This is really a question for CHC, Solon, and Jeff Lebowski. The other day I read a blog entry by April DeConick about form criticism and the historical Jesus. She seems to be very negative about the principle of Dissimilarity. Is there a movement to not use this principle or is this pretty idiosyncratic? Here is what she said:
Quote:
Form critics seem to have realized this and so ventured to put into use the dissimilarity principle (and the principle of coherence) in order to determine which of the sayings were authentic and which represented the voice of the church. Jesus material is eliminated if there are parallels in early Judaism or early Christianity.
Of course this leads to a serious distortion of any historical Jesus recovered. And it is a way that the difficult apocalyptic materials have been removed from Jesus' mouth, even generating the argument that they are later additions made by the early Christians to the non-apocalyptic message of Jesus. Circular reasoning at its height.
What we end up with is a Jesus that doesn't look anything like anyone around him!
In my opinion, the application of this principle has been theologically-motivated from the start, and in some cases bordering on anti-Semitic. It allows the interpreter to control Jesus to the point that Jesus becomes a man against Judaism and other Jews around him, a man who has no self-consciousness as a Prophet or Messiah, and a man who is unlike all other first-century Jews. Jesus is unique.
This principle can tell us nothing about the historical Jesus, in fact it outright distorts him beyond recognition. It is a principle that we should never have applied in the way we have done. And it is time for it to go.
|
You can find the full post here:
http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com...criticism.html