Re: The Gospels

I don't think we need to apologize for our prejudices so much as just
understand them and how they work in our thinking -- it's too easy to
let the slimmest pretext for what we want to think obscure evidence
supporting what we don't want to think. Me too. If your feelings were
really so strong from the start (why? what difference does it make to
you personally? how can you be that certain either way about events
that happened or didn't happen 2000 years ago?) this is probably part of
what's happening. Most scholarship I've read assumes different
audiences for each of the Gospels, different community needs, thus a
different emphasis. I'd also say John's gospel seems more personal to
me -- there are passages (such as when the women go to the apostles
after seeing Christ resurrected) that seem to reflect a specific
physical location -- a particular physical point of view -- from which
the events are being told. This doesn't support apostolic authorship in
itself, of course, but does explain differences in writing style and
emphasis.

What I emphasize in my thinking is that the actual physical evidence
tends to lean toward traditional interpretations of the events and
authorship, while rejections of these usually require, at best, good
reading between the lines and at worst fundamentally dishonest
intellectual sleight of hand.

I've just read two biographies of William Blake and started a third
(along with biographical essays), and it's amazing how even a relatively
recent character can be described so differently by these different
writers. There are facts and ideas in common, of course, but also
serious differences. I think that's just what happens when you try to
describe a real human being. What would descriptions of you look like
coming from your family, your friends, and your co-workers (assuming
they went into detail)?

Jim

tina carson wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> I spent the last two days redecorating. I was inspired by House
> Invaders on BBC, and just went through my house in a hurry. This left
> a lot of time for thinking during the manual labor.
>
> So, I though I owe you an explanation. First, let me say that I have
> been speaking from an EXTREME prejudice I have regarding Christian
> mythology and the politics that formed it. I began research over a
> decade ago out of anger towards Christianity and now continue out of
> curiosity.
>
> My problem with John is that he sees Jesus as God, not a man, whereas
> the synoptics are at least an attempt at relaying a story, laying out
> the facts. I have far more confidence in some of the Nag Hammadi
> scrolls than in the 4 canonical gospels.
>
> I suggest a very interesting book called The Jesus Mysteries, the
> author escapes me at the moment. Although it doesn't;'t address
> problems with John specifically, it does explain where many of the
> mythos come from, and makes an excellent case for Jesus being a
> Gnostic, the fish symbol being a prime example.
>
> I realized that we were bogging ourselves down in unbelievably long
> reply-replies, and thought I'd start out fresh. So, if anyone would
> care to start at me, I'd be glad to address point-by-point instead of
> taking on the entire new testament in a single email.
>
> Again, my apologies for my knee-jerk replies based on my own prejudices.
> Namaste,
> tina

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Jul 28 09:00:39 2003