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

Re: Birth narratives (Ian)

Expand Messages
  • Ian Hutchesson
    ... Mike, I think I ve made my point: 1) there is no direct way to derive a gentilic nazarEnos from the place name Nazareth (and there are no precedents to
    Message 1 of 42 , Dec 1, 1998
      Mike, complaining about my:
      >> We have only an etymological derivation for Nazareth.

      Said:
      >>I responded this morning (too tartly):
      >>According to your theory. May we expect you to continue to use this theory
      >>in argument as if it were plain fact? In spite of a failure to answer some
      >>of the cogent objections to it?
      >
      >As sometimes happens, I went a sentence too far. Since the final sentence
      >above expresses but a vague feeling I'm unprepared to document, I hereby
      >withdraw it and apologize for letting my "dark side" temporarily take
      >control. (No one seems entirely free of such moments of pique, though few
      >admit to it.)
      >
      >It does seem to me to be out of place to use one's own theories as if they
      >were undisputed facts in the course of argumentation - unless it's clear
      >that the other party agrees to those theories. It was the lack of
      >appropriate qualifying phrases, perhaps inadvertantly omitted, that raised
      >a "red flag" for me.

      Mike, I think I've made my point:

      1) there is no direct way to derive a gentilic nazarEnos from the
      place name Nazareth (and there are no precedents to support any
      claims in that direction);
      2) there is no knowledge that Mk1:9 contained Nazareth in the (first)
      redaction of GMatt (as seen by the omitting of the examples of
      nazarEnos from the Marcan text);
      3) GMark seems to think Jesus was at home in Capernaum.

      I have received no serious challenges on either text-critical or linguistic
      grounds.

      I think I have supplied more logical grounds for my position than have those
      who support the Essene hypothesis for the DSS, yet the Essene hypothesis has
      almost total ascendency over non-fringe analyses of the scrolls.


      Ian
    • Chris Cutler
      Sorry to have to say so, Chris, but you ve unacceptably confused truth ... Thank s for picking me up on that ... I don t have a problem with that ... Surely
      Message 42 of 42 , Dec 7, 1998
        Sorry to have to say so, Chris, but you've unacceptably confused 'truth'
        > with 'belief'. The notion of something being "true for person x" is nothing
        > more than another way of saying that x believes something to be true.
        Thank's for picking me up on that
        > Everyone has fundamental beliefs, of course, but it's misleading to call
        > these beliefs 'fundamental truths'. When your distinction is reworded as
        > one between "fundamental belief" and "universal belief", it makes much more
        > sense.
        >
        I don't have a problem with that

        > BTW, the bit about the "believer's hat" was my way of trying to capture the
        > same idea that Mahlon and Bob have spoken of as "bracketing-off" one's
        > beliefs about the divinity of a person when one is "doing history" related
        > to that person. I have my doubts as to whether or how far this is possible,
        > but I'm willing to take their word for it that it is possible, since
        > they're the ones who find themselves in that situation.
        >
        Surely the important thing for the believer 'doing history' is to declare their interest - that way the reader knows how many grains of salt to take to make the results more palletable (sp?).
        Best wishes
        Chris

        -----
        See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3936
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.