Toto

Paul's 12 and the gospel 12 would then be different groups, no? So what value would that "tradition" be? Please expand on that argument.

I did not offer this comment as "proof" of any assertion. It was just an alternative explanation of the text. I have stated before that I do not think that the amount of evidence for early Christianity allows for much "proof."

All you have is the text, and you are trying to derive much more significance from it than is warranted. You want to find some support for your preferred version of early Christian history. It's not there.

I cite Price because he is the most open minded and creative thinker that I have read, but I don't take his word for anything.

But if you happen to know of some scholarly refutation of Price (based on something other than a reluctance to admit to any interpolations in Paul) - go ahead and cite it. Please.

Roger Pearse

I appreciate you saying this, as people got a little anxious at my characterising the position in question as leading to obscurantism. But here we have a classic example where it *has* led to obscurantism.

I'm not pillorying *you*, you understand -- I think this sort of undertow is present all over the place, which is why I addressed it. My feeling is that we need to reject any form of argument that tends to make us into obscurantists. (And, from the atheist point of view, as far as I can see, it's unnecessary anyway).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that this is not how the ancients discuss the formation of the canon, and suggests an arbitrariness quite foreign to the discussions in (e.g.) Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius. But this is a separate issue from the one that I have in mind in this thread.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

squiz

Do you mean to tell us, that most Christians (ie. normal "liberal" Christians, not US fundies) do not find the integrity of the bible and its traditions to be of importance? Tell us then, what do they base their faith on?

squiz

What about the Johanine Comma? Are you saying that there is little evidence for this as an interpolation, or are you saying that it is not substantive? It seems to me that if this is an interpolation, it says a lot about the development of the idea of the Trinity.

gregor

Should we have a sticky to help people understand was certain logical fallacies are?

Seeing dlb's incessant mis-citations to logical fallacies in another thread and Solitary Man's erroneous "argument from authority" above, it seems that many don't understand what a fallacious argument is.

Solitary Man

I'm saying it's not substantive.

Solitary Man

See if you can find Gamera's old posts. Or rather, why don't you ask them yourself.

2-J

It's not obscurantism, because I am not saying definitely that we can't know anything about ancient texts, or that we don't know anything about what they were originally like, or we don't have any reliable information about them when we do.

I was more (originally) responding to the point you were making about the other 'secular' ancient texts, in which you were implying that a grave loss would occur if we were forced to consider that we couldn't be sure about what ancient texts originally said, or how reliably they had been transmitted. It's exactly the same form of argument as the (at least posted twice on here before as i recall even in my limited time here) old 'you accept socrates is real don't you! and that's on the basis of some similarly dodgy texts. aha! so you see, your standards aren't high enough to doubt [insert claim made in religious text here]!'

My point has only ever been that that argument carries no weight whatsover. If, for legitimate reasons, on examining the NT / early christian texts we are forced to admit we can't be sure what they originally said and that they might involve subsequent fabrication, and if that entails that we can't be certain about other ancient texts too, then so be it. That is the rational conclusion. On more than one level (not only is it more intellectually honest than disregarding the arguments because something previously treasured might be lost, I've tried to argue that actually nothing of any substantial value would be lost anyway - Plato would still be as great, as would Cicero, even if we couldn't be sure about them).

So you see, I'm not promoting obscurantism, I'm merely saying invoking other ancient literature or other ancient figures as 'threats' against sticking to a line of rational argument, has no place in this debate.

patcleaver

It is just as obscurantist to claim that the texts are more reliable then the evidence indicates, as to claim that the texts are less reliable then the evidence indicates. We need to approach the question of reliability in an unbiased manner.

If there is no evidence that the texts are reliable, then it is obscurantism to claim that they are reliable, becaue then your trying to obscure the truth about the texts.

It is irrelevant, what the results are of doubting the textual reliability of ancient documents, the only thing that is relevant is whether or not you can prove that the texts are reliable.