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

Objective Aporias?

Expand Messages
  • rahelzer
    Dave offers a critique of the Rules of ... and then then cites some relevant research which strongly supports his point. That got me thinking about the
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave offers a critique of the Rules of
      written evidence used by the Jesus Seminar:

      > The kinds of clues or criteria
      > mentioned above are in reality quite
      > subjective, and are not established
      > empirically.

      and then then cites some relevant research
      which strongly supports his point. That got
      me thinking about the subjective vs. objective
      contrast....

      Question: (to Dave or anybody else) What *would*
      qualify as an "Objective" aporia--and how would
      it be established empirically?

      Is classidfying aporia as "objective vs.
      subjective" a useful classification?

      -Randy Helzerman
    • dchindley
      ... Jesus Seminar ... That got me thinking about the subjective vs. objective contrast.... Question: (to Dave or anybody else) What *would* qualify as an
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Randy Helzerman asks:

        >>Dave offers a critique of the Rules of written evidence used by the
        Jesus Seminar ... That got me thinking about the subjective vs.
        objective contrast....

        Question: (to Dave or anybody else) What *would* qualify as
        an "Objective" aporia--and how would it be established empirically?

        Is classidfying aporia as "objective vs. subjective" a useful
        classification?<<

        Unfortunately, I am on vacation in Florida for a couple of weeks, and
        won't be back until the 13th.

        However, if you have access to the XTalk list archives, there was
        something about the nature of aporias in a couple posts of mine from
        about a year ago, maybe longer, under the name "Lingo and History"
        (or something like that). But heavens, I am not an authority on the
        subject. "Aporia" is just a technical term for an aspect of a
        communication that just doesn't seem right.

        It could be a grammatical irregularity, or a change in subject where
        one might not expect it, all sorts of things like that. The issue
        came to the forefront in the 19th century during the initial surge of
        historical-critical thought. Initially, they thought that they might
        indicate the not-so-skillful reworking of sources by ancient editors.

        More recently, the reader-response and rhetorical-critical schools
        have started to look at them rather as forms of rhetorical devices.
        To them, it is not reasonable to assume that ancient Christian
        editors were all relatively unskillful (this is a simplification), so
        they look for other explanations. Rhetoric does have a place for the
        unexpected argument or example, and sometimes the author introduces a
        variety of proofs and premises that may, at first glance, seem to
        make no sense.

        But these two positions are really two interpretations of the same
        evidence. Are they both "objective?" Sure. However, it will depend on
        the accuracy of the assumptions upon which the interpretations were
        based. But the accuracy of the assumptions is part of the
        subjectivity problem. So, there is a kind of circularity involved.

        If this thread survives until I return, I can look up some of the the
        authors that may be relevant to this question.

        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA

        If this thread
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.