Date: Fri Sep 01 1995 - 19:43:07 EDT
> On a related subject, Jan, you are still arguing issues of faith on a
> list devoted to issues of scholarship. Our purpose here is neither to
> confirm you faith statements nor to deride them. They in this discussin
> are moot.
I think this was a very unfair statement, and completely uncalled for. My
understanding of these texts is the most direct and natural, and if you are not
able to show otherwise from the text itself it's bordering to ad hominem to
throw this accusation at me. I had a very detailed knowledge about these texts
long before I acquired this "faith" you talk about. The "faith", which is
irrelevant to this group anyway, comes from the interpretation of the text not
the other way around -- unlike for most others.
It requires an enormous amount of faith to squeeze 1900+ years inside a "tote"
like you do, and it has nothing more to do with scholarship than whatever I may
Interpretation of an alleged holy text is very often related to faith. Whether
you like it or not, our faith strongly interferes with all our interpretations.
A group for "pure scholarship", whatever that is, would have to be void of
people with any such faith.
So, stick to the facts.
All the best,
-- "Life may have no meaning -- or even worse, it may have a meaning of which I disapprove."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:26 EDT