Warning on the direction of the thread: historicity of Jesus
- Leon Albert wrote:
> OK, Jim, let's play,[much snipped]
Oh, let's not. That is to say, the tone of this exchange has turned decidedly
sour. So unless some civility can be injected into it, I must ask both
parties, Jim and Leon, to take their exchange OFF LIST.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
- At 8:00 PM -0500 10/2/00, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>Leon Albert wrote:As an uninolved "lurker" I would say that the sourness in this exchange is
>> OK, Jim, let's play,
>Oh, let's not. That is to say, the tone of this exchange has turned decidedly
>sour. So unless some civility can be injected into it, I must ask both
>parties, Jim and Leon, to take their exchange OFF LIST.
entirely in the messages of Jim.
Frankly, I, too, would like to hear/read an answer to Leon's first -
politely stated - question. What is the evidence for the existence of the
historical Jesus (aside from the contested Josephus passage)? If this
ground has been covered before, why not just say so, courteously, and point
Leon to the archive? Is this discussion group about the historical Jesus or
about scholarly dissection of the NT? Not that there isn't a relationship.
Susan Rennie Ph.D. Ph: 310.301.6017
Professor, The Graduate Program Fax: 310.301.8175
Vermont College of Norwich University