Steven Avery

I'm not exactly sure about the meaning of the word "primacy" here, but I will conjecture it means that the Mishnah historically records disputes from before the 1st century discussions in the NT. In this regard I've always liked the edition of "the good news according to MATTHEW" by Henry Einspruch that was put out by the Lederer Foundation. Notes like the Hillel and Shammai views on divorce are included, along with some rabbinics, like Akiba, with some Hebrew text. Personally, I don't see any reason not to see specifically notated discussions like Hillel and Shammai at face in the Mishnah accounts, therefore having them precede the NT. If there are good arguments that these were simply later creations, like in the 2nd century by Akiba, I'd be interested in the scholarship. Thanks.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Rick Sumner

It needs to be assessed on a case by case basis--does an individual debate reflect realities of the first century, or later realities of a post-War Judaism? To be sure, it's not always an easy line to draw, and further muddying the waters is that redaction could be little more than editorial glosses to a pre-existent tradition, leaving us little way of telling where one ends and the other begins.

I'm not aware of any scholar who would take the entirety of the Mishnah as authentic records of debate--there's simply too much for oral tradition to account for. Thus, for example, the debate on divorce could (in fact, I'd suggest, probably is) be pre-Christian, but the Halachic argument presented in Mark could have influenced how it is phrased in the Mishnah, and we'd really have no way of telling who influenced which, or if both are drawing from a common source, or both are simply repeating popular lore.

For more in-depth discussion on the development of the Mishnah, see Sanders, "Paul and Palestinian Judaism," or almost anything by Neusner.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

I'm glad you view the Alexandrian text as woefully corrupt, but here at Infidels we don't let our religious views drive our historical and textual conclusions. Thanks for the invite, though.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

This website here has the following citation of Harrington:

• Harrington (page 38f) cites two Qumran texts on the issue:
  
  Damascus Document 4:20-5:6 declares that "taking a second wife while the first is alive" is fornication. ... The problem here, however, is that the topic at issue seems to be polygamy rather than divorce and remarriage, as the rest of the passage with its concern to explain David's several wives suggests.
  
  The Temple Scroll (11QTemple) contains a long section about the king. With regard to marriage (57:15-19), the ideal king should marry within the royal household of Israel. The text goes on to say: "He shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the time of her life." Again the "no divorce" interpretation is problematic. The first problem is whether the directive applies to anyone beyond the king. And the second problem is whether it refers to polygamy on the king's part or to divorce and remarriage, though here the evidence for "no divorce" is stronger.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

praxeus
> I am interested in the concept that "Jesus rewrote the food laws". Perhaps that is based on the alexandrian text, (which I view as woefully corrupt, as discussed elsewhere, as in the "country of the Gadarenes" discussion) and not the historic text. Could you give the precise verses involved ? Preferably in the historic text (Tyndale, Geneva, King James Bible, Textus Receptus) Thanks.

Actually you do have your religious views of atheism and such drive your textual conclusions, as I pointed out in my posts that showed that many of you insist upon a texutal view of the NT Text that MUST first assume, and then manufactures/creates/"reconstructs" an errant text, one that you can then attack to prove that the Bible is errant !! :-) lol.. talk about circularity.

Meanwhile, I will conclude that Steven's statement was based upon your circular insistence upon the necessarily errant and weakly supported and oddball and scribally corrupt alexandrian text 'version', unless somebody does in fact supply some verses on the food laws from the Bible.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

Prax, if you can explain what position I should take on the text critical issues as a result of being an atheist, I am all ears.

No problem.

Steven Avery

Sure, bear with me, and I will try.

"As an atheist" textcritical issues are double-sided (or maybe triple-sided).

There is a side of textcrit that favors atheism, since one major side of textcrit posits a corrupt text to start, favoring multiple "harder readings" from weakly supported manuscripts, that are defacto errors, of many varieties, and then tries to reconstruct that error-laden corrupt text, positing it as an approximation to the "original autographs".

(Yes there is an innate contradiction in positing inerrancy in the "original autographs" and then accepting a textcritical methodology that must create errancy in the "original autographs" approximation -- the only reason somebody would take such a contradictory position is some combination of ignorance, spiritual blindness, scholastic pride, rebellion or hypocrisy. For the benefit of the doubt, most are simply ignorant of what is at play.)

So, ironically there are a number of folks who wear the "Christian apologetics" label who do in fact favor a reconstructed approximation corrupt text, so when you talk to them, you have a good advantage. Go for it, use it. ("as an atheist"). You will in fact generally wipe the floor in an apologetics sweep, go get the brooms. You can also combine the harder reading errors with mistranslations that they accept, like the infamous liar's paradox of Jeremiah 8:8 ('lying scribes', in their text). Congrats.

You both essentially, paradigimically, agree the text is flawed and corrupt (although often the "Christians" haven't thought their position through), and that group of "Christian apologetic" folks will then do the 99% dance, or the "scribal error" dance.

"There are 26,000 verses and we only have real major errancy problems in 25 verses"

is the type of statement they are famous for (although I am plugging in numbers, and disagree with their analysis anyway, practically as well as conceptually). They have the Ivory Soap Bible belief. Almost 99 44/100% pure. And that is only in their theoretical, malleable, ethereal Bible, (a Chicago Inerrancy Bible) they will offer no tangible, real Bible to defend, just a conglomeration of pick-and-choose, pay-as-you-go, readings.

Rather funny, the whole enterprise, a little sad.

Now, "as an atheist" you may occasionally talk to folks who believe that the historic text is the true Bible. They will defend the King James Bible, and acknowledge the excellence of its predecessor Bibles, such as Tyndale and Geneva, and the excellence of the underlying language manuscripts, the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text. Often they will be defending an actual, tangible Bible as the Inspired and Preserved Word of God, most commonly the King James Bible (or Authorized Version).

This view has tons of actual "Textual Analysis" support as well, but the analysis was not done on unbelieving paradigms of inflating conflations, or magnifying harder readings or error, or elevating rubbish bin manuscripts.

You don't really have to know all the details of the arguments between historic Traditional text analysis and modern textcrit mishegas. It really is a paradigmic quagmire, although it is helpful to understand some details.

Your only responsibility "as an atheist" is to talk to the true believer in an inerrant and infallible Bible, inspired and preserved, with authority, tangible, exactly where he is at, and about the Bible text that he is defending.

If you believe that text is wrong, errant, make your demonstrations from the text that he or she uses and defends, not from the text that he vigorously condemns and will never use. Talk to him where he is at, not where the unbelievers want him to be.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Wallener

Apologies: are we still talking about John? I don't see anything about food laws in John 7...?

Steven Avery

That reference would likely be to Mark 7:19, in the alexandrian text, not the Traditional text.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

Prax, I'm afraid that you are suffering from many misapprehensions here. Saying "I don't believe in gods" has no relationship to any particular text of the Bible.

Prax, are you saying that texts must be accepted at face value? That variants should be ignored? Exactly which particular single manuscript of the Bible is the right one? Are variants and problems with the TR and its text family resolved differently than those of the NA 27 Greek text?

The text IS "flawed" and "corrupt." It was copied by human scribes, who made errors and had their own agendas. The text we have is simply a reconstruction.

Yes, well, that's true of all believers.

Here we agree.

LOL. Prax, when scholars have good methodology, I go by the scholars. Which text I go by has nothing to with being an atheist, but where the scholars are.

It's nice that you want me to talk to you using whatever version of the TR you think is inerrant, but I prefer to talk with people who put their religious beliefs aside when performing scholarship. We're bumping into the same problem we had before. Thousands upon thousands of Christians have no trouble using the texts reconstructed by modern textual criticism. Only a tiny cadre of conservatives declines, and entirely for religious reasons.

Further, your point about "talking to people in their own language" applies equally to you. You're here, and here everyone uses the critical text apparatus. Therefore, by your own ethics, it would appear to be incumbent on you to use that apparatus as well.

Vorkosigan