03-09-2009, 07:10 PM
Paul,
Andrew and I are playing two roles. He is the communicator. He wants me to accept a conclusion; for example (just one example in our dialogue), he says that "the Talmud quotes... unquestionably prove they are co-opting Gospel quotes." He has reasons why his conclusion is reasonable. Reasons + conclusion is, as you know, an argument. I play the critical listener. Before I accept his conclusion and change my beliefs, I need to know whether what he says is weak or strong, sound or unsound. If one of his reasons has ambiguous wording, I will not accept it until he clarifies. If one of his unstated ideas, called assumptions, differ from my own and he fails to convince me that his are superior for x reasons, then I hesitant to accept. If he strays from the advantages or disadvantages of the issue and instead uses informal logical fallacies, such as ad hominem, straw man, tu quoque, poisoning the well, red herring, and etc (as he has, particularly poisoning the well), then I cannot accept his reasons. If he appeals to authority, then I need to know if that authority has certain expertise, standards for research, and is as unbiased as possible; otherwise, his appeal to authority's weak. And if he comes to a conclusion about a certain event and I furnish a number of rival causes, as the communicator, he should convince me that his conclusion is the best one because of so-and-so reasons. If not, then I hesistant to accept.
I'm applying the same method here with you. I furnished a couple of rival causes as to why the Peshitta and the Odes share the same idiom. Since you are the communicator, it's your job to prove how your conclusion is the only viable cause. I find my methodology is especially helpful because you're biased towards Aramaic primacy with an agenda of spreading Aramaic primacy. It's no different than questioning the male prostrate statistics used to promote a vitamin company. Who exactly did they include in the statistics? How did they word the questions of the survey? How big was their sample? Etc. I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to accept.
Is this unreasonable or "nastiness?" Would you eat something--anything-- you were unsure about?
2) You said: "I don't deal with probabilities or likelihoods. I use evidence and the scientific method."
Unfortunately, you don't have an original of the Syriac Bible. You have copies, none of which are carbon dated near the first century. Thus we can only deal with "probabilities and likelihoods." You've shown how the Semitic rendition of certain NT verses are linguistically superior to various Greek renditions, establishing a decent probability that the Gospels, whoever the authors, originally either wrote them in Aramaic or in a lost Greek version littered with Aramaicisms.
The main elements of the scientific method are: 1) publicly verifiably data, 2) a control, and 3) precision in language
The majority of biblical scholars, outside your Church's tradition and with equal or greater relevant expertise than you, disagree with your conclusion. They, a group of highly qualified men and women with different perspectives, values, and needs, still conclude that the Peshitta is not the original, unaltered, God-breathed, Apostle-sanctioned scripture that Syriac tradition propagates. Questioning thereabout (to be clear, whether or not there's an original, unaltered, God-breathed, Apostle-sanctioned scripture, some scholars conclude that
"the concern not to trouble simple minds with an uncertain or reworked text is no doubt a laudable one, but is it right to alter history? For what is implied to be the original text is in fact probably a text established in Egypt around the year AD 200, doubtless with some earlier readings but also some innovations..." (L. Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An Introduction To The New Testament Textual Criticism, 1986, op. cit., p. 167)
Others say:
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history ( "Canon of the New Testament," the Catholic Encyclopedia)
and others:
For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'.
Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century.(Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, p 72-73)
And others:
The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and persihable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities. (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, volume 1, pp 41)
Finally, because your research is a single,independent study that isn't subjected to criticism within the family of Aramaic/Biblical research studies in and outside your tradition, you may come to misleading conclusions that anyone here is unable to correct (or unwilling). The research repeated by more than one researcher or a group of researchers is more important. Here, it's just you and like-minded people reaffirming each other; it's a room of one man's echoes. That's not science.
3) You said: "If you insist on engaging intellectual giants like Andrew in a meaningful conversation, why not follow your own criteria above? It would at least give the appearance that you are trying."
First, I'll follow my own criteria once I post something trying to convince you of my convictions. What do you mean "give the appearance that I am trying?" Trying to do what? Learn? I am trying to learn, but I will not soak whatever so-and-so says because they are so-and-so; I'm not a sponge. I'm the guy who puts his pan in the water, shaking for gold. But I guess testing gold with fire is nowadays "nastiness."
Finally, before you choose Andrew's side, could you judge whether or not I merited the "one warning rule," based on the forum rules? If you rule yes, then quote what I said and show me how it was "threatening, abusive, libelous, or defamatory" or "generally objectionable" In accordance to those same rules, shouldn't Andrew be judged for the "personal insults" at my expense?
Example:
"I guess I was wrong to assume you were literate enough of the research here that points in the direction of late first century NT formation."
Or is this about friendship and loyalty?
Andrew and I are playing two roles. He is the communicator. He wants me to accept a conclusion; for example (just one example in our dialogue), he says that "the Talmud quotes... unquestionably prove they are co-opting Gospel quotes." He has reasons why his conclusion is reasonable. Reasons + conclusion is, as you know, an argument. I play the critical listener. Before I accept his conclusion and change my beliefs, I need to know whether what he says is weak or strong, sound or unsound. If one of his reasons has ambiguous wording, I will not accept it until he clarifies. If one of his unstated ideas, called assumptions, differ from my own and he fails to convince me that his are superior for x reasons, then I hesitant to accept. If he strays from the advantages or disadvantages of the issue and instead uses informal logical fallacies, such as ad hominem, straw man, tu quoque, poisoning the well, red herring, and etc (as he has, particularly poisoning the well), then I cannot accept his reasons. If he appeals to authority, then I need to know if that authority has certain expertise, standards for research, and is as unbiased as possible; otherwise, his appeal to authority's weak. And if he comes to a conclusion about a certain event and I furnish a number of rival causes, as the communicator, he should convince me that his conclusion is the best one because of so-and-so reasons. If not, then I hesistant to accept.
I'm applying the same method here with you. I furnished a couple of rival causes as to why the Peshitta and the Odes share the same idiom. Since you are the communicator, it's your job to prove how your conclusion is the only viable cause. I find my methodology is especially helpful because you're biased towards Aramaic primacy with an agenda of spreading Aramaic primacy. It's no different than questioning the male prostrate statistics used to promote a vitamin company. Who exactly did they include in the statistics? How did they word the questions of the survey? How big was their sample? Etc. I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to accept.
Is this unreasonable or "nastiness?" Would you eat something--anything-- you were unsure about?
2) You said: "I don't deal with probabilities or likelihoods. I use evidence and the scientific method."
Unfortunately, you don't have an original of the Syriac Bible. You have copies, none of which are carbon dated near the first century. Thus we can only deal with "probabilities and likelihoods." You've shown how the Semitic rendition of certain NT verses are linguistically superior to various Greek renditions, establishing a decent probability that the Gospels, whoever the authors, originally either wrote them in Aramaic or in a lost Greek version littered with Aramaicisms.
The main elements of the scientific method are: 1) publicly verifiably data, 2) a control, and 3) precision in language
The majority of biblical scholars, outside your Church's tradition and with equal or greater relevant expertise than you, disagree with your conclusion. They, a group of highly qualified men and women with different perspectives, values, and needs, still conclude that the Peshitta is not the original, unaltered, God-breathed, Apostle-sanctioned scripture that Syriac tradition propagates. Questioning thereabout (to be clear, whether or not there's an original, unaltered, God-breathed, Apostle-sanctioned scripture, some scholars conclude that
"the concern not to trouble simple minds with an uncertain or reworked text is no doubt a laudable one, but is it right to alter history? For what is implied to be the original text is in fact probably a text established in Egypt around the year AD 200, doubtless with some earlier readings but also some innovations..." (L. Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An Introduction To The New Testament Textual Criticism, 1986, op. cit., p. 167)
Others say:
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history ( "Canon of the New Testament," the Catholic Encyclopedia)
and others:
For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'.
Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century.(Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, p 72-73)
And others:
The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and persihable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities. (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, volume 1, pp 41)
Finally, because your research is a single,independent study that isn't subjected to criticism within the family of Aramaic/Biblical research studies in and outside your tradition, you may come to misleading conclusions that anyone here is unable to correct (or unwilling). The research repeated by more than one researcher or a group of researchers is more important. Here, it's just you and like-minded people reaffirming each other; it's a room of one man's echoes. That's not science.
3) You said: "If you insist on engaging intellectual giants like Andrew in a meaningful conversation, why not follow your own criteria above? It would at least give the appearance that you are trying."
First, I'll follow my own criteria once I post something trying to convince you of my convictions. What do you mean "give the appearance that I am trying?" Trying to do what? Learn? I am trying to learn, but I will not soak whatever so-and-so says because they are so-and-so; I'm not a sponge. I'm the guy who puts his pan in the water, shaking for gold. But I guess testing gold with fire is nowadays "nastiness."
Finally, before you choose Andrew's side, could you judge whether or not I merited the "one warning rule," based on the forum rules? If you rule yes, then quote what I said and show me how it was "threatening, abusive, libelous, or defamatory" or "generally objectionable" In accordance to those same rules, shouldn't Andrew be judged for the "personal insults" at my expense?
Example:
"I guess I was wrong to assume you were literate enough of the research here that points in the direction of late first century NT formation."
Or is this about friendship and loyalty?