tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post8379601452408565062..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: Thinking about Tradition v. traditionApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-26498196673203608792010-04-30T08:38:50.535-07:002010-04-30T08:38:50.535-07:00One great advantage of von Stuckrad's "di...One great advantage of von Stuckrad's "discursive fields" is that it doesn't require the existence of an actual transmission of a set of doctrines through the centuries. This becomes particularly important when one studies alternate religious traditions and counter-religions. Here roughly the same doctrinal complexes recur throughout the centuries without any way to prove direct historical transmission -- in some instances, despite the implausibility of any direct historical transmission. <br /><br />Couliano in his _Tree of Gnosis_ elucidated the mechanism of such cases by means of his concept of "inverse exegesis." All that is needed, in the instances he studied, is a direct historical transmission of an orthodox text of the Bible and an orthodox tradition of its exegesis. Since every such text and every such exegesis poses problems to any attentive critical reader, and since there are only so many convenient and interesting solutions to these problems, attentive critical readers will repeatedly come up with the same complexes of alternate doctrines as they attempt to solve these problems. This gives rise, in the eyes of a modern historically-minded scholar, to the *illusion* that there must have been a means by which this doctrinal complex was transmitted over the centuries from an earlier adherent directly to a later adherent. But this is an illusion, and there need not be any such transmission, or "tradition" in the original, literal sense of the term.<br /><br />Similarly with counter-religions: all that is required here is for such a "counter-Traditional" doctrinal complex to claim the status of a religion. This, too, is a logical next move in the game of competing exegeses, and thus it can happen more than once independently of any historical transmission.Robert Mathiesenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09189466855334778278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-91916055417706261862010-04-22T06:55:08.716-07:002010-04-22T06:55:08.716-07:00April,
I would have loved to sit in on that discu...April,<br /><br />I would have loved to sit in on that discussion! I agree that the term "tradition" has become a loaded term, due to so many meanings ascribed to it.<br /><br />Concepts such as the plurality of gods in ancient Judaism and even Christianity seems to upset many people who claim to be "traditional" Christians. Yet, such was the tradition for some early Christians.<br /><br />Ed Jones notes two main Christian/Jesus movements prior to 65 CE. Paul also mentions other movements that were attempting to move in on his territory, including the Gnostics. So I would think there were at least 3 movements at hand in the timeframe he mentions.<br /><br />Later, traditions included the conflict between Arianism and Athanasian beliefs, Trinitarianism vs modalism, etc. While all of these are traditions, most "traditional" Christians today would not consider anything but their orthodoxy to be viewed as THE tradition.rameumptomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16109035792711248691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-86685248449798410802010-04-21T20:25:41.402-07:002010-04-21T20:25:41.402-07:00April,
Your statement which read in part: "h...April, <br />Your statement which read in part: "how careful I need to define the terms I am using in my academic writing - -".<br />Wouldn't this concern apply as well to common use of the term "Christian"- Christian Origins - Jewish Christianity as a nomenclature problem? Historicaly the term Christian was not coined until some time after 65 CE when it was applied to the mission of Paul and Barnabus. It was never applied to the Jerusalem Jesus Movement, which was never "Christian". This common use obscures the real period of origins of the Jesus tradition - the period 30 CE - 65 CE when there were two distinct movements - the Jerusalem Jewish Jesus Movement with its sayings tradition and the Pauline Passion Movement with its salvific death and resurrection tradition which became orthodox Christianity. The relation between the two movements was adversarsal.Ed Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06381736191202524168noreply@blogger.com