Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>While some might construct their view of the historical Jesus based upon the published findings of the Jesus Seminar, others may re-examine individual pericopae and argue that a change of 'colour' would be appropriate. Here it is suggested that the arguments offered by the Seminar to justify the colouring of one saying of Jesus—that a prophet is rejected in his home town (Gos. Thom. 31.1, Mk 6.4, Matt. 13.57, Lk. 4.24, and Jn 4.44)—as a (deep) pink are flawed. Arguments based upon multiple attestation, plausibility and embarrassment are considered and rejected, leading to the conclusion that black is the most appropriate colour for the saying. Two explanations for its inclusion in the Gospels are offered: that it is a proverb inserted by the writers because it mirrored their own circumstances, and the more speculative view that the saying was viewed as appropriate because of Jesus' own hyperbolic characterization of discipleship (cf. Lk. 14.26).</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2008
Keywords: JESUS AS PROPHET; REJECTION AT NAZARETH; METHODOLOGY; JESUS SEMINAR
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.