RE: [XTalk] The Streetlight Fallacy
Thanks for your clarification of "creepy", but it brings up an interesting
question about your denigration of Sanders's view. You wrote: "[I]sn't it
creepy how everybody knows that people make their image of Jesus like
themselves and yet, having acknowledged this, away they go doing it anyhow."
Since you seemed, in your original post, to connect your use of "creepy" to
something Sanders does (with respect to his use of the synoptics and non-use
of Thomas), I really don't understand your comment. Yes, way too many
scholars reconstruct a Jesus of their own liking (with Crossan's being the
most incredible instance of this), but isn't one of the (methodological)
strengths of Sanders's reconstructed Jesus the fact that this Jesus *doesn't
at all* correspond to the type of liberal Christianity that Sanders believes
Do you detect a hint of Sanders's own reflection in his own reconstructed
Jesus somewhere, or was I wrong to connect your use of "creepy" to Sanders's
method (or did you use "creepy" in two different ways)?
John C. Poirier
- Rick wrote: "I wonder what a Galilean Darlek would look like"
I haven't a clue, but I know what one would *say*:
Incidentally, I apologise to our wonderful moderator for my earlier use of
President Bush's favourite weapon: the pre-emotive strike!!
JOHN E STATON
Penistone, Sheffield UK