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

Re: tc-list Jesus is better.

Expand Messages
  • Pappyhays@aol.com
    In a message dated 99-07-05 17:05:34 EDT,Bob Morse wrote:
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 99-07-05 17:05:34 EDT,Bob Morse wrote:

      << My thanks for all the valuable information you have made available.

      I especially appreciated Mr. Robert B. Waltz's contribution of 1 Jul
      1999. In explaining why critical editions of the NT have placed double
      brackets about certain passages, he notes--very significantly--that the
      passages "tend to make Jesus what we consider a better person...." No
      doubt. This being so, the passages would seem to share in the work of
      the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord said, "...he will glorify me...." (Jn.
      16:14). Since evidence of inspiration is further evidence of canonicity,
      we have an extra reason for regarding the passages as canonical--the
      word of God, and not forgeries. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.

      Bob Morse >>

      AAAAmen Bob, and just think, this is in addition to all of the internal and
      external evidence that also show the passages in "question" to be the real
      McCoy. Actually this is what prompted my original question concerning the
      rather dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the certainty that they were not
      in the originals.

      Mark J. Hays
    • Mark Proctor
      I m probably not the only one that finds this message odd and off topic. What, one might ask, does the topic of inspiration have to do with the practice of
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm probably not the only one that finds this message odd and off topic.
        What, one might ask, does the topic of inspiration have to do with the
        practice of textual criticism? Furthermore, it's somewhat unprofessional to
        refer to "certain passages" without mentioning which ones and then make
        innuendos about the motivations of the editors of UBSGNT4 and NA27.
        Finally, the last time I checked it was still the case that the orthodox
        status of a variant reading had no bearing whatsoever on its claim to a
        place in the critical text. Please don't try to make doctrinal matters a
        part of the practice of textual criticism. Instead, try reading Bart
        Ehrman's book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. In closing, if
        orthodoxy is and has always been the litmus test for "divine inspiration,"
        what are we to make of the Church's (or by extension God's) participation in
        the Holocaust. Think these things through, please.

        Mark Proctor
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <Pappyhays@...>
        To: <tc-list@...>
        Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 4:43 PM
        Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better.


        > In a message dated 99-07-05 17:05:34 EDT,Bob Morse wrote:
        >
        > << My thanks for all the valuable information you have made available.
        >
        > I especially appreciated Mr. Robert B. Waltz's contribution of 1 Jul
        > 1999. In explaining why critical editions of the NT have placed double
        > brackets about certain passages, he notes--very significantly--that the
        > passages "tend to make Jesus what we consider a better person...." No
        > doubt. This being so, the passages would seem to share in the work of
        > the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord said, "...he will glorify me...." (Jn.
        > 16:14). Since evidence of inspiration is further evidence of canonicity,
        > we have an extra reason for regarding the passages as canonical--the
        > word of God, and not forgeries. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.
        >
        > Bob Morse >>
        >
        > AAAAmen Bob, and just think, this is in addition to all of the internal
        and
        > external evidence that also show the passages in "question" to be the real
        > McCoy. Actually this is what prompted my original question concerning the
        > rather dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the certainty that they were
        not
        > in the originals.
        >
        > Mark J. Hays
        >
      • Robert B. Waltz
        ... Since I am being -- er -- invoked here, I must sound a very strong note of protest. Textual criticism is NOT a matter of faith. I can t stop you from
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On 7/5/99, you wrote:

          >Dear tc-list correspondents:
          >
          >My thanks for all the valuable information you have made available.
          >
          >I especially appreciated Mr. Robert B. Waltz's contribution of 1 Jul
          >1999. In explaining why critical editions of the NT have placed double
          >brackets about certain passages, he notes--very significantly--that the
          >passages "tend to make Jesus what we consider a better person...." No
          >doubt. This being so, the passages would seem to share in the work of
          >the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord said, "...he will glorify me...." (Jn.
          >16:14). Since evidence of inspiration is further evidence of canonicity,
          >we have an extra reason for regarding the passages as canonical--the
          >word of God, and not forgeries. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.

          Since I am being -- er -- invoked here, I must sound a very strong
          note of protest.

          Textual criticism is NOT a matter of faith. I can't stop you from
          determining the text of a faith basis, but if you do so, you are
          ignoring all principles of science and of textual criticism.

          Moreover, once you start down the path of preferring the reading
          you personally like, as opposed to the reading more likely to be
          original, where do you stop? By this principle, every critic would
          be free to adopt ANY reading. It wouldn't even have to be found
          in a manuscript; if it's "right," you can adopt it anyway. Under
          this method of criticism, the Bible, instead of being made a
          greater and more holy document, is cheapened, because it is simply
          the text you happen to prefer. It's your entirely human text.

          A textual critic -- indeed, any Christian who reveres the Bible --
          must have a method, and stick to it, even if the results seem
          unfortunate.

          I am probably the most extreme proponent of this view; I am constantly
          pleading for more scientific criticism. But surely it is obvious
          to all that this method of criticism is both unacceptable and
          completely hopeless.

          So, for example, while I consider the Woman Taken in Adultery to be
          the most beautiful of the legends about Jesus, it is just that: A
          legend, a product of the "Western" text, not generally adopted until
          about the tenth century. The case against the other passages in
          double brackets is similar, though generally not as strong.

          -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

          Robert B. Waltz
          waltzmn@...

          Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
          Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
          (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
        • Pappyhays@aol.com
          In a message dated 99-07-05 20:00:57 EDT, you write:
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 99-07-05 20:00:57 EDT, you write:

            << I'm probably not the only one that finds this message odd and off topic.
            What, one might ask, does the topic of inspiration have to do with the
            practice of textual criticism? >>
          • Pappyhays@aol.com
            In a message dated 99-07-05 20:00:57 EDT, Mark Proctor writes:
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 99-07-05 20:00:57 EDT, Mark Proctor writes:

              << I'm probably not the only one that finds this message odd and off topic.
              What, one might ask, does the topic of inspiration have to do with the
              practice of textual criticism? >>

              Well, forgive my naivet'e Mark, as well as my lack of professionalism, but I
              thought that textual criticism had to do with determining what God said, and
              therefore would be related to inspiration and canonicity. If this is not so,
              please correct me. If the topic of the list has a narrower definition than
              that, please accept my apologies.

              The "certain passages" that the gentleman was referring to have been the
              topic of several comments, many of which were solicited by me in the interest
              of determining the motivation or simply the reason behind Nestles dogmatic
              proclamation concerning the double bracketed verses. Although I did not
              mention any verses, the ones referred to in this line of conversation have
              been the last twelve of Mark and the Pericope de Adulteress

              I would comment on your closing remark, but then church history and fulfilled
              prophecy would be just as off topic then wouldn't they?


              Mark J. Hays
            • Pappyhays@aol.com
              In a message dated 99-07-05 20:21:15 EDT, Robert Waltz writes in part:
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 99-07-05 20:21:15 EDT, Robert Waltz writes in part:

                << Since I am being -- er -- invoked here, I must sound a very strong
                note of protest.

                Textual criticism is NOT a matter of faith. I can't stop you from
                determining the text of a faith basis, but if you do so, you are
                ignoring all principles of science and of textual criticism.>>

                I don't think anyone was *determining* anything by faith, but rather
                rejoicing in the evidence.

                <<Moreover, once you start down the path of preferring the reading
                you personally like, as opposed to the reading more likely to be
                original, where do you stop? By this principle, every critic would
                be free to adopt ANY reading.>>
                And conversly, could not, by the adoption of a particular method, ANY reading
                be discarded?

                << It wouldn't even have to be found
                in a manuscript; if it's "right," you can adopt it anyway. Under
                this method of criticism, the Bible, instead of being made a
                greater and more holy document, is cheapened, because it is simply
                the text you happen to prefer. It's your entirely human text.

                A textual critic -- indeed, any Christian who reveres the Bible --
                must have a method, and stick to it, even if the results seem
                unfortunate.>>

                And Mr Waltz, is there a rule against criticizing another's method? Or in
                determining if he truly is "sticking to it"? In my case, I began this with
                a question about what the method, or , if you will, the reasoning was, behind
                the dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the double bracketed texts. So far,
                I've been given political advice, and have been told that the answer is in
                the commentary. Does anyone know, or do they all simply trust in the previous
                scholarship? If that's the case, isn't THAT (practically speaking) the same
                as determining the readings "by faith"?

                <<I am probably the most extreme proponent of this view; I am constantly
                pleading for more scientific criticism. But surely it is obvious
                to all that this method of criticism is both unacceptable and
                completely hopeless.>>

                Is this how Dean Burgon is dealt with?

                <<So, for example, while I consider the Woman Taken in Adultery to be
                the most beautiful of the legends about Jesus, it is just that: A
                legend, a product of the "Western" text, not generally adopted until
                about the tenth century. The case against the other passages in
                double brackets is similar, though generally not as strong.
                >>
                You don't actually base your decisions about such things on "text family"
                theories do you?
                My how open minded and "scientific" that would be!

                Mark Hays
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                Godwin s law for the Internet states that any meaningful discussion has run its course when someone directly or indirectly compares the other side to Hitler.
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 6, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Godwin's law for the Internet states that any meaningful discussion has
                  run its course when someone directly or indirectly compares the other
                  side to Hitler. If I may suggest, this has happened here.

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  I m probably going to regret this, but since my position is being badly misrepresented here, I must make one last attempt to clarify what I am saying. On this
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 6, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm probably going to regret this, but since my position is being
                    badly misrepresented here, I must make one last attempt to clarify
                    what I am saying. On this whole subject, I would add an introduction,
                    from 1 Corinthians 14:20...

                    "Do not be children in your thinking; be babies in evil, but let
                    your thinking be mature."

                    The essence of the scientific method is that, where one's beliefs
                    conflict with evidence, the evidence wins.

                    If there are any innocent bystanders left on this list, I'd advise
                    you not to read this; I cast a fair amount of scorn on non-scientific
                    attitudes.

                    On 7/5/99, Pappyhays@... wrote:

                    >In a message dated 99-07-05 20:21:15 EDT, Robert Waltz writes in part:
                    >
                    ><< Since I am being -- er -- invoked here, I must sound a very strong
                    > note of protest.
                    >
                    > Textual criticism is NOT a matter of faith. I can't stop you from
                    > determining the text of a faith basis, but if you do so, you are
                    > ignoring all principles of science and of textual criticism.>>
                    >
                    >I don't think anyone was *determining* anything by faith, but rather
                    >rejoicing in the evidence.

                    If one accepts a reading based on what one wants to believe, that
                    is determining things by faith. Remember, the discussion started with
                    a series of passages which the UBS editors declared to be interpolations.
                    That's what the [[ ]] notation means. Yet the poster was rejoicing
                    in this evidence about Jesus's goodness.

                    > <<Moreover, once you start down the path of preferring the reading
                    > you personally like, as opposed to the reading more likely to be
                    > original, where do you stop? By this principle, every critic would
                    > be free to adopt ANY reading.>>
                    >And conversly, could not, by the adoption of a particular method, ANY reading
                    >be discarded?

                    Of course. However, if one adopts a consistent method, you're going to
                    find "good" readings going with "bad." The point is not the method;
                    we all have different methods. The point is, the method has to be
                    the same. It doesn't matter whether you're choosing between AN and EAN
                    in a passage where the difference makes no difference, or deciding
                    whether to include or exclude Mark 16:9-20. An objective text must
                    follow the same rules at all points.

                    [ ... ]

                    >And Mr Waltz, is there a rule against criticizing another's method? Or in
                    >determining if he truly is "sticking to it"?

                    Obviously not. But praising a passage -- which is where this thread
                    started -- has *nothing* to do with methodology.

                    There are two possibilities here: Either one is using faith as a
                    methodology (in which case it isn't textual criticism, and does not
                    belong on this list or in any scientific discussion), or one is
                    talking about the meaning of the passage (in which case it isn't
                    textual criticism, and does not belong on this list or in any
                    scientific discussion).

                    Textual critics come from all faiths (and lack thereof). The only
                    way they can continue to work together is by avoiding bringing faith
                    into the discussion. This is a textual criticism list, not a religious
                    list. And for it to function effectively, it must stay that way.

                    >In my case, I began this with
                    >a question about what the method, or , if you will, the reasoning was, behind
                    >the dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the double bracketed texts. So far,
                    >I've been given political advice, and have been told that the answer is in
                    >the commentary. Does anyone know, or do they all simply trust in the previous
                    >scholarship? If that's the case, isn't THAT (practically speaking) the same
                    >as determining the readings "by faith"?

                    This is a non sequitur. Most critics on this list have examined the
                    evidence in these passages for themselves, and I believe most agree
                    with the UBS editors. Therefore they have no need to offer different
                    assessments of the evidence.

                    As far as the reasoning of the UBS editors is concerned, if you wish
                    their logic, surely it is better to read what they have said about the
                    passage than to ask us to explain what we *think* they mean.

                    > <<I am probably the most extreme proponent of this view; I am constantly
                    > pleading for more scientific criticism. But surely it is obvious
                    > to all that this method of criticism is both unacceptable and
                    > completely hopeless.>>
                    >
                    >Is this how Dean Burgon is dealt with?

                    If Dean Burgon is treated unfairly, it is because he was an acid-tongued
                    man who treated his opponents as fools.

                    His basic argument was Providential Preservation. Since there is
                    absolutely *no* evidence that this took place, it is ignored. As
                    it should be.

                    I have to add another comment: Burgon argued that the majority is
                    always right. Given that the majority of human beings continue
                    to degrade the environment, make wars, and try to get rich at their
                    neighbours' expense, is there any actual evidence supporting the
                    moral advantage of the majority?

                    [ ... ]

                    >You don't actually base your decisions about such things on "text family"
                    >theories do you?
                    >My how open minded and "scientific" that would be!

                    Deep irony here, since I am one of only two people on this list who
                    bases my decisions *entirely* of textual families (Vinton Deering
                    being the other). It's just that I don't base them on the family
                    known as the Byzantine text, let alone that horridly inaccurate
                    representative of the Byzantine known as the Textus Receptus.

                    Still, I am willing to discuss, and even to contribute to, other
                    methods, as long as they are consistently applied. If you have
                    a case for any of the double-bracketed passages, present that (and
                    be prepared to be attacked :-). But don't bring up faith, or the
                    greater glory of God, or the divinity or humanity of Jesus
                    (except as they might have coloured a scribe's responses). Follow
                    that course, and you will not recieve "political" advice, or
                    any criticism worse than the statement "you're wrong." :-)
                    -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                    Robert B. Waltz
                    waltzmn@...

                    Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                    Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                    (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                  • James R. Adair
                    The tc-list is a forum for reasoned discussion of textual variants and related topics. It is not a place to promote one s own theological positions, however
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jul 6, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The tc-list is a forum for reasoned discussion of textual variants and
                      related topics. It is not a place to promote one's own theological
                      positions, however deeply they may be held. This thread has deviated from
                      the purpose of the list, so as listowner I declare it to be terminated.
                      Members of the list are free to carry on any discussions that may have
                      been sparked by comments on the list in private e-mail communications, but
                      this list is not the place for such discussions. Thanks in advance for
                      your cooperation.

                      ***********************************************************
                      James R. Adair, Jr.
                      Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
                      ---------------> http://purl.org/CETR <---------------

                      Listowner, tc-list
                      ***********************************************************
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.