[lit-ideas] Re: Reframing Christianity [was hijacking]
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:45:55 EST
Oral tradition, people, oral tradition.....
decades, maybe centuries of people telling their children stories before
they finally got around to writing it down ..... again.....ever hear of the
game of "telephone" kids used to play at parties?
Julie Krueger
taking *everything* with a mound of salt
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Reframing
Christianity [was hijacking] Date: 2/26/06 2:22:52 P.M. Central Standard Time
From:
_phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
Eric Yost wrote:
"In other words, the 'purpose of Q'--which is by no means sinister or
partisan--is to account for 'agreement between the Synoptic Gospels.'"
This is not quite accurate. A purpose for hypothesizing a Q source is
to account for the agreement. However, the claim that there is an
ur-text arises from an ideological commitment. Virtually all the
Biblical scholars I know accept that the Synoptics draw on earlier
sources. What most of them reject is the claim that there is an
originary text that the Synoptic writers drew from. What makes Q
scholarship so controversial is the claim that there is a single
authorial voice behind the Synoptics. The partisanship comes into view
when the Synoptics are dismissed as 'corruptions' of that ur-text.
'What we learn from Q is that Jesus was really ..." It is shoddy
scholarship but it fits a certain liberal agenda.
Eric continues:
"As for the historicity of NT Scriptures, they are not as contestable as
their putative authorship."
It is a mistake to think of the NT as history. As I have been arguing,
the NT arises out of the lived experience of the earliest Christian
communities. The NT certainly has historical aspects to it, but it is,
first and foremost, Scripture. To take the NT as being historical
accounts, as some Christians do, or as being the sectarian corruption of
a more original historical document, as most Q scholars do, is to
operate under a category mistake.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
