Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_Fortigurn]

BMQ, I have asked this before in another way (and of course, it wasn't answered), but I'll ask it again in a more direct manner. Do you subject the Book of Mormon to the same process of source criticism to which the Bible is subjected? Do you accept the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scholarship on the authorship of the Book of Mormon?

[_bcspace]

BMQ, I have asked this before in another way (and of course, it wasn't answered), but I'll ask it again in a more direct manner. Do you subject the Book of Mormon to the same process of source criticism to which the Bible is subjected? Do you accept the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scholarship on the authorship of the Book of Mormon?

Yet another example of FLR since the originals of either cannot be examined.

[_Fortigurn]

BMQ, I have asked this before in another way (and of course, it wasn't answered), but I'll ask it again in a more direct manner. Do you subject the Book of Mormon to the same process of source criticism to which the Bible is subjected? Do you accept the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scholarship on the authorship of the Book of Mormon?

Yet another example of FLR since the originals of either cannot be examined.

It appears you haven't understood the question, let alone read the thread. My question is not an example of 'research', lazy or otherwise. It's a question asking BMQ about his research methodology.

BMQ is completely of the opinion that the process of source criticism to which the Bible is subjected is valid, regardless of the fact that the originals cannot be examined. You'll now have to call that 'Benjamin's Lazy Research', since he is the one who supports the conclusions of modern source criticism of the Bible. You failed to realise that you just attacked his methodology and called it 'lazy research'.

By the way, when you going to change your sig? I gave you several examples of critics who do not engage in lazy research, and I gave them to you more than once. You never responded, but you continue to keep that false statement in your sig.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Fortigurn writes:

Why would I assume that Deuteronomy is quoting Jeremiah, and not assume that Jeremiah is quoting Deuteronomy? Easy, prior assumption. Once the assumption has been made that Deuteronomy was written after Jeremiah, the corollary is that parallels between the two texts are the product of Deuteronomy quoting Jeremiah. But the assumption has to be made first.

Well, most arguments show that in places Deuteronomy quotes Jeremiah, and that in other places Jeremiah quotes Deuteronomy. It doesn't have much at all to do with the prior assumptions as you suggest. There is a decent body of literture devoted to the question of how we describe intertextuality - how we know when one text quotes another, or refers to it, or when they simply share a common tradition, and so on. And these arguments are developed along these lines and not at all about the kind of assumptions you are talking about. That is, if the texts show a clear relationship, is it possible to determine what those relationships are in any reliable fashion from the texts themselves. No assumption has to be made first in such an argument.

You didn't address my point. A man who has been adopted by a god is not a god who has been produced by a god having 'procreated in some fashion'. You falsely equated the two. That a king may be seen as a divinity figure does not mean that he was believed to be a literal god (we've been through this before, and dartagnan's points are still unanswered).

Let me give you an analogy. If I have a son (which I procreated with my wife), and then I adopt another son (which I had nothing whatsoever to do with the procreation of), they can both be called my son, intended in a very literal non-idiomatic fashion. Your strict monotheism doesn't make a lot of sense when extended back onto ANE beliefs.

ut you haven't provided any convincing reason why I should just accept your argument as true.

But why should I care? I am not going to convince you. Everything I say is mere opinion - even when it reflects the argued positions of scholars. What's the point?

This is bizarre. Where did I say that 'there was no editing of the text in post-exilic times'? If you want a short (and as yet incomplete), version of my view of the Pentateuch, you can read this.

That was rich.

Let me explain a liitle bit about why there really isn't room for real discussion here. As most post-modernists, I don't believe that texts (the Bible included) have any authority in and of themselves. There is no reason to accept the Bible saying that Moses said or did something as being anything more than a tradition held by a later author. That is, the text claiming that it was written by Moses is essentially a meaningless claim. Supporting claims of authorship by statements in the text about authorship is completely meaningless. Furthermore, using the New Testament to talk about the authorship of the Old Testament has even less value. It is commentary.

So what can I say? There isn't a lot of room here for negotiation. Obviously you have already made up your mind about all of these things. I have made up mine. What's the point in the debate? You aren't going to cover any new ground.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, if David hasn't already listed them - these are the Biblical references in which "sons of X" is used in the sense of belonging to a guild or grouping -

Sons of the prophets 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3 ff.; Amos 7:14
Sons of oil Zech. 4:14
Son of the perfumers Neh. 3:8
Son of the goldsmiths Neh. 3:31
Sons of the gate-keepers Ezra 2:42
Sons of the troop 2 Chron. 25: 13

[_Fortigurn]

By the way, if David hasn't already listed them - these are the Biblical references in which "sons of X" is used in the sense of belonging to a guild or grouping -

Sons of the prophets 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3 ff.; Amos 7:14
Sons of oil Zech. 4:14
Son of the perfumers Neh. 3:8
Son of the goldsmiths Neh. 3:31
Sons of the gate-keepers Ezra 2:42
Sons of the troop 2 Chron. 25: 13

Obviously you haven't been reading the thread. That 'sons of X' can refer to members of a guild or group has never been under dispute.

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn writes:

Why would I assume that Deuteronomy is quoting Jeremiah, and not assume that Jeremiah is quoting Deuteronomy? Easy, prior assumption. Once the assumption has been made that Deuteronomy was written after Jeremiah, the corollary is that parallels between the two texts are the product of Deuteronomy quoting Jeremiah. But the assumption has to be made first.

Well, most arguments show that in places Deuteronomy quotes Jeremiah, and that in other places Jeremiah quotes Deuteronomy. It doesn't have much at all to do with the prior assumptions as you suggest. There is a decent body of literture devoted to the question of how we describe intertextuality - how we know when one text quotes another, or refers to it, or when they simply share a common tradition, and so on. And these arguments are developed along these lines and not at all about the kind of assumptions you are talking about. That is, if the texts show a clear relationship, is it possible to determine what those relationships are in any reliable fashion from the texts themselves. No assumption has to be made first in such an argument.

Of course assumptions must be made in such an argument. The first such assumption which is made is that Deuteronomy is post-exilic. That has been an assumption made since Wellhausen.

You didn't address my point. A man who has been adopted by a god is not a god who has been produced by a god having 'procreated in some fashion'. You falsely equated the two. That a king may be seen as a divinity figure does not mean that he was believed to be a literal god (we've been through this before, and dartagnan's points are still unanswered).

Let me give you an analogy. If I have a son (which I procreated with my wife), and then I adopt another son (which I had nothing whatsoever to do with the procreation of), they can both be called my son, intended in a very literal non-idiomatic fashion.

You just avoided the point yet again. You can call him what you want, and be as literal as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that this 'son' did not come into being as a result of your act of procreation. It doesn't matter if you introduce him as 'My very literal son who I always call 'son' and mean it very literally', the fact is that he did not come into being as a result of your act of procreation.

If you want to say that adopted sons are 'sons' just as literally as sons of procreation, then you need to redefine the word 'son'. That would be like using the word 'translation' of a text which wasn't actually translated. Oh wait, you Mormons already do that.

Your strict monotheism doesn't make a lot of sense when extended back onto ANE beliefs.

Of course it's not mine, and I'm not 'extending' it back anywhere, but what has this to do with the fact that you're falsely equating 'son as a product of my procreation' with 'son I adopted'?

That was rich.

Which, being interpreted, means 'I didn't bother to read it because I knew I would disagree'.

As most post-modernists, I don't believe...

...anything. Good grief, a post-modernist. That explains a lot. Exactly how you reconcile that with Mormonism is anyone's guess.

...that texts (the Bible included) have any authority in and of themselves. There is no reason to accept the Bible saying that Moses said or did something as being anything more than a tradition held by a later author. That is, the text claiming that it was written by Moses is essentially a meaningless claim. Supporting claims of authorship by statements in the text about authorship is completely meaningless. Furthermore, using the New Testament to talk about the authorship of the Old Testament has even less value. It is commentary.

Post-modernism with a touch of neo-nihilism, how very 'teen angst'. I see you've been reading your Hemmingway. What you haven't been reading is your Logic 101 (this paragraph is full of logical errors, including false dichotomies and question begging). Do you view the Book of Mormon in the same way?

So what can I say? There isn't a lot of room here for negotiation. Obviously you have already made up your mind about all of these things. I have made up mine. What's the point in the debate? You aren't going to cover any new ground.

You could:

* Attempt to defend (or be honest and retract), your false statements

* Answer my questions regarding the way you approach the Bible and the way you approach the Book of Mormon

* Demonstrate some intellectual integrity

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Fortigurn writes:

Of course assumptions must be made in such an argument. The first such assumption which is made is that Deuteronomy is post-exilic. That has been an assumption made since Wellhausen.

No. In fact Wellhausen only suggests that Deuteronomy in its current form is post-exilic. The argument is more complicated than this. Much of Deuteronomy is thought to be pre-exilic but redacted and edited by a post-exilic individual or group often labeled D. The fact that Jeremiah quotes Deuteronomy in a few places indicates that at least some of Deuteronomy pre-exists Jeremiah. When other parts of Deuteronomy quote Jeremiah there is the assumption that those parts of Deuteronomy post-date Jeremiah.

You just avoided the point yet again. You can call him what you want, and be as literal as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that this 'son' did not come into being as a result of your act of procreation.

So? The meaning isn't significantly different in either case. And this is the issue here. When the king becomes adopted as the "son of God" it can be understood quite literally - it doesn't need to be read as idiomatic.

Which, being interpreted, means 'I didn't bother to read it because I knew I would disagree'.

No, actually, I did read it. It just didn't say anything that I found particularly worth saying.

...anything. Good grief, a post-modernist. That explains a lot. Exactly how you reconcile that with Mormonism is anyone's guess.

There is a couple lengthy discussions in this forum on that very topic. Probably your comments here have something to do with a great misunderstanding of postmodernism. But as I noted, the gulf is clearly too wide for us to have any real likelihood of common ground.

Post-modernism with a touch of neo-nihilism, how very 'teen angst'. I see you've been reading your Hemmingway. What you haven't been reading is your Logic 101 (this paragraph is full of logical errors, including false dichotomies and question begging). Do you view the Book of Mormon in the same way?

No errors. Just the way I see it. Your own position is so closely tied to the authority of the text that I simply will never accept it.

You could:

* Attempt to defend (or be honest and retract), your false statements

* Answer my questions regarding the way you approach the Bible and the way you approach the Book of Mormon

* Demonstrate some intellectual integrity

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I haven't made any false statements. I am not sure what questions you have regarding my appraoch to the Book of Mormon and the Bible (they are pretty much identical). And, I have a great deal of intellectual integrity. One of the issues that you are going to discover is that while you may not be very familiar with me or with my ideas, a great many of the participants here are (from this forum and from other places), and I have been chatting with some of them for many years, and so I doubt you will find a lot of sympathy for this kind of nonsense.

Ben