Did I Quote Mine Marcus Borg?

[guacamole]

Yes, it does, but I note that Borg does not actually refer to these as 'miracles', but as healing and exorcism.

I think you're being a touch disingenuous here, perhaps following Borg's mild disingenuous leading. What is a healing and exorcism other than a miracle? This falls under my call a spade a spade rule. Unless he has recanted of this piece, Borg is a supernaturalist.

Borg also states that they do not accept another class of miracles - which statement Adrift omitted from the section he quoted. Unless there is something to suggest Tassman was not referring to the latter type of miracle - and his use of the word "magic" suggests to me that he was - Borg's article supports Tassman's claim.

I don't think it's realistic for every citation from other thinkers to necessarily include all qualifications and reservations. Adrift is not inaccurate even if he chose to elide Borg's qualification, given that supernatural healing, exorcism, and by extension, supernatural evil to be exorcised, qualify as miraculous is common and reasonable parlance.

Adrift quoted the section where Borg said that historians accepted some deeds, but omitted the very relevant section where Borg said that historians did not accept "nature miracles". He made a decision to exclude nearby sentences that are not only explicitly relevant to Tassman's point, but support it.

That's a quote-mine.

I could be wrong, but I thought that a mined quote was generally a quote that not only was taken out of context, but also contrary to the express intent of the quoted, ala people quoting "God does not play dice with the universe" (or what not. If I quote wrong, for give me.) to prove that Einstein was a theist. I do not think that is what Adrift did here. Borg clearly is a supernaturalist and believer in some sort of miracle, even if not the most spectacular kind.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Carrikature]

Tassman's claim was that all Borg and others believed about Jesus was that he was a historical figure and nothing extraordinary about him.

That's false.

[Adrift]

But that's the essence of a quote mine. The full context, where Borg differentiates between miracles and spectacular deeds, is important. That differentiation is how Tassman's statement is upheld, as SoR pointed out right after.

So performing actual paranormal healings and exorcisms is not, in your opinion, a miracle? Also note, Borg isn't making a distinction between healings/exorcisms and miracles, but healings exorcisms and "nature" miracles. This is the same distinction that all sorts of other scholars make in their academic work as well, as I've since pointed out in the other thread,

Uh, you realize that it's Borg making the distinction, and not me, right? While I'm inclined to agree with you that healings and exorcisms are miracles of nature, the distinctions between healings and exorcisms and "nature" miracles is one made by various NT scholars. So for instance, John Meier makes just such a distinction in the second volume of his A Marginal Jew. He distinguishes between exorcisms, healings, raising the dead, and nature miracles. He then breaks down the nature miracles into four sub-categories which include "gift miracles", "epiphany miracles", "rescue miracles", and "curse miracles". Meier points out that a common way to distinguish between a "nature miracle" and other miracles like healings and exorcisms is the "miracle-worker's power over or ability to change inanimate matter, as opposed to his power over living persons." He goes on to point out, though, that this is not a very good distinction since, for instance, raising the dead can be seen as both a healing miracle and power over inanimate matter.

In fact, a review of the literature will demonstrate that these breakdowns into types of miracles is widespread. Some distinguishing between only healings/exorcisms and nature miracles (Martin McDaniel); others distinguishing between healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and resurrections (Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, Grant Osborne, Commentary on Matthew, N. Clayton Croy, Prima Scriptura, Craig Evans, Commentary on Luke); healings, resuscitations, and nature miracles (Robert A. Spivey, D. Moody Smith, Jr., C. Clifton Black, Anatomy of the New Testament); Epiphanies, exorcisms, miracle stories, and nature miracles (Robert H. Stein, Commentary on Mark), etc.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, it does, but I note that Borg does not actually refer to these as 'miracles', but as healing and exorcism.

Note that Borg personally avoids using the word "miracle" because he disagrees with how it is normally defined. IOW, most people would classify healing and exorcism as miraculous.

[One Bad Pig]

On a side note, it would be helpful to provide a link to the thread and posts in question when asking if what you do is quote-mining. The context of the discussion is important. Paraphrasing the discussion skips a lot of the relevant bits and opens up all the ad hominem stuff, as clearly evinced in this thread. The OP paints Tassman as the offender, and people happily jump on the bandwagon to insult him, but it wasn't Tassman that challenged it (as already pointed out elsewhere in this thread).

There is a link in the OP. The little double arrow after Adrift's name in the quote is a link.

[Zymologist]

But that's the essence of a quote mine. The full context, where Borg differentiates between miracles and spectacular deeds, is important. That differentiation is how Tassman's statement is upheld, as SoR pointed out right after.

Immediately after the quoted portion of Gerbil's post, he says this:

The context neither adds nor subtracts from effectiveness of the quote.

So it looks like you're quote mining Gerbil.

Also, and this may just be pedantry on my part, but Borg doesn't differentiate between miracles and supernatural deeds: he differentiates between nature miracles and supernatural deeds.

[Carrikature]

So performing actual paranormal healings and exorcisms is not, in your opinion, a miracle? Also note, Borg isn't making a distinction between healings/exorcisms and miracles, but healings exorcisms and "nature" miracles. This is the same distinction that all sorts of other scholars make in their academic work as well, as I've since pointed out in the other thread,

I can appreciate where Borg is coming from; they're pretty loaded terms. I would say that healings and exorcisms could be but aren't necessarily miracles, partly because that leaves open a wide gamut of paranormal but not divine events. To that effect, Borg's distinction is a useful one. It's not one I've used myself, though.

Note that Borg personally avoids using the word "miracle" because he disagrees with how it is normally defined. IOW, most people would classify healing and exorcism as miraculous.

This is ad populum, though, and you wouldn't expect a scholarly work (of whatever quality) to be using terms the same way laymen do. There are people that would classify the Cubs winning the World Series as miraculous. It's not a helpful metric.

[Carrikature]

There is a link in the OP. The little double arrow after Adrift's name in the quote is a link.

True enough.

[Sparko]

That's false.

Huh? wow.

[Carrikature]

Immediately after the quoted portion of Gerbil's post, he says this:

So it looks like you're quote mining Gerbil.

Unless the omitted portion changes the meaning of the quote, it's not a mine. In this case, I don't think it does.

Also, and this may just be pedantry on my part, but Borg doesn't differentiate between miracles and supernatural deeds: he differentiates between nature miracles and supernatural deeds.

I don't think it's pedantry. I think Borg is failing at an attempt to differentiate between things with language that is inherently muddy. It's not helped by him using 'miracles' in one place while later stating he doesn't use the term 'miracle'.

[Zymologist]

Unless the omitted portion changes the meaning of the quote, it's not a mine. In this case, I don't think it does.




I don't think it's pedantry. I think Borg is failing at an attempt to differentiate between things with language that is inherently muddy. It's not helped by him using 'miracles' in one place while later stating he doesn't use the term 'miracle'.

I think it changes the meaning of the quote. You're saying that he's effectively describing a quote mine in his first sentence, when in his very next sentence he basically says that the surrounding context doesn't change the context. Which means he's not describing a quote mine in his first sentence.

[Sea of red]

People, a quote mine is when you go looking in the works of an authority figure for something you can quote to agree with you, leaving out the context of the actual quote, and ignoring any statements by that author that don't prove your point. It's the last part that Adrift is unquestionably guilty of. He knew Borg believed that miracle stories like walking on water and the like are mythology, and he stated that the rest of the community thought so too, yet he didn't provide that part, despite the fact that it was THE VERY NEXT LINE in the article

He knew had he quoted the part where Borg says "But whether or not Jesus performed spectacular deeds in the second category is up for discussion. A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. I am among them", Tass would have retorted rightfully so that scholars also agreed with him, and Adrift didn't want him to have the ammo.

That's quote mining pure and simple, sorry.

[Meh Gerbil]

People, a quote mine is when you go looking in the works of an authority figure for something you can quote to agree with you, leaving out the context of the actual quote, and ignoring any statements by that author that don't prove your point. It's the last part that Adrift is unquestionably guilty of. He knew Borg believed that miracle stories like walking on water and the like are mythology, and he stated that the rest of the community thought so too, yet he didn't provide that part, despite the fact that it was THE VERY NEXT LINE in the article

So in your opinion the context establishes that Borg doesn't believe that Christ did any miracles of any description?
Because if Borg, in context, supports the idea that Christ did some miracles there is no way it is quote mining.

[seer]

So in your opinion the context establishes that Borg doesn't believe that Christ did any miracles of any description?
Because if Borg, in context, supports the idea that Christ did some miracles there is no way it is quote mining.

But Borg said this:

As we think about this question, it is important not to draw the limits of the "spectacular" too narrowly, as scientific minds might. More events are possible, and more events happen, than the modern worldview allows. For example, I think Jesus really did perform paranormal healings and that they cannot be explained simply as faith healings. I am even willing to consider that spectacular phenomena like levitation happen.

[Meh Gerbil]

To me the test of quote mining in this case is very simple:

1: Adrift claimed the scholars held to miracles even including the part of the quote that divided the miracles into two types.

If Borg, in context, holds that miracles do happen then it isn't quote mining.
If Borg, in context, holds that miracles do not happen then it is quote mining.

So for those of you that hold that Adrift was quote mining: Do you maintain that Borg denies any and all miracles?