spin

"[P]edantism" refers to my trying to help you out of your blunder. As you don't know enough about the texts you are talking about, you cannot ascribe intentions such as those involving fraud or forgery.


Perhaps you could google the term and stop the song and dance.


You're doing well at being wrong. I guess you make a habit out of it.

When you make an assumption, you normally do so on some basis relating to the facts. When you inject your own values onto the data, as you did with your assessment of fraud and forgery, you are not basing your assumptions on any relevant facts.

For want of imagination you rework my earlier comments, though you are less kind. But the sad thing is you have the temerity to cry circularity when you are projecting it onto me rather than basing the accusation on anything I said. Have a piece of chocolate. You seem to need it.

Do make your next piece of irrelevance worth your effort. I see no reason to respond on this issue when you refuse to understand it.


spin

Toto

I thought about splitting this, but I will instead ask the participants to tone it down a bit. And google "factoid" before you abuse this word any more.

Thanks.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto And google "factoid" before you abuse this word any more.

My perspective is that this is a fictional claim, not the real thing, that such-and-such epistles are forgeries so #1 is perfect for my view. You are welcome to take definition #2 at the same time, making the word perfecto.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factoid
n.
1. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: "What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoidsa profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon" (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt).

2. Usage Problem - A brief, somewhat interesting fact.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians//errors/factoid.html
The “-oid” ending in English is normally added to a word to indicate that an item is not the real thing. A humanoid is not quite human. Originally “factoid” was an ironic term indicating that the “fact” being offered was not actually factual. However, CNN and other sources have taken to treating the “-oid” as if it were a mere diminutive, and using the term to mean “trivial but true fact.” As a result, the definition of “factoid” is hopelessly confused and it’s probably better to avoid using the term altogether.

Toto may have objected to my usage of "true factoid" at one point above - although that fits the common #2 usage, and has an ironic quality, I can understand his mod concern.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Toto asked for a tone-down. Since spin says so little of substance, I usually put his words in one clump, like moldy bread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin "[P]edantism" refers to my trying to help you out of your blunder. As you don't know enough about the texts you are talking about, you cannot ascribe intentions such as those involving fraud or forgery.Perhaps you could google the term and stop the song and dance. You're doing well at being wrong. I guess you make a habit out of it. When you make an assumption, you normally do so on some basis relating to the facts. When you inject your own values onto the data, as you did with your assessment of fraud and forgery, you are not basing your assumptions on any relevant facts.For want of imagination you rework my earlier comments, though you are less kind. But the sad thing is you have the temerity to cry circularity when you are projecting it onto me rather than basing the accusation on anything I said. Have a piece of chocolate. You seem to need it. Do make your next piece of irrelevance worth your effort. I see no reason to respond on this issue when you refuse to understand it.

Ok, the only relevant comments are:

a) the typical nonsense claim of a non-existent and unspecified 'blunder'
b) more pedantism
c) 'text type' is an appropriate usage (amazing, some substance)

And that leads to the usage of 'text type' to various types of narratives. Excellent. Since spin never indicates what type of narrative is involved, per his perceived wisdom, what type of 'text type', and how that relates to the simple and clear forgery/fraud examples I give and discuss, the usage of 'text-type' in the context of this thread remains puzzling and problematic at best, seemingly irrelevant and arguably sophistic.

The NT as a whole encompasses the four 'text types' given in one exposition, the epistles of Paul two or three of the four. So I doubt that anybody on the forum understands how spin connect this to the discussion at hand about fraud and forgery. If anybody thinks they do, they are welcome to try to stand in the gap for spin and try to put together some sensible explanation. If there is a silence (expected) that can be taken as an indication that nobody can really follow verbiage that manages to be veiled and obtuse at the same time.

With spin, it has to sound good.
Substance ... naaah.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Is this your idea of toning it down?

[staffwarn]JUST STOP WITH THE INSULTS[/staffwarn]

spamandham

That a small minority of scholars disagree with the consensus, does not indicate any kind of 'hot' dispute. Something like 80% of scholars agree that Ephesians and the Pastorals are not authentic. Moreover, this is not just an opinion poll based on nothing, it's supported by peer reviewed work.

By your standard, the historicity of Paul is 'hotly' disputed as well since there are scholars who support the idea that Paul is a composite character invented by Marcion rather than a historical person.

I think you could properly say that if in fact a large majority of scholars support the idea. Being unfamiliar with the scholarly works for or against mythicism, I'm not sure if it's a true statement though.

Roger Pearse

Isn't it fortunate that scholarship is always right in such matters? Those of us who remember that in 1936 it was unthinkable to suggest that John's gospel was not written ca. 170 AD; and how the discovery of P52 revealed what a house of cards this was, may find such certainty on your part slightly curious.

Claims of the kind made above about the authorship of Ephesians and the Pastorals need no real discussion, since only evidence counts and for these claims there is none worth discussing; only subjective judgements. This is why people start making arguments from authority.

Unfortunately the ability of scholars in the humanities to make mistakes in this area is substantial. On topics of politics and religion, scholars tend to write only as men. The unfortunate incident with P52 demonstrates that much, and could be duplicated many times over the last century. This is why we refer to the "arts", not the sciences.

None of this should be understood as rubbishing the consensus of the academy on matters of technical detail where there are no dogs to fight. But we need to be aware of the limitations of the process, without supposing dishonesty or folly -- it arises from natural causes. Those who would like to see how a false scholarly consensus in the classics happened on a matter of politics need only read the interesting article by Niklas Holzberg, "Lucian and the Germans" in "The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays", eds A. C. Dionisotti et al, London, 1988, pp. 199–209. This relates to the dialogues of Lucian, and shows how his reputation was damaged in Germany between the late 19th century and 1945 because he was perceived as a Jewish author; and how the seminal scholarly article which created that consensus was verbally identical at points with a non-scholarly article by proto-Nazi Houston Stewart Chamberlain, published a few months earlier. Others may recall from their own experience how economics nearly died of left-wing ideology at the end of the 70's, and sociology did die (to all intents and purposes). Let us not appeal to authority to settle questions of high politics or religion; instead let's see the data ourselves.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

IamJoseph

It would have been so simple if Moses, instead of JC & Mohammed, said so. Wouldn't even need to change water to wine or forever curse Jews. This has always been the problem with two of Judaism's off-shoots - the wrong resurrection - the wrong messenger. Result: total chaos for humanity and the perishment of millions. :banghead:

IamJoseph

However did Europeans get passed this point, remains one of the greatest mysteries imaginable:

It raises the question similar to Sabu the jungle boy raised by wolves: what happens if a family member is forcefully kidnapped as a baby and raised by another belief system? Of interest here is that while all christians and muslims' ancesters were totally enforced of their beliefs - this was not the case with Jews. This is not meant to be a charge upon innocent believers today, but it does implicate a powerful historical premise.

spamandham

Really Roger, try harder.