freigeister

Vorkosigan cites "Burridge's work on the Gospels as Greco-Roman biography." Here is a quotation from Richard A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2004. p.304:


Note that Burridge asserts that the Gospels are derived from Jewish material.

CJD

What ever do these two have to do with each other? Tell me, did the Jews actually worship on the day we now know as "Saturday"? Or rather did they simply keep one day in seven holy?

I wouldn't waste my time. Read Bauckham for starters.

What I disdain is ignorance and presumption. It happens at times when one's education largely exceeds that of his conversation partner. My apologies.

If you are able to pick out any significant points from the remainder of your post, please do restate them. I failed to see a coherent argument.

CJD

Toto

Mod advisory: This forum is for the discussion of Biblical Criticism and History, not for trading insults and sarcastic one-liners. Please keep this discussion on a higher plane. Even if you do have nothing but contempt for your opponent's position, you need to explain the basis for that contempt.

Amaleq13

His "point" was that the NT and Christianity were wholly Jewish in origin but your entire preceding paragraphy denies the actual claim made since you clearly take a less extreme position.

CJD

I read his 'point' to be that Christianity was wholly Jewish in origin — not the NT per se (as an isolated 'thing' apart from the events). The real issue here is what is meant by 'Judaism' (given that there was no such thing as monolithic Judaism, even during the 2nd Temple period). That said, I am persuaded that Christianity does indeed find its origin to be wholly Jewish. Indeed, I find it to be the very continuation of it.

Best,

CJD

Amaleq13

Please note that Crossan is talking about layers he finds within the completed Gospels and clearly describes some of them as at a "distance" from and attempting to "reinvent" Judaism.

That is a direct contradiction of your assertion that the NT is "wholly" Jewish.

Too bad that wasn't your initial assertion.

Note that Burridge clearly describes the Gospels as moving "from a Jewish environment to Graeco-Roman literature".

Amaleq13

I agree that it would be helpful to specifically define what is meant by "wholly Jewish".

Would you agree that how "Jewish" would be defined in Jerusalem is different from how it would be defined in the more distant areas where Jews had become part of and influenced by a predominantly Hellenistic society?

CJD

Absolutely. That explains much of the dynamics, arguments, and tensions we find within the NT writings.

freigeister

I quote Crossan and Burridge simply to show how they assert a Jewish origin for the Gospels. Once we have agreed that the origin of the Gospels is wholly Jewish, we can move on to discuss any Hellenistic influences that operate within our current version of the New Testament.

Amaleq13

I agree but it seems to me that the NT writings and, by implication, earliest Christianity, clearly favor the latter (Hellenistic Jews) over the former (Jerusalem Jews). When I see the phrase "wholly Jewish", however, it seems to me that the former better qualifies than the latter.

Is Q a "wholly Jewish" hypothetical source? Not if it contains sayings that closely resemble the Cynics.

Can the Gospel stories truly be considered "wholly Jewish" if they appear to be written as Greek literature and include Cynic-style sayings?

Are Paul's letters "wholly Jewish"? Not if he spends a considerable amount of time arguing against adherence to Jewish Law and trying to get non-Jews to qualify for divine promises made to the Jewish people.

Is Paul trying to Hellenize a Jewish belief or is he trying to Judaize a Hellenistic belief? Or is he trying to maintain a belief system that originated from within a Hellenistic-Jewish milieu?

Why would Jerusalem Jews persecute the earliest Christians if their beliefs were "wholly Jewish"?