Rick Sumner

The comment was addressed, quite specifically, to my argument--as a means of questioning it's validity.

My description is not the same as Toto's comment. Unless you've suddenly decided by fiat that I'm an apologist. My description is utterly vague: If there was a temple incident, I have absolutely no inkling as to what it was. Something that rubbed some people the wrong way, I'd suggest.

Your comment just compounded Toto's strawman--your position isn't valid simply because it follows Toto's fallacious reasoning.

NOt at all. My comment addressed Toto's post immediately preceding mine--he was arguing that my argument (which you had already described as valid, I might add, so he was arguing against your stated position as well, despite your apparent misconception that you were on the same team), was invalid. He failed to demonstrate this, because he failed to address my argument.


I never agreed that the temple incident was an impossibility, only that the Markan account of it was an impossibility--though that's probably more aptly described as "improbable."

Putting that against my argument is a strawman. Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the term.

What pointless question would that be? The question of why anyone would make it up? That would be premise 2. It can't be pointless in a valid argument. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the argument isn't valid--I've only asked a dozen times or so. You're only suggestion is that it isn't valid because it doesn't have true premises--valid arguments don't need true premises, it's a classic example of what I condemned--a clear misunderstanding of the terminology.

As am I. Or, perhaps I'm not. I'd suggest the reading of the dialogue, were we to hold a poll, would break down almost to the man along party lines. Which is, of course, precisely the polemic I've condemned.

You never answered me regarding the famliarity of the terms--and that's not ad hominem. You're wrong, because you've mixed up the terms--there's my argument. Outside of the argument exists an aside--a suggestion that you clarify what the terms mean for your own edification.

That you don't know what they mean is readily apparent, as you mixed them up repeatedly, confusing what I presented as a conditional for an attempt at a sound argument, confusing a valid argument for a sound argument, and confusing a hypothetical for an affirmation. There can really be no doubt that you have done so. In all candour, you would benefit by clarifying them.

It would be an ad hominem if I said you were wrong because you didn't understand, which isn't what was stated.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Blatantly untrue. The comment was addressed, quite explicitly at the beginning of the paragraph, to the notion that questioning the historicity of part of the Gospel story would be inevitably related to the Jesus Myth hypothesis.:

This was never part of your argument but is clearly directed at an early comment you had made explaining why you were reluctant to discuss the subject.

Despite this, you responded to Toto's clear reference to the Gospel account:
Subsequently,Vorkosigan made it explicitly clear that the Markan account was what was being called "impossible":
Yet you persisted in repeating the question:

Asking why a story is impossible when you agree the story is impossible seems to me to qualify as "pointless". It also seems to qualify as "being contentious solely for contentiousness sake". Trying to claim later that you were responding because you considered it to be a straw man mischaracterization of your argument seems to qualify as "disingenuous".

[added later]
This post presents all the relevant information in one place and establishes the truth conclusively so I will not be adding any more posts to this ridiculous tangent.

Rick Sumner

Despite both of our (repeatedly) expressed intentions to do so, neither Amaleq13 nor myself seem to have the restraint to withdraw from the polemic. I'd suggest a moderator lock this thread.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I would have locked it but I didn't want it to look like I was trying to prevent a "last word". It only seemed fair to allow for it.

But I also still want to know if there is any reference to "editorial fatigue" outside NT scholarship.

It is just that I get the same feeling reading about it as an explanation as I did reading Maccoby when he explained away parts of Acts that didn't fit his theory as thing that were "missed" by the author's rewriting of history. It seems a little ad hoc, I guess.

Ted Hoffman

Not that I know of. I have however emailed Mark Goodacre on this inquiry.
Editorial fatigue is not an explanation. Its a term used to describe a phenomenon. I think Goodacre coined it.

The inconsistencies that fit the description of editorial fatigue seem fitting. For example, in the recent example of Jesus stopping movement of the vessels through the temple. It doesn't make sense: the editor was too tired to edit out that inconsistency in the process of borrowing from elsewhere.

Another example is in Luke's version of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matt 14.13-21 // Mark 6.30-44 // Luke 9.10-17).
"Mark says that the disciples go away with Jesus into a desert place (eiV erhmon topon, Mark 6.31). Luke, however, resets the scene in 'a city (poliV) called Bethsaida'. "

In both Mark and Luke, they say they are in a 'lonely, desolate, abandoned' place. In Luke however, its nonsense to say so because the crowds were in the city and they needed not go look for food and clothing anywhere else.

These inconsistensies and nonsensical passages are occasioned by editorial fatigue.

Amaleq13

Excellent (assuming he responds)

I don't understand the difference. Isn't it supposed to explain certain details?

I understand the concept and I certainly see the appeal. I'm just not convinced that these problematic details only seem that way to a critical reader. It seems simpler to me to assume it just didn't matter to the author (or, presumably, his audience) any more than it does to anyone today who reads the story through "faith-colored" glasses. Maybe I see it that way because I don't consider the author to be trying to tell a convincing story as much as a faith-confirming one.

[added later because I was too quick to click]

The example from Luke, OTOH, is more of a problem for me since that author seems to be clearly trying to tell a convincing story. I'll have to think about that.

Rick Sumner

I'd have raised holy hell if you had You don't get to moderate your own arguments.

I seem to recall an article I read, addressing pre-fabricated essays sold online, suggesting that the longer a work is, the easier it is to spot plagiarism--it tends more towards being verbatim copying, rather than reworking, the longer it runs. Unfortunately I don't have a source.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

That sounds promising.

I'll google around with "plagiarism" tomorrow and see what I can find.

Ted Hoffman

It is. I just wanted to put accross the idea that the label or feature (editorial fatigue) is not an explanation: the explanation is in the details.

Note that, its clear that some evangelists clearly attempt to make the stories they borrow make sense in their own contexts (for example, Luke and Matthew's excision of Jesus stopping vessels from being carried through the temple), correction of geographical errors etc.
But they get tired, and leave traces, inconsistencies that lead us back to their sources, or that betray the originality or veracity of their stories. [see a follow up of this below]

One of these phenomenons, some of the balls the evangelists drop as they juggle, has been attributed to editorial fatigue (an editorial seam resulting from fatigue).

Even if you are not reading through faith-colored glasses, some inconsistencies may not show up in your radar. Thats why textual criticism, lower criticism etc are required.

[follow up]
My explanation above (excision of perceived inconsistencies, correction of errors in the hypotext, exclusion of embarrasing scenes [like the naked young man in Mark], challenge your idea that "it just didn't matter to the author (or, presumably, his audience) any more than it does to anyone today who reads the story through "faith-colored" glasses".

I think it mattered to them. They just couldn't sustain it throughout their works. 'Faith-colored glasses' are not the only reason people do not notice these inconsistencies. What we are doing here requires expertise and critical study and comparison of the texts. Do not underrate it.

Vorkosigan

No. I dearly wanted to, but don't want to be accused of abuse of power. This thread will just have to go on like a wounded dragon, spitting, snarling, and lashing its tail.

Lets derail it...

Actually, I started working on a table comparing Elijah/Elisha with Junior, which I will try and get up this weekend. It's a lot of fun. I'm going to incorporate into a large website I am building on Mark.

Here is what I've completed so far. If you can spot any more in these stories...by all means pass it along!

Vorkosigan