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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Peter in Matthew

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... enjoy ... Jeffrey: Right. Now I see. John: It is befitting the spirit of collegiality to give a fellow the benefit of the doubt that they are operating
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      John Lupia wrote:

      > Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
      >
      > > Then what was your point?
      >
      > Its hard drawing a diagram in an email. I have no
      > skill at it. My point was confirming Mark G's own
      > point by providing an example, one which he might
      enjoy
      > learning of.

      Jeffrey:
      Right. Now I see.

      John:
      It is befitting the spirit of collegiality to give a
      fellow the benefit of the doubt that they are
      operating from positive intentions rather than
      malicious ones. The rapport I have with Mark G. is
      sufficient that I think he would have construed my
      intial post as a helpful one rather than maligning
      him. The question you posed regarding your reading as
      suggesting plagarism would have been appropriate for
      Mark G. to have asked if for some reason he thought I
      was trying to make look badly. Your reading could
      have been communicated off-list and all of this flurry
      could have been avoided and kept the list focused.


      > It's what we call in academia
      > information sharing.

      Jeffrey:
      Thanks for letting me know this. And apologies for
      forgetting that when
      it comes to knowing, let alone decreeing, what's what
      within "academia" and what is and what is not proper
      academic discourse, you are the
      ultimate authority.

      John:
      Thank you for the acknowledgment. Ad hominems are not
      appreciated (like that hurled last night as well).

      >
      >
      > > What is typical in bad scholarship in *any* day is
      > > to make a claim about
      > > what was "done" in literature and then, when
      asked
      > > to provide evidence
      > > for the claim, to refuse to do so and/or to
      provide
      > > an excuse that
      > > allegedly exempts one from doing so.
      >
      > My point was foundationally laid showing the folly
      to
      > the whole procedure and method used by Tolbert. The
      > fact that you are unaware of Elizabethan
      literature's
      > use of such forms and require my instruction only
      > indicates that you have insufficient reading in
      > literary criticism. So my suggestion was to trek off
      > to the library. But this does not appeal to you and
      > you would prefer for me to do the leg work.
      >

      Jeffrey:
      No, I was just appealing to what I understood to be
      something accepted
      within academia as that which is incumbent upon a
      claim maker.

      John:
      Then you have misunderstood academic form. The only
      provision an academic need make is to point to an
      absence of evidence essential to a premise showing the
      argument is a house of cards without foundation. As
      for pointing to secondary material as a comparative
      and contrasting indicator one is not required to
      provide more than what I already have, merely pointing
      to it at large in a general manner. But, I even did
      take this a step further to help you out on this since
      you seemed genuinely interested in this later form,
      and I realized then that it was a sidebar which I gave
      out of consideration. Sometimes people ask questions
      on list that should be off-list and this is such a
      case; and my answer too should have been off-list
      pointing to Shakespeare�s Tempest, or his other plays.

      Jeffrey:
      I was also assuming that it was generally known by the
      insiders within
      academia such as yourself that it is fallacious to
      assume or conclude
      that because I ask **you**, the claim maker, for what
      you see to be
      evidence for your claim, it follows that I then have
      no knowledge of
      the literature from which your evidence is purportedly
      to be found. I
      believe academics call this bifurcation and condemn
      it; but then again,
      what do I know?

      John:
      Another wrong assumption. It does not logically
      follow to provide detailed secondary material when the
      secondary material has nothing at all to do with the
      premise of Tolbert�s argument to begin with. What is
      essential is to focus on what is logical and logic
      dictates that Tolbert need prove her premise before
      building an argument.

      As for bifurcation, it is risible that you are pinning
      this on me, when it is clearly plain that it is you
      who have taken on a two pronged argument, not I. You
      are the one taking this discussion into two separate
      branches: (1) first century literary form, essential
      and relevant to the discussion (focusing on Tolbert�s
      thesis in this regards); (2) Elizabethan literary
      criticism, not related to the discussion, having no
      relevance whatsoever to first century literary form
      and does not address Tolbert�s thesis at its very
      foundation, nor sheds light on Mark G.�s question
      since he is interested in validity.


      > Regardless, the more important and properly focused
      > question is the one I posed regarding first century
      > use, which *is* foundational to the whole argument
      > developed by Tolbert. Yet for some ghastly reason
      you
      > cannot phathom this and insist on going in a
      direction
      > that offers nothing to the question which Mark
      asked:
      > Am I barking up the wrong tree? Consequently, I am
      > inclined to see you going off the topic and not
      > addressing what Mark G. asked for in order to raise
      > some sidebar argument for purposes that do not bear
      > fruit to this list nor to this discussion.

      Jeffrey:
      Two points in response. First, if indeed what you
      yourself initially
      brought to bear as an argument against what Mark was
      mooting is, as you
      **now** claim, a sidebar argument, why diid you bring
      it up in the
      first
      place?

      John:
      You are bifurcating again. Please read my above note.
      OED �bifurcation� : 1. Division into two forks or
      branches (viewed either as an action or a state.).2.
      concr. a. The point at which the division into two
      forks takes place. b. The bifurcating branches or one
      of them. Now honestly, Jeffrey, I have no intention
      to push the literary critical discussion in this
      direction outlined above, you are, which is why I
      characterized it then and still do as a sidebar having
      no relevance whatsoever to Mark G.�s question.

      Jeffrey
      Second, is it really, as you **now** claim, a
      "sidebar argument"?. If, as a rereading of your
      initial message to Mark shows, one of the crucial
      points in your attempt to show that Tolbert was wrong
      was your claim that Tolbert's view of what Mark was
      doing was not only unattested but was something that
      ran counter to what actual authors actually did
      (albeit in later literature), how can this be viewed
      as a "sidebar argument"? Isn't the establishment of
      such authorial practice essential to your case? If
      so, how can asking you to do so -- or your complying
      with my request to give specific examples where this
      authorial practice can be seen -- be something that
      is off topic?

      Or is it that you are **now** saying that the
      particular authorial
      practice you were referring to -- practices which you
      claimed were not
      imagined but which could actually be found in (later)
      literature, which
      illustrated how authors actually worked, and which
      demonstrated that
      Tolbert was wrong in her claims about Mark's authorial
      practices -- are
      **not** relevant to the issue at hand?

      John:

      See above comments.

      John


      =====
      John N. Lupia, III
      31 Norwich Drive
      Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
      Phone: (732) 341-8689
      Email: jlupia2@...
      Editor, Roman Catholic News
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
      http://taxes.yahoo.com/

      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.