From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Sat Sep 10 2005 - 17:48:52 BST
[Case said]
>> I am familiar with the view that the oral tradition is very robust. this
>> would actually seem to lend support to the possibility that Thomas
>> Matthew and Luke derive from acommon ansestor. But this really highlights
>> the notion that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.
[Sam replies]
> I really would recommend Prof Dunn's book; it's very short and readable,
> and it addresses precisely these points much better than I could. I just
> think that saying 'the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses' is
> profoundly misleading. The stories had become embedded in a culture which
> contained lots of eyewitnesses. How far the writing was *done* by an
> eyewitness is debatable, but that there is 'eye-witness testimony', in any
> straightforward sense of the word, is, to my mind, incontestable.
[Case reponds]
Thanks for the tip I will try to find it and look it over. But the point you
raise is a good one. But by the time the gospels were written the
eyewitnesses were either dead or hiding. It is a bit like that scene in the
Last Temptation of Christ, (loved the book, hated the movie) were Jesus
tells Paul he will put stop to this nonsense and Paul just laughs at him and
says go ahead and try, they won't listen to you. What we are talking about
here is the evolution of an idea. Few would argue that there is no
historical core at the heart of Christianity. It is the meaning of that
core, which elements were selected for inclusion and why, that are at issue
not whether what was selected was accurately transmited. But perhaps I am
unfairly anticipating Dunn. I do intend to track him down.
[Case wrote]
Color me liberal.
[Sam responds
<grin> colour me prophetic then!
[Case winks]
I can live with that.
[Sam wrote]
> Hmmm..... you really do need to read a bit of Tom Wright. The
> 'Jewish/Hellenistic' split has been undermined as being bogus, on the
> whole. But this is one of those areas which would take us a truly long way
> away from the MoQ (and I would need to do a bit of revision myself before
> getting stuck into it).
You are talking about N.T. Wright? That is ringing a bell but I will check
that out as well. I do love reading about the first century. But you are
perhaps right about leading away from the MoQ.
[Sam commented]
> Lucky you. But I did have this suspicion that 'the Jesus Seminar' was
> lurking behind some of your points. They're not the last word on the
> subject!
[Case repies]
For a number of years I was even a card carrying member. I think their
stated goal is to increase religious literacy, hence the name of their
magazine is The Fourth R. Given the state of religous literacy I do think
that is a worthy goal, but I would agree they are not the last word.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 10 2005 - 18:23:26 BST