Re: [gthomas] Presuppositions & History
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
You wrote, yours is the first quote, I queried, and now you write again.
> > > [...] the Jewish roots of all the four canonical gospels. [...]No, not exactly. I did not ask that you define Judaism and Christianity for me,
>> > 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
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)Now you " think that it is probable...", etc, when before were categorical!
>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.
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 originallythe veracity of which I denied, and which denial you have avoided to counter
>entirely Jewish in their early versions, and they were still so back in
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" wasThe text of Gibson?s post can be found at
Finally, you say, Yuri, while responding to an apostrophe of mine:
>My current arguments have very little to do with Eugene Fisher, Oesterley,No, the three authors I mentioned do not deal for the most part with said
>and Bradshaw. These scholars deal with modern Jewish-Christian relations
>for the most part, which is not what I'm talking about now.
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.
PS. I shall be away from computers (!) for a couple of days, so you
if you wish, at your convenience,