12254[XTalk] Re: Wright's NTPG, Chaps 1& 2
- Jan 2, 2003--- Loren Rosson wrote:
> I disagree, Mike. One can legitimately address theYou confirm my point about the ambiguity of the term, Loren. I don't
> question of whether or not HJ can be labelled "Son of
> God", so long as we're clear on the term's meaning(s).
> There is the "infancy narrative" spin put on it; there
> is the Hellenized interpretation coming from Morton
> Smith (he argued that "son of" means simply "member of
> the class of", and thus "son of God" means "god" --
> sort of harking back to usages like those found in Gen
> 6:1-4); there is the Hebraic tradition linking the
> term to messiahship (but what kind of messiahship?);
> etc. This can of worms needs to be opened more often,
> so we are clear on what HJ's contemporaries had in
> mind, if indeed the term can be traced back to HJ.
disagree that it's relevant and probably fruitful to discuss what
the term 'the son of God' might have meant to various Christian
writers who used it, but with respect to Bob's two questions:
1) to get from what specific writers believed (which I assume will
give us a different answer for Mark than for Matt than for John,
e.g.) to the question of what "the disciples [in general] believed"
looks like a hopeless enterprise to me, and
2) the other question that Bob mentioned, namely "WAS Jesus any of
those things" is a theological one not fit for this list. My answer
would be "Don't be silly - of course not!", yours would presumably
be different, but the point is that _that_ question goes beyond the
bounds of the HJ quest.
Mt. Clemens, MI
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>