RE: Assessing Motives
- At 04:29 PM 4/21/99 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
>Hey, Jeffrey!Thanks Wieland. For Jeffrey's edification, I should point out that I had
>I hope, your mail was meant 'off-list'?
>In case not:
>Ok, Jim Deardorff represents a minority position on this list (and in the
>world), but that is no reason to slate him.
>He is an important member of this list and is giving us MANY good arguments!
>He is very familiar with the Gospels and knows a lot of details. Though I do
>not share his position, I like his comments.
>Very similar case with Brian Wilson, extreme minority position, but a lot of
>I understand that you are amazed about "the certainty with which all of this
>(once again) is stated". So am I (ALWAYS).
>But why not? It is his position.
written (to inform Steve if not others):
> Being new to the list, you may be unaware that a modified form of the AHThus it should be clear that these views are indeed those of my own, which
> gives cause for this editorial behavior on the part of the author of Luke
> (ALk). In this modified form, the writers of the gospels, in addition to
> appearing on the scene too late to have been the persons to whom the gospels
> are attributed, are allowed to have human motivations for their actions,
> even if these motivations include ethical values not quite up to today's
> standards. ...
> The motivation for ALk having written his gospel is seen to have been to
> correct Matthew for being anti-gentile (as did AMk) but also to correct Mark
> for having been pro-gentile at the exclusion of so much Judaistic material
> from Matthew, and for having portrayed the Jewish disciples in a poor light.
accord with a modified form of the AH. That they have not been expressed
long ago in the accessible NT academic literature to my mind reflects the
power of theological commitment and the desire not to confront colleagues
with opinions, no matter how obvious, which might be upsetting to them.
>What I like on this list are discussions In Every Detail about the Gospels,Jeffrey wrote:
>what I don't like are rude generalized rejections like yours:
>> must be regarded as lacking any credibility whatsoever and can hardlyThis bit from Jeffrey exemplifies one of the points I was making. If even
>> be entertained with any seriousness.
>This requires an apology.
today when one e-mail writer dislikes what another is saying and then
deviates from the purpose of the list -- which in this case is to hold
serious & substantive discussion of the Synoptic Problem -- in order to slip
in remarks directed against a person, such as what prompted Wieland's
remonstrance, there is every reason to believe that the gospel writers were
basically no different -- no better. We all have likes and dislikes and
emotions that cannot always be kept hidden, and so did they, as they were
humans, not mere "pipelines from God." It should be too obvious to require
comment that by the time the Gospels were being written, holding out for
discipleship to be restricted to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
could not be tolerated by pro-gentile early Christians, or by a "universal"
gospel writer like ALk. The embarrassments for theology which the AH
provides, and which I contend are mainly responsible for its 19th-century
replacement by the 2SH, are then easily explained by this consideration.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm