Chris Weimer

I'm sorry, I didn't see anywhere that Jake has brought up even Detering. And then again, even if he did, it's an argument from authority. I second your opinion to see the evidence in these threads for interpolation.

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof always lays with the one's making the positive claim.

If you're going to try to rebut me, at least do so accurately. I never said I doubted interpolations - heck, I've identified a couple myself - but before one can accept an interpolation it first has to be identified and shown to be one.

Similarily, it has been shown that Memphis has a high crime rate among young black men. Does that mean it's up to the defense to prove the accused is innocent? No! Never! It lays with the prosecution to show that the defendent is guilty. Or have we abandoned normal logic here?

Toto, I'm ashamed that you would even imply I'm a Christian apologetic. That is very unprofessional of you. Furthermore, no interpolation has even been identified yet, so I have no idea how you feel the standards are too high.

Are you familiar with my work, Toto? Do you read my blog? Have you forgetten the thousands of posts I've made here in BC&H destroying Christianity to pieces, and you still have the audacity to call me a Christian apologist?

Yes, I have read Robert Price's work. Very interesting. Now use what he says to make an argument. None of you have even defined an interpolation yet, how can you accuse us of anything is far beyond me.

Makes me wonder why I even bother here anymore.

Chris Weimer

This is too insulting.

No Robots

Very well. My apologies. I hope, though, that you see that insinuations about quote mining are likewise extremely insulting. The implication is that I have no reasoned basis for my position, and that I select quotations on an ad hoc basis. I understand that in the battle against mythicism there has been a need to communicate in severe language. It would be a shame, however, to carry that tone into discussions between people who do believe in Christ's historicity.

Toto

Chris - I did not state that you were an apologist. If you think I did you need to read more carefully. I only wonder why you are so dogmatic about the burden of proof on interpolations.

This is not a criminal trial where the accused document has constitutional rights to presumption of innocence. It is a literary examination. I don't know what sort of logic you think requires you to throw out normal presumptions from evidence.

We know that there are interpolations in the Pauline letters and lots of forged Christian documents. Why should not the burden of proof be on those who assert that any given passage is not interpolated? That would be closer to the legal standards of authenticating a document.

And no, I don't read your blog. Would you care to give a link and a short summary of what you have said that I should take notice of?

Chris Weimer

Let me clarify then. You failed to take in Matthew's context when you selected the verses.

I think you have misread me. I'm not in a "battle" against mythicism nor do I particularly "believe" in Christ's historicity. I'm an historian, and I look for evidence and judge whether I should give some credence to certain events. I am in a battle against those who employ dishonest tactics when debating, though, historicists and mythicists alike.

No Robots

Very well then. You have only given your own decontextualized reference (Matthew 8.10-12) and some ad hoc justifications for the following contentions:

Can you cite some authorities on this?

Chris Weimer

You first claim that I am attempting to shift the burden of proof. Then you claim that Christian apologists shift the burden of proof. It's akin to you're doing what my enemy does, thus you're my enemy.

Because it's ludicrous to make someone prove a negative. What am I supposed to do, go through every verse of Paul and try to maintain its innocence? You do realize how absurd this is, don't you?

What presumptions am I throwing out, that every verse of Paul is interpolated? You've yet to identify even one interpolation, yet you still claim that I have to defend him.

When you authenticate a document, you compare it to a standard which is known to be true. But here, all you're doing is claiming that Paul is interpolated and expect me to verify every verse I use from Paul as Pauline. Leaps and bounds, Toto, leaps and bounds. You're accusing the document of being fake - on what grounds do you do so?

Actually, yes.

Interpolation in Matthew

This is where I point out a possible interpolation in Matthew. You see how I do it? I first come across a reading that seems suspect from internal evidence, check for external evidence (unfortunately, the manuscripts agree, so if it is an interpolation, it must be early), and then present my evidence in the form of an argument. In a debate, the defendent also rebuts the arguments. That is the way things are done. Why should you have it any differently than I?

jjramsey

This isn't a direct answer to the question, but there has to be some balance between giving the text too much credence and using the claim of interpolation as a deus ex machina to explain away contrary evidence.

Chris Weimer

Actually, I've written a whole paper on it. So far 3 out of the 5 reviewers found it convincing, with two of them holding opposite beliefs prior. I'm still waiting for a certain Loren Rossen and a certain Ben Smith to reply with their criticism before I polish it up. And if you want to discuss whether Matthew was Jewish or not, start a new thread on it.

Do you always move from one fallacy to another this quickly?

Ben C Smith

True.

Because the only reason we know all those Christian interpolations and forgeries to which you refer exist is because somebody met their burden of proof. You have to meet yours, too, case by case.

The legal standard for authenticating a document is to assume that every passage in interpolated unless proven otherwise? That seems a self-contradicting position. How can a text consist solely of interpolations? Is not one way of demonstrating an interpolation comparison with its context? How is that even possible if the context, too, is presumed to be interpolated?

Ben.