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 20:21:15 EDT, Robert Waltz writes in part:
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
      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 2 of 10 , Jul 6, 1999
        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 3 of 10 , Jul 6, 1999
          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 4 of 10 , Jul 6, 1999
            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.