BD -
"Be specific or be silent"? I specifically stated your were out of your depth. How much more specific could I possibly be?

Given that your stated purpose on this forum is to save, I am at a loss to know what grounds you could possibly have for regarding as intrusive, unwarranted, unwelcome or otherwise objectionable, someone attempting to save you?

I take on board completely however, the fact that you find my post patronising and condescending and are offended. Sorry. I honestly thought you were immune as your own condescending attitude, though consistently cited by posters as offensive, is something which you have never acknowledged, apologised for nor made any attempt to modify.

As to the risk that I may end up looking more of a dill (green and pickled?) than you? Not to worry, old son, I'll chance it.

And btw - regarding Olivers objectively fair and sensible suggestion about utilising one of the texts he suggests rather than Matthew? Go on, dare ya.

Besides being a hermeneutic scholar, Boazy has at times claimed expertise in anthropology. As Oliver and Romany suggest, why not choose a religious text that is neither Christian nor Muslim to interpret?

This is part of a very famous Native American myth:

<< The Story of Asdiwal (Part One)

Famine reigns is the Skeena valley; the river is frozen and it is winter. A mother and her daughter, both of whose husbands have died of hunger, both remember independently the happy times when they lived together and there was no dearth of food. Released by the death of their husbands, they simultaneously decide to meet and set off at the same moment. Since the mother lives down-river and the daughter up-river, the former goes eastwards and the latter westwards. They both travel on the frozen bed of the Skeena and meet half-way.

Weeping with hunger and sorrow, the two women pitch camp on the bank at the foot of a tree, not far from which they find, poor pittance that it is, a rotten berry, which they sadly share.

During the night, a stranger visits the young widow. It is soon learned that his name is Hatsenas, a term which means, in Tsimshian, a bird of good omen. Thanks to him, the women start to find food regularly, and the younger of the two becomes the wife of their mysterious protector and soon gives birth to a son, Asdiwal. His father speeds up his growth by supernatural means and gives him various magic objects: a bow and arrows which never miss for hunting, a quiver, a lance, a basket, snow-shoes, a bark raincoat, and a hat, all of which will enable the hero to overcome all obstacles, make himself invisible, and procure an inexhaustible supply of food. Hatsenas then disappears and the elder of the two women dies. >>

The myth continues, but perhaps Professor Boazy would like to interpret the first three paragraphs?

Well, you know Boaz, I think I must be a duffer.

>>Bingo! Mark 1:1 “the beginning of THE GOSPEL” -'that' is what it claims to 'be' you duffer..<<

I read your post from first word to last. I got to the end, and I realized that I hadn't understood a word of it.

It was a weird feeling.

Taken on their own, I recognized each individual word, but in the sequence that you put them together... nothing.

>>You seem to be confusing “Christians claim Mark is the Word of God” with the above internal claim for it to be 'The Gospel'.<<

But... but... how can this be? I don't even know what you mean.

Or at least, I know what you mean, but it just doesn't make any sense. How could anybody confuse a concrete statement "x does y", with an abstract concept that "x claims itself to be y".

I certainly had no idea that was what I was doing.

Then there's this bit:

>>a)It 'is' the topic...
b)My words quoted by you underline that very fact.<<

But... but... I thought the whole point was that you changed the topic.

Very specifically.

From objective assessment of text (the internal bit), to external understanding of said text by adherents. Which by any definition has to be subjective, no?

But oh, what's this?

>>But interestingly “to_its_adherents” varies according to social context. Western Muslims minimize problem verses, in Arab countries, Muslims just use them as they are.<<

Boaz, this is what the word subjective means. And it is how you yourself approach every single text, whether from the Bible or from the Qur'an.

You are an adherent of one specific interpretation of one specific religion.

There is no point in pretending that you have any objective insights into either your own, or anyone else's.

By the way, it might help the 'clarity' of your 'posts' if you didn't put 'quotes' around so many 'words'.

Apart from anything else, it makes you look indecisive.

CJ..you_first.

I read the myth.. it's a little difficult to give an interpretation without more, but, I'll give it a go.
It seems, that in the big picture sense, the myth is providing a kind of link between the hardship of the real world, and the spirit world. 'Bird of good omen' is a typical animistic idea that 'The_spirits_are on_our_side this time'. Bornean people will either continue with, or totally abandon a ripe rice crop based on the perceived 'omen' which they experience on the way to harvest. Kelabits would bury children alive based on the same idea, 'bad omen'..... child=bad.. etc.
So.. I would conclude on the basis of the limited story, that the idea is "be rightly related to the spirit world and all will go well with you"

Now..don't misunderstand me, I'm surely not claiming that as 'the' intepretation, just one. By all means (on the basis of that text alone) correct me.

Pericles. you claimed I changed the subject.

<<So we have moved - not very subtly - from examining the documents objectively, to discussing their meaning "to adherents".>>

Err... no, the interpretation of a text is, yes, a subjective process, but the point about 'to adherents' is that due to various identifiable factors, sometimes the most obvious meaning is either emphasized or de-emphasized. That does not change the obvious meaning.

The point I'm rather laboring here is that

a) Texts have an objective meaning (apart from the obvious problem of each word being subjectively processed by the observer)
b) The interpretation should, be based on agreed principles within a language group.
c) The problem comes when the obvious and agreed are bypassed in the interests of community protection or resisting criticism.

The classic example among our Muslim community is 'beat them'(wives) does not mean 'beat' them. Yet.. in the Arab world it means exactly that because such an understanding is based on the plain commonly agreed meaning of language itself.
(cont)

PERICLES.. lets_go_with_this:

<<Boaz, this is what the word subjective means. And it is how you yourself approach every single text, whether from the Bible or from the Qur'an.
You are an adherent of one specific interpretation of one specific religion. >>

yep.. quite true. But what you should have noticed (like Romany also should have) thus far in this 100+ posts, in none of mine have I said "This IS 'the' meaning of" (sorry...quotes needed there:)

I've tried to bring folks to a chunk of text and asked THEM to determine initially what this is saying in the objective sense, such as "The beginning" .. now.. we could ask here "why THE beginning, rather than "a" beginning? Does it mean 'the only' beginning, the definitive beginning..or just a convenient one for Marks documentary purpose. That is interpretation.

But I've not gone there, and would not until fellow posters at least demonstrate a grasp of the basic text.

THEN... we can discusssssss it... and look for strengths and weaknesses in the various opinions.. and we can then possibly see some of the biases which we bring to the written word.

Dear ROMANY, that was a nicer post. Yes, I'm fully aware of how I come across :) (remember Vanilla's "you can ignore him for a while, but then he's like an itch you need to scratch till it bleeds" :)

BIAS and PREJUDGMENT. It seems some regard me (this is a compilation) as a "Narcissistic, bigoted,biased, arrogant religious w_nker"
So..when you (and TRTL) assessed the topic title "The interpretation of" you saw it as "THE"(meaning BD's) interp.... rather than the more general subject of "Interpreting" which is the intended meaning of the title. Ya coulda read it either way cobber.0_^

CJ.. back to your myth. I think I went too far. Let me reappraise the partial myth. Meaning="When life sucks-The spirits will save us"

<<a bird of good omen. Thanks to him, the women start to find food regularly,>>

Once 'saved' the spirit withdraws and leaves them to continue life.

OLIVER..by all means. Go4it mate.(short please)

Humpty Dumpty had the goods on your position here, Boaz.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"

I'm with Alice:

"'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'"

http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

But hey, you are still not being honest with us, possibly even yourself, on the game that you are playing. Are you?

>>now.. we could ask here "why THE beginning, rather than "a" beginning? Does it mean 'the only' beginning, the definitive beginning..or just a convenient one for Marks documentary purpose. That is interpretation.<<

My first question would be, how can we possibly tell without referring to the original? There have been any number of scholars who have already come to their own conclusion on this.

But when we look, we find that there would appear to be no consensus...

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C001.htm

Which renders your question dead in the water. Or at least, any answer would simply be another voice in a long line of would-be textualizers, all with their own agenda and axe to grind.

So where does that leave your question? Pretty much nowhere, really.

But that isn't surprising, given that all this fol-de-rol has absolutely nothing to do with textual analysis, does it?

It is just another in a long line of stalking-horses for your pet theme, that you, Boaz, are intellectually capable of determining exactly how evil and dangerous Islam is, based upon their own scriptures. And consequently, how we should all share your fear and loathing.

If you have proven anything, it is not this:

>>Texts have an objective meaning (apart from the obvious problem of each word being subjectively processed by the observer)<<

In fact, you could say with confidence that you have conclusively proven the opposite. That any text can be ascribed any number of meanings, each uniquely determined by the reader.

All of which places you closer to Derrida and Foucault than to Aristotle or Kant.

But be of good cheer. That's at least an improvement over Mosley.