Kata Markon

[JFAlward AT aol.com]

LARRY SWAIN
And whose King James Bible?  a) do you really think that something done in 
1611 is indicative of 21st century usage and orthography?  Surely you jest?  
and b) did you happen to check a King James Bible printed in England and 
edited by an English editor or did you grab a KJV edited and printed by an 
American publisher?  My guess is the latter, in which case your [sic] judging 
British usage by an American editor's usage, not quite cricket there ol' boy.

JOSEPH ALWARD

My King's James Version of the Bible was printed in Great Britain.  Aren't 
they all? The "Selected Helps to the Study of the Bible" in the back abound 
in examples of the American-style punctuation I was talking about, and these 
are from British authors (e.g., George Spurrell, M.A., Balliol College, 
Oxford).  Doesn't yours show the same?  I've argued that irrespective of 
current British practice (if indeed it's still standard), punctuation in 
articles about the Bible probably should be consistent with the punctuation 
people around the world find in their KJV Bibles.  If not, why not?

LARRY SWAIN

Finally, Fowler has been consistently updated and reissued, the newest I 
believe is the 3rd edition, was put out in 2000.  Not sure if that is the 
edition Eric was using or not, but best not criticize there either until your 
[sic] certain he was using the 1908 version, and that you can demonstrate 
from other newer and better sources (other than your own uncatalogued and 
unverified observation) that the British norm has sufficiently changed to 
warrant challenging that venerable tool.

JOSEPH ALWARD

I think what really matters is whether an article's punctuation meets the 
standards of the journal, and in the case of the Journal of Biblical 
Literature, which I believe is published in the United States, the U.S. 
standards should prevail.  Those standards call for periods and commas always 
to appear before the closing quotation mark.  If Goodacre and Gibson submit 
their articles to British journals, there may not be a problem if they use a 
punctuation rule different from that which is used in the U.S. But, I got the 
impression that these authors used JBL, and that--at least in Gibson's 
case--he welcomed constructive criticisms and suggestions--indeed, he 
specifically asked for them.  If my observations are actually not welcome, or 
are inappropriate, then I feel very bad about that.

LARRY SWAIN
 
As someone else remarked, this conversation smacks more of personal attack 
than it does of serious critiquing of Jeffrey's paper and argument. 

JOE ALWARD
Then "someone else" is wrong, because most of my criticism was directed 
toward Goodacre's apparent inconsistency in sometimes using periods inside 
the closing quotation, and sometimes not.  It is evident that he is using 
Fowler's convention, not the American one, in his web article, and that is 
his right.  If it had been published in JBL, that's a different matter.  As 
for Jeffrey, I think you will find that all I said was that his periods were 
outside the quotation marks, while they belonged inside; his usage was 
consistent.  I had assumed he was submitting his work to be published in JBL, 
which I believe is published in the U.S., where the standard calls for the 
period to be placed outside the quotes.  I mentioned this to him, told him it 
was "a small matter, " he thanked me, and that should have been the end of 
it, since it was a small matter, compared to the things I really wanted to 
talk about.

I'm through talking about punctuation, now, if you are.

LARRY SWAIN
I would prefer to return to the paper.........

JOSEPH ALWARD
So would I.  People so far seem only to want to talk about commas.  Where is 
the substantive response to the post in which I countered Gibson's Gethsemane 
interpretation?  That is what I really would like to talk about.