Re: [gthomas] motivations
- On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:
> > Andrew,But who said anything about "critical scholars", 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?
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 ofAnd now you don't really seem like a truly critical scholar yourself...
> > 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 earlyBut I've examined this assumption already and found it lacking.
> Christianity. And nobody thinks that everything in the Pauline
> letters was written by Paul.
> >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 theSo you're suggesting now that the "anomian or antinomian elements" split
> original attitude, other parts slip back into nomian Judaism.
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
> I'm sorry that I haven't got time to address all of your points,So this supports my point of view?
> except to mention that Thomas does have an apocalyptic *protology* .
> What makes your posts so difficult, Yuri, is that you argue so broadlyBut I think my theories are seldom taken seriously because, in order to
> 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.
take them seriously, great many scholars would have to stop taking so much
of their own previous work seriously...
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.