Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-13-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Goulder, I assume you are still talking about the same article, is crap. He just doesn't get past his own presuppositions.

Heh. More about his entire career. You could punch his name in JSTOR if you're so inclined, or in Google Scholar to get a rough idea.

He's made a living on the Minor Agreements. Though it's not his entire case either, he, for example, and not Goodacre, is the one who first came up with "fatigue."

And suggesting the entire article is crap is a bit disingenuous (you might be right on Nazareth. Still contemplating). His case on the minor agreement in the passion is bedrock solid.

Quote:

And you have trouble talking about substance.

Just wouldn't be you without the thinly veiled insults, would it? You have trouble engaging without polemic.

Let's try the whole thing from the top. Start at the infancies, end at the passion, and see what we come up with.

I propose that the virgin birth is distinctively Matthean, invented in the tradition of "miraculous" births (though obviously trumping them), with the intent to serve the abuse of Hosea. I propose that nobody other than Matthew has any indication of any need for it. Including Luke.

But it's in Luke's gospel. Why?

The version of the story surrounding the virgin birth in gMatthew is not in gLuke.

GMatthew's birth story is not at all like gLuke's birth story. It is most probable that they are not from the same source.

The author of gMatthew wrote about the killing of the innocent and secretly escaping death by fleeing to Egypt while the author of gLuke wrote about a grand public display of "heavenly rejoicing with angels and shepherds" who visited Jesus and proclaimed his birth all over, which is quite contrary to gMatthew's version.

And the author of gLuke added the birth of John the Baptist not found in gMatthew.

The virgin birth story is probably a perfect example of commonality of themes but from totally different sources with different storylines.

spin · 02-13-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Goulder, I assume you are still talking about the same article, is crap. He just doesn't get past his own presuppositions.

Heh. More about his entire career. You could punch his name in JSTOR if you're so inclined, or in Google Scholar to get a rough idea.

He's made a living on the Minor Agreements. Though it's not his entire case either, he, for example, and not Goodacre, is the one who first came up with "fatigue."

And suggesting the entire article is crap is a bit disingenuous (you might be right on Nazareth. Still contemplating). His case on the minor agreement in the passion is bedrock solid.

Maybe. I'm not too interested in that. But his suggestion that the Lucan use of Nazara is somehow related to Matthew is also straight crap. The Lucan passage has been placed where it has for specific polemical purposes, ie to deal with Capernaum or better to reduce Capernaum's significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

And you have trouble talking about substance.

Just wouldn't be you without the thinly veiled insults, would it?

Naaa. It's a generic issue actually. I'm thinking of giving up the forum, because there is just so little actual substance processing. I loathe endless reheats of other people's ideas. I don't really give two hoots about the opinions of scholars. It's just so boring. If you've gotta regurge such ideas, you gotta get your hands dirty and do it through analysis of evidence, otherwise there really isn't too much point.

spin

Rick Sumner · 02-13-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Naaa. It's a generic issue actually. I'm thinking of giving up the forum, because there is just so little actual substance processing. I loathe endless reheats of other people's ideas. I don't really give two hoots about the opinions of scholars. It's just so boring. If you've gotta regurge such ideas, you gotta get your hands dirty and do it through analysis of evidence, otherwise there really isn't too much point.

At the risk of giving you more to loathe, Olson has a nice piece in Questioning Q (or via: amazon.co.uk) that deals with Lukan compositional techniques and whether or not they're "unprecedented." He finds a nice example (in a reversal of Downing, actually) in Josephus' use of Chronicles and Samuel. Another in Plutarch.

In a bit of a hurry at present. If you don't have access to the piece let me know, I'll give a fuller breakdown (though I probably won't do him justice).

spin · 02-13-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

At the risk of giving you more to loathe,

<- That's all you get.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.