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

[John_Lit] A Modest Proposal for the Future Discussion of Papers

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    I think that there would be little disagreement on this listserve that our discussion-schedule aims have not been met as we had wished. There was no real
    Message 1 of 5 , May 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that there would be little disagreement on
      this listserve that our discussion-schedule aims have
      not been met as we had wished. There was no real
      discussion of Paul Anderson's paper on the Paraclete
      and little discussion of the last several papers --
      including Elizabeth Danna's paper and my own two
      papers on the dualism of food in John.

      Only the first few papers received an adequate
      discussion.

      Doubtless, many reasons could be advanced to explain
      this decline in the number of participants in the
      discussions and in the intensity of the discussions,
      and I won't hazard any guesses about what these
      reasons might be, but I will emphasize that the
      decline has nothing to do with any decline in the
      quality of the later papers. (Yes, I realize that this
      is a self-interested remark.)

      I think that we need to think about how to reform any
      future discussions of papers in order to better meet
      our aims. I have one suggestion that, if agreed upon
      and adhered to, would radically transform future
      discussions. Here is my proposal:

      In future discussions, everyone who posts a paper for
      discussion must formally agree to read and comment
      upon all other papers posted for discussion within a
      specified and agreed upon time frame.

      This seems eminently fair to me (or I wouldn't be
      proposing it), but I would like to know what others
      think.

      Jeffery Hodges

      =====
      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
      447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
      Yangsandong 411
      South Korea

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
      http://auctions.yahoo.com/
    • jestaton@zoom.co.uk
      ... antecedent ... things ? ... John?) ... I think the Beloved Disciple (whoever he/she may be!), who is also the subject of verse 23. Best Wishes JOHN E
      Message 2 of 5 , May 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In johannine_literature@y..., "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald@h...>
        wrote:
        > What is the generally accepted opinion on who is intended as the
        antecedent
        > for OUTOS in verse 24 'this is the disciple who... wrote these
        things'?
        > (Peter, the unknown author, the Beloved Disciple, someone named
        John?)
        >
        > Thanks
        >
        > Bob

        I think the Beloved Disciple (whoever he/she may be!), who is also
        the subject of verse 23.

        Best Wishes

        JOHN E STATON
        www.jestaton.org
        jestaton@...
      • jestaton@zoom.co.uk
        For my own part, Jeffrey, pressure of work has prevented me reading these estimable papers, and I will not insult the authors by commenting on work I have not
        Message 3 of 5 , May 11, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          For my own part, Jeffrey, pressure of work has prevented me reading
          these estimable papers, and I will not insult the authors by
          commenting on work I have not read. I have downloaded the papers, and
          will read them when time permits.

          Best Wishes

          JOHN E STATON
          --- In johannine_literature@y..., Horace Jeffery Hodges
          <jefferyhodges@y...> wrote:
          > I think that there would be little disagreement on
          > this listserve that our discussion-schedule aims have
          > not been met as we had wished. There was no real
          > discussion of Paul Anderson's paper on the Paraclete
          > and little discussion of the last several papers --
          > including Elizabeth Danna's paper and my own two
          > papers on the dualism of food in John.
          >
          > Only the first few papers received an adequate
          > discussion.
          >
          > Doubtless, many reasons could be advanced to explain
          > this decline in the number of participants in the
          > discussions and in the intensity of the discussions,
          > and I won't hazard any guesses about what these
          > reasons might be, but I will emphasize that the
          > decline has nothing to do with any decline in the
          > quality of the later papers. (Yes, I realize that this
          > is a self-interested remark.)
          >
          > I think that we need to think about how to reform any
          > future discussions of papers in order to better meet
          > our aims. I have one suggestion that, if agreed upon
          > and adhered to, would radically transform future
          > discussions. Here is my proposal:
          >
          > In future discussions, everyone who posts a paper for
          > discussion must formally agree to read and comment
          > upon all other papers posted for discussion within a
          > specified and agreed upon time frame.
          >
          > This seems eminently fair to me (or I wouldn't be
          > proposing it), but I would like to know what others
          > think.
          >
          > Jeffery Hodges
          >
          > =====
          > Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
          > Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
          > 447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
          > Yangsandong 411
          > South Korea
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do You Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
          > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.