Over at the Reading Acts blog, Phillip J. Long has announced the Last Call for Biblical Studies Carnival Links for October 2015.
I invite you to email me suggested links (plong42 at gmail.com) or a direct message via twitter (@plong42). What have you read this month that was challenging, simulating, or maybe even a bit strange? This is a good time to promote a less well-known blog you enjoy, or you can send a link to your own work. Sometimes you just need to flog your own blog to get it noticed.
If you read anything on Vridar this October that struck your fancy, why not drop Phillip a line and let him know about it? Neil and I would appreciate it very much. And thanks again for reading Vridar.
Latest posts by Tim Widowfield (see all)
- Expanding on My Essay in Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Part 1 - 2022-12-05 23:07:44 GMT+0000
- K. L. Schmidt’s “Framework” Part 1: Introduction — Duration and Timeline - 2022-07-02 22:22:40 GMT+0000
- K. L. Schmidt’s The Framework of the Story of Jesus: Now in English! - 2022-05-10 23:57:37 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
4 thoughts on “Celebrate at the Biblical Studies Carnival”
I always learn a lot from this blog. It’s great fun!
No, I understood the principle, though, evidentially; I did not make my response clear enough.
If the gospels were written in the way I describe we would expect “to find elsewhere in their narratives and relationships” examples of intertextual literature. The examples I gave concretely demonstrated this genre exists throughout the Gospels and not solely within the tomb stories.
To your assertion that the “standard theological and literary-development explanations for the differences and relationships among the gospel accounts” should be adhered to I can only say that there is no such ‘standard’ for the tomb stories.
This is why, I presume, when I asked for an example of a ‘standard’ you merely repeated the premise and did not cite one – there isn’t any.
As I understand things, other theses also predict we would find examples of intertextuality among the gospels, too, so such a prediction is not distinctive to yours.
I was asking you to first address alternative explanations and why yours is superior. I did not respond to your request for an example because your very next sentence made it clear it would not lead to any dialogue because you declared that you would show that whatever example I cited was inadequate. So the conclusion was there before I began.
Right on cue the Reading Acts blog hosting this month’s carnival noted in a complimentary tone my post on James Dunn’s motivation for biblical studies. So we have further evidence that the biblical studies guild (at least as represented by the biblioblog community) fully approves of the ideological agenda driving so-called historical research.