Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

995Re: [Synoptic-L] Alternating Primitivity (Method)

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Mar 24, 2008
      Bruce Brooks wrote:


      > All I can usefully do at this point, then, is to thank Ron for introducing
      > the subject,

      Bruce,

      And thank you for your responses.

      > ....... I have grave doubts that
      > the criterion of "authenticity" can at this stage be anything but circular.

      Then at the very least the variety of literary forms in Matthew is surely
      worth investigating to see whether it supports the existence of a second
      source (in addition to Mark) behind that gospel.

      > ....... I am with those who find Papias anything but straightforward,

      On the whole you may have a point. But I am referring to one particular
      statement of his which not only looks feasible as history, but which may
      also hold the key to the biggest gap in contemporary NT models of the birth
      of Christianity, namely that between the Aramaic-speaking Jesus movement in
      Jerusalem and the Greek gospels.

      > One should be aware of sources or possible sources (as in determining
      > directionality between extant sources, whether or not they turn out to imply
      > a non-extant source), AND of authorial intent, AND of the literary character
      > of the material being studied, AND of theological implications, AND of puns
      > in Aramaic, AND or allusions or echoes from Greek literature, AND of where
      > this text might be coming from in real life, AND of who the writer thought
      > he was talking to, AND of what he has himself already written, AND of the
      > text-critical status of the word or passage in question, AND of what else in
      > that or other texts falls into the same generic category. All at once, and
      > as far as possible. Few people are capable of keeping track of all that,
      > hence the need for collaboration, for conferences, for journals, for this
      > E-list.

      In principle I agree entirely. But in practice it is just not possible in
      email discussion to mention all these aspects, even for discussion of
      phrases, let alone your preferred pericope level or higher. The best we
      achieve is to have as many as possible of these various aspects in mind when
      discussing any particular passage, so as not to find ourselves arguing for a
      point of view which would be ruled out by some aspect not expressly
      mentioned.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic