Ted Hoffman

I know because what they achieve is marry Paul to the gospels. I may be wrong but I judge their intentions based on the results of their acts. As rational people, I assume they acted to achieve a certain objective. In my view, that objective is to make Paul fit with the gospels.
No
Yes, it is possible. All things are possible.

Ted Hoffman

Ben, do you believe that Doherty purposefully wrote an incorrect statement in order to mislead the readers?
Or do you believe that Doherty was unaware that the statement was incorrect?
What do you think?

krosero

I wonder what it is you're fishing for, Ted. Are you trying to get me, a historicist, to support your position? I was referring to disagreements about whether Paul was referring solely to human rulers or to spiritual rulers working through human agency. Enough authors have opted for the latter for me to call it a "wide" debate (maybe the word "wide" is what pleased you, I don't know). There are wide debates, in that sense, about the particulars of evolution, too -- but no wide debate about the general facts of evolution (at least, not among scientists). Just so, there is no wide debate about whether archontes refers to spiritual rulers working without human agency. That's a debate that exists only in debates with mythicists, who are still few in number.

The archontes debate is deeply uninteresting to me, because nothing you have yet presented impresses me as pointing to pure mythicism on the part of Paul. The range of meanings of archontes is known, and I don't see how either a mythicist or a historicist is going to prove anything from "rulers of the age." Present something that you and Earl have not already presented somewhere, something substantially different, and then we'll have a discussion.

Now it's your turn. What about all the rest of my post? Why did you sidestep it?

In case there's any confusion about your question, Is Earl's statement correct or incorrect?, here's my answer: No, it is not correct.

Kevin Rosero

krosero

That's the first time I've heard this at Infidels.

Kevin Rosero

jgibson000

I don't see any such marrying. Perhaps you could point out to me where and how it occurs.

Besides, haven't you left out the possibility that Paul marrys himself to history (as Brandon argues).

Do you now? Well leaving aside the question of whether this is a sound methodology for determining someone's intentions, let's note your statement that it is the one to use commits you to saying that since the result of Earl's acts (i.e., the way he has selectively quoted scholars and contextualized the quotes from them that he uses) was to make it appear, contrary to fact, that numerous "mainstream" scholars support him on his "demons only in a heavenly realm" crucifixion scenario, that his intertions were rather pernicious.

Or would you claim that in Earl's case, your methodology for determining what someone intended does not apply and/or should not be used?

As rational people, their aim would seemingly be to follow the evidence where ever it leads, not to achieve a preconceived conclusion. Rational people do not try to force evidence to say what it does not say or to support what it does not support.

But your "acts" reveal otherwise. You base your conclusion not on any actual evidence but on a unsound suppositions about intentions and what, according to you, rational people do. So your claim is based on nothing more than a (bad) hunch.

Sorrry, Ted. But logically, formally, and functionally your claim about Brandon, Barrett, Hering, Boyd etc. is the same as that of often uttered one of Marshall B. Gardner that the only reason he never got (or expected to get) a "fair hearing" for his views was because of "conservatism of [scholars] who do not care to revise their theories ---and especially when that revision is made necessary by discoveries ... made independently of the great universities."

These scholars, he claimed, "have their professional freemasonry. If you are not one of them, they do not want to listen to you."

But who was Gardner? He was the author of _Journey to the Earth's Interior_ and purveyor of the "fact" that in his eyes all scientists were blind to that earth was hollow and held a sun 600 miles in diameter at its center and had openings by which one could travel into the hollow at both poles.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith

I doubt Doherty intended to deceive. I have written statements more misleadingly than that without intending to deceive.

Ben.

jgibson000

But this is a different issue from the question of whether the way the "quotes" are reporduced and used within the context in which they appear are deceptive.

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

Too eager, are we now?
Yes, of course. That does not mean that that is what Paul meant any more than every occurence of the word Sunagoge in the New Testament means an architectural edifice. Speaking of synagogues, historicist and typically pious scholars have actually taken back Biblical History a few years back by assuming gospel accounts into their interpretation of the word synagogues. Or even adelphos.
As Kee notes:
Howard Clark Kee, Defining the First Century Synagogue, (in Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress), 1999, p.9

I suggest that it is the same thing we are seeing here with respect to archontes: its meaning is a dubious scholarly construct that is not directly derivable from Paul.
That is what archontes means. And Doherty provides an interpretation of archontes, not the interpretation of archontes killed Jesus.
We know that scholars write refutations of arguments they disagree with. Alienation is a social phenomena, not an academic one. Scholars whould refute works that are misleading. They should provide guidance to the masses, who are likely to be 'taken' by such works. I infer that they havent refuted Doherty's theory because they cannot.
After all, we had what were called the "Jesus Wars". They fight each other but alienate outsiders huh?
It would also stop him from making his case because he would be expending his energy destroying the HJ case. His objective was to present the MJ case. I have started a thread linked to his responses to the lamentably weak 'critiques' of the JM theory. You may find it relevant to this discussion.
There can be no vigorous case where reliable evidence is all but lacking. It is about providing the best account for what is known, and what is in the documentary record. The HJ case is not even close to being called vigorous.
Doherty recently provided the following quote from Robert Funk:
[Emphasis Mine]
The Fourth R, January-February 1995, p.9
He should present an argument. But the question is whether it is necessary and whether it is necessary enough to make the book heavier and more costly.
Earl may not appreciate the excuses. I dont know. I just love discussions and challenging HJ proponents. When I get bored I will simply stop. I just walked into IIDB and found an argument being attacked and I chose to defend it. I like a challenge I guess.
Well, you are in the historicist camp so it really doesnt matter what you think. What is important is whether you can debunk the MJ hypothesis.
Facing up to the mainstream is not enough positive attitude? Jeez.
Which critical scholars favour that interpretation? Just about all scholars that have been cited take them to be demonic powers [that stood behind human rulers]. Show that they are not several as I indicated.
Just cite Paul. Plain and simple. Because I say Paul does not state X. State Paul stating X or just own up.
Correct
Please cite scholars that state that in 1 Con 2:6-8, the term archontes refers to temporal rulers.
Besides me, Jeffrey would be very interested in seeing your evidence for this.
List them please. Now. The scholars arguing that "Paul was referring solely to human rulers."
We are already having a discussion, aren't we? Or we must discuss novelties only?

Ted Hoffman

To be clear:
Jeffrey:
[Emphasis Mine]
Now, who is telling the truth?
Or shall we simply harmonize Jeffrey and Krosero by stating that, well, see, there is some wide debate but there is only a little controversy?

You do see how he has quoted Brandon though. Why do you think he left out the parts he did? You believe he had no idea what the meaning would be without the sentences he removed?

Ted Hoffman

They marry Paul and the gospels because Leon Morris for example, used Jn 16:3 and Mk. 1:24, 34. Paul never mentions Pilate. Brandon does.

Ben is not so sure about this. Why are you so eager to impute ill motives to Earl?
By all means, use whatever methodology you believe is valid. You dont have to ask for my permission.