From: kdlitwak (kdlitwak@concentric.net)
Date: Wed Jun 18 1997 - 10:43:18 EDT
I can't improve on the comments by Carlton, Edgar and othes on the
grammatical issues involved in Mark 4:3, and that is notmy purpose. I
was surprised to see this parable placed against a taxonomy for parables
derived from Bultmann. In spite of Bultmann's significant influence on
NT scholarship, so much has been written in critique of his work, and
the view that Jesus' parables have no allegorical elements so
nonsensical, that I'm wondering why anyone would want to bother with
anything Bultmannhad to say about parables today. This is not meant as
a critique of the original post or poster. Apart from being serious
practice for my German, I can't think of a good reason at this point to
consult Herr Bultmann on anything. I wold hope we are well past his
existentialist-driven hermeneutic, and his hermeneutic was interesting
in light of his assertion that we can't do presuppositionless exegesis.
I think he missed his own point! I think there's an unassailable case
against his view of creative Christianprophets generating saying of the
Lord and there is so much problematic about his view of form criticism
that I can't see a way personally to redeem it (even if you could
accurately determine a form, and know exactly how it came to its current
place in the narrative that would still not tell you anything about the
facticity of the account in light of its form). SO maybe I'm missing
something. Why should we read Bultmann?
Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT