Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

It seems like the following paragraph should say that 3 of 14 passage contexts cannot be read sensibly when the passage is excised:


I am pretty tired today, though, so maybe I am misreading.

Ben.

Peter Kirby wrote:A new blog post:

http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html

JW:
Only in Religious studies do I always start backwards in an evaluation and first look at the ending/conclusion. I do think it very likely that your conclusion of:

Thus, it seems very likely that this passage on John the Baptist is authentic to the publication of the Antiquities by Josephus.

is overstated.

Sadly, most articles in "professional" religious publications would be rejected out of Jesus hands (so to speak) in the real publication world for lacking a standard professional format, let alone conclusions not supported by the evidence/arguments.

For starters, an article should have a clearly stated objective. I think you are near that but what exactly is your objective:

• 1) Determine the likelihood of authenticity as extant?
  
  2) Move the historical discussion forward with your preliminary opinion on likelihood?
  
  3) Survey the historical arguments and evaluate?
  
  4) Other?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:A new blog post:

http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html

JW:
Only in Religious studies do I always start backwards in an evaluation and first look at the ending/conclusion. I do think it very likely that your conclusion of:

Thus, it seems very likely that this passage on John the Baptist is authentic to the publication of the Antiquities by Josephus.

is overstated.

Sadly, most articles in "professional" religious publications would be rejected out of Jesus hands (so to speak) in the real publication world for lacking a standard professional format, let alone conclusions not supported by the evidence/arguments.

For starters, an article should have a clearly stated objective. I think you are near that but what exactly is your objective:

• 1) Determine the likelihood of authenticity as extant?
  
  2) Move the historical discussion forward with your preliminary opinion on likelihood?
  
  3) Survey the historical arguments and evaluate?
  
  4) Other?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Not 2 and not 3. More like 1.

And your method for evaluating the conclusion is laughable. Skip to the end, read the last sentence, pronounce judgment? Give me a break.

For starters, an article should have a clearly stated objective.

Are you completely off your rocker? There is one: to consider and debate the authenticity of the passage Ant. 18.116-119.

Ben C. Smith wrote:It seems like the following paragraph should say that 3 of 14 passage contexts cannot be read sensibly when the passage is excised:

This means that 3 out of 14 passages and their surrounding context are written in such a way that the text, when read with the passage absent (for at least one demarcation of the extent of the passage), still can be read sensibly and without any evident sign that something has been removed at this point. In other words, only 21% of these passages are “irremovable,” which makes about 79% of them “removable.”

I am pretty tired today, though, so maybe I am misreading.

Ben.

No, you're right. There are a few things that still need this kind of proofreading. Thank you.

Peter Kirby wrote:No, you're right. There are a few things that still need this kind of proofreading. Thank you.

No problem. Excellent essay.

Ben.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:btw Is there any discussion about interpolations in Josephus based on "stichoi" (15 or 16 syllables each stichos) ?

J. AJ 20.12.2
... with which accounts I shall put an end to these Antiquities, which are contained in twenty books, and sixty thousand verses (ἓξ δὲ μυριάσι στίχων).

Knowing the length in "stichoi" to the nearest ten thousand? This doesn't really help us, unfortunately. And the individual books can vary slightly in size.

Very cute, Guiseppe (or should I call you Haviland Tuf?). Very sensationalist.

http://originidellereligioni.forumfree.it/?t=70829753
"Bayes conferma: Giovanni il Battista è realmente esistito!"

"Bayes conferma" ~~ "Bayes confirmation" -- not really, I use Bayes' Theorem only in a couple particular arguments, where the data is available for a quantitative analysis based on actual numbers (not based on intuitions). Because the same cannot be carried over to the final analysis, because not all the arguments lend themselves to genuine quantitative analysis, the conclusion did not invoke Bayes' Theorem.

"Giovanni il Battista è realmente esistito" ~~ "John the Baptist really existed" -- that's not really the conclusion either. You can make up your own mind about that. The article doesn't argue for it. The article concerns whether or not the passage on John the Baptist in the Antiquities were an interpolation.

Peter Kirby wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:A new blog post:

http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html

JW:
Only in Religious studies do I always start backwards in an evaluation and first look at the ending/conclusion. I do think it very likely that your conclusion of:

Thus, it seems very likely that this passage on John the Baptist is authentic to the publication of the Antiquities by Josephus.

is overstated.

Sadly, most articles in "professional" religious publications would be rejected out of Jesus hands (so to speak) in the real publication world for lacking a standard professional format, let alone conclusions not supported by the evidence/arguments.

For starters, an article should have a clearly stated objective. I think you are near that but what exactly is your objective:

• 1) Determine the likelihood of authenticity as extant?
  
  2) Move the historical discussion forward with your preliminary opinion on likelihood?
  
  3) Survey the historical arguments and evaluate?
  
  4) Other?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Not 2 and not 3. More like 1.

JW:
Which is "Determine the likelihood of authenticity as extant."

And your method for evaluating the conclusion is laughable. Skip to the end, read the last sentence, pronounce judgment? Give me a break.

JW:
Just trying to be funny but as they say, it's not funny once you have to point it out.

Peter Kirby wrote:

For starters, an article should have a clearly stated objective.

Are you completely off your rocker? There is one: to consider and debate the authenticity of the passage Ant. 18.116-119.

JW:
Well as Bubba Smith said to Dick Butkus after he complained that his bowling ball had no holes in it and Bubba took the ball and stuck his fingers into it, "It does now". Note the difference between what you said above:

"Determine the likelihood of authenticity as extant?"

So which is the primary objective?

You are sounding defensive here so let me state that after skimming your article it looks excellent to me and as has been said here may immediately be the best article on the subject. As you get older though you will find that you learn more from criticism than praise.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Just trying to be funny but as they say, it's not funny once you have to point it out.

I see.

JoeWallack wrote:You are sounding defensive here so let me state that after skimming your article it looks excellent to me and as has been said here may immediately be the best article on the subject. As you get older though you will find that you learn more from criticism than praise.

Thanks. Let me know if you do actually have any criticism.

JoeWallack wrote:So which is the primary objective?

"No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations." - Prime Directive

yuk yuk yuk