The CCBE Rides Again
Achilles Sophia achillesz@usa.net
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:37:28 -0400 (00906367048, 03372800913684@cfagroup.com)
<snip>
>TILL
>As for the digging matter, let's suppose that Matt Bell and I both possessed
>incredible miraculous powers and that the two of us should have a duel to
>determine whose power was the greatest. In my first demonstration of power,
>I change all of the trees in the United States into stone. After I have
>done this, would it be possible for Bell to do in like manner with his
>miraculous powers? Certainly not, because if I had really changed all of
>the trees in the U. S. into stone, there would be no trees left for him to
>do in like manner with his powers. So what if he trekked across the border
>into Canada, dug up a few seedlings, brought them back into the United
>States and changed them into stone? Would this constitute doing in like
>manner to what I had done? To argue that it would, one would have to have a
>strange sense of what constitutes doing in like manner in such a duel of
powers.
ACHILLES
Indeed. From a critical standpoint I should add that, following the apparent
genre of the story ("dueling wizards" we could call it, a common genre
worldwide) the correct counters are not to do likewise but rather to
demonstrate the counterspell. If the writer of this story had written that
the egyptians turned the blood back to water this would have made much more
sense, and the inconsistencies we look at now would be consistent with the
rest of the story. In Till's example, if Till had turned all the trees to
stone, Bell's correct response would not be to turn more trees to stone but
rather to turn all the stone trees back to living wood.
If Till had turned a single tree to stone Bell might "punt" and simply turn
another tree to stone, but this is a weaker response and he is not likely to
settle for it if he is capable of the other. However, if Till has turned
*every* tree to stone then Bell has no alternative, he cannot punt, he
*must* dispell or throw in the towel. Just as the egyptian wizards could not
change all the water in the country to blood if Y--- had already done just
that. They would have had to change it back or give up.
The hypothesis follows that in the earliest version of the story the
egyptians did turn all the blood back to water. But at some point along the
way (perhaps even before the first written version appeared) a yahwist
decided that it simply would not do to have the pagan wizards actually
undoing a miracle from Y--- and changed it, clumsily, to avoid this. Thus we
arrive at the text we see now, with it's inherent contradictions.
I will freely admit that this scenario is speculatory. So is the scenario
the CCBE asserts. The evidence for my hypothesis is at least as good as theirs.
>CCBE
>> Our point? To demonstrate that F.Till knowing the contents of the
>> passage asks for an explanation of how the 'feat/stunt' was possible.
>
>TILL
>What I knew was that verses 23-25 referred to what the Egyptians did and not
>to what the magicians did, who, if the text is to be trusted as an accurate
>account, had ALREADY done in like manner with their enchantments. I also
>knew that these verses said that the Egyptians dug along the river for water
>TO DRINK. The text says nothing about digging for water to change into blood.
<snip>
>CCBE
>>We also note that what F.Till requested was how *could*
>> the event be duplicated, not how they were duplicated. Our initial response
>> we believe fitted the criteria of the request of how they *could* have done
>> so.
>
>TILL
>No it didn't fit the criteria, because Moses and Aaron, so the text claimed,
>changed all of the water throughout all the land of Egypt into blood, so
>digging for ground water, even if it happened, couldn't possibly have
>provided the magicians
>with a quantity of water that could by any stretch of the imagination have
>constituted a duplication of Moses' and Aaron's feat.
ACHILLES
It's even worse than that - the text says the egyptians dug for water to
drink, but does not explicitly say that this was successful. It does seem to
me to be implied. Either way this bodes ill for the CCBE.
If they were successful, that would seem to contradict the statement that
*all* the water in egypt was changed, leaving the CCBE in the position of
"solving" one problem but creating another in the process.
And of course if *all* the water really was turned to blood then the digging
would have produced only blood, not potable water, and the CCBE position
that the egyptian wizards dug up water to change to blood gets yet another
black eye.
Of course a black eye is little consequence to a dead horse, so if they were
smart they would cut their losses by retracting that entire argument and try
again.
>CCBE
>> Whether considered eisegesis or exegesis they are not explicitly
>> written in the scriptural text...but should be considered a logical
>> extrapolation on a point not discussed in the text.
ACHILLES
If the point is not discussed in the text then just what is it's origin?