kbus888 wrote:However, after examination of <OAR>, I find the following quote
<Quote>
Schueler must have spent endless hours poring over the history texts to come up with such a detailed catalog of atrocities to be visited upon the “unbeliever” in “God’s most holy Name.”
<EndQuote>
I think that can be interpreted to mean that Schueler must assume SOME responsibility for the book assigned to him.
?? Comments welcome, of course ??
R
Think of it like Bible scholars think of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Some are Biblical literalists. If the book has the name "Isaiah" on it, then Isaiah
must have written it. Others are text analysts. They accept that someone named Isaiah must have had responsibility for some part of the book, but the text evidence suggests that others also contributed in Isaiah's name. Or take the pseudo-epigraphs of the New Testament, where entire books were written in the name of an apostle and were accepted (at least briefly) as canonical until further analyses exposed them as fraudulent.
The Church of God Awaiting is largely a fundamentalist/ literalist body of believers. The Book of Schueler has Schueler's name on it, and they accept on face value that Schueler wrote it. In OAR, Merlin may have
initially accepted that Schueler wrote the book. However, Merlin is a thoughtful analyst and may be considering now that the text evidence does not support Schueler's authorship.
Just my $0.05. Comments? Criticisms? Witticims?