Did I Quote Mine Marcus Borg?

[guacamole]

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?

Period. End of story.

[rogue06]

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/chri...-of-jesus.aspx

I'm being accused of quote mining the article, because Borg goes on to state that while the majority accept "mighty deeds" committed by Jesus which include healings and exorcisms, they do not accept the second set of mighty deeds labeled "nature" miracles (which, as you can see above, he defines as non-healing type miracles and include walking on water, turning water into wine, and stilling storms).

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

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.

© Copyright Original Source

Borg goes on to explain that while he does not accept Jesus' "nature" miracles, he views Jesus' healings and exorcisms as actually paranormal in nature.

I actually pointed out Borg's distinction to Tassman in previous posts, so for instance, here I pointed out, "Borg, who doubts the historical veracity of nature miracles (non-healing miracles), does believe that Jesus historically cured people and did exorcisms."


I've decided to put this to an anonymous vote. I think regardless whether or not historians accept some rather than all miracles in the Bible, this demonstrates that they still accept more than NO miracles in the Bible. What do you think?

Quote mining is taking something out of context in order to make it seem that the source quoted is saying something that it is not. You did not do that.

[One Bad Pig]

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.

Does a miracle necessarily have to be divine?

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.

I expect that, since Borg carefully notes that this is a personal distinction, other scholars will not necessarily make that same distinction. Where do you get the idea that Borg is making a distinction between lay and scholarly in his definition? We are not talking about hypberbolic language regarding the Cubs winning the World Series. It's not a helpful example.

[Carrikature]

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.

This would be me disagreeing with him. It's not the same as making him appear to say something he didn't.

[Carrikature]

Does a miracle necessarily have to be divine?

That's how it's typically used, yes.

I expect that, since Borg carefully notes that this is a personal distinction, other scholars will not necessarily make that same distinction. Where do you get the idea that Borg is making a distinction between lay and scholarly in his definition? We are not talking about hypberbolic language regarding the Cubs winning the World Series. It's not a helpful example.

It doesn't matter if other scholars make the same distinction. That path leads to ad populum.

I didn't say that Borg made a distinction between lay and scholarly. I said that how "most people" (your term) classify something is not relevant to how a scholar classifies something. That's the point of the Cubs analogy. This distinction shows up all the time in science and philosophy. It would be no different here.

[Carrikature]

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?

I think it would be a lot clearer if Borg was consistent in his terminology. The way it reads to me, Borg denies miracles but allows paranormal stuff. Do with that what you will.

[guacamole]

That's how it's typically used, yes.




It doesn't matter if other scholars make the same distinction. That path leads to ad populum.

I didn't say that Borg made a distinction between lay and scholarly. I said that how "most people" (your term) classify something is not relevant to how a scholar classifies something. That's the point of the Cubs analogy. This distinction shows up all the time in science and philosophy. It would be no different here.

Ad popular isn't a relevant issue when talking standard word usage. Words mean what people use them for.

Fwiw,

Guacamole

[Meh Gerbil]

I think it would be a lot clearer if Borg was consistent in his terminology. The way it reads to me, Borg denies miracles but allows paranormal stuff. Do with that what you will.

Yes, he denies miracles in the sense of 'nature miracles' but affirms miracles in the sense of 'spectacular deeds' of a palatable type.
In the context of the discussion; however, Tassman would have been denying both types in their entirety.

I think it was fair to use the quote given Tassman's general denial in that Adrift responded in general terms.
To parse it to the extent it has been parsed in this thread seems like a witch hunt.

This is part of the reason why I don't discuss this stuff as much as I once did.
There is no honesty left on these forums.

[Sea of red]

Yes, he denies miracles in the sense of 'nature miracles' but affirms miracles in the sense of 'spectacular deeds' of a palatable type.
In the context of the discussion; however, Tassman would have been denying both types in their entirety.

I think it was fair to use the quote given Tassman's general denial in that Adrift responded in general terms.
To parse it to the extent it has been parsed in this thread seems like a witch hunt.

This is part of the reason why I don't discuss this stuff as much as I once did.
There is no honesty left on these forums.

The "spectacular deeds" do not fall under the basic definition of a miracle. An exorcism is not a miracle in any way - it's a delusion. I also suspect the paranormal faith healings Borg referenced to are more mystical, and not really medical - which would be a real miracle.

[Trout]

No. You did not quote mine.

[Sea of red]

Quote mining is taking something out of context in order to make it seem that the source quoted is saying something that it is not. You did not do that.

Quote mining can also be quoting parts of a passage selectively so as to only leave in quotations that agree with you, while intentionally omitting elements of the quote that do not. That's exactly what he did. He didn't want us to see the rest of the quote.

As a rule of thump, it's best to quote too much as opposed to little.

[One Bad Pig]

The "spectacular deeds" do not fall under the basic definition of a miracle.

LOL. Now you've come full circle, and deny that Borg believes in miracles again. Didn't you just say that no one claims that?

The least you could do is acknowledge your patent inconsistency within the same thread on the same day.

[Sea of red]

LOL. Now you've come full circle, and deny that Borg believes in miracles again. Didn't you just say that no one claims that?

The least you could do is acknowledge your patent inconsistency within the same thread on the same day.

Fair enough.

Now are you going to acknowledge that Adrift should have added more context? Seriously, at least give me that.

[Adrift]

Fair enough.

Now are you going to acknowledge that Adrift should have added more context? Seriously, at least give me that.

Why should I have added more context? It didn't take away from the point at all, and I had already provided that exact context in previous exchanges with him on the exact same article. Sea, you're complaining about absolutely nothing. Contrary to your speculation, it was not at all my intent to hide anything from Tassman. I hadn't hid it from him before, why would I intentionally hide something from him now? I didn't cite the rest the passage because it wasn't relevant to the point. The rest of the passage, including the snip that you lost your mind about doesn't at all effect the rebuttal I was making.

[Tassman]

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

Adrift quoted Borg and proved that Tassman was wrong.

He was not obligated to quote everything Borg ever said. Just the relevant part showing that Tassman was wrong. Borg did believe in Jesus doing miracles like driving out demons and healing.

I didn't mention Borg. AT ALL. I said most contemporary historians do not accept the miraculous elements of Jesus' life. It was Adrift who introduced Borg, not I. And regardless of Borg's views he does not represent "most contemporary historians".