I'm just venting at this point. It seems that some sort of action is
necessary and at this point, I don't want to be the heavy. I don't know how
it really should be handled anyway, but if the list disintegrates, it looks
like Paul is the most likely to make sure that happens.
But enough. I probably ought not even to have vented like this; I just had to.
At 11:20 AM -0500 9/26/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:29:04 -0500 (EST) Edward Hobbs
><EHOBBS@wellesley.edu> writes:
>>To all involved the discussions of 1 John and of "logic":
>>
>>As I hope is obvious, "official" interventions are few on this List.
>>The Chairman and Staff of B-Greek hope to see side-issues fade away, and
>
>>if they do not, gentle suggestions of the non-B-Greek character are
>>expected to bring them to an end.
>>
>>The continued discussions of "logic" in relation to 1 John, however,
>>has reached the point that (1) endless repetitions of the same points
>are
>>being posted, and (2) the subject of what is "logical" and
>"contradictory"
>>is not a problem of the Greek text. There is no question of whether
>"new
>>commandment" is the right translation of the Greek words, and no issue
>>of grammar has been debated, much less solved.
>
>Ed, I don't understand why you have such a quick readiness to dismiss
>discussions that come across as being logical. No matter what
>hermeneutical school of thought we champion, do any of us dare deny the
>basic law of
>non-contradiction? How can we hope to make any sense of the Greek NT,
>if we chuck this one?
>
>Surely, if you are going to allow certain parties to bring up charges of
>textual contradiction, then you should also allow their opponents, in
>this regard, the opportunity to defend their position. You say with
>reference to 1 Jn 2:7-8, "the subject of what is logical and
>contradictory is not a problem of the Greek text." Well, if its not a
>problem, why did others, whom I'm sure your respect on this list, bring
>it up and claim it was and is a problem? I happen to agree with you on
>this. It's not a problem, because there is no contradiction. That was
>my point, and I attempted to demonstrate it within the normal confines of
>acceptable Greek discussion: an appeal to the different meanings of
>KAINHN as per BAG.
>>
>>I ask, therefore, that the thread be carried on ONLY off-list.
>>Jonathan has already suggested this; it is now official.
>>
>>It is clear that on such matters, not only is there much disagreement
>>which stems from theological stances of those posting, but there is also
>a
>>vast difference in the posters' knowledge of the fields of logic,
>discourse
>>analysis, epistemology, and pragmatics. As a long-time professor of
>>philosophy in one of the leading universities of this country, I have
>>been constantly dismayed at much of what I have read on this thread, and
>
>>have had to bite my tongue (finger?) to avoid posting "corrections" in
>that
>>field.
>
>I really wish you would stop appealing to your rather impressive
>background as the reason for our accepting what you have to say. That
>does get old rather quickly. Why not be more consistent with your
>education and try avoiding such faulty argumentation?
>
>>We must stick to discussing Biblical Greek -- not our college courses
>>in philosophy, not our personal theology's implications for
>>interpretation, and not anything else other than the Greek. This List
>is for that
>>subject and no other.
>
>But, you seem to think we can discuss biblical Greek in a vacuum, as
>though the authors and Author of scripture had no concern for logical and
>theological consistency.
>
>Paul Dixon
>
>P.S. I hope this doesn't mean I'm going to be zapped.