On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 08:51:20 -0400 (EDT) "William E. Arnal"
<wea1@...> writes:
>
>
> Bob:
>
> Do you seriously doubt that Crossan's theology affects his work?

Well, no. But here I think I see a difference between the way you use
that information and the way Antonio uses it. As I understand it,
Antonio's purpose in writing what he did about Wright was to discredit
him as a historian (Antonio, please correct me if I am wrong.) On the
other hand, you are, I think, coming from the point of view that everyone
has biases, so what? (I oversimplify.) You do not intend thereby to
discredit Crossan as a historian, as I understand your point. Is this
correct?

> Yes, ONE of the purposes of these confessional
> statements is to clarify sites of potential -- but another
> is defuse accusations of bias, or even locate the readership
> ideologically.

Is there a word missing from this sentence?

> I am really not sure at all why you find my
> characterization of Wright as theologically motivated so
> objectionable.

Ah. I do not find it objectionable to say that Wright is theologically
*motivated.*
What I thought you were agreeing with Antonio about was to draw the
conclusion that because Wright may be theologically motivated *therefore*
all of his work on the historical Jesus must therefore be discarded. What
is missing from this logic is to deny the possibility that Mahlon calls
"bracketing out" one's biases from one's work as a historian.

> In any case, I am NOT going to respond to
> your or Mike's questions about "chapter and verse" and
> because what you are asking for here (as your response to
> Suki's post indicates) is PROOF of bias or of
> misrepresentation of historical fact, and I've already said
> (repeatedly, in fact) that the charge of bias is a surmise,
> not a claim that can be proven, precisely it involves the
> inner workings of the scholar's mind. On the other hand, to
> say that this makes such surmise unscholarly, or ad hominem,
> is to ignore a great bulk of the standard METHOD of this
> field, which involves exposing (or asserting) the biases of
> others. If you doubt this, check out Schweitzer's _Quest_.
>

It is one thing to assert that someone is biased. It is another thing to
*assume* that their bias invalidates their work as a scholar. I thought
this was Antonio's point, and I assumed that since you seemed to be
defending Antonio's claims about Wright, that you agreed with that point.
If that is not what you were agreeing with Antonio about, then I have no
quarrel with you.

A scholar's bias may, as you say, involve the inaccessible work of the
inner mind. But if that bias manifests itself in their scholarly work,
then there is external evidence that can be evaluated for bias. I thought
you were making the claim that Wright's bias was affecting his work,
e.g., on the apocalypticism of Jesus. My request for chapter and verse
was with regard to this question. If you were making such a claim, then
my request stands: Show me the evidence (a) about what kind of bias you
think Wright has, and (b) how that particular bias affects his
scholarship on particular questions about the historical Jesus.

In other questions about the historical Jesus, we demand to see the
evidence.
Why should this be otherwise?

Bob

"Bob:

Do you seriously doubt that Crossan's theology affects his
work? Yes, ONE of the purposes of these confessional
statements is to clarify sites of potential -- but another
is defuse accusations of bias, or even locate the readership
ideologically. I am really not sure at all why you find my
characterization of Wright as theologically motivated so
objectionable. In any case, I am NOT going to respond to
your or Mike's questions about "chapter and verse" and
because what you are asking for here (as your response to
Suki's post indicates) is PROOF of bias or of
misrepresentation of historical fact, and I've already said
(repeatedly, in fact) that the charge of bias is a surmise,
not a claim that can be proven, precisely it involves the
inner workings of the scholar's mind. On the other hand, to
say that this makes such surmise unscholarly, or ad hominem,
is to ignore a great bulk of the standard METHOD of this
field, which involves exposing (or asserting) the biases of
others. If you doubt this, check out Schweitzer's _Quest_.

Bill"
**********************************************************

Bill, you didn't ask me but I'll gladly tell you that I don't
seriously doubt that ANYONE'S ideology affects his or her work, and
that seems the whole point. Unexamined convictions are endemic in
scholarship. It's just that some unexamined convictions are more
fashionable than others -- and this even when these gauche others
are OPEN and honestly ADMITTED -- and this is what is so disturbing
to me.

Of course Wright is "theologically motivated," but then so is
everyone else. The only differences have to do with the nature of
the venerated deity, its respectability and time-bound party/power
clout.

Mike


---------------End of Original Message-----------------

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. A. Myers
Physiology and Biophysics
University of California, Irvine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mmyers@...>
04/27/2000
12:35:45

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:49:57 -0800, mmyers@... writes:
>>
>>"... were neatly fitted into Wright's big-picture hypothesis, I
>>found myself asking, "Is there anything in the gospels this guy
>>DOESN'T see as historically reliable?"

    [... Snip ...]

>>That's my non-scholarly two cents' worth.  Unverifiable personal
>>impressions, to be sure.
>>
>>Sukie Curtis"
>
>I understand. Wright goes too far for me too, BUT he is at least
>entirely upfront re: his overall worldview. I share your concern
>about all 'convictions', agreeing with Nietzsche that what is needed
>more often is less the courage of one's convictions than the courage
>for an attack on them.

    [... Snip ...]

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Michael D. A. Myers
>Physiology and Biophysics
>University of California, Irvine
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><mmyers@...>
>04/26/2000
>13:49:57

Mike-

    Here I am, resting from working on deconstructing the OT, when I
    see this exchange.  I have to ask, "how can you say an account
    has historical roots when nothing exists `on the ground' to
    support the account?"

    Yes, you have evidence of a Caiaphas, a Pontius Pilate but for
    little more than a Caesar or an Herod.  If all we had were text
    mentions for Alexander, we'd call him imaginary.  So the debate
    goes for Homer.

    Yes, the texts are often earlier than those of Classical sources
    but what support is there for the strings of the accounts?
    Certainly nothing like that existing for the Caesars.

    Suetonius' satire may be the only surviving text written in the
    lifetime of the apostles, people for whom there is no support
    beyond literary ones or some dubious finds in Cyprus.

    Ask an Egyptologist to show you clear evidence of Moses OR for
    the Holy Family's stay in Egypt.  The latter may have more
    support than the Gospels.  Moses?  The result is not likely to
    please believers.

    What do I believe?  I believe Jesus lived, that he affected a lot
    of people in the several decades after his crucifixion, all of
    which influence was indirect, by all accounts.  My evidence is
    only partly in court, having been regularly spurned.  I have a
    couple of things in my quiver, untried but that's for later.

    Now that today we read that science says the universe is flat,
    not curved, all questions re resurrection must now be reexamined.

    It doesn't seem this List is ready to do much reexamination,
    instead the members prefer to plow the same furrow.  However,
    having stirred the pot, I'll keep an eye out for signs of life.

Tom Simms

I don't think so. IMO precise chronology of all these events would not be
convincing to a lot of scholars. The reason being that serious scholarship
does not adhere to the position that the Gospel accounts are historical
biography in the modern sense. The word "gospel" means "good news". The
objective of the gospel narratives was to announce the "good news" of
salvation; that is, a religious message to hears and readers of the ancient
world. This is not the same as a modern historical biography.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Mallett [mailto:100114.573@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 6:45 PM
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@...
Subject: Re: [XTalk] HJ & Pesach


A Harmony of the Gospels by AT Robertson has the following chronology :-

Friday afternoon - arrival at Bethany
Saturday - not recorded
Sunday - triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Monday - fig tree cursed and temple cleansed
Tuesday - fig tree found to have withered
Tuesday - Jesus challenged by Sanhedrin
Tuesday - the widow's mite
Tuesday afternoon - eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives
Tuesday evening - Mary anoints Jesus
Tuesday night - Judas plots with rulers
Wednesday - not recorded
Thursday afternoon - preparation for Paschal meal
Thursday evening - Paschal meal
Thursday night - Gethsemane
Friday morning before dawn - Jesus arrested
Friday morning before dawn - Jesus tried by Caiaphas and Sanhedrin
Friday early morning toward sunrise - Jesus appears before Pilate
Friday before 9 am - the way of the cross
Friday 9 am to 3 pm - crucifixion
Friday before 6 pm - Jesus is buried
Friday afternoon to Saturday afternoon - the women watch by the tomb
Saturday late afternoon / early evening - the women visit the tomb
Sunday morning early - the angels announce the resurrection
Sunday - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene
Sunday afternoon - Jesus appears to two disciples on the way to Emmaus
Sunday evening - the report of the two disciples and of the appearance
to Peter
Sunday evening - the appearance to the disciples, except Thomas
Sunday following - the convincing of Thomas

Is this chronology generally held by scholars ?

Richard.


   E-mail from: Richard Mallett, 27-Apr-2000

------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE FREE!  GET THE OFFICIAL COMPANION
TO TELEVISION'S HOTTEST GAME SHOW PHENOMENON PLUS 5 MORE BOOKS FOR
$2.  Click for details.
http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/2/_/713/_/956875679/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com

To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com

Tom Simms wrote:

>   What do I believe?  I believe Jesus lived, that he affected a lot
>   of people in the several decades after his crucifixion, all of
>   which influence was indirect, by all accounts.  My evidence is
>   only partly in court, having been regularly spurned.  I have a
>   couple of things in my quiver, untried but that's for later.
>
>   Now that today we read that science says the universe is flat,
>   not curved, all questions re resurrection must now be reexamined.
>
>   It doesn't seem this List is ready to do much reexamination,
>   instead the members prefer to plow the same furrow.  However,
>   having stirred the pot, I'll keep an eye out for signs of life.

If you don't mind my asking, what do you mean by these cryptic statements?
I find everything that I quoted above to be confusing, but the place where
you really lost me is when you said, "science says the universe is flat,
not curved."  The last time I checked, the sun (not to mention all the
other matter in the universe) still produced a non-zero Einstein curvature
tensor.

Shalom,

Nathan

						 Nathan McGovern
						 Franklin and Marshall College
						 nm_mcgovern@...

On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:08:38 -0700, nm_mcgovern@... writes:
>
>Tom Simms wrote:
>
>>   What do I believe?  I believe Jesus lived, that he affected a lot
>>   of people in the several decades after his crucifixion, all of
>>   which influence was indirect, by all accounts.  My evidence is
>>   only partly in court, having been regularly spurned.  I have a
>>   couple of things in my quiver, untried but that's for later.
>>
>>   Now that today we read that science says the universe is flat,
>>   not curved, all questions re resurrection must now be reexamined.
>>
>>   It doesn't seem this List is ready to do much reexamination,
>>   instead the members prefer to plow the same furrow.  However,
>>   having stirred the pot, I'll keep an eye out for signs of life.
>
>If you don't mind my asking, what do you mean by these cryptic statements?
>I find everything that I quoted above to be confusing, but the place where
>you really lost me is when you said, "science says the universe is flat,
>not curved."  The last time I checked, the sun (not to mention all the
>other matter in the universe) still produced a non-zero Einstein curvature
>tensor.

    So I thought until I read the story Thursday, Wednesday? my papers
    are being recycled...

    The whole science world is agog over a study released in - I think -
    _Science_ but I saw the story on the Discovery page of _The National
    Post_ this week citing the source _and_ I suspect NYT and Daily
    Telegraph -  I'm still mentally trying to digest it, sort of like being
    given a giant rubber disk that has a very slight curvature AND
    plain saying that Einstein is nowo wrong.

    Since then, I have begun to think that the way out - conceptually -
    is my last decade (the 80s)'s view of parallel universes that
    don not allow crossovers but might just be yesterday's moments melding
    into today...

>Shalom,
>
>Nathan
>
> 				 Nathan McGovern
> 				 Franklin and Marshall College
> 				 nm_mcgovern@...
>
    Ankh Tchetta Seneb

Tom Simms
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Get paid for the stuff you know!
>Get answers for the stuff you don=92t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/2/_/713/_/956935478/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

One or two items may be of interest to the list.  The following are
full text reproductions available on the web:

C. H. Dodd's _The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development_ is
now available on the Religion-Online Site:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll?action=showitem&id=545

Marcus Borg's _Jesus: A New Vision_ is also available in a full text
reproduction:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll?action=showitem&id=559

I've made those and also a nice old textbook by Richard Heard,
_Introduction to the New Testament_, featured links this month on
my NT Gateway, the new URL for which, let me remind you, is:

http://www.ntgateway.com

There are several other fresh items that may be of interest there.
Suggestions & comments always, of course, gratefully received.

Mark
---------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre          mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology
University of Birmingham    Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
Birmingham   B15 2TT       Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
   All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
   New Testament Gateway
   Mark Without Q
   Aseneth Home Page

Nathan McGovern wrote:

> Tom Simms wrote:
>
> >   What do I believe?  I believe Jesus lived, that he affected a lot
> >   of people in the several decades after his crucifixion, all of
> >   which influence was indirect, by all accounts.  My evidence is
> >   only partly in court, having been regularly spurned.  I have a
> >   couple of things in my quiver, untried but that's for later.
> >
> >   Now that today we read that science says the universe is flat,
> >   not curved, all questions re resurrection must now be reexamined.
> >
> >   It doesn't seem this List is ready to do much reexamination,
> >   instead the members prefer to plow the same furrow.  However,
> >   having stirred the pot, I'll keep an eye out for signs of life.
>
> If you don't mind my asking, what do you mean by these cryptic statements?
> I find everything that I quoted above to be confusing, but the place where
> you really lost me is when you said, "science says the universe is flat,
> not curved."  The last time I checked, the sun (not to mention all the
> other matter in the universe) still produced a non-zero Einstein curvature
> tensor.
>

I thought the universe was shaped like a balloon...you know, those kind
you get at the carnival shaped like a horsey or a ducky?

Jack

--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon@...

http://www.historian.net

sharing a meal for free.
http://www.thehungersite.com/

--- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Mike Myers  <mmyers@h...> wrote:

> Bill, you didn't ask me but I'll gladly tell you that I don't
> seriously doubt that ANYONE'S ideology affects his or her work, and
> that seems the whole point. Unexamined convictions are endemic in
> scholarship. It's just that some unexamined convictions are more
> fashionable than others -- and this even when these gauche others
> are OPEN and honestly ADMITTED -- and this is what is so disturbing
> to me
>
> Of course Wright is "theologically motivated," but then so is
> everyone else. The only differences have to do with the nature of
> the venerated deity, its respectability and time-bound party/power
> clout.
>
But, Mike, open and honest admission of one's bias (I don't see how
one can openly and honestly admit specific "unexamined convictions",
but anyway...) is not the same thing as the "bracketing out" of those
biases as honestly as possible, as Bob Schacht referred to earlier
today.

Admission is better than nothing, I guess.  But some suggestion of
how one attempts to "bracket out" bias or to keep the exchange
between bias and scholarly method as "equal" as possible would be
even better, would it not?  I disagree that the "*only* differences
have to do with the nature of the venerated deity, its respectability
and time-bound party/power clout."  Broadening this beyond Crossan
and Wright, there are more competent scholars and less competent
ones, no matter how biased they all may be, and there are also better
methods and weaker methods.  Such things make a difference, too.

Sukie Curtis
Cumberland Foreside, Maine


>
>
> ---------------End of Original Message-----------------
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Michael D. A. Myers
> Physiology and Biophysics
> University of California, Irvine
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> <mmyers@h...>
> 04/27/2000
> 12:35:45

Sukie Curtis wrote:
"But, Mike, open and honest admission of one's bias (I don't see how
one can openly and honestly admit specific "unexamined convictions",
but anyway...) is not the same thing as the "bracketing out" of
those biases as honestly as possible, as Bob Schacht referred to
earlier today."
*************************************************************

I'm firmly convinced that there is no real possibility of rigorously
"bracketing out" biases, frankly. They seem innate to the way the
human mind operates when it surveys itself and the world outside.
Anyone who claims a firm grasp on the Ding-an-sich is dingy by
definition IMHO.

As you suggest, it isn't possible to openly and honestly admit
specific unexamined convictions *if these aren't even recognized*.
This is where peer review comes in so handy. Yet an individual could
in principle recognize his/her convictions, openly admit that they
are, thus far, more or less personally unexamined, and thereby
remain in good faith during a discussion in which these convictions
become airborne. That situation's much better than the one in which
some involved are evidently utterly oblivious to their own no doubt
widely shared but still deeply questionable unexamined convictions.
History tells a long story of respectable, power-laden exquisitely
gowned convictions that have been examined and found defective. Too
often the examiners who talk about it soon become raggedy outsiders
if they weren't already. So much for peer review, then.


Sukie wrote:
"I disagree that the "*only* differences have to do with the nature
of the venerated deity, its respectability and time-bound
party/power clout."  Broadening this beyond Crossan and Wright,
there are more competent scholars and less competent ones, no matter
how biased they all may be, and there are also better methods and
weaker methods.  Such things make a difference, too."
*******************************************************

Well, I guess I have to stand by my little trope. To me theology is
pretty inclusive. Some follow the money, but I like to follow the
deity. (These days it's often the same trip but not always.) The
problem with all methods is that they are so LIMITED in scope by
definition, and that they are wielded by specialists. This is
becoming obvious in the biological sciences. Turns out that some of
the more intricate phenomena are developing resistance to the
methodologies -- they have this nasty propensity to be complex and
'interdisciplinary' in nature and to mischievously resist staying in
the neat little academic categories into which they were herded for
study.

To me, an admitted outsider to the specialty of most on this list,
it seems they have the same problem, in spades. They're dealing with
more complex phenomena still. This makes me pessimistic about the
results until the methodologies evolve into a better match for the
complexities. And I humbly suggest that one factor in this evolution
will be to take the little matter of theology more seriously.  In
the mean time, try the via negativa -- rule out the most crudely
idolatrous conceptions. I would say that ultimately there are better
and weaker theologies.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. A. Myers
Physiology and Biophysics
University of California, Irvine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mmyers@...>
04/28/2000
12:41:09

XTalkers:  I note that the April 21 issue of TLS contains reviews of a few new
books on the HJ -- Paula Fredriksen's "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews",
Geza Vermes' "The Changing Faces of Jesus" and vol. 3 of the Cambridge History
of Judaism -- The Early Roman Period.  Before I do further damage to my credit
card, I'd like to solicit some opinions on the question of whether I should read
the Cambridge History or, rather, look at the works by the contributors.  If the
later, which scholars, in particular, are recommended?  Although a lurker, I am
past the introductory level and am interested in some serious reading.  All
suggestions are welcome (off-list) and thanks in advance!
Hope E. Rosenbaum-Werner,
Lurker


-Notice-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-------------------------------

        This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work
product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received
this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately
notify the sender at (212) 259-8000 and delete this e-mail message from your
computer. Thank you.

Jack,

>>I thought the universe was shaped like a balloon...you know, those
kind you get at the carnival shaped like a horsey or a ducky?<<

The idea, apparently, is that the recent radio pictures of the
"echoes" of the "big bang" show the universe acting as if "flat." The
interpretation has been that the expansion of the universe after the
"big bang" has been so rapid and incredibly huge, that the surface of
the expansion appears (to our instruments looking at it from so far
away) as if expanded to the point of infinity, i.e., as if flat.

Still, I am with you that I cannot figure out what Tom thinks this has
to do with the resurrection of Jesus. Is he suggesting that since the
universe *appears* flat even though it is not, that Jesus *appeared*
to have been resurrected even though he had not been?

However, Tom's response was that he has "begun to think that the way
out - conceptually - is my last decade (the 80s)'s view of parallel
universes that do[es] not allow crossovers but might just be
yesterday's moments melding into today...".

I am still lost. So, parallel universes, due to the effect of the
universe's expansion, *appear* as if occurring in a common one? So the
apostles saw a Jesus from a parallel universe (and vice versa)?
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhh!

Even the desperate pseudo-psychological "mass hysteria" explanations
for the resurrection appearances to the apostles and others are better
that that! <Sorry, Tom>

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Sorry for the delay in answering, the reason being that my e-mailserver has been
out
of work for the last few days. Anyway...

Antonio Jerez wrote:

>3. People like Tom Wright refuse to acknowledge that either Jesus,
>Paul or the gospel writers got anything wrong. It is just some of us
>who have been to dumb to realize that the texts don't really say
>what most Christians have taken them to say during the last two
>millenia. (I think most oldies on the list know what I think about
>Tom Wright....)

>>Mike Myers replied:
>>Antonio, altho I confess I'm not terribly interested in what you
>>'think of N.T. Wright', I would be very interested indeed to read an
>>elaboration of your implicit attack on his take on the apocalyptic
>>question.

>>Could you do us the service of flowering somewhat beyond your
>>ridiculous caricature excerpted above into some engagement with his
>>argument, and that rooted in his texts?

You could start by reading the exchange Ricki Watts and I had about Wright's
methods on X-talk beginning  26  Januari 2000 and going on a bit into February.
Specially take a look at my message of 29 February. If you want to defend Wright
you are most welcome.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez

> At 06:36 PM 4/25/00 -0800, Mike Myers wrote:
>
> >Bill, could you tell me how exactly in your view Wright has modified
> >his historical views to accord with his theological convictions? I
> >mean, where in your judgment has theology distorted his perception
> >of the objective historical record? Everyone implies this but I'd be
> >really grateful for some details to back it up. I remain quite
> >unpersuaded so far.
>
> By maintaining that the apocalyptic expectation was not understood
> literally. As I see it, the theological conviction is that the NT texts
> can't be wrong -- and the historical consequence is that if we read them in
> such as a way as to conclude that they were wrong, we are reading them
> incorrectly, i.e., misunderstanding them historically. I think this is clear
> enough. You can deny that Wright is doing this, of course, but I think
> Antonio's claim (and I agree with him) is that THIS is how history is being
> reworked in the service of theology.

Glad to see that Bill and me are standing side by side on this issue. In my
earlier exchange with Ricki Watt's I pointed out  that what I particularly
dislike
about Wright's method is his tendency to make sweeping generalisations
without much  backup in the ancient texts. A specially damaging case is his
claim that "all Jews understood a good metaphor when they saw one".  This
can easily be shown to be patently false, as Dale Allison did in his latest
Jesus
book, and naturally makes one wonder what underlying reason there is for
Wright making a claim like that when even a cursory look at Josephus and many
other ancient writers should have given a historian reason for refraining from
doing a statement like that.
I also recall accusing Wright of "forgetting" to discuss time after time
relevant
material that go against his thesis. I mentioned Matthew 25 and The Last
Judgement. Jeffrey Gibson then replied to me:

>>One explanation of this is that the Matthean story is discussed and shown to
be more
>>Matthean than authentically dominical in a work which Tom presupposes as
foundational
>>for his discussion, namely, Marcus Borg's _Conflict, Politics, and Holiness in
the Teaching
>>of Jesus_ (a revision of Borg's Oxford D.Phil. Thesis carried out under George
Caird --
>>who also supervised Tom's [and my] D.Phil. work). Evidence that Tom is well
aware
>>of the Matthean scene, and why he rejects it as not relevant to his thesis,
can be found
>>in his additions to Stephen Neil's _The Interpretation of the New Testament
1861-1961_
>>and in his introduction to the reprint of Borg's book.

Well Jeffrey, I took a look again in the books you mentioned but I wasn't able
to find any
reference from Tom Wright to Matthew 25. Do I have the wrong edition of Stephen
Neil's
and Wright's book?


Best wishes

Antonio Jerez

To : Tom Simms

>>  The whole science world is agog over a study released in - I think -
    _Science_ but I saw the story on the Discovery page of _The National
    Post_ this week citing the source _and_ I suspect NYT and Daily
    Telegraph -  I'm still mentally trying to digest it, sort of like being
    given a giant rubber disk that has a very slight curvature AND
    plain saying that Einstein is nowo wrong.

    Since then, I have begun to think that the way out - conceptually -
    is my last decade (the 80s)'s view of parallel universes that
    don not allow crossovers but might just be yesterday's moments melding
    into today... <<

Ah, now I see the source of some of your confusion.  Balloon experiments
over Antarctica have produced a map of the temperature fluctuations in the
cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) which confirm that the
universe will expand forever.  There were three hypotheses :-

Open - the universe would continue to expand at an ever increasing rate.

Closed - the expansion would eventually be overcome by
gravitational attraction, and the universe would eventually collapse.

Flat - the expansion will slow down, but will never reverse, so the size
of the universe will asymptotically approach a limiting value.  This has
been confirmed by the balloon experiments (called BOOMERANG = balloon
observations of millimetric extragalactic radiation and geomagnetics)

I have not seen any indication in the paper published in Nature this week
that Einstein was wrong about anything.

Richard.


   E-mail from: Richard Mallett, 29-Apr-2000

To : Tom Sims

>>  Ask an Egyptologist to show you clear evidence of Moses OR for
    the Holy Family's stay in Egypt.  The latter may have more
    support than the Gospels.  Moses?  The result is not likely to
    please believers. <<

The Holy Family's stay in Egypt may have more support than the Gospels ?
What can you possibly mean by that ?  As for Moses, I know of no extra
biblical evidence for such a person.

>>  What do I believe?  I believe Jesus lived, that he affected a lot
    of people in the several decades after his crucifixion, all of
    which influence was indirect, by all accounts.  My evidence is
    only partly in court, having been regularly spurned.  I have a
    couple of things in my quiver, untried but that's for later. <<

How do you mean indirect ?  That Peter and Paul (and probably the
other apostles) were influenced directly, and that they influenced others,
or something else ?

>>  Now that today we read that science says the universe is flat,
    not curved, all questions re resurrection must now be reexamined. <<

Current thinking is that the universe is open (i.e. will expand forever) -
the baryonic matter in the universe will still cause light beams to be bent
into curves.  What does this have to do with resurrection ?

Richard.


   E-mail from: Richard Mallett, 29-Apr-2000

> Antonio Jerez wrote:
>
> I don't see how theology is going to help a historian searching for a
> religious leader of the past. What is of use to historians is usually
> a
> good grasp of the history of ideas (among which are theological ideas)
> , antrophology, sociology and a sound methodology. Theology has never
> had anything to do with the realities of this world. Like philosophy
> it most
> often lives in a shadowy  world where airy phantasy castles are time
> after
> time built out of faulty premises.
>

May an intellectual historian who was also trained as a theologian put
his 2 cents in at this point? In general I am in full agreement with
Antonio's assessment of Tom Wright's way of doing history. Wright makes
some good points about unspoken anti-theological *a priori* of secular
historiography, but by insisting on doing historical reconstruction on
the basis of theological *a priori* really puts himself in a position
where his arguments are not going to be convincing to those trained in
modern historiography. His thinking outside the box limits his audience
to those who share his theological presuppositions. Dale Allison's
critique of Crossan's methodology & the worl of other JS scholars like
Borg & Patterson is more salient since he works within the same field of
presuppositions shared by the majority of modern biblical scholars &
historians. I disagree with Allison & am currently preparing a critique
of his & Bart Ehrman's arguments for an apocalyptic Jesus. But at least
with them I am dialoging on the basis of historical data rather than on
the basis of meta-historiography & psycho-metaphysics.

Yet I wouldn't go as far as Antonio in discounting the value of theology
in historical studies, particularly when one is dealing with ancient
figures & interpretations of events that presupposed theological
worldviews. In order to understand these reports or the mindset of these
figures correctly one needs to do a lot of careful reconstruction of the
theological framework each presupposes. One cannot simply make blanket
statements about apocalyptic or eschatology or whatever & assume that
such views were generally held in antiquity & therefore HJ or those who
responded to him must have held such views. One has to build the
theological horizon of each mind -- writer or speaker -- out of the
things that each can be shown to have uttered. One is apt to present a
distorted interpretation of the textual data if one fails to distinguish
such horizons.

Historical theology does not presuppose the existence of God or any
other metaphysical backdrop. It simply presupposes that different people
have different theologies & because each mind considers its view of God
to be correct & absolute, each person projects that presupposition in
interpreting the sayings/actions of other people. Unless one keeps the
voices & theologies straight one is going to miss the really distinctive
contributions of each voice to the historical evolution of theological
ideas & to confuse HJ with the views of his disciples.

Shalom!

Mahlon



--

                *********************

Mahlon H. Smith,       http://religion.rutgers.edu/mh_smith.html
Associate Professor
Department of Religion         Virtual Religion Index
Rutgers University                 http://religion.rutgers.edu/vri/
New Brunswick NJ

Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/

A Synoptic Gospels Primer
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

Jesus Seminar Forum
http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/

Antonio, I actually did read the exchange with Rikki Watts. Is your
cite of a post on 29 Feb. a typo? I couldn't find one in my list,
sorted by date (of 1300, alas). I'm behind.

I don't have much to add at this point to Rikki Watts' able defense.
I'm beginning to see clearly that there are 2 camps, the Poets and
the Positivists. I doubt they will ever understand each other ... or
more accurately, that one set will ever understand the other that
enfolds it.




"You could start by reading the exchange Ricki Watts and I had about
Wright's methods on X-talk beginning  26  Januari 2000 and going on
a bit into February. Specially take a look at my message of 29
February. If you want to defend Wright you are most welcome.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. A. Myers
Physiology and Biophysics
University of California, Irvine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mmyers@...>
04/29/2000
17:26:03

Tom Simms writes:

<< Now that today we read that science says the universe is flat,
     not curved, all questions re resurrection must now be reexamined. >>

  I've just returned from a weekend conference on science and theology, and I
find myself puzzled. It's a pity there isn't (yet) a site for the discussion
of points like this; I shall be arguing for the creation of one. The
discussion doesn't clarify the point, and we could probably do with some
input from the odd cosmologist. My own background (from many years ago) was
in biological and earth sciences, so I can't help much. Meanwhile, can this
be unpacked a bit, please? What's the connection?


Regards,

Robert Brenchley

RSBrenchley@...

On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:52:35 -0400 "Mahlon H. Smith"
<mahlonh.smith@...> writes:
>
>
> May an intellectual historian who was also trained as a theologian  put
> his 2 cents in at this point? In general I am in full agreement with
> Antonio's assessment of Tom Wright's way of doing history. Wright
makes
> some good points about unspoken anti-theological *a priori* of  secular
> historiography, but by insisting on doing historical reconstruction  on
> the basis of theological *a priori* really puts himself in a  position
> where his arguments are not going to be convincing to those trained  in
> modern historiography. His thinking outside the box limits his
audience
> to those who share his theological presuppositions. Dale Allison's
> critique of Crossan's methodology & the worl of other JS scholars  like
> Borg & Patterson is more salient since he works within the same  field
of
> presuppositions shared by the majority of modern biblical scholars &
> historians. I disagree with Allison & am currently preparing a
critique
> of his & Bart Ehrman's arguments for an apocalyptic Jesus. But at
least
> with them I am dialoging on the basis of historical data rather than
on
> the basis of meta-historiography & psycho-metaphysics.
>
> Yet I wouldn't go as far as Antonio in discounting the value of
theology
> in historical studies, particularly when one is dealing with ancient
> figures & interpretations of events that presupposed theological
> worldviews. In order to understand these reports or the mindset of
these
> figures correctly one needs to do a lot of careful reconstruction of
the
> theological framework each presupposes. One cannot simply make blanket
> statements about apocalyptic or eschatology or whatever & assume that
> such views were generally held in antiquity & therefore HJ or those who
> responded to him must have held such views. One has to build the
> theological horizon of each mind -- writer or speaker -- out of the
> things that each can be shown to have uttered. One is apt to present a
> distorted interpretation of the textual data if one fails to
distinguish
> such horizons.
>
> Historical theology does not presuppose the existence of God or any
> other metaphysical backdrop. It simply presupposes that different
people
> have different theologies & because each mind considers its view of
God
> to be correct & absolute, each person projects that presupposition  in
> interpreting the sayings/actions of other people. Unless one keeps  the
> voices & theologies straight one is going to miss the really
distinctive
> contributions of each voice to the historical evolution of  theological
> ideas & to confuse HJ with the views of his disciples.
>
> Shalom!
>
> Mahlon

I think this is the best contribution to this thread to date! Thanks,
Mahlon!

I might just add that E.P.  Sanders would be in agreement with your last
paragraphs.  In his "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (1993), he wrote,

"...we cannot pare the gospel material down to a non-theological core,
and then proclaim that we have found Jesus, since Jesus himself was a
theologian."

We occasaionally dabble in this subject, but usually only with respect to
whether or not Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic or not. To us, it has
been a peripheral issue. To Sanders, it is a central issue to
understanding the historical Jesus.

Bob

RSBrenchley@... wrote:

> Tom Simms writes:
>
> << Now that today we read that science says the universe is flat,
>     not curved, all questions re resurrection must now be reexamined. >>
>
>  I've just returned from a weekend conference on science and theology, and I
> find myself puzzled. It's a pity there isn't (yet) a site for the discussion
> of points like this; I shall be arguing for the creation of one. The
> discussion doesn't clarify the point, and we could probably do with some
> input from the odd cosmologist. My own background (from many years ago) was
> in biological and earth sciences, so I can't help much. Meanwhile, can this
> be unpacked a bit, please? What's the connection?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Brenchley
>
> RSBrenchley@...

Though I don't want to quash this thread outright, I'm struggling hard to find
how  a discussion on modern scientific discoveries re cosmology could be
considered  on-topic.  Unless someone can provide an adequate justification for
its continuance on a List dedicated to questions of the historical Jesus, and
not the filed of science and modern systematic theology,  may I suggest that it
be taken off List?

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
        jgibson000@...

Sukie Curtis writes:

<< If for instance, every Jesus scholar worth her/his salt came to agreement
that
  Jesus WAS a preacher of apocalyptic wrath and destruction, I might really
  think twice about him. >>

  This is a terribly negative view of apocalyptic! If I understand it right,
apocalyptic is based on a belief - surely a not unreasonable one, given the
sufferings of the Jews under, for instance, Antiochus IV and the Romans, or,
equally, the horrors of the past century, that the present age is so
controlled by evil forces, understood by the Hebrews as rebel angels, that
God has decided to bring it to an end and inaugurate a better age, the
'Kingdom of God'. The righteous will be raised to new life in the new age.
  It is a pity that Biblical apocalyptic is so widely used (or abused) by
those who do not read the text seriously, as it gets the whole genre a bad
name. One of the Sierra Leonean rebel leaders - now fortunately dead - used
to be a neighbour of mine; the man bore a large share of responsibility for
the attack on Freetown in January of last year. Being the British member of a
Sierra Leonean family, things like this have brought me up against the
problem of evil in a rather direct way. If we're going to wrestle with the
evils of the modern age - and there would be something terribly wrong if we
did not - don't we need to take the answers the NT writers were working with
pretty seriously? Personally, I'm pretty convinced that HJ was a preacher of
apocalyptic hope for his oppressed people, and I'm comfortable with that.
What I'm not comfortable with is the fact that oppression and atrocities are
still going on.


Regards,

Robert Brenchley

RSBrenchley@...

Mahlon Smith wrote:

> Historical theology does not presuppose the existence of God or any
> other metaphysical backdrop. It simply presupposes that different people
> have different theologies & because each mind considers its view of God
> to be correct & absolute, each person projects that presupposition in
> interpreting the sayings/actions of other people. Unless one keeps the
> voices & theologies straight one is going to miss the really distinctive
> contributions of each voice to the historical evolution of theological
> ideas & to confuse HJ with the views of his disciples.
>
> Shalom!
>
> Mahlon

Mahlon,

I do not think that we are in disagreement. The problem appears to be that
˙ou overlooked a small paragraph in my message. I wrote:
"What is of use to historians is usually a good grasp of the history of ideas
(AMONG WHICH ARE THEOLOGICAL IDEAS).
As you point out it certainly helps to know which ideas about God were in
vogue in the first century if you are going to study HJ.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez

Mike Myers wrote:

> Antonio, I actually did read the exchange with Rikki Watts. Is your
> cite of a post on 29 Feb. a typo? I couldn't find one in my list,
> sorted by date (of 1300, alas). I'm behind.

Sorry for causing you problems but it isn't strange at all that you didn't
find my message of the 29 Feb. I should have written January 29 instead.
If you don't find it contact me again and I´'ll send it to you.

> I don't have much to add at this point to Rikki Watts' able defense.
> I'm beginning to see clearly that there are 2 camps, the Poets and
> the Positivists. I doubt they will ever understand each other ... or
> more accurately, that one set will ever understand the other that
> enfolds it.

I´m not sure at all this has anything to do with either Poets or Positivists.
What it all boils down to is if you want to be a Sloppy Thinker or a
Cleareyed Thinker.


Best wishes

Antonio Jerez

Bob Schacht wrote:

[following Mahlon's post]
>
> I think this is the best contribution to this thread to date! Thanks,
> Mahlon

I second that; thank you, Mahlon!

Sukie Curtis
Cumberland Foreside, Maine



> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3020/2/_/713/_/957127513/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

John 20-21 describe three appearances of the risen Jesus-- at least, that
is what we are told in 21:14. The first appearances took place in
Jerusalem. The first was to Mary Magdalene in the garden.

The final appearance of Jesus occurs in the epilogue. This event
happens by the "Sea of Tiberias" -- that is, in Galilee. The writer of
the
epilogue (who may or may not have been the same writer) tells us:
"This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after
he
was raised from the dead" (21:14). By some counts, this is actually the
fourth appearance, unless the appearance to Mary didn't "count".

In each of these accounts words are important -- although neither "logos"
nor "rhema" are used. The first appearance ends with Mary announcing
["aggello" -- only occurrence in NT] to the disciples, "I *have seen* the
Lord" and then telling them what Jesus had told to her (20:18).

The second appearance results in the disciples telling Thomas, "We have
*seen* the Lord" (20:25) -- (the same words that Mary had used). The same
word is used by Jesus to Thomas in v. 29: "Have you believed because you
*have seen* me?" This suggests that believing involves more than just
seeing
the risen Lord. Each of these verbs is in the perfect tense, which
implies a
past action with continuing effect in the present. They saw something in
the
past and that seeing continues to affect their lives.

(I am indebted to Brian Stoffregen for these observations.)

My question: is this word usage ("have seen" in the perfect tense)
noteworthy?
If so, is there anything special that is the writer attempting to convey
by this usage?
What does it tell us about the author's views about the resurrected
Jesus?

Does this usage occur elsewhere in the Gospels, and if so, in what
context(s)?

Thanks,
Bob

Robert Benchley wrote:

> Sukie Curtis writes:
>
> << If for instance, every Jesus scholar worth her/his salt came
> to agreement
> that
>  Jesus WAS a preacher of apocalyptic wrath and destruction, I might really
>  think twice about him. >>
>
>  This is a terribly negative view of apocalyptic! If I understand
> it right,
> apocalyptic is based on a belief - surely a not unreasonable one,
> given the
> sufferings of the Jews under, for instance, Antiochus IV and the
> Romans, or,
> equally, the horrors of the past century, that the present age is so
> controlled by evil forces, understood by the Hebrews as rebel
> angels, that
> God has decided to bring it to an end and inaugurate a better age, the
> 'Kingdom of God'. The righteous will be raised to new life in the new age.
>  It is a pity that Biblical apocalyptic is so widely used (or abused) by
> those who do not read the text seriously, as it gets the whole
> genre a bad
> name.

Robert,

My statement was unnuanced, to say the least, as a quick example of how the
"fruits" of HJ scholarship might actually provoke a shift in my response to
the person of Jesus.

I agree that apocalyptic hopes are an utterly understandable response to
intense suffering and persecution, especially for a people who understand
their God to be a just, compassionate God.  And yet, almost without
exception (a notable exception being the way some scholars, including
Crossan, portray Jesus as having an eschatological but non-apocalyptic
outlook), those hopes for the 'Kingdom of God' contain the dark shadows of
violence.  What's good for "us" results in torment and destruction for
"them."  Perhaps one could say that's just real life--that's the evil doers'
reaping the fruits of their own evil.  But when we imagine that violence as
*God's* way of handling evil in the world, that only seems to increase the
evil that we ourselves carry out, often in the name of God.

Perhaps Jesus was not utterly consistent in his theology, but why should we
take seriously his "Love your enemies" and "Be perfect/compassionate as your
heavenly Father is perfect/compassionate" and at the same time think that
Jesus imagined God wiping out the enemies of justice?  Which would you claim
to be closer to the heart of the HJ's life (in both words and deeds)?

Sukie Curtis
Cumberland Foreside, Maine