Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fathom

Is there any particular reason why anyone should accept your suggestion of interpolation when there's no evidence whatsoever to support it?

"Born Of Woman"? A Re-examination of Galatians 4:4

Earl Doherty

Let's look at one of the first things you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

Some translations of the verb in verse 6 render it in the perfect tense: “God has sent into our hearts…” but this is misleading. The question is, are the two thoughts, the two “sent” actions, more or less contemporary? Might they essentially be complementary parts of the same process? By using a perfect tense in verse 6, translators set up a “God sent…God has sent,” sequence, as though the second is completely separate and later than the first, the former representing the advent of Jesus and his life on earth, the latter the installation of his Spirit into Paul’s converts a generation after his passing. And no doubt such a translation has been influenced by that assumption. But if the two ‘sendings’ are essentially contemporary, Paul would be relating both to the time of his own activities: the sending in both cases would then relate only to the Spirit of the Son, so that we could take both in the context of the revelation of Christ by God to Paul and his congregations—as including the wider circles of contemporary Christ belief.

Both interpretations are still referring to the past tense, and therefore you are actually arguing against two interpretations which actually agree with each other. Your argument attempts to make a slight disagreement between the two interpretations, and this is speculative at best.

Understand you are arguing against interpretations, and not the actual Greek text.

Why not just look at the Greek text and see what it says? You will notice that the word "has" is not there. This alone makes your argument pointless.

If it isn't there, why bother?

Toto · 07-01-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...why do you say that?

It seems to me, the speculative position would be to disallow for later editing.

Simply because it is speculation. In addition, he's forced to reinterpret the meaning of words and accept a far less likely translation than that which has been determined by scholars throughout the ages.

If he wants to make a strong credible argument, then this fault of reinterpreting words to a less likely, or even unlikely interpretation must be corrected.

He needs to learn to present his argument within what is acceptable to scholars, and not venture so far off the grid as to be scoffed. It is easy to pick apart speculative arguments when interpretations of words are far less likely, unlikely, or almost impossible to agree with.

Fathom - this is where discussions with you get difficult. You like to appeal to "scholarship" but you have not really surveyed the scholarship. For example, I do not know of any scholar who denies that interpolations are possible in Paul's letters as you seem to.

You are attacking Doherty for "speculation," but all of this field is speculation, some of it more likely than others. Most of the scholars in this field disagree with each other to some extent.

This is where it would help if you revealed a bit of your background and which scholars you find most persuasive.

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Simply because it is speculation. In addition, he's forced to reinterpret the meaning of words and accept a far less likely translation than that which has been determined by scholars throughout the ages.

If he wants to make a strong credible argument, then this fault of reinterpreting words to a less likely, or even unlikely interpretation must be corrected.

He needs to learn to present his argument within what is acceptable to scholars, and not venture so far off the grid as to be scoffed. It is easy to pick apart speculative arguments when interpretations of words are far less likely, unlikely, or almost impossible to agree with.

Fathom - this is where discussions with you get difficult. You like to appeal to "scholarship" but you have not really surveyed the scholarship. For example, I do not know of any scholar who denies that interpolations are possible in Paul's letters as you seem to.

You are attacking Doherty for "speculation," but all of this field is speculation, some of it more likely than others. Most of the scholars in this field disagree with each other to some extent.

This is where it would help if you revealed a bit of your background and which scholars you find most persuasive.

I am not denying they are possible, but challenging the credulity of the argument. If we accept such statements at face value, we are fools. We need evidence for these type of statements to even begin to approach credulity.

Toto · 07-01-2008, 11:14 AM

And by the way, Doherty is reading the Greek text. Do you read Koine Greek?

Toto · 07-01-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

...I am not denying they are possible, but challenging the credulity of the argument.

Then you need to do more than just dismiss the argument with a wave of your hand. Why is the argument not credible? What extensive thought and considerations lead you to that conclusion?

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And by the way, Doherty is reading the Greek text. Do you read Koine Greek?

I use translators personally, as well as other software, and research extensively. The word "has" is not present in the Greek text.

Toto · 07-01-2008, 11:18 AM

Of course "has" is not present in the Greek text. In English it is used as part of the verb phrase to indicate tense.

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

...I am not denying they are possible, but challenging the credulity of the argument.

Then you need to do more than just dismiss the argument with a wave of your hand. Why is the argument not credible? What extensive thought and considerations lead you to that conclusion?

No supporting evidence. None.

Speculation is not evidence.

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Of course "has" is not present in the Greek text. In English it is used as part of the verb phrase to indicate tense.

In English yes, but the argument is "interpretation." We have many translations, of which many translate to "has" and many do not.

All his argument is about is against translations. It really doesn't say anything about what Paul actually said.

He needs to specify his best argument of which translation is the best, and argue from that point, otherwise what is he actually saying?

Ben C Smith · 07-01-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

He needs to specify his best argument of which translation is the best, and argue from that point, otherwise what is he actually saying?

I think Earl is saying that the English translations without the has are better than those who have it.

Ben.

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

07-01-2008, 11:14 AM	#54
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	And by the way, Doherty is reading the Greek text. Do you read Koine Greek?

07-01-2008, 11:18 AM	#57
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Of course "has" is not present in the Greek text. In English it is used as part of the verb phrase to indicate tense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.