Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] Alpha Christianity Planning Session at SBL (19 Nov)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Q and Thomas From: Bruce Chuck Jones, though he seems not to be concerned over my view of Thomas as largely
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Chuck Jones
      On: Q and Thomas
      From: Bruce

      Chuck Jones, though he seems not to be concerned over my view of Thomas as
      largely post-Synoptic, has taken exception to my characterization (as
      "fictive") of another candidate for an early Christian witness, namely Q.
      Permit me to take exception to the exception.

      Chuck: Q is not fictive. It is non-exstant.

      Bruce: "Non-extant" would correctly describe a source for which we have
      evidence, but which happens not to have survived. Thus, the existence of the
      Didache was known long before a copy turned up; when it did turn up, it was
      recognized as a known but previously non-extant text. It is now extant. But
      there is no evidence of any kind, not only no physical evidence, but also no
      reference in early writings, to anything which can be identified with Q. To
      call Q "non-extant" thus reifies Q beyond what the evidence (in this case,
      the complete absence of evidence) will properly warrant.

      Q is simply a scholarly inference, going back to 1838, from certain
      distributional facts about Matthew and Luke. Reconstructions of Q (of which
      there have been at least two dozen over the past century, no two identical)
      are conjectures based on those facts. They are constructs. I believe the
      normal meaning of "fictive" (from the verb for "make") will cover this
      situation. Q is an artifact: a modern scholarly construct based on a modern
      scholarly inference. The modern inference can be challenged, and the facts
      on which the modern inference is based can be otherwise explained, as
      witness Goulder among others. Those who do this, Goulder and the rest, are
      not denying a fact; they are challenging a construct, by supplying an
      alternate scenario.

      Chuck: The consistent bias of your language isn't worthy of scholarly
      dialogue..

      Bruce: The word "bias" implies, indeed indicts, a predisposition not based
      on evidence. The accusation fails in my case, and the word is not
      appropriate. My own view of Q is not based on any predisposition. It is
      based on careful study of the claimed evidence for Q (including doublets),
      and of other possible readings of that evidence. Whether or not I am in
      error in my own reading of that evidence, my conclusion comes from
      examination of the evidence. Chuck's accusation that I have reached my
      position by another route is wrong in fact, and discourteous in context.

      The accusation of "bias" is very common, as everyone on this list will be
      aware, for opinions to which someone is warmly opposed. To take another
      firsthand case, I have consistently taken the position, in material posted
      to this and similar lists, that Mark is prior to Luke, and that Luke is
      literarily indebted to Mark. This again is not a childhood fantasy or an
      unreasoning preference; it is a conclusion from the evidence, a conclusion
      in which I happen to coincide with many reputable people. (As far as that
      goes, there are some people who have their doubts about Q, though it might
      be impolitic to collectively stigmatize them as "biased," since the managers
      of this list include at least one of them). The upcoming SBL will have at
      least two panels on other views of the Mark/Luke relation, so it may be said
      that unanimity as to the conclusion to be drawn from the Mark/Luke evidence
      does not exist. This, however, does not reduce all views of Mark to "bias."
      My own view, to which I feel entitled by reason of prior investigation, used
      to be stigmatized as "biased" by my old friend Leonard Maluf, who for more
      than ten years regularly asserted that Markan Priority, by whomever held,
      was simply a result of bias. That accusation too is without foundation.
      Those who hold Markan Priority have their reasons for doing so, reasons
      which cannot properly be classed as "bias."

      As for my "consistency," which Chuck also wishes to make a fault, the
      evidence in both the Mark and Q cases is very much now what it was last
      Tuesday, and I ask to be excused for taking the same view of that evidence
      as I did last Tuesday.

      As Chuck will remember, with or without consulting the list archive, I have
      on several occasions not only confessed to a lack of faith in Q, but have
      given reasons in support of my alternate construal of the Mt/Lk situation;
      my proposal involves a three-stage formation process for Luke. Again, I may
      be wrong (though I don't recall that anyone else has offered a satisfactory
      account of the gross inconcinnity in the position of the Nazareth episode in
      Luke), but these proposals alone should have hinted to Chuck that my
      conclusion about Q rests on study, and not on something else.

      My position on Q, and in particular on my alternative way of accounting for
      the facts that have led some to posit (sic) a Q, has evolved since about
      2006, most stages of that evolution being in some form visible not only to
      this list, but to anyone who consistently attends local and national
      meetings of SBL. The reliance on evidence at all points in this sequence, I
      should think, is manifest, and that alone should prevent a charge of "bias"
      from arising.

      In view of all this, which I should not have needed to rehearse, I will
      appreciate Chuck's restatement of the position.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Chuck Jones
      Bruce, I believe despite the word count of your post, you did not address J and P. I invite you to do that. Chuck Jones Atlanta, Georgia Sent from my iPhone
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce,

        I believe despite the word count of your post, you did not address J and P.

        I invite you to do that.

        Chuck Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia

        Sent from my iPhone

        On Nov 12, 2012, at 11:36 AM, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

        > To: Synoptic
        > In Response To: Chuck Jones
        > On: Q and Thomas
        > From: Bruce
        >
        > Chuck Jones, though he seems not to be concerned over my view of Thomas as
        > largely post-Synoptic, has taken exception to my characterization (as
        > "fictive") of another candidate for an early Christian witness, namely Q.
        > Permit me to take exception to the exception.
        >
        > Chuck: Q is not fictive. It is non-exstant.
        >
        > Bruce: "Non-extant" would correctly describe a source for which we have
        > evidence, but which happens not to have survived. Thus, the existence of the
        > Didache was known long before a copy turned up; when it did turn up, it was
        > recognized as a known but previously non-extant text. It is now extant. But
        > there is no evidence of any kind, not only no physical evidence, but also no
        > reference in early writings, to anything which can be identified with Q. To
        > call Q "non-extant" thus reifies Q beyond what the evidence (in this case,
        > the complete absence of evidence) will properly warrant.
        >
        > Q is simply a scholarly inference, going back to 1838, from certain
        > distributional facts about Matthew and Luke. Reconstructions of Q (of which
        > there have been at least two dozen over the past century, no two identical)
        > are conjectures based on those facts. They are constructs. I believe the
        > normal meaning of "fictive" (from the verb for "make") will cover this
        > situation. Q is an artifact: a modern scholarly construct based on a modern
        > scholarly inference. The modern inference can be challenged, and the facts
        > on which the modern inference is based can be otherwise explained, as
        > witness Goulder among others. Those who do this, Goulder and the rest, are
        > not denying a fact; they are challenging a construct, by supplying an
        > alternate scenario.
        >
        > Chuck: The consistent bias of your language isn't worthy of scholarly
        > dialogue..
        >
        > Bruce: The word "bias" implies, indeed indicts, a predisposition not based
        > on evidence. The accusation fails in my case, and the word is not
        > appropriate. My own view of Q is not based on any predisposition. It is
        > based on careful study of the claimed evidence for Q (including doublets),
        > and of other possible readings of that evidence. Whether or not I am in
        > error in my own reading of that evidence, my conclusion comes from
        > examination of the evidence. Chuck's accusation that I have reached my
        > position by another route is wrong in fact, and discourteous in context.
        >
        > The accusation of "bias" is very common, as everyone on this list will be
        > aware, for opinions to which someone is warmly opposed. To take another
        > firsthand case, I have consistently taken the position, in material posted
        > to this and similar lists, that Mark is prior to Luke, and that Luke is
        > literarily indebted to Mark. This again is not a childhood fantasy or an
        > unreasoning preference; it is a conclusion from the evidence, a conclusion
        > in which I happen to coincide with many reputable people. (As far as that
        > goes, there are some people who have their doubts about Q, though it might
        > be impolitic to collectively stigmatize them as "biased," since the managers
        > of this list include at least one of them). The upcoming SBL will have at
        > least two panels on other views of the Mark/Luke relation, so it may be said
        > that unanimity as to the conclusion to be drawn from the Mark/Luke evidence
        > does not exist. This, however, does not reduce all views of Mark to "bias."
        > My own view, to which I feel entitled by reason of prior investigation, used
        > to be stigmatized as "biased" by my old friend Leonard Maluf, who for more
        > than ten years regularly asserted that Markan Priority, by whomever held,
        > was simply a result of bias. That accusation too is without foundation.
        > Those who hold Markan Priority have their reasons for doing so, reasons
        > which cannot properly be classed as "bias."
        >
        > As for my "consistency," which Chuck also wishes to make a fault, the
        > evidence in both the Mark and Q cases is very much now what it was last
        > Tuesday, and I ask to be excused for taking the same view of that evidence
        > as I did last Tuesday.
        >
        > As Chuck will remember, with or without consulting the list archive, I have
        > on several occasions not only confessed to a lack of faith in Q, but have
        > given reasons in support of my alternate construal of the Mt/Lk situation;
        > my proposal involves a three-stage formation process for Luke. Again, I may
        > be wrong (though I don't recall that anyone else has offered a satisfactory
        > account of the gross inconcinnity in the position of the Nazareth episode in
        > Luke), but these proposals alone should have hinted to Chuck that my
        > conclusion about Q rests on study, and not on something else.
        >
        > My position on Q, and in particular on my alternative way of accounting for
        > the facts that have led some to posit (sic) a Q, has evolved since about
        > 2006, most stages of that evolution being in some form visible not only to
        > this list, but to anyone who consistently attends local and national
        > meetings of SBL. The reliance on evidence at all points in this sequence, I
        > should think, is manifest, and that alone should prevent a charge of "bias"
        > from arising.
        >
        > In view of all this, which I should not have needed to rehearse, I will
        > appreciate Chuck's restatement of the position.
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        > E Bruce Brooks
        > Warring States Project
        > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Q Etc From: Bruce Another response to my recent summary of the position with regard to potential witnesses to a
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 12, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Ron Price
          On: Q Etc
          From: Bruce

          Another response to my recent summary of the position with regard to
          potential witnesses to a pre-Resurrection Christian belief and practice.

          Ron: Since Q (as normally reconstructed) never existed,

          Bruce: Careful, Ron, or Chuck Jones will be after you.

          Ron: and GTh was dependent on the synoptic gospels,

          Bruce: At least in part, as I believe has been satisfactorily demonstrated.
          I reserve the possibility that a different directionality may obtain for a
          limited part of the Thomas material, which would keep the present question
          at least partly open.

          Ron: . . . we do indeed need to look at a third option if we are to explain
          the New Testament hints at an early non-resurrection Jesus movement.

          Bruce: Or more.

          Ron: However I fear you are going in the wrong direction for at least two
          reasons. Firstly Michael Goulder was already closer to the truth when he
          wrote: "... Petrine Christianity could never have been more than a
          short-lived sect of Judaism" ("A Tale of Two Missions", p.185). I differ
          from him here only in his terminology. It was a sect led by James, and it
          was far removed from Christianity as we know it.

          Bruce: I regret not being able to follow Michael in this book. For one
          thing, I think his view is too dualistic; Paul, to hear Paul himself tell
          it, had more than one opposing faction at Corinth and elsewhere (eg,
          Apollos, and not the curious treatment of Apollos in Acts). As for "James,"
          which James? The Gnostic James whom we meet in three of the Nag Hammadi
          tracts? The James of Zebedee, evidently a lax person, who in the Jerusalem
          meeting accepted Paul's nonobservance of Jewish food piety rules? Or the
          James of Alphaeus who, in my view, is the most likely author of the
          canonical Epistle of James? More work seems to be needed here.

          As for Peter, he is surely the most obscure of all the major players, and
          that itself is passing strange. The two canonical Epistles co-opt him into
          at least two things: (1) belief in Beta Christianity, which merely on the
          evidence of Paul (not to mention the PseudoClementines, though there is that
          as well) he is unlikely to have held, and (2) close association with Rome.
          The Roman myth, to take only that, has many forms, including the myth that
          Paul escaped his first captivity there, and continued to preach, whether in
          Spain or in Greece (the myths here telling more than one story). This is the
          false tradition. Does a true one underlie it at any point? Not yet
          investigated with sufficient rigor and persistence. We do not know.

          Ron: Secondly in your zeal to find evidence of what I would prefer to call
          "the early Jesus movement", you go too far. From the very beginning, control
          of the copying of documents which came to be part of the New Testament was
          in the hands of (Pauline) Christians and their successors.

          Bruce: Proof? My impression is that a circular letter like that of James (or
          the later 1 Peter) was from the beginning circulated to Christians at large,
          in more than one copy. 1 Peter is plausible as a Pauline composition, but
          surely not James, which openly ridicules the position of Paul in Romans, on
          faith vs works as salvific. The letters of Paul himself (but perhaps
          significantly, only the ones from the last few years of his life) were
          probably edited by some member of his group, for immediate wider
          circulation; Romans (as witness the variant endings, of which some account
          surely needs to be taken in these discussions) may have been meant by Paul
          himself to be, not merely a one-church letter, but one copied ab initio to
          multiple addresses; we happen to have that letter as adapted to be sent to
          Ephesus. In other words, it seems that the texts were gathered at more than
          one location, approved (with or without doctrinal reprocessing), and sent
          out as generally authoritative documents.

          What I see in the generation or two after Paul is not the formation of our
          NT canon, but many attempts to replace the voice of the Apostles with the
          witness of fixed documents: newly created or newly assembled authority
          texts. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are, in my view, only one aspect of
          this rush to textualization.

          Not all these people were Pauline, and not all the Paulines need to have
          been operating at the same time and place. Consider for example the
          Johannine Epistles. I think Ron is simplifying the situation.

          Ron: James, Peter and their followers had no influence whatever on the
          transmission of the NT texts.

          Bruce: The Apostles are by definition Apostolic, and I at least see the
          process of textualization as greatly stimulated by the end of the Apostolic
          period. Did Peter have a following, a tradition of his own? One way to ask
          that question is to examine the whole of the supposed Petrine corpus
          (conveniently collected by Lapham) for ideas common to that corpus, or most
          of it, but unknown or less common outside. Lapham has suggested a few
          motifs; I have found one or two more. What to make of them is a subject that
          seems to have conspicuously lacked followup. I mention it here merely to
          invite followup.

          This is one way to examine the proposition that Peter (for one) had no
          influence on the transmission of the NT texts. I agree that he probably
          wrote none of them, and edited still fewer. But did he have input into any
          of them? A claim often encountered is that the Jesus material in Mark comes
          from Peter; that claim may indeed have been one reason for retaining the
          otherwise obsolete Mark (obsoleted by the rapid post-Apostolic appearance of
          Mt and Lk) in the eventual Canon. Has the claim been examined? My own brief
          investigation suggests that the idea that Mark listened to Peter in Rome is
          merely part of the Roman myth abovementioned, and should be rejected. Not
          seriously examined as far as I know, but possibly having something to it, is
          the alternate possibility that Mark listened to Peter not in Rome but in his
          mother's house in Jerusalem, where (if Luke is not telling a complete lie)
          Peter once went to take refuge in a moment of danger. Then Peter knew the
          address, and on at least one reported occasion went to it. Is there material
          in Mark which can reasonably be construed as owing to the verbal report of
          Peter, made in person to Mark in Jerusalem? Yes, there is, and I have done a
          paper on it. More may exist. But until Mark is combed for such
          possibilities, we have no idea whether Peter was in fact a major source for
          Mark. Such is the undone work attending this subject. (Or if in fact it has
          been done, I would more than usually appreciate a reference to the place
          where the results may be found).

          Pending this and other seemingly scanted researches, I feel that any final
          conclusion about the role of Peter, not in disseminating the NT canon (which
          in any case was still in a fluid condition in the 4c), but in leaving an
          imprint on it, may be somewhat premature.

          Ron: Even interpolations aimed at rehabilitating Peter would not have been
          approved by the historical Peter, for they were only rehabilitating an image
          of Peter which suited (Pauline) Christians.

          Bruce: I think Ron is equating what I call Alpha Christianity with "Petrine
          Christianity," and I do not accept that equation.

          But to take the proposal as it stands: That the Historical Peter was still
          alive when these interpolations were being made in the postApostolic period
          is intrinsically unlikely. It is at least equally unlikely that, had Peter
          been around, the doings of the Pauline editorial team would have been
          submitted to him for approval. In any case, what would be an example of an
          interpolation aimed at rehabilitating Peter? Offhand, I can think of none.
          What I do find are a whole slew of interpolations in the Pauline corpus,
          probably inserted at the time the corpus was first gathered, most likely
          already in the late 60's, which are designed to take the heat out of Paul's
          extreme opposition to what I call the Alpha Christians in the churches of
          his time, and to moderate not only the tone, but the substance, of the
          debate which we can see in Paul's own writings, which are nothing if not
          consistently vehement (Anathema, indeed), and to substitute something more
          irenic and lovable - something the future church could more easily live
          with, a basis for amicable coexistence. One of the most obvious of those
          interpolations (here as often, I rely on the very careful work of William O
          Walker Jr) is the "love" chapter of 1 Cor. With a little more work along
          these lines, preferably by Walker himself, we may have a clearer picture of
          just what was going on in the minds of Paul's first editors. That will be an
          enormous advantage in taking up question of canon (or subcanon) formation.
          At present, I cannot think that we stand on firm ground in this regard.

          I don't want to weary anyone, but the topic of interpolation in the sacred
          texts is never popular, and in our decade, perhaps less popular than in some
          others. Persons with a Pauline interpolation to argue for, and looking for a
          place to publish it, are respectfully reminded that the Project's journal,

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/index.html

          though perhaps for the moment slightly less prestigious than Novum
          Testamentum, does exist, and is taking contributions on this and kindred
          subjects. Prospective authors are welcome to contact me personally. In just
          a few more days, I will be cruising the far-flung halls of SBL, in vigorous
          search of promising papers. But I can't cover all the sessions, and
          prospective authors who wish to shortcut that necessarily imperfect
          discovery process may feel very free to do so.

          For starters, in case someone lacks a topic: Walker Interpolations p17 gives
          a list (by no means complete, but it will do to start) of passages in Romans
          which have been suspected, at one time or another, of being interpolated.
          Walker himself has published on exactly four of these: 1:18-2:29, 13:1-7
          (Haustafel; see the postPaulines for more examples), 16:25-27(the Doxology),
          and, following the publication of his book, 8:29-30.

          What about the rest? Here, surely, is a fine way to pass the time some
          weekend, when other diversions pall.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • David Inglis
          Recent references to Michael Goulder have led me to crystallize some thoughts regarding scholars that have gone before us. In particular, how much weight
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 12, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Recent references to Michael Goulder have led me to crystallize some thoughts regarding scholars that have gone before
            us. In particular, how much weight should we give to the opinions of the 'greats?' How, I have no hesitation in
            accepting 'hard' evidence from anyone, e.g. details of particular variant readings in mss, quotes from the early church
            fathers, or the like, but I start to get more wary regarding interpretations of what that evidence means, or comments
            regarding what such and such scribe might have chosen to do, or what any of the authors (e.g. of the gospels) might have
            been trying to achieve. Going back in time a bit, how much weight can we give to people who never knew the papyri that
            are so important today (P46 and P75 immediately spring to mind)? Then, perhaps more relevant to today, how much has the
            advent of computer-based analytical techniques allowed us to uncover information that was simply unknowable only a short
            time ago? A contentious issue, I feel sure, but nevertheless I'd like to know what people think. I particularly like
            this quote from Isaac Newton: "I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena,
            and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses,
            whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."



            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic In Response To: David Inglis On: Greatness From: Bruce David raised several interesting questions of method. Herewith my first thoughts, if only
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 12, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              In Response To: David Inglis
              On: Greatness
              From: Bruce

              David raised several interesting questions of method. Herewith my first
              thoughts, if only to encourage the thoughts of others.

              David: Recent references to Michael Goulder have led me to crystallize some
              thoughts regarding scholars that have gone before us. In particular, how
              much weight should we give to the opinions of the 'greats?'

              Bruce: Words like "great" should never be used of persons, in general
              because it is overreaching (we all die sooner or later), and
              methodologically because the word begs the argument. It is the argument, not
              the person, that can carry conviction in a later age. Or in any age. The
              Chinese have the habit of referring to Da Lishrjya Szma Chyen ("The Great
              Historian Szma Chyen"). That adjective is virtually required in Chinese
              academic discourse; it is something of a fixed Homeric epithet. The problem
              is that it is in effect an argument from authority, not from evidence. Plus,
              as it happens, that same venerated Szma Chyen turns out to have merely
              messed up his father Szma Tan's history, dubious though that history already
              was (the two together are more or less the Herodotus of China). For a
              partial exposé, see our journal, Warring States Papers v1, p164-167:

              http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html

              Oops, that piece is not available for free download. Gotta buy the issue.
              See the order page.

              David: . . . Going back in time a bit, how much weight can we give to people
              who never knew the papyri that are so important today (P46 and P75
              immediately spring to mind)?

              Bruce: I suppose it depends how relevant those papyri (or any other modern
              discoveries) are to the matter in hand. Maxwell's Equations probably survive
              P75 pretty well. But in general, all conclusions, even our own conclusions
              of yesterday, are forever subject to revision in the light of new evidence,
              or of continued examination of the old evidence. Moments ago, I resent to
              our small Mencius study group a revised version of a paper on the chronology
              of Mencius 2, written a few months back, but now with several changed dates,
              based on closer inspection (by my colleague Taeko, not by me, but she and I
              exchange working notes every couple of months) of the millennia-old
              evidence. The old can be new when viewed afresh. It is surely part of the
              job of scholarship to continually view the evidence afresh. Our former
              selves, our selves of yesterday, are not "great" either. In any operative
              sense.

              David (quoting Newton): " . . . for whatever is not deduced from the
              phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical
              or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in
              experimental philosophy."

              Bruce: Newton is great if anybody is; he looms permanently large in the
              history of science. (The usual trinity, for those who move in these areas,
              is Archimedes, Newton, Gauss). But I think that a lesser being can still
              quarrel with Newton's rejection of what he calls "hypotheses." (His dictum,
              in Latin, was hypotheses non fingo; slightly contemptuous). Statistically
              speaking, most of our decisions, including decisions about textual matters,
              are made on the basis of incomplete evidence, or incomplete reflection. That
              does not mean that no such decision is better than any other such decision;
              it means that no decision is final. For that matter, last I heard, Newton's
              system of gravitation has since been modified, to the advantage of its
              practical and theoretical accuracy. Was it then only a hypothesis after all?
              if so, it was a very valiant and long-sufficing one, and argues well for the
              use of hypotheses, if framed in the light of evidence, and tested against
              the light of other evidence.

              The evidence is all we have, and our decisions of the moment are the best we
              can make - today, this hour - of the evidence. If others can improve on our
              insight, or our sense of what evidence is relevant, or for that matter on
              our statistical toolkit, our tools of interpretation, so much the better.
              No? Not better for us, maybe, but better for the subject, and the subject is
              what counts.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst

              PS: For those interested in the concept of greatness, I might venture to
              recommend C P Snow's collection of profiles, called Variety of Men. Those
              considered (with technical as well as literary insight; Snow inhabited both
              of his Two Cultures) are mostly scientists, but also political and literary
              personages. Snow seems somewhat to agree with my thought, above, that
              greatness is not exactly a question of who was right, not even morally
              right, but who looms large on the subsequent human scene. Orwell on Gandhi
              is pretty good too, if one wants a followup.

              Poor pitiful human creatures anyway. But some of them have their moments.

              Chinggis Kaqan (Genghis Khan to many). There is a tune called The Marching
              Song of Chinggis Kaqan. I used to play it on the flute, at parties in my
              graduate days. There were those (not all of them Central Asians, either) who
              responded to it.

              Answers, schmansers. To me, the durably great are those with the rare gift
              for asking the right questions. Or even asking that the right questions be
              asked. Clemenceau: De quoi s'agit-il?
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.