spin

Why does the herd have no critical faculties?

outhouse

Sure your not Carriers sock account ?

spin

See what I mean?

outhouse

Real scholars with talent and skill far surpassing yours have no issue with it, while other like combining different criterion not using it as much, if any at all.

That doesnt mean we all jump on the fringe position band wagon and parrot Carrier, and throw it out the window.

I agree it should be used with extreme caution in combination with other criterion.



I view your sarcasm as a sign of weakness in your position.

Vorkosigan

Outhouse, have you ever cracked open a text that discusses methodology in NT studies? You'll soon find that the embarrassment criterion is attacked all over the field. You'll even find scholars like Crossan arguing that criteria cannot constitute a methodology; the whole idea is wrongheaded. Have you read the recent Keith edited volume? Stanley Porter's book?

Really. Wouldn't it be a good idea to get educated on these ideas?

jdboy

You think your position is mainstream? Ha ha ha. thanks for putting me on ignore and the laughs.
I won't ignore but i will chuckle

outhouse

I understand the territory, and map is not it.

Crossan doesnt use it and does have issues. E.P. Sanders and Craig Even's however do. And others use a combination.


Cracked open yes. Below is a good review of, "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne"

http://thegospelcoalition.org/themel...f_authenticity



Attacking is useful, as long as it can further the kowledge we have regarding interpretation. Throwing it out the window to me defeats the purpose.

spin

You don't have shown the tools for discerning the relevant scholarship, talent or skill.

Throwing nonsense out the window doesn't require being fringe, jumping on a bandwagon or parroting Carrier.

One day it might filter through to you that the criterion of embarrassment is christian hermeneutic and not a tool of historians.

Uh-huh.

I view your persistent lack content as a sign of logorrhea.

outhouse

Here is another good read.

http://earliestchristianity.wordpres...torical-jesus/

All of these essays offer valuable contributions to the discussion. Where they are most useful is as correctives or warnings, since relatively little by way of alternatives is offered. My own opinion is that most of the criteria can still be used with some effectiveness, though I’m skeptical of the worth of Semitic influence. The essays by Le Donne and Winter work in tandem to show both the importance of coherence and the weakness of dissimilarity. At least three of the contributors touch on epistemological matters, emphasizing the obsolescence of historical positivism. Winter convincingly argues that the old debate about whether the burden of proof lies on the one affirming authenticity or on the one denying it should also be abandoned. Instead, the task of reconstructing the historical Jesus should aim to be most convincing by accounting for as much of the data as possible, accounting for both Jesus’ original context and subsequent historical impact. Regardless of one’s attitude to the criteria, you will find something worth considering in each of these five essays..

outhouse

You dont have the skills to talk down to anyone like that.