Vorkosigan

Jake, nooooooooooooooooooo!

mikem

Just playing Devils advocate here Chris, but if I were an inerrantist Xtian, my response to that would be that I know that the Bible is inerrant because the Holy Spirit gives me the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, and the Bible itself assures me that the Holy Spirit would be given to those who believed, so the two - Holy Spirit and Holy Bible - mutually support each other. I think that would let me off the hook of accusations of inconsistency with regard to other scriptures, but then I would have to demonstrate on other grounds, why Xtainity is true, perhaps by reference to whatever historical evidence is available.

(And speaking for myself frankly, the more time I spend on this forum, arguing about historical evidence, the more sympathetic I am becoming to the Mythicists although I still think you are wrong! At least I think that I think your'e wrong - hmm.. I think a need a drink!)

RUmike

You can't see how a rational person, looking at the synoptic gospels, can think there is some sort of literary dependence there?

Doug Shaver

I think I've finally figured him out.

Praxeus reads the Bible with a prior assumption of inerrancy and discovers, when he is done with whatever analysis he applies to the text, that he has proven it to be inerrant.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if anybody else reads the Bible and discovers, when he is done with whatever analysis he applies to the text, that he has proven it to be errant, then he must have read it with a prior assumption of errancy.

QED, right?

robto

Thanks for the suggestion, Stephen and Julian. I'm going to see if I can find that one at one of the local libraries.

On the circularity issue: Crossan does not consider this a separate argument for Mkan priority, rather, it provides confirmation of the original argument. (That's why I said "secondary" in the OP.) That is, redaction analysis admittedly relies on the assumption of Mkan priority and asks "IF Mkan priority is correct, can we understand the changes that were made by Mt and Lk?" If you can find a consistent explanation of those changes, then you have gained support for the original hypothesis. To put it another way, you'd better be able to find a consistent explanation of those changes or your original hypothesis is in trouble. At least that's how I understand the argument.

I'd appreciate any other suggestions. (I'd also appreciate it if folks would refrain from hijacking my thread for discussions of inerrancy, etc. )