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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Critique of "Fatigue in the Synoptics

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... What is mind-boggling to me is that a person who has boasted of not having read the article past the second page thinks he is in a position to make these
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:02 PM 4/10/01 EDT, JFAlward@... wrote:
      >What is of most importance now, I think, is whether an article in [New
      >Testament Studies] contains fallacious arguments. I think it should be Mark
      >who defends his statements, not others, at this point.

      What is mind-boggling to me is that a person who has boasted
      of not having read the article past the second page thinks he
      is in a position to make these outrageous statements.

      The only thing that needs defending now is why someone who
      revels in his own ignorance and spurns many of our attempts
      to be helpful should be taken seriously.

      Stephen Carlson


      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Ken Olson wrote-- ... Ken, I doubt that any member of this list can give any valid argument for the priority/posteriority in either direction between any two
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Ken Olson wrote--
        >
        >I don't doubt that on an _ad hoc_ basis any member of this list could
        >give several reasons to argue for priority/posteriority in either
        >direction between any two gospel pericopes.
        >
        Ken,
        I doubt that any member of this list can give any valid argument
        for the priority/posteriority in either direction between any two
        (parallel) pericopes in the synoptic gospels.

        To take an example. Can it be validly argued from the wording of the
        Feeding of the Five Thousand in Mark and the wording of the Feeding of
        the Five Thousand in Matthew, that the Markan version is prior to the
        Matthean (or, alternatively, that the Matthean version is prior to the
        Markan)? I would suggest that any argument put forward would be
        consistent with neither being prior to the other.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Antonio Jerez
        ... I agree with Stephen. Happy Easter Antonio Jerez Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@bham.ac.uk
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 12, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          > At 08:02 PM 4/10/01 EDT, JFAlward@... wrote:
          > >What is of most importance now, I think, is whether an article in [New
          > >Testament Studies] contains fallacious arguments. I think it should be Mark
          > >who defends his statements, not others, at this point.
          >
          > What is mind-boggling to me is that a person who has boasted
          > of not having read the article past the second page thinks he
          > is in a position to make these outrageous statements.
          >
          > The only thing that needs defending now is why someone who
          > revels in his own ignorance and spurns many of our attempts
          > to be helpful should be taken seriously.

          I agree with Stephen.

          Happy Easter

          Antonio Jerez


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • JFAlward@aol.com
          ... Mark ... ============ ... ================ Antonio Jerez: I agree with Stephen. Happy Easter ================ Joe Alward: I ve asserted that Goodacre s
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 12, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            > At 08:02 PM 4/10/01 EDT, JFAlward@... wrote:
            > >What is of most importance now, I think, is whether an article in [New
            > >Testament Studies] contains fallacious arguments. I think it should be
            Mark
            > >who defends his statements, not others, at this point.
            >
            ============
            Stephen Carlson:

            > What is mind-boggling to me is that a person who has boasted
            > of not having read the article past the second page thinks he
            > is in a position to make these outrageous statements.
            >
            > The only thing that needs defending now is why someone who
            > revels in his own ignorance and spurns many of our attempts
            > to be helpful should be taken seriously.
            ================
            Antonio Jerez:

            I agree with Stephen.

            Happy Easter
            ================
            Joe Alward:

            I've asserted that Goodacre's claims
            (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm) that Herod's grief (Matthew
            14:1-11) "makes no sense," and "the leper meets Jesus privately " (Mark
            1:40-45) were insupportable, and that his arguments are fallacious. If I
            believe the first part of an article contains nonsense, am I not to expect
            the same later? How many of the other members of this list have stopped
            reading an article that makes unsustainable arguments on the first couple of
            pages? Am I the first to do this?

            How could anything Goodacre would say later in his article remedy what I
            thought were errors in the first part? It will be a simple matter to show I
            made a mistake: All Antonio or Stephen need to do is point out where
            Goodacre, in the latter portion of his article, remedies the problems I noted
            in the first part. If they will do that, I will admit I was hasty in my
            judgment and apologize.

            But, where is Mark Goodacre in all this? It is his argument, after all, so
            it should be he who defends his statements about the leper and Herod. How
            long could that take?


            Regards,

            Joe Alward

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ted Weeden
            ... My respomse: I also add my kudos, Mark, for the shepherding of a fine list. I have been a passive participant for several months, and enter now to
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 12, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Stephen Carlson wrote April 09, 2001:

              > The Spring 2001 issue of JBL has arrived, and it includes
              > an article by Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr. and John S.
              > Kloppenborg Verbin, entitled "Self-Contradiction in the
              > IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder", JBL 120 (2001): 57-76.
              >
              > It is a pretty detailed treatment of Goulder's article,
              > which we had discussed earlier here on Synoptic-L. In
              > fact, the authors refered to parts of that discussion
              > on Synoptic-L in their article and quoted some parts
              > of by permission of the poster in question.
              >
              > This means that Synoptic-L has appeared on the radar
              > screen of scholarly discourse, so congratulations are
              > in order to the list owner, Mark Goodacre....

              My respomse:

              I also add my "kudos," Mark, for the shepherding of a fine list. I have
              been a passive participant for several months, and enter now to express my
              appreciation to Mark and also address an issue which has has now surfaced
              in two recent posts, namely the posts of Stephen Carlson and Antonia Jerez.

              Stephen wrote on 4/10/01, 9:59 PM in response to a post by Joe Alward:

              >At 08:02 PM 4/10/01 EDT, JFAlward@... wrote:
              >>What is of most importance now, I think, is whether an article in [New
              >>Testament Studies] contains fallacious arguments. I think it should be
              >>Mark who defends his statements, not others, at this point.

              >What is mind-boggling to me is that a person who has boasted
              >of not having read the article past the second page thinks he
              >is in a position to make these outrageous statements.

              >The only thing that needs defending now is why someone who
              >revels in his own ignorance and spurns many of our attempts
              >to be helpful should be taken seriously.

              Antonio Jerez wrote in post on 4/12/01, 11:52 AM, in response
              to the above statements of Stephen Carlson:

              > I agree with Stephen.

              My response:

              While I would not express myself exacting as Stephen has, I do in
              substance agree. I am concerned with the tenor and the substance
              of some of Joe Alward's challenges to Mark Goodacre with respect
              to Mark's defense of his "fatigue" theory.

              To the above post cited by Stephen as a cause of concern, I also
              include Joe's post of 4/10.01, 4:01 PDT to Mark in which Joe
              writes:

              > I found what I thought were extravagances in your claims in the first
              >two examples you gave. I hope you will look closely at the
              >objections against your cleansing of the leper and beheading of John
              >examples you presented as fatigue, and answer the many questions
              >about them that have been raised on this list. One would have
              >expected to find your best examples of fatigue at the beginning of
              >your article, but, instead of finding strength, I find the exact opposite.
              >If one finds weakness where one would expect strength, one not
              >justified in expecting to find even more weakness where one would
              >expect the weaker examples to be presented, in the later stages of
              >your article? Thus, I stopped reading after the second page.

              My response:

              I do not think it is right or fair for any of us to summarily dismiss any
              scholar's argument based upon reading only part of it and not taking
              seriously and digesting the full argumentation. To do so, in my
              judgment is not to be committed to the full pursuit of truth and being
              open to the positions of others, even when one may be in sharp
              disagreement. Furthermore, to dismiss another's argument out of
              hand without giving it its full day in court violates the very spirit of
              collegiality. It borders on one-up-manship and scholarly arrogance,
              all which is too often manifested among scholars, and which I,
              personally, detest.

              And if I may speak directly to you, Joe: We have had some fruitful
              exchanges on issues of common interest to us both on another list.
              I have personally profited by those exchanges. But I find your
              challenge to Mark in your quote above to be unbecoming to you
              and to the spirit of genuine collegiality. As I recall, you objected
              on another list to what you felt was the lack of collegiality shown
              you as a result of certain responses directed to you. Why, then,
              do I find you responding to Mark in the very way you objected to
              with respect to the treatment of yourself?

              Moreover, I must state honestly that I could not disagree more with
              your statement to Mark: ".If one finds weakness where one would
              expect strength, *is one not justified* [my emphasis] in expecting to
              find even more weakness where one would expect the weaker
              examples to be presented, in the later stages of your article?" When
              are you and I (or any scholar) ever *justified* as scholars to draw
              such a conclusion if we have not allowed another to present his/her
              full case. If stopped reading Mark's article after the first two pages,
              is not that the equivalent of interrupting a speaker in the middle of a
              presentation, telling the speaker you don't want to hear any more
              because you already know what he/she is going to say, turning your
              back on him or her, and walking out?

              Besides, your claim that an author presumably would make his/her
              best case at the outset of an article and cover the weaker, more
              problematic aspects after the best case has been made, may be an
              inference you draw when reading an article. But I do not. I find to
              do so would automatically prejudice my openness to the
              development of a scholars thesis and that I would have acted on the
              hermeneutical principle that the unfoldment of a thesis is an
              unfoldment of the increasing weakness of a position, without giving
              the argument an unbiased reading. What if Mark, contrary to your
              assumption, was presenting us an argumentative "feast" Cana-style,
              in which contrary to normal practice, he was saving "the best wine"
              of his argument until last? If you stop reading it after the first two
              pages, how would you know whether or not the wine of his unfolding
              argument grows worse unless you stay around for the last of the wine
              sipping? In fact, some scholars who pursue an inductive method of
              argumentation, rather than a deductive method, often serve up the
              "best wine" at the end of the argumentative feast. I do not think
              you stayed around long enough, Joe, to taste all the fine wine Mark
              was offering us.

              Furthermore I am aghast at the following admonition you direct to
              Mark: "I hope you will look closely at the objections against your
              cleansing of the leper and beheading of John examples you presented
              as fatigue, and answer the many questions about them that have been
              raised on this list." I am not aghast that you tell Mark you think he
              should answer the questions of those who have taken his arguments
              seriously and find aspects that need to be addressed or defended.
              And I think you and others have every right to ask Mark to so
              respond. What I am aghast at is that you have not in turn held
              yourself to the same high standard of scholarly accountability you
              have demanded of Mark. For example, why will you not answer
              the questions posed you by Jeffrey Gibson on his posts to you on this
              list? As I recall, he has asked you to tell him whether you use the
              Greek text in your tables of comparisons, whether you understand
              the function of KAI in Mark, and whether you have taken into
              consideration K. L. Schmidt's work? To demand that Mark respond
              to all the questions posed to him and not in turn respond to the questions
              posed to you raises serious questions in my mind with respect to your
              commitment to scholarly collegiality, and at worse whether your
              apparent refusal does not have the ring of hypocrisy. Namely, you
              demand that Mark be held to a high standard of accountability, which
              he should be, but you appear to be unwilling yourself to be held to the
              same high standard.

              When I read a theory such as the one Mark has advanced, I do not
              immediately look for how it can be disproven or verified. I look on
              a theory of any scholar, initially, the way Alfred North Whitehead
              valued propositions. Whitehead is famous for having said that the
              most important thing about a proposition (or theory) is not that it be
              true or false but that it being interesting. By that he meant the
              interest which a proposition sparks is a prompt, even an inspiration,
              to new ways of seeing things, a helpful challenge to currently held
              paradigms, etc., all of which simulates the further pursuit of inquiry
              and the enhancement of knowledge.

              In our own exchanges on another list, I have found the propositions
              which yu have presented, and which have challenged my own
              positions, to be, from Witehead's perspective, quite interesting. Your
              propositions forced me to rethink my own and to see some things in
              a more comprehensive and clearer way than I had before. You
              advamced my own insights and understanding. As you know, I finally
              decided, as I examined your argumentation over against mine, that my
              position, in my judgment, was still a more persuasive way of looking
              at the issues we were jointly in dialogue over. As a result, I still
              disgree with your position, but I am indebted to you for presenting it
              in such an "interesting" way that it challenged me to my own scholarly
              advancement.

              Ted Weeden









              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... As it happens I have nothing to add to (what I regard as) some intelligent and well-informed responses to this critique from others on the list, alongside
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 12, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On 12 Apr 2001, at 13:42, JFAlward@... wrote:

                > How could anything Goodacre would say later in his article remedy what
                > I thought were errors in the first part? It will be a simple matter
                > to show I made a mistake: All Antonio or Stephen need to do is point
                > out where Goodacre, in the latter portion of his article, remedies the
                > problems I noted in the first part. If they will do that, I will
                > admit I was hasty in my judgment and apologize.
                >
                > But, where is Mark Goodacre in all this? It is his argument, after
                > all, so it should be he who defends his statements about the leper and
                > Herod. How long could that take?

                As it happens I have nothing to add to (what I regard as) some
                intelligent and well-informed responses to this critique from others
                on the list, alongside a general message I posted to the list on 10
                April, in which I attempted to draw attention to the way in which the
                overall argument in the article is conceived. I also pointed out that I
                have been unable to engage at any length with the specifics of any
                of the recent critiques of the article because of overwhelming work
                pressures. I would be grateful if you would respect
                these considerations and avoid prolonging this thread any further.

                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
                Homepage
                http://NTGateway.com
                The New Testament Gateway

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • JFAlward@aol.com
                In a message dated 4/12/01 2:45:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 12, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 4/12/01 2:45:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                  M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

                  << As it happens I have nothing to add to (what I regard as) some
                  intelligent and well-informed responses to this critique from others
                  on the list, alongside a general message I posted to the list on 10
                  April, in which I attempted to draw attention to the way in which the
                  overall argument in the article is conceived. I also pointed out that I
                  have been unable to engage at any length with the specifics of any
                  of the recent critiques of the article because of overwhelming work
                  pressures. I would be grateful if you would respect
                  these considerations and avoid prolonging this thread any further.

                  Mark >>
                  ==============
                  In your general response you avoided the principal issues, which were your
                  statements in your web article that Herod's grief in Matthew made no sense,
                  and that Jesus met privately with the leper in Mark. I would appreciate
                  knowing whether you still stand unequivocally by these statements, or whether
                  you intend to modify your argument in the future. All you need to do is
                  answer, Yes, or No, to each of these two questions.

                  Are you saying that you won't permit--or don't wish to see--any further
                  discussion of the validity of your Herod and Leper arguments?


                  Joe Alward

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