[Synoptic-L] Re: Derico's SBL paper
- Ken Olson wrote:
> He (or she?)His first name is Travis.
> identifies no problem with the literary paradigm that requires aYes, yes, and yes. Why didn't I say that?
> 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.
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
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...