I went to an outside source for an opinion on the websites. He's a prof that taught the pluralism class I took last semester. He says, with a disclaimer re: being an authority, the following....
I think that Waite's conclusion assumes a degree of cross-pollination that just wasn't possible in the first century, given time, distance, culture, etc. It also tends to "smash" together similarities without taking "otherness" seriously. His conclusions, frankly, seem more monistic than anything else, and fail to address the "otherness" of Hinduism vis-a-vis Christianity and vice-versa. Simply noting comparisons between heroic/messianic figures between traditions is not enough evidence on which to base a conclusion that one tradition could ONLY have arisen out of another. Variations of the "golden rule," for example, seem to have arisen independently of each other. We shouldn't have to conclude that one tradition came up with it first and then bequeathed it to all others... As if God could only work in one place at a time... Enough of my polemics... Peace, (end) You can see a reconstruction of history comes immediately into question for him as well. He is interested in other issues, like "taking otherness seriously." I'm still plodding along on the topic of historicity, etc., while trying to finish Becker. |
