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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Dunn quotation

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... I think any argument that finds its strength in the weakness of another argument is itself a weak argument if it has to be propped up on a weaker one.
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 04:28 PM 6/6/03 +0100, you wrote:
      >"The case *against* Q is only as strong as it is because the case
      >*for* Q has been overstated" (James D. G. Dunn, "Altering the Default
      >Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus
      >Tradition", _NTS_ 49 (2003), pp. 139-75, p. 172, emphasis original).

      I think any argument that finds its strength in the weakness of another
      argument is itself a weak argument if it has to be propped up on a weaker
      one. Such an argument simply leads to a series of theses based on the
      rather silly premiss that "this theory is at least a little bit better than
      the one it contradicts and for that reason should be believed"! Not really
      a good basis for logic now is it?

      I think arguments are proven on their own merits, not in comparison with
      other arguments.

      At least, thats what I think.


      Jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Jim West
      Quartz Hill School of Theology
      Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies

      Biblical Studies Resources
      http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

      "Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui"


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      ... Rather difficult : what is the level of confidence for an evidence in history ? An evidence is allways evaluated against other evidences. For instance,
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim West a écrit :
        >
        > At 04:28 PM 6/6/03 +0100, you wrote:
        > >"The case *against* Q is only as strong as it is because the case
        > >*for* Q has been overstated" (James D. G. Dunn, "Altering the Default
        > >Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus
        > >Tradition", _NTS_ 49 (2003), pp. 139-75, p. 172, emphasis original).
        >
        > I think any argument that finds its strength in the weakness of another
        > argument is itself a weak argument if it has to be propped up on a weaker
        > one. Such an argument simply leads to a series of theses based on the
        > rather silly premiss that "this theory is at least a little bit better than
        > the one it contradicts and for that reason should be believed"! Not really
        > a good basis for logic now is it?
        >
        > I think arguments are proven on their own merits, not in comparison with
        > other arguments.

        Rather difficult : what is the level of confidence for an
        evidence in history ? An evidence is allways evaluated against
        other evidences.

        For instance, Mark Goodacre, in "Fatigue in the synoptic", says
        that the argument of Fatigue is strong. Implicitly, he means
        "strong against other arguments", and it is not scandalous.

        What looks harder, in Dunn's statement, is the fact that we should
        distinguish two classes of Q arguments : the class of good, moderate
        Q theory, and the class of Q-fundamentalists; and it looks, according
        Dunn, as if the against-Q followers would have allways adressed only Q
        fundamentalists, and never the good and moderate Q theory.
        It looks hard to believe, and in fact, it would not be believed without
        further arguments.

        May you say us, Mark, if Dunn provides good arguments for this affirmation ?

        a+
        manu


        > At least, thats what I think.
        >
        > Jim
        >
        > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        >
        > Jim West
        > Quartz Hill School of Theology
        > Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies
        >
        > Biblical Studies Resources
        > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
        >
        > "Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui"
        >
        > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... No, I m afraid not. It s just an assertion in a footnote in which Dunn refers to my Case Against Q and Cyril Rodd s recent Expository Times article on the
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On 6 Jun 2003 at 19:08, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

          > May you say us, Mark, if Dunn provides good arguments for this
          > affirmation ?

          No, I'm afraid not. It's just an assertion in a footnote in which
          Dunn refers to my Case Against Q and Cyril Rodd's recent Expository
          Times article on the reconstruction of Q. There are several other
          negative references to Q sceptics in the course of the article, eg.
          me, Farmer, Goulder. But Dunn also clearly feels some antagonism
          towards Kloppenborg and others who attempt to reconstruct the text of
          Q and there are negative references to that enterprise throughout.
          So I think he sees himself as standing between two extreme poles.

          The main purpose of Dunn's interesting article will be familiar to
          anyone involved in the Xtalk sponsored on-line seminar with Dunn a
          little while ago. His basic claim is that what he calls the literary
          paradigm dominates the thinking of NT scholarship to the extent that
          this is a kind of "default setting". What we need to do is to enter
          into a completely different mind-set, one in which oral tradition is
          primary. We need to make this our "default setting".

          His paper is his SNTS presidential address 2002 and it gives a taster
          of a forthcoming book on the same subject. I'd be interested to hear
          if anyone else has any thoughts on this because it impacts directly
          on our understanding of the Synoptics. If I can get a moment and if
          there is interest, I'd be happy to share my own thoughts about Dunn's
          article.

          Mark
          -----------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
          Birmingham B15 2TT UK

          http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
          http://NTGateway.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.