Re: Dead Sea Mark

From: Jim West (
Date: Sat Apr 25 1998 - 13:20:54 EDT

At 07:14 PM 4/25/98 +0100, you wrote:
> I affirm that in your two previous postings Re "Dead Sea
>Mark" you are not argumenting your position, but merely denying any
>validity to your opponents views without further reasoning.

Indeed not. And let me explain why. Stanton has clearly, concisely, and
eruditely argued the evidence. We need not restate what others have clearly
stated and we need not re-invent the wheel every time we get in our car to
drive somewhere. There is simply no reason for me to argue what he has
proven. Read him.

>This attitude,
>of course, doesn't mean you are wrong: it only means that you are just
>expressing an opinion that says nothing about/against any question

Again, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

> But what really upsets me (and I beg your pardon if I said
>anything in an inconvenient tone) is the way of treating O'Callaghan's
>hypothesis as something amateurish or even worst. Arguments must be opposed
>with arguments [unless you believe somebody is hiding a part of the
>evidence, but I don't think this is the case, or am I wrong?] not with
>gratuitous disqualification.

And again, Stanton has proven that the suggestion made by O'Callaghan and
taken to extremes by Thiede is wrong. He has shown it. Read him.

Finally, and for the last time, if someone is interested in Scrolls
research, the place to subscribe is Orion. Please, subscribe there, pose
your query about 7Q5, and see what those folks say. They know.



Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:36 EDT