Ted Hoffman

Yes, I was saying, look up and you will see the oak trees. Looking up means 'gleaning' info from various posters and not being fixated with the occasional garbage.

We generally dont play nice-nice with apologists so I am not suprised that some have joined you in claiming that there is a hate campaign afoot.
What is ironic about this is that Gibson's fashion of responding to mythicist arguments has been akin to a "hate campaign" because his responses involve purposeful misrepresentation and plain insults. His tenor when responding to ideas that challenge his paradigms are hostile, unscholarly and dishonest.
For example, Gibson has false accused Doherty as follows:
This is <false>. Doherty makes no such claim. When challenged to substantiate, Gibson does not. And he does not admit error.

In Biblical-studies list, it is routine to have mythicist's posters suppressed and that is how the masquerade of competence and objective scholarship by Gibson and like-minded individuals, is maintained in allegedly "scholarly" forums managed by Christians.

In an open forum like this, Gibson may not get away with calling me a fool (insults are not allowed), or making the kind of unfounded and false allegations that are present in the above post. I rebutted his claims here and he mustered an incomplete and fragmented response and my rebuttal to that was subsequently suppressed.

The important thing here is that Gibson ought to be honest and admit error when he has made false claims, especially when such claims are clothed in insulting language, and when such claims have been rebutted before, thoroughly and conclusively (Doherty, for example, had rebutted the claims he makes in the above post in 2002 or thereabout).

In a word, I hope he will not drink water here and preach wine elsewhere, in forums where the moderator(s) are his like-minded friends. <edit>

GakuseiDon

Page 103 of Doherty's book:

Thus it was wholly conceivable for Paul's Christ in that spiritual world to descend into the realm of the demon spirits. Here he would be in the sphere of flesh, which fits the early writers; almost universal use of such sterotyped phrases as "in flesh", "according to the flesh." (C. K. Barrett, as noted earlier, translates kata sarka in Romans 1:3 as "in the sphere of the flesh")

The earlier reference noted to Barrett's translation (page 83) doesn't show that Barrett disagrees with Doherty on this.

<edit>After your blatant misrepresentation of my position in an earlier thread, and your hatchet jobs on me and others elsewhere, I am determined to hunt down any references you give where I have time. Just to let you know.

Ed to add: That's an interesting link, Ted! I recommend anyone interested in the kata sarka question to read through it. Boy, Gibson really hands you your arse, Ted!

Ted Hoffman

Doherty never claims that "Barrett reached the same *conclusion*" as Doherty. That is the primary claim I was rebutting.

Doherty states, correctly (in p.83 and p.122), that it is merely a suggestion Barett made and Barett does suggest this interpretation as we see from Gibson's page-size citation. This distinction is only lost in p.103 when Doherty fails to state that this translation is a sugestion. But this is mitigated in page 338 where Doherty states clearly that Barett's own preferred interpretation is different.

GakuseiDon

Which version of Doherty's book are you referring to? In my copy, on page 338 Doherty is referring to Cranfield's interpretation, not Barrett's.

Ted Hoffman

When you are through wiping the egg off your face:
Please state two of these alleged nonsensical items that you have demonstrated to be nonsensical and where such demonstration has not been thoroughly and conclusively rebutted.
Just two.

GakuseiDon

Sure, no problem. If you want to start a new thread on this topic, I will respond with two items. (It is late here though, so I probably won't be able to respond until tomorrow).

BTW, on page 338 of your copy of Doherty's book, does Doherty discuss Cranfield's interpretation, and not Barrett's, as you are trying to claim?

Ted Hoffman

Why are you asking me this? Don't you actually have a copy of the book? You did not even bother to check my response to Gibson's post! And you have the nerve to engage in name-calling!

Demonstrate that two points regarding Doherty's thesis are nonsense. Start a new post if you like. I will be suprised if you can come up with something new. So far, every refutation you have made has been dismembered or otherwise soundly thumped.

The same applies to Gibson. Though the problem I have with him is his posturing on a moral highground he has no authority to occupy.
I have a lot of time on my hands now. Just present two arguments that demonstrate that something Doherty wrote qualifies as nonsense. If Doherty has already responded to them, accompany your arguments with an explanation why Doherty's response is inadequate.

Ted Hoffman

I wrote that Gibson had lied. This was edited out. Which is fine with me. What is noteworthy is that one of Gibson's "scholarly list" allows him to call Doherty a liar. Yet Gibson comes here to lecture us on the kind of posts we should tolerate! He should be patting us on the back for being so scholarly and strict. Perhaps we should suggest to him that he should have started his "moderation practices" evangelism there? He wrote:
Or do we just look so receptive to arrogant pontifications?

Comments about moderator action do not belong in this forum but this entire post is responded to later in the thread so I'm leaving it. Let's all make a concerted effort to avoid personal attacks and stick to the facts, OK?

jgibson000

I've reproduced below the context in which I made my statement that "D[ohert] in effect is lying" . I'll leave it to list members to judge not only (1) whether this charge -- which, as you'll see, was part of an evaluation of the truth of **claims** made by Doherty about what Ernst. e Witt (NOT, as Ted/Jacob notes, Edward C.) Burton says in his commentray on Galatians -- is as Ted/Jacob alleges, really the same thing as calling Doherty himslef a liar, but, much more importantly, (2) whether, in the light of what Doherty claims Burton says and what Burton actually does say, the charge I made is true. On this latter point, I am confident that you'll feel that it is.

Yours,

Jeffrey

*****

jacob aliet (aka Ted Hoffman) wrote:

> (3.) Gibson asserts that GINOMAI means come into being and has never >been a verb of motion. He would also like to know whether Greeks of Paul's
>time understood Paul to have used GINOMAI to convey incarnation as > >opposed to birth (4.). Gibson claims that I have engaged in the root fallacy >with a wrong root (5).
>
> I appear to have mangled Doherty's argument and in the process
> misrepresented the root word argument. As far as that goes, Gibson's point
> is on target. To be clear, Doherty relies on Edward C. Burton
> International Critical Commentary, Galatians. Burton writes that the word
> usually translated as born (GENAMENON) is ambiguous and that GENNAO
> would have been more apt because GINOMAI has a broader meaning of "to >become, to come into existence".

A question and then several remarks.

You haven't actually read Burton, have you Jacob? If you had, you'd quickly
see that

1. In his discussion of Gal. 4:4, and especially in his remarks about Paul's
claim that Jesus was GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, Burton does NOT say that if it was Paul's intent to make a claim about Jesus' birth being real and earthly, he would have used GENNAW since GENNAW would have been more apt. Nor does he ever discuss the meaning of GINOMAI, let alone that GINOMAI is inapt as a reference to Jesus being born on earth because the verb " has a broader meaning of 'to become, to come into existence'".

2. Burton does NOT say that with respect to the meaning of Paul's tatement
that Jesus was GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS that GENOMENON is ambiguous, let alone that the participle here does not clearly convey the idea that Jesus birth was an earthly one. Indeed, anyone who claims that Burton does say this has not read Burton carefully.

3. Burton does use the word "unambiguously". But where this appears is within the specific context of a specific argument not about the meaning of GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS (which he takes as unambiguously a reference to a birth that was earthly and as impossible of being "interpreted as excluding human paternity"), but about GENOMEN hUPO NOMOS and with reference to how **that** expression and only that expression should be taken "in the sense 'made subject to law' rather than 'born under law'". What he says is that "Had the apostle desired to express the idea "born" in **both**
phrases [i.e., GENONENON hUPO NOMON as well as in GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, he could have done so unambiguously by the use GENNHQENTA" , In other words, there is nothing ambiguous about the meaning of the first of the two expressions.

So not only does Burton NOT give any grounds for D claiming what he claims about the meaning of GINOMAI vs. GENNAW or for GINOMAI having a peculiar meaning in Paul or for it not meaning "born". Burton does not say what D. claims he says. So D is in effect lying when he says he does.

GakuseiDon

Hey? Why am I asking you this? It's because you said (in bold no less): "this is mitigated in page 338 where Doherty states clearly that Barett's own preferred interpretation is different"

But on page 338 Doherty is clearly talking about Cranfield's interpretation.

TedH, remember when you said that "When challenged to substantiate, Gibson does not. And he does not admit error." Well, I'm challenging you to substantiate. And to admit error.

And, to make a final point on this subject, given that Doherty doesn't appear to point out anywhere that his use of Barrett's interpretation is not Barrett's preferred one, check out Doherty's comment again on page 103. I've bolded the key passages:

Thus it was wholly conceivable for Paul's Christ in that spiritual world to descend into the realm of the demon spirits. Here he would be in the sphere of flesh, which fits the early writers; almost universal use of such sterotyped phrases as "in flesh", "according to the flesh." (C. K. Barrett, as noted earlier, translates kata sarka in Romans 1:3 as "in the sphere of the flesh")

I apologise to others for this digression. This isn't really against Doherty. I'm sick and tired of Ted Hoffman's continual misrepresentation, and obfuscation when confronted. But this is my last word on the topic in this thread.