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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Hidden Gospels

Expand Messages
  • Peter Kirby
    ... From: To: Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 4:23 PM Subject: [XTalk] Re: Hidden Gospels ... Hello, I tend to
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 30 5:14 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <mgrondin@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 4:23 PM
      Subject: [XTalk] Re: Hidden Gospels


      > --- David Mackinder wrote:
      > > There's a sample chapter at OUP's 'reading room'
      > > (http://www.oup-usa.org/sc/0195135091/) ...
      >
      > Having perused this - evidently chapter 1 of the book - I'm not
      > inclined personally to want to rush right out and buy it. Not to
      > say that I entirely disagree with everything Jenkins writes in this
      > first chapter, but it's so gosh-darn methodologically sloppy. Just
      > the sort of rambling, loosely-reasoned, over-generalized thingy that
      > lib-arts majors love. As far as I can see, there's very little
      > rigour to his analysis. He might find an acorn once in a while,
      > but it's likely to have been an accident.

      Hello,

      I tend to agree with this assessment. The very idea of arguing against the
      value of all noncanonical materials is founded in an over-generalization.
      And although this might be particular to his first chapter, the author
      obviously focuses on meta-issues from the allure of Egypt to prejudice
      against Catholicism and fails to get down to the nitty-gritty problems of
      history.

      Here's a blooper: "To take a specific example, it is wildly unlikely that
      the parable of the woman with the jar derives from the historical Jesus,
      stemming as it does from Thomas alone, unsupported by any other source."

      I wonder whether he would apply the same criterion to the discourses of John
      in such a way.

      best,
      Peter Kirby
      http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/
    • Barlow, James C. DOC
      I am not so sure that arguing against the value of non-canonical materials per se is at the bottom of this attempt. -jb ... From: Peter Kirby
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 31 8:22 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I am not so sure that arguing against the value of non-canonical materials
        per se is at the bottom of this 'attempt.'
        -jb

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter Kirby [mailto:kirby@...]
        Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 7:14 PM
        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Hidden Gospels


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <mgrondin@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 4:23 PM
        Subject: [XTalk] Re: Hidden Gospels


        > --- David Mackinder wrote:
        > > There's a sample chapter at OUP's 'reading room'
        > > (http://www.oup-usa.org/sc/0195135091/) ...
        >
        > Having perused this - evidently chapter 1 of the book - I'm not
        > inclined personally to want to rush right out and buy it. Not to
        > say that I entirely disagree with everything Jenkins writes in this
        > first chapter, but it's so gosh-darn methodologically sloppy. Just
        > the sort of rambling, loosely-reasoned, over-generalized thingy that
        > lib-arts majors love. As far as I can see, there's very little
        > rigour to his analysis. He might find an acorn once in a while,
        > but it's likely to have been an accident.

        Hello,

        I tend to agree with this assessment. The very idea of arguing against the
        value of all noncanonical materials is founded in an over-generalization.
        And although this might be particular to his first chapter, the author
        obviously focuses on meta-issues from the allure of Egypt to prejudice
        against Catholicism and fails to get down to the nitty-gritty problems of
        history.

        Here's a blooper: "To take a specific example, it is wildly unlikely that
        the parable of the woman with the jar derives from the historical Jesus,
        stemming as it does from Thomas alone, unsupported by any other source."

        I wonder whether he would apply the same criterion to the discourses of John
        in such a way.

        best,
        Peter Kirby
        http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/



        The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org

        To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
        crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

        To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        List managers may be contacted directly at:
        crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Barlow, James C. DOC
        Wrong. Jenkins is saying something that badly needs to be said, and since it does not pretend to scholarly erudition but intends to be a popular account of
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 31 3:20 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Wrong.
          Jenkins is saying something that badly needs to be said, and since it does
          not pretend to scholarly erudition but intends to be a popular account of
          current developments, "methodology" (and its "liberal arts" paperback
          flavor)is beside the point. (As a philosopher looking at NT critical,
          scholarly 'methodology' I tend to chuckle to myself often enough as it is.)
          The lack of intellectual integrity behind so much of current NT
          blunderbuss is worthy of comment and criticism, especially since we live in
          an age and country where thirteen million Americans seriously believe they
          have been abducted by UFOs in their sleep, and 'scholarship' has itself
          discovered "the publishing biz." Anyone who first approached the Nag
          Hammadi translations of Thomas et.al. as I did, back in the heyday of the
          "Jesus Movement" (1969-1971), could see the eventual popular appeal of this
          stuff to the future: the antihierarchical, egalitarian, disgendered and
          spontaneously charismatic Christianity for church shoppers [not to mention
          book-shoppers!] of the new age.
          I can still remember with glee appearing on the doorsteps of Jesus People
          hippyesque communes for bible studies loaded with NT Historical Criticism
          and the Thomas, Peter, and Philip texts to ARGUE along with my atheist
          friends AGAINST taking Christianity seriously (and we had some great
          debates, too!) How EASY it is to make the glib and, to be sure,
          unsubstantiated assertion that the REAL Jesus isn't confined to the bible as
          we know it. And in a way, as humanists, we were arguing AGAINST the bizarre
          salvific exclusivity and patriarchical authority of pro-war bible bigots!
          But the point is that it is easy to use scholarship in a very rhetorical,
          countercultural, albeit popular way to advance a kind of hidden agenda based
          on psychological need. Thus, Funk. Crossan, however, is another animal: In
          Crossan you get what could only be called, in the true sense of the word,
          something "methodologically sloppy," to save a kind of itinerant,
          superaltruistic and sentimentally appealing Celtic Christ; as antithesis to
          that OTHER Celtic Christ he had so much trouble institutionally digesting.
          (And who else? Going to Mass today, musically speaking, shares a great
          resemblance to attending a gentle, candlelit folkfest full of bad Cat
          Stevens and Joan Baez.)
          True, Jenkins could have been more explicit, less ideologically-enhanced,
          especially in dealing with the epiphenomenon of Elaine Pagels (who
          hypothesizes in her own book using evidence that could, seven times out of
          ten, fall in a direction opposite to the one she seeks!)
          But Jenkins, like his JSem counterparts and Ms. Pagels, is writing for a
          popular, albeit semiliterate audience hypnotized by history as a series of
          stage-effects (which is not to say it is not also an 'academic' audience as
          well!)
          -jb

          -----Original Message-----
          From: mgrondin@... [mailto:mgrondin@...]
          Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 6:24 PM
          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [XTalk] Re: Hidden Gospels


          --- David Mackinder wrote:
          > There's a sample chapter at OUP's 'reading room'
          > (http://www.oup-usa.org/sc/0195135091/) ...

          Having perused this - evidently chapter 1 of the book - I'm not
          inclined personally to want to rush right out and buy it. Not to
          say that I entirely disagree with everything Jenkins writes in this
          first chapter, but it's so gosh-darn methodologically sloppy. Just
          the sort of rambling, loosely-reasoned, over-generalized thingy that
          lib-arts majors love. As far as I can see, there's very little
          rigour to his analysis. He might find an acorn once in a while,
          but it's likely to have been an accident.

          Mike G.




          The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org

          To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
          crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

          To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          List managers may be contacted directly at:
          crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • expcman@aol.com
          James, Why don t you tell us what you really think! Actually, I am quite pleased to get this account for it does provide us all a Sitz within which to
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 31 3:39 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            James,

            Why don't you tell us what you really think! Actually, I am quite pleased to
            get this account for it does provide us all a "Sitz" within which to
            understand your various comments. It really does help us understand you
            better ... not agree with ... just understand.

            Clive


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