Nazaroo

Thank you Steven.

Apparently we'll never see that kind of response from the Mr. Gibson who prefers to call himself 'doctor'.

So my quotation here taken from the article I posted in message #377 is spot on the money.


Just to make your quotation more readable:

Didymus the Blind (* 398):
feromen oun en tisin euaggelioiV gunh, fhsin katakriqh upo twn Ioudaiwn epi amartia kai apestelleto liqobolhqhnai eiV ton topon, opou eiwqei ginesqai. o swthr, fhsin, ewrakwV authn kai qewrhsaV oti etoimoi eisin proV to liqobolhsai authn, toiV mellousin authn katabalein liqoiV eipen: oV ouk hmarten, airetw liqon kai baletw auton. ei tiV sunoiden eautw to mh hmarthkenai, labwn liqon paisatw authn. kai oudeiV etolmhsen. episthsanteV eautoiV kai gnonteV, oti kai autoi upeuqunoi eisin tisin, ouk etolmhsan kataptaisai ekeinhn.

For those without SYMBOL fonts but who can read UNICODE:

Φερομεν ουν εν τισιν εθαγγελιοις γυνη, φησιν κατακριθη υπο των Ιουδαιων επι αμαρτια και απεστελλετο λιθοβοληθηναι εις τον τοπον, οπου ειωθει γινεσθαι. ο σωτηρ, φησιν, εωρακως αυτην και θεωρησας οτι ετοιμοι εισιν προς το λιθοβολησαι αυτην, τοις μελλουσιν αυτην καταβαλειν λιθοις ειπεν. ος ουκ ημαρτεν, αιρετω λιθον και βαλετω αυτον. ει τις συνοιδεν εαυτω το μη ημαρτηκεναι, λαβων λιθον παισατω αυτην. και ουδεις ετολμησεν. επισταηαντες εαυτοις και γνοντες, οτι και αυτοι υπευθυνοι εισιν τισιν, ουκ ετολμησαν καταπταισαι εκεινην.


(To save and paste UNICODE, you need to open a file in a text-editor like notepad2, which allows you to specify the type of encoding. From the file menu there select UTF-8 from the choices available, and save the file under some name. Then paste in the UNICODE you have copied, and resave it again. this should save the text as UNICODE but in a textfile readable by modern systems and the web.)


(Didymus' Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus). ["We find, therefore, in some gospels a woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The saviour, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, 'He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her.' And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her."]

Didymus quotes the story of John 8:1-11 in large chunks, and Didymus did so between 310 and 380 A.D., making him plainly an EARLY GREEK SPEAKING FATHER WHO QUOTES THE PERICOPE DE ADULTERA IN A COMMENTARY, refuting the often repeated claim by modern liars that "no Greek speaking commentator quotes the verses before the 9th century A.D.".

(the "398" [A.D.] refers to the date of Didymus' apparent death, not the likely era in which he dictated his commentaries on Ecclesiastes. He probably gave live commentaries on the entire Tanakh and possibly the NT too, which he sermonized on for about 50 years. His commentary on Ecclesiastes probably falls about half-way into his carreer as a commentator of some reputation. Both Rufinus and Jerome describe travelling to learn at the feet of Didymus in their youth, probably around 360 A.D., a time in which Didymus was already famous round the empire.)



Bible Customer: "This is a dead parrot."

Textual Critic: "No its not, its pining for the fjiords."

Bible Customer: (shouting) "Wake up Polly! Polly WANT A CRACKER!"

Textual Critic: "You've stunned him!"

jgibson000

Pardon me for laboring under the assumption that "he who asserts must prove" and that according to the ordinary canons of scholarly discourse, you were obliged to provide the evidence that demonstrated your claim.

Deja vu all over again. Didn't you make a similar assertion about what I knew vis a vis Ehrman's having read over and over again your "Ehrman is a F***ing LIar" piece?

I believe your original claim was that Didymus quoted the Johannine PA more than once, that his "quotes" appear in more than one place (you said commentaries) and that he quotes it "extensively", not that he quotes it more extensively than anyone else, let alone Jerome more than Jerome did. So it looks to me like you are now moving the goal posts.

In any case, with respect to your (new) claim above, I know no such thing.

I know that you've asserted that Didymus quotes the Johannine PA.

But it is not apparent to me -- and in fact, I think its a raping of the data in Didymus to claim -- that what he says in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes about the woman who was to be stoned comes from the Gospel of John, let alone that it can be used as testimony that the "Johannine" PA was known to, and quoted by, a Greek church father.

In the first place, Didymus speaks of the story he "quotes" as one that he (or that "is") found εν τισιν εθαγγελιοις, in certain gospels.

More importantly, what he "quotes" is hardly the same story that now appears in John 8:1-11. The details of the story "found in other gospels" not only do not match up with, but contradict, those of Jn 8:1-11.

So to say, let alone to say as absolutely as you do, that what we find in Didymus' Commentary on Ecclessiates is a quotation of Jn 8:1-11 is not only to (conveniently) ignore data that contradicts this claim, it is use a definition of "quotation" that is as question begging as it is apparent that this definition is something made up so as to make Didymus' say what one wants him to say.

JG

Nazaroo

There you have it folks: exactly the response predicted, from Mr. Gibson.

Black is White, Up is Down, and Didymus apparently didn't refer to John 8:1-11. His paraphrase is too 'imprecise' to enable someone of Mr. Gibson's caliber to admit the obvious.

jgibson000

Can you tell me where you predicted that I would give the response I did.

Oh. So now it's a paraphrase of Jn. 8:1-11 that Didymus gave, not an "extensive quotation"?

And where did I use the word "imprecise"?

JG

Nazaroo

Q.E.D.

Nazaroo

There is no pardon for such mindless nonsense. This is the most unscientific statement ever penned, and you (as an allegedly educated man) ought to know better.

Its not "he who asserts must prove" which is a nonsensical statement of no scientific merit whatever, but rather,

"He who asserts the improbable or implausible must prove".


He who asserts the obvious can relax.

The onus is always upon the person making the lamest and most implausible claim.

That would be your claim, that somehow in spite of all the evidence, Didymus did NOT refer to the Pericope de Adultera. Good luck convincing others of that.


You are implausibly asserting the improbable, by claiming that Didymus did not plainly reference the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery in his commentary on Eclesiastes.

Most reasonable men would acknowledge Didymus' awareness and approval of this story as legitimate tradition and scripture, since he uses it unreservedly with authority to comment on another part of scripture, and affirms exactly what Jerome later also states, that the passage is found in some copies (εν τισιν εθαγγελιοις ) Literally, "in certain evangelliasteria", that is copies of the gospels.

The reason we know exactly what Didymus means is because Jerome studied under him for years, refers to him with reverence and honour, and he, Rufinus, Ambrose, and even Augustine all knew each other well and communicated often on doctrinal matters, frequently consulting one another.

Interpreted properly, Didymus' statements agree perfectly well with Jerome's statements, which are more detailed: "the story of the Woman taken in Adultery is found in many copies, both Greek and Latin".

To pretend that Jerome would somehow misunderstand Didymus, or misconstrue him, and that every other contemporary of both men would not notice or speak up on such an error flies in the face of all plausibility.

The fact of the matter is that Didymus describes the textual situation in Alexandria (Africa), while Jerome discusses it for the whole Christian world, in more detail, after having examined it himself carefully.

The overlapping testimony of all these early 4th century fathers, Ambrose, Didymus, Rufinus, Jerome, and Augustine is self-consistent and presents a picture that harmonizes well with what is known about the state of the text in their time and prior to it, and also accounts well for the later dominance of the text including the passage.



He who asserts the implausible must prove, and that means you.

jgibson000

So now it's "referring" to it, not quoting it, let alone "quoting it extensively", is it?

Interesting shift.

And as to the need for luck in convincing anyone that the version of the woman to be stoned story that Didymus refers to is not John 8:1-11, I don't think I need it. This has already been recognized by Ulrich Becker (Jesus und die Ehebrecherin. Untersuchungen zur Textund Überlieferungsgeschichte von Joh. 7,53-8,11), Dieter Lurhmann ("Die Geschichte von einer Sunderin und andere Apokryphe Jesusuberlieferungen bei Didymos von Alexandrien"), and others.

Again it's "reference", is it? Not quote?


Most reasonable men would acknowledge Didymus' awareness and approval of this story as legitimate tradition and scripture,

Leaving aside the matter of how "reasonable" is here question begingly defined as "agreeing with you", let's note that the question of whether Didymus recognizes the story he refers to as "legitimate" is separate from the question of whether the story that Didymus refers to is a quote from the Gospel of John. A denial that Didymus is quoting John or has in mind Jn 8:1-11, let alone is a here witness to what was in GJohn, is not an assertion that the story of a woman who was to be stoned/taken in adultery was a late invention and/or is not rooted in historical tradition.

Umm ... what? What is this word "evangelliasteria"? And on what basis do you claim that εν τισιν εuαγγελιοις bears the meaning "in copies of the Gospels"? Can you cite any instances of its use outside of Didymus in which this Greek expression has that meaning? And even if does, how does that explain away the fact that we still have the word Gospel in the plural, signifying that the story was found in Gospels other than John?

JG

jgibson000

Really? May I suggest then, that you have a look at

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Es...ent.htm#Assert

on the page by Peter Landry entitled On Argument at:

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Es...e/Argument.htm

I think you are mixing up the maxim I noted with Carl Sagan's adage "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" -- an adage which Sagan notes is grounded, BTW, in the notion that the claim that "he who asserts must prove" is not stupid, but both legitimate and scientific, being grounded in what scientists and logicians accept as legitimate when they speak of the burden of proof:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

As an (allegedly) educated man, you ought already to know this.

JG

Nazaroo

Sagan, a scientist, agrees with me, not you.


"He who asserts the improbable or implausible must prove" is clearly implicit in Sagan's formula, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof", both of which are based upon the same scientific premise:

You hold onto the most plausible working hypothesis until strong proof comes along that requires one to consider what formerly looked less plausible or probable.

This means, not simply whoever has the 'new' idea must prove it, but again, whoever has the least reasonable idea must provide the proof when called to task by a better, more reasonable idea.

For example, the heliocentric model of the solar system was immediately adopted without extensive 'proofs', because it was plainly more elegant and plausible than the older, needlessly complicated and implausible geocentric model.

Scientists didn't require Copernicus and Galileo to 'prove' heliocentricity, or even Galileo's argument for the constant acceleration of gravity. The idea was self-evident once it was described.

Likewise, scientists embraced Einstein's Special Relativity and even General Relativity long before any convincing 'proofs' were forthcoming. Because the models and the math were self-evidently more elegant and self-consistent with already known facts.

No one asked Einstein to 'prove' Gen Rel.

Nazaroo

While we're here however, an examination of your links is instructive.

"BluePeter" is of course an infamous euphemism for 'gay man'.

Be that as it may, many gay men are brilliant scientists, mathematicians and thinkers, so there is some expectation, or at least hope...

- hope which is dashed when we realise "BluePeter"'s essay is really just a kind of 'Cole's Notes' on amateur philosophy and debate at a high-school level.

Still, many here could use such basic instruction, so the page is not wholly without profit. But the depth of treatment of course is at just the right level of complexity to deceive a layman into "thinking he knows something, when he knows nothing as he ought to know it", as St. Paul would say.

His terse and quaint introduction to the 'scientific method' is hopelessly inadequate to prepare even a bright high-school graduate for a career in physics or chemistry.

Instead of clear and concise introductions to the essentials of most of his entries, we get a mix and match of 'fuzzy' thinking (not the mathematical kind), old Greek philosophical concepts, and the merest exposure to some of the pitfalls and demands of modern science.

For example, he incorrectly defines the 'scientific method' as the inductive reasoning process, an absurd reducio ad absurdium. While mentioning skepticism as a component in scientific methodology, he fails to bring out the equally component of an open mind and 'gullible' approach when deliniating the scope of an investigation, which allows for the extension of the search to the 'unlikely'.

He plants modern scientific methods on the foundation of empircism (Locke and Hume), and attributes this to the development of classical (Newtonian) physics, a ridiculous anachronism hardly worth refuting.

Finally he ends the discussion at Carl Popper, a philosophical relic of the previous age, something only an amateur philosopher or 'humanities' student might have the breadth of reading to accomplish. No mention of of Kunn's ground-breaking analysis of actual scientific practices (a work now almost 50 years out of date itself) is made.

--------------------------------

So naturally when we turn to "BluePeter's" treatment of the adage, "He who asserts must prove", we find again a fuzzy wandering paragraph that fails to get to the essentials.

He makes a few terse guidelines but fails to explain their scope or the means of application: thus "One cannot prove a negative" is not explained at all, nor its conditions for consideration. Finally, again he introduces the 'skeptical' approach informally, but fails to identify its basis.

He does do us a small favour with the following remark however:

"In the absence of the acceptance of a proposition being true,
... the person who advances the proposition has the obligation of proving it."

A closer look at this formulation shows once again that the author is aware of what I have been saying all along: that the side defending the most implausible or improbable proposition is the one who must prove, not the one who comes second to the field with a new idea, nor the one making the 'positive' assertion as opposed to a negative or non-assertion.

By 'acceptance' here, BluePeter can only mean scientific acceptance, meaning ideally which theory is more acceptable based upon its scientific plausibility or probability, not its historical popularity or its 'peer'-approval.



Science is not a 'First come First serve' Approach

The subtleties here should be carefully parsed by the scientist or any careful reader. It is not the 'status quo' which can sit on its ass, because it is already accepted. It is often the case that the mere hearing of a new idea or theory makes its superiority to the status quo obvious, and it can be immediately embraced with the consequent rejection of the previous theory, not because it has been 'proven' but because its superiority is evident.


The Active or Passive Form of an Assertion is Irrelevant

Similarly, one should not confuse the form of an argument with the question of who needs to 'prove' and who can relax.

Thus, its not whether one side is asserting a 'negative' proposition and the other a 'positive', or whether one is asserting a 'passive', non-commital non-assertion, versus an 'active' committed statement of fact.

This is also a 'red herring' of sorts. Just as in a court of law and in ethical argument a man can commit an offence by *EITHER* an ACT or OMISSION (a failure to act), so in science, the 'type' of theory is not germaine to who has the onus to 'prove'. That is, if one watches a child walk near the edge of a cliff and fall off, one is as guilty of murder or negligent homicide as if one pushed the child off the cliff.


Scientific Evaluation of Competing Ideas

So likewise in science, its not who's theory asserts a positive statement in form, but strictly the relative plausibility or probability of the two (or more) options.

Science, being based upon full disclosure and open, independantly reproducable or verifiable results, means that it is not up to any individual to judge the value of a theory or proposition, except insofar as his own abilities allow his independant verification of the theory for himself, nor is it up to a 'peer review', although that process is a valuable part of historical scientific progress.

Each theory rather, must be evaluated on its own merits in the context of opposing theories. No theory can be given preferred status or rejected, except on the basis of a background or alternate set of less plausible or more probable choices. And every scientist evaluating the relative claims of two (or more) theories (or their modifications) must do so only for himself, and only by a comparison of their relative scientific merits and ultimately their relative plausibility.

In this respect, scientific evaluation of competing theories is akin to the 'reasonable man' theorem in legal jurisprudence:

"What would a reasonable man do or decide in these circumstances,
if he were properly informed of the facts and the probable consequences?"

And the answer in our case, given the rather long and detailed description of a story presented by Didymus in his commentary on Ecclesiaticus, and the background of all of Didymus' peers and his disciples and their known beliefs, is that a reasonable man would concede that Didymus is quoting (somewhat loosely, and probably by memory) the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery.