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

Re: tc-list Jesus is better.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.