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

Re: [XTalk] Ancient narratives of crucifixion

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Weaks
    I ve had more thoughts develop, too important to not raise in a followup email: ... Surely, the only meaningful conclusion we can make here is earliest
    Message 1 of 55 , Sep 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I've had more thoughts develop, too important to not raise in a
      followup email:

      On Sep 9, 2004, at 10:52 AM, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      > It occurs to me as I look at Mark's crucifixion narrative that this
      > could well have been the first attempt not only to narrate Jesus'
      > crucifixion but the first attempt to narrate any man's crucifixion.

      Surely, the only meaningful conclusion we can make here is "earliest
      surviving attempt to narrate a crucifixion." It is much more
      problematic and difficult to argue, even in the absence of _The
      Guardian_ or _The New York times_ reporters, that no written
      description was made for decades.

      Is your question really one of source? Did Mark have oral and/or
      written description of a crucifixion and/or had he witnessed them?


      Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
      Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
      Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
    • Joseph Codsi
      Peter Kirby asked on Monday, September 13, 2004 5:20 AM Peter, Please excuse
      Message 55 of 55 , Sep 14, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter Kirby asked on Monday, September 13, 2004 5:20 AM

        <When you say Christian logic, is this equivalent to "the study of


        Please excuse the ambiguity of my expression. Thank you for taking the
        time to ask for a clarification.

        I do not recall how the thread "Ancient narratives of crucifixion"
        turned into a discussion of the way psychologists have studied the birth
        of Christianity. But it seems to me that, the publication of _When
        Prophecy Fails_ did not remain an isolated event as far as
        pshychological research in the field of religion is concerned.

        I have read this book long time ago. I do not have access to it now. But
        as far as I recall, it was centered on the study of a very specific case
        and had nothing to do with the study of the "Christian phenomenon". (I
        use this expression as Teilhard de Chardin uses the expression: "human
        phenomenon". The appearance of man). The book shows the psychological
        consequences of faith and commitment. When the prediction of a specific
        event does not materialize at the specified time and in the specified
        form, the logical conclusion should be that the prediction was wrong.
        But faith and commitment do not easily accept error and failure. So the
        stronger they are, the stronger the refusal to admit error and defeat.

        No attempt is made in this book to extrapolate what concerns the birth
        and death of a short-lived sect into what pertains to the birth of
        Christianity. This sort of extrapolation seems to have been attempted
        later on.

        Unfortunately the knowledge I have of these extrapolations is limited to
        what transpired in our XTalk exchanges. I felt the need to go back to
        square one and study what has been attempted in the psychological field
        on this point.

        It appeared to me that the psychologists have been working alone on a
        difficult question, the study of which requires not only a certain
        familiarity with religious questions, but also an in-depth understanding
        of the Christian faith. By this I mean not only, as you put it
        correctly, "the study of Christianity", but also a feel for the problems
        with which we are entangled in the field of gospel scholarship. In the
        same way as we are faced with serious difficulties, so also the
        psychologists. Whence my idea: instead of working independently of one
        another, we would gain to work together.

        So I go back today to this simple proposition. Instead of criticizing
        what the psychologists have done so far, as Wright does in his book (and
        I am not saying that his criticism is not well-founded), I think that an
        intelligent collaboration between us can be useful. I am still waiting
        for someone else to second this proposition.

        I know that the mere fact of getting together and exchanging ideas will
        not be enough to entirely change the picture on both sides of the
        divide. In order for a real breakthrough to become possible, we must
        adopt a totally new approach to the Christian phenomenon. This is
        perhaps what makes the listers suspicious and not knowing what to think.
        You cannot judge the new approach I am advocating without knowing it.

        I admit, on the other hand, that rejection is what I fear. My
        proposition is likely to look preposterous to many of you. I fear to be
        treated as Paul was treated when he mentioned the word "resurrection" in
        his speech to the Athenians. So I am working on a "captatio
        benevolientiae" before I dare speak openly. If nobody is really
        interested to hear what I have to say, it makes no sense to say it. But
        I am counting on a curious mind to start a new thread.

        So long,

        Joseph Codsi
        P.O. Box 116-2088
        Beirut, Lebanon
        Telephone (961) 1 423 145
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.