- Dave offers a critique of the Rules of
written evidence used by the Jesus Seminar:
> The kinds of clues or criteriaand then then cites some relevant research
> mentioned above are in reality quite
> subjective, and are not established
which strongly supports his point. That got
me thinking about the subjective vs. objective
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 asks:
>>Dave offers a critique of the Rules of written evidence used by theJesus Seminar ... That got me thinking about the subjective vs.
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
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.
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
If this thread