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

Re: Ted's reply Re: [XTalk] Methodological Presupposition re Gospel Accounts

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    At 01:55 PM 8/6/2006, Theodore Weeden wrote: Ted, thanks for your response. I have snipped a bunch of our exchanges to ... You still don t seem to be grasping
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:55 PM 8/6/2006, Theodore Weeden wrote:

      Ted, thanks for your response. I have snipped a bunch of our exchanges to
      focus on the remaining areas:

      > > To the current point above, I do not disagree that canonization was a
      > > political process. Of course it was. . . .
      > > But to say that the process was political does not mean that it had no
      > > validity, or was somehow independent of historical veracity. . . .
      > >
      >And that is the issue. The political issue I have in mind is orthodox
      >hegemony, well-entrenched in the Church, particularly the Western Church, as
      >indicated by Wisse, in the latter part of the 2nd century. . . .

      You still don't seem to be grasping my point. If orthodoxy had an axe to
      grind as its primary concern, that does not preclude an interest in
      historicity as a secondary concern. You seem to EXCLUDE historicity as any
      part of anything in their assessment. I do not agree with this insistance.

      Besides, isn't it a bit anachronistic for you (or Wisse, for that matter)
      to be forcing this hegemony back into the 2nd century? What evidence do
      you, or he, have that this "well-entrenched" hegemony applied equally to
      Egypt, the former territories of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, Syria,
      Antioch, Corinth, and Rome? I don't think that this kind of hegemony can be
      demonstrated. Hypothesized, yes, demonstrated, no.

      > I would suggest that Gospels such as Q, Thomas, and Mary were
      >rejected by orthodoxy because they did not advocate or support orthodox

      Oh, phoo. They didn't know Q as a distinct document, so how could they
      reject it? And they did accept Matthew and Luke, which contain all of Q
      that we know about, so how can you say it was "rejected"? Sounds
      anachronistic, to me.

      > I do not think that the question of historical veracity, per se,
      >entered into the issue of what was accepted and what was rejected, except
      >with regard to authoritative authorship of a document. . . .

      I think authority and authenticity were their concerns. They had a
      different idea of authenticity than you do, but that doesn't mean they
      weren't motivated by authenticity.

      You spent a lot of time talking about the Life and Death traditions.
      Serendipitously, on CNN right now, reporting from Israel & Lebanon,
      Anderson Cooper mentioned someone saying "They sanctify Death; we sanctify
      Life." Looks like the debate has been around for a long time. Just because
      you "prefer" the Life Tradition does not mean that others, in antiquity,
      regarded the Death Tradition as more authentic (even if they were wrong).

      "Authenticity" is subjective. What is "authentic" for one person may not
      seem authentic to others. What seemed "authentic" in Antioch may not have
      seemed authentic in Egypt. I remain to be convinced that an orthodox
      hegemony was in force throughout the Mediterranean world in the Second
      Century. Just because Irenaus ranted about heretics doesn't mean everyone
      agreed with him.

      Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
      University of Hawaii
      Honolulu, HI

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