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

Re: The Truth about Jesus?

Expand Messages
  • 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 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;

      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.