|
Susan Hunnicut wrote on October 27, 2002:
I have been checking in on this conversation on and off
since Mr. Gibson posted his paper, which I thought was quite
interesting.
(snip)
The question I would like to ask is this: Why is Mr.
Alward dominating this discussion?
(snip)
I am horrified by the lack of respect he has shown in this
discussion. I am horrified that he is allowed to continue to do
this.
(snip)
There are issues in this gospel that I think are quite
relevant to my life and the lives of other people, and they are not being
discussed on this list.
(snip)
There are issues in this gospel that I think are quite relevant to my
life and the lives of other people, and they are not being discussed on this
list.
(snip)
I don't think Mr. Gibson should spend anymore time in this conversation
if others do not step in. It is a waste of his time.
Susan, I did send an off-list post to
Jeffrey Gibson on Wednesday, Octorber 23, in which I indicated to Jeffrey that
what I perceived as sparring between Joe Alward and another member of this
list (not Jeffrey), in my opinion, had reached its list-pertinent course and that I saw nothing but
an impasse at that point in time. I suggested that the the
sparring be ended, but did not think that Jeffrey should himself call an end
to the discussion, since it was his thesis that was being debated.
As you are now probably aware, Eric Eve intervened off-list with Joe Alward,
and Joe subsequently resigned from the Kata Markon e-group, per Brian Boland's
post of today.
I have not personally been engaged in
the present discussion of Jeffrey's paper, as I posted my own lengthy
essay, "Sleeping Disciples-Apostasy in Gethsemane," on Kata
Markon (June 12, 2002) when Jeffrey first introduced his paper to Kata
Markon on May 29, 2002 via http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Articles%20for%20Review/Mk%2014.38.htm.
In my response, I dealt with not only hermeneutical issues regarding the text,
but also existential/theological and "spiritual" issues which were, in my
interpretation of the text, critical to Mark's community, as well as, I
think, people today. My essay did then address, in my
judgment, matters which you indicate have, from your perspective,
not been dealt with in the present discussion..
Since I had already posted my
response to Jeffrey's thesis in June, I assumed that Kata Markon participants
were already aware of my own interpretation of Mk. 14:38 in the context of Mk.
14: 32-32 vis-a-vis Jeffrey's thesis. So I saw no need in
posting again my 25-page response again. I have read Jeffrey's
revision of his paper and offered him comments off-list. I am glad
that Jeffrey, as I have observed, has received significant, balanced feedback
from many on this list and hope that that feedback has been helpful to him as
he prepares to read his paper at the SBL in Toronto.
Ted Weeden
|
