Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Truth about Jesus?

Expand Messages
  • scott watson
    Crosstalk subscribers: My name is Scott Watson; I have just recently subscribed to Crosstalk. it has been a little disappointing in that the discussions have
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Crosstalk subscribers:
      My name is Scott Watson; I have just recently
      subscribed to Crosstalk. it has been a little disappointing in that the
      discussions have centered on solving the Synoptic Problem or the
      validity of Q. This is good in and of itself; but we can attempt to come
      to terms with Jesus as a historical figure also by attempting to situate
      him in, by virtue of his symbolic acts, among the various prophetic and
      messianic movements in 1st century Jewish Palestine.
      The so called Third Quest emphases of Sanders,
      Horsley, Theissen, Meier, N.T. Wright, and Dale Allison's new book ,
      although different, seek to plot Jesus within the eschatological
      framework of 1st century Judaism. This is a far more persuasive
      hypothesis than a quasi-Cynic one which is built on the extremely
      hypothetical tradition criticism of the Q-Thomas thesis. I think N.T.
      Wright is correct in opining that all the various 'objective' criteria
      used in HJ studies are really a function of the wider hypothesis about
      the development of Early Christianity as a whole. This is the level
      where many of the discussions on this venue should take place. Just a
      few ruminations. Peace and God bless!

      Sincerley,
      Scott Watson
      P.S. The discussion about the Satan has to do with one's worldview; one
      cannot just accept the Western Post-Enlightenment perspective as the
      only a priori valid one in doing history. (That is only if Leopold Van
      Ranke is the last word on the subject.)

      ______________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Stevan Davies
      ... Yeah, that s what happens. Q and the synoptic problem and, often but not all that recently, Gospel of Thomas. The trouble is that a case about Jesus has to
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 2, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        > Crosstalk subscribers:
        > My name is Scott Watson; I have just recently
        > subscribed to Crosstalk. it has been a little disappointing in that the
        > discussions have centered on solving the Synoptic Problem or the
        > validity of Q. This is good in and of itself;

        Yeah, that's what happens. Q and the synoptic problem and, often
        but not all that recently, Gospel of Thomas. The trouble is that
        a case about Jesus has to be built on evidence and then we need
        to figure out what the evidence is. So all the discussions of Q and
        so forth are in fact discussions of the validity of the evidence
        about Jesus. If we can't figure out what the reliable evidence is we
        can't move forward then to figure out what the reliable evidence
        demonstrates. You see the problem....

        > but we can attempt to come
        > to terms with Jesus as a historical figure also by attempting to situate
        > him in, by virtue of his symbolic acts, among the various prophetic and
        > messianic movements in 1st century Jewish Palestine.

        I'd guess we'd have about 2 pages single spaced of data (of very
        questionable reliablity itself) regarding those prophetic and
        messianic movements. It would be a fine approach if we had good
        data to utilize. But we dont'.

        > The so called Third Quest emphases of Sanders,
        > Horsley, Theissen, Meier, N.T. Wright, and Dale Allison's new book ,
        > although different, seek to plot Jesus within the eschatological
        > framework of 1st century Judaism. This is a far more persuasive
        > hypothesis than a quasi-Cynic one which is built on the extremely
        > hypothetical tradition criticism of the Q-Thomas thesis.

        It would be helpful for our discussion if you would tell us why this
        is a far more persuasive hypothesis. Just saying that you think it
        is doesn't advance the argument.

        >I think N.T.
        > Wright is correct in opining that all the various 'objective' criteria
        > used in HJ studies are really a function of the wider hypothesis about
        > the development of Early Christianity as a whole. This is the level
        > where many of the discussions on this venue should take place.

        I'm not sure I understand you here, but I've been discussing with
        Yuri today a "wider hypothesis... etc." Many crosstalkers
        give good arguments against any of the various "objective"
        criteria... but when called upon to substitute better criteria they
        fall silent. What does N.T. Wright offer as superior criteria? I'd
        be interested to know for he may be entirely correct.

        Steve
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.