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

4995Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style

Expand Messages
  • Ken Litwak
    Nov 7, 1998
      Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
      > > ... I don't have a definition of style
      > >that would be helpful. That's the point.
      > Perhaps the point is that there are other folks who do.
      Fine Nichael, as I said in my post, I'd like to see someone post a
      definition of style that can account for all possible data and that
      deals intelligently with all the possibilities. For example, should the
      delineation of someone's style forbid the use of vocabulary not in this
      constructed style? Is Mark allowed to use words not part of his style?
      I am not arguing that one critic makes other view points null and void.
      On the other hand, is it really academically sound to make an argument
      based on style but not be willing to come clean and say what that
      definite is? So, if you've got a definition of style that would be
      useful for academic study and applicable to TC, please by all means post
      it. Don't merely reply to me that others have useful definitions. Is it
      problematic to you that I want to be academically rigourous? If you
      know of a useful definition of style, please cite it. The fundamental
      problem is that everyone here has been using style without defining it.
      I submit that this is precisely the problem that I have found in work on
      my dissertation, viz., lots of scholars say they are using
      intertextuality without delineating what that means and it can mean lots
      of things so it does not help particularly to state that you are using
      this approach. I am asking for something pretty basic to proper
      scholarship: define your terms. Why is that problematic for

      Ken Litwak
      Trinity College/University of Bristol
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic