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

Re: [XTalk] Poor Widow again

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... Ha! I interrupt at this point, on the chance that this question was not purely rhetorical. Besides, I rather like methodological issues. Anyway, this
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      At 11:45 AM 9/12/2006, sdavies0 wrote:

      >--- In <mailto:crosstalk2%40yahoogroups.com>crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com,
      >"Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...>
      >wrote:
      > >
      > > Steve Davies wrote on Thursday, August 31, 2006:
      > >
      > > > > Ted Weeden wrote:
      > >
      > > >C. Poor Widow> > Next, the poor widow serves as a positive foil not
      > > only to the rich, such as> the rich young man (10:17-22), reluctant
      > > to give up their riches for the> kingdom and eternal life, but,
      > > also, of course, the Twelve, who struggle> with how any one can be
      > > saved, if it is so nigh unto impossible for a rich> man to be saved
      > > (10:23-26). The poor widow is an exemplification of a> person who
      > > fulfills the suffering-servant ideology of giving up all one has>
      > > for God* vis-à-vis 8:35f.).<<
      >
      >[Ted's long summary of essays on this subject contra my views cut.]
      >
      >I try again. If I may…. I'm still worried about the poor old woman
      >giving her all to the Temple in Mark 12:42. We have just heard about
      >the scribes devouring widows' houses, and I, as you might suspect,
      >am reminded of the old witch's house in Hansel-and-Gretel that
      >is made of candy and lures the children to their dooms. Ted Weeden
      >appears to be a bit too fascinated by the parallels and patterns he
      >finds to appreciate the parallels and patterns I find. Or at least I
      >suspect so. Raising the question of how to choose between sets of
      >parallels and patterns. Hmmm. Really, if both sets of patterns are
      >real patterns, but lead to contradictory conclusions, how does one
      >choose between them? . . .

      Ha! I interrupt at this point, on the chance that this question was not
      purely rhetorical.
      Besides, I rather like methodological issues.

      Anyway, this "choosing between sets of parallels and patterns" seems to be
      the basic humanistic way of doing business, so it is important. The most
      important first step in choosing between them is to examine their
      underlying assumptions to see if they differ, and if so, in what ways do
      they differ.

      I propose that this situation is parallel to issues that pop up in the
      philosophy of science with some regularity. The "sets of parallels and
      patterns" are often based on different world views, so it seems like there
      is no common ground from which both "sets" can be evaluated. This happens
      in science, too. Thomas Kuhn called these "sets" paradigms. For example,
      the Ptolemaic view of the universe, with the Earth at the center, had one
      set of parallels and patterns, in which the motion of planets were
      described in terms of epicycles and the like. Epicycle science had become
      quite refined and reliable, and could be used quite accurately by the crews
      of sea-going ships. Then along came Galileo with a different set of
      parallels and patters, throwing out the epicycles as fictions. Initially,
      it was actually *less* accurate than Ptolemaic science, even if it was more
      elegant in other respects. Eventually, of course, the Galilean set of
      patterns and parallels became preferred because its underlying principles
      proved more productive in many ways.

      The way one chooses can begin by examining the underlying principles and
      assumptions.

      Bob Schacht



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • sdavies0
      ... the ... and ... like there ... happens ... principles and assumptions. ... Aloha Bob. I suppose we can also bring in the postmodernist view that authorial
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
        >
        > I propose that this situation is parallel to issues that pop up in
        the
        > philosophy of science with some regularity. The "sets of parallels
        and
        > patterns" are often based on different world views, so it seems
        like there
        > is no common ground from which both "sets" can be evaluated. This
        happens
        > in science, too. Thomas Kuhn called these "sets" paradigms.


        > The way one chooses can begin by examining the underlying
        principles and assumptions.
        >
        > Bob Schacht

        Aloha Bob.

        I suppose we can also bring in the postmodernist view that authorial
        intentionality is either an illusion or an irrelevancy. So if Ted
        and I are both claiming that we discover what Mark intended to
        convey when writing the Gospel of Mark, we are both mistaken. (IMO,
        of course, he is mistaken and I'm not... but are we both,
        postmodernwise, mistaken because authorial intentionality is so not-
        twenty-first-century?).

        Steve Davies
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.