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

Re: [XTalk] Jesus' bathhouse

Expand Messages
  • Anthony Buglass
    Gordon wrote: What a hoot! We keep hearing of these dramatic discoveries that will change our understanding... bone boxes (fake;)!) and now a bathhouse
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 23 9:04 AM
      Gordon wrote:
      What a hoot! We keep hearing of these "dramatic discoveries" that will
      change our understanding... bone boxes (fake;)!) and now a bathhouse where
      we might find some things Jesus dropped:)! (I can see little relic soap bars
      for neck chains being a big item!) Now, a copy of Q would be nice, but then
      as Dom Crossan has said, even if authenticated, the naysayers wouldn't be
      impressed. But hey... maybe we'll find Jesus' toothbrush:)!

      Well, it might change our understanding - has anybody worked out whether there was such a thing as a kosher loofah? And was this bathhouse linked to a dwelling, or not? 'Cos radical itinerants had to have *somewhere* to soak after a hard day's ... er ... itineranting.

      Copy of Q? Which layer? Would an early version of Didache be more likely - or would they all have gone soggy in the bath?

      Sorry - it's been a hard week, and the silliness just happens. I'll try to be suitably serious and academic next time.

      Cheers,
      Rev Tony Buglass
      Pickering Methodist Circuit



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bob Schacht
      ... So, is this what we have come down to? This looks perilously close to You say to-MAH-to, and I say to-MAY-to, you like chocolate, and I like vanilla? De
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 23 11:03 AM
        At 01:33 PM 10/23/2003 -0500, Gordon Raynal wrote:
        >Hi Mark,
        >
        >...As for the issue of "rigour", etc., I don't doubt your rigour... we'll just
        >continue to disagree about the conclusions of it. ...

        So, is this what we have come down to? This looks perilously close to "You
        say to-MAH-to, and I say to-MAY-to," you like chocolate, and I like
        vanilla? De gustibus non disputandum est?

        You don't doubt his "rigour," but you don't offer any of your own in
        response? Mark asked a good question, and deserves a better answer, IMHO.

        Bob

        Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D., Research Associate
        Northern Arizona University
        Flagstaff, AZ
        (928) 527-4002



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gordon Raynal
        Hi Mark, I m not sure Dom has written it anywhere. It came up in a discussion we had several years ago about the whole issue of evidence and how different
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 23 11:33 AM
          Hi Mark,

          I'm not sure Dom has written it anywhere. It came up in a discussion we had
          several years ago about the whole issue of evidence and how different
          scholars conceive, date, interrelate the sources, etc.

          As for the issue of "rigour", etc., I don't doubt your rigour... we'll just
          continue to disagree about the conclusions of it. All such as this... from
          arguements about the Signs Source, to the miracle group, to such as layers
          in Thomas... will ever offer much play for all sorts of rigorous scholars.
          I just hope they find Q in the book rack in the bathhouse:)! I'll be
          interested to read your commentary on it when it comes out!

          Are you going to be in Hotlanta, next month? If so... see you then.

          Gordon
          ----------
          >From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@...>
          >To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: Naysayers on Q (was Re: [XTalk] Jesus' bathhouse)
          >Date: 23, Oct 2003, 10:26 AM
          >

          >On 23 Oct 2003 at 8:47, Gordon Raynal wrote:
          >
          >> Now, a copy
          >> of Q would be nice, but then as Dom Crossan has said, even if
          >> authenticated, the naysayers wouldn't be impressed.
          >
          >I have a feeling that this has been covered on the list before, but
          >where does Crossan say this? It's not something I've read. But
          >whatever Crossan may or may not have said, it is clearly a view you
          >adhere to, Gordon, and I'd be interested to know why you feel that
          >this is the case. As one of the "naysayers", if by that one means
          >those not convinced of the existence of Q, I am troubled by claims
          >like this. It sounds like you are saying we are influenced by
          >something other than academic rigour and scholarly argument and I
          >would be grateful if you could explain the grounds on which you make
          >this claim.
          >
          >Thanks
          >Mark
          >-----------------------------
          >Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          > Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
          > Dept of Theology
          > University of Birmingham
          > Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
          > Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376
          >
          >http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
          >http://NTGateway.com
          >
          >
          >
          >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/
          >
          >
        • Gordon Raynal
          Bob, Interesting hermeneutic. To remind you of the rigor... well, you know the sources... the work of the International Q project... the work of the Jesus
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 23 12:33 PM
            Bob,

            Interesting hermeneutic. To remind you of the rigor... well, you know the
            sources... the work of the International Q project... the work of the Jesus
            Seminar... the individual work of such as Kloppenborg, Mack, and Crossan,
            Vaage, Arnal. I take it you accept that as "rigorous scholarship."

            Gordon
            ----------
            >From: Bob Schacht <bobschacht@...>
            >To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Raynal Re: Naysayers on Q (was Re: [XTalk] Jesus' bathhouse)
            >Date: 23, Oct 2003, 1:03 PM
            >

            >At 01:33 PM 10/23/2003 -0500, Gordon Raynal wrote:
            >>Hi Mark,
            >>
            >>...As for the issue of "rigour", etc., I don't doubt your rigour... we'll just
            >>continue to disagree about the conclusions of it. ...
            >
            >So, is this what we have come down to? This looks perilously close to "You
            >say to-MAH-to, and I say to-MAY-to," you like chocolate, and I like
            >vanilla? De gustibus non disputandum est?
            >
            >You don't doubt his "rigour," but you don't offer any of your own in
            >response? Mark asked a good question, and deserves a better answer, IMHO.
            >
            >Bob
            >
            >Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D., Research Associate
            >Northern Arizona University
            >Flagstaff, AZ
            >(928) 527-4002
            >
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >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/
            >
            >
          • Gordon Raynal
            Hi Tony, Thank you... for the light hearted reading:)! As for kosher loofas, I shall await your major work! As for radical itinerancy ... well, that s a thing
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 23 12:41 PM
              Hi Tony,

              Thank you... for the light hearted reading:)!

              As for kosher loofas, I shall await your major work!

              As for "radical itinerancy"... well, that's a thing Dom and some of my other
              Jesus Seminar pals and I will have to disagree about. But I still think
              Jesus could have used a good hot bath now and again:)!

              As for Q... well I want to see the Critical Edition by brother James, of
              course:)! Complete with the careful parsing of layers, the variants, etc.
              It might be a little soggy and dog eared, but that would just show how
              popular a bath time read it was:)! And I'll take that early version of the
              Didache, too!

              Gordon
              ----------
              >From: "Anthony Buglass" <TonyBuglass@...>

              >
              >Well, it might change our understanding - has anybody worked out whether
              >there was such a thing as a kosher loofah? And was this bathhouse linked
              >to a dwelling, or not? 'Cos radical itinerants had to have *somewhere* to
              >soak after a hard day's ... er ... itineranting.
              >
              >Copy of Q? Which layer? Would an early version of Didache be more likely
              >- or would they all have gone soggy in the bath?
              >
              >Sorry - it's been a hard week, and the silliness just happens. I'll try to
              >be suitably serious and academic next time.
              >
              >Cheers,
              >Rev Tony Buglass
              >Pickering Methodist Circuit
              >
              >
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >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/
              >
              >
            • Bob Schacht
              ... Gordon, Yes, I do. So I take it, then, that you agree on their assumptions as well as their conclusions? Thanks for your clarification. Bob [Non-text
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 23 2:35 PM
                At 02:33 PM 10/23/2003 -0500, you wrote:
                >Bob,
                >
                >Interesting hermeneutic. To remind you of the rigor... well, you know the
                >sources... the work of the International Q project... the work of the Jesus
                >Seminar... the individual work of such as Kloppenborg, Mack, and Crossan,
                >Vaage, Arnal. I take it you accept that as "rigorous scholarship."
                >
                >Gordon

                Gordon,
                Yes, I do. So I take it, then, that you agree on their assumptions as well
                as their conclusions?
                Thanks for your clarification.
                Bob


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Gordon Raynal
                ... Bob, Glad that clarification helped you. As for discussion, I m leaving town in just a bit for vacation.... so another time. Gordon
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 24 6:57 AM
                  >Gordon,
                  >Yes, I do. So I take it, then, that you agree on their assumptions as well
                  >as their conclusions?
                  >Thanks for your clarification.
                  >Bob

                  Bob,

                  Glad that clarification helped you.

                  As for discussion, I'm leaving town in just a bit for vacation.... so
                  another time.

                  Gordon
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.