Re: The Gospels

That was a good response, Daniel. I think one way bias works is to see
those we disagree with as being "politically" movtivated while those we
agree with as being
 "honest." The reality is that every belief or position can be defined
in terms of a political alliance of some sort; even transcendent truth,
once it shows up, starts looking like just another player on the field
(to steal your analogy).

So this approach doesn't really tell us why we should choose the Nag
Hammandi documents over the Christian Scriptures as more reliable --
both are politicized to a certain extent, and the full extent of the
politicization of each is somewhat lost to us. I don't think there's
any question the early Christian church wanted to be seen by the Roman
Empire in a positive light. Given their position, I don't blame them.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>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
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Jul 28 13:27:11 2003