Om:

I did not ask if the article "mentions" any authors, what I asked was this:

Layman:

&

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:

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.

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?

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?

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).]

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.

Take liar as well.

So you have no plans to explain your references to Eisler, Pines, or Charlesworth?

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:

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).]

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?

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"?

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.

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".)


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.


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).


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.


Yes, and we're still waiting two months later.


The objection, however, was to yoru claim that differences in Matt. and Luke do not demonstrate independence (contrary to what you said).


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).]

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?

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