Re: Birth narratives (Ian)
- Mike, complaining about my:
>> We have only an etymological derivation for Nazareth.Said:
>>I responded this morning (too tartly):Mike, I think I've made my point:
>>According to your theory. May we expect you to continue to use this theory
>>in argument as if it were plain fact? In spite of a failure to answer some
>>of the cogent objections to it?
>As sometimes happens, I went a sentence too far. Since the final sentence
>above expresses but a vague feeling I'm unprepared to document, I hereby
>withdraw it and apologize for letting my "dark side" temporarily take
>control. (No one seems entirely free of such moments of pique, though few
>admit to it.)
>It does seem to me to be out of place to use one's own theories as if they
>were undisputed facts in the course of argumentation - unless it's clear
>that the other party agrees to those theories. It was the lack of
>appropriate qualifying phrases, perhaps inadvertantly omitted, that raised
>a "red flag" for me.
1) there is no direct way to derive a gentilic nazarEnos from the
place name Nazareth (and there are no precedents to support any
claims in that direction);
2) there is no knowledge that Mk1:9 contained Nazareth in the (first)
redaction of GMatt (as seen by the omitting of the examples of
nazarEnos from the Marcan text);
3) GMark seems to think Jesus was at home in Capernaum.
I have received no serious challenges on either text-critical or linguistic
I think I have supplied more logical grounds for my position than have those
who support the Essene hypothesis for the DSS, yet the Essene hypothesis has
almost total ascendency over non-fringe analyses of the scrolls.
- Sorry to have to say so, Chris, but you've unacceptably confused 'truth'
> with 'belief'. The notion of something being "true for person x" is nothingThank's for picking me up on that
> more than another way of saying that x believes something to be true.
> Everyone has fundamental beliefs, of course, but it's misleading to callI don't have a problem with that
> these beliefs 'fundamental truths'. When your distinction is reworded as
> one between "fundamental belief" and "universal belief", it makes much more
> BTW, the bit about the "believer's hat" was my way of trying to capture theSurely the important thing for the believer 'doing history' is to declare their interest - that way the reader knows how many grains of salt to take to make the results more palletable (sp?).
> same idea that Mahlon and Bob have spoken of as "bracketing-off" one's
> beliefs about the divinity of a person when one is "doing history" related
> to that person. I have my doubts as to whether or how far this is possible,
> but I'm willing to take their word for it that it is possible, since
> they're the ones who find themselves in that situation.
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3936