Re: addition re: Lost Gospels
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
--- Bob Schacht <bobschacht@i...>
> but I strongly object to itsBOB & ALL:
> implied application to Pagels,
> King, and anyone else who
> disagrees with traditional
> scholarship about the Bible
> (isn't that what a gadfly does?)
> Just because one is a gadfly
> does not mean that one, ipso
> facto, writes "really bad"
Just a curious bit here regarding
the Pagels/BWIII situation. The
following link is to a discussion
hosted by beliefnet.com between
Pagels and Witherington.
It followed quickly on the heels of the Peter Jennings TV special on
Paul the Apostle. Beliefnet titled the "debate" SCHOLARLY
Beliefnet had gotten a very positive response to a similar thing
they did with Crossan and Witherington following on the heels of the
release of Gibson's Passion movie.
Elaine Pagel's dialog with Witherington got off to a rousing start,
wherein she shared that she used Witherington's writings in her
classes at Princeton! Then, for no apparent reason, she just
stopped communicating in middle of the exchange. Its now been well
over a month since her last reply. If anyone here has contact with
her, they might inquire as to what happened? I know I'd like to see
it completed. It was very interesting.
- On 25 May 2004 at 20:26, Tim Smith wrote:
> Elaine Pagel's dialog with Witherington got off to a rousing start,It actually was completed, but beliefnet seem to have forgotten to
> wherein she shared that she used Witherington's writings in her
> classes at Princeton! Then, for no apparent reason, she just stopped
> communicating in middle of the exchange. Its now been well over a
> month since her last reply. If anyone here has contact with her, they
> might inquire as to what happened? I know I'd like to see it
> completed. It was very interesting.
index the last exchange on the main page, so go to to following URL
to see it:
I enjoyed the two "Scholarly Smackdown"s on Beliefnet but found them
both a bit frustrating. Here are some reflections copied from my
blog entry on this, with a little ad for Xtalk at the end (sincerely
> Final reflection on the two Beliefnet Scholarly Smackdowns: so far they(http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2004/05/pagels-answers-witherington-on-thomas.html)
> are a useful but flawed experiment. What they have been good at has been
> giving the reader a flavour of each of the author's views. They are useful
> mini-articles. What they have been less good at has been the
> (unfortunately titled) "smackdown" of the title, which I am told is a
> wrestling analogy. There is precious little wrestling here! Because the
> scholars concerned (Crossan, Pagels and Witherington) have been encouraged
> to write relatively lengthy, self-contained emails, the actual critical
> engagement has been too limited. There has been too much talking past one
> another. If you want a good quality of interaction, I still think you have
> to go a long way to beat Xtalk at its best. It's not always at its best,
> of course, but when it is it's the most stimulating around.
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
- --- In email@example.com,
--- "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@b...>
Thanks loads for the link. How did
you find it anyway?
I agree with your blog's
assessment on both counts. Xtalk
at its best, even though alot of
it is beyond my level, is fascinating
Lay-folks such as myself tend to
find ourselves quite often in
"less-than-critical" mode, flinging
quotes from this or that favorite
scholarly viewpoint, really churning
up the water but, unfortunately not
making alot of progress toward the
dock. But we do try -- quite hard in fact -- to establish our points
with all the reason we can muster.
The chance to read/see respected scholars from rather opposite sides
of the theological divide go at it..., well, its just almost too much
to resist. :-)
Thanks again for the link.