3066Re: [gthomas] motivations
- Aug 4, 2000On 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 theAndrew,
> > 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
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[Steve:]
> > 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 JudeanSo please observe the personal presuppositions in the above snippet of
> > 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).
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
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),
And here's a relevant exerpt,
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
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
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
"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.
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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>