Clutch

Er... yes. And when I say "It's raining", I am generally understood to mean "It's raining here".

Context, and all.

"Utterly unworthy of serious attention with respect to early biblical history, biblical literary interpretation, and apologetics", then.

Viz., the things we're discussing here, in this thread.

CX

Actually, my copy of the NA27 came with a handy little trifold pamphlet listing all the witnesses (MSS on which the edition is based) that gives the name, rough date by century and contents). Even if one doesn't know any Koine I think the NA27 is a valuable reference to have. With a good lexicon (like the abridged LSJ) a layman can work out many of the text critical arguments that are relevant to the discussions here.

I still maintain that the best bet is to get the NA27 and a couple grammars (those by Dr. William Mounce are outstanding) to have a rudimentary understanding of the Greek of the NT. From there the other books Haran recommended are a must for dillitantes of TC.

CX

But the converse that "he who does have crackpot ideas also has good ideas" is not universally true, as you yourself demonstrate repeatedly.

Geoff Hudson

Thankyou Mr Moderator. I just think I am mostly right, and much of what I read here is not.

Geoff

the_cave

Well, the first I might grant you, but not the other two. He could be very good at biblical interpretation without necessarily knowing a thing about its history, in the sense that he could glean ethical lessons from its stories.

As for apologetics, he might well have crackpot ideas there, too, but they need not necessarily have anything to do w/ the authorship of John.

In fact, I don't even grant you the "utterly" with respect to early biblical history! Clearly he was uninformed in one instance. But he might be well informed in others.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "serious". If what you mean by that is "scholarly", then yes, I agree. In fact, if that's what you mean, I might even grant you the other two, as well.

Alright, I'm off my nitpicky high horse now. Sorry. Let us proceed

Doctor X

Blake:

Interesting, because I always thought it was a literary device as well. In Jn, Junior is in control of everything--he delays his visit to dying Lazarus so he can demonstrate a truly great miracle--talk to the dead? HA! I raise them! Take that Edward!.

In the context of the pericope, it appears to me that Junior is demonstrating he is not really concerned about the events--he knows how they will play out. A "mob" seems rather "uncontrolled" yet he can still them with a lackadasical comment.

CX:

Indeed. They are great resources. If you can still get it, Throckmorton's Gospel Parallels puts the RSV of the Synoptics next to one another which helps seeing how Mt and Lk rewrote Mk here and there and where the hell Q comes in. His introduction is apologetic--claiming that the texts are something like "90% certain" and that none of the ambiguities involve theologically important passages! HA!

Though I am disappointed that the fragment from Codex Flatulencia--$--in the Nestle-Aland Apparatus Criticus--which completes the pericope in question has not gained enough scholarly recognition:

--J.D.

Steven Carr

LEWIS
In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it.

CARR
Even this is simply not true.

http://www.studylight.org/com/jlc/vi...oh&chapter=008

This states 'Many have offered their conjectures why he used this unusual gesture at this time; and, with the reader's leave, let me also offer mine.'

Surely Lewis must have read a Bible Commentary in his life?

Vorkosigan

Alas, no. No matter when he talks about the texts of the Bible, he is usually wrong. I have abused him for this before on a number of occasions. His thinking on this is extremely shallow, as it was on most other things. He really was a "crackpot," although he was a master of rhetoric.

Pomp masterfully abused Lewis here and then we roasted him again there.

Vorkosigan

SignOfTheCross

Oh, but if he was an atheist, he would be excitingly brilliant!

Peace,
SOTC

Peter Kirby

No, Acharya S. is an idiot too. (I think she's got no god-beliefs.) See Robert Price's book review in The Journal of Higher Criticism.

best,
Peter Kirby