I agree that it is always a good idea to keep bias in mind -- in fact one cannot really think critically if one overlooks this. It might arguably be *more* important to seek for bias when examining the work of scholars, because they are more likely than laypeople to be radical, and are better versed in hiding their bias from easy detection -- except where they have a stated agenda.
For the record Douglas-Klotz never hides the fact that the Peshitta is a retranslation from the Greek into Aramaic. So I am not unaware of that. This presents a danger that has to be considered -- whether this fact alone is enough to completely discredit their work. I consider that an issue of conscience and cannot fault someone if they conclude that yes, that is an obstacle they cannot get past.
As it is the oldest complete copies we have of the gospels are from c. 200 AD (though we have fragments much older) so in the larger scheme any position we take involves a leap of faith in the accuracy of existing records.
I personally find the internal consistency and spiritual resonance of Lamsa's and Douglas-Klotz's work to be compelling enough to overcome this. A theory that is off-base, it seems to me, would demonstrate a fundamental lack of internal consistency, or would lack spiritual resonance.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: bias
Date: 2003-02-26 11:57 am (UTC)For the record Douglas-Klotz never hides the fact that the Peshitta is a retranslation from the Greek into Aramaic. So I am not unaware of that. This presents a danger that has to be considered -- whether this fact alone is enough to completely discredit their work. I consider that an issue of conscience and cannot fault someone if they conclude that yes, that is an obstacle they cannot get past.
As it is the oldest complete copies we have of the gospels are from c. 200 AD (though we have fragments much older) so in the larger scheme any position we take involves a leap of faith in the accuracy of existing records.
I personally find the internal consistency and spiritual resonance of Lamsa's and Douglas-Klotz's work to be compelling enough to overcome this. A theory that is off-base, it seems to me, would demonstrate a fundamental lack of internal consistency, or would lack spiritual resonance.