Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re:Corpus Paul: Incompatible Questions

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: gds AT dor.kaiser.org
  • To: <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re:Corpus Paul: Incompatible Questions
  • Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:29:33 -0700


Folks:

At the risk of getting too involved in the 'did Paul die' interchange, I think
that the sort of exchange we witness between Jim and Karl serves few who read
it. Karl, the domain assumptions that lay behind your question regarding
Paul's
mortality are essentially incompatible with most of those in the Society of
Biblical Literature were trained to think in 'Troeltschian' and/or
'neo-Troeltschian' categories. Rhetorically, there can be no 'liaisson' or
bridge between the two systems of thought that can be seen in Jim's response,
who essentially represents what many of us would think but might not say, and
your own thought. As such, there can be little **academic** dialogue between
the two schools of thought. Personal dialogue, offline, I might add though,
is
entirely another matter. Karl, you must realize, that your question is not
answerable given the domain assumptions of the historical-critical method
given
the evidence to date of your question. You seem to demand a grave marker or
such that says, "Paul, of Tarsus, who wrote the Letters in the Canon, died
here." This, for most historians, is unreasonable to expect given the age in
which he lived, and not a few other reasons as well. Technically, your
question
is therefore, 'unhistorical' in the sense we would demand that it mean yet you
would seemingly insist upon, and therefore, is largely unintelligible to those
like myself who are trained in that discipline. All methods ask questions and
can entertain questions only from a certain 'slant'. Eventually, every method
'weeds out' questions which are not compliant with it's assumptions. Your
slant, therefore, is simply not accessible to the methods of most guild
members.
Having said that, it does not mean your question is stupid, but rather, is
different, though certainly of a more confessional nature than is normally
considered "OK" for this forum. However, as we all know, confessional
epistemologies work very differently from academic disciplines like the
sciences
or historical methods, and I am sure there are forums that would be
comfortable
with such in other places on the Web. Furthermore, most of us have chosen the
academic epistemologies because our individual epistemologies, at whatever
level, precludes some or perhaps all of the assumptions you bring when you
sincerely ask this question. As such, I would simply say that if you want this
question seriously entertained from an 'historical' point of view, you are
asking something that to me, is not possible for most in our guild. The
assumptions that most of bring to the table in this listserve are incompatible
with many of the unvoiced assumptions you seem to have in asking this
question.
Given that methods must match assumptions and interests, the tactful way to
say
what Jim has said, is that the type of historical methodology that most of us
would utilize to answer this question seemingly works in a different way than
what would be satisfying for you and your implied 'historical' paradigms. I
think, that is the tactful way to address this, and hopefully, for all
involved,
to leave it. The meaning of the word 'historical' is a loaded term, Karl. I
personally cannot stretch the word to mean what your questions would seemingly
have it to mean, but that doesn't mean that in another context, you can't ask
the question. Most of us here, however, would not ask this question, nor
would
it have ever entered our minds (at least, I never asked this). Unfortunately,
what that means is that this listserve cannot possibly be your implied
audience
for answering your perspective on 'Paul's death', and I think that as much as
you want respected, you need to respect the limitations most of us have as
well.
In that sense, I think more respect needs to be granted by both sides here.
I
hope that works for you and treats you with the personal dignity that you
deserve, though the two of us are not coming from the same academic or
historical universe. Can we now find more appropriate ways to dialogue?

Submitted in the spirit of mutual respect,

Gary D. Salyer, Ph.D





  • Re:Corpus Paul: Incompatible Questions, gds, 09/05/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page