tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post3536887257481178614..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Text and Tradition in Performance and WritingAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-91005211128363270932016-07-22T12:23:51.728-07:002016-07-22T12:23:51.728-07:00Thank you, Anonymous. Yes, I've read Crossley&...Thank you, Anonymous. Yes, I've read Crossley's book and learned a lot from it. I think there are some places where James is open to critique, and those places cluster especially around the specific task of dating the features of Mark's Gospel that James identifies. Also, his argument has had very little impact (as far as I am aware) on Markan or Jesus scholars dating of Mark (with the exception of Maurice Casey, who incorporates James's work thoroughly into his reconstruction of the historical Jesus). That, however, does not take away from the value of his book, which offers a lot of insight into our attempts to recover the thoroughly Jewish character of "earliest Christianity."Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-4518324740625388962016-07-16T07:56:44.918-07:002016-07-16T07:56:44.918-07:00Yes it does. Thank youYes it does. Thank youChadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-16526886532816571532016-07-15T22:38:09.808-07:002016-07-15T22:38:09.808-07:00Currently hooked on the article! It's been qui...Currently hooked on the article! It's been quite helpful (I'm probably going to read it a couple more times) I just saw that you foot noted James Crossley's book on the dating of the gospel of Mark. Do you think that he offers a plausible argument? (Haven't been able to read the book because it's quite expensive) Because if he does, I think it would have great implications towards the oral tradition argument (from the late 60's to the 40's!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-51785228695286724602016-07-09T20:02:50.242-07:002016-07-09T20:02:50.242-07:00Thank you, Anonymous, for your question. Honestly,...Thank you, Anonymous, for your question. Honestly, I haven't sought out reviews of Wright's book. There's a lot I think Wright gets right about Jesus and historical Jesus research, especially his claim that the application of criteria of authenticity were really only hypotheses about the historical Jesus working their way through the extant traditions. I also appreciate his programmatic effort to identify continuity as well as distinction between Jesus, his context, and his effects (put crudely, between Jesus, Judaism, and Christianity). Working out and understanding the points of continuity and distinction would reveal many points of disagreement between myself and Wright, and of course I would pay much more attention to traditioning processes (whether oral, textual, ritual, or whatever) and to memory than does Wright. But <i>Jesus and the Victory of God</i> is certainly an interesting part of the history of scholarship on Jesus.<br /><br />As I said, I don't have a review. But I do discuss (briefly) Wright's approach to Jesus in this article: "<a href="http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/174551909x447374" rel="nofollow">Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method</a>," <i>JSHJ</i> 7 (2009): 152–67.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-81904856243703118572016-07-09T19:45:52.697-07:002016-07-09T19:45:52.697-07:00Yes, it does.Yes, it does.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-71673302589505374792016-07-09T19:45:25.977-07:002016-07-09T19:45:25.977-07:00Thank you, Chad, for your question. I'm not su...Thank you, Chad, for your question. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. First Corinthians 15.3 is one of the instances in which an early Christian writer mentions early Christian traditioning, though sadly Paul does not say nearly as much as we would like. Who passed on this tradition to Paul? In what setting(s)? In what level of detail? etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />But yes: Of course the early Christians spoke about Jesus and about the traditions they received and passed on. Their communications were not limited to written texts, even though our evidence of their communications is.<br /><br />Does that address your question?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-47003902542058096162016-07-07T16:28:18.793-07:002016-07-07T16:28:18.793-07:00Awesome review! I was wondering (after reading you...Awesome review! I was wondering (after reading your review of Erhman's book) about what you think of Jesus and the victory of God by N.T. Wright. I am enthralled by the hypothesis he's making so far because it's critical in and of itself and I think it is grounded on good evidence (so far). He shortly talks about about the oral argument but doesn't going in depth into memory and whatnot. Is there a review of it on this site or any review in particular that you'd recommend I look at? Just trying to critically assess it to see if it holds up you know. Anyways, do you think it has a plausible hypothesis or are there any other works on the historical Jesus that you would recommend more? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-64225296854370867602016-07-06T14:16:21.650-07:002016-07-06T14:16:21.650-07:00I wonder whether "tradition" though, cap...I wonder whether "tradition" though, captures the chaos of oral or popular culture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-16872992709819113292016-07-05T09:16:41.993-07:002016-07-05T09:16:41.993-07:00Thanks for the post. I think I understand what you...Thanks for the post. I think I understand what you are getting at when you say that we need to move away from viewing traditions as materials contained within texts, as well as conceiving the texts themselves as actualizations or embodiments of potentialities. How would you understand different statements within texts that seem to refer to oral retellings which were passed on and received within the Christian community? I am thinking of 1 Cor 15:3 as one example. Chadhttp://www.julieandchad.comnoreply@blogger.com