tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post5667317663035487399..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: LOW CHRISTOLOGY AND A DESIRE FOR NOSTALGIA GONE BIZERK DAMAGED THE REVISED MASS BY THOSE WHO IMPLEMENTED WHAT SOME BISHOPS WANTED PRIOR TO VATICAN II!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-41168020705313151592017-08-06T07:20:11.390-04:002017-08-06T07:20:11.390-04:00Kavanaugh, are you aware that Father Fox is eating...Kavanaugh, are you aware that Father Fox is eating your lunch...dessert, as well?Genenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27201586478961891922017-07-31T08:53:59.683-04:002017-07-31T08:53:59.683-04:00Father Kavanaugh usually likes to have the last wo...Father Kavanaugh usually likes to have the last word. I'm getting the popcorn ready...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24735151489024065812017-07-31T05:57:48.197-04:002017-07-31T05:57:48.197-04:00I get the impression that Fr K is more than a litt...I get the impression that Fr K is more than a little selective when it comes to deferring to expert opinion. For example the importance and value of liturgical Latin is backed by a hefty weight of scholarly opinion (from Christine Mohrmann to influential modern liturgists such as Alcuin Reid, Nicola Bux and Uwe Lang, to name but three) as well as by four recent popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI), not to mention the most recent Ecumenical Council.<br /><br />Yet Fr K blandly states that Latin is 'a foreign language' and is of no use!<br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-23703276416670974312017-07-30T19:48:12.450-04:002017-07-30T19:48:12.450-04:00You will have to take on faith that all the words ...You will have to take on faith that all the words attributed to me -- Rev. Martin E. Fox -- are, in fact, the work of a single person. I have not redacted others' works, and as far as I know, no redactor somewhere is presenting himself as me.<br /><br />So what you would experience, were you to you read a wide swath of my writings -- including my comments here, and elsewhere, as well as things I've written over, say, 40 years, in many different contexts -- I have written extensively over the years about politics, history, theology, Scripture, business and other subjects -- could seem to be multiple vocabularies. And in a sense, it would be, because of the many topics on which I really have written. And yet, if you supposed all this demonstrated that Martin E. Fox is, in fact, four different people, such a seemingly impressive theory would have but one small flaw. It would be utterly false. <br /><br />Another reason I am confident? Because this is not hypothetical. The techniques used to conclude that some letters of Paul aren't really written by Paul (because of an allegedly different vocabulary), have been applied to modern works, such as Mark Twain and others; and guess what? It turns out Samuel Clemens didn't actually write everything he himself claimed to write! Well, it turns out he really did -- but thus are the perils of this sort of analysis. It reaches conclusions based far less on the actual evidence, and far more on presuppositions.<br /><br />Such as your presupposition that if there is a single author of Isaiah, then it is necessary that that single author must have lived 600 years! Really? I've asked repeatedly for you to explain the rationale for that; but again, either you refuse to answer, or you are incapable of doing so. <br /><br />This is a good time to recall someone else I assume you studied, and that is William Occam, and his famous "razor": namely, his principle that all other things being equal, the simpler explanation is to be preferred. And all I am really doing in this is applying Occam's razor. When one is presented with a theory that involves multiple hands, and one that involves fewer, but the multiple hands theory actually doesn't explain more than the single-set-of-hands theory, then per Occam, the simpler explanation is to be preferred.<br /><br />How do I know the "multiple-hands" theory fails to explain? Well, I told you right off the bat. The whole reason why people insist there must be multiple authors, is because of the perception of unevenness or "seams" or whatever you call it, in the text. (Here I point out as an aside the one datum that historical-critical theories ignore or dismiss: and it is that while the four-author theory is a construct, a supposition, the single text is a cold, hard fact. Isaiah might well be 66 authors, but it comes to us as a single text. A single extraordinarily large scroll, in fact [in the case of Qumran]) Scholars notice that some seeming discrepancy in the first three chapters of Genesis, and say, ah, there are two <i>different</i> accounts of Creation, so that means there must be two authors! Well, could be; but let's notice something. Genesis actually comes to us as a single unit. If it can be read as a unity -- if the discrepancies can be explained, not as seams where two (or more) sources are stitched together -- then there is simply no need for any multiple source explanation. Occam's Razor.<br /><br />Oh, I could go on, but you don't care. But others reading here might, so...perhaps they are edified. You cling to your comfortable historical-critical dogmas. Sleep well.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-34123851738018442412017-07-30T19:47:16.334-04:002017-07-30T19:47:16.334-04:00How do I know that the claim of multiple vocabular...How do I know that the claim of multiple vocabularies can't be ascertained independently? Two ways: first, because it is simply absurd to claim -- as you are, right now, claiming -- that a single author (let's call him "Sylvester," <i>not</i> Moses!) is not reasonably capable of having a vocabulary that embraces, say Elohim and YHWH both. <br /><br />So you have accepted the notion that one author tends to call God "Elohim," and the other tends to call God "YHWH" -- but somehow, we rule out as highly improbable that the same person could have both words in his vocabulary. And, yes, I realize it's more than two words. Let us suppose it is 200 words. It remains absurd. It would be absurd if you were talking about almost anyone who, in AD 2017, might take pen in hand to tell a story of God's marvelous works; and it would be just as absurd if we spoke of someone not in our time, but, say, 3-5,000 years ago in the Levant.<br /><br />There are not so many words in Genesis that there is anything unreasonable about supposing that it's all <i>one</i> vocabulary, rather than two, three, four, or more.<br /><br />So why might a single author tend to use "vocabulary A" in this section, only to shift to "vocabulary B" when s/he moves on to the next section? I can think of a very simple explanation. You can't? That is a lack of imagination.<br /><br />You want a citation? I'll give you one. In the Catholic Study Bible, copyright 1990, in the notes on Matthew 15:32-39, we read the following:<br /><br /><i>Most probably this story is a doublet of that of the feeding of the five thousand (14, 13-21). It differs from it notably only in that Jesus takes the initiative, not the disciples (32), and in the numbers: the crowd has been with Jesus three days (32), seven loaves are multiplied (36), seven baskets of fragments remain after the feeding (37), and four thousand men are fed (38).</i><br /><br />So what precisely does this mean, saying it's a "doublet"? Let's go to the <i>New Jerome Biblical Commentary,</i> notes on Mark 8:1-10 -- to which you will be referred if you consult the notes on Matthew 15:32-39. Here's what you read here:<br /><br /><i>Despite these differences, there are so many similarities that the feeding stories are usually taken as two accounts of the same incident.</i><br /><br />So, boil it down: Donald Senor (the editor of the Catholic Study Bible), along with the contributors to the NJBC sections on Matthew and Mark, all believe that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke all repeat a story told twice of the same event. That's their scholarly theory.<br /><br />And I'm here -- without any string of letters after my name -- to say that this explanation is bosh. Same problem as with the vocabulary in Genesis: it is a lack of imagination. This is the Emperor exposing himself in new clothes that exist only in his imagination. These are the high priests of first-class, Catholic historical-critical studies, and this is the best they can do? It is embarrassing. And if you cannot see how embarrassing it is, then you haven't given it enough thought. This purported "explanation" is a house of cards.<br /><br />Such is the quality of these suppositions. Back to Genesis and the "multiple vocabularies." You say it's "clever. There's nothing particularly "clever" about it. (Continued...)Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-7488160481035393172017-07-30T19:38:42.703-04:002017-07-30T19:38:42.703-04:00Well, Father Kavanaugh, the reason I suggest that ...Well, Father Kavanaugh, the reason I suggest that you are treating this subject as an off-limits dogma is the defensiveness with which you have responded to my questions.<br /><br />Again and again, you insist that my questions only have merit if I can cite some authority. And you continually try to reduce my approach to the authorship question regarding Genesis (and the Pentateuch) to defending Mosaic authorship. I've stated repeatedly that that is <i>not</i> my contention, but this seems to be a tic for you; you simply cannot help but return to that.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I asked you repeated questions for which you either have no answer -- you cannot even offer a similitude of an answer -- or else you said you refuse to offer one, again, because you fault me for not citing any scholarly sources, which so far seems entirely unnecessary.<br /><br />I fully expect you to ignore this next question, but I'm going to restate it, if only to illustrate what I infer as your refusal to answer, or else your inability even to grasp the question. And it has to do with this claim of "multiple vocabularies." How does one ascertain exactly how many vocabularies exist in a given literary work? How does one establish that it's, say, three, not four; or two rather than three? How does one establish in a clear-cut way that it's not simply <i>one</i> vocabulary?<br /><br />First, I don't accept the premise you work from, which is that only those with expertise are qualified to ask such questions. You've made it clear you have no idea how to answer this question, so let's treat this as a rhetorical question on my part, and move on.<br /><br />I dispute that one can certainly demonstrate there are, actually, "multiple [discrete] vocabularies" in Genesis. That is to say, anyone can suppose anything; but showing it in a way that the process of falsification fails? No, I do not believe anyone has done that. Yes, I've seen the arguments. They fail to persuade (not just me; people with lots of letters after their names, as you well know). <br /><br />It's rather like the theory of a "Q" document behind the Gospels. In both cases, it is a construct, offered to explain phenomena. Could the supposition of multiple vocabs be true? Certainly; but I contend that the "multiple vocabularies" is not established, certainly, apart from, and actually prior to, the determination of there being multiple sources; but rather, it follows from it. <br /><br />I contend that when you cite the so-called "multiple vocabularies" as <i>proof</i> of multiple sources, you are actually arguing in a circle. The argument amounts to: There must be multiple authors (subsequently "redacted"), because there are multiple vocabularies -- and we know there are multiple vocabularies, because there are multiple sources! <br /><br />And I've challenged this "multiple vocabularies" claim repeatedly, and you cannot offer even the slightest articulation of a defense. All you manage to do is say is that someone else, somewhere, can do it. But what defense of it that you've read has so poorly penetrated your mind that you cannot give it the slightest reproduction. That is very telling. (Continued...)Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-738400541638551022017-07-30T19:14:19.828-04:002017-07-30T19:14:19.828-04:00Fr Kavanaugh
Isn't the concept of 'autho...Fr Kavanaugh <br /><br />Isn't the concept of 'authorship' rather a modern one? It conjures up the idea of Moses, circa 1400 BC, sharpening his quill and sitting down to write the first five books of the OT.<br /><br />We have the Iliad and the Odyssey, yet there is no evidence that Homer even existed, let alone authored them.<br /><br />Who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews has been disputed since the third century, yet its acceptance into the canon of Scripture did not depend on its being written by St Paul; it was enough that it dated from apostolic times and was sound in its Christology.<br /><br />I think we are still required to believe that the Bible is inspired, in which case quibbling over who put pen to paper is surely irrelevant.<br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-72586765659303393562017-07-30T12:22:22.338-04:002017-07-30T12:22:22.338-04:00Martin, I don't treat the work of any scriptur...Martin, I don't treat the work of any scripture scholar or any methodology as "dogma beyond question." I have never said or suggested that I did. You want to read that into my comments, drawing conclusions that are not supported by what I have posted.<br /><br />There are multiple vocabularies in Genesis which reasonable scholars say suggests multiple authors. You studied these ideas in seminary as I did. This isn't something that pops up without foundation in my own mind; rather, these are the conclusions of some of the best scholars, people whose training and ability is exceptional. Why do I believe that these various vocabularies are found in Genesis? Because people smarter than I have told me that that is their conclusion. Could they be wrong? Sure. But I can't spend my energy doubting that which makes sense and that which makes the meaning of the Scriptures clearer.<br /><br />You said the workings of my mind fascinate you. Well, when someone with far greater expertise and experience tells me something, I generally find that info trustworthy. I suspect you operate in much the same way. I hope that most of the industrialized world does as well, or we end up living in a culture in which perpetual doubt gives way to crippling paranoia. (Bugnini, that evil Masonic so-and-so plotted with the communists planted in the Vatican to destroy the Church by destroying the liturgy! Or, They fluoridate the water in order to poison the population and take over the world!)<br /><br />Could one author, Moses, say, have cleverly employed multiple vocabularies? Sure, it's possible. Could one author have written the entire book of Isaiah? Sure, it's possible. But is it likely? Based on what I have read, I don't think so. But if one concludes that it is likely, what evidence (citations) can one offer?<br /><br />John, I am pleased that you are a True Believer in the value of literary/textual criticism.<br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44995409551128946742017-07-30T10:37:20.368-04:002017-07-30T10:37:20.368-04:00John Nolan:
Thanks for the kind words. But, if yo...John Nolan:<br /><br />Thanks for the kind words. But, if you will forgive me, I do not consider it to have been a waste of time overall.<br /><br />For one, it helps me sharpen my own thoughts. For another, I hope to be able to help others sharpen theirs. And, third, I think this was an enlightening discussion for the benefit of all who read it. <br /><br />To say it again, I have no blanket objection to historical-critical methods; but it seems entirely reasonable to subject them, themselves, to critical analysis -- and entirely wrong to treat them as dogma beyond question. I've had discussions like this over the years, and remarkably, it so often goes the same way, with folks who stoutly defending historical-critical -- often with some defensiveness and harshness, as a substitute for actually engaging with criticism of some of the conclusions that are produced (i.e., multiple authors of various books).<br /><br />I'm only somewhat smart; so I really believe that someone a lot smarter should be able to give better responses to my observations than I've seen so far.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-69903807099317238352017-07-29T10:43:00.384-04:002017-07-29T10:43:00.384-04:00Fr Fox,
It's a waste of time trying to pin Fr...Fr Fox,<br /><br />It's a waste of time trying to pin Fr Kavanaugh down. He will wriggle off any hook you try to catch him with. In a perverse way, I grudgingly admire his perseverance in defending an impossible position, although one must be aware that he is not averse to posting ad hominem comments (for which read unsubstantiated and impertinent comments on what he perceives to be your views) using a nom de plume.<br /><br />The stylistic concordance is quite obvious, however.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-89972748757216382352017-07-28T09:49:45.514-04:002017-07-28T09:49:45.514-04:00Father Kavanaugh:
No, my friend, this quote was y...Father Kavanaugh:<br /><br />No, my friend, this quote was your words, not mine:<br /><br /><i>As for modern authors getting things wrong regarding the literary, textual, redaction, etc., criticism of Sacred Scripture, no, I have not noticed that. If you believe that they have, could you direct me to the published articles you have authored in which you give evidence that they have erred?</i><br /><br />What I asked of you was to <i>explain your own statements</i>. No one made you assert that there are multiple vocabularies in Genesis. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to claim that if there was a single author of Isaiah, he <i>had</i> to be an eyewitness to events over 600 years. But when you did, I asked you to explain exactly what that meant. It's not my fault you made claims that you, yourself, really couldn't explain in simple terms. <br /><br />I am fascinated by the working of your mind, as on display here. You seem to view "citations" as a kind of totem; that the only argument that has merit, is one that rests on citations. Thus you complained that I didn't provide any.<br /><br />But there's something else God gave us: logic and the use of reason.<br /><br />Ergo, I find nothing illogical or unreasonable about supposing that Isaiah lived around the year 750-700 BC, give or take, meaning he was an eyewitness to the events described around the time of Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem. I see nothing in chapters 40-66 that requires him to have lived anything other than a normal lifespan. <br /><br />And I've asked you, several times, to explain just why -- if there is but one Isaiah -- it <i>must</i> mean someone lived 600 years! No reply, just crickets.<br /><br />One of us is a fundamentalist on this subject. One of us cannot consider any alternatives to a single point of view, and when challenged, shifts the subject or refuses to respond.<br /><br />That fundamentalist is you, dear Father; because it is apparent that you simply cannot even grasp the possibility that some of the hoary theories of modern Biblical criticism might be wrong. Here's a thought to consider: both they, and the "traditional view," can be wrong.<br /><br />I have said over and over again that I have no particular issue with the tools of historical-critical method; but I am not reluctant to apply my God-given reasoning powers to their conclusions in a critical way. Hence the questions I posed here, which you have labored mightily to refute and dismiss, with insults and condescension, but finally complaining that, in the end, you just rely on those experts to be right, even if you can't really explain <i>why</i> you believe it. Multiple vocabs? Multiple Isaiahs? Must be, must be! <br /><br />Nay; <i>could be,</i> indeed, but no <i>must</i> be. Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-38955263481434564452017-07-27T23:28:59.091-04:002017-07-27T23:28:59.091-04:00Kavanaugh - it is my opinion, thus it is a fact. F...Kavanaugh - it is my opinion, thus it is a fact. Father Fox, don't throw your pearls to swineTJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-75488302524378845762017-07-27T20:17:14.670-04:002017-07-27T20:17:14.670-04:00Martin, you were demanding citations from me. Tha...Martin, you were demanding citations from me. That was you.<br /><br />As with the "Five Books of Moses," whether you ever thought that or not, the traditional belief was incorrect. As was the traditional belief that Isaiah was written by one very, very old man. <br /><br />These advances in understanding came through various forms of "modern" criticism. That's one of the reasons why the Church approves and encourages such study.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-8798340542731065492017-07-27T14:26:54.430-04:002017-07-27T14:26:54.430-04:00Yes, there is uncertainty among the scholars, but ...<i>Yes, there is uncertainty among the scholars, but that is largely immaterial.</i><br /><br />I agree it's immaterial. I wasn't the one who was so put off about the possibility of "modern authors" being wrong, that I demanded someone produce articles I had published showing scholars had gotten something wrong. That was you.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-64423059381257030812017-07-27T14:23:04.487-04:002017-07-27T14:23:04.487-04:00Fr. Kavanaugh writes:
One person did not write a ...Fr. Kavanaugh writes:<br /><br /><i>One person did not write a fist hand account of a book that spans centuries. One need not have an expanded imagination to believe that. One must suspend disbelief.</i><br /><br />Yes, but as far as I can see, very little of the content of Isaiah claims to be "first hand." That makes sense regarding the portions with Ahaz and Hezekiah. Where is there "first hand" observation included that requires someone to have lived, as you say, "centuries." It's not there.<br /><br />Feel free to cite something -- from Isaiah -- to the contrary.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87398475906775132672017-07-27T13:57:24.201-04:002017-07-27T13:57:24.201-04:00Martin - No dodge, just inattention. Yes, there i...Martin - No dodge, just inattention. Yes, there is uncertainty among the scholars, but that is largely immaterial. <br /><br />It matters little if there were 2 or 3 or 71 authors of Isaiah. <br /><br />And we may never know just how many there were. We may well have to live with the possibility of there having been 2 or 3 or 71.<br /><br />And, again, this matters little.<br /><br />One person did not write a fist hand account of a book that spans centuries. One need not have an expanded imagination to believe that. One must suspend disbelief.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-49974507880016466552017-07-27T13:14:22.712-04:002017-07-27T13:14:22.712-04:00Father Kavanaugh:
Nice dodge.
Some "modern ...Father Kavanaugh:<br /><br />Nice dodge.<br /><br />Some "modern authors" have argued that there are two Isaiahs. Some have argued there are three.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i><b>As for modern authors getting things wrong</b> regarding the literary, textual, redaction, etc., criticism of Sacred Scripture, no, I have not noticed that.</i><br /><br />So according to you, then, the two-Isaiah scholars and the three-Isaiah scholars are <i>both right!</i> They have to be, because you said you "have not noticed" anyone being wrong. <br /><br />And, by the way, you really need to expand your imagination. This statement is kind of sad:<br /><br /><i>Obviously one author did not write Isaiah over 600 years. There must be multiple authors. How do I know this? No one lives 600 years.</i><br /><br />Hmm, can we think of another possibility? How about...the author of Isaiah (if there was only one) actually wrote everything in a normal lifespan? Perhaps he lived at the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah, as indicated in the early chapters? What, exactly, is impossible about that?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-30666213044806179342017-07-27T12:25:02.570-04:002017-07-27T12:25:02.570-04:00"I am aware of the Isaiah debate - otherwise,..."I am aware of the Isaiah debate - otherwise, why would I have brought it up?"<br />Well then, your statement here was deliberately false:..<br /><br />If this is the statement to which you refer: "Next you will be telling us that modern authors have got it all wrong when they suggest Isaiah was not written by one author over 600 years or that Luke and Acts have different authors." then, no, nothing I have said is "deliberately false." Obviously one author did not write Isaiah over 600 years. There must be multiple authors. How do I know this? No one lives 600 years. That there is disagreement among scholars is not shocking, nor is it an indication that textual/literary criticism is invalid or of little value.<br /><br />I stand by the following statements: "Literary criticism really isn't that difficult to understand." and "When it comes to the intricacies of the highly technical matter of literary criticism of ancient Near Eastern Texts, I have no choice but to rely on the expertise of those who have the training and capacity to explain it to me<br /><br />They are not contradictory as you assume they are.<br /><br />I understand how a sculptor produces a portrait in marble. However, I do not possess the training or ability to do what the sculptor does. I understand, as do you, how literary criticism is done. Maybe you have the training and ability to read the ancient texts, compare them, and analyze them, but I do not. <br /><br />So, yes, I can understand how literary criticism works (and why it is valuable) without having the ability to do it myself.<br /><br />Reality gold.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51149976664432092922017-07-26T19:58:47.206-04:002017-07-26T19:58:47.206-04:00Fr. Kavanaugh:
I am aware of the Isaiah debate ...Fr. Kavanaugh: <br /><br /><br /><i>I am aware of the Isaiah debate - otherwise, why would I have brought it up.</i><br /><br />Well then, your statement here was deliberately false:<br /><br /><br /><i>As for modern authors getting things wrong regarding the literary, textual, redaction, etc., criticism of Sacred Scripture, no, I have not noticed that.</i><br /><br />Because between those modern scripture scholars who argue for two Isaiahs, and those who argue for three, one camp at least has to be wrong.<br /><br />But my most favorite pairing of your comments is this:<br /><br /><i>Literary criticism really isn't that difficult to understand.</i><br /><br />And:<br /><br /><i>When it comes to the intricacies of the highly technical matter of literary criticism of ancient Near Eastern Texts, I have no choice but to rely on the expertise of those who have the training and capacity to explain it to me.</i><br /><br />Comedy gold!Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2129723075269779222017-07-26T17:47:31.575-04:002017-07-26T17:47:31.575-04:00RE: Kavanaugh's post at 11:44 am: I honestly d...RE: Kavanaugh's post at 11:44 am: I honestly do not believe that Kavanaugh has ever read a theology book.Genenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44723562387964253382017-07-26T17:45:17.611-04:002017-07-26T17:45:17.611-04:00Martin says, "In other words, when you said, ...Martin says, "In other words, when you said, Sloppiness is relative. What we, today, would consider sloppy editing was not thought to be such in the times the biblical stories were being redacted and rearranged you really had nothing to go on, there. I didn't think so, so I appreciate you admitting as much. It's something you kinda think you read somewhere, but you really don't know. OK."<br /><br />No, Martin, I can't cite the precise source that these ideas come from. If your memory is such that you can recall every author's work, every idea, and cite the page number (with footnotes) then Praise God. <br /><br />The suggestion that these ideas have no basis in biblical scholarship you know to be false.<br /><br />I have also read quite a bit on these subjects. As you, I base my conclusions on the work of men and women with far greater ability and training than I have.<br /><br />No, I haven't given up on the vocabulary question, Martin. I've simply decided that there's not much value in discussing the topic with a person who will, while demanding source citing and offering none, will simply disagree.<br /><br />I am aware of the Isaiah debate - otherwise, why would I have brought it up. To have brought it up without being aware of it would have been "quite a trick," don't you agree.<br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-18710309135795064842017-07-26T17:21:17.566-04:002017-07-26T17:21:17.566-04:00Father Kavanaugh said:
When it comes to the intri...Father Kavanaugh said:<br /><br /><i>When it comes to the intricacies of the highly technical matter of literary criticism of ancient Near Eastern Texts, I have no choice but to rely on the expertise of those who have the training and capacity to explain it to me.</i><br /><br />In other words, when you said, <br /><br /><i>Sloppiness is relative. What we, today, would consider sloppy editing was not thought to be such in the times the biblical stories were being redacted and rearranged</i><br /><br />you really had nothing to go on, there. I didn't think so, so I appreciate you admitting as much. It's something you kinda think you read somewhere, but you really don't know. OK.<br /><br /><i>I would encourage you to take up the work of the best modern and contemporary authors...</i><br /><br />I have; that is to say, I've read quite a bit on these subjects, and reached the conclusions I have. <br /><br />By the way, I notice you have completely given up any attempt to explain your insistence on multiple vocabularies in Genesis -- and, to be precise, just how you know. <br /><br /><i>As for modern authors getting things wrong regarding the literary, textual, redaction, etc., criticism of Sacred Scripture, no, I have not noticed that. If you believe that they have, could you direct me to the published articles you have authored in which you give evidence that they have erred?</i><br /><br />I never claimed to author any articles, nor need I to make this point competently. Are you actually unaware of the debate over just how many Isaiah's there were? It was two for awhile, then it was three. (Perhaps the number is up to four?) Someone <i>has</i> to be wrong there -- or would you maintain that there can be, simultaneously, two and three authors of Isaiah? That's quite a trick!Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51443296438191977062017-07-26T17:01:03.559-04:002017-07-26T17:01:03.559-04:00Martin - When it comes to the intricacies of the h...Martin - When it comes to the intricacies of the highly technical matter of literary criticism of ancient Near Eastern Texts, I have no choice but to rely on the expertise of those who have the training and capacity to explain it to me. If your training gives you that ability, praise God. <br /><br />I believe that these men and women offer us their best analysis of the ancient texts, both sacred and secular. Since my recapitulation of their scholarly work isn't sufficient for you, I would encourage you to take up the work of the best modern and contemporary authors and continue the discussion with them.<br /><br />As for modern authors getting things wrong regarding the literary, textual, redaction, etc., criticism of Sacred Scripture, no, I have not noticed that. If you believe that they have, could you direct me to the published articles you have authored in which you give evidence that they have erred?Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-33901028507625005322017-07-26T15:57:41.999-04:002017-07-26T15:57:41.999-04:00Father Kavanaugh said:
Next you will be telling u...Father Kavanaugh said:<br /><br /><i>Next you will be telling us that modern authors have got it all wrong when they suggest Isaiah was not written by one author over 600 years or that Luke and Acts have different authors.</i><br /><br />You may not have noticed, but "modern authors" get things wrong all the time. Haven't you noticed?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58507995540323227832017-07-26T15:51:51.744-04:002017-07-26T15:51:51.744-04:00Father Kavanaugh:
Congratulations on your mastery...Father Kavanaugh:<br /><br />Congratulations on your mastery of sarcasm and condescension. They are a poor substitute for actual argumentation.<br /><br /><i>Do we know how other ancient authors wrote at the time the Scriptures were being written? We do. Do we know how styles of writing have changed and evolved over the last 4000 years? We do. Can we make comparisons between and among the styles of ancient times? We can. That's how we know about the styles in use 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 years ago were like.</i><br /><br />A filibuster is not an answer. You have utterly failed actually to answer my question, which was to substantiate your claim to know "what standards of editing people had 3-4,000 years ago." And to make it easier for you: I did <i>not</i> ask what <i>other people</i> may know; I asked about what <i>you, Father Kavanaugh,</i> claim to know.<br /><br />When you completely bypassed answering this question, was that deliberate, or did you fail to notice?<br /><br /><i>Literary criticism really isn't that difficult to understand..</i>(sic)<br /><br />No it's not. So I'm puzzled why you're having such difficulties with my questions.<br /><br />Since you have repeatedly asserted there are multiple vocabularies in Genesis. Please identify the number of vocabularies, and how you know that it is X, rather than X + 1, or X + 11, etc. I deny that you can do this.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.com