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

3061Re: [gthomas] motivations

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Smith
    Aug 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      on 8/3/00 8:18 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:

      > In gthomas@egroups.com, on Aug 1, 2000, Andrew Smith wrote (in reply to
      > joe lieb):
      >> Steve (Davies) is referring to modern scholarship, not to a general
      >> view of Jesus. I understand him to be saying that the tendency in
      >> modern HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus is due to an
      >> element of political correctness, which is understandable in the
      >> post-Holocaust world, but which isn't really confirmed by the sources.
      >> It's arguable, but I find this model quite useful.
      > The problem with this line of argument, Andrew, is that it leaves the area
      > of objective historical scholarship, and begins to focus on personal
      > presuppositions and motivations. But this is pure speculation.

      This really wasn't the point of re-posting Steve's letter. I wrote the above
      paragraph because Joe Lieb picked up on Steve's last sentence in the post
      and started to run away with it. Additonally, my post may have added to the
      confusion: when I wrote "this model" I wasn't referring to this view of
      modern scholarship, but the model of Christianity being anomian or
      antinomian in the earliest sources.

      > Is there really a big tendency in modern HJ research to emphasize the
      > Jewishness of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. But was there a tendency in
      > ancient HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus? There surely
      > was.

      Are Matthew and Luke trying to research the historical Jesus? Luke maybe.

      > Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
      > Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
      > Lk 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the
      > least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."
      > So then I guess this nasty political correctness business was already
      > quite a problem 1900 years ago?

      This was one of Steve's good points, which you are confirming here:-

      > 3. The presentation of Jesus as a man concerned with the Judean
      > Law in a postitive sense changes in a remarkably straight-line
      > way from the earliest sources, which advocate freedom from the
      > Law (Paul), to intermediate sources that by no means give Jesus
      > anything like a clear positive pro-Torah stance (Mark), to later
      > sources that do in fact present Jesus as a Torah teaching pharisaic
      > Judean (Matthew).

      Anyway, back to the Gospel of Thomas.

      Andrew Smith
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic