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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Markan Fabrications

Expand Messages
  • Robert M Schacht
    On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 David C. Hindley ... (Many paragraphs of quotes deleted) ... David, I am a bit puzzled here about why you have quoted at
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 "David C. Hindley"
      <dhindley@...> writes:
      > Ted,
      >
      > Last night I spent a little time cutting, pasting and pruning your
      > recent responses to Richard Anderson, Ron Price and myself, in order
      > to try to understand what kind of christology you think the
      > opponents
      > of the author of Mark had.
      >

      (Many paragraphs of quotes deleted)

      > My response:
      >
      > While I have not read Georgi (his book is not in stock at either
      > Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or at the libraries I haunt) I have generally
      > not found convincing those studies which identify a high degree of
      > Hellenization in the ideas held by or about the person of Jesus in the
      > letters of Paul or in the Gospels.

      David,
      I am a bit puzzled here about why you have quoted at such great length,
      and then commented on only one thing, for which the first few sentences
      of quotes would have been quite sufficient. Or am I missing something?

      >I am also hesitant to accept the
      > proposals of Crossan and others who see Galilee as a place where
      > Jewish residents borrowed freely from Hellenistic and Roman culture
      > and practices.

      Why?

      > My reading of Josephus and the few other
      > contemporaneous sources available makes me believe that it was much
      > more likely the original followers of Jesus had a political messianic
      > vision of him than a mystical one.

      What evidence do you find in Josephus for that? Or, what other
      contemporaneous sources are you thinking of?

      >
      > In my opinion, they have overstepped themselves in their use of
      > cross-cultural anthropology. I do not object to using it to produce an
      > explanation that incorporates the known evidence (after all, that is
      > "history"), but I do have problems with using it to generate covering
      > laws which are in turn used to reconstruct "history" that is otherwise
      > not attested, especially when these reconstructions are treated the
      > same as the former category of explanation.

      Can you cite any "covering law" that Crossan has proposed in this regard?
      I don't recall any. What do you mean by "overstepping"? I, too, have some
      considerations about how Crossan used cross-cultural anthropology, but I
      wouldn't call it "overstepping", and I am very glad of his attempt to
      include it in his attempts at triangulation of data. Besides, I'm not
      sure your "otherwise not attested" charge is fair, given Chapter 12 of
      BOC. Just what about his construction is that you find unconvincing?
      Please provide some concrete specifics about his reconstruction that you
      disagree with. Or is your disagreement only at the methodological level?

      > However, I will concede that I have yet to fully develop a personal
      position on the
      > subject of the application of anthropology to historical
      reconstruction.

      Well, good! I'm glad to see that you have not completely closed that
      door.

      Bob
    • Richard Anderson
      Robert: David quoted Richard Anderson and Ron Price because he wants to involve us in the discussion or as a compliment of sorts! Richard H. Anderson
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 4, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert: David quoted Richard Anderson and Ron Price because he wants to
        involve us in the discussion or as a compliment of sorts!

        Richard H. Anderson
      • Richard Anderson
        What Ted Weeden has to say is provocative but there is a certain tunnel-vision involved. He says that he is not aware of any evidence for the high regard in
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 4, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          What Ted Weeden has to say is provocative but there is a certain
          tunnel-vision involved. He says that he is not aware of any evidence for the
          high regard in which James was held in the Jerusalem community excepting
          GThomas 12/13. What about Josephus? But citing GThomas raises another
          question. GThomas does not presuppose a theology of the cross but proclaims
          the presence of divine wisdom. In 1 Cor., Paul criticizes certain groups of
          people who claimed to possess special wisdom in the name of individual
          followers of Jesus. Whether or not Mark and Luke are followers of Paul, the
          writings bearing their names certainly have been influenced by what each
          understood to the message of Paul.

          Are the (Weedon) opponents in Mark, persons who claimed to possess secret
          special wisdom? Are we to understand the GMark as a ridicule of those who
          claim to have secret wisdom?

          Richard H. Anderson
          http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.