Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MiddleMan · 02-26-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It was in a comment to
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...-proof_19.html

The main blog entry was a poem where Witherington maligns non-believers as blind people, who ignore evidence, and are not open-minded.

I guess showing lack of any respect and writing insults and producing character assassination of non-believers is what Jesus taught his followers.

But many Americans see nothing wrong with disrespecting people who are not Christians.

Happily, not all.

Sounds like Withertington's take a course in Poisoning the Well from the Robert Turkel School of Christian Apologetics.

andrewcriddle · 02-26-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

For instance, Ehrman claims publicly that 'no Greek father before the 9th century comments upon John 8:1-11, whereas Ehrman himself published a WHOLE BOOK in scholarly circles about a 4th CENTURY Greek father, Didymus, whose works were discovered in 1942.

Thus the 'impression' Ehrman gives is not only false, but contradicts his own published works.

The version of the woman taken in adultery quoted by Didymus has major differences from the normal text of John 8:1-11; and was probably found by Didymus in an apocryphal gospel, rather than in his copy of John.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 02-26-2007, 01:36 PM

Zervos: Caught in the Act: Mary and the Adulteress (pdf)

Nazaroo · 02-26-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Zervos: Caught in the Act: Mary and the Adulteress (pdf)

Zervos: Caught making stuff up

Zervos: Caught making stuff up Continued

Zervos vs. Culpepper: Counter-evidence overwhelming

I'd post a link to: "OUDE EGW SE [KATA]KRINW" John 8:11, The PROTEVAANGELIUM IACOBI, AND THE HISTORY OF THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE, by WIlliam L. Peterson, but its not online. You will find it in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non Canonical, Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda.
This was the real piece of scholarship which Zervos mostly copied near verbatum for the first half of his own plagarised article, which twisted Peterson's findings inside out.

Toto · 02-26-2007, 04:18 PM

Nazaroo: I don't see any support for your claim that Zervos was "caught making stuff up."

It does not reflect well on YOU when you continually accuse academic scholars of dishonesty because they do not follow your party line.

Nazaroo · 02-26-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The version of the woman taken in adultery quoted by Didymus has major differences from the normal text of John 8:1-11; and was probably found by Didymus in an apocryphal gospel, rather than in his copy of John.

Andrew Criddle

Note that your claim here was not an opinion held by Ehrman (right or wrong), and does not negate that according to Ehrman's own published views, his popularization of the idea of PA as a 'Medieval interpolation' is plain deception.

Zervos, by the way, notes Ehrman's true opinion of Didymus on pg 15:

Quote:

Noting the radical divergences" of the version of the PA in Didymus from that in the Didaskalia, Ehrman resurrects the hypothesis of Theodor Zahn who "used some of these divergences to argue that the Didaskalia preserves an early pre-literary form of the PA." FN 113:
______________________________

113. ...Ehrman is indebted to Zahn (1908) ...for his own theory of two earlier versions of the PA, although he does not accept all the details of Zahn's argument....

From this it is plain that Ehrman believes that Didymus is one of two alternate versions that were finally combined (much later) to create the PA as we have it in the Byz. text.

For this reason, Ehrman does not insist that Didymus is 'quoting an apocryphal gospel', but rather handing on a Johannine text from Alexandria at a certain stage of development.

Ehrman would disagree with Lurhmann et. al. that Didymus is importing stories from apocryphal 'gospels' or other works, and indeed there is no evidence in the commentary on Ecclesiastes that he ever did so.

Toto · 02-26-2007, 06:00 PM

Let me repeat: the Internet Infidels Discussion Board is private property, and you are here as guests. Please review the forum rules that you agreed to when you signed up.

The purpose of this forum is a discussion, on at least a semi-scholarly basis, of Biblical Criticism and History. It is not for the baseless attribution of evil motives and deeds to prominent scholars. Any further ramblings along that line may be edited or split off.

Toto · 02-26-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Toto,

Please assist.

How do we know who is a prominent scholar?
And can factual attributions be attributed to them ?
Who arbitrates as to which attributions are ok and which baseless ?

eg. Ben Witherington was accused of poisoning a well. (And the motives of other Christian writers are impugned daily.) Is that ok because he hasn't sold as many books, or because he actually did poison an atheists well, or because an arbiter decided the accusation was not completely baseless ?

I understand that any accusation can be made against the deceased, or at least the restrictions are very, very light. So perhaps in textual realms of deception we should focus on the late Bruce Metzger ? Or is there a waiting period ?

Please help us understand these complex rules. We know that IIDB doesn't want to be involved in any type of deliberate double standard.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

Ben Witherington has not been accused of deceit or duplicity.

The emphasis should be on BASELESS.

Toto · 02-26-2007, 07:43 PM

If no one has any more relevant comments on the subject of this thread, it can be closed.

We discourage all participants from bringing their history of conflicts with other poster on other lists to this forum.

Nazaroo · 02-26-2007, 07:45 PM

Thank you. Please close it. It has become a personal attack upon me for some irrational reason.

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

02-26-2007, 01:36 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Zervos: Caught in the Act: Mary and the Adulteress (pdf)

02-26-2007, 04:18 PM	#35
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Nazaroo: I don't see any support for your claim that Zervos was "caught making stuff up." It does not reflect well on YOU when you continually accuse academic scholars of dishonesty because they do not follow your party line.

02-26-2007, 06:00 PM	#37
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Let me repeat: the Internet Infidels Discussion Board is private property, and you are here as guests. Please review the forum rules that you agreed to when you signed up. The purpose of this forum is a discussion, on at least a semi-scholarly basis, of Biblical Criticism and History. It is not for the baseless attribution of evil motives and deeds to prominent scholars. Any further ramblings along that line may be edited or split off.

02-26-2007, 07:43 PM	#39
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If no one has any more relevant comments on the subject of this thread, it can be closed. We discourage all participants from bringing their history of conflicts with other poster on other lists to this forum.

02-26-2007, 07:45 PM	#40
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	Thank you. Please close it. It has become a personal attack upon me for some irrational reason.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.