Re: [XTalk] First Century Pillars
- At 09:46 AM 4/17/2004 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
>Hi Bob,Thanks for this distinction. When I argued with Bill Arnal on XTalk about
>Interesting note. A few comments:
>Thus, it seems to me, we
> >*cannot* avoid theology in historical Jesus research, if only to try to
> >factor it out.
>Just a point of reminder about the study of theology. There is systematic
>theology where one works out "a complete" system of thought and there is the
>study of historical theology where one investigates different
>systems/doctrines in their "original" contexts and traces the ways which
>"original ideas" are used/changed/amended/overturned over time... The
>study of historical theology is a must to make these clarifications.
Jesus as theologian, I think he had systematic theology in mind.
> >But I want to use this idea as the spring board for a more generalI agree.
> >discussion of the background for intertextuality in the works that we have.
> >And that is this: the views of *all* of the "pillars" of the community of
> >followers of Jesus were controversial in one way or another-- which is the
> >engine that eventually generated the corpus we now have (as well as some
> >now lost to us.)
>Here I want to place the reminder that controversy and falling apart are
>obviously not the same thing and affirm that there was a lot of
>"generativity" in this that made these folks a lively bunch.
>... But arguing canI agree again.
>be grist for the mill that works to invigorate communities and help them
>think through ideas. Per the list you gave and your descriptions, it would
>seem we have in earliest Christianity a gathering of strong voiced folks who
>could and did argue a lot, but who also found core agreements that united
> >I understand intertextuality to be different from source criticism in that,Yes. One of the things that bugs me about Ted Weeden's masterful essays is
> >with intertextuality, the text may be a response to, or a criticism of, or
> >a reference to, another source, without attempting to replicate the source
> >either exactly or in paraphrase. Thus, when James 2:14 says
> >14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but
> >do not have works? Can faith save you?
> >This seems likely to be an example of intertextuality, but it does not
> >attempt to directly quote or paraphrase in the same way, for example, as
> >Luke or Matthew quote or paraphrase Mark. Is this understanding correct?
>I, too, think this is very important. In what I attempted to put together
>yesterday this is important within textual development and between texts as
>well. One need not limit the authors imagination as to only gathering texts
>with which they were in some kind of total agreement and one need not simply
>think of communities as so ideologically driven as not to have more than one
>kind of creativity alive or appreciation for one kind of creativity. ...
that he portrays the disagreements in such stark terms that you think these
people never had a kind word to say to each other. That might make sense in
the 4th Century at the Ecumenical Councils, which could be pretty nasty,
but I don't think its the right picture for the First Century.
> TextsJim Sanders in writing about the process of canonization argues, I think,
>were precious in the ancient world (good ones still are, eh!). And in light
>of the example you gave I'll bet they had Galatians and Ep. James, too.
>Healthy theological diversity and some seriously good arguing over ethical
>and praxis issues in a very hostile world and in a time where "updating
>traditions" was important, surely made for an exciting kind of dynamism
>("spirit!") and as time went on the Canonization process of the later era
>respects that and places limits.
that diversity within the canon is essential for survival of a new
community: if the canon is too homogeneous, it is harder to use it to adapt
to new circumstances. In diversity, strength.
> Had we no controversy, had we only uniformAgreed again. Doggone, Gordon, I don't know if I can stand this much
>ideological driven folks, had the Church Fathers (and I do mean fathers)
>gone for a monolithic telling of the Jesus story there would be no
>historical investigation to do (thinking of production of one gospel with
>all others destroyed). Thankfully we have have a good mess of messy texts
>and can at least trace out some sketches of histories, beliefs and
>developments. Intertextuality is at the heart of this.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]