Pt 1: explanatory power

Date: Tue Oct 17 1995 - 17:52:23 EDT

Hello, all.

  Well, I made a promise to someone I respect greatly that I'd drop this
  "off-topic" stuff. So let me fire a few parting shots. If these seem
  excessive, just "skip and delete"--Lord knows I do enough of that.

  If anyone's interested, we could probably move this thread to IOUDAIOS-L.
  Or we could just get back to Greek and pretend none of this ever happened.

NI>>Perry Stepp wrote:
NI>> Besides, what the heck do you mean by "tremendous explanatory
NI>> value"? Do you mean "usefulness"? How is *that* a criteria for
NI>> which hypothesis is to be accepted?

NI>I, for one, must admit to being bewildered by this question.

NI>The only criterion by which a hypothesis is judged --indeed the only
NI>criterion by which a hypothesis *can* be judged-- is how well it explains
NI>the available data.

  Well, now that I'm clear (or at least think I'm clear) on what Pmoser
  meant by "tremendous explanatory power," let me simply say that I
  don't think that much of the two-source hypothesis's explanatory
  power. I don't think it's the best explanation of the state of the
  synoptic gospels as we have them before us. It is foundationally
  flawed. It is logically inconsistent. It gives short shrift to the
  evangelists' creative and theological concerns.

PLS <continued>

  SLMR 2.1a  Man, I just love the smell of napalm in the morning!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:30 EDT