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

Re: [XTalk] Making connnections

Expand Messages
  • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:20:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, r_schacht@yahoo.com writes: ... No, or else I don t understand either. What similarities do
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 25, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:20:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
      r_schacht@... writes:

      At 07:31 PM 1/24/2005, David Hindley wrote:
      >Tony Buglass says:
      >
      > >>The ethnographer Adolf Bastian has noted "elementary ideas common to all
      >individuals. ...if Bastian's ideas still have any
      >currency, or have given rise to better theories which may be of use in our
      >study.<<
      >
      >This sounds a bit like the structural approach of Levi-Strauss as it applies
      >to basic myths, doesn't it?

      No, or else I don't understand either. What similarities do you see between
      Bastian and Levi-Strauss? Just "evaluating connections between basic
      myths/elementary ideas "? But Levi-Strauss cared more about the
      *structure*-- how you could draw contrasts and parallels between ideas
      within a culture, and maybe whether similar *structures* could be found
      elsewhere. L-S was more interested in how ideas were organized, whereas
      Bastian was more interested in the ideas themselves as basic elements, if I
      remember correctly. Besides, it may be pertinent to remind ourselves that
      L-S was French, and Bastian a 19th Century German, and after two World Wars
      with Germany in his lifetime, L-S may not have thought too highly of older
      generations of German scholars.

      But how is this relevant to historical Jesus studies?
      Bob



      Well, the Gospels demonstrate both a large collection of folkloric
      motifs--the small units like "death of the substitute" (Lazarus), the "marvelous
      birth," the "special burial," etc.-- and an overall adherence to the "Return Song"
      paradigm in their larger structures. (That's a macrostructure of narrative
      that involves a devastation during the hero's absence set right by his
      return.) The forms of the Gospel narratives on both levels did not originate with
      the Evangelists, by any means. It's essential to recognize their derivative
      nature.

      Larry Swain's observations on attempts to link the Gospels to Homer were
      right on (even though we lack the 1st C. textual evidence to support them on the
      Homeric end). I can demonstrate much closer correspondences between Homer
      and other traditions in which direct literary influence is impossible. That's
      because these patterns are immanent throughout their traditions and reside
      not in any given text or performance but in the cumulative experience of the
      audiences and performers and writers.

      But while it is a mistake to look for any specific literary or oral source
      for these ubiquitous narrative elements, it is an even greater mistake to miss,
      for instance, the fact that the Lazarus episode is a particular instance of
      the "death of the substitute" multiform, or that the Joseph of Arimathaea
      episode is a representative of the "special burial." That is, if we are
      interested in recovering the historical framework of the transmission and reception
      of these texts. (If on the other hand one wishes to advance a theological
      agenda, then the best thing to do is sever the connection as much as possible,
      and enhance the plausibility that these are historical accounts!)

      Of course these studies are still, if not still in their infancy, barely
      reaching adolescence. Bastian, and to a lesser degree Levi-Strauss, simply did
      not have the collections of samples from various traditions you'd need to
      come to any definitive conclusions; nor did they have the conceptual framework
      supported by related studies in psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology.
      Both were cutting-edge in their respective days, but then so were Lister and
      Shapley. Both are extremely important as foundations for present-day
      knowledge, but neither should be considered even remotely current.

      best,

      Ed Tyler


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.