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

RE: [XTalk] raised from the dead?

Expand Messages
  • Lisbeth S. Fried
    From: Tony Buglass [mailto:TonyBuglass@fish.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:31 PM To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [XTalk] raised from
    Message 1 of 149 , Dec 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Tony Buglass [mailto:TonyBuglass@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:31 PM
      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] raised from the dead?



      Liz wrote:
      My question to you Jim,
      is why you are not willing to suspend disbelief
      when you read about the Exodus traditions, but are willing
      when you read that someone is raised from the dead?
      You adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion for the former,
      yet you accept the latter unquestioningly.

      Jim replied:
      I don't believe the Exodus traditions "happened" because I don't
      need to. On the other hand, I do need to believe that Jesus is alive.

      This one intrigued me for all sorts of reasons. Given that this is a HJ
      list and not an OT list, I wondered when the Exodus traditions had been
      discussed - I've been on the list since around 2000, and must've missed that
      one. Or was that on a dfferent list?



      Cheers,
      Rev Tony Buglass
      Superintendent Minister
      Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
      W Yorks

      Dear Tony,

      Jim repeatedly scoffs at the Exodus traditions

      and those who argue for their veracity (e.g. Kitchen, Clines).

      Yet, when I stated that I don't accept the resurrection traditions

      he declared me anti-Christian. That was on this list.

      Liz

      Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph. D.
      Visiting Scholar
      Department of Near Eastern Studies
      University of Michigan
      2068 Frieze Bldg.
      105 S. State St.
      Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1285.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
      In a message dated 12/7/2004 8:38:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, taurus79@earthlink.net writes: John: Well, I ve explained my issues with Ludemann s
      Message 149 of 149 , Dec 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 12/7/2004 8:38:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
        taurus79@... writes:

        John:
        Well, I've explained my issues with Ludemann's presuppositions (yes, I'm
        tired of hearing and using that word too) several times (hopefully now for
        the last). Though I don't accept them, I don't have any issue with them in
        and of themselves and I think its quite necessary for all interested parties
        to work out their explanations according to their worldview. There's never
        going to be a set of unanimously accepted metaphysically neutral starting
        points in this area (especially). My issue is with his claim to have
        undercut Christian belief with an argument that rests on presuppositions
        that Christians will so obviously not accept. You don't seem to really see
        that Ludemann is making certain claims that I think he is, but I think
        that's mainly because perhaps you haven't gotten his latest book yet.

        Ed:
        That's right. As I say, I got myself familiar with his thesis on the
        Resurrection accounts, which as you know I have some problems with. While that's
        mostly because I find a different naturalistic explanation more convincing,
        there are some plausibility issues on which I might agree with you. I look
        forward to seeing what you have to say on it when the time comes.

        Given the quotes Loren provided, I must say that I think Ludemann would have
        been well served by an editor with a sharp and merciless blue pencil. My
        personal feelings on the matter aside, if a person like Crossan or Meier finds
        a way to work theology into the conclusions of naturalistic scholarship, then
        it isn't the historical critic's place to judge. It is a different issue
        entirely, and the controversy over Ludemann's theological contentions has
        clearly detracted from the attention his thesis on the texts should receive. But
        judging from the page citations, he's worked it throughout the book.


        John:
        As for the meat of Ludemann's argument, as I've said, I find it interesting
        but ultimately implausible, and I'd be glad to give detailed reasoning here.
        I would think it best left for the symposium when Ludemann himself will have
        a chance to respond -- and again, hopefully I will have the time to do the
        legwork with sources and participate.


        Ed:
        I'm glad you found the book fun to read, because getting through the
        argument *auf Deutsche* was no picnic. As far as I can tell, his thesis is
        substantially unchanged from what I read but I expect to be through the English well
        before the seminar starts. I'm interested in what you have to say on it.

        best,

        Ed


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.