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

Re: [gthomas] motivations

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Smith
    ... Yes, of course it was radically different! Are you suggesting that Matthew and Luke were critical scholars in the modern fashion? ... Paul s attitude to
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 4 10:48 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > 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.
      >

      Yes, of course it was radically different! Are you suggesting that Matthew
      and Luke were critical scholars in the modern fashion?

      > 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.
      >

      Paul's attitude to the law isn't a personal presupposition of Steve, it's
      the general consensus of modern scholarship. He's simply taking the standard
      datings of the gospels and epistles and showing that they point to quite a
      different model of early Christianity. And nobody thinks that everything in
      the Pauline letters was written by Paul.

      <snipped>
      >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..

      If it began with anomian or antinomian elements this isn't such a problem.
      Some parts of the movement maintain the original attitude, other parts slip
      back into nomian Judaism.

      <rest snipped>

      I'm sorry that I haven't got time to address all of your points, except to
      mention that Thomas does have an apocalyptic *protology* .

      What makes your posts so difficult, Yuri, is that you argue so broadly using
      phrases like "It's my opinion that", "in my view", etc. and so you end up
      not arguing but just asserting. You very rarely ground anything in a
      specificic piece of text or a critical observation, so your theories are
      seldom taken seriously, especially since you are working uphill with most of
      them.

      Best Wishes

      Andrew Smith
    • Jacob Knee
      For those who are interested Eerdmans theological publishers seem to have activated their web site at www.eerdmans.com Best wishes, Jacob Knee (Cam,
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 5 2:34 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        For those who are interested Eerdmans theological publishers seem to have
        'activated' their web site at www.eerdmans.com

        Best wishes,
        Jacob Knee
        (Cam, Gloucestershire)
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        ... But who said anything about critical scholars , Andrew? Exactly how many of today s scholars are critical scholars still remains to be determined. In my
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 6 12:40 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:

          > > 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.
          >
          > Yes, of course it was radically different! Are you suggesting that
          > Matthew and Luke were critical scholars in the modern fashion?

          But who said anything about "critical scholars", Andrew?

          Exactly how many of today's scholars are critical scholars still remains
          to be determined. In my view, there're not enough.

          > > 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.
          >
          > Paul's attitude to the law isn't a personal presupposition of Steve,
          > it's the general consensus of modern scholarship. He's simply taking
          > the standard datings of the gospels and epistles

          And now you don't really seem like a truly critical scholar yourself...

          > and showing that they point to quite a different model of early
          > Christianity. And nobody thinks that everything in the Pauline
          > letters was written by Paul.
          >
          > <snipped>
          > >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..
          >
          > If it began with anomian or antinomian elements

          But I've examined this assumption already and found it lacking.

          > this isn't such a problem. Some parts of the movement maintain the
          > original attitude, other parts slip back into nomian Judaism.

          So you're suggesting now that the "anomian or antinomian elements" split
          off early, and that the rest of the movement became nomian before 70? But
          then you have a problem because according to Crossan et al the rest of the
          movement became _anomian_ before 70 as is witnessed by Mk. Thus,
          persistence in dating Mk early creates serious problems for a critical
          scholar. In actual fact, a lot of Mk seems late.

          Thus, your objection had already been answered. The incongruity is still
          there.

          > I'm sorry that I haven't got time to address all of your points,
          > except to mention that Thomas does have an apocalyptic *protology* .

          So this supports my point of view?

          > What makes your posts so difficult, Yuri, is that you argue so broadly
          > using phrases like "It's my opinion that", "in my view", etc. and so
          > you end up not arguing but just asserting. You very rarely ground
          > anything in a specificic piece of text or a critical observation, so
          > your theories are seldom taken seriously, especially since you are
          > working uphill with most of them.

          But I think my theories are seldom taken seriously because, in order to
          take them seriously, great many scholars would have to stop taking so much
          of their own previous work seriously...

          Yours,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l

          To subscribe to loisy-l, send blank email to loisy-subscribe@...

          I doubt, therefore I might be.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.