Mark Goodacre wrote:
> A new on-line article might be of interest to those on Xtalk &
> James M. Robinson, "The Real Jesus of the Sayings 'Q' Gospel"
I read Robinson's article and found it to be typical of his work. It is
more of that strange combination of rigorous methodology and uncritical
acceptance of scholarly dogmas that I have come to expect from him.
Normally, I have a lot of negative things to say about Robinson's work.
To my knowledge, *no one* is more uncritically dismissive of challenges
to the Q hypothesis than Robinson is. His own defense of Q consists of
little more than referring to the reopening of the synoptic question as
pure foolishness. I'm still waiting for Robinson to give a *reasoned*
defense of Q.
However, I would like to focus on a positive aspect of this new article
from Robinson. Although I question his equating the "real" Jesus with
the Jesus of Q, I applaud him for equating the "real" Jesus with the
historical Jesus. I am sure that this must be in response to Luke
Johnson's rather specious resignification of the word "real", which is a
terrific abuse of language. (I guess I am awaiting *two* things:
Robinson's reasoned defense of Q, and Johnson's defense of the views he
asserts [without defending] in *The Real Jesus*.) With all my
disagreements with the historical reconstructions of Robinson, Robert
Miller, etc., I take my hat off to them for defending the "real" meaning
I guess I should join the new canonical criticism E-list.
John C. Poirier