tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post113502186497581064..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Response to Mark Goodacre and Stephen Carlson by Gerd LüdemannMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-54533140291690959102007-05-27T11:17:00.000-04:002007-05-27T11:17:00.000-04:00It would help the reader if you would cease using ...It would help the reader if you would cease using CAPS which have the connotation of shouting and are difficult to read. <BR/><BR/>Cheers, <BR/><BR/>Stephen C. RoseStephen C. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07769778698884528600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1136567163127544092006-01-06T12:06:00.000-05:002006-01-06T12:06:00.000-05:00Ludemann- 1. Indeed you have no time for 'the nuan...Ludemann- <BR/><BR/>1. Indeed you have no time for 'the nuances [and niceties] of scholastic debate'. Which leads you to make judgements about 'facts' which are immpossible within the field of biblical scholarship. The flexibility and ambiguities within scripture are as essential to honest scholarship as the 'facts' you appeal to. <BR/><BR/>2.Your accusation that the Gospel writers have undergone a 'radical revision' or 'manufactured out of a whole cloth a citation in order to give scriptural authority' is at odds with the nature of biblical authorship- which tends to observe facts and seek to understand them through the ancient scriptures. <BR/><BR/>3. This childish rather agressive statement comes across less as a statement of fact and more as a pious display of emotion- 'invention. lie. call it what you will'. Surely you are aware of that different disciplines employ different methods of epistemology. <BR/><BR/>4. 'can it be that Mr Goodacre does not recognise the difference between fairies and angels?'- or 'can it be that Mr Ludemann cannot recognise the difference between humour and arguement?' <BR/><BR/>5. 'Is it to register a plethora of objections in an attempt to bolster a tenuous case?' I don't know is that what you are attempting to do Mr Ludemann? With your clever rhetorical questions- please answer that I'm serious. <BR/><BR/>6. Finally you conclude your response 'Yes, an imagery that has nothing to do with the historical facts. That was my point all along!'. I just find it amusing that it took Mr Goodacre to draw the point out for you. Perhaps that is because your overly emotional manner overshadowed the somewhat more constructive point you were making!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135091287906010112005-12-20T10:08:00.000-05:002005-12-20T10:08:00.000-05:00Bishop John Shelby Spong, likes to remind people w...Bishop John Shelby Spong, likes to remind people what his seminary (Virginia Theological Seminary) has as its motto, "Seek the truth, come whence it may, cost what it will." If we really are all interested in that, i.e., seeking the truth, then all these discussions have merit as a way of seeking the truth. <BR/><BR/>As to the comment about, "ORGANIZED RELIGION" -"IMPOSE[ing] OUTMODED MYTHS AND CREEDS ON A PUBLIC AND A BODY POLITIC", Spong is a Bishop in the Episcopal Church and shares all of the concerns given Ludemann's press release. Even "organized religion" should be wide enough for all seekers of the truth - however divergent their ideas.Whit+https://www.blogger.com/profile/11230181113950441099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135077169136700792005-12-20T06:12:00.000-05:002005-12-20T06:12:00.000-05:00Shorter Lüdemann: I don't want there to be a god. ...Shorter Lüdemann: I don't <I>want</I> there to be a god. <BR/> --sAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135072577169759552005-12-20T04:56:00.000-05:002005-12-20T04:56:00.000-05:00There is one incomplete phrase which I submitted; ...There is one incomplete phrase which I submitted; This is point 4 in complete:<BR/>4. Mark does not clarify that Nazareth was Jesus' home - compare this to Matthew 2:23, which says "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene'.". Further, Capernaum can be translated, as Zindler (2000) has pointed out, as "Home of the Paraclete". On stylistic grounds, (the author of Mark is fond of using names that have theological significance) this favours Capernaum, over Nazareth, as the place where Mark placed Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Jacob AlietAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135072111473559762005-12-20T04:48:00.000-05:002005-12-20T04:48:00.000-05:00Goodacre writes: "Jesus was born in Nazareth"This ...Goodacre writes: "Jesus was born in Nazareth"<BR/><BR/>This is not correct. For the following reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. The expression "Nazirite", from Judges 13:5-7 "he will be a Nazirite (LXX naziraios)", was mistranslated by Matthew to mean "from Nazareth". This is a mistranslation because the term "nazarenos" is not derivable from Nazareth/Nazaret (which would yield a gentilic like nazarethnos). <BR/><BR/>The term "Nazarene" may refer to a place of origin, or it may be used as a sectarian designation, but the variants nazarhnos and nazwraios (Mk 10:47), which we find in the Alexandrian texts, cannot be linked linguistically, etymologically, or otherwise, to Nazareth. This means that:<BR/><BR/>2. The earliest texts, do not contain "Nazareth". This means that the idea that Jesus was born in Nazareth is a later tradition.<BR/><BR/>3. Mark, the first gospel, identifies Jesus' home as Capernaum (2:1), Not Nazareth. The only occurence of Nazareth in Mark is problematic on stylistic grounds. Turton notes (in Historical Commentary of the Gospel of Mark) that "the usage of 'Nazareth' is apparently untypical of the writer's style. Gundry (1993, p388) notes that in Mark's entire gospel only in v9 does he place a geographical location in a larger context (Nazareth....of Galilee)." <BR/><BR/>4. Mark does not clarify that Nazareth was Jesus' home - compare this to . Further, Capernaum can be translated, as Zindler (2000) has pointed out, as "Home of the Paraclete". On stylistic grounds, (the author of Mark is fond of using names that have theological significance) this favours Capernaum, over Nazareth, as the place where Mark placed Jesus.<BR/><BR/>5. Based on the 2SH, which argues for Markan priority, plus the above arguments, we can conclude that Goodacre is incorrect to state that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Indeed, the first gospel lacks a birth narrative, which points us to the idea voiced by scholars like Crossan, that the birth narrative is a later tradition and probably brought with it the idea that Jesus was born in Nazareth.<BR/><BR/>Jacob AlietAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135032408015898972005-12-19T17:46:00.000-05:002005-12-19T17:46:00.000-05:00Ludemann wrote (to Carlson):I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU E...Ludemann wrote (to Carlson):<BR/><BR/>I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU ENGAGE MY TONE, SIR, BUT MY IDEAS AND MY ARGUMENTS; AND I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU PUT OFF DOING SO BECAUSE YOU ARE PUT OFF BY SO GOSSAMER A THING AS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY RHETORICAL STYLE.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that people often don't want to engage the arguments of someone whose tone is off-putting. I would suggest to Ludemann that many of his important ideas will find wider reception (in the long run) if he allows himself to be a more rewarding conversation partner.Loren Rosson IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135032130442584522005-12-19T17:42:00.000-05:002005-12-19T17:42:00.000-05:00IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATIONALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY B...IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATIONALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE, MORALITY, AND ASPIRATION.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm ... Has he never enageged with postmodernism? Whose rationality? And what exactly (or whose exactly) are these scientifically based principles? It seems to me that one should exercise a hermeneutic of suspicion towards his rhetoric here.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135031992616609712005-12-19T17:39:00.000-05:002005-12-19T17:39:00.000-05:00Ludemann wrote:[GOODACRE] SEEMS TO SUFFER FROM A S...Ludemann wrote:<BR/><BR/>[GOODACRE] SEEMS TO SUFFER FROM A SIMILAR CONFUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE TERM "FAIRY TALE,” WHICH INDICATES AN INCREDIBLE STORY WITH OR WITHOUT FAIRIES IN THE CAST OF CHARACTERS.<BR/><BR/>As I pointed out in <A HREF="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2005/12/ludemann-and-goodacre-on-christmas.html" REL="nofollow">my own blogpost</A>, there is a distinction between myths and fairy tales. The former are believed, the latter are not. The infancy narratives are myths.Loren Rosson IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135026595008888842005-12-19T16:09:00.000-05:002005-12-19T16:09:00.000-05:00Yikes! PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT LIKE MANY OTHERS I A...Yikes!<BR/><BR/><I> PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT LIKE MANY OTHERS I AM EQUALLY RESENTFUL OF ATTEMPTS ON THE PART OF ORGANIZED RELIGION TO IMPOSE OUTMODED MYTHS AND CREEDS ON A PUBLIC AND A BODY POLITIC WHO PREFER TO LEAD THEIR LIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATIONALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE, MORALITY, AND ASPIRATION.</I><BR/><BR/>...... if you care to look, you can find that science and religion need not be enemies - check out the <A HREF="http://www.counterbalance.org" REL="nofollow">Counterbalance Foundation</A>crystalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05681674503952991492noreply@blogger.com