jgibson000

In response to a claim Ted/Jacob made about who it is that Doherty quotes on p. 338 of Doherty's book, GDon wrote:

But instead of actually answering the question asked of him, and saying who it actually is that Doherty quotes on p. 333, Ted/Jacob replied with:

leaving us in the dark.

So I write now to Ted/Jacob:

Since I meet the conditions which you imply above are those under which you **will** answer the question (i.e., I don't have the book), I wonder if you'd be kind enought to tell **me** whom Doherty quotes on p. 338. Is it as you claim, Barrett? Or is it Cranfield?

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Doherty is clearly quoting Cranfield regarding Cranfield's interpretation of Barrett's wording.

Doherty appeals to Barrett for support of "in the sphere of the flesh" as the best way to word a translation of kata sarka but Doherty does not claim they share an understanding of what the phrase means.

That Barrett disagrees with Doherty's interpretation is certainly more clear at Doherty's website than in his book. I don't think deliberate deception was intended but, in his rush to move on to his own interpretation of this particular wording, I think he failed to make it clear in the book that his reliance upon Barrett was solely for the wording and not the meaning.

Vorkosigan

What do you mean, "suppressed?"

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

It isn't clear in the note whether Cranfield is responding to Barrett's wording or just to the applicability of the phrase "in the sphere of" for "kata". But certainly, Ted's claim that "[on] page 338 Doherty states clearly that Barett's own preferred interpretation is different" (emphasis in the original) is clearly wrong. At no point in his book does Doherty make that claim that I can see.

Yes, I think Doherty appears misleading in his book on the position of Barrett, but that it wasn't necessarily deliberate on his part. (His misuse of Burton looks more serious, IMO).

But for me, this isn't about Doherty. From my experience, Doherty debates fairly. This is about Ted Hoffman. So the title of this split thread is a bit inaccurate. Can we perhaps change it to something like "Is Ted Hoffman an albatross around Doherty's neck?" or "Misrepresentation and obfuscation as debate tactics: Ted Hoffman, a case study". (I can supply evidence on either point if required)

Toto

Please try to keep personalities out of the discussion. Thank you.

Toto

Ted Hoffman

Vork, by suppressed, I mean that it was never allowed to go though. It was not explained to me why.

Gibson, you are shifting the argument. But I will address both the earlier argument and the one you are fronting. I repeat what I wrote yesterday:
I stated that the above statement: that Doherty claimed that "Barrett has come to the same conclusion as Doherty" is false. Doherty concludes, using Barrett's suggested interpretation of kata sarka as support, that Jesus was a mythical figure. He does not state that Barrett reaches the same conclusion as him.
If you maintain that it is not a falsehood, cite where Doherty makes that claim. If you cannot, admit error.

I repeat: I comment on p.338 below.

Regarding Burton, my local library is closed right now. But I was informed that the argument regarding gennao vs ginomai is in the next page after the page I reference below (p.217). What that means is that I cannot conclusively comment on it right now. I will review it later when I can access the book.
More importantly, Burton favours Doherty's interpretation as we see below:

Regarding Gal 4:4 "born of woman" Burton writes: "The words exapesteilen o theos ton autou must, yet in view of the apostles' belief in the pre-existence of Jesus, as set forth in 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 16,16, and of the parallelism of v.6 be interpreted as having reference to the sending of the son from the pre-existent state (En morphe theou, Phil. 2:6) into the world. This is also confirmed by the two expressions that follow, both of which (see below) are evidently added to indicate humiliation (cf. Phil. 2:7,8) to which the son was in the sending forth subjected, the descent to the level of those whom he came to redeem. For if exapesteilen referred to simply sending forth among men, as a prophet is sent forth under divine comission, these expressions would mark his condition previous to that sending forth, and there would be no suggestion of humiliation, but, rather, the contrary" Ernest De Witt Burton (Eds. S.R. Driver, A. Plummer, C.A. Briggs), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 1948, p.217

Burton idicates that the phrase genomenon ek gunaikos has been argued as excluding paternity by Sieffert, Friedrich in Der Brief an die Galatier, in Kritisch-exegitischer Komentar uber das Neue Testament, 9th ed., 1899.

Burton adds that "It could be reasonably supposed to imply birth from a virgin only in case it were otherwise established that the apostle knew and accepted the dogma or narrative that Jesus was so born, and not even then would it be certain that this phrase was intended to refer to this aspect of Jesus' birth. But of such knowledge or acceptance, the writings of the apostle give no hint" op. cit., p.217

It was an error on my part. I did not have a copy of TJP at the moment you were asking your question and that is why I asked why you were asking if you had a copy.

Now, provide the illustrations supporting the claim that Doherty's two arguments are nonsense.

Ted Hoffman

This sounds very interesting. I didnt know you have such a theatric sense of drama GDon.

Amaleq13

Agreed.

GakuseiDon

Thanks Ted. I appreciate that.

On second thoughts: I'll debate Doherty, but not you. I apologise to Doherty for my remark.

Ted Hoffman

Okay. By the way, I would have no motivation to misrepresent anybody's position because I have no ignorant audience awaiting to be spoonfed. I have nothing I would call a website and I see nothing to be gained by manipulating info in a deceptive way.
I personally take the accusation of misrepresentation very seriously and will readily admit where it is the case. TedM, who I disagree with on just about everything, can attest to this. If you are serious that I have misrepresented you elsewhere, I ask you to state where and how and I will readily own up - so that, for the record, you can refer to this thread. It is not my style at all even though I err now and then. I can only assume that because you see me as a nemesis of some sort, you gain satisfaction in accusing me of the basest of things, simply to piss me off.
I guess Doherty will have to bear with this colossal albatross weighing down heavily around his neck. Poor Doherty .