What is more fatal for "oral tradition"
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:29 am
The following quotes from another thread have raised particularly the my attention:
So the my question for this thread is: apart Vinzent, is prof Trobisch a scholar who, at least partially (I know that he is historicist), does this kind of arguments (I am interested to)?
Thanks for any answer.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:29 pm. To jump from the stories being derived from scripture to Mark having done all of the derivation himself is a fantastic slap in the face of reason.
In particular, being indebted from this POV particularly to Robert Price, Stuart Waugh and Jean Magne, I don't see the midrash from scriptures as a neutral action and as too much distinct from the "type 3 material" (see the quote above): at contrary, I think that only who was strongly interested to judaize Jesus against the old de-judaizers (=de-ethnicizers) à la Marcion could have any interest to (buy and) sell midrashical stories as "Remembered History".Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:00 pmThe idea was to interpret the (mainly synoptic) Gospels by sifting stories and sayings into three types:
1) stories or sayings that can justifiably be attributed to the "earthly" life experience of Jesus (sitz im leben Jesu)
2) stories or sayings that reflect the experiences and theology of the original Jesus-worshipping communities (sitz in leben der kirche)
3) stories or sayings that reflect the agenda of the Gospel author(s) and/or editors (sitz im Evangelium)
... Today, there seems to be a movement to focus on type 3 material (Trobisch, for example).
So the my question for this thread is: apart Vinzent, is prof Trobisch a scholar who, at least partially (I know that he is historicist), does this kind of arguments (I am interested to)?
Thanks for any answer.