Ted Hoffman

Thanks SM, I just went through them. Its true Tabors work got critical reviews.

Toto

In general, the more theologically conservative scholars are willing to attack the more liberal scholars, in particular those connected to the Jesus Seminar, and especially if the liberals threaten some item that bolsters the conservative view of history. Vernon Robbins was savaged for his article suggesting that the "we" passages in Acts could be explained as a literary device.

But the liberals in general have not returned the favor. I don't know if this is because they feel themselves under siege in neo-conservative American, or just because they don't have that sort of fight in them. Or it might be that the post-modern stance of modern academia makes it hard to state anything with any assurance outside of literary analysis.

So no one with "credentials" has made a point of criticizing the assumptions of the historical Jesus, except for Robert Price.

Solitary Man

That doesn't change the grammatical subject of a sentence. Perhaps you'd like to reword it so that it can be read without reading your thoughts?

Yes.

No.

You're missing the larger picture.

Do you have a page number?

Solitary Man

Did you really think that the "guild" is so merciful?

Ted Hoffman

I am beginning to think otherwise. But I am still skeptical because I have read the utter crap that people like NT Wright sometimes write. And nobody challenges him. And it makes me wonder - was Tabor taken on because his errors were so glaring? Was it because James Cameron and his gang capitalized on Tabor to make money using the Talpiot tomb?
For example, why do they (the so-called "guild") allow Sanders to get away with a blatant attempt at harmonizing Luke 2:1-2 and Matthew 2:1-3 regarding the year of birth of Jesus? Worse still, with silly and poorly argued claims like "similarities between 4BCE and 6CE led to confusion." Similarities between 4BCE and 6CE? Excuse me?
This renders Sanders an apologist, no better than JP Holding. And people like Goodacre let arguments like that slide past. How does that work? Who is supposed to watch the gates if they allow each other to get away with such arguments?
I will be away for the next two weeks or so and may not be posting as regularly. Cheers.

Solitary Man

That, my friend, is simply untrue. Even Jim West, a Baptist preacher, bewails the evils of "Wrightianism". N. T. Wright is not seriously taken by mainstream scholars. He's a theologian, and that's where he'll probably stay.

Probably a bit of both.

What good will it do to harp on such a minor matter?

At certain points, assuredly, but you really cannot compare. Sanders has much better work elsewhere, and he was the one who really broke the chains on Paul. If you read him through the biased framework of "Christian apologist v. scholar" then of course you'll find something (he is a Christian after all) which you'll harp on and accuse him thus of being an apologist. But Sanders is much more than that. And that sort of attack from you just shows that you really are ignorant (in the literal sense...sic tolle lege!) of his larger role and his better works.

grog225

Ted doesn't point out in his response to this that you've gone full circle. Ted points out that brother in galatians doesn't mean blood brother. Abe has supported his conclusion that it is by bringing in Mark and Matthew. Yet Mark is, if we are honestly considering the MJ position, an historicizing document; fleshing out the heavenly savior and placing him on earth. It would, then make sense that where Paul uses "brother" in a spiritual sense, Mark would turn it into an actual living blood relation (which would later spell trouble to be dealt with). So the position is weak here. We can't reinforce galatians with Mark and Matthew (derived in part from Mark). Galatians must stand on its own as a reference to an earthly Jesus. Does it?

this is stronger. I shall read on.

Roger Pearse

In the UK the reverse is the case.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you point out where such "savaging" occurred?

And you know this how?

Jeffrey

ApostateAbe

Yeah, it could very well be that the author of Mark saw that little line about James being the "brother" of the Lord, who was really just a spiritual brother, and so he turned him to a fleshly brother. That could be. It is an explanation that requires more of a stretch in probability than just saying that James was well-known to be an actual fleshly brother of Jesus.

There is an axiom in Christian Biblical studies that goes like so: "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." There will always be more than one possible interpretation to a passage, but the interpretation that prevails is the one that a normal reader of the ancient time and place would think if he were to read it.

Of course you can argue for a different interpretation than the "plain" one. But it needs evidence. If it is argued that Paul thought of Jesus as only spiritual and not ever fleshly, then the evidence needs to be presented. Otherwise, the "plain" sense of the passages that indicate both spirit and flesh are the ones that prevail.