Jeffrey Gibson

Are you speaking as a moderator here or as a participant? Let's assume the latter.

I don't agree that what I've been noting are "non issues". But I do agree that "conceal" could be taken to mean intentional suppression (though not always, as it's use in scholarly literature shows). But let's remember that you have noted, when you were apparently trying to say that Ted/Jacob/Sheshonq should not be upbraided for his apparent wholesale misrepresentation of Sanders on the crucifixion story in Mark, that "we are all fallible and can make mistakes". So perhaps it was a bit hastyy and contradictory of you to publicly take me to task for for my use of the word "conceal".

And I wonder if I had said "ignore" (which amounts to much the same thing as "conceal"), whether someone would have thought that assertion to be "emotionally charged" as well?

In any case, and assuming that I'm addressing a participant and not a moderator, may I ask why it is, if you think that posters here should avoid using "emotionally charged language", that you didn't do Ted/Jacob/Sheshonq the same courtesy you have extended me after I used the word "conceal" when he used such loaded and question begging expressions "haste and urgency to slander" and "hatchet jobs"?

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

Thanks sheshong
This one takes the cake for lack of shame.

NoRobots, I asked for a reference here. Could you post it please?

No Robots

The passage is quoted in the OP, where you will also find a link to the searchable Amazon listing for the book. The quoted passage appears on pp. 106-7.

Jeffrey Gibson

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

This from someone who, in order to excoriate Sanders as one who presents "False and inane ideas", specifically claims that in his discussion of the Markan crucifixion scene Sanders "would have us believe that the soldiers were engaged in symbolic acts" when in that discussion Sanders doesn't mention soldiers at all, let alone that they were engaged in acts of any kind.


See http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...36#post5000136

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

Yes they are, Jeffrey.

If Price deliberately made the assertion - which appears obvious since it came from him, and was deliberately included in a book that he wrote - then there is no functional difference between claiming that (a) Price concealed the facts and (b) Price's assertion concealed the facts.

Well. Color me surprised. I *certainly* didn't expect such a lame attempt at weasly word-mincing from someone who styles themself a scholar.

No, it doesn't, for all the reasons noted in Ted Hoffman's post - you know, the one that he made in rebuttal to you. The same one you haven't addressed yet. The same one I've pointed out to you three times now.

You also haven't addressed my second point:

1.Earlier you tried to create a false binary choice, and say that Price insisted on either (a) synagogues or (b) porches. When it was pointed out to you that Price was merely listing a specific example of a general idea (meeting places outside a building) you grew pedantic and tried to insinuate that nobody could know that was Price's intent, without being a mind-reader. Of course, Price had already mentioned other places in the passage, which you conveniently excerpted in your version.

You failed to admit this mistake when first you made it.
You ignored it when I pointed it out above.
Do you plan to dodge it a third time?

Sheshonq

Is this an admission that your attempt to weasel out of the charge above was ill-founded?

And again with the sloppiness of your posting. I said nothing about Sanders, or the crucifixion story in Mark. I wasn't even involved in that sub-tangent discussion. Where did you pull that from?

Are you equally sloppy with your classes or your writings? Do your publishers realize it? Should they be made informed?

Jeffrey, the reaction that you are getting is not because you used "conceal" instead of "ignore". You're getting taken to the woodshed because you made this claim about Price, and THEN afterwards tried to greasy-pig your way out of admitting that fact, by pretending to see a distinction between:

a. Price's assertion concealed the facts
vs.
b. Price concealed the facts

My comments to you were all reactions to your initial usage of loaded commentary. Had you never loaded your posts with such inflammatory terms, then I would not have responded so. Why? Because I would have no basis to suspect that you were engaged in a hatchet job.

Your complaint amounts to, "I stole his car, and he called me a thief. That hurt my feelings. Why won't he treat me with respect?"

Try not stealing the car in the first place, and there won't be any basis for calling you a thief. And if you avoid the agenda in your postings, then people won't be likely to accuse you of agenda.

It's not rocket science.

Jeffrey Gibson

O piffle. Surely a mind as good as yours recognizes the difference between "this statement is false as far as far as the facts are concerned" and X is a liar". One is simply stating a fact about a statement, the other makes claims about a speaker's intent.

"Himself", not "themself" (and even if we ignore the rule about referential pronouns in subordinate clauses having to agree with their antecedents in gender and number, it would be "themselves").

And please show me where I've "styled" myself here as a scholar or played the "scholar' card, as you seem to suggest I have.

So far as I can see I've never appealed to, let alone boasted of, or even mentioned my "credentials" or stated anything about my status (or lack of it) within the academy -- especially as a trump card in an argument.

Besides that, you really shouldn't be taking me to task in the light of Toto's "get out of jail for free when it comes to mistakes since everybody is fallible" card!

I did? And in those exact words?

Yes he did. Hut in contrast to what he thinks Mark believes a synagogue was (a building). Are you actually saying not only (1) that Price would agree with the idea that meeting places "outside of a building" and/or not beneath any portion of a building's physical structure , let alone the "sea side" or "in the open" away from/where there are no buildings, is what Mark is referring to when he uses the word "synagogue" but (2)that Price himself would say -- and is saying in the passage you mentioned -- that places like "the seaside" or "the open" are synagogues, let alone are examples of the "porches" that he mentioned?

And are you saying that Price thinks that "porches", however demarcated, are synagogues?

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

That is not parallel to the what you said, however. "False" and "liar" are not identical. One is simply a flat statement, often used in proofs or math equations; the other is charged with accusation.

I would think a mind as good as yours would be able to tell the difference - if you truly wanted to do so.

However the two statements we are dealing with do not exhibit such a stark difference as the phony parallel you tried to draw above. We are dealing with nearly identical statements, not bounded by "false vs. liar".

Our two statements are:

a. Price's statement concealed the facts...
b. Price concealed the facts....

We see identical verbage except for the inclusion of 'statement'. And both charged with inflammatory meaning, "concealed".

Let's all remember: you are engaged in this long derail merely because Ted Hoffman said that you accused Price of concealment. It was a simple statement, and easily verified. But because you had been losing points in this thread left and right, you fixated on this and tried to quibble it to death. And all this sturm und drang we're seeing right now is just a herculean effort on your part to refocus attention away from your accusation.

Pedantic quibbling deleted. You have much bigger items to answer for, than correcting my grammar, Jeffrey.

There is no such card, and you have utterly failed in your attempts to demonstrate one.

Yes.

How do you know this? Is this what Price actually says? Aren't you reading things into what he says. Where does anything which would give us a clue that he is saying more -- is a qualifying phrase like "for instance" or "for example" -- appear in what he wrote?

The larger point here - the one you keep dodging - is that Price mentioned other venues for 'synagogue' besides (a) porch and (b) building. It was there in his quotation - the same quotation that you cited - but you excised it from the quote. Having done so, you then accused Price of presenting a bifurcated choice. By doing so, you set Price up for a hatchet job, and you proceeded to pull out the hatchet.

Oh, and Jeffrey: given how sloppy you've been so far - even to the extent of accusing me of participating in a discussion on Sanders/GMark/crucifixion which I was not involved in whatsoever -- you really shouldn't be asking for "precise quotes".

Jeffrey, Jeffrey. I'm not going to fall into the trap of answering 1001 questions about Price, so that you can distract the audience from the mistakes you made.

You ask what I am saying. I've already told you: I am saying that Price mentioned other venues, which undercuts your claim that he presented a bifurcated choice. He clearly did not.

Which is why I claimed that he was presenting a specific example (porch) of a general class (non-customary synagogue venues). Which you seemed to think was merely me "reading something into" Price which wasn't there.

So I am furthermore saying that your charge that I was "reading something into Price" is baseless, since Price himself mentioned at least two other venues. A fact you would have known, had you not redacted the original Price quotation.

The test of your intellectual character and professional integrity is whether or not you can simply say, "I made a mistake" or not. Only time will tell how you choose to deal with these realities.

Jeffrey Gibson

I don't deny that the words "sea side and "in the open" appear in his quotation. But no where does he say that these places are synagogues, let alone that they functioned as synagogues or that Jesus outdoor meetings were "synagogues". As his taking Kee to task for saying that the term means "gatherings" shows, Price claims that the term has only one meaning and one referent , i.e., a 'building". In fact, Price explicitly denies that the gatherings for preaching that Mark mentions as taking place by "the sea side" and "in the open" are "synagogues" when he [Price] claims that Jesus was forced to leave the synagogue -- and went out of the synagogue -- to hold them.

Surely you see that Price's claim that the stories about Jesus preaching in synagogues are a-historical -- grounded as it is in the claim that there were no synagogue buildings in Galilee before the end of the 1st century CE -- has no force and cannot be sustained if he thought, as you seem to be saying that he does, that synagogue meant "gathering".

And if he is not dismissing the idea that "synagogues" were buildings, but thinks instead that any outdoor gathering is a "synagogue", what is he taking Kee to task for? And why does he claim that there is no archaeological evidence for them? How (and why) would there be?

Or are you now saying that Price is not taking Kee to task for saying that in Mark synagogue" does not mean building but means instead "gathering", that he is not ridiculing Kee for suggesting, as Price makes him out to be, that the place for synagogue services could be "somebody's porch"?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

*sigh* The extent you will go to distract the audience is mind-boggling, Jeffrey. Fortunately, it doesn't work on me.

1. There is a lack of archaeological evidence for any synagogues in the 1st century.

2. Howard Clark Kee tries to skirt that issue by expanding the definition of 'synagogue' to mean 'assembly' or 'meeting', which would explain away the lack of archaeological evidence (or so Kee hopes).

3. Price responds to that attempt, and in doing so mentions other venues where Christ assembled crowds to preach.

4. Price does this, to juxtapose how (a) the expanded definition Kee favors doesn't square with (b) *other* terms such as "rulers of the synagogue". So for example: if "synagogue" can include these other venues (seaside, open field, porch) that Kee favors, then how can you have a "ruler" of a seaside, open field, or porch? Price uses this obvious disconnect as proof that Kee's expanded definition of 'synagogue' does not work.

On the contrary. So far, his claim has much force, and your attempts to quibble away at it have backfired. And given the utter lack of archaeological evidence, the burden of proof is on the claimant - you, or others like yourself.

Do you ever plan to address Ted Hoffman's post?

Or admit the fact that I was not involved in the Sanders/GMark/crucifixion discussion? If you can't even admit this obvious error, is there any hope for discussion with you? There must be some modicum of intellectual honesty, or else discussion is just noise.