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

[GTh] Re: Monograph on Marcion

Expand Messages
  • David
    Absolutely! I didn t say to always go back to the source ONLY, as I m fully aware that seeing what others have said or written can have great value. However,
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Absolutely! I didn't say to always go back to the source ONLY, as I'm fully aware that seeing what others have said or written can have great value.

      However, that wasn't in any case really the point I was trying to make. Instead, I was saying that that you shouldn't sometimes complain about people commenting on something based on a review or commentary (i.e. an intermediate source) in some circumstances but not others.

      Either always allow that this can have value, or always insist on people going to the original source (or as close to it as possible) before making any comment.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <bobschacht@...> wrote:
      >
      > At 12:46 PM 8/19/2011, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
      >
      > >To: GThomas
      > >On: Sources
      > >From: Bruce
      > >
      > >In reply to a comment of David Inglis, Bob Schacht asked: "What
      > >would it look like, to always "go back to the source"? Would that
      > >mean ignoring the work of the Jesus Seminar and The Five Gospels?
      > >Would it mean ignoring all the books on the Gospel of Thomas?"
      > >
      > >The simple answer to this is, Yes, it would. Historians have found
      > >that glancing back now and then at the thing one is talking about
      > >(or the thing the other person is talking about) is a refreshing
      > >exercise, tending to restore balance and instil relevance. ...
      >
      > I am startled to realize that you apparently think I was arguing
      > against going back to the source *ever*. Please note the use of the
      > word "always" in the first sentence of my quoted statement, and what
      > it means for the sentence as a whole. Of course I am in favor of such
      > "refreshing exercises". But in order to avoid attempting to re-invent
      > the wheel, especially after so much of study, it also ought to be
      > relevant to see what other scholars and their critics have already
      > written about your subject of interest, to avoid repeating their mistakes.
      >
      > Bob Schacht
      > Northern Arizona University
      >
    • andrewcriddle
      ... ... As Andrew Criddle comments that: This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 20, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
        >
        <SNIP>
        >
        As Andrew Criddle comments that: "This is an important work both in
        its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," then I submit
        that if commenting on a commentary (without reference to the
        source) can be "important," then commenting on a review should at
        least be seen as acceptable.
        >
        <SNIP>
        >
        > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
        >


        Hi David

        Just to clarify:

        When I said "This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," I was referring to Catherine Osborne's work "Rethinking early Greek philosophy; Hippolytus of Rome and the presocratics."

        I can't comment on Moll's methodology not having read the book.

        Andrew Criddle
      • David
        Apologies for the misunderstanding over which work you were referring to. David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 22, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Apologies for the misunderstanding over which work you were referring to.

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

          --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "andrewcriddle" <sarban@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidinglis2@> wrote:
          > >
          > <SNIP>
          > >
          > As Andrew Criddle comments that: "This is an important work both in
          > its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," then I submit
          > that if commenting on a commentary (without reference to the
          > source) can be "important," then commenting on a review should at
          > least be seen as acceptable.
          > >
          > <SNIP>
          > >
          > > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
          > >
          >
          >
          > Hi David
          >
          > Just to clarify:
          >
          > When I said "This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," I was referring to Catherine Osborne's work "Rethinking early Greek philosophy; Hippolytus of Rome and the presocratics."
          >
          > I can't comment on Moll's methodology not having read the book.
          >
          > Andrew Criddle
          >
        • Mike Grondin
          ... Thanks, David. Far from being considered unnecessary, such corrections are encouraged here, and are considered a mark of honesty, integrity, collegiality,
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 22, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            [David to Andrew Criddle]:
            > Apologies for the misunderstanding over which work you were referring
            to.
             
            Thanks, David. Far from being considered unnecessary, such corrections are
            encouraged here, and are considered a mark of honesty, integrity, collegiality,
            and commendably ethical scholarly behavior.
             
            Mike Grondin
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.