LP675

Why don’t you ask Geoffrey M. Troughton, the author of this essay, who seems to accept the historicity of the incident?

Amaleq13

What does mod status have to do with it? I would have posted the exact same thing before becoming a mod and no mod "powers" have been used against you. Smells like a red herring to me. Your response made no sense given that the reference was explicitly being made to the only story under discussion.

Once again, it makes no sense to assume that a vague reference to a "spiced up narrative" or an undescribed source might be judged with regard to its possibility. To assume this was the object of Toto's comment also makes no sense given that it was explicitly identified by Vorkosigan as referring to Mark's story.

If you had included any specific example of such a reconstruction in this discussion, your response would have made a little more sense but would still ignore the obvious reference to the original being made. In fact, that you are now suggesting you thought he was commenting on some undescribed reconstruction appears disingenuous when the actual exchange is considered.

After Vorkosigan explicitly stated that what was being called "impossible" was the story "as it exists" in Mark, you replied:
Since you make absolutely no effort to redefine the pronoun from Toto's original object, "it" can only refer to the story "as it exists" in Mark.

Despite claiming that you "color gray" the narrative as it exists, you state later that:
Toto was obviously referring to the story in Mark but Vorkosigan made this explicitly clear and you responded without any indication you were, instead, talking about some undescribed reconstruction.

Confusion with regard to your actual position is, at the very least, an entirely legitimate reaction.

With regard to the recently introduced specific reconstruction, I think an immediate arrest is more plausible than Mark's story though this would appear to reduce the amount of material to which Premise 1 refers. If you end up concluding that Brodie's theory is sufficient to provide a motive to fabricate, is there any reason to speculate on a more plausible scenario?

Also, I continue to be interested in how your reasoning, absent an apparent motive to fabricate, prevents the "impossible" story in Mark from being regarded as history. Is another premise necessary to guard against this?

Rick Sumner

These are separate issues. One is addressing whether or not it occurred (I am presently persuaded that it didn't). The other is addressing whether or not it is possible. You seem to be conflating the two, and reading that I'm defending the actuality of the incident, rather than rebutting the claim that it is impossible.

And your attempt to justify your pedantry is moot, it's still quite impossible for me to have accepted both that Mark reshaped his narrative, and that the Markan narrative is authentic. The claim that it is "impossible" addresses the latter, something I have not asserted.

Again, if you're genuinely confused as to what was meant in the discussion, perhaps you should investigate it further. Amusingly, you seem to have understood exactly what I meant until now, which points pretty strongly in the direction of polemic.

We both know full well that I certainly wasn't advocating full historicity of the Markan narrative.

What is gained from being contentious solely for contentiousness sake? Again, deal with what is being conveyed. Lining up along party lines solely to be contrary isn't discussion, it's apologetic.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Troughton does not discuss any of the problems of historicity, so I think it is going too far to say that he accepts the historicity of the incident. It may be fairer to say that he does not deny that there may be a historical kernel, but the tendency in NT scholarship is to avoid taking a stand on any issue that could get Christians upset.

Rick Sumner

No, he quite clearly accepts it--there wouldn't be much point in suggesting that Jesus was influenced by Nehemiah, if he didn't believe that Jesus had preformed an action based on Nehemiah. That sentence--that Jesus's action in the temple are influenced by Nehemiah--carry with them the inherent clause that Jesus did in fact preform an action in the temple.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Review the thread, Rick, your recent "explanation" bears no resemblance to the actual exchanges.

Toto stated that the story in Mark was impossible.

You asked "why".

I asked for clarification as whether you actually believed the story in Mark was possible since there appeared to be no other reason to ask the question.

Instead of directly responding to the question, you responded as though your "initial position" was somehow being changed and somehow relevant to rejecting the possibility of the story in Mark.

Asking why someone considers the story in Mark to be "impossible" implies that you think otherwise regardless of anything else you have stated earlier. Why else ask the question? Given your earlier posts, asking for clarification is entirely reasonable. Responding to the question as though you were being accused of making an assertion, however, is neither reasonable nor rational.

That is certainly the impression I had before your question. But since Toto was clearly referring to the impossibility of the, to you use your words, "full historicity of the Markan narrative", that makes your question appear quite odd and in need of clarification.

That is exactly my question in response to your "why" since your earlier posts indicate you do not consider the story as it is described to be possible.

Specific problems relating to the possibility of the story in Mark were discussed earlier in this thread. At that time, you appeared to acknowledge that at least one part of the story was impossible.

Given that it is the story, "as described", being identified as impossible, identifying a single detail as such is sufficient for the conclusion. Suggesting that this part might be a redaction does not actually remove it from the story "as described". Your question to Toto actually makes less sense given this earlier post.

You also questioned the presence of guards for the moneychangers. I offered Josephus' testimony that hundreds of guards were placed in the area specifically to prevent disturbances during Passover. Vorkosigan suggested, from personal experience, that common sense would suggest personal guards when money was involved. Your only response was to question the specific placement of the guards according to Josephus. When that question was addressed, the discussion moved on with no additional comments from you on the subject.

So what, pray tell, is your reason for returning to the "why" question since it cannot possibly be "being contentious solely for contentiousness sake"? :huh:

Vorkosigan

Because he isn't a poster here.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

How much of what you just repeated was your position--the one you were being contentious for contentiousness sake with--and how much is trying to shore up your obvious polemic by grabbing bits and pieces from everyone else?

I'd like to see one piece of evidence that a Roman guard stood near a single moneychanger.

This wasn't Roman money. They didn't care. "Common sense" doesn't place a Roman guard within a hundred feet of a Jewish moneychanger.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Toto was responding to *my* argument. At the point he responds to *my* argument, by addressing an argument I haven't made, it's a strawman. Period. I wasn't responding to his argument, he wasn't making an argument, he was issuing a rebuttal. A rebuttal that in no way addressed my argument.

Your position has changed from addressing an absence of a qualifier on my position (a point you've implicitly conceded is irrelevant--you knew what my position was)--to the existence of a qualifier on Toto's rebuttal. The qualifier on Toto's is what *makes* it a strawman. Repeating that he has one only compounds the problem.

I am being sincere when I suggest you review the rules of argumentation, and types of of argument, as you keep confusing them.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Soc...ion/Logic.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/vocab/
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/ee/validargs.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~passch1/file14.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/argument.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

[deleted]