Rick Sumner

Either the evidence indicates that the verses are to be read as you suggest they are, or the evidence indicates that they are interpolations. If you believe that there is evidence they are interpolated you shouldn't need Ehrman's blessing.

If you're so ready to fluctuate between the two by virtue of convenience, arguments on specific passages begin to look suspiciously ad hoc.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

EarlDoherty

You know, Rick, this is really quite unfair. So now I'm to be criticized because I might be willing to take a different look at things, or am willing to consider more than one approach to a question. To you this is "fluctuating between the two by virtue of convenience"? I only wish some others on this board would be willing to show a bit of flexibility toward new ideas. Actually, I'm not yet fluctuating. This is a new idea for me, and I've had no time to seriously consider it or weigh it against alternatives. (And Ehrman's work is the evidence for possible interpolation.) I just thought I'd share it since this thread on Galatians 4:4 popped up at this time.

I know I'm being naive, and I recognize what Board I'm on, but are there not other possible responses to ideas one doesn't like or agree with than the berserker approach, or impugning one's opponent's character? Whatever happened to civility and the spirit of inquiry?

However, I will persevere. Maybe just not on IIDB.

Earl Doherty

mountainman

The spirit of enquiry like the spirit of the pioneers is
alive and well, although constrained by the authority
of intra- and inter-disciplinary borders.

Rick has the inter-personal skills of Occam's razor.
How to deal with "negative ascii" ......................
http://www.mountainman.com.au/four_agreements.htm

I'd like to encourage your work in relation to a "response
to the common claim that published New Testament scholarship
has long discredited the Jesus Myth theory, from Case in 1906
to Van Voorst in 2000.", and await its publication.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown
NAMASTE
www.mountainman.com.au

Clivedurdle

How is a question a fallacy? I asked if some of the points in the radicalkritik article had been accepted by translators.

My experience, of the NEB, Jerusalem Bible, RSV, KJV, NASB (and Living Bible!) means I do understand where that article is coming from. Things do not sit well with each other in Paul's writings, the standard reaction is oh Paul was a nutter who went into flights of various group hating, but seeing additions to align with a party line makes more sense.

I only asked if translators were conscious of these comments and had done things - like an odd comment at the bottom of the text, to differentiate various possibilities.

Tirades about logical fallasies to a question - methinks there is a sore point here! Please show why that 1928 article is wrong! I only commented that I felt it was part of the thinking, as if translators are using its arguments.

Rick Sumner

Earl

Rather than address your post piece by piece, I'll simply note what your suggestion that you might suggest Gal.4.4 is interpolated carries with it.

If you argue that Gal.4.4 is interpolated, it means that your previous reading of it--one that you've argued strenuously for for years--is wrong. There is no reason to interpolate a title for James, particularly in the light of the speed with which "orthodoxy" took over Petrine authority. If it is interpolated, then it means exactly what it says; the interpolater thought James was Jesus' brother.

So I'll ask you now, before you begin looking at the possibility of interpolation, as you suggest you have not done yet: Do you think your reading is wrong? If not, why look for an interpolation in the first place?

Surely you realize how that looks to the reader, especially one who is not sympathetic to your conlusions? You are indicating that you are prepared to utterly reverse your position in order to switch to another position, that still points to the same conclusion. To suggest that this looks ad hoc is not, as you suggest, persecuting you. It's the same criticism anyone who engaged in such a thing should expect. It's the same criticism, for example, many offer against Crossan when he switches up the emphasis he places on embarasmment.

That is not the "beserker approach," and to suggest it is is insulting. It's a perfectly legitimate observation, and one you should thoroughly expect.

So, again, do you think you were wrong?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Where does it say Jesus' brother? It might say Yahweh's brother!

dog-on

I think it is unfair to attack Doherty's intentions regarding the possibility of interpolation or how this effects his arguments based on the reading of the Epistles proposed by "The Jesus Puzzle". Doherty seems to have tried to make sense of the actual incoherences found in the epistles while taking an unnecessarily conservative position, in my opinion, with regards to the authenticity of the current form of the Epistles. If he was successful in building a coherent case, while keeping his hands tied behind his back, round one must go to Doherty.

Richard Carrier, in his review of Doherty says the following:

As I understand this, based on the reading of the Epistles as we have them, Doherty's case is plausible and seems to be, in Carrier's opinion at least, more coherent than any current argument to the contrary espoused by his critics. So, indeed, round one does seem to go to Doherty.

Is it now time for round two?

By removing the mental shackles of "the early apologists said that this is what was written, so it must be true", Doherty can and should, instead of tossing the current argument, add to it (introduce the WMD, if you will). By introducing the possibility of later interpolation, Doherty will, of course, further strengthen the case of The Jesus Puzzle.

There seems to be a substantial amount of scholarship regarding the possibility/probability of a significant re-write of the Epistles. I have tried to find counter arguments and rebuttals to these arguments. Other than the arguments for interpolation being dismissed out-of-hand without even attempting to address the arguments raised, I have come up dry in my search.

Ted Hoffman

Talking about "exhaustive expectations", the OP has not received any "thorough response".
Now, Earl never claimed infallibility by presenting the JM hypothesis as he saw it. He can still be wrong, like the rest of any of us. Being a JM vanguard did not make him a god. It is noteworthy that his book "challenged" the existence of a HJ: he never claimed to "prove" that a HJ did not exist. So, in the spirit of challenging the HJ axiom, he can review and shift his arguments as he deems fit. After all, that is what free inquiry is all about.
If he thinks that interpolation is more likely than his earlier argument, he should by all means proceed and abandon his earlier argument. I find the grotesque fixation with the possibility that Earl's earlier proposition was incorrect, quite perverse.

Rick Sumner

dog-on:

You've rather missed my point. I am not suggesting that arguing interpolation carries with it the implicit suggestion that the entirety of the Jesus Puzzle is wrong, as you imply. It carries with it the implicit suggestion that his reading of Gal.4.4 as a title is wrong.

You cannot "add" one to the other, "WMD" is a spiffy term and all, but its meaningless. The propositions are, for all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive. There is no reason to interpolate a title. A point Earl is clearly well aware of, or he wouldn't be considering arguing it is an interpolation in the first place.

Perhaps one could address the points at hand? It appears to be a rather significant change of position, yet one that still leads to the conclusion he already holds. There is nothing wrong with challenging that. In fact, it should be fairly expected. It's the same treatment everybody else gets--I already provided the example of Crossan, I can add another. When proponents of Q declare the minor agreement in the passion an interpolation it is likewise suggested that this is ad hoc

One would expect both Doherty and his supporters would be delighted to see him being subjected to the same analsys of other scholars. Instead we get requests for special treatment: not only should we take him seriously, we should consider him a visionary, free to roam unchallenged by normative lines of questioning. Those lines are the "berserker approach," which clearly Doherty is above.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

In fact, Doherty does not even have to abandon the earlier argument: he can present the two possibilities in his next book and leave further research to be the judge.
Either way, the JM case is strengthened.
The question of how highly or how poorly some individuals on the net think about Doherty should not impinge on the consideration about whether an argument should be reviewed or not.
It is not about whether Doherty is wrong or right but about which explanation is more plausible, irrespective of whether it is advanced by Doherty or otherwise.