Re: [GTh] Re: SOM in GOT 86
- Michael quoted Crossan:
> "As Christian Jewish communities are steadily more alienated from theirgospel,
> fellow Jews, so the "enemies" of Jesus expand to fit those new situations.
> By the time of John in the 90's, those enemies are "the Jews" - that is,
> all those other Jews except us few right ones. If we had understood
> we would have understood that. If we had understood gospel, we would haveTo me, Crossan's statement exemplifies the chief limitations of Jesus
> *expected* that. It is, unfortunately, tragically late to be learning it."
seminar scholarship. Primary among those are
1. failure to think in the languages of the time, and
2. failure to think in the culture of the time.
In Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, there is no distinction between the words for
Judeans (inhabitant of the province/tribe Judea/Judah) and Jews (circumcised
children of Abraham worshiping Yahweh.)
Yes, Christianity was getting far more "Gentilized" by the 90's, but it
still takes a lot of faith in our "understanding" of the first century to
suppose that the "Jews" meant all other Jewish people but us, as opposed to
the "the Judeans, who unbelievably, welcomed our fellow Galilean, Yeshua,
into Jerusalem wildly and a few days later, had him crucified."
I believe the gospels in general reflect a Galilean Jewish perspective that
was shocked at Judean rejection of the Messiah. (I do however acknowledge
that Luke does address his gospel to non-Jews. Why not? it's strongly
implied in his own introduction)
Sometimes I really wonder what the firsthand Semitic language/cultural
experience of the Seminar is, or if they just use English translations, and
build on other liberal scholarship, built on other liberal scholarship,
built on...ad infinitum.
Web URL: http://surf.to/frimmin
It is more important to love much than to think much.
Always do that which most impels you to love.
--St. Teresa of Avila
> To post to gthomas, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to email@example.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
You wrote in re GThom86:
>This interpretation has three things going for it, in my view. First,<SNIP>
>it reveals GTh 86 to be pithy and powerful, two characteristics
>generally attributed to Jesus' aphorisms. . .
>Second, it echoes a common theme in Thomas, that of conflictingAnd I wrote in re a portion of your letter which ended with the above that I
>internal natures, the pre-Fall identity vs. the post-Fall identity.
>Third, if indeed Jesus was a mystic/teacher, you would expect that he
>would teach what for mystics everywhere is almost a truism: To find
>peace or "rest" you must identify with what is most divine in yourself
>and disconnect from everything that is not. So I see the Jesus of
>Thomas as more interested in this kind of "rest" than in the comfort
>of having a home or shelter.
found 'little to agree with' in it. I read in too much of a damn hurry for which
I apologize. I am in reasonably close agreement with all three of these
propositions and they are certainly worth noting. But in disagreement with the
snipped portion I fail to see how the excellent points you have made apply to
your interpretation of SOM as 'mankind' and not mine of SOM as a self reference
of Jesus as human being, his aphoristic self, to Jesus as prophet, who spreads
the word of the HS. Think about it. Its something of a gestalt.
Best wishes, Odell
Prof. Geology Em., W&L