Re: Antonio and Watts' exchange.
- George Brooks wrote:
> So I have to ask Jerez if he thinks the GMatthew parable in chapter 25Those who have been on this list for a while will know my answer: I do not
> was a later creation/adaptation of later followers? Or does he really think
> Jesus told that story as it stands? I'm not saying that I think Wright's
> research satisfies all my desires. But I **am** saying that I am interested
> in Wright's instincts on how to interpret what some of these parables were
> "really" about.
> George Brooks
> Tampa, FL
think that a single word in Maidens parable in GMatthew or the parable in
GLuke (I actually believe Luke has reworked Mtt 25:1-13 in Luke 12:35-40)
goes back to the historical Jesus. The fingerprints are all over the place that all
the Parousia parables are inventions of the later Church.
Thanks for the welcome back ... but don't expect too much as I still have
lots of work to do. But what are we to do with you, Antonio?
Unfortunately, you once again begin with snide remarks about Wright's
historical method (I do wonder when the moderator is going to step in and
gong you out--I had hoped that this list would at least abide by the
niceties observed in serious scholarly exchange in the journals), but then
having begun with a complaint about sloppy historical method you go on to
offer an example that concerns narrative-critical interpretation without any
mention of history at all... how exactly does a difference of opinion about
interpretation reflect on the correctness of one's historical method?
Sounds like a form of the argumentum ad ignorantium to me.
Personally, I don't happen to agree with Wright's reading of all of the
parables. But the fact remains that in your example you seem to assume that
Lk 12.41 makes it clear that only the disciples are in view, and yes some
scholars would agree. But does this amount to sloppy thinking? Hardly.
You'll note that the narrator clearly has Jesus ignore the question, which
leads a number of other scholars to argue on narrative-critical grounds
(note well!) that the reference is intended to be ambiguous, i.e. not just
to the disciples. In other words, this is not a matter of sloppy thinking
but of a difference of opinion among recognized scholars on a difficult
issue. A more even-handed reading of the evidence (and less "sloppy
thinking"?) would have shown this and perhaps tempered your tone.
I might also comment on your regularly invalid appeal to the majority of
scholars. Since when has truth been a matter of counting votes? Granted,
an appeal to recognized authorities is acceptable in certain contexts,
primarily where one is seeking to start from an established position or to
show that one's own views are not novel, but certainly not as a defeater to
a challenge to that majority opinion. One only has to trace the twists and
turns of Synoptic research to realize that majority opinion is hardly a
reliable guide (except perhaps to fashion). In the history of scholarship
fewer pressures have been more unproductive than the dead hand of conformity
to certain reigning paradigms (as per, even with his problems, Kuhn), where
people are dismissed for being unfashionable or even worse "confessional"
(as if there are some of us who don't have a confessional stance of some
kind including naturalism or developmentalism) rather than because their
arguments are weak. So let's have done with the ad hominems, selective
reading, smugness, etc, okay?
Rikk (please note the spelling)
PS I am trying to discover where you might be coming from ... have you
published anything that might give me some idea of how you yourself practice
your method or how you have been reviewed by your peers?
Dr. R. E. Watts (PhD, Cantab) Phone (604) 224 3245
Regent College, Fax (604) 224 3097
5800 University Boulevard
CANADA V6T 2E4