dvu2 at calvin.edu
Mon Aug 6 10:38:09 EDT 2012
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Jim.
>>> James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com> 08/06/12 10:30 AM >>>
The word "guesses" was an unfortunate choice -- I think "informed opinion" would be better. I apologize. While I did read Surprised by Sin some years ago, I don't recall the preface, but that too should be a reliable source. However, deference to the author at the time of the writing is one thing, but deference to the author 45 years after the fact -- especially without checking independent sources just as letters, diaries, journals, student notes, etc. -- is a bit irresponsible.
I will read your article before responding further, though.
Thanks for the reply,
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM, David Urban <dvu2 at calvin.edu> wrote:
If you read my article, you'll see that I address what the reviewers of *Surprised by Sin* wrote on this matter. And, of course, Fish's original preface addresses the matter also.
But I have a couple of concerns with your first sentence. First, to say his word on the matter is "no more reliable than our own guesses" is hyperbolic and offers no deference to the author. I'm sure you are more aware of your influences than a reader (who may not have recently read what you wrote) who "guesses" about them. Second, not everyone's opinion on this matter is a "guess." Speaking for myself, I base my stance on serious research and textual analysis.
I'd be honored if you read my article and tell me what you think.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Milton-L