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

Re: Papias et al [was: versions of the eucharist]

Expand Messages
  • Nichael Cramer
    ... But again, as I mentioned before, the invocation of Papias in the context is --at best-- a red herring. The SSS/2DH became accepted in the first place
    Message 1 of 35 , Mar 18, 1998
      Mark Goodacre wrote:
      > Goulder does not place alot of stress on this particular argument but
      > is attempting to demonstrate that the Q hypothesis came about because
      > of a misconception (that Papias was referring to Q when he mentioned
      > the Logia). It is reasonable to attempt this demonstration
      > since, after all, Q sceptics are often asked "How did Q ever get
      > accepted in the first place?"

      But again, as I mentioned before, the invocation of Papias in the context is
      --at best-- a red herring.

      The SSS/2DH became "accepted in the first place" for precisely the same reason
      that it continues to be the most widely excepted model: i.e. because it is a
      model of great explanatory power.


      Nichael

      --
      Nichael Cramer
      work: ncramer@...
      home: nichael@...
      http://www.sover.net/~nichael/
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      I think that there are two different kinds of theological commitment that play different roles in discussion on such topics as the Synoptic Problem. The first
      Message 35 of 35 , Mar 21, 1998
        I think that there are two different kinds of theological commitment that
        play different roles in discussion on such topics as the Synoptic Problem.
        The first is the theological commitment of the scholar. It is true that
        we are all human and at times biased by our theological (or nontheological)
        commitments, but a proper application of the historico-critical methodo-
        logies can be help greatly in diminishing their impact. This seems to have
        been particularly effective in the twentieth century. Another point is
        that in my experience the personal beliefs of so many scholars are so
        varied that it is hard to see theological commitment now as the main or
        even a major reason for the continuing dominance of the Two Source Theory.
        I know of conservative evangelicals, religious liberals, and atheists who
        support the existence of Q, and I know of the same types who deny Q.
        Clearly, theological commitment does not really explain why people believe
        the source theories they do.

        The second kind is the (alleged) theological commitment of the evangelist.
        It does not illegitimate to me to argue what a typical, first-century
        Christian would have done (e.g. tend to be more reverential of the
        apostles rather less reverential) based on his or her probable theological
        commitment. I submit that most arguments nowadays in Synoptic source
        criticism involving theological commitment are really of this latter variety
        and are not, per se, fallacious. The only difficulty in this line of
        reasoning is that we are tending now to recognize the diversity of early
        Christianity, even to the point that we understand that there was no such
        person as the typical, first-century Christian.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
        scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
        http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.