Re: [XTalk] The Streetlight Fallacy
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John C. Poirier" <poirier@s...>
> Steve,interesting > question about your denigration of Sanders's view.
> Thanks for your clarification of "creepy", but it brings up an
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 useof "creepy" to > something Sanders does (with respect to his use of
the synoptics and non-use > of Thomas), I really don't understand
I'm sure the comment wasn't worth understanding. I have problems
with John Meier's attempt to argue Thomas away into nothingness in
his Marginal Jew 1, but I have to admit that the effort is a proper
one for an historian. Here we have a text, Thomas, that many think
to be of about equivalent value to the other historically useful
texts(Q, Mark) and of greater value than the rest (John, GPhilip)
and if you, as an historian, want to flat out ignore it, you must
come up with reasons to do so. Which Meier does. Bad reasons, but
reasons. (I don't want to get into that debate at this point
though). Sanders, however, just pretends Thomas doesn't exist. Poof,
he wishes it away and away it goes. I think Paula does too, but I
can't say so with certainty. Now that is just incompetent
historiography and not one bit above the level of Bible College
professors who wouldn't even think of making use of non-canonical
writings. Meier wouldn't think of doing it either but at least he
tries to justify himself.
- 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