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

Re: creation of yet *another* list

Expand Messages
  • Mark Matson
    ... Synoptic-L to ... I, for one, would concur with Jeff. Synoptic-L would be much stronger, I think, if its focus were expanded to allow for various
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 14, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff Peterson wrote:

      > Could one then suggest a reconsideration of the boundaries of
      Synoptic-L to
      > include all questions of Synoptic exegesis? One of the most interesting
      > observations made on the list (by Mark Goodacre, Brian Wilson, and others)
      > is that the separation of the Synoptic problem and broader questions of
      > exegesis is articifial and detrimental to inquiry into both the exegesis of
      > individual Gospels and the literary relationships obtaining between them. I
      > think it would be very useful to have folks interested in both sides of the
      > question exchanging ideas in one forum -- plus it would mean one less web
      > address, list protocol, etc., to keep up with! (I increasingly have the
      > feeling that I've discovered the meaning of life but have misplaced the
      > URL.) What do others think?

      I, for one, would concur with Jeff. Synoptic-L would be much
      stronger, I think, if its focus were expanded to allow for various
      discussions of the synoptic gospels, including literary, historical,
      and exegetical questions. This always has an impact on, or is
      educated by presumptions about, the synoptic problem, and so in one
      respect is not off target.

      Mark Matson
      Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
      Asst. Director, Sanford Institute of Public Policy
      Adjunct Professor of New Testament
      Duke University
      Durham, NC 27713
      (919) 613-7310
    • Jeff Peterson
      At 10:15 AM -0500 4/14/99, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote: I don t see the creation of a Mark list ... Could one then suggest a reconsideration of the boundaries of
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 14, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:15 AM -0500 4/14/99, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
        I don't see the creation of a Mark list
        >as re-inventing the wheel. Much of what I envision as likely to be
        >discussed on a
        >Mark List would be outside the bounds of Synoptic-L, given my understanding of
        >what the focus of Synoptic-L is.

        Could one then suggest a reconsideration of the boundaries of Synoptic-L to
        include all questions of Synoptic exegesis? One of the most interesting
        observations made on the list (by Mark Goodacre, Brian Wilson, and others)
        is that the separation of the Synoptic problem and broader questions of
        exegesis is articifial and detrimental to inquiry into both the exegesis of
        individual Gospels and the literary relationships obtaining between them. I
        think it would be very useful to have folks interested in both sides of the
        question exchanging ideas in one forum -- plus it would mean one less web
        address, list protocol, etc., to keep up with! (I increasingly have the
        feeling that I've discovered the meaning of life but have misplaced the
        URL.) What do others think?

        Jeff

        ------------------------------------
        Jeffrey Peterson
        Institute for Christian Studies
        Austin, Texas, USA
        ------------------------------------
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Mark, The difficulty I have with this suggestion is that--so far as some off list correspondence indicates--there are many interested in having the
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 14, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark Matson wrote:

          > Jeff Peterson wrote:
          >
          > > Could one then suggest a reconsideration of the boundaries of
          > Synoptic-L to
          > > include all questions of Synoptic exegesis? One of the most interesting
          > > observations made on the list (by Mark Goodacre, Brian Wilson, and others)
          > > is that the separation of the Synoptic problem and broader questions of
          > > exegesis is articifial and detrimental to inquiry into both the exegesis of
          > > individual Gospels and the literary relationships obtaining between them. I
          > > think it would be very useful to have folks interested in both sides of the
          > > question exchanging ideas in one forum -- plus it would mean one less web
          > > address, list protocol, etc., to keep up with! (I increasingly have the
          > > feeling that I've discovered the meaning of life but have misplaced the
          > > URL.) What do others think?
          >
          > I, for one, would concur with Jeff. Synoptic-L would be much
          > stronger, I think, if its focus were expanded to allow for various
          > discussions of the synoptic gospels, including literary, historical,
          > and exegetical questions. This always has an impact on, or is
          > educated by presumptions about, the synoptic problem, and so in one
          > respect is not off target.
          >

          Mark,

          The difficulty I have with this suggestion is that--so far as some off list
          correspondence indicates--there are many interested in having the discussion of
          GMark removed from the arena of the discussion of synoptic relationships, and do
          not wish to be on a list where discussion of Mark is sandwiched between other
          concerns.

          Moreover, though I do not wish to speak for Mark G and other coordinators of
          Synoptic-L, it is my impression that they too do not wish to see the focus of the
          Synoptic -L list broadened for fear that its primary focus would then be lost.

          Yours,

          Jeffrey
          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson
          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        • Carl W. Conrad
          ... As I commented in response to Jeffrey s proposal on the B-Greek list, I d welcome a distinct Mark list precisely because Synoptic-L has for some time now
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 15, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            At 1:13 PM +0000 4/15/99, Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >On 14 Apr 99 at 15:06, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
            >
            >> The difficulty I have with this suggestion is that--so far as some off list
            >> correspondence indicates--there are many interested in having the discussion
            >> of GMark removed from the arena of the discussion of synoptic relationships,
            >> and do not wish to be on a list where discussion of Mark is sandwiched
            >>between
            >> other concerns.
            >>
            >> Moreover, though I do not wish to speak for Mark G and other coordinators of
            >> Synoptic-L, it is my impression that they too do not wish to see the
            >>focus of
            >> the Synoptic -L list broadened for fear that its primary focus would then be
            >> lost.
            >
            >Actually, I think that we would at least like to hear responses to Jeff
            >Peterson's proposal, seconded my Mark Matson. While I am sympathetic to
            >Jeffrey Gibson's proposal for a Mark list, I do find myself anxious about the
            >proliferation of E-Lists. The (slight) expansion of Synoptic-L might be
            >one way of addressing the current situation. But it would be a radical step
            >and we should not take it without thinking carefully about the pros and cons.
            >What do others think?

            As I commented in response to Jeffrey's proposal on the B-Greek list, I'd
            welcome a distinct Mark list precisely because Synoptic-L has for some time
            now been single-mindedly focused on the Synoptic Problem, a matter
            concerning which I have been made increasingly cynical by the
            observation--derived primarily from reading Synoptic-L discussion--that
            there seems to be no remote likelihood of anything approaching a consensus
            on the issues. While I was once very interested in the Synoptic Problem,
            I've become increasingly bored with it, but I'd like very much to see
            discussions of texts within the synoptic gospels and of internal
            relationships of individual synoptic gospels. If Synoptic-L cannot or will
            not concern itself with anything other than the Synoptic problem, then my
            inclination is to leave it to those who want to discuss only that.

            Carl W. Conrad
            Department of Classics/Washington University
            One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
            Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
            cwconrad@...
            WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... Actually, I think that we would at least like to hear responses to Jeff Peterson s proposal, seconded my Mark Matson. While I am sympathetic to Jeffrey
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 15, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              On 14 Apr 99 at 15:06, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

              > The difficulty I have with this suggestion is that--so far as some off list
              > correspondence indicates--there are many interested in having the discussion
              > of GMark removed from the arena of the discussion of synoptic relationships,
              > and do not wish to be on a list where discussion of Mark is sandwiched between
              > other concerns.
              >
              > Moreover, though I do not wish to speak for Mark G and other coordinators of
              > Synoptic-L, it is my impression that they too do not wish to see the focus of
              > the Synoptic -L list broadened for fear that its primary focus would then be
              > lost.

              Actually, I think that we would at least like to hear responses to Jeff
              Peterson's proposal, seconded my Mark Matson. While I am sympathetic to
              Jeffrey Gibson's proposal for a Mark list, I do find myself anxious about the
              proliferation of E-Lists. The (slight) expansion of Synoptic-L might be
              one way of addressing the current situation. But it would be a radical step
              and we should not take it without thinking carefully about the pros and cons.
              What do others think?

              Mark

              --------------------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
              Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              Aseneth Home Page
              Recommended New Testament Web Resources
              World Without Q
            • Graham Hamer
              ... the ... step ... cons. ... I would greatly welcome a (limited) broadening of the scope of Synoptic-L. In practice the current debates often go beyond the
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 15, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                In reply to Jeffrey Gibson, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                >
                > Actually, I think that we would at least like to hear responses to Jeff
                > Peterson's proposal, seconded by Mark Matson. While I am sympathetic to
                > Jeffrey Gibson's proposal for a Mark list, I do find myself anxious about
                the
                > proliferation of E-Lists. The (slight) expansion of Synoptic-L might be

                > one way of addressing the current situation. But it would be a radical
                step
                > and we should not take it without thinking carefully about the pros and
                cons.
                > What do others think?
                >
                I would greatly welcome a (limited) broadening of the scope of Synoptic-L.
                In practice the current debates often go beyond the strict theoretical
                confines of the list (eg the extended discussion of the origin of the
                codex) and are all the more interesting for doing so.

                If there are severe doubts being expressed about the suggested expansion
                could we try an experimental expansion for three months (with everyone
                agreeing to stay in for that period despite their reservations) but have a
                review in the light of the experience gained. If it hasn't worked then a
                new E-List could be set up for GMark.

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