Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 05-29-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I don't make a big deal when people misspell words because it's usually easy to infer what they ACTUALLY meant.

Then you dont know what a strawman is. You could accuse him for quibbling or for not giving your work a charitable reading but not accuse him of comitting a logical fallacy. Faulting someone for using a wrong word is not a logical fallacy, and it is not a strawman. Do you typically use words you dont understand? Look, you have admitted that you misused the word. Be graceful and let it go. You are not the first to do that and you are certainly not the last. Its no biggie really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

First, Kloppenborg apparently admits that Q has no narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Zeichman

Where? No one has given a citation of this, so I'm not going to address all of the rest until your premise is demonstrated to be correct.

See here plus from Doherty's response:

Quote:

When placed alongside the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both of which employ narrative as a framing device, Q seems deficient....Although Q lacks Mark's overarching narrative framework...Q lacks a unifying narrative format... [The Formation of Q, p.89, 94, 95]

And note my use of the word "apparently."

Quote:

Q is unclear at this point and we've both tried to conjecturally emmend it...blanks need to be filled in. Doherty and I do it differently and our conclusions are viewed by the other as representative of prior assumptions. Someone is yet to show me that I'm wrong about this progression:
1) Acceptance necessitates a previous question
2) The previous question (that is given in Q) necessitates a previous expectation
3) This previous expectation exists. There is an obvious relationship between the verses, given that the Baptist is the theme character, "erchomenos" is the theme word, Isaiah is the theme prophet, and it is overtly about predictions and identifications.
4) Therefore, there is a necessary progression

Will I be correct to regard the above as an argument for progression or a relationship based on the fact that the baptist and Isaiah are common in the passages in question and therefore link them to create a unified thread?

Quote:

If there is another way to read Q 7:18-35 in relation to Q 3:16-17, please tell me, because no one has provided anything. Doherty's conjectural relegation of the verses to Q3 solves nothing, since it is clear that relationship still exists.

Conjectural relegation? Are you serious? I think Doherty has made himself sufficiently clear. I await your take on his arguments.

Zeichman · 05-30-2007, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Then you dont know what a strawman is. You could accuse him for quibbling or for not giving your work a charitable reading but not accuse him of comitting a logical fallacy. Faulting someone for using a wrong word is not a logical fallacy, and it is not a strawman. Do you typically use words you dont understand? Look, you have admitted that you misused the word. Be graceful and let it go. You are not the first to do that and you are certainly not the last. Its no biggie really.

"The straw man fallacy is when you (a)misrepresent someone else's position so that (b) it can be attacked more easily, (c) knock down that misrepresented position, then (d) conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made."

Are any of those untrue of Doherty's response to my use of the word narrative? It certainly wasn't intentional, but it was also a straw man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

First, Kloppenborg apparently admits that Q has no narrative.
See here plus from Doherty's response:
And note my use of the word "apparently."

I still don't see that as an "apparent" contradiction.

"Next to certain NBA stars, John's height seems deficient, since these individuals are very tall... His body lacks Ben Wallace's large frame... He lacks an extremely large frame."
This doesn't mean John isn't tall compared to non-NBA stars. If we only had the Gospel of Thomas in our canon and found a copy of Q in some dig, everyone would undoubtedly praise its narrative features. It's extremely relative.

Quote:

Will I be correct to regard the above as an argument for progression or a relationship based on the fact that the baptist and Isaiah are common in the passages in question and therefore link them to create a unified thread?

That's part of the argument for both. A relationship needs to be established before one can define it.

Quote:

Conjectural relegation? Are you serious? I think Doherty has made himself sufficiently clear. I await your take on his arguments.

You're right, it's not conjectural, it's circular, requires special pleading, and uses methods outside of those outlined by Kloppenborg and aren't really literary-critical. I addressed this like two posts ago. Copy and paste:

Quote:

For clarification, you asked Ben this, not me. Why? Because the one he has offered is fallacious?
1Q: How do we know that the dialogue is in Q3?
1A: Because it attributes material to a personified Jesus.
2Q: How does this indicate stratigraphical location?
2A: Because such only occurs only in Q3 (i.e. the temptation narrative)
3Q: Well, that seems thematic and not literary-critical, but anyway... What about the dialogue in Q 9:52f (Doherty has provided no reason to believe this wouldn't be in Q1)? or the Beelzelbub accusation? Or the distant healing? Or the introductory words that occur elsewhere in the first two layers of Q?
3A: Don't worry about those.
4Q: Then how can you possibly be proven wrong?
4A: [silence]

Circular logic does not make a valid argument, and it doesn't look like he's working within the same methodological paradigm as Kloppenborg, even though he claims he is.

Additionally, it's a HUGE double-standard. He's identifies this as a late theme, from what I understand, because of the Q3 temptation narrative. "Zeichman can hardly appeal to this as something "typical" of Q3, or how scripture functions in Q3, or how miracles are understood in Q3, when it is all based on only one example." No, but apparently Doherty is allowed to do so.

Ted Hoffman · 06-20-2007, 08:10 AM

Bump.

Zeichman · 06-20-2007, 11:12 AM

What's left to say? It ended with me asking a series of unanswered questions to Doherty and you.

It probably won't be until fall that I get my response up because I've been pretty busy and I'm trying to be thorough with this. I'll have something related to post in about a week or so, but I don't want to jinx it.

Ted Hoffman · 06-20-2007, 10:28 PM

By all means, take all the time you need Chris. Your arguments in this thread have been characterised by a non-standard use of words and incorrect accusations of logical fallacies. Probably because you did not feel the need to weigh your words carefully or was pressed for time. So ask all your rhetorical questions in your response. You can be sure they shall be answered.

Chris Weimer · 06-21-2007, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

By all means, take all the time you need Chris. Your arguments in this thread have been characterised by a non-standard use of words and incorrect accusations of logical fallacies. Probably because you did not feel the need to weigh your words carefully or was pressed for time. So ask all your rhetorical questions in your response. You can be sure they shall be answered.

Does that mean you refuse to answer his questions?

Ted Hoffman · 06-21-2007, 06:58 AM

Weimer, if you can see "a series of unanswered questions" at the end of this thread, please feel free to copy and paste them here. I shall be glad to attempt answering them.

Zeichman · 06-21-2007, 10:16 AM

What false accusations of logical fallacies? If you're talking about the straw man on this page, please show me how it's wrong. And what non-standard uses of words (in the plural!)? I used "narrative" in a non-standard, but hardly incorrect, way.

I asked Doherty to give me ANYTHING about his pre-Q1 source a few times and he has yet to do so.

Once more, what is left to say that necessitated bumping?

Johnny Skeptic · 06-21-2007, 10:54 PM

At www.preventingtruthdecay.org/14jp.shtml, there is a lengthy article that will definitely be of interest to readers of this thread. The article attacks Earl Doherty at length, and some interesting quotes of Bart Ehrman are included.

Ted Hoffman · 06-21-2007, 11:50 PM

Zeichman, I was bumping it just to find out if you are still working on a response. I have already shown you you you misapplied the fallacy - I am comfortable that I have done it clearly and successfully, even if you do not agree.
You already admitted error with respect to your use of the word narrative, lets not resurrect dead issues.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2007, 08:10 AM	#103
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Bump.

06-20-2007, 11:12 AM	#104
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	What's left to say? It ended with me asking a series of unanswered questions to Doherty and you. It probably won't be until fall that I get my response up because I've been pretty busy and I'm trying to be thorough with this. I'll have something related to post in about a week or so, but I don't want to jinx it.

06-20-2007, 10:28 PM	#105
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	By all means, take all the time you need Chris. Your arguments in this thread have been characterised by a non-standard use of words and incorrect accusations of logical fallacies. Probably because you did not feel the need to weigh your words carefully or was pressed for time. So ask all your rhetorical questions in your response. You can be sure they shall be answered.

06-21-2007, 06:58 AM	#107
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Weimer, if you can see "a series of unanswered questions" at the end of this thread, please feel free to copy and paste them here. I shall be glad to attempt answering them.

06-21-2007, 10:16 AM	#108
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	What false accusations of logical fallacies? If you're talking about the straw man on this page, please show me how it's wrong. And what non-standard uses of words (in the plural!)? I used "narrative" in a non-standard, but hardly incorrect, way. I asked Doherty to give me ANYTHING about his pre-Q1 source a few times and he has yet to do so. Once more, what is left to say that necessitated bumping?

06-21-2007, 10:54 PM	#109
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	At www.preventingtruthdecay.org/14jp.shtml, there is a lengthy article that will definitely be of interest to readers of this thread. The article attacks Earl Doherty at length, and some interesting quotes of Bart Ehrman are included.

06-21-2007, 11:50 PM	#110
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Zeichman, I was bumping it just to find out if you are still working on a response. I have already shown you you you misapplied the fallacy - I am comfortable that I have done it clearly and successfully, even if you do not agree. You already admitted error with respect to your use of the word narrative, lets not resurrect dead issues.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.