Biblical Criticism - Someone noticed

[rogue06]

Obviously that's occasionally possible. But the point of threads like this on Christian websites is for conservatives to pretend to themselves there are no sources used by the bible authors and to try to trick themselves into believing that it's okay for them to put their hands over their ears and sing "la la la" when it comes to discussing JEPD etc. It's like flat earthism, or young earth creationism, but applied to textual criticism. It's quite amusing though.

Thank you for telling us what our point was. I don't know what we would ever do without you.

[rogue06]

A footnote that references Driver who died in 1914.

From the website. Why not just admit you went to the same site I found? Your affectations are quite ludicrous.

I have already strongly indicated that I did not get the information from the book itself when I mention just how easy it is to post that information and pretend that they have the book like a certain poster here does. Funny, when you randomly check book quotes from this poster you find that nearly all come from books and articles quoting from the books that are available online. It allows for those who are concerned with keeping up pretenses that they are an actual historian to pretend that they read the book.

Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong from citing online sources. But some posers want to pretend that they live in a library and are above all of that and will go to comical lengths trying to convince others of it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have already strongly indicated that I did not get the information from the book itself when I mention just how easy it is to post that information and pretend that they have the book like a certain poster here does.

Come on then, just for fun, give me a quote from Clines' Volume One Chapter II Story and Poem: The Old Testament as Literature and Scripture. It starts on page 225!

[rogue06]

Come on then, just for fun, give me a quote from Clines' Volume One Chapter II Story and Poem: The Old Testament as Literature and Scripture. It starts on page 225!

Oooh, someone Googled it! So can I: "The distinction between the Bible as literature and the Bible as scripture is largely artificial. The church can properly hear its Bible as scripture only when it reads it as literature."

[tabibito]

Presumably many conservatives would agree that some authors in the bible use sources, sometimes written sources, and weren't themselves necessarily eyewitnesses to what was described? (Genealogies over generations would be hard for an individual writer to themselves observe!) If you agree that a writer might have used written sources, it seems only reasonable to do a bit of looking through the text to see what those sources seem to be.

Just so.

But conservatives here seem to have a fairly strong emotional response to basic textual analysis. Why? What is it about looking at the underlying sources that's problematic? Is it the perceived threat to the idea of 'inerrancy' if two of the sources are viewed as differing on a topic? Or is it more that the very idea of seriously studying the bible as a human written document, that uses mundane things like 'sources', cuts into the preferred imagining of it as divinely-written-by-God-himself 10-commandments style?

Some do approach from the view point of inerrancy. The approach is not valid.

Given the clear textual evidence for written sources in the Bible, the level of conservative vehemence against the study of them, seems in need of explanation.

I would agree. Even more so do conclusions based on nothing more than speculation need explanation. As much as Biblical sources need examination, so do commentaries which address Biblical issues, whether pro or con.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oooh, someone Googled it! So can I: "The distinction between the Bible as literature and the Bible as scripture is largely artificial. The church can properly hear its Bible as scripture only when it reads it as literature."

Firstly that is from page 227 not page 225 where the chapter begins, and secondly you missed a bit. The full text in paragraph two of page 227 opens:

It would be doubly distressing if such should come about since the distinction between the Bible as literature and the Bible as scripture is largely artificial. Indeed, it is my contention here that the church can properly hear its Bible as Scripture only when it reads it as literature.

Note your two sentences are not in fact separate sentences in their own right but each comprises part of a longer sentence.

[rogue06]

Firstly that is from page 227 not page 225 where the chapter begins, and secondly you missed a bit. The full text in paragraph two of page 227 opens:

It would be doubly distressing if such should come about since the distinction between the Bible as literature and the Bible as scripture is largely artificial. Indeed, it is my contention here that the church can properly hear its Bible as Scripture only when it reads it as literature.

Note your two sentences are not in fact separate sentences in their own right but each comprises part of a longer sentence.

You said that it started on page 225 not that you wanted something from that page.

Come on then, just for fun, give me a quote from Clines' Volume One Chapter II Story and Poem: The Old Testament as Literature and Scripture. It starts on page 225!

And I really must ask... what part of

I have already strongly indicated that I did not get the information from the book itself

are you just too boneheaded stupid to understand?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You said that it started on page 225 not that you wanted something from that page.

Yes but you did not even give the page number! And you misquoted. Nor did you state in your reply #34 that "I have already strongly indicated that I did not get the information from the book itself"

[rogue06]

Yes but you did not even give the page number! And you misquoted. Nor did you state in your reply #34 that "I have already strongly indicated that I did not get the information from the book itself"

Are you on some sort of medication that causes you to react in this way?

Go back and re-read my past few posts and hopefully get a clue.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Are you on some sort of medication that causes this in you?

Ah the usual rejoinder when you are caught out!

Go back and re-read my past few posts and hopefully get a clue.

We both know you go fishing. And from wherever you obtained your "quote" that you posted at reply #34. It was incorrect.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

rogue06 Given that despite several requests to you, you remained unable to provide a citation for S G F Brandon on "Pontius Pilate in History and Legend".

Here is the full paragraph pertaining to your observation.

First, there is a partially obliterated Latin inscription on a stone slab, found recently (1961) during excavation of the Roman theatre at Caesarea, which was the headquarters of the Roman government of Judaea, This the only contemporary epigraphic evidence so far known of the existence of Pontius Pilate in Judaea during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. It corrects a long-standing error by designating Pilate as Praefetus Iudae, instead of Procurator, which had hitherto been the title accorded him, probably owing to a reference by Tacitus, which we shall presently note. The difference of title implies no significant difference of status. The Roman governor of Judaea, whether designated “praefectus” or “procurator” was responsible for the peace and good order of the country. He had a military force, normally adequate for this purpose, at his disposal: he also had what is known as the ius gladii, that is, authority to inflict the death sentence. His immediate superior was the legate of the province of Syria, who commanded a legionary army and would intervene in Judaea in a situation beyond the procurator’s control. The inscription found at Caesarea, besides attesting to Pilate’s existence and title, also suggests that he carried out some of the building operation at Caesarea, doubtless connected with the theatre there [See pp. 254,255 in Chapter 17 “Pontius Pilate in History and Legend pp 254,267. S G F Brandon. Religion in Ancient History: Studies of Ideas and Men. 1973. London George Allen & Unwin Ltd]

[rogue06]

rogue06 Given that despite several requests to you, you remained unable to provide a citation for S G F Brandon on "Pontius Pilate in History and Legend".

Here is the full paragraph pertaining to your observation.

First, there is a partially obliterated Latin inscription on a stone slab, found recently (1961) during excavation of the Roman theatre at Caesarea, which was the headquarters of the Roman government of Judaea, This the only contemporary epigraphic evidence so far known of the existence of Pontius Pilate in Judaea during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. It corrects a long-standing error by designating Pilate as Praefetus Iudae, instead of Procurator, which had hitherto been the title accorded him, probably owing to a reference by Tacitus, which we shall presently note. The difference of title implies no significant difference of status. The Roman governor of Judaea, whether designated “praefectus” or “procurator” was responsible for the peace and good order of the country. He had a military force, normally adequate for this purpose, at his disposal: he also had what is known as the ius gladii, that is, authority to inflict the death sentence. His immediate superior was the legate of the province of Syria, who commanded a legionary army and would intervene in Judaea in a situation beyond the procurator’s control. The inscription found at Caesarea, besides attesting to Pilate’s existence and title, also suggests that he carried out some of the building operation at Caesarea, doubtless connected with the theatre there [See pp. 254,255 in Chapter 17 “Pontius Pilate in History and Legend pp 254,267. S G F Brandon. Religion in Ancient History: Studies of Ideas and Men. 1973. London George Allen & Unwin Ltd]

What in heaven's name are you prattling about woman?

The only time that I can find that mentioned Brandon was in this post

[...]

While S. G. F. Brandon in his Pontius Pilate in history and legend suggests the ranks were effectively the same, with Warren Carter in his Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor arguing the difference was also largely in name what with "prefect" having a military connotation whereas "procurator" has a civilian one, several scholars have suggested that Tacitus uses procurator simply because it was far more common when he wrote. Moreover, it appears that Philo and Josephus both referred to Pilate as procurator and that Josephus refers to Cuspius Fadus both as "prefect" and "procurator" providing support for Brandon and Carter's theory.

[...]

So what exactly did you want?

It is an issue with medication isn't it?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What in heaven's name are you prattling about woman?

The only time that I can find that mentioned Brandon was in this post


So what exactly did you want?

It is an issue with medication isn't it?

Ah the inevitable pejorative remarks.

However, I am demonstrating that your fishing could not find the quotation [without of course subscribing to History Today] Hence you were unable to supply it when I asked you for it on that thread.

[tabibito]

However, I am demonstrating that your fishing could not find the quotation [without of course subscribing to History Today] Hence you were unable to supply it when I asked you for it on that thread.

So why is it disrupting this thread?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So why is it disrupting this thread?

As an illustration of my interlocutor's pretentious posturing.