor spamandham's opinions on what is fraud is meaningful in a context for which neither of you show you have knowledge or grounds for such opinions.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

(we consider it fraud, the ancients seemed to simply consider it standard fare).

No expertise is required to label misrepresentation of authorship 'fraud'. The need for expertise comes into play only when we try to analyze what the ancients thought of such a practice.

Steven Avery · 08-17-2009, 07:20 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

A conclusion is not an assumption, we are not talking about "text types" and what position should a person be in to make an "assumption about text types" ?

As you do it below, you can answer your own questions.Stop deflecting. I'm making no comment about a specific text. You are forgetting that you were making claims about past literature that was not based on any literary values from that past literature.I merely point to the fact that you haven't shown why you make your assumptions and then I propose a few approaches to text that you apparently haven't considered. Here's where you are talking about text types. But why only those types? I am merely pointing in directions you obviously haven't considered. After all you are making definitive claims about things you don't show reasons for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Agreed. Nor should we assume that the past was radically different about first person citations of events and personal directives and messages without direct and powerful evidence.

That "nor" is merely you assuming similarity. I don't have to show difference. The onus is on you who said stuff like: "can be properly and much more simply called fraud or forgery for any letter than has a 1st person authorship tag" to show the intention of the author(s), as both "fraud" and "forgery" are about intention. You get a B- in your burden shifting efforts. spin

And you get a C for contributing little of substance and your tendency to confuse teaching with tiresome pedantism.

If all of this was simply to say why I use the word forgery, then we would revisit discussions, and the Glenn Miller piece on the net remains a good starting point. Many, likely most, of the posters here would (and properly) use the terms fraud and forgery in this context, so the onus is on you to indicate why you think pretending to be someone else after they die and to have experienced their events and written to people you never knew about those events would not be considered a fraud and forgery, in 100 AD and in 2000 AD.

To use the phrase "text types" to a genre of writing (teacher - student) is not only puzzling, but is a confusion to the conversation, whether accidental or deliberate. Is this your own invention on FRDB ? "Text types" is a common textual criticism term.

To make it worse, it was only your presumption that this writing genre, this "text type", has anything at all to do with the NT epistles. If you want to propose it fine, however it is a bit silly to try to chide me for not going into theories that I consider non-relevant in my posts, especially a short post simply stating a basic position.

Oops... that argumentative circularity puts you down to a C- .

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spamandham · 08-17-2009, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

A little bogus factoid from spamandham.

If you wish to refer to the current scholarly position as bogus, you are welcome to do so. But generally, it's expected such claims would be supported by something of substance.

Steven Avery · 08-17-2009, 07:33 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

A little bogus factoid from spamandham.

If you wish to refer to the current scholarly position as bogus, you are welcome to do so. But generally, it's expected such claims would be supported by something of substance.

To call a hotly disputed position a fact is bogus, whether it is supported by 51% of your preferred scholars or more or less. There are lots of positions on the theory of authorship and many excellent writings supporting eg. Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

To point out the specious and bogus nature of calling a hotly disputed position a fact in order to go into additional speculations does not require revisiting reams of discussions.

Using your criterion, I could state again and again here :

"the mythicist position is totally bogus"

And this would be a true factoid to be accepted.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.