From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 10 2005 - 08:40:55 BST
Hi Case,
<snip agreed bits on Thomas>
> [Sam quibbled]
>> Well, this is - again - quite debatable. If you're interested, I'd recommend
>> James Dunn's 'A new perspective on Jesus', which talks, inter alia, about the
>> nature of oral tradition within an oral culture. Whilst there are -
>> obviously - authorial insertions, the historical 'core' is pretty robustly
>> attested. You could always try some of Tom Wright's stuff as well.
>
> [Case replies]
> I am familiar with the view that the oral tradition is very robust. this would
> actually seem to lend support to the possibility that Thomas Matthew and Luke
> derive from acommon ansestor. But this really highlights the notion that the
> gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.
I really would recommend Prof Dunn's book; it's very short and readable, and it
addresses precisely these points much better than I could. I just think that
saying 'the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses' is profoundly misleading.
The stories had become embedded in a culture which contained lots of
eyewitnesses. How far the writing was *done* by an eyewitness is debatable, but
that there is 'eye-witness testimony', in any straightforward sense of the word,
is, to my mind, incontestable.
> [Case responds]
> We may have to agree to disagree here. I think Jesus's comment about no stone
> left standing provides support for the post 70 date. I also think most date it
> right around 70 plus or minus and a minus date puts you in the prophetic
> school. While a plus lands you in the camp of the "liberals". Color me
> liberal.
<grin> colour me prophetic then! I don't see that 'prediction' in supernatural
terms (besides which, as I have been known to point out to fundamentalists, the
prediction never literally came true - there are still, to this day, some of
those stones standing on top of one another!)
> [Case wrote]
> Without the destruction of Jerusalem the actual followers of Jesus might have
> been around to put the kabash on some the trash Paull was talking. It is clear
> from Acts and Pauls letters that the "judaizers" were following him around
> trying to correct his herasies. The first two chapters of Galacians make this
> crystal clear. It also makes it clear that his beef was with James, the
> brother of Jesus, Peter and the other disciples. Also near the end of Acts it
> is these very "pillars" who want to feed him to the dogs but turn him over to
> the Romans instead. When the Roman's finally put a stop to the who jewish
> problem with their "final solution" Jesus's followers were all dead or on the
> run and the only churches left to carry on the Chirtian tradition were the
> gentile churchs established by Paul. Their theology was a kind of Hegalian
> synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic thought. None of this would have occured
> without the Roman action of the 70s.
Hmmm..... you really do need to read a bit of Tom Wright. The
'Jewish/Hellenistic' split has been undermined as being bogus, on the whole. But
this is one of those areas which would take us a truly long way away from the
MoQ (and I would need to do a bit of revision myself before getting stuck into
it).
Happy with your expansion of your point about Jesus' illegitimacy.
> [Case adds]
> The college in my town has a fine lecture series on religion. Many members of
> the Jesus Seminar have given papers here including Ed Sanders, Crossan, Borg,
> and Horsely. I keep hoping they will bring Sprong and Pagels but they actually
> do keep it balanced with people like Howard Clark Kee, Noel Freedman and James
> Charlesworth. It's cool 'cause I get them to sign my books for me.
Lucky you. But I did have this suspicion that 'the Jesus Seminar' was lurking
behind some of your points. They're not the last word on the subject!
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 10 2005 - 09:57:29 BST