Corpus-Paul

[LeeEdgarTyler AT aol.com]

In a message dated 8/30/2002 10:02:43 PM Central Daylight Time, dhindley AT compuserve.com writes:

>>I wonder how Crossan, or Theissen or Funk or Mack (and the list could go
on and on) would respond to being told that they are reconstructing the
beginnings of Xnty on the basis of assumptions about Xn history.<<

Hmmmm. To even start to draw inferences from an undifferentiated mass of
data, they *have* to be making assumptions, if only by analogy from their
personal experiences, to start the process. Do you mean to suggest that they
are without doubt reconstructing "facts?"

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

The first quarter of Crossan's *Birth of Christianity* entails Crossan deconstructing his own "presuppositions" (as well s those of others) toward the material.  It's safe to say that his answer to the charge that he's reconstructing based upon his assumptions is "Of course I am, and so is everyone else." 

But this problem is by no means unique to New Testament studies.  Everyone who deals with ancient texts faces it to one degree or another.   John Foley reconstructs the aesthetic reception of Homer based upon one set of assumptions and G. S. Kirk does so based upon another; James Earl does the same with the texts of Beowulf and the Hildebrandslied based upon one set of assumptions and I do so based upon another.

But as scholars we don't use the word "assumption" in the pejorative sense in which it appears to be used above.  An assumption or presupposition is--or ought to be--based upon supporting evidence.  We have a very interesting situation in this field, in that the evidence is such that it can legitimately support a variety of assumptions, many of which are mutually exclusive.  I can point to a great deal of evidence in support of my assumptions, but then so can James Earl in support of his. 

So the question we face is "How good are our assumptions?"  I am convinced that mine are better than James Earl's--otherwise I'd change them.  I'm also convinced that Foley's are better than Kirk's.  And just for the record, I'm convinced that Crossan's are better than Brown's.  But more firmly than any of these, I'm convinced that there is such legitimate ground for the assumptions of Earl, Kirk, and Brown that they cannot be dismissed out of hand, but must be engaged with an attention and respect commensurate to this legitimacy.


Ed Tyler

http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html