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

Fw: [XTalk] Hermeneutical Skepticism: Unwarranted, (now) arguments from silence?

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Rikk, I noticed you had trouble locating my contribution of Febr 24. For ... Eric responded. ... Response: As long as exegetes cannot agree on the literary
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 5, 2005
      Rikk,

      I noticed you had trouble locating my contribution of Febr 24. For
      clarification of my previous reponse, I here add a copy:>>Bob Schacht:
      >> Oh, pooh. I would "privilege" any historian of Mark's time the
      >> same way, accepting their accounts tentatively unless I had
      >> specific grounds for doubting their veracity.....".

      Eric responded.

      >"This nicely articulates what I was starting to feel after following this
      > discussion. If we treat all ancient sources with equal scepticism,
      > assuming
      > that everything every ancient historian wrote was made up to score some
      > rhetorical point, then we can know next to nothing about ancient history,
      > and we are left with no means of critically assessing anything.
      >
      > I wonder if some of the statements Ted citing from ancient authors
      > complaining of the work of historians could not have been equally
      > rhetorical. Again, the very fact that some ancient authors are complaining
      > that historians are liars would seem to indicate that some people in
      > antiquity thought historians *ought* to respect the facts."....


      Response:

      As long as exegetes cannot agree on the literary genre of Mark as a haggadah
      regarding the Judean nation and its Messiah, meant especially for liturgical
      use and as
      long as they regard the Gospel as a "bios", written by an "ancient"
      historiographer, we cannot escape the bind we are in concerning the
      insoluble dilemma whether Mark did or did not "respect the facts".

      cordially,

      Karel


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 4:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Hermeneutical Skepticism: Unwarranted, (now) arguments
      from silence?


      > Dear Rick,
      >
      > If I failed to answer you, my excuses. I do try to answer contributors as
      > faithful as I can. Sometimes my messages have not come through, perhaps
      > through my incompetence with computers or for other reasons. At other
      > times contributors ignore my contributions altogether which is their
      > perfect right in a list like this.
      >
      > You obviously have not studied my work on Mark's Gospel, - no one can be
      > blamed for that either in the cacophony of NT scholars - but I did
      > critique Bowman for not
      > following through on his own premises.
      > Am I correct in rephrasing your answer in terms of a denial that Mark
      > wrote a Passover Haggadah? In that case I believe you should make clear
      > what the alternative is. What do you think is the 'genre' of his writing?
      > A Hellenistic bios? Moreover, you should also make clear whom you regard
      > to be the author of 'kata Markon'.
      > I take him to have been John Mark of Acts and the Epistles who in the
      > aftermath of the trauma of 70 rewrote a Pesach Haggadah for continued
      > liturgical use in the ecclesia.
      > In that case Matthew is my first author, the first of in your words
      > "unambiguous examples of an early interpreter of any of Jesus' mighty
      > deeds who saw them (solely) as metaphors". I put 'solely' in brackets. For
      > Mark was writing about the "deeds" of the historical Jesus but in a
      > metaphorical way. In my book I made clear why the healing of the man with
      > the shrivelled arm (or hand) symbolized a Samaritan. Historically I
      > conclude tentatively that Jesus worked toward reconciliation between
      > Judean and Samaritan, for this midrashic interpretation of the mirable
      > matches with some of the parables of the historical Jesus.
      > As to Matthew being the first interpreter of Mark, why not discuss
      > Matthew's expansion of Mark's metaphorical 'opened monument' narrative?
      >
      > So I repeat my question: "What are your arguments against my Febr 24th
      > reply?" to your legitimate challenging hermeneutical skepticism.
      >
      > cordially
      >
      > Karel
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Rikk Watts" <rwatts@...>
      > To: "xtalk" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 4:05 PM
      > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Hermeneutical Skepticism: Unwarranted, (now)
      > arguments from silence?
      >
      >
      >
      > Sorry Karel, but I'm not sure precisely what that post contained.
      >
      > However, the Passover Haggadah theory, as you would well know, is not new.
      > John Bowman's 1965 volume being a particular example, and from what I
      > recall
      > it seems to me that the weaknesses that plagued his approach have not been
      > addressed in your own proposal.
      >
      > But since we are asking for responses, not to be churlish, may I also
      > point
      > out that a month earlier, namely Jan 28th and with respect to your theory
      > that for Mark Jesus' mighty deeds were merely metaphors (in response to
      > your
      > post of the same day), I asked if you could cite some unambiguous examples
      > of an early interpreter of any of Jesus' mighty deeds who saw them solely
      > as
      > metaphors (which strikes me, ironically given your comments below, as a
      > somewhat modernist anachronism)? In other words, it seems to me that if
      > there is no ancient interpreter who shares your view that these stories
      > were
      > solely metaphors then either Mark was an utterly inadequate communicator
      > who
      > didn't know his audience, or perhaps we have a single 21st century reader
      > who ... well I think you get the point.
      >
      > Forgive me if I've overlooked your response to this request. But I've not
      > seen anything yet. Perhaps we could make a deal: you respond to my earlier
      > question and then I'll respond to your Feb 24th post (if you'll be kind
      > enough to send me off-list a copy).
      >
      > Regards
      > Rikk
      >
      >
      >
      > On 4/3/05 12:20 AM, "Karel Hanhart" <K.Hanhart@...> wrote:
      >
      >>
      >> Rikk,
      >>
      >> I too wish at times to combat extreme scepticism. The Gospels refer in
      >> some
      >> important way to the Jesus of history. However, I deny that Mark's aim
      >> was
      >> to provide historical, biographical information on Jesus. I would like to
      >> hear your arguments concerning genre. I defend in my contribution of last
      >> February 24. Mark never intended to write a biography at all. As a
      >> Christian
      >> Judean, he rewrote a known Christian Passover Haggadah in the wake of the
      >> trauma of 70. Nearly one third of his Gospel deals with the season of
      >> Pesach
      >> with 8,31; 9,31; 10, 33f as its main theme and the institution of the
      >> Last
      >> Supper as its main semeion. What are your arguments against my Febr 24th
      >> reply?
      >>
      >> cordially,
      >>
      >> Karel
      >>
      >> ----- Original Message -----
      >> From: "Rikk Watts" <rwatts@...>
      >> To: "xtalk" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      >> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:19 PM
      >> Subject: Re: [XTalk] Hermeneutical Skepticism: Unwarranted, (now)
      >> arguments
      >> from silence?
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Dear Ted,
      >>
      >> Sorry about the delay in getting back. Once again, let me reiterate that
      >> the primary issue was one point and one alone:
      >>
      >>> [TJW] I responded to Bob on 2/14, addressing the issue of historicity
      >>> with
      >>> the
      >>> following statement: "there is no reference or allusion anywhere in the
      >>> canonical Gospels to suggest that Jesus ever revealed that he personally
      >>> had
      >>> been tempted either in the desert or anywhere else. Then I want to know
      >>> where this information came from. . . . How does Mark know that there
      >>> in
      >>> the desert Jesus faced temptation?"
      >>
      >> This, not classic criteria, was the issue. We agree that the nub of the
      >> problem is Mark's silence. We disagree on what it signifies.
      >>
      >> First, it seems to me to be a non sequitur to argue that because someone
      >> does not tell us whence they got their information (especially when their
      >> canons do not require them so to do) that therefore that information is
      >> suspect. Indeed, what ancient historian ever operated as though this was
      >> the
      >> case? Hence my judgment, in spite of your denial, that your skepticism
      >> BASED
      >> ON THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT is both unreasonable and historically
      >> anachronistic.
      >>
      >> Second, if there was then no expectation that Mark explicitly state that
      >> Jesus himself had told his disciples in order for his story to be
      >> accepted,
      >> then I would aver that such an absence does not constitute an argument
      >> from
      >> silence, but is instead evidence a shared presupposition of
      >> communication.
      >> When one makes a claim it is assumed that one is making the claim in good
      >> faith, and hence, to keep this discussion grounded in the first century,
      >> Seneca's complaint against people who abuse that faith. In this case the
      >> silence is not neutral, and therefore this is not an argument from
      >> silence.
      >> I contend that to assume that Mark expects his readers to believe that
      >> this
      >> information came ultimately from Jesus is not at all "purely
      >> speculative,"
      >> but the presupposition of communication.
      >>
      >> Third, this being the case however, I agree that to question such a
      >> connection SOLELY on the basis of the argument above is indeed "pure
      >> speculation." And further, it is not only itself a classic example of an
      >> argument from silence (as you I think you agree) but, as argued above,
      >> one
      >> which runs against the expectations and assumptions of ancient readers.
      >> This was the essence of my criticism.
      >>
      >> I note that you also/later invoke the classic criteria of authenticity.
      >> Fair
      >> enough. But this was not the point I engaged, though we could discuss the
      >> well-recognized problems of such criteria (e.g. multiple attestation only
      >> indicates how many people believed a story and how early, not whether it
      >> is
      >> true or not; likewise that only one source knows of a story finally says
      >> nothing about whether it is true or not, and more likely reflects the
      >> redactional interests of authors working within the very limited
      >> constraints
      >> of a single roll and the vagaries of what actually of the presumably
      >> considerable mass of oral tradition (e.g. John 21.25) is finally
      >> committed
      >> to such a small compass). Likewise, you might fairly say you find
      >> elements
      >> of Mark's account of Jesus' temptation unbelievable. But again, this was
      >> not
      >> the point I engaged.
      >>
      >> Re Dunn's assessment of your work on Bailey, I note here for listers
      >> convenience, Jesus Remembered, p. 207n182, where he first states that
      >> Bailey
      >> regrets his overstatement re the Hogg traditions (after all, Bailey's
      >> article was not intended to be a rigorous scholarly work), and then
      >> continues "Weeden's further critique of Bailey's anecdotes and their
      >> significance, misses much of Bailey's point, is unduly censorious, and
      >> weakens Bailey's case hardly at all." Dunn is no slouch and I doubt he
      >> would
      >> put this out in the public sphere without due consideration. Ted, my
      >> parenthesis was not intended as a personal slight but instead as
      >> indicative
      >> of a concern that you might wish to address, and which concern I think is
      >> exemplified in the above. You may of course simply dismiss this but it
      >> seems to me that an overly skeptical approach only serves to mute what
      >> other
      >> good points you might make. It shouldn't hurt your case to give someone
      >> else
      >> the benefit of the doubt, and that includes Mark.
      >>
      >> Finally, a hermeneutic of suspicion is a double-edged sword, and it seems
      >> to
      >> me that those who wish to live by such a sword, end up dying by it, as
      >> the
      >> true skeptic knows.
      >>
      >> regards
      >> Rikk
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> On 1/3/05 3:09 PM, "Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>> "There is no such canon and I am not arguing for one. Of course, Jesus
      >>> likely talked about a lot of things that were not remembered by his
      >>> disciples, much less passed on in oral tradition. It is purely
      >>> speculative
      >>> to argue from silence as to whether Jesus reported an experience in his
      >>> life
      >>> and that that experience serves as the unreported basis for a historical
      >>> event attributed to him, as it is also purely speculative to argue that
      >>> an
      >>> event has no historical basis because there is no evidence that Jesus
      >>> reflected upon such a personal event at one point with his disciples.
      >>> The
      >>> latter may appear to be the position I have taken with respect to the
      >>> temptation story. That is not really my intent. In making a judgment as
      >>> to
      >>> whether some event or saying, for that matter, is authentic to the
      >>> experience or teaching of the historical Jesus, I need as a
      >>> socio-historical
      >>> critic to weigh all the evidence for or against such a possibility. In
      >>> the
      >>> case of the temptation story, all I am saying is that those who suggest
      >>> that
      >>> there lies behind the story is kernal of historical truth about an
      >>> actual
      >>> temptation of Jesus do not have, as far as I am aware, explicit or
      >>> implicit evidence that Jesus reflected on such an experience at
      >>> some later point with his disciples. To have such evidence would
      >>> weigh in the favor of there being behind the story an authentic
      >>> experience of Jesus. I think that datum is relevant and should
      >>> be taken into consideration by those who pose that the temptation
      >>> story is rooted in an actual personal experience of Jesus."
      >>>
      >>> I stand behind that statement, Rikk. In raising the issue of Jesus'
      >>> lack
      >>> of
      >>> reference to a personal experience of temptation, I was only applying
      >>> the
      >>> widely accepted historical-critical methodological practice of trying to
      >>> sort out what is historically authentic to the life of the historical
      >>> Jesus.
      >>> And no more! If I am missing your point or have misunderstood your
      >>> point,
      >>> I would appreciate you let me know how that is the case.
      >>>
      >>>> This, as far as I can see, has nothing whatsoever to do with the
      >>>> historicity of Mark per se. It is simply about whether, in this
      >>>> particular demand, one is being unfair to Mark in terms
      >>>> of first century expectations.
      >>>
      >>> Actually, it has a lot to do with the historicity of Mark. The issue,
      >>> as
      >>> I
      >>> have come to see it, behind all this historical-critical dispute we are
      >>> engaged in really is the issue regarding whether Mark's narrative
      >>> investment
      >>> is primarily and finally in historicity per se. In other words: Is it
      >>> really Mark's intent to be an ancient historian, following the
      >>> historiographic conventions expected of an ancient historial and tell
      >>> the
      >>> *historical truth* about the historical Jesus? I do *not* think so. I
      >>> do
      >>> not think Mark writes as an ancient historian, using the genre of an
      >>> ancient
      >>> historian. Nor do I think that Mark expects his readers to think that
      >>> he
      >>> writes as a historian. None of his readers, aware of the rhetorical
      >>> convenstions and standards for historiographic compositions, would have
      >>> read
      >>> Mark and thought that they were reading *history*. That is not to say
      >>> that
      >>> Mark was not committed to telling the truth about Jesus. However, the
      >>> truth
      >>> he tells and is commited to is a different truth from *historical
      >>> truth*.
      >>> Therefore, I think it is unfair to Mark to assume that when he narrated
      >>> the
      >>> temptation story he intended his readers or hearers, for that matter, to
      >>> conclude that he was basing the story on a historical datum drawn from
      >>> the
      >>> experience of the historical Jesus. I will explain in detail in a
      >>> forthcoming post why I take this position.
      >>>
      >>>> (so Bailey/Dunn are largely irrelevant here).<
      >>>
      >>> From my perspective, Bailey and Dunn are very relevant to our
      >>> hermeneutical
      >>> differences and the dispute we have engaged over. For you introduced
      >>> Bailey and Dunn into the discussion regarding the credibility of my
      >>> hermeneutical arguments in your post of 2/18 when you stated: " If you'd
      >>> instead said only that since I already suspect Mark of dishonesty (to
      >>> use
      >>> the language of Seneca here) because of my reading of the passion
      >>> narrative,
      >>> and first and foremost the resurrection, then that's fair enough. But,
      >>> the
      >>> reason I've picked up on this particular point is because I think it
      >>> indicates that *overall your approach is marred by an unwarranted and
      >>> unreasonable skepticism*, and it might just be this that results in few
      >>> of
      >>> your colleagues being persuaded by the rest of your arguments. In other
      >>> words, *sorry to put it so bluntly, we just don't think you are being
      >>> fair
      >>> (cf. Jimmy Dunn's remarks on your work in Jesus Remembered*; I suspect
      >>> Byrskog would probably agree)" [emphasis: TJW].
      >>>
      >>> Rikk, in characterizing my overall hermeneutical approach as being
      >>> unpersuasive to my colleagues because, as you put it, it "is marred by
      >>> unwarranted and unreasonable skepticism" in my application of the
      >>> hermeneutic of suspicion, you draw upon Dunn referentially and
      >>> allusively
      >>> to
      >>> his criticism of my critique of Bailey's theory of informal controlled
      >>> oral
      >>> tradition as evidentiary support for this characterization of my
      >>> hermeneutical approach. As I indicated in my response to you in my
      >>> XTalk
      >>> post of 2/24, I do not think that is a fair and balanced presentation of
      >>> my
      >>> hermeneutic nor a fair allusion to my critique of Bailey. I feel it is
      >>> unfair because there are those on the list who are not aware of my
      >>> critique
      >>> and even what Dunn says about it, and are thus left to draw their own
      >>> conclusions about Dunn's brief with me. Moreover, your
      >>> characterization
      >>> fails to present to listers a balanced and fair presentation of the
      >>> exchange
      >>> we have had over my critique of Bailey and your response to it. So let
      >>> me
      >>> rehearse a bit of that history in order for the record to be set
      >>> straight
      >>> for those who are not aware of the exchange we have had.
      >>>
      >>> Some time after I posted on Xtalk my critique of Bailey's theory of
      >>> informal
      >>> controlled oral tradition ("Bailey's Theory of Oral Tradition, a Flawed
      >>> Theory, Part I, XTalk post, 9/6/01), you indicated in your XTalk post of
      >>> 11/14/01 ("Bailey's Response") that you had informed Bailey of my
      >>> critique
      >>> and cited parts of Bailey's response to my critique, in which Bailey
      >>> takes
      >>> strong exception for my revealing that in his use of his only extant
      >>> source
      >>> for his theory, he not only did not fully disclose what the source
      >>> presented
      >>> germane to his use of the source in support of his theory but, also and
      >>> in
      >>> fact, he had misrepresented the source to his readers.
      >>>
      >>> In response to your sharing Bailey's irate criticism of my disclosure of
      >>> his
      >>> misrepresentation of the source critical to his theory, I posted the
      >>> following on XTalk, 11/14/01:
      >>>
      >>> "Thank you Rikk for sharing the gist of Bailey's response to my critique
      >>> of
      >>> his theory. I would like to see the full response before I make any
      >>> reply
      >>> to it. However, I do want to respond briefly to some of your
      >>> parenthetical
      >>> remarks. First, you note:
      >>>
      >>>> I think, if I am allowed to interpret a bit, he feels that
      >>>> there was less of a sympathetic hearing, what Lonergan would call
      >>>> "reconstructive," than a controversialist response where the aim, for
      >>>> whatever reasons, was to erode as much as possible of his view. I do
      >>>> wonder if this is in part because Bailey's thesis even if only partly
      >>>> true would create severe problems for Ted's own proposals re Mark. What
      >>>> do
      >>>> you think Ted? Might there have been something like this at work?).<.
      >>>
      >>> I indicated at that point that I could not respond directly to your
      >>> question
      >>> at that point. Then I continued with what you presented in your post:
      >>>
      >>>> As a Markan scholar, I find Ted's to my mind free-wheeling Markan
      >>>> creativity, quite incredible and going far beyond the bounds even of
      >>>> that
      >>>> found in the Hogg story (and particularly so when I apply the same
      >>>> rigor
      >>>> to his theses as he does to Bailey's. Sorry Ted).<
      >>>
      >>> I responded:
      >>>
      >>> "Rikk, you need not apologize for not being persuaded by my theory, even
      >>> finding it incredible. As you are well aware you are not the first to
      >>> have
      >>> found it so in the 37 years it has been in print (Claremont
      >>> dissertation,
      >>> "The Heresy That Necessitated the Mark's Gospel," (1964); 1968 _ZNW_
      >>> article
      >>> by the same title; and my book, _Mark--Traditions in
      >>> Conflict_(1971/1979).
      >>> What would be more helpful to me is to know why you "find
      >>> Ted's...free-wheeling creativity, quite incredible and going far beyond
      >>> the
      >>> bounds even of that found in the Hogg story (and particularly so when I
      >>> apply the same rigor to his theses as he does to Bailey's." I would
      >>> really
      >>> appreciate you engaging me with respect to the problems you have with my
      >>> methodology, use of the evidence and argumentation. If you are willing
      >>> to
      >>> do so, and would rather do it off-list, my e-mail address is . . ."
      >>>
      >>> On 11/21/04, Rikk, you responded to the above in an XTalk post
      >>> with the following:
      >>>
      >>> " Ted, I think I need to apologize for my interpretation here; I really
      >>> shouldn¹t presume that you are like me. That is, I was thinking about
      >>> how
      >>> I
      >>> would respond and I know that I tend to be tougher on ideas that
      >>> challenge
      >>> mine than I am on my own (one of the reasons I so enjoy Xlist: folk like
      >>> you keep me honest). So sorry friend."
      >>>
      >>> And with respect to my request that you engage me with respect to the
      >>> problems you find with my methodology, you stated:
      >>>
      >>> "You¹re a gracious man. Time is always of the essence (and I must
      >>> confess
      >>> I¹m sometimes overwhelmed by the lengthy essays) but this sounds like
      >>> something it would be good to do."
      >>>
      >>> Rikk, I am still waiting for you to let me know that the time is right
      >>> for
      >>> you to share with me the problems you have with my methodology, use of
      >>> evidence and argumentation.
      >>>
      >>> On 5/04/04, I wrote the following off-list to you::
      >>>
      >>> "I have enclosed the latest version of my critique (Part One and Part
      >>> Two)
      >>> of Bailey's theory in the attachments. I appreciate your willingness to
      >>> read it. I hope you will share with me your critical feedback. That will
      >>> be
      >>> important to me."
      >>>
      >>> Not hearing from you, I wrote on 5/21/04 off-list:
      >>>
      >>> "I am wondering now if it is worth your time to go through my revised
      >>> critique of Bailey and give me feedback on the latest version. I re-read
      >>> your XTalk post of November 14, 2001 (XTalk archives, #8520) in which
      >>> you
      >>> share Bailey's criticisms of my critique of his theory. I gather from
      >>> your
      >>> personal remarks there, that you find Bailey's position convincing,
      >>> notwithstanding my evidentiary assessment. What did catch my eye in your
      >>> post was the following:
      >>>
      >>> "As a Markan scholar, I find Ted's to my mind free-wheeling Markan
      >>> creativity, quite incredible and going far beyond the bounds even of
      >>> that
      >>> found in the Hogg story (and particularly so when I apply the same rigor
      >>> to
      >>> his theses as he does to Bailey's. Sorry Ted)."
      >>>
      >>> "Rikk, what you state above seems to be the substantive issue over which
      >>> we
      >>> disagree. With that in mind, I wonder if you would be willing to read a
      >>> lengthy essay in which I now argue that Mark used Josephus' story of
      >>> Jesus
      >>> son of Ananias as the model for his fictional creation of the Jewish and
      >>> Roman trials of Jesus? I think your predisposition to seeing Mark as
      >>> less
      >>> creative than I do would be a helpful reference point for whatever holes
      >>> you
      >>> might find in my argument. To identify those holes would be of great
      >>> help
      >>> to me. Are you interested?"
      >>>
      >>> On 5/22/04 you wrote off-list:
      >>> .
      >>> "Sorry for the delay . . . . But I am very interested in reading your
      >>> work.
      >>> For what it's worth I did/do agree with your critique re Rena Hogg and
      >>> the account of the desert encounter and make a specific point of
      >>> mentioning it, positively, in class. So, yes I appreciate that aspect
      >>> very much. On the other hand, I'm not sure this translates into a
      >>> thorough-going demolition (I hope that's not too strong a word)
      >>> of Bailey. And yes to be honest, I did think that you were a lot
      >>> tougher on Bailey than you were on Ted, and yes there is no question
      >>> that your work is creative (and yes I do think there's a lot more
      >>> fiction
      >>> in
      >>> what your proposals than there is in Mark... :) )."
      >>>
      >>> "Nevertheless, my apologies for not getting on to this sooner. It's just
      >>> a
      >>> matter of finding the time I'm afraid (and I don't want to rush through
      >>> it)."
      >>>
      >>> "Re the Josephus and Mark thesis (which presupposes I assume that Mark
      >>> post-dates Jos?): as long as the essay is not too lengthy, I'd be happy
      >>> to
      >>> help out < but do be aware that time is really tight for the next month
      >>> or
      >>> so."
      >>>
      >>> As yet, Rikk, you have not indicated to me that you have read my revised
      >>> critique, nor have you informed me that you had found time to read my
      >>> thesis
      >>> on Mark's dependency upon the story of Jesus son of Ananias found in
      >>> Josephus' _Jew War_. However, you continue to find fault with my
      >>> arguments
      >>> with respect to my interpretation of Mark and allude to Dunn's criticism
      >>> of
      >>> my critique of Bailey.
      >>>
      >>> And you close your post of 2/28/05 with this:
      >>>
      >>>> We did then go off into other topics but it seems best to leave those
      >>>> aside until we get this point sorted: would you agree that it is
      >>>> unfair to require > a 1st century author to meet evidential
      >>>> standards that none of his contemporaries expected of him?
      >>>
      >>> It is those other topics related to criticism of my hermeneutic that
      >>> have
      >>> been left addressed between us for over a year in one case and nine
      >>> months
      >>> in another. Yet you continue to characterize me publicly in X Talk posts
      >>> with presenting hermeneutical arguments that are unpersuasive but to a
      >>> few
      >>> of my colleagues because of my "unwarranted and unreasonable
      >>> skepticism."
      >>> Is
      >>> that really being fair to characterize my arguments that way when you
      >>> have
      >>> yet to engage them substantively as I have invited you to do for over a
      >>> year?
      >>>
      >>> Ted
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >>>
      >>> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
      >>> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>>
      >>> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
      >>> crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>>
      >>> List managers may be contacted directly at:
      >>> crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >>
      >> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
      >> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> List managers may be contacted directly at:
      >> crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >>
      >> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
      >> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> List managers may be contacted directly at:
      >> crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >
      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
      > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > List managers may be contacted directly at:
      > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.