Re: 2:7-8 - going off-list

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Fri Sep 26 1997 - 13:31:17 EDT

The time may indeed have come to zap Paul, but since he has deliberately
sought to handle this matter in the public scrutiny of the list rather than
by private discussion off-list, the reasons for doing it or the warning
probably ought to be public as well, which is to say: people need to
understand that it isn't a matter of your academic credentials, which
aren't really a factor here, although Paul wants to make them an issue, but
rather of unwillingness to let anyone else have the last word on what he
holds to be a crucial issue. He is defending the TRUTH of the BIBLE against
the pernicious ERROR. And because Jonathan or I or anyone else has stated
an opposing view, it doesn't matter how many times his view that there is
no contradiction has been posted to the list, it is fundamentally important
that the LAST word on the question be his assertion that there is no
contradiction in the Biblical text. It needs to be clear that he is
defending a particular understanding about the Bible, one that some share
while others do not. What I fear, however, is that it's being made an issue
of the orthodox defenders of Biblical truth versus the heretics. And it's
really NOT as if he hasn't stated his view of the non-contradiction time
and time again and someone is trying now to tell him that enough is
enough--rather, it's that anyone should express an opposing view to his and
get away with it! He thinks that HIS freedom of speech is being violated
while that of others is being respected. Moreover, he still doesn't know
the difference between an on-list and an off-list correspondence--or he
doesn't care. He wants the public exposure. So I suspect that he will
either have to be sharply warned off-list against persistence, or zapped
right now and an explanation made to the list about why it was done.

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
><> 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
>>being posted, and (2) the subject of what is "logical" and
>>is not a problem of the Greek text. There is no question of whether
>>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
>>vast difference in the posters' knowledge of the fields of logic,
>>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
>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.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:30 EDT