Post Reply
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
7 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 11:15AM #31
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,964
Bob,

Apropos of your comments about needing more Associates, what are your thoughts about a regular "Associates page" in the FourthR? I know we've had something like this on an occasional basis, but I think it needs to be in every issue. And I think it's important that the Associates be given a greater voice in the explorations of the Seminar.

The ability to participate more in the deliberations would be very attractive to potential Associates and current Associates alike.

Your thoughts?:)
Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 1:35PM #32
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,964
Bob,

As a follow-up to my previous post regarding an Associates' Page:

Either as an alternative or in addition to the previous idea, if a page on the Westar website could be dedicated to Associates as a place where they could post short essays that could then be discussed here on the Jesus Seminar Board, that would give the Associates an active participation in the process. It's much easier to attract participants than it is spectators.:)

Thoughts?
Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 4:32PM #33
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
Not because it is a hypothesis, Bob, because it is a poor one, according to the scholars that convince me.

Incidentally, I do agree... I disagree that associates, unless they have doctorates in cogent fields, should be publishing articles in 4th R. In my field, one of the most irritating thinga with which I deal is the "expert" who has no education or experience in my field making sweeping generalizations... Like I do in your field! (There is only one scholar, though, with whom I have been annoyed enough to really argue - Brandon.
Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 5:02PM #34
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
I had, I thought, a post from a scholarly egroup suggesting that Acts generally appeared (in early collections) connected with the epistles, as opposed to Luke, but I can't for the life of me find the post or remember who mentioned it (not that I'd quote it without permission), and in what context. If my memory is correct, that would "sit well" with the notion of Acts being written to "explain" Paul versus Marcion.
Dennis


Gee, Walther, I found the evidence and can quote it because it was me! (I actually had some information that was worthwhile.) Here is the quote:

It was asked, "If Luke and Acts were originally published as one work, should Luke be considered the same as the other gospels?"

I was looking for something else when I came upon some writings of David Trobisch, which stated that in all but rare circumstances Acts was published with the general letters. It was not published in a unit with the gospels, generally. http://www.religion-online.org/showarti … c439066005

Dennis XXXX XXXXXXXXX
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 9:15PM #35
KrisK10
Posts: 63
[QUOTE=Bob Miller;255253]In responding to Kris K's last essay, I post a reply with trepidation, since each paragraph of mine elicits pages of further criticism.  Kris is obviously extremely well-informed on this topic, and far more interested in it than I am (he's already written more on it than I have).  So I won't quarrel with any of his assertions.  I will, for the sake of not provoking a further argument, grant his position on Justin, and come back to what I'm really interested in: what Matthew thought he was writing.  That the "P word" meant virgin to at least some Jews at the time of Justin's writing (about 150) does not, without further evidence, entail that Matthew would have seen that meaning in the last quarter of the first century.  The Pword shifted in its meanings over time and in most of its uses it can take more than one meaning, depending on context.  Because my interest is in Matthew and not in Justin (or the second century), I take my interpretive clues from Matthew's literary and religious context.  If you want more, see the chapter in my book (or wait a few months for my 4R article "Did Matthew Believe in the Virgin Birth?"  - the answer is "no" if you haven't picked up on my overly obvious hints). 

Kris, I fear that you and I are in danger of boring our friends if we go into this further.  I'm certainly in danger of boring myself.  I respect your arguments and if I ever revisit this issue in print I will certainly take them into account.

Bob[/QUOTE]


Bob,

Thanks for the exchange and I appreciate your thoughts.

Kris
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 9:15PM #36
KrisK10
Posts: 63
[QUOTE=Bob Miller;255253]In responding to Kris K's last essay, I post a reply with trepidation, since each paragraph of mine elicits pages of further criticism.  Kris is obviously extremely well-informed on this topic, and far more interested in it than I am (he's already written more on it than I have).  So I won't quarrel with any of his assertions.  I will, for the sake of not provoking a further argument, grant his position on Justin, and come back to what I'm really interested in: what Matthew thought he was writing.  That the "P word" meant virgin to at least some Jews at the time of Justin's writing (about 150) does not, without further evidence, entail that Matthew would have seen that meaning in the last quarter of the first century.  The Pword shifted in its meanings over time and in most of its uses it can take more than one meaning, depending on context.  Because my interest is in Matthew and not in Justin (or the second century), I take my interpretive clues from Matthew's literary and religious context.  If you want more, see the chapter in my book (or wait a few months for my 4R article "Did Matthew Believe in the Virgin Birth?"  - the answer is "no" if you haven't picked up on my overly obvious hints). 

Kris, I fear that you and I are in danger of boring our friends if we go into this further.  I'm certainly in danger of boring myself.  I respect your arguments and if I ever revisit this issue in print I will certainly take them into account.

Bob[/QUOTE]


Bob,

Thanks for the exchange and I appreciate your thoughts.

Kris
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2008 - 11:05AM #37
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
THE APOCALYPTIC/SAPIENTIAL JESUS

Dr. Miller,

I recognize that it's possibly too late to submit another question, but I'll put it out there as food for thought.  Based on your editing of The Apocalyptic Jesus: A debate: Allison, Borg, Crossan, Patterson, and subsequent research:

In your opinion, what is the most compelling rationale for an apocalyptic Jesus? sapiential Jesus?, or did he integrate both?  By apocalyptic I'm thinking of the expectation of an imminent future figure, either of judgment, and/or of ushering in God's kingdom.  Perhaps one of the reasons that apocalyptic got applied so strongly to Jesus is the undefined surprise/expectation component of the parables.

I have argued in the group at various times, with no concensus achieved, that the apocalyptic aspects of the gospels are the contribution of the converts from the JBap followers, and that Q could have been a narrative from that group.  If there was an historical Jesus, I see the parables as having the best chance of representing what we can know about him; I think that you have stated something similar about the parables. 

I think I see it, and others here have argued as well, that the apocalyptic Jesus is one of the very strong reasons for the woes of the world, perpetuating the future expectation in order to preserve Jesus' divinity, cementing the judgmental/violent nature of God, holding inviolate our faith in Jesus while deemphasizing the faith of Jesus, holding inviolate after life expectations while deemphasizing
the transformation of dehumanizing institutions, and so forth.

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2008 - 7:59PM #38
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
This question probably really is too last minute, but it seems to me to be quite important, and it was raised in some form a number of weeks ago by a member of the egroup, but the name eludes me right now.  Anyway the question:

When votes are taken in the Acts, Origins, and Paul seminars, is there a "rule" that (1) one cannot vote unless one is convinced of a position based on one's own research, or (2) are the fellows allowed to vote based pretty much only on how convincing the presented paper might be?  If (2) is the  "rule," is that a change from the 80's-90's when the votes were taken on what teachings and events represented the historical Jesus?

Part of my reason for asking is selfish.  I find myself agreeing with most of what the JS accomplished in 5G and AOJ, but not so much on the votes in these other seminars.

In your opinion, have the "voters" become more liberal or conservative or whatever than the voters in the 5G and AOJ research, or is it basically the same people with the same approach?

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2008 - 8:10PM #39
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
Peter[/QUOTE]


Peter, what are you referring to when you mention the "Church of Westar"?  Your disdain for it is clear enough ("politically correct" being a term of abuse which, I guess, is supposed to wound liberals, since liberals coined it as a self-mockery), but I'm not certain what exactly you think it is.  I ask because some associates have lobbied for Westar to become a quasi-church, something from which the scholars have recoiled.  If people like the well-informed folks in this discussion have the impression that Westar is morphing into a denomnation, then Westar needs to devote more effort to dispelling that impression.   

Bob[/QUOTE]


Yep, Bob, "Westar needs to devote more effort to dispelling that impression."
Westar credo:
I believe in the non-apocalyptic Jesus,
who was a non-violent itinerant Cynic sage who
was recorded into a writing named Q
so that all of those who came of age in the peace movements of the sixties
may find their way back to the light
to the historical Jesus
who loves you because his empire was within and without,
I believe in
the Q, the non-apocalyptic, the Cynic from Galilee,
in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only Jesus in any other way than by saying that the non-apocalyptic, the Q, and the Holy Cynic are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons -- the non-apocalyptic, the Q, and the Holy Cynic, three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the non-apocalyptic, and of the Q, and of the Holy Cinic." (Apologies to Tertullian, Against Praxeas 2).

Did I tell you folks I was a satirist?
Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2008 - 10:02PM #40
PeterKane
Posts: 63
[QUOTE=Bob Miller;257453]Bob:  I was trying to finish Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism tonight, but I was struck by a paragraph in his description of the function of Disciples in Matthew, and immediately your comment above came to mind.  Against G. Strecker, who argued that for Matthew, 'Jesus and the disciples are set in unrepeatable, holy past', Overman's objection to this idea was that, according to the sociology of knowledge, 'the text always interacts and is influenced by the setting and horizon of the writer...'

Well, so what.  I never met Bob Funk personally, and I very much regret that.  However, everything  of his I read  tells me that while he was an exceptional and creative scholar, he never lost sight of the fact that he was functioning in a very public context, and deliberately so.  Society in this century has its axes of power as did the first century.  And Funk knew how to play them.  And he influenced other scholars to do the same.

I don''t think much of the notion of the politically correct Church of Westar.  But neither do I think that the academic efforts of Westar are done in a vacuum.  There are power structures out here that are impacted by what you do.  There are ways we have of relating to each other in the hinterlands, that are either held up, or challenged.  It isn't just the academics alone.  It is also the public interaction that is equally as important.  And each influences the other.  Do both well.

Peter[/QUOTE]


Peter, what are you referring to when you mention the "Church of Westar"?  Your disdain for it is clear enough ("politically correct" being a term of abuse which, I guess, is supposed to wound liberals, since liberals coined it as a self-mockery), but I'm not certain what exactly you think it is.  I ask because some associates have lobbied for Westar to become a quasi-church, something from which the scholars have recoiled.  If people like the well-informed folks in this discussion have the impression that Westar is morphing into a denomnation, then Westar needs to devote more effort to dispelling that impression.   

Bob[/QUOTE]

Bob:  When you open up scholarship the way Westar has, it is like shining light on a new world.  The problem can easily become though, gee, why can't other people in the pews understand it the way I now do.  How can we save them from themselves - maybe an adult discussion group where I can enlighten them.  Been there, done that.  Still doing it as a matter of fact.  I am growing this nice little group of enlightened people, who are now beginning to enjoy how they nicely get it, whilst others are 'left behind' so to speak.

What is wrong with this picture?  It is too easy to forget that when you unwrap Jesus in public the way Westar has done, what really gets exposed is the power structure of how people relate to each other in communities.  In fact, I am leading a discussion of Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography at the moment, and Sunday we will be discussing the kingdom chapter.  I want them to understand the difference between apocalyptic and sapiential, and how and why communities come to think in one or the other of those thought patterns.  The difference between Crossan and Schweitzer, etc.  Nice stuff.

But much more than that, I want them to go on beyond the kingdom vision, and capture a vision for today.  I want them to see where all the damn power structures reside in the church, and where all the symbols are that support that power structure.

I think the academics has to be excellent.  I thought I knew stuff, but am constantly amazed at someone like Kloppenborg, who seems to be just a bottomless resevoir.  Wish I had given up model railroading for Wester years ago.  But the real object is not just to transfer that kind of knowledge.  I also would recoil at a Westar quasi-church.  On the other hand, ultimately the scholarship leads us to question how we do power in relation to others in community.  There is this unspoken relationship between scholarship and how we think of power, and whether we realize it or not, the two are jointed at the hip.  Westar doesn't work in a vacuum.

Peter
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook