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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Historical Jesus Theories

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    ... More over : would it be possible to add a little bio for each author, so that we may see which one is a real scholar, recognised by his peers, and which
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > --- Peter Kirby wrote:
      > > 1. Is there any scholar who writes on the historical Jesus who
      > > I should include in my survey who is not already included in the
      > > current two dozen?
      >
      > If I may be allowed to take the obverse of this question, I'd
      > strongly recommend removing Stein from the list. Appears to have no
      > scholarly impartiality whatsoever. Published only by faith-firms.
      > A real embarassment to the survey, I think.

      More over : would it be possible to add a little bio for each author,
      so that we may see which one is a real scholar, recognised by his peers,
      and which one is a doubtful authorship.

      This would be usefull for newbie.

      a+
      manu
    • Russ Noland
      ... I would also suggest adding Witherington. His work on Jesus self-understanding in The Christology of Jesus is well worth a look, as are Jesus the Sage
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > Ben Witherington -- "Jesus the Sage" (under "Jesus the Man of
        > Spirit"? or new category?)

        I would also suggest adding Witherington. His work on Jesus'
        self-understanding in "The Christology of Jesus" is well worth a look, as
        are "Jesus the Sage" and "Jesus the Seer"

        Russ Noland
      • glenfinnan1745
        ... no ... author, ... peers, ... Good points. By these standards, Freke and Gandy (published by a non- scholarly New Age press), Doherty and Wells (published
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In crosstalk2@y..., Emmanuel Fritsch <emmanuel.fritsch@i...>
          wrote:
          >
          > > --- Peter Kirby wrote:
          > > > 1. Is there any scholar who writes on the historical Jesus who
          > > > I should include in my survey who is not already included in the
          > > > current two dozen?
          > >
          > > If I may be allowed to take the obverse of this question, I'd
          > > strongly recommend removing Stein from the list. Appears to have
          no
          > > scholarly impartiality whatsoever. Published only by faith-firms.
          > > A real embarassment to the survey, I think.
          >
          > More over : would it be possible to add a little bio for each
          author,
          > so that we may see which one is a real scholar, recognised by his
          peers,
          > and which one is a doubtful authorship.
          >
          > This would be usefull for newbie.
          >
          > a+
          > manu

          Good points. By these standards, Freke and Gandy (published by a non-
          scholarly New Age press), Doherty and Wells (published by highly
          partisan skeptical / atheist humanist groups) would not make the
          list. They don't deserve to be here any more than Barbara Thiering.

          I would agree with adding Bruce Chilton, Ben Witherington, Morton
          Smith, and Dale Allison.
        • smithand44
          ... non- ... If I understand Peter s motives correctly, his intention was to treat the arguments that there was no HJ (arguments that don t convince me)
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 13, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In crosstalk2@y..., "glenfinnan1745" <cameron_mark@s...> wrote:
            >
            > Good points. By these standards, Freke and Gandy (published by a
            non-
            > scholarly New Age press), Doherty and Wells (published by highly
            > partisan skeptical / atheist humanist groups) would not make the
            > list. They don't deserve to be here any more than Barbara Thiering.
            >
            > I would agree with adding Bruce Chilton, Ben Witherington, Morton
            > Smith, and Dale Allison.

            If I understand Peter's motives correctly, his intention was to treat
            the arguments that there was no HJ (arguments that don't convince me)
            equally with the Hj reconstructions. Perhaps he could colour-code
            those authors who are not accredited scholars. But where would that
            leave us? Thiering is a scholar. Chilton is a scholar, yet his "Rabbi
            Jesus" (which I enjoyed) isn't at all a work of critical scholarship,
            since it is based on a large number of arbitrary decisions that have
            no scholarly basis, such as Jesus practising Merkabah mysticism, that
            the synoptics' timeframe should be expanded to fill many years, that
            he was born in Bethlehem of Galilee, that he stayed with John the B
            after his family lost him in the Temple, etc. etc. I have no argument
            with it as a creative biography, but as scholarship it's on the level
            of Thiering and way below Doherty's work.

            Best Wishes

            Andrew Smith
          • turton
            ... If Kirby is to remove those with obvious biases, then in fairness, shouldn t he remove the works of Luke Timothy Johnson and NT Wright, whose biases are
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 14, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              >Good points. By these standards, Freke and Gandy (published by a non-
              >scholarly New Age press), Doherty and Wells (published by highly
              >partisan skeptical / atheist humanist groups) would not make the
              >list. They don't deserve to be here any more than Barbara Thiering.

              If Kirby is to remove those with obvious biases, then in fairness,
              shouldn't he remove the works of Luke Timothy Johnson and NT Wright, whose
              biases are obvious (and in Wright's case, declared in print)? Wright, for
              example, has been published by Augsburg, a publishing company run by the
              Lutheran Church,and by Regent College, a Christian College in Vancouver.
              How are either of those entities less "biased" than a Humanist association?

              Instead of condescending to newbies and telling them who is "accepted" and
              who is not, wouldn't it be better to let them find their own place in the
              material? This is, after all, what Mr. Kirby seems to be aiming for. In
              any case, since there is no consensus on who or what Jesus was, and which
              parts of the legend cycle surrounding him are to be considered historical
              and which fictional, it seems strange to simply rule out some points of
              view. Wells, Doherty and Thiering make arguments. Newbies should be able to
              consider them, and understand why they are rejected by the majority of New
              Testament scholars.

              Michael Turton
              AFL
              Chaoyang University of Technology
              Taichung, Taiwan



              ________________________________________________________________
              Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net
            • The Paulsen Family
              ... shouldn t he remove the works of Luke Timothy Johnson and NT Wright, whose biases are obvious (and in Wright s case, declared in print)? Wright, for
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 14, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                >If Kirby is to remove those with obvious biases, then in fairness,
                shouldn't he remove the works of Luke Timothy Johnson and NT Wright, whose
                biases are >obvious (and in Wright's case, declared in print)? Wright, for
                example, has been published by Augsburg, a publishing company run by the
                >Lutheran Church,and by Regent College, a Christian College in Vancouver.
                How are either of those entities less "biased" than a Humanist association?


                I think we are in danger of reducing the list to a null set if we discount
                'bias'. Is not the work of Funk, Borg and Crossan just as biased as Wight,
                LTJ et al, (just in a different direction)?

                We would be better of to admit the inevitability of bias and that none of us
                are robots. In fact, often the more 'upfront' scholars are about their
                personal views, the easier it is to read them with an understanding eye and
                appreciate where they are coming from (even if we are at odds with their
                presuppositions).

                Patrick Paulsen
                Toronto Ontario



                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "turton" <turton@...>
                To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 3:23 AM
                Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Historical Jesus Theories


                >
                > >Good points. By these standards, Freke and Gandy (published by a non-
                > >scholarly New Age press), Doherty and Wells (published by highly
                > >partisan skeptical / atheist humanist groups) would not make the
                > >list. They don't deserve to be here any more than Barbara Thiering.
                >
                > If Kirby is to remove those with obvious biases, then in fairness,
                > shouldn't he remove the works of Luke Timothy Johnson and NT Wright, whose
                > biases are obvious (and in Wright's case, declared in print)? Wright, for
                > example, has been published by Augsburg, a publishing company run by the
                > Lutheran Church,and by Regent College, a Christian College in Vancouver.
                > How are either of those entities less "biased" than a Humanist
                association?
                >
                > Instead of condescending to newbies and telling them who is "accepted" and
                > who is not, wouldn't it be better to let them find their own place in the
                > material? This is, after all, what Mr. Kirby seems to be aiming for. In
                > any case, since there is no consensus on who or what Jesus was, and which
                > parts of the legend cycle surrounding him are to be considered historical
                > and which fictional, it seems strange to simply rule out some points of
                > view. Wells, Doherty and Thiering make arguments. Newbies should be able
                to
                > consider them, and understand why they are rejected by the majority of New
                > Testament scholars.
                >
                > Michael Turton
                > AFL
                > Chaoyang University of Technology
                > Taichung, Taiwan
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________________________________________
                > Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                >
                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
              • Steve Black
                ... Perhaps a better fashion of presentation would be along the lines of importance and influence. With this system scholars could be distinguished between
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 14, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  >
                  >Patrick Paulsen wrote...
                  >I think we are in danger of reducing the list to a null set if we discount
                  >'bias'. Is not the work of Funk, Borg and Crossan just as biased as Wight,
                  >LTJ et al, (just in a different direction)?
                  >
                  >We would be better of to admit the inevitability of bias and that none of us
                  >are robots. In fact, often the more 'upfront' scholars are about their
                  >personal views, the easier it is to read them with an understanding eye and
                  >appreciate where they are coming from (even if we are at odds with their
                  >presuppositions).

                  Perhaps a better fashion of presentation would be along the lines of
                  importance and influence. With this "system" scholars could be
                  distinguished between "major" and "minor" players. Wright I think has
                  earned the right to be considered a "major" player (regardless of
                  what you think of his actual work), whereas Doherty and Wells might
                  more appropriately be considered minor players. All points of view
                  could thus be represented without giving the misleading idea to a
                  newbie that all are thus considered equal...
                  --
                  Steve Black
                  Vancouver School of Theology
                  Vancouver, BC
                  ---

                  Once in a while you can get shown the light
                  in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

                  -Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS
                • Frans-Joris Fabri
                  ... From: Steve Black To: Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Historical Jesus
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 14, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Steve Black" <sblack@...>
                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 7:51 PM
                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Historical Jesus Theories


                    > >
                    > >Patrick Paulsen wrote...
                    > >I think we are in danger of reducing the list to a null set if we
                    discount
                    > >'bias'. Is not the work of Funk, Borg and Crossan just as biased as
                    Wight,
                    > >LTJ et al, (just in a different direction)?
                    > >
                    > >We would be better of to admit the inevitability of bias and that none of
                    us
                    > >are robots. In fact, often the more 'upfront' scholars are about their
                    > >personal views, the easier it is to read them with an understanding eye
                    and
                    > >appreciate where they are coming from (even if we are at odds with their
                    > >presuppositions).
                    >
                    > Perhaps a better fashion of presentation would be along the lines of
                    > importance and influence. With this "system" scholars could be
                    > distinguished between "major" and "minor" players. Wright I think has
                    > earned the right to be considered a "major" player (regardless of
                    > what you think of his actual work), whereas Doherty and Wells might
                    > more appropriately be considered minor players. All points of view
                    > could thus be represented without giving the misleading idea to a
                    > newbie that all are thus considered equal...
                    > --
                    > Steve Black
                    > Vancouver School of Theology
                    > Vancouver, BC


                    Oops!!!
                    Now I think you owe us a definition of major and minor players, if possible,
                    one "without bias".

                    Frans-Joris
                  • Steve Black
                    ... I was not thinking about eliminating bias - you will note in my post that I did not mention that as a criteria. I think if we really were somehow to
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 14, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >Steve Black wrote..
                      > > Perhaps a better fashion of presentation would be along the lines of
                      >> importance and influence. With this "system" scholars could be
                      >> distinguished between "major" and "minor" players. Wright I think has
                      >> earned the right to be considered a "major" player (regardless of
                      > > what you think of his actual work), whereas Doherty and Wells might
                      >> more appropriately be considered minor players. All points of view
                      >> could thus be represented without giving the misleading idea to a
                      >> newbie that all are thus considered equal...
                      >> --
                      > >
                      >> Vancouver School of Theology
                      >> Vancouver, BC
                      >
                      >Frans-Joris replied...
                      >Oops!!!
                      >Now I think you owe us a definition of major and minor players, if possible,
                      >one "without bias".

                      I was not thinking about eliminating bias - you will note in my post
                      that I did not mention that as a criteria. I think if we really were
                      somehow to eliminate bias (magically - miraculously even...) what we
                      would be left with would be rather boring and dull. Bias' are what
                      make this whole thing interesting!! I think the key is to acknowledge
                      one's bias, not get rid of it.

                      Now of course rating one scholar as a "major" or a "minor" player
                      will also involve some bias on the part of the one doing the rating.
                      It is not without *some* "objectivity" however. There are those
                      scholars who really aren't a meaningful part of the conversation on
                      large (like Doherty and Wells) and those who are (like Crossan and
                      Wright). They all have a bias - but to get a "lay of the land" in
                      historical Jesus research - one would spend one's time more
                      "profitably" reading the latter - and one wouldn't miss too much at
                      all if one never even read the former. That of course reveals my bias
                      - but once again, I don't see bias as something to get rid of...
                      --
                      Steve Black
                      Vancouver School of Theology
                      Vancouver, BC
                      ---

                      Once in a while you can get shown the light
                      in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

                      -Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS
                    • mwgrondin
                      ... What say we put it to a vote? Perhaps a 1 to 5 scale of reputability/respectability or major v. minor (depending on whether we re voting on works or
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 15, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- Steve Black wrote:
                        > Now of course rating one scholar as a "major" or a "minor" player
                        > will also involve some bias on the part of the one doing the
                        > rating. It is not without *some* "objectivity" however.

                        What say we put it to a vote? Perhaps a 1 to 5 scale of
                        reputability/respectability or "major v. minor" (depending on
                        whether we're voting on works or authors). Presumably, this will
                        result in our individual biases being submerged in the whole. The
                        only alternative I can see is to count up the number of references
                        to various authors in Peter's already-existing list of works, and
                        who's going to go to the trouble to do that? Most of us already have
                        a pretty good idea of which works are "reputable" or who the "major
                        players" are, from our readings of these works. It's just a question
                        of comparing our recollections, and that seems best done by voting.
                        Only no JS-type vote, please! (:-)

                        Mike Grondin
                        Mt. Clemens, MI
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.