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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.