Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Dating of P46 - Thread on TC-list

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Dating of P46 - Thread on TC-list
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:57:11 -0500

Dave Inglis asks:

>>I don't know whether I'm seeing conspiracies where none exist, but I do
seem to detect in this [TC-list] thread something I've noted before: A
reluctance to accept 'early' datings unless absolutely necessary. Anyone
care to comment?<<

Some of us see the exact opposite phenomenon occurring: i.e., a desire to
validate NT scriptures by taking "another look" at the criterion for dating,
with the result always being the imputation of much earlier dates than
previous critics had assigned them. Those who receive these studies with
gladness praise such studies to the sky as if brilliant revelations of a
God-given kind. Is it surprising that many sort of give it a short
"harrumph?"

If one were to ask me, the phenomenon appears to be a reactionary attempt on
the part of conservative critics to recapture ground that was perceived as
lost since the 19th century in the battle with the historical critical
method. In this case, they are fighting fire with fire, using criterion from
the historical-critical method to overturn its earlier results. In a way, it
is a form of the rhetorical tactic of nullifying an argument by taking it to
its extremes in order to make it seem absurd. "You use these criteria to
tear down scripture, but look, we can use them to build it up!" Touché, but
no coup, IMHO.

Something similar has also occurred with literary criticism. Form and
redaction criticism, which tend to break down narrative into its component
parts for analysis of their form and relationship in order to fit them into
a reconstructed historical framework, is being battled with reader-response
(and to some extent with rhetorical) criticism, which tends to examine
documents as they exist and downplays the specifics of their historical
framework.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page