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

Re: [XTalk] Review of _The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide_ by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, there are lots of critical scholars besides Thiessen & Merz who disagree with you: * Crossan, in
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 30, 2001
      At 07:44 AM 6/29/01 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:

      >Peter Kirby wrote:
      > >
      > > The following historical facts about Jesus emerge from _The Historical
      > > Jesus_:
      >
      >I am away for a long weekend, but hope we'll continue on the
      >intersection between history and Hebraic Scriptures. But before I dash
      >off... just a little reply to these points:
      >
      > >... 3. Jesus performed exorcisms and healings (p. 301, p. 304).
      >
      >no... this is one form of "Scriptures fulfilled."

      Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, there are lots
      of critical scholars besides Thiessen & Merz who disagree with you:
      * Crossan, in BOC p. 302, writes that he is in agreement with John P
      Meier that Jesus was both healer and exorcist.
      * And then there's the Jesus Seminar, in their Acts of Jesus. They rate
      half a dozen Markan healings or exorcisms as "pink" (probably historical),
      plus one special Matthew (9:35) as pink, and one special Luke (8.2) as red
      (historical)! On p. 59 they (Funk?) write, "The evidence is overwhelming
      that Jesus was regarded as a healer during his public career....This brief
      vignette [Mark 1:30] comes as close as any to qualifying as a report of an
      actual happening. The version Mark records lacks most of the features that
      are characteristic of stereotyped healing stories...."
      * And then of course Stevan Davies' Jesus the Healer.
      I'll think I'll leave the list at that; plenty of other critical scholars
      could be added to the list.

      > > ...5. His family thought him to be mad (p. 570, p. 582).
      >
      >no... this has to do with dramatic effect. It is one thing to say that
      >***some*** in his family thought he was wrong-headed, or that a
      >particular act/ set of words were bonkers, but this blanket statement is
      >unjustified and suggests a literal reading of a parabolic scene.

      Stevan Davies in Jesus the Healer presents an interesting argument for
      taking this verse seriously. If Jesus were an ecstatic healer, it would
      make sense.

      >...Thanks, Peter, for this note. This and the notes about TANAK texts and
      >Jesus and history deserve some serious conversation.

      Agreed!

      Bob


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