On NT origins
Been having quite the discussion on NT origins over on catheolog
. Not quite sure what to do about it.
The author, goldhands
has been laying out some very well-prepared stuff, very publishable. But he was trained in form criticism, which I think is a crock, and I told him so. He is shocked that there is anyone out there who doesn't buy this load. Thinks I must not be understanding him because something is wrong with his English. But, no, I understand very well. I just don't buy it.
Which puts me in an uncomfortable position. If what he is posting is for discussion, then the hammer and tongs is de rigeuer,
and we ought to be enjoying it. On the other hand, if he envisions this particular LJ as a place to instruct
others, then I'm being a pain in the patoot, which I don't want to be.
One commenter challenged me to explain my
theory of NT origins, if I thought that form crit had it wrong. Well, there wasn't enough room in the LJ style to do that. But I thought I probably ought to. So, without doing any serious research (my library is all packed away in boxes), here is where I'm coming from on the subject.