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

Re: [gthomas] Presuppositions & History

Expand Messages
  • Isidoros
    Yuri, it seems you have a knock for not been able to understand what the issues you raise are, or would you have us believe that you are trying to evade
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 19, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Yuri,

      it seems you have a knock for not been able to understand what the issues you
      raise are, or would you have us believe that you are trying to evade dealing
      with them? Given that infallibility is reserved by the Christian God only for
      the Pope (as were also the issuance of those paper currencies he sold for
      the remission from sins) I will assume for now that it may be I who is not
      perceiving your genius here clearly, and so shall try one more, last, time,
      to come to terms with you in putting the question raised by your writ again
      before you.

      You wrote, yours is the first quote, I queried, and now you write again.

      > > > [...] the Jewish roots of all the four canonical gospels. [...]
      >>
      >> and
      >>
      >> > back in 100 CE, all the four canonicals were still in a more
      >> > primitive and much more Jewish shape.
      > >
      >> So I asked for a clarifying definition of what you deem in this regard
      >> Jewish -- I probably should have asked, I do now, what do you consider
      >> Christian, also -- but, unfortunately, none was provided.
      >
      >So you're asking now that I should define Judaism and Christianity for
      >you? Big questions indeed. I can certainly tell you that I, along with
      >most people, think that Christianity derived from Judaism. Details are
      >debatable.

      No, not exactly. I did not ask that you define Judaism and Christianity for me,
      or rather for us, since this is a neighborhood street meeting corner. I asked
      that you define what you meant, in the specific context, by the term "Jewish".
      And, as a complement, "Christian".

      I admit, when I read, and as in so many places, this profound statement you
      have just invoked ("Christianity derived from Judaism") that I feel in awe of
      your knowledge, and am in admiration of all those peoples who are privy to
      this information or understanding, such that I do not possess.

      This is a grand hypothesis that has been expounded variously now for eons;
      and one which I myself had for years canonized as fact; a fact, however,
      which I have been unable, poor me, to confirm, so far. Of recent, in the
      last hundred or so years, and especially after Western Christianity's latest
      expression of love toward the diasporic Rabbinical Jews, this issue begun
      to gain currency once more in a variety of circles, and scholarship developed
      well along the lines of a parallel religious political dialogue.
      Your Catholic Loisy is a relatively early prophet in this movement,
      as is also Oesterley, I mentioned (whom evidently you know not and so
      failed to recognize). Others (like Dunn, Charlesworth, E.P. Sanders, and
      Dan Harrington -- you should get to know the last, if you are interested
      in ... Howard and H.Matt) develop variously the approach, and enlightened
      disciples like you take zealously to the worthy mission. Yet -- in as much
      as the many valuable insights that have come out of some as their writings
      ought be not discounted, nor the psychic benefits of reaching all toward one
      common humanity through such a dialogue -- the serious, the fundamental
      identity issues remain intact, so far as I am concerned, almost untouched,
      and answering basic questions with cliche paraphrases of the verbiage
      that raised them to begin with does not help any.

      See, there indeed are many varieties of Judaism, of what you said, "Jewish."
      So, if you do know how to define the term you used, there, you do that,
      for us to learn. On the other hand, if you are not sure exactly of what you
      might had meant, say that, too. Or hold your breath, and listen.


      >I think that it is probable that the earliest version of Mk (proto-Mk)
      >was created by Jewish-Christians, and was later adopted into Mt. And yet
      >later, proto-Mk was re-edited and expanded into the canonical Mk. I think
      >this is simpler and more logical than the alternative view.

      Now you " think that it is probable...", etc, when before were categorical!
      Are you retracting about it in a "scholarly" fashion, or do you mean to back
      your absolutes with more generalized probables? No, I won't enter into any
      comparative Synoptics guess games here with you. But I shall mention that,
      as I have read in the Crosstalk2 list, after reading of our exchange
      fast Jeffrey Gibson decided to test your claim that

      >According to Loisy, all the four canonicals were originally
      >entirely Jewish in their early versions, and they were still so back in
      >100 CE.

      the veracity of which I denied, and which denial you have avoided to counter
      by citing the evidence you would have us believe Loisy provided for such.
      So, Gibson proceeded to do a quick search, the gist of which is that nowhere
      does Loisy provide direct evidence to support your claim. Gibson writes,

      > it is questionable whether Loisy believed that this "proto Mark" was
      >"entirely Jewish"

      The text of Gibson?s post can be found at

      http://www.egroups.com/message/crosstalk2/4808?&start=4786


      Finally, you say, Yuri, while responding to an apostrophe of mine:

      >My current arguments have very little to do with Eugene Fisher, Oesterley,
      >and Bradshaw. These scholars deal with modern Jewish-Christian relations
      >for the most part, which is not what I'm talking about now.

      No, the three authors I mentioned do not deal for the most part with said
      modern Jewish-Christian relations, while they do have much to do with your
      your pursued line, even if you ignore this.

      First let me say that Oesterley died about half a century ago, so he could not
      have exactly anything to do with such "modern" relations. Now, he is the author
      of The Jewish background of the Christian Liturgy, among other things, and
      much along Loisy's thinking, though specializing in the Liturgics.
      Bradsaw, Paul, though modern, has nothing to do directly with modern
      Jewish-Christian relations, either, but, with Larry Hoffman, and others,
      has embarked on a long search (again) of Christian - Jewish liturgics.
      Fisher is one of the paragons of the Jewish - Christian dialogue, but is one
      to look him down because of that and ignore his work on the Jewish roots
      of Christian Liturgy (been that also title to a major work which he edited?)

      Now, Yuri, the only reason I referred at all to these authors, and not, say,
      to the above (Dunn, Sanders, co.) or to Hebraists (vs. Hellenizers -- like
      Fitzmyer, Black, Deismann, etc) is because all of the above are much into
      questions like the resurrection, quartodeciman, Sabbath to Sunday, etc
      that are at the center of your arguments and that you mentioned.
      So, liturgics, if you can, is what I thought you ought to be interested in
      and it is because of this that I mentioned the specific authors to you.
      Perhaps it was another mistake.

      Filially,

      Isidoros, Athens
      PS. I shall be away from computers (!) for a couple of days, so you
      may respond,
      if you wish, at your convenience,
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.