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

Proper prior preparation of materials

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    This is from Austin Meredith, who, although subscribed, is currently having technical difficulties posting to Xtalk. Stephen ... -- Stephen C. Carlson
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      This is from Austin Meredith, who, although subscribed, is currently
      having technical difficulties posting to Xtalk.

      Stephen

      >Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 07:06:37 +0100
      >From: Austin Meredith <Ashley_Meredith@...>
      >Subject: Proper prior preparation of materials
      >
      >>>Because the Petrine denial exists in John, if not in a pre-Johannine
      >>>source, the case for "Mark" being the originator of that tradition
      >>>depends on one's solution to the Johannine question. As far as I am
      >>>aware, this is an issue that enjoys no real consensus and the pendulum
      >>>has rocked back and forth a couple times even in this twentieth century.
      >>>Therefore, the case for "Mark" being the source of denial tradition
      >>>is necessarily contingent on a particular resolution to the Johannine
      >>>question.
      >
      >> Not necessarily.
      >> For if it can be shown that "Mark" invented the denial story (and
      >> I believe the case for this is strong), then the Johannine
      >> question will have been answered. For John must then be dependent
      >> on Mark.
      >
      >I have a very general question, that falls under the heading "proper prior
      >preparation of materials."
      >
      >It seems to me, as a lay person, not a Bible scholar at all, that the above
      >concern, one of the contingent relations between various presumptions and
      >conclusions, is a very typical concern in these studies. Why then is it,
      >that much, much more work is _not_ being done, in cold-bloodedly laying out
      >in detail the various contingent relationships between items of inference?
      >
      >Another example would be the word(s) which are conventionally translated
      >out as "Nazareth," and interpreted to be a placename. In watching the TV
      >bio the other night I noticed that it was presumed that we know in some
      >way, that the place now known as Nazareth was known as Nazareth during the
      >childhood of Jesus. Yet we are very aware that 1.) there is no
      >extra-textual corroboration whatever for such an assertion, and that 2.)
      >there is another competing account for the presence of the word(s) which
      >are conventionally translated out as "Nazareth," that they refer not to a
      >village but to a general mode of religious being. In other words, a
      >probability of something less than 100% got collapsed in the course of that
      >TV bio into a probability of precisely 100%, through the omission of a
      >conventional or customary inferential step.
      >
      >I can't myself argue cases on this account; I offer it only in illustration
      >of my more general question, of -- why it is that more work is not being
      >done in cold-bloodedly laying out in detail the contingency relationships
      >between various items of inference. Why is it that more work is not being
      >put in, on the proper prior preparation of materials?
      >
      >The "Jesus Project" is for me a case in point. For all the elaborateness of
      >its apparatus, the general impression I get is that it is a "flattened"
      >appreciation. That is, all the scholars looked at a particular logon, and
      >each one voted on it, once. What, as a lay person, I would have expected,
      >would have been less "flattened," more "nuanced." I would have expected "I
      >vote NO, because of my presumption XXXXX about the prior issue of YYYY;
      >were it not for that presumption, I should have voted YES." I would have
      >expected in regard to the various sayings being voted on, that there would
      >have been a prior structure. "The first vote will presume that John is
      >prior to Mark, and then we will all vote again presuming for the nonce that
      >Mark is prior to John. That way, later on, if more manuscript documents
      >turn up from the 1st century which bear on the issue of priority, we will
      >have more information on the issue of contingency, on which inferences
      >depend upon which prior inferences."
      >
      >Of course, "We don't have enough money to do it that way" would be a
      >complete explanation, but also I would suggest overbroad.
      >
      >Comment?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.