How do you write a book which stands against scholars whom you actually like?

That’s the question I have at the moment.

After all… my thesis, book, and possibly PhD will focus on setting Mark squarely after the Jewish war and questioning his seemingly AramaicĀ original. I believe that these two scholars will provide me with many positive facts for my work, but in the end, I will disagree with two of their final, and very important, conclusions.

Thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

10 Replies to “How do you write a book which stands against scholars whom you actually like?”

  1. Which two scholars?

    To answer the question, you can
    1. obfuscate
    2. misrepresent
    3. agree with them
    4. prove them wrong
    5. or all of the above
    šŸ˜Ž

    There are plenty of choices.

        1. I expect there would be a problem if you misrepresent their work. If you can convincingly refute their arguments regarding dating, method, Aramaic etc, without just dismissing their work or appealing to ill informed scholarship, that’s what academia and respect is about.

          1. PS don’t use the fundy Porter as Dicky has done. He isn’t even competent in Aramaic. I’m busy writing a refutation of Porter to attach to the refutation of the Dicky at the moment. Rely on your own arguments and evidence.

          2. No worries about Porter! #fact.

            I don’t necessarily intend to refute them, as I think that Dr. Casey’s work on the Aramaic informs me in many, many ways. I also think that Dr. Crossley’s work will be essential, but I believe that the final form of Mark is 75, etc…

            And no, I hope to never misrepresent their work – especially those who I admire.

          3. Well in order to disagree with them, you generally engage. And Aramaic original is a bit misleading. I’m not sure what specific ‘facts’ they provide you with.

          4. Steph, I’m specifically speaking about this book.

            Casey’s thesis is that at least some of Q was originally preserved in Aramaic, not Greek. Moreover, it was not a united composition, but may have existed as several independent sayings. The translated Greek Q existed in at least two translations before Matthew and Luke got to it and these distinctive translations are detectable and partially recoverable by retroverting the texts into Aramaic – the language in which they were originally preserved and which Jesus most likely knew and spoke.

            Sorry – #fact is a twitter thing for emphasis.

          5. Eh? I thought your book was about Mark. I was implying engagement with Maurice, ‘Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel’ and James, ‘The Date of Mark’ more specifically. Never mind.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.