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

RE: [XTalk] Re: Is there a consensus on the Historical Jesus?

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Codsi
    Reply to John E. Staton John, I am sorry if I gave you or anybody else the impression that I characterized Tony Buglass as a closed-minded obscurantist. I have
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Reply to John E. Staton

      John,

      I am sorry if I gave you or anybody else the impression that I
      characterized Tony Buglass as a closed-minded obscurantist. I have a
      great esteem for him, and I owe him a lot for keeping the discussion
      alive.

      You said: **One test of any so-called "new method" of criticism must be
      whether it makes more sense of the facts than the "old criticism"**

      Agreed. The second part of your statement was: **or requires one to
      believe even more impossible things before breakfast.**

      I think Galileo's theory could have been characterized in this fashion
      by some of his contemporaries. I admit that my theory is based on the
      reversal of the way we look at the gospel question. You are entitled to
      your personal assessment of what I have done so far. You would be right
      if I failed to "prove" my theory.

      We tend to reject whatever questions our religious or professional
      views. Skepticism can be healthy. But the closing of the mind is not.

      I would have liked to ask Philip Davies a few questions about academic
      research in the gospel field. Maybe some day we can organize a chat on
      this point.

      Peace,

      Joseph
      ==================
      -----Original Message-----
      From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of John E Staton
      Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:43 PM
      To: Crosstalk
      Subject: [XTalk] Re: Is there a consensus on the Historical Jesus?

      Joe,

      Your apparent characterisation of Tony as a closed-minded obcsurantist
      is wide of the mark. One test of any so-called "new method" of criticism

      must be whether it makes more sense of the facts than the "old
      criticism", or requires one to believe even more impossible things
      before breakfast. From what I have heard of your theory on this list, I
      believe your theory falls into the latter category.

      I was, however, interested in your story about Philip Davies. He taught
      me when I was at Sheffield University. We had many animated discussions.

      I would like to have been a fly on the wall.

      Best Wishes
      JOHN E STATON
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.