Kata Markon

["Eric Eve" <eric.eve AT harris-manchester.oxford.ac.uk>]

Since this and Joe's other message seems to have been swallowed by the list
manager software, I'll try forwarding it directly to this list instead.
----------------------------------
Eric Eve
Harris Manchester College, Oxford



-----Original Message-----
From: JFAlward AT aol.com [mailto:JFAlward AT aol.com]
Sent: 26 October 2002 07:49
To: Kata Markon
Subject: [gmark] Re: Some Responses


JEFFREY GIBSON
You asked for some responses to your “critique” of my views, your own
interpretation of Mk. 14:38, and the “arguments” you have mounted in defense
of your views.  I do not have time to take into account all that you have
said and claimed. But here, in no particular order, are a few things that
have come to mind.

1. You claim that my view on how Mark intended Mk. 14:38 to be understood
cannot be true because it is (reputedly) something that no other biblical
scholar  has seen in 2000 years. I note with interest that the same
criticism
may be applied to **your** view. Show me any scholar who has read has read
Mk. 14:38 as you do.

JOE ALWARD
Thanks for the response, Jeffrey.  I am not sure I will be able to deal with
your other points effectively unless a satisfactory resolution of a
difficulty I find in your first point.  So, let me address just that one
point here.

I hope you won't take this personally, but I believe you have presented
above
the fallacious argument known as ad hominem tu quoque, also known as the
"you
too" reasoning fallacy.  As it applies in your case, I believe you are
arguing that it is all right for you to be seeing something that no other
biblical scholar has seen in 2000 years because you believe I am doing the
same thing.  If it is wrong for me to do it, then it is wrong for you to do
it, too.

If we were to allow ad hominem tu quoque reasoning, then I fear that the
next
fallacy might be an even worse ad hominem, and then all we will have to show
the forum is acrimony.  So, in the interest of avoiding this possibililty,
will you please consider withdrawing the tu quoque, if you agree that is
what
it is?

If you do withdraw it, I believe you still will need to address what I am
sure is a concern not only of mine, but of many others on this forum:  Does
it not seem suspicious to you that no English translation of the Bible in
the
past several hundred years supports your view?  Who is more likely to be
wrong:  all of them...or you?


Regards,

Joe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

----------------------------------------------


Joseph F. Alward, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics
University of the Pacific
Stockton CA 95201
email:  JFAlward AT aol.com

Web Page:  "A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

---
You are currently subscribed to gmark as:
eric.eve AT harris-manchester.oxford.ac.uk
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')

JEFFREY GIBSON
You asked for some responses to your “critique” of my views, your own
interpretation of Mk. 14:38, and the “arguments” you have mounted in defense
of your views.  I do not have time to take into account all that you have
said and claimed. But here, in no particular order, are a few things that
have come to mind.

1. You claim that my view on how Mark intended Mk. 14:38 to be understood
cannot be true because it is (reputedly) something that no other biblical
scholar  has seen in 2000 years. I note with interest that the same criticism
may be applied to **your** view. Show me any scholar who has read has read
Mk. 14:38 as you do.

JOE ALWARD
Thanks for the response, Jeffrey.  I am not sure I will be able to deal with
your other points effectively unless a satisfactory resolution of a
difficulty I find in your first point.  So, let me address just that one
point here.

I hope you won't take this personally, but I believe you have presented above
the fallacious argument known as ad hominem tu quoque, also known as the "you
too" reasoning fallacy.  As it applies in your case, I believe you are
arguing that it is all right for you to be seeing something that no other
biblical scholar has seen in 2000 years because you believe I am doing the
same thing.  If it is wrong for me to do it, then it is wrong for you to do
it, too. 

If we were to allow ad hominem tu quoque reasoning, then I fear that the next
fallacy might be an even worse ad hominem, and then all we will have to show
the forum is acrimony.  So, in the interest of avoiding this possibililty,
will you please consider withdrawing the tu quoque, if you agree that is what
it is?

If you do withdraw it, I believe you still will need to address what I am
sure is a concern not only of mine, but of many others on this forum:  Does
it not seem suspicious to you that no English translation of the Bible in the
past several hundred years supports your view?  Who is more likely to be
wrong:  all of them...or you?


Regards,

Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------


Joseph F. Alward, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics
University of the Pacific
Stockton CA 95201
email:  JFAlward AT aol.com

Web Page:  "A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

---
You are currently subscribed to gmark as: eric.eve AT harris-manchester.oxford.ac.uk
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')