I agree with you about the appeal of Tolkien's style.
Some of what source criticism has to say is insightful, particularly the stuff about the various traditions you can see in Genesis, but the NT stuff in particular seems to contain an implausible amount of bullshit per square inch> The trouble is, you exhaust what can be done with the proper tools of philology extremely quickly, and people seem most reluctant to admit that YOU CAN'T RECOVER THE DAMN ARCHETYPE, AND YOU CAN'T TELL MUCH ABOUT WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, EITHER, BECAUSE REDACTORS ARE HUMAN BEINGS AND NOT PREDICTABLE COMPUTERS.
Um, sorry. Forgive the shouting. But my inner philologist (new or otherwise) is vexed at the refusal of NT critics to get out of the 1860s...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
Re: You shold enjoy this
Date: 2009-04-02 11:35 am (UTC)Some of what source criticism has to say is insightful, particularly the stuff about the various traditions you can see in Genesis, but the NT stuff in particular seems to contain an implausible amount of bullshit per square inch> The trouble is, you exhaust what can be done with the proper tools of philology extremely quickly, and people seem most reluctant to admit that YOU CAN'T RECOVER THE DAMN ARCHETYPE, AND YOU CAN'T TELL MUCH ABOUT WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, EITHER, BECAUSE REDACTORS ARE HUMAN BEINGS AND NOT PREDICTABLE COMPUTERS.
Um, sorry. Forgive the shouting. But my inner philologist (new or otherwise) is vexed at the refusal of NT critics to get out of the 1860s...