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

[XTalk] privileging the gospels

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] privileging the
    Message 1 of 41 , Mar 31, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:59 AM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] privileging the gospels


      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried@...>
      > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 6:17 PM
      > Subject: RE: [XTalk] privileging the gospels
      > Zeb,
      >
      > << ³the gospels are correct until proven otherwise².>>
      >
      > <Actually, I should have thought that this is precisely the fundamental
      > < assumption of any historian engaging with an historical text. The
      > <historian
      > < grants provisional authority to a text until there is reason not to.>
      > [LF]
      > <The difficulty here ( or one difficulty here) is that the Gospels are
      > <privileged, so that
      > < neither Josephus, nor Philo, nor Tacitus, nor even common sense, can
      > <dispel their
      > < validity. I'd like to know what type of information would serve to
      > falsify
      > <the Gospels?
      > Liz
      >
      > I followed this string concerning 'what is historical truth?' with
      interest.
      > I appreciate your insistence, Lisbeth, on weighing in with
      > data from Philo and Josephus. One may not ignore data which on first
      > sight don't meet one's presuppositions. The problem is, as we all know,
      > that we are bound to work with presuppositions and probabilities.
      > One must be as frank as possible about one's own assumptions before
      > starting out with a probable exegesis. I take my own work as an example.
      > I have taught NT at a Seminary, an institution that privileges the
      Gospels.
      > Furthermore I am a male, ordained minister. I am supposed, therefore,
      > to read the Gospels with the eyes of faith using an expression of
      > Paul Minear referring to Lk 24,31 ("their eyes (of faith) were opened").
      > However, in the case of the faith of the walkers to Emmaus in the risen
      > Christ, the question remains if their faith included the assumption that
      > Jesus' grave was literally found to be empty or not. A second question is
      > whether this walk to Emmaus was historical fact or not. A third is
      > whether Luke himself or his source wished to describe how faith in
      > the living Christ arises in human symbolic terms or not So the question
      > turns into a debate concerning the nature of the Christian's faith.
      > My faith was nurtured in the Reformed tradition. A colleague may
      > assume therefore that I wish to be understood as someone working
      > in line within this tradition of the una sancta. But I would add, I
      learned
      > more from Jewish and Catholic than from Reformed scholars.
      > (After WW II I read with Christian and Jewish students the ancient
      > midrashim, Targumim and Talmud at the U of Amsterdam, I also
      > worked with Dominican and Franciscan scholars and later learned
      > much from the Benedictines).
      > My later teachers are women theologians. As a result of my exegetical
      > work I have reached the conclusion that Mark (and subsequently
      > Matthew, Luke and John) didn't mean to say that Jesus' grave was found
      > to be empty but that Mark wrote a midrash in which 'mnemeion' stood
      > for the temple to be destroyed. Many of my Christian colleagues will
      > therefore seriously question my faith (heresy) or charge me with sloppy
      > exegetical work (as certain critics have suggested. In two scholarly
      > Dutch periodicals the same reviewer summarized my thesis in terms
      > that were the very opposite of what I was trying to say!).
      > The point of this lengthy effusion is, that I defend my exegesis based on
      an
      > historical assumption that the Gospel text is a better informant
      concerning
      > the Jesus' movement than info by Josephus who completely ignored it and
      > by Philo who lived in Egypt at the time. John Mark, I assume, lived in
      > Jerusalem in the first decade after the crucifixion.
      > Thus I TEND TO AGREE on historical grounds with Jim West stating, ..
      > "Your presumption that privileging Philo or Josephus is somehow more
      > "historical" than privileging the gospels is unproven.....".
      > I believe Mark was the 'John Mark' of Acts and the epistles writing for
      > the ecclesia in Rome. For I concluded the German Tuebinger School
      > in the 18th century, birthplace of bible critique questioning this major
      > assumption, was subconsciously inclined to frown on the Catholic
      > position that Peter worked in Rome and was martyred there. Times
      > have changed, positions have shifted. However, our assumptions
      > are still nurtured by our personal background.
      > I wish that we as colleagues with all our exchanges and furious sallies,
      > would ultimately be motivated by a joint search for historical truth and
      > theological harmony. It's a dream.
      >
      > cordially,
      >
      > Karel
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [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
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Karel Hanhart
      ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] privileging the
      Message 41 of 41 , Mar 31, 2004
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:59 AM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] privileging the gospels


        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried@...>
        > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 6:17 PM
        > Subject: RE: [XTalk] privileging the gospels
        > Zeb,
        >
        > << ³the gospels are correct until proven otherwise².>>
        >
        > <Actually, I should have thought that this is precisely the fundamental
        > < assumption of any historian engaging with an historical text. The
        > <historian
        > < grants provisional authority to a text until there is reason not to.>
        > [LF]
        > <The difficulty here ( or one difficulty here) is that the Gospels are
        > <privileged, so that
        > < neither Josephus, nor Philo, nor Tacitus, nor even common sense, can
        > <dispel their
        > < validity. I'd like to know what type of information would serve to
        > falsify
        > <the Gospels?
        > Liz
        >
        > I followed this string concerning 'what is historical truth?' with
        interest.
        > I appreciate your insistence, Lisbeth, on weighing in with
        > data from Philo and Josephus. One may not ignore data which on first
        > sight don't meet one's presuppositions. The problem is, as we all know,
        > that we are bound to work with presuppositions and probabilities.
        > One must be as frank as possible about one's own assumptions before
        > starting out with a probable exegesis. I take my own work as an example.
        > I have taught NT at a Seminary, an institution that privileges the
        Gospels.
        > Furthermore I am a male, ordained minister. I am supposed, therefore,
        > to read the Gospels with the eyes of faith using an expression of
        > Paul Minear referring to Lk 24,31 ("their eyes (of faith) were opened").
        > However, in the case of the faith of the walkers to Emmaus in the risen
        > Christ, the question remains if their faith included the assumption that
        > Jesus' grave was literally found to be empty or not. A second question is
        > whether this walk to Emmaus was historical fact or not. A third is
        > whether Luke himself or his source wished to describe how faith in
        > the living Christ arises in human symbolic terms or not So the question
        > turns into a debate concerning the nature of the Christian's faith.
        > My faith was nurtured in the Reformed tradition. A colleague may
        > assume therefore that I wish to be understood as someone working
        > in line within this tradition of the una sancta. But I would add, I
        learned
        > more from Jewish and Catholic than from Reformed scholars.
        > (After WW II I read with Christian and Jewish students the ancient
        > midrashim, Targumim and Talmud at the U of Amsterdam, I also
        > worked with Dominican and Franciscan scholars and later learned
        > much from the Benedictines).
        > My later teachers are women theologians. As a result of my exegetical
        > work I have reached the conclusion that Mark (and subsequently
        > Matthew, Luke and John) didn't mean to say that Jesus' grave was found
        > to be empty but that Mark wrote a midrash in which 'mnemeion' stood
        > for the temple to be destroyed. Many of my Christian colleagues will
        > therefore seriously question my faith (heresy) or charge me with sloppy
        > exegetical work (as certain critics have suggested. In two scholarly
        > Dutch periodicals the same reviewer summarized my thesis in terms
        > that were the very opposite of what I was trying to say!).
        > The point of this lengthy effusion is, that I defend my exegesis based on
        an
        > historical assumption that the Gospel text is a better informant
        concerning
        > the Jesus' movement than info by Josephus who completely ignored it and
        > by Philo who lived in Egypt at the time. John Mark, I assume, lived in
        > Jerusalem in the first decade after the crucifixion.
        > Thus I TEND TO AGREE on historical grounds with Jim West stating, ..
        > "Your presumption that privileging Philo or Josephus is somehow more
        > "historical" than privileging the gospels is unproven.....".
        > I believe Mark was the 'John Mark' of Acts and the epistles writing for
        > the ecclesia in Rome. For I concluded the German Tuebinger School
        > in the 18th century, birthplace of bible critique questioning this major
        > assumption, was subconsciously inclined to frown on the Catholic
        > position that Peter worked in Rome and was martyred there. Times
        > have changed, positions have shifted. However, our assumptions
        > are still nurtured by our personal background.
        > I wish that we as colleagues with all our exchanges and furious sallies,
        > would ultimately be motivated by a joint search for historical truth and
        > theological harmony. It's a dream.
        >
        > cordially,
        >
        > Karel
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [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
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.