Vorkosigan

In all of this, I am deeply informed by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which explains how people following one "paradigm" of inquiry often will "totally" discount the primary evidence of people following another paradigm of inquiry.

This is crap. However, I am not going to call him on it on XTALK. But will cheer if you do Bede.

Vorkosigan

You mean, line by line? Sure, right after I do my piece on methodology, and write my book about Taiwan, and finish my dissertation, and get all my students' homework graded, and finish teaching my son piano, and....

But basically, if the surface, intermediate, and deep structures are all built out of frameworks borrowed from elsewhere, the burden of proof does not lie on me to show that it is not historical, but on the Historicist to show why we should accept it even though it is built up of fiction-constructions.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede

He then picks up a Macdonaldism that says that Alexandria Troas where Paul stayed was Ancient Troy. While Troas is the region of Troy, the city Paul visited is not the city of Illium built right over ancient Troy as this

<confused> But Luke is locating him in Troas. Nobody in Luke's time knew the current modern location of Troy (which there is good reason to conclude was mythical anyway). The parallel lies in the launch-off point in the Troas -- and of course, winding up in Rome.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Vork, as I understand it, the Roman city of Ilium was (correctly) believed to be the site of ancient Troy and had a thriving tourist industry as a result. The city Paul was in is Alexandria Troas which was rather to the south.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

I don't see any evidence that he lost the argument or that anyone else thinks he lost the argument. You notice that outside of the rank amateurs Layman and Nomad, most of the other contributors have congratuated him on his insights.

I write to congratulate you on a well constructed piece of socio-contextual work.

A stimulating analysis!

The Bible Code nuts are claiming that there is evidence of divine authorship of the the Bible based on hidden patterns, that turn out to be a statistical illusion when examined more closely.

In contrast, Robbins and MacDonald are claiming that there is human authorship of the Bible, based on patterns that are obvious to the reader, and would have been obvious to the contemporary readers.

Or do you reject all literary criticism?

I think that Robbins' allusion to Kuhn was just to indicate that Layman and Nomad are so tied to their heliocentric-like theories that they cannot absorb any contrary evidence. I think he could have picked a better analogy based on studies in perception, but he is clearly signalling that he's not interested in fighting.

Bede

Well Toto, I would agree that Layman and Nomad are the heliocentrists and Robbins & co the Aristotelians....

There are no narrative parrallels between Mark and Homer as any fool not utterly blinded by post modernism can see. Read the second half of this by a classicist who can identify a spade as a digging implement. I went over an alleged passage on these boards and we found nothing - just embarrassingly bad attempts to make connections. My Shakespere post on Xtalk last time MacD came up killed the argument dead. As you said, any kind of proper statistical thought exposes MacD's claims as rubbish.

Trouble is, Toto, some of these academics are not interested in if an argument is true, but in if it is clever. You have no idea the damage these guys have done to the subject of history. Politically correct BS is accepted without question, literary criticism is all that matters, anything that is true is 'exploitative' or 'exclusionary'.

I can't expect an open mind from you but you are bright enough to see through this if you can be bothered. It is ironic that instead of debunking myths you are simply buying into more of them. It is also ironic that Ken Olsen, one of your heroes through his work on Josephus, has realised Robbins is building castles on sand.

Oh well, I think the case is pretty much closed. Back to the grind stome of research proposals and essays. I'll be posting a link to a big essay on witches fairly soon.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

If you weren't so touchy about defending the indefensible charge that Christianity has some historical basis, you wouldn't get so upset about this, Bede.

For the record, MacDonald is a practicing Christian. I suspect that Robbins may also be one. There is nothing in either of their works that is incompatible with Christianity, unless you require your Christianity to be based on a requirement that the false history of the gospels is true.

I don't want to defend post modernism, but I'll take it over the Inquisition any day of the week.

Vinnie

That everything in the Gospels and Acts is historically certian is a view that is not factually sustainable. That view even for the most orthodox of Christians is theologically unnecessary as well.

The combination of "Didactic historical fiction" combined with history remembered may not be factually true in all its details but that doesn't make it false. Its true but its not true. To say that God inspired something does not = all these accounts are historical as if it can be assumed that God would definately be concerned with strict history. To say the bible is God's word is largely to say that it bestows grace. Historical accounts or "didactic historical fiction" can both do that and I believe Bede knows this.

That God came to earth in the form of this man to reconcile us to himself remians outside the purview of historical research. The claim, however, is functionally true for Christians and that is its largest driving factor of our belief in my humble opinion.

Vinnie