[XTalk] Re: The singly / multiply attested thing
- On 22 Jul 99, at 15:14, William Arnal wrote:
> Well, this is so eirenic I'm hardly capable of replying. Of course,The logic and brilliance of course goes without saying. And the
> REALLY, the enjoyable thing about corresponding with Bill is that the
> logic and brilliance of his comments -- as well as his Davies-noted
> humility, of course -- makes it clear that he was right from the start.
> Right? Right? Hello?
humility is legendary. As for being right, of course not: that is why I
like arguing with you.
> I'm clearly not one of those many, and I still don't see the connectionThe consensus building comes in the fact that no-one much accepts
> between a refusal to adopt (or build on) a particular source-critical
> hypothesis and the use of sophistication in approaching the consequences
> of that hypothesis. Nor is it clear to me how the LATTER issue is
(say) Crossan's source hypothesis and thus it is difficult for many to
accept his reconstruction. Since Sanders employs a different method,
there is far greater scope for building of a consensus. Witness, for
example, the general agreement over the Historical Jesus between
Fredriksen, who believes in Q and writes about it in _From Jesus to
Christ_, and Sanders, who does not believe in Q. I pick up that you
don't like Fredriksen much from the recent exchange, so my example
is perhaps not ideal. But I might choose another scholar for whom
you have greater disdain, so I will stick with this analogy.
Don't get me wrong, though. I do not think that we should abandon
tradition-history factors in attempts to write about the Historical Jesus.
This seems to me to be the single greatest weakness in Tom Wright's
work which simply runs roughshod over the very kind of thing that
makes the blood run through my veins and earns me my meagre
leaving. The point is rather that if we place such great weight solely
on a particular conception of a particular set of hypotheses
understood in a singular manner, as does Crossan, I do not see how
the discussion can advance. We will simply have to keep stopping
and saying, "But I am afraid that I don't accept the premise there".
> Although it strikes me -- at least if undertaken in a certain way -- asI think less so because there is more general agreement on basics in
> open to its own set of problems. The perspective from which one
> "cross-examines" will be as determinative of one's results as the source
> critical theories adhered to by those working with the "strata" model.
the study of Christian origins than there is on specifics of source-
criticism. And on the whole Sanders proceeds by examining the
sources with generally agreed-upon basics.
> But this is kinda what I mean by the above: Sanders' prior perspective onI deliberately avoided mentioning the baptism because I knew that
> things (apparently) leads him to see the obvious mythic functions of stuff
> like the transfiguration. But the temple incident strikes me as being just
> as mythic, albeit perhaps less obviously so.
was myth in print for Arnal. Could you give us the ref. for it? I did a
Theoldi search on Arnal and the most likely looks like this one:
Arnal, William E. "Major episodes in the biography of Jesus. An
assessment of the historicity of the narrative tradition.",
_Toronto journal of theology_ 13/2 (1997) 201-226
Is that the right one, or should we look for another?
> Point taken. I suspect Crossan regards the Q hypothesis to be a "standard"It is actually quite useful in some ways because it illustrates why some
> view, and so doesn't give much attention to its grounds. I can see why
> this might be annoying.
(not all, of course) assimilate Q into their armoury without thinking:
they pick up books like Crossan's -- one of the bestselling works of
NT scholarship this century -- and see it taken for granted, indexed,
placed in italics along with documents for which we have manuscripts
etc. Under such circumstances, of course Q remains consensus. But
it's best to avoid getting me onto this topic; it is one of my favourites.
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
The New Testament Gateway
Mark Without Q
Aseneth Home Page
- On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Mark Goodacre wrote:
> Apologies for coming back on this thread a bit late:I'm actually not in a great position to reply to all this,
> On 24 Jul 99, at 13:33, William Arnal wrote:
Mark. I decided rather precipitously to take off to Canada
for the month, an so I'm stuck telnetting into my e-mail
account on a slow modem (and doging polar bears an such).
I'm still reading Xtalk, but it's hard to reply to lengthy
posts like this, an give them the consieration they deserve.
Just wanted you -- and thee rest of the list -- to know that
I'm not just ignoring this. Maybe I cn pick it up again in