Till. mind control & textual criticsm

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

TILL
In the front-page article of the July/August 1996 issue of *The Skeptical
Review,* I used Marco Polo as an example of how historical critics apply
standards of critical evaluation to works other than the Bible.  To hear
some biblicists complaining about "modern criticism," one would think that
they believe historical critics question only the Bible and no other
historical works.  My article was "inspired" by a news story about the work
of British historian Frances Wood, who had just recently published a book
entitled *Did Marco Polo Go to China?*  She concluded that there was enough
evidence to cast serious doubt on the claim.  Her work had focused on facts
and customs about the China of that time that Marco Polo did not mention at
all but that he undoubtedly would have mention if he had really gone to the
places in China that he claimed to have visited.

POOBAH
Oh no!! So in my attempt to show I was more than a Till-puppet, I simply
showed I was a Till-puppet, parroting an article that you had just written!
Oh, the irony...

Did Wood deal with the evidence I gave above which shows that Polo may not
have been in Persia either? I know that some have talked about the fact that
Polo claimed to have been made a governor by the Khan, but like many other
claims we deal with here, there are no records of that...

• Previous message: Till. mind control & textual criticsm
• Next message: Till. mind control & textual criticsm
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]