Re: [XTalk] Re: Critique of Wright by Robert Gundry
- Mike Grondin wrote:
> I agree that Gundry's response to Wright is less critical thanYes, Gundry is quite a conservative scholar himself. But when it comes
> Antonio asserts (and less critical also than I believe Antonio
> might wish). It seems to be in the nature of a relatively gentle
> inter-Christian chiding. Gundry seems to be expressing the views
> of 100% orthodox Christians against the 90% orthodox Wright.
> Thankful as Gundry is for Wright's forceful defense of the faith,
> he's yet uneasy about Wright's novel re-interpretations and/or
> discarding of some few key elements of that faith. I think Gundry
> wants to reassure himself that the faith will remain solid under
> Wright's redirection.
to the question of things like how much of the traditions in the gospels that
go back to HJ himself he is not nearly as conservative as Wright. Anyone who
has read his commentary on GMatthew can see that he has no hesitation in
ascribing a lot of the Mattean Jesus´ words to Matthew himself. Hardly a stance
Wright would agree with. So at least in the field of source and redactioncriticism
Gundry can often appear to be far from the camp of the 100 % orthodox christians.
In fact he has been heavily critisized by evangelical scholars and their likes for
claiming that so much in the gospels is "midrash".
- Don't know what to do with Lev 11 on Locusts - certainly interesting.
Manna in the wilderness certainly must be related somehow to the honey JB
eats. And, yes, this is not incompatible with the angelomorphic interp. of
the honey given that the Israelites ate the "bread of angels" in the
wilderness (Ps 78:25, and cf. the use of Ezek 16 for Passover in rabbinic
On all this there are helpful references in: D. Goodman, "Do Angels Eat?,"
JJS 37 (1986) 160-70.
On 11/3/03 1:07 pm, "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...> wrote:
> Mike inquired about the locusts and wild honey that
> John the Baptist is reported to have eaten.
> Wouldn't the initial significance of this be that it
> recalls the covenant time of the desert wanderings of
> the Israelites? John the Baptist, after all, calls for
> covenant renewal, doesn't he?
> As I recall, the locust was acceptable as a kosher
> food, unlike other creeping things. Leviticus 11:10
> (or 10:11?) describes this. (I'm not near a Bible at
> the moment and cannot check.) Is this exception a
> significant point?
> At any rate, a reference to the time of the covenant
> doesn't exclude angelomorphic aspects, of course.
> Jeffery Hodges
> Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
> Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
> 447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
> Yangsandong 411
> South Korea
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: email@example.com
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> List managers may be contacted directly at: email@example.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/