Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-08-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Is this your Jesus?

No. More like this:

Solitary Man · 02-08-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Do tell, which one's the evil traitor???

Although he told me personally that he didn't mind if I told anyone, and I have before, I'd rather just send it to you privately. You'll understand when you see the name.

Quote:

So, because real life in those times is not what we were told in Sunday Skool, it is OK to go overboard in the other direction?

From what I've read of the context group, it hasn't gone in the other direction.

Quote:

You can get an alternate picture of 1st century life in Galilee and Judaea from John Dominic Crossan, Jonathan L Reed, K C Hanson, Douglas E Oakman, et al, that isn't quite as stilted.

I haven't read everyone on that list. I've read some Crossan, and disagree with many things he says. I like Reed - he's a good read, and has a lot of intelligent things to say. I'm afraid I should really look at Hanson and Oakman and the rest of the others' in particular works on Galilee before I can comment.

Quote:

Probably the best picture comes from books on archeology (but not archeology as it illuminates Christian or Jewish religion/circumstances - for example Excavating Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Crossan & Reed does tend to spin the evidence a bit).

For me it's the archaeological work which shows the pains the best. I think it was the average lifespan according to tombstone inscriptions in Italy was about 22, no later than 26. I'll have to ask my professor for the exact citation, as I long ago forgotten it.

All the best,

Solitary Man

DCHindley · 02-09-2008, 06:41 AM

Oh yeah, life was definitely shorter and more "spartan" in ancient times. For the majority (not the elite 2%-5% or the other 5% who were their retainers in the towns and cities) there was little washing (perfumes and aeromatics had to suffice), no amenities like running water, truly warm clothing, toilet paper, electricity, self propelled vehicles, formal education, hard farm labor was the rule regardless of season, houses were small and drafty, shared with animals, fleas, ticks and flies (for which I suppose you had homemade topical repellants that probably smelled like the dickens or were greasy), no access to healthcare professionals, staples of bread (course barley for the farmers, wheat for the villagers and townspeople) and sauces (meat? only on special occasions).

It's amazing we can even relate to them at all. However, 90% of what we know came from the elite classs who had the leisure and resources to learn to read, write, bathe, get healthcare, eat well, be warm and bug free, etc. We probably know even less about the common people than we even think.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

From what I've read of the context group, it hasn't gone in the other direction.

I haven't read everyone on that list. I've read some Crossan, and disagree with many things he says. I like Reed - he's a good read, and has a lot of intelligent things to say. I'm afraid I should really look at Hanson and Oakman and the rest of the others' in particular works on Galilee before I can comment.

Quote:

Probably the best picture comes from books on archeology (but not archeology as it illuminates Christian or Jewish religion/circumstances - for example Excavating Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Crossan & Reed does tend to spin the evidence a bit).

For me it's the archaeological work which shows the pains the best. I think it was the average lifespan according to tombstone inscriptions in Italy was about 22, no later than 26. I'll have to ask my professor for the exact citation, as I long ago forgotten it.

All the best,

Solitary Man

Zeichman · 02-09-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I would have no reservations about ecstatically recommending that book, either. I would side with Malina in questioning the relevance of modern psychology in the interpretation of biblical literature, for a variety of reasons (pre-Enlightenment writings, collective personalities, importance of stereotyping, etc.). DeMaris wrote an excellent article published in JSNT 80:3-30 about Jesus' Baptism and altered modes of consciousness in the ancient world. He contends that Mark 1:10-11
are, contrary to almost all post-Bultmann scholarship, more likely to be authentic than anything else in Mark's narration of Jesus' baptism. He argues that Jesus' Baptism was affixed to another (embarrassing) tradition about Jesus having a vision without an accompanying ritual, as would be socially acceptable. Certainly, he did an excellent job of problematizing the status quo.
However, I think you might be right to criticize some of the Context Group's most prolific writers as writing less technical works in effort of "making a point." However, given the prevalence of irresponsible interpretations that are diametrically opposed to a social-scientifically informed reading of the bible (dominant Christian teachings on sexuality and sexual-orientation come to mind), I can hardly blame them for seeking to rectify such. I was talking to a friend the other day and we agreed that half of the experience one needs to teach a "theology of sexuality and marriage" college course would be familiarity with culturally-informed readings of Biblical verses relating to such.
To disclose this, DeMaris taught at my undergrad institution, but I never took a course with him.

An example in point is Gerd Theissen, who wrote several books that proposed to describe the sociological context for the development of early Christianity. The English translations were _Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity_ (1978), _Psychological aspects of Pauline Theology_ (1987), and Social Reality and the Early Christians_ (1992).
...

There's a huge difference between "sociological" and "cultural anthropological." One certainly needn't commit to itinerancy if they find social-scientific work on the NT important. I don't. I think Arnal and Horsley did a sufficiently good job breaking down the subtexts, problematic logic, and poor use of sociological models of the itinerancy hypothesis, not forgetting those other scholars you mention.

Solitary Man · 02-09-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It's amazing we can even relate to them at all.

Well, we're all still human.

Quote:

However, 90% of what we know came from the elite classs who had the leisure and resources to learn to read, write, bathe, get healthcare, eat well, be warm and bug free, etc. We probably know even less about the common people than we even think.

Reading private correspondence shows just how little we really relate to even the upper class.

Cheers,

SM

JohnG · 02-13-2008, 01:21 AM

In doing some reading about ancient shamanic cultures, I stumbled across a medical history article that mentioned "Otzi". He was the iceman the hikers found atop a mountain on the border of Austria and Italy.

In his bag, they found amanita muscaria. It would seem that this was not relegated to Siberian culture, but was in more widespread use.

This is the type of evidence I am looking for in regards to the importance of mind-altering substances being used by ancient cultures.

I doubt I will ever find any real evidence, but I suspect that foundational Christianity (pre Roman, of course) was pretty heavy into it.

It's just a feeling from reading between the lines about their beliefs and actions. I thought the link provided by spamandham reinforced this idea as well. It turned an inkling into a hunch.

It may turn out that Christians had nothing to do with it, and it was purely forms of other ASC that fueled their "spiritual ecstasy".

The quote from acts 2 from arnoldo was appreciated, indicating they at least waited until nine before they started drinking, but what was it that inspired the glossalia? Acts 2.4 says "they were all filled with the holy ghost". That could be interpreted as being on another level of consciousness.

There have been some good posts in this thread about day-to-day living in those times, I would like to hear more on that subject.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2008, 01:21 AM	#56
JohnG Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Coast, Canada Posts: 333	In doing some reading about ancient shamanic cultures, I stumbled across a medical history article that mentioned "Otzi". He was the iceman the hikers found atop a mountain on the border of Austria and Italy. In his bag, they found amanita muscaria. It would seem that this was not relegated to Siberian culture, but was in more widespread use. This is the type of evidence I am looking for in regards to the importance of mind-altering substances being used by ancient cultures. I doubt I will ever find any real evidence, but I suspect that foundational Christianity (pre Roman, of course) was pretty heavy into it. It's just a feeling from reading between the lines about their beliefs and actions. I thought the link provided by spamandham reinforced this idea as well. It turned an inkling into a hunch. It may turn out that Christians had nothing to do with it, and it was purely forms of other ASC that fueled their "spiritual ecstasy". The quote from acts 2 from arnoldo was appreciated, indicating they at least waited until nine before they started drinking, but what was it that inspired the glossalia? Acts 2.4 says "they were all filled with the holy ghost". That could be interpreted as being on another level of consciousness. There have been some good posts in this thread about day-to-day living in those times, I would like to hear more on that subject.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.