FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-25-2002, 09:08 PM   #31
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by FunkyRes:
You can argue that Acts 1:1 was added, but no mss exist w/o it
I'm sure you mean to say no complete MSS exists without it. There are numerous MSS which do not contain Acts 1:1. In fact, I'll have to check, but I believe Aleph is the first MSS to attest it.
CX is offline  
Old 07-25-2002, 09:11 PM   #32
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by FunkyRes:
You can argue that Acts 1:1 was added, but no mss exist w/o it
I'm sure you mean to say no complete MSS exists without it. There are numerous MSS which do not contain Acts 1:1. In fact, I'll have to check, but I believe Aleph is the first MSS to attest it.
CX is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 01:45 AM   #33
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Antioch, CA
Posts: 173
Post

Yes- mss that contain the beginning
FunkyRes is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 07:07 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Post

Quote:
Finally to say that there is no consensus on the issue is a bold statement indeed.
Then I would suggest that your threshold for boldness is somewhat low. I use the word consensus difinitively as unanimity. If you define the word as majority or plurality then I defer to you.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 07:09 AM   #35
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by FunkyRes:
<strong>Yes- mss that contain the beginning </strong>
Very funny. So then we are agreed that all MSS of Acts that contain the beginning do not omit the beginning. heh.
CX is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 07:14 AM   #36
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
<strong>

Then I would suggest that your threshold for boldness is somewhat low. I use the word consensus difinitively as unanimity. If you define the word as majority or plurality then I defer to you.</strong>
Perhaps, but be that as it may, "consensus" does not actually mean "unanimity" so your using it that way entails a private definition of the word which serves only to obfuscate the issue. I neither said nor implied that scholars were unianimous about the Luke-Acts complex. In fact, I submit than on isssues such as these unianimity would be virtually impossible to achieve. For one thing, there is generally at least one crackpot with a wildly divergent opinion.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>
CX is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 07:21 AM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Post

Quote:
Quote by CX

Please provide references to peer reviewed journal articles, monographs or books not for a lay audience that defend the notion that Acts was written prior to GLk or that Acts and GLk are not by the same author.
You seem to be working with the notion that I use the opinion of others to form my own opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I look at the evidence and draw my own conclusions on these matters. I don't know how many times I have seen a situation in which I read that some epistle or fragment that was once considered to be authentic is now believed by "most scholars" or "consensus" to be un-authentic because of some reason. I will look at that reason, if it is published, which many times it is not, and draw my own conclusions. I will draw my own conclusions, thank you very much, and if you want to argue with me on the merit of my conclusions alone, fine, but please do not argue with the consensus.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 07:27 AM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Post

Quote:
Perhaps, but be that as it may, "consensus" does not actually mean "unanimity" so your using it that way entails a private definition of the word which serves only to obfuscate the issue.
Private definition? Yeah, mine and Merriam-Webster's.

Who is obfuscating? Try getting over yourself.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 07:35 AM   #39
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
<strong>

You seem to be working with the notion that I use the opinion of others to form my own opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I look at the evidence and draw my own conclusions on these matters. I don't know how many times I have seen a situation in which I read that some epistle or fragment that was once considered to be authentic is now believed by "most scholars" or "consensus" to be un-authentic because of some reason. I will look at that reason, if it is published, which many times it is not, and draw my own conclusions. I will draw my own conclusions, thank you very much, and if you want to argue with me on the merit of my conclusions alone, fine, but please do not argue with the consensus.</strong>

Perhaps we are talking past eachother here, but you are the one that implied or directly stated (I can't recall)that there wasn't a consensus on this issue. I was merely asking for some indication that that is in fact the case. The truth is I am pretty familiar with the literature and so I doubt the claim has any validity, but since I am continually revising my knowledge and opinion, which is after all one of the primary reasons for participating on a forum such as this, I was sincere in my interest to see citations of the position you appeared to advocate.

As for forming one's own opinion, that's all well and good, but I am not a professional scholar and my mastery of Koine Greek, text and form criticism etc. is rudimentary at best. Furthermore, I have neither the time nor the inclination nor the ability to do sufficient research using primary sources to develop a solid position. Naturally then like all dilletantes I rely on those who do. If the arguments made by scholars who oppose current consensus are compelling I am just as apt to accept them. For example, I think Israel Finkelstein presents a compelling case for his analysis of the archaeological evidence in The Bible Unearthed and his is decidely not the mainstream consensus.

Put it this way. I have an interest in physics in addition to my interests in ANE history, Xianity etc. Even so, I am not capable of doing the math or theorizing required to derive my own conclusions regarding qunatum mechanics nor do I have a nuclear accelerator at my disposal to do my own experimentation. Consequently I rely on what scientists in the field have to say.
CX is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 07:45 AM   #40
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
<strong>

Private definition? Yeah, mine and Merriam-Webster's.

Who is obfuscating? Try getting over yourself.</strong>
I'll be damned. Well there's no sense arguing semantics and descending into a round of dueling dictionaries, though I think the Webster definition is just plain wrong. As for getting over myself you'd hardly make such a callous and unfeeling remark if you had the full story. I gave myself the best years of my life and then I dumped myself for a cute redhead. Yeah I'm bitter, but I still love myself and probably always will.
CX is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.