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

[gthomas] Apology

Expand Messages
  • laurac@ix.netcom.com
    I m new at this internet stuff. I apologize for the April 3rd message which had nothing to do with GThomas, I thought that I was sending the message to Steve
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 4, 1999
      I'm new at this internet stuff. I apologize for the April 3rd message
      which had nothing to do with GThomas, I thought that I was sending the
      message to Steve Allison only. But I figured out what I did wrong.

      Keith.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
      Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
    • Rick Hubbard
      This group s topical intent is to discuss the Gospel of Thomas and I apologize for having gotten a bit far afield in pursuing discussions about Mt. I will
      Message 2 of 2 , May 4, 2000
        This group's topical intent is to discuss the Gospel of Thomas and I
        apologize for having gotten a bit far afield in pursuing discussions
        about Mt. I will refrain from doing so in the future, but welcome any
        off-list communications from those who are interested.

        As a conclusion to the issue of Mt's Sitz im Leben, I would like to
        offer the following comments if for no other reason than to explain why
        I so vigorously defend the proposition that it orginated in a
        predominantly Jewish community. Once again, if anyone wants to discuss
        the matter in more detail, lets do it off list.

        There are certain basic presuppositions which direct my assessment of
        the gospels. These assumptions are not always consistent with popular
        opinion; in fact they are usually quite contrary.

        The basic presupposition from which I work is that the gospels are not
        eyewitness accounts to what Jesus said or did. All of them were written
        at least 40 years after the crucifixion.

        The core of each gospel's proclamation is the message that Jesus was
        crucified but that he rose from the dead.

        Closely connected with that proclamation is the conviction that Jesus
        was the Messiah figure who was expected by sectarian Judaism from the
        third century BCE onward.

        The resurrection conviction and the Messiah tradition therefore are the
        foundation of the kerygma and, while they may have once been separate
        from one another, by the time the gospels were written they were
        essentially inseparable.

        The keryma developed after the crucifixion. Prior to the crucifixion,
        Jesus was never labeled as the Messiah. Instead, he was simply admired
        as a sage and perhaps as a worker of wonders, and then only by a
        relatively small number of his followers. Otherwise, he was generally
        unnoticed.

        The gospel writers began their literary work with the kerygma (the
        conviction that Jesus had been crucified but resurrected and that he was
        the expected Messiah). To that they added stories about Jesus which
        pre-dated the crucifixion. The gospels are therefore a composite
        description of Jesus the sage and Jesus the Messiah which have
        fossilized into an image of Jesus/Christ.

        Furthermore, my assumption is that the kerygma (that which was said
        ABOUT Jesus) is not the same as what Jesus himself said or did. I am
        convinced that it is possible (but not necessary) to investigate the
        gospels in such a way as to make the distinction between the textual
        evidence that reflects the Historical Jesus and that which reflects the
        understanding of the evangelists about the Christ.

        Moreover, I am convinced that there was no absolute consistency among
        the evangelists in the way they understood or described Jesus as the
        Christ. This diversity is present throughout the four canonical gospels,
        but is conventionally ignored by most readers who prefer to harmonize
        and dismiss the differences when they see them (if they see them at
        all). The diversity becomes even more apparent when extra-canonical
        gospels are examined and contrasted with those preserved in the New
        Testament. It is at these points where those tensions are most visible
        that we can identify with most assurance the evidence that a distinction
        between the Historical Jesus and the Resurrected Christ is appropriate.

        One of the strategies used by the authors of the the New Testament
        gospels was to examine the scriptures of Judaism in search of
        authoritative statements which could be used to argue for the validity
        of Jesus' messiahship. Evidence of this is abundant throughout the
        gospel corpus. As a preface to the conclusion that may be drawn from
        this, it is crucial to recognize that the scripture of Judaism was
        embraced AS SCRIPTURE only by those who were themselves members of the
        communities which affirmed the authority of that scripture. Therefore,
        the conclusion itself is that the tradition of the Resurrected Christ
        originated in Judaism and further, at the earliest stage of the
        movement, Christianity was nothing other than one Jewish sect among
        many.

        Finally, I am in firm opposition to the proposition that the canonical
        gospels are immune from the type of rigorous examination that historians
        apply to other ancient texts. The proposition which I oppose presumes
        that the gospels are part of a scriptural tradition which exhibits the
        attributes of (1)Authority, (2)Eternallity, (3)Efficacy, (4)Inspiration,
        (5)Facticity and (6)Inherent Unity. These attributes, incidently, are
        universally shared by all scriptural traditions, not just Christianity.

        Inevitably, because I embrace the presuppositions I have described, I am
        accused of being a non-Christian (at worst) or a heretic (at best). If
        I were offered my choice of the two condemnations, I would choose being
        labeled as a heretic, for I do consider myself to be a Christian. But I
        consciously distance myself from the kind of Christianity that basks in
        the glory of pious ignorance and that contents itself with pat answers
        and quick assurances that it mines indiscriminately from the Bible. The
        foundation of my faith is sufficiently solid that it does not face
        collapse if it should ever be conclusively proved that, for example,
        Jesus was not born in a stable, that he did not walk on water or even
        that his resurrection did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse.
        With this certainty in mind I therefore am fearless in efforts to
        dislodge truth from the obfuscating debris of tradition, doctrine and
        pious superstition that has been heaped on the Bible by a well-meaning
        but misguided church for the last several centuries. To those who
        criticize my point of view I say only that I do not expect to persuade
        you or to proselytize you to my conclusions, but on the other hand
        remember that you have no exclusive license to truth yourself.
        Therefore, do not try to persuade or proselytize me (although I do
        welcome and encourage any critique of my presuppositions).

        Rick Hubbard
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.