... Nils Dahl argued in his seminal essay The Crucified Messiah that the placard The King of the Jews above Jesus cross -- a sufficiently embarrassingMessage 1 of 8 , Jun 2, 2000View Source
> Ted Weeden wrote:Nils Dahl argued in his seminal essay "The Crucified Messiah" that the
> Let me put it differently. I have not seen any convincing evidence
> that Jesus linked himself with the aspirations of Jewish messianism.
> Nor have I found any convincing evidence that the early church linked
> Jesus with Jewish political messianism during his earthly life. The
> church did link Jesus with messianism following his death and thus
> called him "Christ" or "the Christ" with respect to his
> resurrection/exaltation: Paul, among others.
placard "The King of the Jews" above Jesus' cross -- a sufficiently
embarrassing detail that we can be confident the early church didn't
invent it -- indicates that one significant interpretation of Jesus'
ministry by his contemporaries was messianic. Unless his death was a
sheer misunderstanding (as Mack and others have suggested), this would
suggest that he in some way associated himself with the messianic hopes
of Israel. The participation of Jesus' most prominent disciple Peter in
a mission proclaiming him as Messiah would make plausible a degree of
continuity between proclaimer and proclaimed on this point, wouldn't it?
Institute for Christian Studies
On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 David C. Hindley ... (Many paragraphs of quotes deleted) ... David, I am a bit puzzled here about why you have quoted atMessage 1 of 8 , Jun 3, 2000View SourceOn Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 "David C. Hindley"
> Ted,(Many paragraphs of quotes deleted)
> Last night I spent a little time cutting, pasting and pruning your
> recent responses to Richard Anderson, Ron Price and myself, in order
> to try to understand what kind of christology you think the
> of the author of Mark had.
> My response:David,
> While I have not read Georgi (his book is not in stock at either
> Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or at the libraries I haunt) I have generally
> not found convincing those studies which identify a high degree of
> Hellenization in the ideas held by or about the person of Jesus in the
> letters of Paul or in the Gospels.
I am a bit puzzled here about why you have quoted at such great length,
and then commented on only one thing, for which the first few sentences
of quotes would have been quite sufficient. Or am I missing something?
>I am also hesitant to accept theWhy?
> proposals of Crossan and others who see Galilee as a place where
> Jewish residents borrowed freely from Hellenistic and Roman culture
> and practices.
> My reading of Josephus and the few otherWhat evidence do you find in Josephus for that? Or, what other
> contemporaneous sources available makes me believe that it was much
> more likely the original followers of Jesus had a political messianic
> vision of him than a mystical one.
contemporaneous sources are you thinking of?
>Can you cite any "covering law" that Crossan has proposed in this regard?
> In my opinion, they have overstepped themselves in their use of
> cross-cultural anthropology. I do not object to using it to produce an
> explanation that incorporates the known evidence (after all, that is
> "history"), but I do have problems with using it to generate covering
> laws which are in turn used to reconstruct "history" that is otherwise
> not attested, especially when these reconstructions are treated the
> same as the former category of explanation.
I don't recall any. What do you mean by "overstepping"? I, too, have some
considerations about how Crossan used cross-cultural anthropology, but I
wouldn't call it "overstepping", and I am very glad of his attempt to
include it in his attempts at triangulation of data. Besides, I'm not
sure your "otherwise not attested" charge is fair, given Chapter 12 of
BOC. Just what about his construction is that you find unconvincing?
Please provide some concrete specifics about his reconstruction that you
disagree with. Or is your disagreement only at the methodological level?
> However, I will concede that I have yet to fully develop a personalposition on the
> subject of the application of anthropology to historicalreconstruction.
Well, good! I'm glad to see that you have not completely closed that
Robert: David quoted Richard Anderson and Ron Price because he wants to involve us in the discussion or as a compliment of sorts! Richard H. AndersonMessage 1 of 8 , Jun 4, 2000View SourceRobert: David quoted Richard Anderson and Ron Price because he wants to
involve us in the discussion or as a compliment of sorts!
Richard H. Anderson
What Ted Weeden has to say is provocative but there is a certain tunnel-vision involved. He says that he is not aware of any evidence for the high regard inMessage 1 of 8 , Jun 4, 2000View SourceWhat Ted Weeden has to say is provocative but there is a certain
tunnel-vision involved. He says that he is not aware of any evidence for the
high regard in which James was held in the Jerusalem community excepting
GThomas 12/13. What about Josephus? But citing GThomas raises another
question. GThomas does not presuppose a theology of the cross but proclaims
the presence of divine wisdom. In 1 Cor., Paul criticizes certain groups of
people who claimed to possess special wisdom in the name of individual
followers of Jesus. Whether or not Mark and Luke are followers of Paul, the
writings bearing their names certainly have been influenced by what each
understood to the message of Paul.
Are the (Weedon) opponents in Mark, persons who claimed to possess secret
special wisdom? Are we to understand the GMark as a ridicule of those who
claim to have secret wisdom?
Richard H. Anderson