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

Re: Assessing Motives

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... And what this bit from Jim exemplifies is that he has missed (or chosen to ignore) the point of my critique of what, for him, is a basic underpining of
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 21, 1999
      Jim Deardorff wrote:

      > Jeffrey wrote:
      > >> must be regarded as lacking any credibility whatsoever and can hardly
      > >> be entertained with any seriousness.
      >
      > >This requires an apology.
      >
      > This bit from Jeffrey exemplifies one of the points I was making. If even
      > today when one e-mail writer dislikes what another is saying and then
      > deviates from the purpose of the list -- which in this case is to hold
      > serious & substantive discussion of the Synoptic Problem -- in order to slip
      > in remarks directed against a person, such as what prompted Wieland's
      > remonstrance, there is every reason to believe that the gospel writers were
      > basically no different -- no better. We all have likes and dislikes and
      > emotions that cannot always be kept hidden, and so did they, as they were
      > humans, not mere "pipelines from God."

      And what this bit from Jim exemplifies is that he has missed (or chosen to ignore)
      the point of my critique of what, for him, is a basic underpining of his
      "solution" to the Synoptic Problem. Nowhere did I deny that the Gospel writers had
      motive to write, let alone that these motives might have been less than
      admirable. What I pointed out was specific evidence for suspecting that Jim's
      particular *assessment* of what these motives actually were -- and therefore his
      conclusion about the solution to the Synoptic problem that is based on that
      assessment -- was highly dubious. Here again, then, Jim himself seems to
      supply additional evidence that this is so.

      In any case, to offer, as I did in the post which Wieland quotes, a notice of,
      and evidence for, why Jim's particular assessment of the motives of the
      Evangelists should be viewed with suspicion (if not incredulity) seems to me to be
      not a deviation from the purpose of the List, but something which is highly
      consistent with it.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey Gibson
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      The current exchange on Re: Assessing Motives should be ended with immediate effect. The reasons for this are, I hope, obvious. Those who wish to
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 22, 1999
        The current exchange on "Re: Assessing Motives" should be ended with immediate
        effect. The reasons for this are, I hope, obvious. Those who wish to
        correspond on this should do so off list.


        --------------------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

        Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        --------------------------------------

        Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.