Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Marion & Luke; Jefferson & Washington

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Marion & Luke; Jefferson & Washington
  • Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 12:05:53 -0500


Dear Larry, Mike, and list,
I have no interest in responding to Mike's post. He was kind enough to send
a copy of a paper and he requested some feedback--("Please
give me a reaction, either privately or - even better in Corpus Paul,
whether approving or opposing")--which I have offered. If Mike does not find
it helpful, that is up to him. I do not find his analogy useful, and do not
wish to take the time to demonstrate the problems. I assume that the list
members are intelligent enough, if interested, to look at my post and his
response and decide for themselves whether the kinds of problems to which I
pointed remain obstacles to his thesis or not. The practice of
historiography is not simple, and I have as much to learn as the next
student of these texts.

I will try to learn what I can about the practice of historiography from the
analogy Mike offered, but I do not find it, on the surface, pertinent to the
case at hand. That was, we know that Paul's letters were not mentioned in
the manuscripts of Acts available to us (we do not have the original under
glass), but we do not know why that is the case. Any assertions about "why"
should be made humbly, should consider other options at some length and
demonstrate the strengths of the option chosen, and any additional arguments
that hang upon that choice should be made even more humbly. Apparently Mike
does not agree, and finds the options I listed of no value. That is his
prerogative.

Finally, Larry, I do not quite follow your request. Perhaps I misunderstand
your point, but I have not written an article, and the only thing I have
contributed in in the post sent yesterday under the title "Marcion," to
which Mike responded (have you reversed Mark and Mike?). I too do not care
for the tone of Mike's reply, but that is a matter for him to consider, not
Mark.

Peace,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com

on 8/6/01 10:51 AM, L. J. Swain at larry.swain AT wmich.edu wrote:

> I find this type of post inappropriate. Mark, if you can produce
> evidence where Mike has misapplied his reasoning or that his argument
> fails, please demonstrate it. This post below, however, only leads me
> to believe that your article and your evidence is weaker than you would
> have us believe, otherwise why the outlandish rhetoric?
>
> Larry Swain
>
> Mike Conley wrote:
>>
>> Fellow Earthling ! We've all been moved by the logic behind Mark D.
>> Nanos critique of my handling of the matter of "sola fida" in my Marcion
>> essay.
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page