On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 "David C. Hindley"
> 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
> 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.
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.
> 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
Well, good! I'm glad to see that you have not completely closed that