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

Re: Objective Aporias?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.