09-14-2009, 11:10 PM
I agree that there are too many to be coincidental, however, I don't think that is a valid statistical analysis, since these are independent phenomena. Each one must be taken as a separate probability. (This is basic stats 1301.) So to take them as cumulative would be a mistake, since some could be viewed as influenced by Aramaic while others might have other explanations, etc.
I'm afraid I must beg to differ. Codex W theorism is not unheard of. It is, however, insupportable. Besides the fact that it is a codex, its text is an odd mixture of various readings, not homogenous as we would expect in an original or close-to-original document, but an odd block-like mixture where whole passages will follow Byzantine, and then abruptly change into another whole passage following a Western reading, etc. This kind of block-like, abrupt changes clearly indicates a late date for this text, after the other traditions had already come into being.
Its paleography is also clearly late. Fourth century at the earliest.
It is not unheard of. It is very well-known, and has been refuted multiple times on multiple levels by multiple scholars. And, to my knowledge, no one has backed up Dr. Woodard's claim. He is a good scholar, but I, along with most scholars, disagree with his conclusion.
The one does not lead to the other. It is not reasonable to equate three hundred years ago with sixteen hundred years ago. Someone in the fourth century was significantly closer to the time of the actual events. Three hundred years is not significant enough to attach them to the events. Your argument does not make sense. It is the fallacy of a weak analogy. Because arguments A and B are similar does not mean B has all the same characteristics as argument A. This is what you have done. You have tried to set me up with an argument that we know more about the first century than, for instance, Polycarp. Of course I do not think that. But that is not at all the same as saying that we know more than Whiston, who was separated by sufficient time and distance to not be associated with the events. I'm amazed that this argument passed muster in your own mind. You're a better critical thinker than that. I know you are. I've read your translation. I may disagree with many of your thoughts, but I respect your work. I respect the thought you put into it. I appreciate what you've achieved, and I understand that this was no easy task. You're better than this, Mr. Bauscher. How can you possibly compare saying we know more than Whiston (eighteenth century) because of archaeological discoveries to saying that we know more than Aphraates? That doesn't even make sense.
Only traceable via tradition. The critics will disagree adamantly with that idea. I've not researched the history of the COE enough to have an opinion myself, but I have researched it enough to know that most scholars do not trace its origin to the first century. So it is certainly disputable.
I find that all of the examples that I examine more closely have had gaps in them. If they are looked at through a magnifying glass, your big picture begins to become cloudier. True, there is a big picture. But it is made up of minutia. And the parts are not adding up to your whole for me anymore.
I'm afraid I must beg to differ. Codex W theorism is not unheard of. It is, however, insupportable. Besides the fact that it is a codex, its text is an odd mixture of various readings, not homogenous as we would expect in an original or close-to-original document, but an odd block-like mixture where whole passages will follow Byzantine, and then abruptly change into another whole passage following a Western reading, etc. This kind of block-like, abrupt changes clearly indicates a late date for this text, after the other traditions had already come into being.
Its paleography is also clearly late. Fourth century at the earliest.
It is not unheard of. It is very well-known, and has been refuted multiple times on multiple levels by multiple scholars. And, to my knowledge, no one has backed up Dr. Woodard's claim. He is a good scholar, but I, along with most scholars, disagree with his conclusion.
The one does not lead to the other. It is not reasonable to equate three hundred years ago with sixteen hundred years ago. Someone in the fourth century was significantly closer to the time of the actual events. Three hundred years is not significant enough to attach them to the events. Your argument does not make sense. It is the fallacy of a weak analogy. Because arguments A and B are similar does not mean B has all the same characteristics as argument A. This is what you have done. You have tried to set me up with an argument that we know more about the first century than, for instance, Polycarp. Of course I do not think that. But that is not at all the same as saying that we know more than Whiston, who was separated by sufficient time and distance to not be associated with the events. I'm amazed that this argument passed muster in your own mind. You're a better critical thinker than that. I know you are. I've read your translation. I may disagree with many of your thoughts, but I respect your work. I respect the thought you put into it. I appreciate what you've achieved, and I understand that this was no easy task. You're better than this, Mr. Bauscher. How can you possibly compare saying we know more than Whiston (eighteenth century) because of archaeological discoveries to saying that we know more than Aphraates? That doesn't even make sense.
Only traceable via tradition. The critics will disagree adamantly with that idea. I've not researched the history of the COE enough to have an opinion myself, but I have researched it enough to know that most scholars do not trace its origin to the first century. So it is certainly disputable.
I find that all of the examples that I examine more closely have had gaps in them. If they are looked at through a magnifying glass, your big picture begins to become cloudier. True, there is a big picture. But it is made up of minutia. And the parts are not adding up to your whole for me anymore.