Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Stephen,

I have a few comments. 
 
 
Torsdag 20. Juni 2013 16:38 CEST skrev Stephen Shead 
<sshead.email AT gmail.com>: 
 
> Well, thank you all who contributed to this conversation. It has been
> challenging, illuminating and very beneficial for me.
> 
> A few words to Rolf: First, I'm aware of Kilpatrick, have taken on board
> your comments on his conclusions, and frankly think they have very little
> impact on the arguments and evidence I have presented. No doubt you
> disagree.

RF: I agree with you that the opinions of different scholars should not be 
decisive; we ourselves should study the issue and the evidence and draw our 
own conclusions. However, you made the very dramatic claim that if the 
manuscripts with KS did not count as evidence for what was written in the NT 
autographs, the whole discipline of textual criticism should be burned and 
scattered to the wind. On this background I brought the Kilpatrick quote in 
order to show that a highly respected textual critic disagreed with you.

> 
> Now, on your final posts today: You have now decided to take the high moral
> ground over me and other people. Apparently you have never remained closed
> to either possibility, but have objectively and impartially weighed the
> evidence, whereas others of us (me included, I presume?) have been totally
> closed to the YHWH possibility. Really?? How do you know that? We are all
> simply drawing what we consider to be the most probable conclusion from the
> available evidence. I can respect that in people like Jonathan, even though
> we disagree.

RF: No person is completely objective and impartial; our horizon of 
understanding and our religious and philosophical attitudes will overtly or 
covertly influence our evaluations and assessments. What we should do, is to 
strive to be as objective and impartial as possible. I did not mention any 
names, but if you reread the posts in this thread, you will see that some 
list-members have used categorical language, implying that they view one of 
the possibilities as impossible.
> 
> You even have the nerve to suggest (unless your comment directed to me has
> no relation to me specifically) that I am looking at the textual evidence
> through my "religious glasses", rather than allowing that "textual evidence
> that contradict [my] dogmas can exist". And then, in your final answer to
> Jerry, you at last come out with an entirely religiously-motivated
> "explanation" of what must have happened, despite still having produced no
> hard evidence. Not that I'm particularly surprised: I was aware that what
> you said is standard Jehovah's Witness doctrine, and that the extant NT
> manuscripts are unacceptable to your doctrinal position. I have no problem
> with that. What does gall me, however, is your moral high ground on
> supposed religious impartiality. Yes, these issues have relevance to my
> religious convictions. But if you look over my posts, I think you will find
> no theological speculation to match your post to Jerry.

RF: When you say that if the arguments of those who disagree with you are 
correct, then the whole discipline of textual criticism should be burned and 
scattered to the wind, you look at textual criticism through your religious 
glasses and not as a balanced scholar. Such a claim I have never heard by a 
scholar!

 In previous posts I have tried to point to the evidence rather than to my 
own opinion. But in this post Jerry posed specific questions and asked for my 
opinion. That was the reason why I gave my opinion.
> 
> Finally, you still haven't answered my questions to you, even when I made
> them clear and brief, you insist on using question-begging phrases like
> asking "why the NT writers should delete the name of God", and again
> repeated your "nobody has given any plausible reason" claim. Was mine not
> plausible? Oh, wait, you didn't respond.

RF: I am not sure which questions you refer to. At one time you sent a long 
post, and others sent posts as well.  In my view, these posts moved in a 
circle by arguing things that we already had been through. In order to end my 
participation, I sent a post to the list-members rather than answering each 
of the mentioned posts. Perhaps this is what you refer to.
> 
> And now a word to the moderators: As one of the main perpetrat... I mean,
> participants in this debate, thank you for cutting us so much slack and
> allowing us to digress where it seemed relevant. I hope we have been
> sufficiently respectful and reasonable in listening and interacting with
> others. Apologies to all if I have pushed things where I should have let
> them lie! (Including, perhaps, in this email...)
> 
> Best wishes to all,
> Stephen Shead.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway