RE: [XTalk] Re: Is there a consensus on the Historical Jesus?
- Reply to John E. Staton
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
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
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of John E Staton
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:43 PM
Subject: [XTalk] Re: Is there a consensus on the Historical Jesus?
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.
JOHN E STATON