Jeffrey Gibson

So we should not take your authorial statements as indicative of your authorial intent?

Jeffrey

spamandham

Take them as you see fit. I'm doing the same in regard to yours. :wave:

Jeffrey Gibson

I''m glad to hear it. But the the larger question is whether you are in any way fit to see what they actually indicate, so that your conclusions about my intent are anywhere near the mark. As I recall, you have too often shown yourself not to be in possession of the hermeneutical skills (not to mention the mastery of matters NT) you claim are yours.

:wave: back.

Jeffrey

Rick Sumner

So you don't have any actual response to his argument, just that it "seems contrived?" You'll forgive me if your impression of contrivance bears less authority than actual geography.

Is there a problem with the geography? With the proposed method of dissemination? Are you familiar enough with either to offer an opinion?

As an added bonus, as was pointed out to me in private correspondence by another poster, 1 Peter lists Asian cities in order for arguably the same reason.


Paul J. Achtemeier and Eldon Jay Epp, 1 Peter : A Commentary on First Peter (Facsims. on lining papers.;, Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1996), 85.

The footnote to this cites the following:

Do you have a shred of actual evidence against Ramsey's suggestion? Or just that Ramsey's "worldview" is different from your own? I ask because I am sure you would not suggest something as bizarre as the idea that the only worldviews that shape historical reconstruction are those that are Christian.

Rick Sumner

Ah, okay. Then this is easy to rectify. This is called "special pleading." The solution is simple. No, I won't grant your request to regard this differently. There is no rational basis for it, other than personal preconception.

Doubtlessly true. Also irrelevant. The Pastorals are not written by Paul. They excercise precisely the "creativity" you describe. Except they claim to be written by Paul, and it is indeed the author's intent to craft a letter by "Paul."

Unless you can establish such a penchant for authorial statement that disagrees with authorial intent that we can only describe it as the norm, or at least commonplace, your case is non-existent. I'll await your list.

Again, what a silly position to take, that has no basis in the simple reality of how we approach day to day life, much less notes from antiquity.

Indeed we can. But that does nothing to negate the value of the author's own words in describing his intent. I'm still baffled by how you would suggest we could ever proceed otherwise.

Are we having the same discussion? You said there was no evidence. I asked you what you would consider evidence. I'm asking you to clarify your criteria for acceptable evidence.

The evidence I cited was actually the Paulines. Which are mid-first century. Unless we are going to take traditional dating for one and not the other.

Though mid-first century for Revelations is inaccurate. The traditional dating is around the end of the first century. You're going to have a hell of time explaining the allusions if you change that up much.

ETA

I also asked you to explain why we we should not view Revelations as an epistle, and provided several reasons we should. I'm not sure that we can proceed until we establish where we stand on that. Your response to the dissemination of epistles would ostensibly seem to indicate concession, but I'd hate to find out otherwise later.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

As I said before, I don't see a way of deciding this.

John of Patmos lists seven churches in Asia, and lists them, in a nice geographical order. (Unless, of course, someone added that list because everyone knew that those were the "seven.")

Ramsey has to reconcile this with the fact that there were more than seven churches in Asia, so he posits that these seven were on the initial distribution list, and would send the "letter" to the others. It's possible, but what about it is not a contrived solution to the "problem" of the number of churches?

Ramsey might be right on the geography and the transmission, but seven churches still looks like a symbolic use of seven to me.

If you don't see it this way, let it rest.

Rick Sumner

Wow. It took nearly a week for someone, anyone, to come up with the obvious response. While I'm not going to deny that I've been having fun with this, I'm more than a little astonished at the delay.

You suggested Ramsey was too Christian to be right, and spamandham suggested that John was too mystical to be pragmatic, both of which are nonsensical, have no basis in the actual evidence and involve no actual argument.

The obvious response is that John of Patmos picked a mailing route with 7 cities intentionally, to symbolically employ the number 7. To which there is no easy response. It could well be.

I have to ask, why, exactly, you think Ramsey being Christian is relevant though? Do you really think being Christian in some way precludes recognizing symbolism? Ramsey's suggestion answers the question of why those cities are given, and why they are given in that order. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not 7 is chosen symbolically or not. Your responses were so bound and determined that Ramsey was wrong that you ignored the obvious fact that he probably isn't, because his solution makes perfect sense, and reflects a reality of geography that was surely known to the author of Revelations.

Your reluctance to see that probably says more about the implications of your world view than that of Ramsey.

DCHindley

Rick,

You mean Duthoy, Robert, The taurobolium. Its evolution and terminology?

Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1969
Description: xiv, 130 p. 1 illus., map. 25 cm
Series: Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain t. 10,
Note Bibliography: p. [ix]-xiv
Subjects: Taurobolium
OCLC # 35137, Isn/Std # 0784-49460, LCCN 79427475

As far a I can tell, this was not a translation from French.

DCH

Rick Sumner

Indeed I do. Could be I was mistaken and it was originally in English. The only version I'd ever been able to track down was French, and subsequent correspondence with Duthoy, where he was gracious enough to clarify some things for me (my French is functional, but not technical enough to have gotten it all) was also carried out in French. I'd assumed, apparently incorrectly, that that was all there was. Perhaps the reference I saw to a coming English version was owed to a reprint, as it has been OOP for some time, it would seem.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

You mean it took nearly a week before I got through to you.

I think you are reading your own biases into what I wrote. I think that Ramsey's proposed solution reflects specifically his Protestant Rationalist viewpoint, not Christianity in general.

You seem obsessed with showing that I am biased against Christians.

Not Christianity in general, but a particular brand of Christianity which predisposed him to find some rational basis for what was written in the Bible.

I suspect the Christians who wrote the Bible and adopted Revelation preferred symbolism to a literal list of cities.

I don't in fact think it makes perfect sense. But I don't think I will convince you of that.