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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Oral Tradition

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi Karel, Thanks for your note. Just a few replies: In other words I place much more ... If you read my note to Mike, yesterday, then you will see why I wrote
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 30 6:30 AM
      Hi Karel,

      Thanks for your note. Just a few replies:

      In other words I place much more
      >historical value on Acts. Why do you put Bar Kochba into the fray?

      If you read my note to Mike, yesterday, then you will see why I wrote what I
      did about Luke, Acts and Bar Kochba. Later in your note you move to push
      the Didache forward, accept Farrer and keep the Synoptics together in the
      first century. This is certainly the view of long tradition and I quite
      realize that my views pose a challenge. Hence I'm not surprised by the
      strong responses. And yet I think the traditional early view doesn't add up
      because of thinking about texts in relation to historical events and texts
      in relationship to one another. As regards Luke-Acts I think we're dealing
      with 2nd century issues and 2nd century developments in the tradition.

      >One is forced to make the introductory decisions re. date, place and
      >authorship early in the exegetical enterprise WITHOUT having much to extra
      >biblical historical data to go on. One should continually test what
      >introductory option(s) best fit his/her analysis of the structure of a given
      >document and his.her exegesis of individual passages

      Agreed, not a lot of extra information, but some. Such as the concerns
      expressed in Tacitas and Pliny, such issues of the uprisings that began late
      in Trajan's reign and continued on to the Bar Kochba war are issues that I
      think we need to think about in terms of Luke and Acts. And then I think we
      need to think about intertextuality in relationship to this (new to the
      world are the harvest of all the text finds and work done with them). What
      we end up with are theoretical models. You go one direction with this and I
      go another. As I have said and repeated, I hope that the folks on the list
      will try out this sort of reading as they are doing this "testing" you are
      talking about. "Hoary Tradition" is strong in these matters. Even if one
      rejects this model at the end of the day, I think one needs to spend some
      time thinking it through not just rejecting it because of this piece or that
      piece of it. One can learn new things even if one ends up rejecting a
      particular model on the whole. Challenge, after all, is a good thing. It
      pushes boundaries and helps one look more broadly at more resources. I hope
      folks will just try this presentation on as a whole rather than simply get
      stuck in the Q question or the miracle catena question or the layers of John
      question. All those are important, but we can also lay those down and
      sometimes look in a new way. That, in terms of a serious proposal, I think
      is educational.

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.