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

Re: [XTalk] Criteria for authenticity (was: Jesus' identity and Rise of Christianity)

Expand Messages
  • mgrondin@tir.com
    ... Excuse me for using this as a springboard to a different point, but in addition to internal and external textual evidence, it seems to me that a neglected
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Steve Black wrote:
      > The three approaches are;
      > 1. The author is slave to the received tradition. Mark makes very
      > few changes to received tradition, but his hand can still be seen
      > in the seams (etc.)
      > 2. The author exercises mastery over the received tradition AND
      > the received tradition exercises mastery over him. This model,
      > obviously quite dialectic, was illustrated using E. Best as an
      > example.
      > 3. The author exercises mastery over the received tradition. Ted
      > was the example in this category. Here the author has no problem
      > at all changing and adding to the received tradition.

      Excuse me for using this as a springboard to a different point, but
      in addition to internal and external textual evidence, it seems to
      me that a neglected factor is that the historian is engaged in a
      kind of detective work, and as such, it ought to be of importance
      whether or not X had the motive, means, and opportunity to do Y.
      That's where I see some of the hypotheses presented on this list
      (such as the hypothesis that Marcion wrote Paul's letters) as
      falling short. That and the failure to account for _all_ of the
      evidence - to take a holistic view rather than letting ourselves
      be led astray by an exclusionary focus on a relatively small subset
      of "the evidence". Not to say that some small detail might not be a
      key to "solving the crime", as it were, but only if it fits with
      all the other "facts" of the case, as we believe them to be. And
      this involves not only the question of whether X had the motive,
      means, and opportunity to do Y, but also whether, _had_ he done Y,
      would folks have reacted as they did?

      Regards,
      Mike
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.