Re: why goranson is wrong
- At 09:53 PM 2/27/99 +0100, Antonio Jerez wrote:
>And it is good that Stephen Carlson reminded us that EarlThe problem with the "old" paradigm is that there was no general
>D:s "new" paradigm is not so new after all. It is after all just
>a rehash of the same baloney that Well's and others have
>been trying to sell for decades. Sounds like Earl D, Wells,
>Alvar Ellegard here in Goteborg and Stevan Davies are ready
>to join hands.
agreement in distinguishing what was remembered about Jesus and
what had been added by the church. The old radical critics believed
that almost everything was added, except for the few (circularly
selected) bits that supported their pet theories. Naturally, other
radical critics thought those bits were later creations and promoted
other bits as early.
If anything demolished radical criticism, it was Form Criticism,
which gave scholars an agreed methodology for separating what
Jesus said from what the church said.
If Earl Doherty, Wells, or anyone else (il professore?) wants to
return to radical criticism, he must point out the flaws in Form
Criticism and propose a methodology better than Form Criticism in
distinguishing earlier elements from later elements.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35