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

[Synoptic-L] rhetorical questions

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/4/1999 3:26:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 4, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/4/1999 3:26:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      scmiller@... writes:

      << LOL! I've noticed a rather distressing tendency in arguing for Markan
      posteriority on the basis of ignoring serious questions asked and by
      pretending that they were rhetorical questions. <g> Seriously folks,
      sometimes a question IS a question!
      >>

      Steven, recall that this entire line began with my statement that I was
      amazed IF your questions were intended as rhetorical questions settling the
      issue. Whether or not you engaged, or ever engage, in this "distressing
      tendency", it is indeed, as Stephen noted, a tendency in arguing for Markan
      Priority to use such rhetorical questions, and it does indeed suggest a
      weakness in supportive evidence for same. If you don't believe me that the
      tendency exists, I can cite you published examples that would make the point.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Steven Craig Miller
      To: Leonard Maluf,
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 4, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Leonard Maluf,

        << Steven, recall that this entire line began with my statement that I was
        amazed IF your questions were intended as rhetorical questions settling the
        issue. Whether or not you engaged, or ever engage, in this "distressing
        tendency", it is indeed, as Stephen noted, a tendency in arguing for Markan
        Priority to use such rhetorical questions, and it does indeed suggest a
        weakness in supportive evidence for same. If you don't believe me that the
        tendency exists, I can cite you published examples that would make the
        point. >>

        First, do you really think that only those who argue for Markan Priority
        unfairly use rhetorical questions? Second, is it really fair to place my
        message on par with published material? When one writes a book and asks a
        rhetorical question, one knows that no one can directly answer one's
        question. But when I wrote my message and when I asked those questions, I
        expected that someone might present an answer.

        -Steven Craig Miller
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/4/1999 9:39:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 4, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/4/1999 9:39:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          scmiller@... writes:

          <<
          First, do you really think that only those who argue for Markan Priority
          unfairly use rhetorical questions? >>

          No, apparently people who argue for people who argue for Markan Priority do
          as well! (Rhetorical exclamation point). No, on a more serious vein, I don't
          think that, and I also don't think I ever said or implied that. Rhetorical
          questions as a substitute for arguments demonstating Markan priority are
          simply a noteworthy feature of introductory literature to the Synoptics that
          Stephen and I can't help noticing and pointing out. Such questions of course
          occur elsewhere, and often with an analogous function.

          <<Second, is it really fair to place my
          message on par with published material?>>

          Did I do that? I simply offerred, I think, to produce evidence that such
          questions occur in the literature in case you didn't believe that they do.

          << When one writes a book and asks a
          rhetorical question, one knows that no one can directly answer one's
          question. But when I wrote my message and when I asked those questions, I
          expected that someone might present an answer.>>

          I accept that, and have from the beginning.

          Leonard Maluf
        • Steven Craig Miller
          To: Leonard Maluf, SCM: LM: You didn t? Darn, I was hoping
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 4, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Leonard Maluf,

            SCM: << ... is it really fair to place my message on par with published
            material? >>

            LM: << Did I do that? >>

            You didn't? Darn, I was hoping you had! <g>

            -Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@...)
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.