Amaleq13

Nope, I asked exactly the question I wanted answered. I was interested in the methodology you employed to identify the alleged oral traditions.

They are potential examples pending the application of some methodology to make a credible identification. Otherwise, how do you tell the difference between "genuine" parables based on actual spoken statements and fictional creations serving an author's theological goals or false attributions that an author believes Jesus shoulda/woulda/coulda said?

I think you are overestimating the difficulty. Crossan compares the sayings in Q/GThomas to find one portraying Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher while the other portrays him as essentially opposing apoclypticism. Given that they apparently started from a common collection of sayings, how do we determine which of these if either reflects a legitimate oral tradition?

The sad fact is we really can't. Annoying as hell, IMO.

We can't even be sure that the apparently Cynic-like sayings that are thought to comprise the early "core" can be reliably attributed to a guy named Jesus.

Tristan Scott

I guess if the shoe fits you should wear it whether you want to take it seriously or not.

Tristan Scott

SO why bother?

Amaleq13

I don't recommend the activity to others but, personally, I obtain a perverse enjoyment trying to derive a reliable conclusion from such an enormously convoluted body of evidence.

spin

An apprenticeship in shoemaking would help you make decent shoes.


spin

spin

This was really a say-nothing response to what was posted for you.

Do you really have so little to say about everything? I mean other than speculation. We are attempting in the investigations here to follow certain rules based on substantive evidence in order to say things that can be analysed meaningfully (ie the evidence weighed and maybe accepted or dismissed), and I've seen so little substantive input from your posts, so why do you bother?


spin

Tristan Scott

I usually don't when I see you on a board. You usually add nothing to a discussion. You only lecture....boring.
My post was directed at Amaleq. He understood the question and answered it quite well.

spin

This doesn't answer the question. Why do you bother?

You haven't read enough to judge. I look for evidence.

I realise who your post was directed towards. I also noted that you didn't deal with the post you were responding to at all. No acknowledgement of content or reaction to it.


spin

Tristan Scott

You don't know what I have and haven't read, you don't have a clue. What I don't do is constantly regurgitate what I've read. When I read books, I use the information to form my own conclusions, if I draw conclusions at all. The concensus means little to me.

If you want to continue, send me a pm, otherwise stay on topic.

spin

Claiming to have read sufficient of my posts you said,

It would be better that you attempt to understand what people say in context rather than shoot yourself in the foot saying things like

My comments to you were about meaningful methodologies, not about any consensus. Had you read enough of my posts you would know this and my views on consensi. You happily demonstrate what you read by what you don't know.

What I have to say to you remains public until I get the idea you have something to say to me.

I'm not trying to be mean and nasty, but I do react to the logic of things like this: "All I'm doing, is all anyone can really do and that is speculate." We have to go beyond speculation, otherwise there is little value in the whole exercise. I and others here are attempting to say what we can about the religion(s) under analysis.


spin