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 20:00:57 EDT, Mark Proctor writes:
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 5 6:37 PM
    • 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 2 of 10 , Jul 5 7:04 PM
      • 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 3 of 10 , Jul 6 4:22 AM
        • 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 4 of 10 , Jul 6 6:59 AM
          • 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 5 of 10 , Jul 6 5:16 PM
            • 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.