Re: [XTalk] Gospel Commentaries
Let me put in the good word for "The Five Gospels" and "The Acts of
Jesus" from the Jesus Seminar. Not all on this list think that "the
Marginal Jew" is the be all and end all of historical Jesus research.
And for a fair contrast to such as Allison, Keener, etc., one needs to
read the works of the Jesus Seminar.
On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:
> On source criticism, not any of them. REally the commentary genre
> is a real problem here -- tends to be stuck in an old paradigm. And
> I think Jeff's comment about historical Jesus issues is spot on:
> Marginal Jew is simply the best (and can be mined for just a tone of
> information about various issues in the gospels).
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] on
> behalf of Gary Greenberg [garygreenberg@...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:32 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [XTalk] Gospel Commentaries
> Would any members of thee group be kind enough to suggest for each
> (or any) of the Gospels what they consider to be the best
> commentaries for the purposes of source criticism and/or historicity?
> Gary Greenberg
> Web site: Bible Myth and History
> Author of the following books
> 101 Myths of the Bible
> The Moses Mystery
> The Judas Brief
> King David Versus Israel
> Who Wrote the Gospels?
> Manetho: A Study in Egyptian Chronology
- I suggest complementing the AB with new Hermeneia volumes: Adela Collins on
Mark, Francois Bovon on Luke (the second volume, originally in French, not
published in English yet). Harry Attridge,who is the General Editor of the
series, has taken up the task to write the Hermeneia commentary on John.
New Haven, CT
"Openness is all." - Thomas Merton, in "Recollections of Thomas Merton's
Last Days in the West," Brother David Steindl-Rast.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Interesting that Marginal Jew and the
Five Gospels feature as they do in the
Would someone care to list 6 or more items in
particular they would rate as the most significant
places where the two differ over whether something
should, or should not, be assigned to "stage 1" of
the tradition, or point to such a list if someone
has already produced one? The list might need to
make adjustments to allow for the cases where a
judgement is made that "p was not said, but
something very like it may well have been said"
or something similar.
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.