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

17596Re: [XTalk] Re: XTalk Seminar with Gerd Ludemann

Expand Messages
  • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
    Dec 7, 2004
      In a message dated 12/7/2004 8:38:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
      taurus79@... writes:

      John:
      Well, I've explained my issues with Ludemann's presuppositions (yes, I'm
      tired of hearing and using that word too) several times (hopefully now for
      the last). Though I don't accept them, I don't have any issue with them in
      and of themselves and I think its quite necessary for all interested parties
      to work out their explanations according to their worldview. There's never
      going to be a set of unanimously accepted metaphysically neutral starting
      points in this area (especially). My issue is with his claim to have
      undercut Christian belief with an argument that rests on presuppositions
      that Christians will so obviously not accept. You don't seem to really see
      that Ludemann is making certain claims that I think he is, but I think
      that's mainly because perhaps you haven't gotten his latest book yet.

      Ed:
      That's right. As I say, I got myself familiar with his thesis on the
      Resurrection accounts, which as you know I have some problems with. While that's
      mostly because I find a different naturalistic explanation more convincing,
      there are some plausibility issues on which I might agree with you. I look
      forward to seeing what you have to say on it when the time comes.

      Given the quotes Loren provided, I must say that I think Ludemann would have
      been well served by an editor with a sharp and merciless blue pencil. My
      personal feelings on the matter aside, if a person like Crossan or Meier finds
      a way to work theology into the conclusions of naturalistic scholarship, then
      it isn't the historical critic's place to judge. It is a different issue
      entirely, and the controversy over Ludemann's theological contentions has
      clearly detracted from the attention his thesis on the texts should receive. But
      judging from the page citations, he's worked it throughout the book.


      John:
      As for the meat of Ludemann's argument, as I've said, I find it interesting
      but ultimately implausible, and I'd be glad to give detailed reasoning here.
      I would think it best left for the symposium when Ludemann himself will have
      a chance to respond -- and again, hopefully I will have the time to do the
      legwork with sources and participate.


      Ed:
      I'm glad you found the book fun to read, because getting through the
      argument *auf Deutsche* was no picnic. As far as I can tell, his thesis is
      substantially unchanged from what I read but I expect to be through the English well
      before the seminar starts. I'm interested in what you have to say on it.

      best,

      Ed


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 149 messages in this topic