rodahi

A: My "evidence to back up this opinion"(that Old Testament prophecies tacked onto the words and deeds of Jesus are the later meddlings of the church) rests on an appeal to common sense, namely, that NOTHING in the OT or ancient sources pertains to Jesus. Such verses must be studied in context from the person or group originally being spoken to.

In other words, you have no evidence.

A: You ask "Why else was (Jesus) executed as a troublemaker? Certainly, men who preached love, understanding and compassion were not crucified." A good point; no one dies for just being compassionate. A heavy dose of social, economic, political and religious
change is what really threatens the status quo. Ask the followers of Martin Luther King, Jr. "I have a dream" is fine--just stay away from our lunch counters. And read the story of Gandhi's struggle. Justice, too, is an overriding theme in Jesus' message.

This is an example of a false analogy. Jesus was reportedly executed as a troublemaker by civil authorities following a trial. In other words, he must have committed a capital offense. King and Gandhi were assassinated by lone individuals.

A: You wonder why the apocalyptic prophet myth fits much better within the context in which Jesus lived than the compassionate rabbi myth.

I don't wonder about it.

A: News (even--biblically speaking--"good news") is news only by virtue of its DIFFERENCE . For example, it is not news that "Dog Bites Man," but it IS news that "Man Bites Dog." Jesus stands out from his historical context and in these message boards because he was different. Because he did not fit comfortably in his historical setting.

He was executed as a criminal.

A: You ask me why I "throw out" textual evidence in ancient MSS pertaining to apocalyptic scenarios. I do not think I do. I recognize the genre as part of the religious and cultural gestalt that Jesus was born into. A part, though. And one that may not have been useful for Jesus' authentic vision.

No one knows what Jesus' "authentic vision" was or even if he had one.

more to come...

rodahi

aikido7

A: My "evidence to back up this opinion"(that Old Testament prophecies tacked onto the words and deeds of Jesus are the later meddlings of the church) rests on an appeal to common sense, namely, that NOTHING in the OT or ancient sources pertains to Jesus. Such verses must be studied in context from the person or group originally being spoken to.

Rodahi: In other words, you have no evidence.

Mainstream scholars are in general agreement that evidence of the Old Testament prohetically attesting to Jesus is a selective reading BACK INTO the ancient texts to point to certain theological "truths" about Jesus. This is beating a dead horse for me. I have no first-hand ancient texts in front of me. But the evidence is out there. You'll just have to look for it. Competent scholars have written about it. Literalistic agnostics have pointed out how the OT prophecies fall flat on careful study. It's out there, but not in front of me. Sorry.

A: You ask "Why else was (Jesus) executed as a troublemaker? Certainly, men who preached love, understanding and compassion were not crucified." A good point; no one dies for just being compassionate. A heavy dose of social, economic, political and religious
change is what really threatens the status quo. Ask the followers of Martin Luther King, Jr. "I have a dream" is fine--just stay away from our lunch counters. And read the story of Gandhi's struggle. Justice, too, is an overriding theme in Jesus' message.

Rodahi: This is an example of a false analogy. Jesus was reportedly executed as a troublemaker by civil authorities following a trial. In other words, he must have committed a capital offense. King and Gandhi were assassinated by lone individuals.

There MAY have been a trial. Or it certainly would have looked good to his followers for Jesus to have been important enough to Rome to merit one. Taking the passion narratives literally is not the only way to view this. Many scholars have talked about this. It is plowed ground.

Incidently, you are in safe (and overwhelmingly majority) company in your support for the unambiguous "lone gunman" theories.



A: You wonder why the apocalyptic prophet myth fits much better within the context in which Jesus lived than the compassionate rabbi myth.

Rodahi: I don't wonder about it.

It is a very popular error to have the courage of one's convictions. Even more courageous is to have the courage to ATTACK one's own convictions. A lack of wonder and curiousity is a mindset in harmony with fundamentalism.

A: News (even--biblically speaking--"good news") is news only by virtue of its DIFFERENCE . For example, it is not news that "Dog Bites Man," but it IS news that "Man Bites Dog." Jesus stands out from his historical context and in these message boards because he was different. Because he did not fit comfortably in his historical setting.

Rodahi: He was executed as a criminal.

The Bible tells us so.

A: You ask me why I "throw out" textual evidence in ancient MSS pertaining to apocalyptic scenarios. I do not think I do. I recognize the genre as part of the religious and cultural gestalt that Jesus was born into. A part, though. And one that may not have been useful for Jesus' authentic vision.

Rodahi: No one knows what Jesus' "authentic vision" was or even if he had one.

Putting the emphasis on some of the sources we have, you may be right. Putting the emphasis elsewhere shows something different. I have a difference of opinion with you. If he DID have an authentic vision then it was not apocalyptic in the sense of a cosmic housecleaning and a punishing of one's enemies.

There are two sides to this coin and Jesus was perhaps acknowledging earthly notions of revenge and power but taking special care to leave what is divine to God.

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

rodahi

A: Before making any claims to "objectivity," we might do well to pay attention to particle physics for a moment, in which an object studied is changed by the mere fact of an observer studying it. Neils Bohr, the Danish nuclear physicist, said there are two kinds of truths: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities, when opposites are obviously absurd. Now you may be asking "What does this have to do with Jesus?"

Yes, what DOES this have to do with our discussion?

A: A good question, but one whose answer may elicit not another question but the same one again and again. To paraphrase Sir Francis Bacon: "What is truth?" said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

?

A: The short parable in question concerning the difference between Jesus and John can be found in Luke 3:31-35 and in Matthew 11:16-19. It can also be found in the sayings source Q and--depending on what you think about its existence or dating--could belie your insistance that the parable was not included in any earlier source.

We have problem here. Luke 3:31-35 is a partial listing of Jesus’ genealogy. I think you meant Luke 7:31-35 and Matthew 11:16-19. Here is what it says for anyone who is interested in this discussion: “What do members of this generation remind me of? What are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another: We played the flute for you, but you wouldn’t dance; we sang a dirge, but you wouldn’t weep. Just remember, John the Baptist appeared on the scene, eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He is demented.’ The son of Adam [Son of man] appeared on the scene both eating and drinking, and you say, ‘There’s a glutton and a drunk, a crony of toll collectors and sinners!’ Indeed, wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” Luke 7:331-35 (Scholar’s Version)

How this is SUPPOSED to make Jesus something other than what he is depicted in the oldest narrative (Mark), i.e., as an apocalyptic prophet, I fail to see.


A: Rodahi, you also write that "NOTHING guarantees historical truth with regard to Jesus or the NT. All we can do is evaluate the available evidence."

What prevents you from seeing my opinion as an evaluation?

I simply think that you have ignored MOST of the textual evidence and come to a “preferred” conclusion.

A: I stand on the shoulders of good scholars.

Don’t we all?

A: I don't know Greek or Aramaic. I don't do detailed textual studies or handle ancient manuscripts. I can only barely keep up with the writings of those who do. I am granting you the same vantage point, but I try to express my opinions with some integrity and honesty as if I think I am right, not as if I know I am.

You think you are right and I think there is good reason to question your opinion. (You have misunderstood me if you believe I have ever thought that my opinion is absolutely correct and the only correct one.) I have simply asked for evidence from you which supports your opinion and, quite frankly, I haven’t really seen any.

A: What prevents you from doing likewise?

I think I have tried to express my opinions with some integrity and honesty.

A: Peter Kirby's last post seems to have picked up on this as well.

Let’s leave peterkirby out of this.

A: You remind me of a navagator in a C-130 transport plane during the war who--when the engines went out and he was unsuccessfully attempting to get them started again in a horrendous free fall--told the crew "Boy, have YOU got a problem!" (This is perhaps an opening to a question best asked of ourselves and not on this board.)

I disagree with your offensive characterization, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

A: "Jesus also seemed to predict a great number of things that did not come to pass" you write.

Cell phones and instant messaging were undoubtedly two of that "great number," but by "Jesus" do you mean "the real" Jesus, the Jesus of the various communiites who wrote about (and "experienced") him or the Jesus of your personal interpretation? (This is an admitted tangle of questions not meant to be answered on this board)

I am not aware of any place in Christian literature where Jesus predicted cell phones and instant messaging. I mean the Jesus depicted in Christian literature. He is the only one we can study. Which Jesus did you have in mind?

A: You finally write "I don't Jesus to make me feel good. My family members do a great job of that."

It takes a family to raise a child?[/b]

Irrelevant. I never said a family was required to raise a child. I simply said my family members do a great job of making me feel good. Again, I don’t need Jesus to make me feel good. Apparently, you do.

A: Keep the village out of it?

?

A: These questions raise an interesting point about Jesus and the family--if we can let Hillary dangle for just a moment. Jesus made savage attacks on the family values of his day and he did it quite often. A lot of his "shocking" statements on the family have not set well with most Christians--especially of the fundamentalist and Republican type.

You seem overly hostile toward anyone who disagrees with your opinions. You have alluded to “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals” and “republicans,” etc. in the most negative of terms. You have also characterized me in an offensive way.

A: There is good evidence for connecting the dots to see that Jesus was against the patriarchal family as it was then embedded in first-century culture.

There is good evidence that Jesus had problems with his own family and that he tried to break up other families. The reader can decide for him/herself if the following statements are directed toward the family in general or “the patriarchal family as it was embedded in first -century culture.”

“And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and the said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and brothers!’” (Mk. 3:31-34)

“And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.’” (Mk. 6:4)

“After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand. So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.’ For even his brothers did not believe in him.” (Jn. 7:1-5)

From the Sayings Gospel Q:
Jesus said, “Don’t get the idea that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. After all, I have come to pit a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies live under your own roof.”

Jesus said, “If any of you comes to me and does not hate your own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters...you’re no disciple of mine.”


A: He seems to have wanted to get his followers to push their mental and spiritual envelope to look beyond the tribal pedestal of the "family" and consider wider and more inclusive options for what "a family" in God's kingdom really means. But that's another post!

The best evidence suggests that Jesus had a problem with his own family and that he tried to break up other families.

rodahi

rodahi

A: My "evidence to back up this opinion"(that Old Testament prophecies tacked onto the words and deeds of Jesus are the later meddlings of the church) rests on an appeal to common sense, namely, that NOTHING in the OT or ancient sources pertains to Jesus. Such verses must be studied in context from the person or group originally being spoken to.

Rodahi: In other words, you have no evidence.

A: Mainstream scholars are in general agreement that evidence of the Old Testament prohetically attesting to Jesus is a selective reading BACK INTO the ancient texts to point to certain theological "truths" about Jesus. This is beating a dead horse for me. I have no first-hand ancient texts in front of me.

Please explain how this somehow precludes the possibility that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet type.

A: But the evidence is out there. You'll just have to look for it. Competent scholars have written about it. Literalistic agnostics have pointed out how the OT prophecies fall flat on careful study. It's out there, but not in front of me. Sorry.

I am aware of this. I don't see how it makes Jesus something other than an apocalyptic prophet type.


A: You ask "Why else was (Jesus) executed as a troublemaker? Certainly, men who preached love, understanding and compassion were not crucified." A good point; no one dies for just being compassionate. A heavy dose of social, economic, political and religious
change is what really threatens the status quo. Ask the followers of Martin Luther King, Jr. "I have a dream" is fine--just stay away from our lunch counters. And read the story of Gandhi's struggle. Justice, too, is an overriding theme in Jesus' message.

Rodahi: This is an example of a false analogy. Jesus was reportedly executed as a troublemaker by civil authorities following a trial. In other words, he must have committed a capital offense. King and Gandhi were assassinated by lone individuals.

A: There MAY have been a trial.

According to the Christian literature, there was a trial. What else do we have to go on?

A: Or it certainly would have looked good to his followers for Jesus to have been important enough to Rome to merit one.

See above.

A: Taking the passion narratives literally is not the only way to view this. Many scholars have talked about this. It is plowed ground.

I am using the ONLY evidence we have. I am not taking the narratives literally. It is possible that Jesus didn't even exist, but BASED on available evidence, he had a trial and was executed as a troublemaker.

A: Incidently, you are in safe (and overwhelmingly majority) company in your support for the unambiguous "lone gunman" theories.

I don't really support any theories. The best evidence indicates that King and Gandhi were assassinated by individuals.



A: You wonder why the apocalyptic prophet myth fits much better within the context in which Jesus lived than the compassionate rabbi myth.

Rodahi: I don't wonder about it.

A: It is a very popular error to have the courage of one's convictions. Even more courageous is to have the courage to ATTACK one's own convictions. A lack of wonder and curiousity is a mindset in harmony with fundamentalism.

The fact that I don't wonder about what Jesus supposedly did or said doesn't make me a "fundamentalist". Jesus may not have existed as a historical personage. I consider this another personal attack.

A: News (even--biblically speaking--"good news") is news only by virtue of its DIFFERENCE . For example, it is not news that "Dog Bites Man," but it IS news that "Man Bites Dog." Jesus stands out from his historical context and in these message boards because he was different. Because he did not fit comfortably in his historical setting.

Rodahi: He was executed as a criminal.

A: The Bible tells us so.

Of course. Do you have another source? If we can believe the NT, then Jesus was executed as a criminal. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

A: You ask me why I "throw out" textual evidence in ancient MSS pertaining to apocalyptic scenarios. I do not think I do. I recognize the genre as part of the religious and cultural gestalt that Jesus was born into. A part, though. And one that may not have been useful for Jesus' authentic vision.

Rodahi: No one knows what Jesus' "authentic vision" was or even if he had one.[/b]

A: Putting the emphasis on some of the sources we have, you may be right. Putting the emphasis elsewhere shows something different. I have a difference of opinion with you.

The most ancient narrative and sayings indicate that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.

A: If he DID have an authentic vision then it was not apocalyptic in the sense of a cosmic housecleaning and a punishing of one's enemies.

Where is your evidence to back up this assertion?

A: There are two sides to this coin and Jesus was perhaps acknowledging earthly notions of revenge and power but taking special care to leave what is divine to God.

Which god are you referring to? The mythical Yahweh or another?

rodahi

aikido7

The truth of Jesus is not one of preference but one of complexity. This is because our view of the gospel accounts must be tempered by the fact that they are not historical narrratives in a strict 21st century sense. They are "faith documents" and as such present a problematic tangle of both theology and biography. Part of the frustration (and fun!) of modern scholarship is trying to separate out what Jesus actually said and did from what the early church wanted/hoped/needed him to say and do (and wrote the stories accordingly).

Since there was a definite and rich apocalyptic/cataclysmic tradition in early Jewish thought and theology, it is really no surprise that Jesus is sometimes shown as being a spokesman for such end-of-the-world scenarios. You obviously see his apocalyptic sayings as germane to his fundamental idenity and vision. I do not. There is "evidence," "emphasis" and "context" galore to pick and choose from the texts and the scholarly analyses of them. Your points are well-argued and noted. I am sorry that my references to fundamentalism are hurtful and offensive to you. There was a woman I knew who had a bumpersticker on her car which read: THE BIBLE SAYS IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT! She probably did not wonder how the Bible says "it," nor much care.

I think there are other ways of reading and appreciating the Bible rather than a literal approach. If you have closed off your imagination and wonder, I see a similar thing going on with fundamentalism. I will not walk on eggs around you to avoid mentioning that same mindset when I see it in you. You are closing yourself down in the "wonder department"--at least in that instance--and simply means that you have chosen to deliberately "stay stuck." I can't point out something like that in someone else unless I have done the same thing first--that's the only way I would recognize it in anyone else! And no matter how "offensive" you may characterize my opinions towards you, that will never stop the goodwill and respect I have for your arguments.

Perhaps I am not left-brained or genetically abled enough to think concretely, for it seems from my vantage point that I presented evidence for my views and they were dismissed for "lack of evidence." The concrete and intuitive connections I have made (especially those which are answered by "What does THIS have to do with...?) might be better understood by you if we could talk face-to-face over a cold pitcher of beer, but in this forum my advice would be to use some metaphoric thinking and see my comments more like a shower: some of it will stick to you, but most will probably go down the drain.

The manic preacher of the end times is far outweighed by the parabler who tells the Pharisees that the Kingdom will not come with observation, but is already spread out among and within them. Everyone else--ancient texts included--seemed to have lived in a world of end times. Jesus' other speech (and I call it distinctive from the apocalyptic sayings as well as from other wisdom teachers such as Lao Tze and the Buddha) is at serious variance with the prevailing view. I see a major disconnect. I resolve it by discounting most of what Jesus says apocalyptically. It is almost a face-off between quantity and quality and quality wins hands down.

The Aramaic word for "observation" comes from a verb form that means to preserve something in memory. "Within" is a combination of two Aramaic words which point to a processthat happens "from inside out"--from an agreement "deep in the belly."(Thanks to Shaye J.D.Coyen and Neil Douglas-Klotz for this!)

A complete change of heart, a turning away, is what Jesus was advocating. This begins in
one's interior community of voices expressed as faith or empowerment and then extends to the outer community, like weeds in a field or leaven in the dough. It doesn't come when the sky falls in. In this regard, Jesus was not an idealist but a realist. He preached that only a change of heart can remedy a troubled world.

His predictions of an impending judgement on Jerusalem unless that inward change was made are justified by events after his death, with the first and second Roman wars. Jerusalem was sacked and burned and the temple was destroyed. The judgement day had come, but the catastrophe had been a long time simmering under a horrific social order which is nearly impossible for us in the 21st century to imagine.

Charismatic prophets like Jesus, with an inordinate sensitivity and a clear vision, saw the Palestinian "world" coming to an end long before most of his countrymen.

Now we seem to be poised in the interval between two ways of thinking; it is no certain respite for engaged minds. I think the apocalyptic Jesus (if one defines apocalypticism as a catastrophic "left behind" drama where the world is destroyed and the wicked--whoever we deem them to be--are punished) is giving way to one of a sapiential rabbi and compassionate healer. This new view is coming into focus because of renewed work on the aphoristic and parabolic speech of Jesus. And also, clearly, because times have changed and the old model doesn't work anymore. When I first saw the Jesus Seminar so "in my face" and going public 20 years ago, I knew that it was just an outward expression of what had been going on in progressive theology many, many years before.

rodahi

aikido7: The truth of Jesus is not one of preference but one of complexity. This is because our view of the gospel accounts must be tempered by the fact that they are not historical narrratives in a strict 21st century sense. They are "faith documents" and as such present a problematic tangle of both theology and biography. Part of the frustration (and fun!) of modern scholarship is trying to separate out what Jesus actually said and did from what the early church wanted/hoped/needed him to say and do (and wrote the stories accordingly).
Since there was a definite and rich apocalyptic/cataclysmic tradition in early Jewish thought and theology, it is really no surprise that Jesus is sometimes shown as being a spokesman for such end-of-the-world scenarios. You obviously see his apocalyptic sayings as germane to his fundamental idenity and vision. I do not. There is "evidence," "emphasis" and "context" galore to pick and choose from the texts and the scholarly analyses of them. Your points are well-argued and noted. I am sorry that my references to fundamentalism are hurtful and offensive to you. There was a woman I knew who had a bumpersticker on her car which read: THE BIBLE SAYS IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT! She probably did not wonder how the Bible says "it," nor much care.
I think there are other ways of reading and appreciating the Bible rather than a literal approach. If you have closed off your imagination and wonder, I see a similar thing going on with fundamentalism. I will not walk on eggs around you to avoid mentioning that same mindset when I see it in you. You are closing yourself down in the "wonder department"--at least in that instance--and simply means that you have chosen to deliberately "stay stuck." I can't point out something like that in someone else unless I have done the same thing first--that's the only way I would recognize it in anyone else! And no matter how "offensive" you may characterize my opinions towards you, that will never stop the goodwill and respect I have for your arguments.
Perhaps I am not left-brained or genetically abled enough to think concretely, for it seems from my vantage point that I presented evidence for my views and they were dismissed for "lack of evidence." The concrete and intuitive connections I have made (especially those which are answered by "What does THIS have to do with...?) might be better understood by you if we could talk face-to-face over a cold pitcher of beer, but in this forum my advice would be to use some metaphoric thinking and see my comments more like a shower: some of it will stick to you, but most will probably go down the drain.
The manic preacher of the end times is far outweighed by the parabler who tells the Pharisees that the Kingdom will not come with observation, but is already spread out among and within them. Everyone else--ancient texts included--seemed to have lived in a world of end times. Jesus' other speech (and I call it distinctive from the apocalyptic sayings as well as from other wisdom teachers such as Lao Tze and the Buddha) is at serious variance with the prevailing view. I see a major disconnect. I resolve it by discounting most of what Jesus says apocalyptically. It is almost a face-off between quantity and quality and quality wins hands down.
The Aramaic word for "observation" comes from a verb form that means to preserve something in memory. "Within" is a combination of two Aramaic words which point to a processthat happens "from inside out"--from an agreement "deep in the belly."(Thanks to Shaye J.D.Coyen and Neil Douglas-Klotz for this!)
A complete change of heart, a turning away, is what Jesus was advocating. This begins in
one's interior community of voices expressed as faith or empowerment and then extends to the outer community, like weeds in a field or leaven in the dough. It doesn't come when the sky falls in. In this regard, Jesus was not an idealist but a realist. He preached that only a change of heart can remedy a troubled world.
His predictions of an impending judgement on Jerusalem unless that inward change was made are justified by events after his death, with the first and second Roman wars. Jerusalem was sacked and burned and the temple was destroyed. The judgement day had come, but the catastrophe had been a long time simmering under a horrific social order which is nearly impossible for us in the 21st century to imagine.
Charismatic prophets like Jesus, with an inordinate sensitivity and a clear vision, saw the Palestinian "world" coming to an end long before most of his countrymen.
Now we seem to be poised in the interval between two ways of thinking; it is no certain respite for engaged minds. I think the apocalyptic Jesus (if one defines apocalypticism as a catastrophic "left behind" drama where the world is destroyed and the wicked--whoever we deem them to be--are punished) is giving way to one of a sapiential rabbi and compassionate healer. This new view is coming into focus because of renewed work on the aphoristic and parabolic speech of Jesus. And also, clearly, because times have changed and the old model doesn't work anymore. When I first saw the Jesus Seminar so "in my face" and going public 20 years ago, I knew that it was just an outward expression of what had been going on in progressive theology many, many years before.

In order to arrive at your conclusions, you must ignore virtually ALL of the available early textual evidence. In my opinion, that is not a good idea--IF one wants to find out what actually happened. Also, your “intuitive connections” don’t impress those who are more concerned with what the evidence suggests. Anyone who attempts to intuitively “connect the dots” and “read between the lines” while avoiding most of the available evidence can be convinced of anything he wants to be convinced of.

rodahi

Metacrock

Meta => I have to agree with my hero Albert Schweitzer. Jesus apocalypticism was not, however, the brash militaristic kind. He did have a hiddeness of the Kingdom, spiritual dimesion, what C.H.Dodd called "realized eschatology." But he also had a sense of eschatological disruption. He expected the current order to be broken into by God and a disruption of the current age. Schweitzer had him disillusioned on the cross, however. I can't go that far.


Is The Bible The Word of God?

aikido7

In order to arrive at your conclusions, you must ignore virtually ALL of the available early textual evidence. In my opinion, that is not a good idea--IF one wants to find out what actually happened. Also, your “intuitive connections” don’t impress those who are more concerned with what the evidence suggests. Anyone who attempts to intuitively “connect the dots” and “read between the lines” while avoiding most of the available evidence can be convinced of anything he wants to be convinced of.

rodahi

It is not only how much ancient evidence there is in favor of a certain conclusion--especailly when it comes to biblical evidence. History and faith must answer to empasis and redaction. Literal scientism--even though a mainstay of evidential investigation since the Enlightenment--is not the only way to approach the texts (especially when one is dealing with parable, metaphor, paradox and poetry). Intuition is sometimes needed for breakthroughs that cannot manifest in any other way.

All biblical scholars look and sift through the same evidence, adding their own value judgements and "best case" scenarios, putting together the pieces in new and different ways. The picture arrived at is in harmony with the scholar's "gut level" best guess--an innate intuitive judgement coming forth in response to "objective" views of what the evidence suggests.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

Ion

You still need literal scientific evidence to back-up or throw away intuition, aikido7.
Any factual event, cars on the road for example, are powered by evidence.

aikido7

I agree; intuition is used in putting that factual event or evidence to "work" in a new configuration that points to another meaning.