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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Derico's SBL paper

Expand Messages
  • kaolson101
    John, Dana and Mark, While I am in general agreement with the criticisms of Dericho s paper that the three of you have articulated, I think you are all being
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 12, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      John, Dana and Mark,

      While I am in general agreement with the criticisms of Dericho's
      paper that the three of you have articulated, I think you are all
      being far too kind to it. It's a classic example of how incredibly
      low some scholars set the bar for themselves and how high they set it
      for others. I took two pages of notes on it, which I hope to write
      up and post later on, but for right now I'll just address what I see
      as the central problem with what Dericho is trying to do:

      He (or she?) identifies no problem with the literary paradigm that
      requires a different explanation; he produces no examples or other
      evidence for the existence of the type of orality he is suggesting as
      an alternative explanation; and he chides scholars for accepting the
      literary explanation without first "proving" the non-existence of the
      type of orality he is hypothesizing.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kenolson101@...






      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John C. Poirier
      ... His first name is Travis. ... Yes, yes, and yes. Why didn t I say that? I don t understand the reason for this sudden wave of scholars arguing to replace
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 12, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Ken Olson wrote:

        > He (or she?)

        His first name is Travis.

        > identifies no problem with the literary paradigm that requires a
        > different explanation; he produces no examples or other evidence
        > for the existence of the type of orality he is suggesting as an
        > alternative explanation; and he chides scholars for accepting the
        > literary explanation without first "proving" the non-existence of
        > the type of orality he is hypothesizing.

        Yes, yes, and yes. Why didn't I say that?

        I don't understand the reason for this sudden wave of scholars arguing to
        replace the literary interrelationship paradigm with an orality
        (non-interrelated) paradigm. Is it simply a case of orality studies coming
        of age? (I thought that had already happened, but the biblical guild's
        harvesting of other areas' insights is often delayed.) Or is it perhaps a
        reaction against the tedious micro-explanations of literary details in the
        gospels (esp. with discussions of three layers of redaction in Q, etc.)? Or
        is it simply a desire for a more "earthy" model of transmission for the
        gospel tradition? Or could it be a conservative theological
        reaction--*viz.* the idea that three *independent* deposits of tradition are
        better than one independent + two dependent?



        John C. Poirier
        Middletown, Ohio



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.