RE: The Gospels

Tina, I have read some of the same things you have mentioned, I have also
studied the Nag Hammadi library as well as the pseudagraphia. Concerning
power structure than/now, there/here, and one thing I have learned about
people is that there is never one all controlling political group. One of
the dangers about looking at Judaica is assuming that the modern Rabbinical
views were extant then. Also, within Judaica now, there are quite a few
power struggles going on which some are willing to quite literally stone
others if they could. I am a Sephardi marrano who was raised in the Roman
Catholic Church in public but practiced our Judaism in secret for at least
14 generations in New Mexico and have since become a Christian (some call it
Messianic) but one thing is sure, not all your friends share your beliefs
not all your enemies believe a different faith. I have attended synagogue
and stayed for the debates after the meal (oneg) and have had the
congregation on the verge of stoning me (no hyperbole) and when the
discussion is over some of these same adversaries are keen on having me
attend the next oneg, go figure. To assume that the Pharisees and Sadducees
did not try to power play Jesus against each other and the people at large
not to mention misc sects is dangerous. If I remember right, there were
Jesus sympathizers in the Sanhedrin and even in the Roman occupying forces,
so the order of the day was challenged. But from Rome's perspective they
wanted complete strategic control but minimal tactical control (read costs)
and the Jewish leaders wanted local control but appreciated the convenience
of the 'scapegoatedness' of Rome's presence for their shortcomings not to
mention the lucrative benefits of providing local expertise to an empire
with a nice wallet (or purse); this all means that the situation on the
ground is a lot more complex than the one you are portraying. Surprisingly,
the New Testament portrays much of the complexity of what is going on
between the whole list of groups; Herod, Rome, Pharisees, Sadducees,
Scribes, Zealots, the down trodden masses, hellenized Jews, Hebracized
gentiles etc. It seems that Jesus message cut across this entire morass of
conflicting agendas or their lack there of.

Robbie, I appreciate your discussions of the linguistic subtleties.

Scottie, I am surprised that your head is so easily turned by a
transliterated Greek without all its native curves and wiggles.

Jim, I am laughing out loud, I read your "Finding Hulk" juxtaposed with your
Gospels comments and like an all star Line Backer, you are all over the
field.

Daniel

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 12:40:51 2003