Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6116Re: Steve and dates

Expand Messages
  • Michael Davies
    Mar 31, 1999
      > >What we have are expert witnesses who generally come down on 80-90
      > >for Mt/Lk (I mean academics).
      > We aren't playing academic pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.
      > The academics as you want to call them are the lawyers, not the witnesses.

      Gosh. I've lost the tail of the metaphoric snake here. What we have,
      far as I know, are people with more credibility than you've got
      saying things you disagree with (on no known grounds) and thus
      you are to be thought correct and them wrong.

      > >We don't really think all that much of
      > >their arguments for dating, but we don't have any good reasons to
      > >think they are wrong.
      > Let's put it another way: we don't have any good reasons to think they are
      > right. It might be conscience stimulating to think that way, they don't get
      > called academics for such crystal-ball work.

      They're called academics because they get paid by academic places and
      have gone through years of intiatiatory study and publication and so
      forth. Therefore they are right until proven wrong. Or they are right
      until a better theory than theirs is given. (which isn't quite the
      same thing) Far as I can tell you assert "They are wrong."
      Well, that's rather Yuri-ish as far as it goes, and goes not far.
      It's a nothing.

      I cannot believe that you are arguing "because they are academics
      they are wrong" and so "I am right" and that's the extent of it.
      But thus far I've seen nothing else forthcoming.

      > >You have repeatedly reported your thought that
      > >e.g. Acts is much later than this... but so far as you have opened
      > >your mind to us you base that thought on lack of attestation in other
      > >texts, hence the relevance of my question above.
      > Citations: there are none that are early.

      Recall the Question I asked today? You spurned the question. Recall
      it, if you will, and save me the trouble of reiterating.

      > >As far as "saducees"
      > >go (and I care no hoot) a dating of Mt at 80 means saducees were
      > >annoying Mt at that date.
      > Limp, Steve. You mightn't like it, but the best you can get is possible
      > references to Mt in Ignatius -- and that's making assumptions. There is
      > nothing in GMatt that gives any indication of contact with Sadducees.

      So... the logic is that Matthew adds Saducees to his text in a manner
      detrimental to Saducees vis the Mt audience. But. Behold. Mt never
      heard of them in his life nor, thus, did he have the slightest
      against them. I have no clue what the hell you think you are making
      by way of argument here... and yet still I think you are capable of
      making one. Call me Mr. Moron, I don't care... I think you could come

      > >Far as I can tell Acts was written in 60
      > >for reasons exhaustively given previously,
      > You like the idea. You like the idea. You like the idea. And you like the
      > idea. You have nothing tangible to back it up.

      By tangible you mean actual carbon dating of an autograph text
      from 60? If not, what?

      > >Luke 3+ maybe 80, Luke 1-2
      > >maybe 90. You got a problem with that?
      > There is nothing textual and no manuscripts to support such ideas. Despite
      > the plague avoidance approach to argument from silence, such an approach is
      > developed because there is no other way of dealing with the consistent lack
      > of really early Christian documentation. So you turn that lack into an
      > argument: "you can't say that, you're simply arguing from silence." It used
      > to be called circumstantial evidence -- well, it still is in
      > non-Christian-academic circles.
      > When you have Christian writers of the second century making their own
      > theological arguments, it is hard not to conclude that they didn't have any
      > other choice, as one tends to use what is already in existence to save
      > effort and thought.

      Is this the "internet fallacy" whereby we assume that all texts in
      the Roman Empire were instantly available to everybody?

      Since I already asked you to answer the question you spurned I shan't
      again do so. Nor shall I, as I sometimes do for folks, try to outline
      for you the argument you are evidently trying to make but not making.
      Rather, in the irenic spirit for which I am justly famed, I'd ask you
      to say what on earth it is you are trying to say. OK? Mt is ca 175?
      Acts is fifth century? Because....

      Don't make me guess, tell me. [Hint: "Acts is not mentioned in text
      X from date Y and we know that text X would have mentioned it
      and therefore Acts was written after date Y" would help.] But perhaps
      you have some other line of reasoning. ["The experts are all wrong" is
      not, as such, a line of reasoning despite its frequent occurance in email

    • Show all 14 messages in this topic