Parenthesis #1: I gave thought to a version of the subject-header that
parodied "Sex, Lies, and Videotape," and although I rejected it, I thought
I should confess to having thought of it.
Parenthesis #2: I shall be naming some names in what follows, I hope
without giving offense--I certainly intend no offense--but I hope that I
can say whatever I have to say about personal differences with a due
measure of decorum.
Parenthesis #3: However important I think it is for me to say what I have
to say in this message, I do NOT want to start a new thread ABOUT this
message. We need to be talking about Biblical Greek texts rather than about
TALKING about TALKING about Biblical Greek texts. Wherefore, if you find
what I have to say here either objectionable or useful, it would be better
that you respond to me OFF-LIST. Most of you know how to use your mailing
programs for that end better than I do!
At 9:44 PM -0400 7/10/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>Carl et al:
>
>Thanks much for the Eudoralight URL, Carl, and for your gracious
>acceptance of apologies. I'll certainly check out Eudora Light.
>
>Just to let the list know, I have been using the Juno mailer (also free
>software). Actually, it really is a pretty good mailer, except for two
>things: it tends to chop previous messages up when you reply to them,
>and I have found that even though you supposedly have the option of
>responding to sender only, or to all recipients, when I hit the latter
>and check all recipients (including cc) it is evident I have been sending
>to the list, even though it said otherwise. Carl brought this to my
>attention and even showed some addresses totally foreign to me. Whence
>cometh they? I dunno.
As my own equivalent of Paul's "Apologies Galore" was entitled "Profuse
Apologies" but was public and not inclusive of specific apologies to Paul
or any other, I would like to make my own public apology to Paul especially
and to extend it to any others who were offended by anything in the private
message that embarrassed me so much. The fact is that I have inadvertently
sent private messages to the list before in the 3+ years I've been on the
list, and there's no guarantee that, being the human creature that I am, I
won't do it again. It's too easy to do--and there was one "Oops" message
even yesterday admitting that inadvertent error. That's the very reason
that I sent that little note initiating this thread--how very ironic that
within a very few hours I found myself doing once again the very thing I
was trying, with the intention of being helpful, to show others the way to
avoid!
And so therefore: my public apologies to Paul, whose contributions to this
list I value (even when I don't agree with him) precisely because I think
it important that WHEN there are differences of opinion on a Biblical Greek
text (as there almost always are if the text happens to be crucial to the
convictions of one's own faith community) it is useful to all of us to be
aware of those differences. The last thing in the world that I would claim
is any exclusive hold on THE ONE right way to interpret any passage. And
although I am aware of the view often reiterated by David Moore and
certainly held by others that there IS ONLY ONE right understanding of
particular passages, I think it is probable that there will be different
judgments as to what that one right understanding of any particular passage
may be. And for that reason, I do very much want to become aware of such
judgments that differ from my own as Paul's have done on more than one
occasion.
Finally, I'd like to comment on two other matters arising from my message
that went to the whole list through my stupid error: (1) "zapping" and (2)
the imperative for flexibility and mutual tolerance in our exchanges:
(1) Wes Williams used the term "zap" yesterday with the intention (as he
wrote me privately afterwards) of injecting a humorous reference to my use
of the word in the unfortunate message--and then Wes's (I never know how to
make the possessive of monosyllabic singular nouns!) intention was
misunderstood by Bill Chapman (with whom I've also had considerable good
off-list exchanges) who thought that Wes was snidely attacking me. Actually
Wes used the term, which is, after all, slang, in a sense different from
the way I had meant it: he meant (I think?) gentle criticism of an idea
expressed in a thread, whereas I was referring to a suggestion that
such-and-such a thread be dropped either because it had ceased to be
interesting and productive or because it was threatening to enter areas of
intensely-conflicted convictions of personal and community faith and
therefore threatening to encourage a theological flame war. In my mis-sent
message to Jonathan I spoke thus of "zapping" him in the thread that he and
Paul had been conducting on the 1 Cor 14 passage--the one which Paul
believed to be and clearly intended to be an off-list discussion; Jonathan
said that I had "zapped" him and had been justified in doing so; I
concluded my own messaage (the mis-sent one) by noting that Edward Hobbs
had "zapped" me the previous week (my sense of time may be imprecise, but
it hadn't been too many days previously). I've certainly committed more
than my share of faux pas on the list, and I expect (whether I LIKE it or
not) to be "zapped" when I do it.
(2) In his message to which I was replying (in my mis-sent message, that
is), Jonathan had very nicely responded to Carlton Winbery's
beautifully-phrased clarification of the new FAQ's parameters regarding
appropriate topics and manners of discussion on B-Greek. In particular,
Jonathan had called attention to the importance of a sense of humor and a
thick skin for people intending to engage in serious discussion on the
list. These are precisely the comments for which I was admiring Jonathan
(who is, as I have told him to his face in the course of an eight-hour
uninterrupted chat on everything from Mozart to Mozzarella, at one and the
same time the most venturesome--daring-- and the most unassuming--humble--
person I've ever known). Toward the end of that message I wrote:
"But perhaps we've talked too sternly about avoiding theological issues
when most of us are really aware that we're trying to avoid theological
firestorms, precisely because the line between the academic and the
existential discussion on this list is so thin!"
Although that was meant to be a private comment to Jonathan, it touches
upon something I think is very important: some of what we discuss on
B-Greek is of trifling importance; other issues are really interesting but
nevertheless are essentially academic rather than matters that engage us at
the gut level; yet not a few Biblical passages, the Greek text of which we
are probing for understanding in the immediate and broader context, go to
the heart of our deepest convictions--and theological assumptions are never
far below the surface (if they aren't fully exposed) of what we say to each
other about the Greek text in question. It is precisely when we are dealing
with such passages that it is most imperative to respect each other's
differences and state our own understandings without being dogmatic or
judgmental. That's awfully difficult to do gracefully, and I have failed at
it as often or more often than any other listmember. We may think in our
hearts that the one who has expressed such-and-such an opinion on a
particular passage is full of the "well-known," but we MUST endeavor to
retain the attitude that we may be taught something new and worth learning
from that person.
And at the very last, I want to underscore with gratitude Carlton's
magnificent coda to his message on the parameters of B-Greek discussion:
"This is a great list because people who love the subject are involved with
it. The list will continue to get better if we all fall in love with the
subject and bring the best we have to the table. Or, as I often say to
worried about grades students, fall in love with the subject and the grade
will take care of itself."
I don't know whether the allusion was intentional or not, but when I read
his words I could not help but recall the ending of Pericles' Funeral
Address in Thucydides 2, where the statesman tells the Athenians that the
best way to mourn the dead is to "fall in love with" Athens "as she really
is" and commit themselves to act in a manner worthy of the citizenship they
hold. Carlton has so beautifully expressed here a truth we can all too
readily forget: that underlying any truly worthwhile human endeavor is a
passionate love. And speaking for myself only, I would say that our own own
passionate loves, when rightly invested, are responses to and reflections
of the love with which we have been graced.
And that's enough theology for one message.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/