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

3066Re: [gthomas] motivations

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    Aug 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:
      > on 8/3/00 8:18 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:

      ...

      > > 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.

      Andrew,

      But one can argue that this is how Matthew and Luke really imagined the
      Historical Jesus to have been. So do you really think the way they came up
      with their picture of Jesus was so radically different from the ways our
      modern scholars come up with their own pictures of Jesus? Because in both
      cases personal presuppositions may play their roles.

      > > 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:-

      [Steve:]
      > > 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).

      So please observe the personal presuppositions in the above snippet of
      Steve's. According to him, the "earliest sources" (Paul) advocate "freedom
      from the Law". But how can we be sure that everything in Paul was really
      written by Paul? A presupposition that is certainly questionable, although
      almost never questioned.

      Next, according to him, "intermediate sources" (Mark) "by no means give
      Jesus anything like a clear positive pro-Torah stance". But how can we be
      sure that Mk is really so early in its entirety? A presupposition that is
      rather doubtful.

      I have addressed this whole issue before on this list in more detail.
      Here's that article,

      GOT and its historical context (3/15/2000),
      http://www.egroups.com/message/gthomas/2436

      And here's a relevant exerpt,

      [quote]

      Is it possible that Jesus was un-apocalyptic, and then his followers
      became apocalyptic? This is how Crossan would like to see things. But I
      think it's a lot more natural to see the source of un-apocalypticism in
      the years much after 70, as the Messianic expectations were being
      inevitably disappointed. The movement would have been looking for a new
      focus then, and gnosticism would have seemed like a good one.

      So what are the early daters really saying? They would like HJ to be
      un-apocalyptic laid-back social worker, I suppose, maybe even mostly
      secular-minded? ...

      So, all right, Jesus was un-apocalyptic, but then for some reason his
      followers all went astray and became apocalyptic? All except one, that is,
      by the name of Didymus Judas Thomas, who managed to preserve the "original
      teachings" in some "little pocket" of society, until that too vanished
      (except for what little managed to trickle into the sands of Nag Hammadi
      for us to discover, to be sure).

      If we suppose that all his followers went astray and became OT-oriented
      and apocalyptic all of a sudden, then this must have happened before 70,
      right? But I thought that according to Crossan we have the Gentiles taking
      over the Jesus movement before 70 in a big hurry? Sure seems like there
      are some problems with this scenario somehow? One may indeed wonder how
      could back-to-the-Torah movement be happening at the same time as the
      let's-dump-the-Torah movement..

      [unquote]

      And now I will also add a clarification to what I wrote back in March. The
      purpose of that post was to argue that all NT materials, as well as GOT
      should be dated later rather than earlier. Because I concluded then as
      follows,

      "In my view, GOT had a similar history to that of the synoptic gospels,
      i.e. it was a work-in-progress for perhaps 100 years from 50 to 150."

      So while as compared to most commentators I tend to date _everything_
      later, at the same time, if one wishes to date GOT vis-a-vis the
      Synoptics, then clearly from the redactional standpoint GOT precedes much
      of the Synoptic sayings materials. And also, in my view, chronologically
      GOT precedes a lot of stuff that is now found in Mk.

      Regards,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

      "Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely to be
      accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas ability
      to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the
      conceit of learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof to new
      ideas" -- John Dewey
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic