FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-17-2003, 12:25 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
His analysis remains sound, whichever way the synoptic problem points.
That alone would make me skeptical. Sources and their stratification and relationship to one another is one of them ost important areas of historical research. If Doherty's analysis is not based upon this type of framework then his study is inherantly flawed. But his study does take into account questions of sources.

But the problem is this.

Mack (as Doherty?) thinks mark was the first one to piece it all together.

What if we accept Matthean priority. Is it just as plausible for Matthew to have been the one to piece it all together? What evidence can be cited for Mark to hhave begun this process and can that same evidence be applied to Matthew?

And if the same evidence can be applied to any source in such a way I would be inherantly skeptical of it.

Vinine
Vinnie is offline  
Old 08-17-2003, 10:56 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Look, the Gospels were written late. Thats whats important so whichever one is given priority, it doesnt really matter.

Pauline epistles, GJn, the writings of the apostilic fathers (didache, shepherd of hermas, 1 Clement etc) and a host of other early christian writings support his thesis of christ Logos.

In fact, his argument is contra the HJ - which is what the gospels present to us. Changing the sequence of their order means nothing one way or the other to his thesis.

To challenge Doherty's thesis, one needs examine what he uses to support his case.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 08-22-2003, 09:45 AM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Look, the Gospels were written late. Thats whats important so whichever one is given priority, it doesnt really matter.
I agree the Gospels were written "late" just not late enough for Doherty's view to have much merit. His stratification is in fact pivotal to his argument. It can be no other way.

Quote:
Pauline epistles, GJn, the writings of the apostilic fathers (didache, shepherd of hermas, 1 Clement etc) and a host of other early christian writings support his thesis of christ Logos.
Aside from the Pauline epistles you have listed nothing but "late" texts. I'll counter with Q, Thomas and James for "early" sayings material to Jesus.

Quote:
In fact, his argument is contra the HJ - which is what the gospels present to us. Changing the sequence of their order means nothing one way or the other to his thesis.
Since the order of the material is extremely important for determining pre-gospel material and traditions and how far back they go behind the works, I take it absolutely for granted that his take on the 2SP should be a crucial element in his case. If not his method must be inherantly flawed somehow or is tied in so tightly with the flawed notion that the texts are so late it doesn't matter. Even Dopherty's "Christ Logos" can't escape the butterfly effect and the need for stratication

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:34 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.