On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Robert M Schacht wrote:
> I am reluctant to engage in this "debate"; I think the responses made by
> Jack Kilmon and Jeffrey Gibson have been cogent and reasonable, as well
> as more convincing than your arguments have been. I will confine myself
> to only one of your remarks:
Well, thank you, Bob, but so far we only have your opinions. I would like
you to deal with evidence, please.
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 16:12:17 -0500 (EST) Yuri Kuchinsky
> <yuku@...> writes:
> > ...
> OTOH what I feel I have to show here is merely that HMt is _plausible_
> in > the context of ancient Jerusalem. Once this is established, then
> no > serious obstacles will remain in the way of recognizing HMt as
> This is a very strange argument: If something might be true, than it
> must be true?
Sigh... You misunderstand what I said. My words stand on their own, and
your interpretation of them is incorrect.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand, Bob, how my general argument
1. I have now proven that HMt could not have been a medieval translation.
2. I have now demonstrated, or will do so in the future, that no serious
objections to HMt having been composed in ancient times exist.
3. Therefore, the balance of probabilities points to HMt being ancient.
> There are serious obstacles indeed, and Jack has outlined many of
> You have chosen either to ignore his arguments, or twist his words, or
> to reply with speculations and opinions rather than substantive
Your opinions only. I'm waiting for the evidence.
> At best, you have made a case that *some parts* of HMt *might* be
> Of course, if the ancient parts merely repeat what is already
> known, then HMt has no interest.
You seem to have neglected to read my posts on the subject. And, seeing
how you're now speculating about the contents of HMt, obviously you
haven't even read HMt yet. I wonder why then are you in such a haste to
offer us your unsupported opinions here?
> It is only of interest if it offers independent testimony that differs
> in some way from other ancient manuscripts of GMatt, and that those
> differences are both independent and early. By this I mean only to
> grant that the bare possibility exists-- a long shot, say 1:25
> against, and I am being generous to grant even that much. But mere
> possibility is not the same as plausibility, which you have, IMHO,
> failed to establish. And even plausibility is not the same as
> probability or likelihood, as you suggest. In other words, on a scale
> of 0 to 100, where 100 represents certainty, and 0 represents no
> evidence whatever, your case seems to be in the 0 - 5 range, IMHO.
These are unsupported opinions again. Is this all I'm getting from you?
> So unless you can offer better *evidence* (not mere speculation or
> opinion) than you already have, and have more substantive
> counter-arguments to those that Jack has raised, this subject has
> little interest for me, and I will have nothing further to say about
Your post is content-free. I invite you to deal with the long post full of
evidence I've posted yesterday. Here it is,
Why are you running from the evidence, Bob? Is this the scientific
appproach that is expected in a scholarly discussion? Your approach,
hardly inspires confidence.
Please try to offer something more than unsupported opinions in the
future. Why do I have to beg people to deal with my arguments? The
situation is very strange indeed. This is the group think and
dogma-hugging of the worst sort, I'm afraid.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes