Peter Kirby

It sounds from this that the only precondition of applying these criteria is that the document not be "too fragmented or inadequate." When is a document "too fragmented or inadequate"? And, are there any other preconditions?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

Not in this particular case (too much "reticulation"), but cladistics can be helpful in textual criticism for ascertaining relationships among manuscripts.

Stephen

Vinnie

my article was against interpolation....but yes, there is a divide in scholarship and to be very fair, both sides utilize e a number of arguments.

Ted Hoffman

It has 58 verses [hint: be specific]. Paul says that the "decent amount of details" he gives is from the scriptures. And he offers no historical details about an earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.
You asked: "Could the same also be said of Galatian's mention of the brothers of the Lord". I answered "No". It is not a flat dismissal: it is an answer.
What exactly, is your point? If it is about adelphos, look at the usage of adelphos in 1Cor 9:5.
No dismissals. I am just pointing out to you where the pillars are. If you want to challenge the thesis, they are what you may want to aim.
If they are not a single unit, it would of course, be incorrect to do that. The Johannine literature for example, is multi-layered. Otherwise, treating texts by a single author as a single unit is fine IMO. It makes us able to adroitly examine Tertullian's Ad Nationes (which lacks references to a HJ) against his other works and Tatian's Address to the Greeks vis a vis Diatessaron.

For our purposes, when what is available does not give any insights in the kind of Christology or theology the writer espoused.
One needs factor in the genre - if it is a text that is argued to be allegorical like GMark, one needs to consider the best way of evaluating it because my criteria assume a literal reading of the texts.

youngalexander

I am addressing freigeister not Spinoza.
Whereas TH may be 'hawking his commentaries' as you so charmingly have Spinoza say, and indeed perhaps making his best efforts, he is most certainly not doing this 'as the word of God'.
My objection is to your equation of religion and science. Religion does indeed 'compell others to think as they do', science does not. Science relies upon evidence and reasoned argument.
Spinoza is of course correct, in that 'theologians, anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text, ... fortify them with Divine authority.' Scholars present evidence and argument and do not appeal to scientific authority, Divine or otherwise.
If you want a quote, try this:

freigeister

The phrase is Spinoza's not mine. There is all too much by way of "hawking of commentaries" on this board. My point is that this was the case in the time of Spinoza, but that it was then done by theologians. Today, it is done by those covering their speculations with a veneer of pseudo-scientific jargon.



He is putting forward his own absurd theories, best efforts or not, ignoring the work and findings of the vast majority of scholars in the field. He cloaks his presupposition of a non-existent Jesus in a fog of self-serving probabilities, and arbitrarily dismisses counter-indications (ie. the Ebionites) as insignificant. This is vanity gone mad, calling itself science.


The mythicists here what to make it very clear that the only scientifically valid conclusion is that Jesus never lived. This is an attempt to make compulsory an idiosyncratic reading of the Bible that disregards the vast majority of scholarship. Contrary views are held up to ridicule as fideist or out-dated. This is not science.

Ted Hoffman attempts to cover his absurd, self-serving conjectures with a veneer of mathematical jargon in order to give it the appearance of scientific authority.

spin

Back to peddling old philosophers again, ghosty? Come out of the 18th c. to visit us, eh? Lots have happened since then. But don't let that worry you. you keep projecting your interpretations of Spiny onto your harangues against the lost souls.

Does this mean you have some point of view outside the 18th c.? I mean your appeal to authority presupposes that you know something about modern analyses.

As this seems merely to be waffle perhaps you could make some coherent case, rather than simple aspersions?

I guess that's why they're mythicists. The HJers do the opposite, so your comment would fundamentally be the same for them as well.

Whatever it is, but your view is a recourse to authority. WGAS?

Demonstrate

1. the absurdity,
2. the self-serving nature,
3. the conjectures,
4. the mere veneer, and
5. the mere appearance.

Cutting through the thick rhetoric, once again, ghosty, you've said nothing except that you didn't like what you read.


spin

freigeister

It's 17th century (Spinoza, 1632-1677). Get it right, dude.



Morons are morons. Always have been, always will be. Spinoza called them as they were in his day, and all that's changed since is that they now go by new names. Anyway, I do just happen to have recently posted a deconstruction of mythicism. And of course there's always Brunner. But in the end it's not authorities that interest you, is it? Isn't it rather whatever we gurgle up from our own imaginations, and then dub "great thoughts" with the complicity of a few other like-minded souls? Claiming to have a new theory of physics is rightly seen as preposterous self-delusion, yet every yokel with a modem thinks he's capable of coming up with a new way of interpreting the Bible.


Christians have by and large relinquished their attempts to impose their Bible interpretations, and so I don't bother disputing with them. You guys do have a high degree of evangelical zeal, so you are a threat to the peaceful spread of rationalist Bible interpretation, and thus must be debated.


My recourse is to Spinoza as the founder of scientific Bible interpretation, just as my recourse would be to Copernicus if someone started telling me that the Sun revolves around the Earth.


Demonstrate one authority in support of Hoffman's "methodology".

Ah, Spunky. Thanks for taking time out from your DEEP THOUGHTS(TM).

spin

You're even further behind the times!




As Spinoza's doing the thinking, how could you know?

Been eating too much garlic again, it sounds like.

I didn't come to you.

Goobboy.

Some of us try to deal with the facts as best we can.

Thought crime. You made the outlandish claim: support its accusations. I don't have to demonstrate anything, as long as you are merely throwing ad hominems.

I guess I can only hold you down for so long, before I let go and you float away.


spin

Ted Hoffman

1. Why do you think that what you have posted in that thread constitutes a "deconstruction" of mythicism?
2. Again I ask, what is your understanding of what mythicism is?
3. What are the fundamental characteristics of an evaluation that qualify it as a deconstruction and not just a criticism or a refutation?

One authority wouldn't make the methodology sound. The methodology remains sound even if no authority endorses it. And it remains garbage even if 100 authorities endorse it.
The point being, the strength of an argument does not lie on consensus, or approval. Consensus is not an argument. Consensus is consensus. Support is not the argument. Support is support. If you are ill-equipped to judge whether or not the "methodology" is sound, why not just do the decent thing and shut up. There is no need running all over the place pulling your hair out about dead philosophers and "support".
If you want "support", go to AA or something.