Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Still Misquoting Athanasius as Steve Ray's Assistant Fails Again

This debacle began with my original article (link), continued with a first response from Ray/Albrecht (link), and now I am sad to see that rather than correct his quotation of a spurious work attributed to Athanasius, the man who Steve Ray has set forth to defend Mr. Ray's miscitation of a spurious source (Mr. William Albrecht) has continued his campaign of misinformation and insult (link to video). Mr. Albrecht spends the first two minutes of his video complaining about "poor scholarship" by Alpha and Omega Ministries and complaining about it "getting to the point that it is almost tiresome dealing with arguments that are so weak."

However tired or confused poor Mr. Albrecht must be, that is no excuse for his shoddy misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. Albrecht claims that "TurretinFan has made himself the King of Athanasius' quotes [sic], and he claims that this piece of work, that is attributed to Saint Athanasius, he claims [sic] is spurious not because any scholar or group of scholars claim it is, but because he is the Lord over Athansius' writings."

This kind of dishonesty is shameful: Mr. Albrecht should be ashamed of himself, and Mr. Ray should be ashamed of promoting this level of discourse. From the beginning I have appealed to scholars in the field rather than to any credentials of my own. I have named scholars and appealed to a broader scholarly consensus. However tired Mr. Albrecht may be, there is no excuse for his attempts to distort the facts.

And this isn't the only time I noticed Mr. Albrecht bending the truth:

  • When cornered on the issue of the fact that the manuscript wasn't discovered in the 20th century, he claims he never hinted anything to the contrary.
  • Rather than just admit that he didn't research the origin of the manuscript, he claims that there is no definitive knowledge on the subject.
  • Mr. Albrecht tries to suggest that we are arguing that there is an "infallible canon" of Athanasius' works that "all agree on."
  • Despite trying to argue that the manuscript is not in any standard corpus of Athanasius' writings, Mr. Albrecht tries to pull the "ask your opponent to prove a negative" ploy that we see so often in Sola Scriptura debates with advocates of Catholicism. He asks me to prove that the document went unnnoticed by the Coptic church through the centuries. This sort of absurd request just demonstrates Mr. Albrecht's unwillingness to defend his own position with real evidence.
  • Although Mr. Albrecht previously claimed Le Muséon says the work is authentic, Mr. Albrecht now tries to claim that I "admit" that Le Muséon doesn't take a position on the authenticity of the work.
But - since the scholars I already named aren't enough for Mr. Albrecht, I'll add one more, Mr. Angelo Gila. Mr. Gila is not only a doctor of theology, whose doctoral thesis was a study of the Marian writings of Severus of Gabala, but Mr. Gila is also a Servite friar - a friar in the order of the Servants of Mary - as well as a resident of the Turin area of Northern Italy. In a scholarly article published in the "Theotokos" (one of Mr. Albrecht's favorite words) journal, (Theotokos VIII (2000) 601-631), at page 613, Mr. Gila correctly identifies this work as Pseudo-Athanasius.

But, of course, Mr. Albrecht who apparently has no scholarly credentials and who has misrepresented the facts without spending the time to thoroughly research the issue, concludes differently. And he complains of "poor scholarship"?

Or perhaps Mr. Albrecht will try to make silly claims like the idea that Friar Dr. Gilo just tries to "erase" this work because it is inconvenient for him, or flood the friar's work with insults. As usual, Mr. Albrecht's bluster is no match for the facts.


1 comment:

natamllc said...

First off, after listening to and watching the latest Albrecht video, a couple of things come to mind.

First is, and I am no judge of one's age, but for Mr. Albrecht to make the claim that he had not been following the person for "ten to twenty" years seems at odds with his age? Lets guess Mr. Albrecht in this latest video and those I have watched over this last period of time, six months to a year, is about 35 years old? Well then he began, according to his count, studying the man since,before he was 15 years old, seeing he says of himself, it was 10 to 20 years ago that he "stopped" following him. That seems to me to be a tactic to "redirect" the heart issue in play. And as you shall see as I develop my thoughts, I believe you will understand why that tactic is employed in this stage of the disputed matter of being a true accounting or a spurious one?

Next, as for you, TF, being on a diatribe, a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism of Mr. Albrecht, that's as wild as me saying I just ate Moon cheese this morning expecting you to believe the cheese I ate is from the Moon and by chance, because of my NASA connections, I was priviledged to have some of that secret moon cheese that the Astronauts brought back from their moon walking days!

Do you get my point?

And I suppose that one could fairly fault you TF for being unscholarly of the "works" Mr. Ray/Albrecht have as their basis for the charge against you and your handling of this whole affair as poor scholarship. If one group is using rotten apples and another group is not, both groups are bound to come to the same conclusion about each other anyway.

That really is not the question though, if we indeed are those Touched by the Hand of Truth.

The real question is the "reality" of the Truth in question, true or spurious?

Both sides or groups indeed can be sound in the truth/Truth. However, if the truth being told and proclaimed is based in what is soundly "false" those carrying the water of this "truth", it seems to me, will be on a collision course undoubtedly with "Truth" as the case is here before us today.

Finally, I would only point to the unchanging nature of the god of this world and his mode of operation from the unchanging nature of God, Jesus Christ, in the Bible story found here to underscore what I see is the "Truth" about the "truth" going on in here utilized by Mr. Ray and Albrecht:

Neh 6:12 And I understood and saw that God had not sent him, but he had pronounced the prophecy against me because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him.
Neh 6:13 For this purpose he was hired, that I should be afraid and act in this way and sin, and so they could give me a bad name in order to taunt me.
Neh 6:14 Remember Tobiah and Sanballat, O my God, according to these things that they did, and also the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophets who wanted to make me afraid.
Neh 6:15 So the wall was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty-two days.
Neh 6:16 And when all our enemies heard of it, all the nations around us were afraid and fell greatly in their own esteem, for they perceived that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God.

Now let the reader begin at Nehemiah chapter 1, reading to chapter 13 to gain the deep sense of the collision occurring in this debate and the issue of a truthful rendering of the Patristic, St. Athanasius, and a spurious rendering, the one called into question.

Only a bully with a bully spirit would charge one to be on a diatribe against them, that clearly, any sane and reasonable person could see and understand, is not the case here. And when a bully is wounded, they typically fall prey to their superiors' spirit of intimidation to taunt and make you afraid. The bully uncovers his weakness while the one holding the True cards of Life remains stedfast, immovable and always abounding in the work set before them!

So, I say, onward!