Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-03-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

Spin, I could see this to some extent if the authors were essentially Hellenized apostate Jews in the Diaspora, but I can't see it from devout Jews simply due to the extreme hostility directed toward Jews in the writings. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You seem to be supposing a rabbinical orthodoxy which did not exist until after the loss of Jerusalem. We are in a time when there were numerous Judaisms. Hellenized apostate Jews have nothing to do with the conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

One of the things that I think complicates the whole "Messiahship" issue is that one tends to think of Jews and Judaism at the time as one homogenous group,...

(...which comes to mind when one assumes Hellenized apostate Jews...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

...when in fact, Jews were anything but that. (Still aren't!) The different factions were so different from one another that it's impossible to speak of a group as "Jews" and actually mean anything by it.

This is what makes me puzzled at your attack at Jews in the diaspora who might have been involved in a Hellenized Jesus project. Remember that Philo was a devout Jew, but still understood the world through a Judaism steeped in Greek thought.

spin

Chris Weimer · 10-03-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

Spin, I could see this to some extent if the authors were essentially Hellenized apostate Jews in the Diaspora, but I can't see it from devout Jews simply due to the extreme hostility directed toward Jews in the writings. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You'll first have to lose the anachronism - paraphrasing a great paper on Judaism in the empire, while Philo may have thought Jews that only went to synagogue on Yom Kippur were not pious, other Jews disagree. There wasn't a single monolithic "Judaism" under which the Jews varied according to "devoutness". It didn't even necessitate belief in only one God - several Jewish funerary inscriptions in Latin start with "dis manibus".

Quote:

One of the things that I think complicates the whole "Messiahship" issue is that one tends to think of Jews and Judaism at the time as one homogenous group, when in fact, Jews were anything but that. (Still aren't!) The different factions were so different from one another that it's impossible to speak of a group as "Jews" and actually mean anything by it. There were groups that wanted to do away with the Temple cult, groups that didn't recognize the oral law only the written, groups that emphasized the oral over the written, groups that wanted to (and did) take up arms against the Romans, groups that propounded daily immersion in the mikvah. Some factions believed in resurrection, some didn't; some wanted to include gentiles, some wanted to exclude them. Some thought the Last Days were upon them, some didn't. Some were hoping for an imminent Messiah; some weren't. I don't know that it's possible to construct a picture of what THE Jewish Messiah was at the time, because there was just no agreement amongst the groups.

Yes, which is why your first comment doesn't make sense with this comment.

Chris Weimer

judge · 10-03-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

If Xianity is anything it is eclectic - logos is an obvious import.

And there seems to be some evidence for Paul knowing if not the writings of Philo at least his thoughts on the logos -- a good Jewish idea that, coming from the Platonic school to Alexandria and absorbed by the good diaspora Jew, Philo.

spin

ARe you getting paul confused with John?
Where does Paul mention logos?

Sarai · 10-03-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is what makes me puzzled at your attack at Jews in the diaspora who might have been involved in a Hellenized Jesus project. Remember that Philo was a devout Jew, but still understood the world through a Judaism steeped in Greek thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

You'll first have to lose the anachronism - paraphrasing a great paper on Judaism in the empire, while Philo may have thought Jews that only went to synagogue on Yom Kippur were not pious, other Jews disagree. There wasn't a single monolithic "Judaism" under which the Jews varied according to "devoutness".

Spin and Chris--I'm sorry, I had no intention to attack the Jews in the Diaspora. The point I was trying to make was that I could not envision the authors of the texts in question being a Jew who had any investment in their own "Jewishness" (however they would have defined it) simply because of the anti-Jewish slant of the texts in question. Also, it seemed more likely to me that a nominally Jewish individual might be more likely to make mistakes regarding Jewish ritual, etc., than a devout--or if you prefer--practicing Jew. I meant absolutely no disrespect to the Jews in the Diaspora! For heaven's sake--I'm one of 'em!

Sarai

TedM · 10-03-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Beside the bald declaration that some passage is messianic, what relevance does any of this have to do with the issue? The suffering servant passage, as anyone should know is about Israel. The sacrificial lamb analogy is anti-messianic. Still you refuse to understand that you need to understand what "messiah" indicates in the two centuries before the death of Simon bar Kochba.

Why? So that we can all agree that Jesus didn't meet the expected requirements? So what does that imply to you?

Quote:

You don't make sense. A dead Jesus, be he crucified or fried, has nothing to do with the messiah.

My point went right over your head.. A belief in the resurrected Jesus has a lot to do with whether the early Christians believed the Messiah would rise from the dead had they thought he might be the Messiah prior to his crucifixion.

Quote:

Would you like to give specific references that demonstrate that Jesus was the messiah, rather than just writers labeling him that way?

Why should I? What point would that serve?

Quote:

I presented a second possibility regarding Jesus and messiahship, that of the writers knowingly projecting messiahship onto Jesus (ie they basically knew that he wasn't), rather than Jesus being the messiah.

How can you say they basically knew that Jesus wasn't the Messiah? Just because he didn't fit the orthodox understanding of a Messiah? Why are you able to read their minds in contrast to what they clearly say--ie that Jesus was the Messiah? That's why they called him "the Christ". Why are you downplaying their blatantly obvious position in this matter that anyone who has even a vague familiarity with their materials can see?

ted

TedM · 10-03-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

The point I was trying to make was that I could not envision the authors of the texts in question being a Jew who had any investment in their own "Jewishness" (however they would have defined it) simply because of the anti-Jewish slant of the texts in question.

Hi Sara.

Was Mark a Jew? I don't know. Is GMark anti-Jewish? Attacks on pharisees for hypocrasy and the account of the arrest, trial and crucifixion aren't "anti-Jewish" if they are fairly accurate accounts of what actually happened. The disciples were Jewish, and Jesus said he came for the Jews, not the Gentiles in GMark, so I'm curious what you consider to be evidence of anti-Jew sentiments.

ted

DCHindley · 10-03-2007, 08:13 PM

Hi Sarai,

I'm glad someone else acknowledges the anti Jewish tone of parts of the Gospels and the Pauline letters. However, many critics still want to believe that the Gospels and the Paulines, as they have been handed to us, were written by authors who were Jewish by ethnicity. Some of them, IMHO, emphasize the differences between groups of Jews as a means to explain (away) how these "Jewish" authors could be so self citical at times.

Like you I think the authors of the gospels knew a lot about Judaism, but in an imprefect way that suggests they were outsiders who had studied it, perhaps through Greek translation only. However, something must have happened to make them so critical of Jews in general, yet still find something of value in Jewish scripture. My guess would be fallout from the rebellion in Judaea, Idumea and Galilee 66-73 CE, which generated cases of intense cross cultural ill will that resembles the Tutsi-Hutu and Serb-Muslim animosity of recent times, including former neighbors and friends visiting many of the same kinds of atrocities upon one another (at least in the regions in direct rebellion and in nearby regions like Coele Syria).

These gentile outsiders, it seems to me, came to feel that they understood God's will better than the Jewish people themselves, and revised their self-definition so that they became God's chosen people in the place of natural born Jews, who they felt had proven themselves inadequate to the task.

The Pauline letters, however, pose a different problem. I identify an original author who was not a Christian, who advocated closer associations between Jews and gentile god-fearers (probably centered around lower level gentile retainers and slaves in the households of wealthy Jews such as the Herodian princes and their principal retainers).

This literature was later adopted and adapted by Christians similar to those who wrote the gospels (gentiles with replacement theology) although a little more radical in that they saw Jesus as a redeemer figure.

"Christ" meant something altogether different to this/these redactor(s) of the Paulines than it may have to the authors of the gospels, who just wanted to explain why someone who was executed as an unauthorized claimant to Jewish kingship was not really a subversive, but a misunderstood teacher of wisdom.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book

Hi No Robots--Perhaps I didn't make myself clear--I wasn't speaking about the literary form now known as a "gospel". I was talking about the specific gospels and their authors found in the NT. I say this because by and large the authors of those gospels don't seem to have a very good understanding of Judaism. Nor does it make sense that they would need to attempt to explain Jewish holidays, traditions, etc., to a Jewish audience. And if the intention of the authors was to convert Jews, it doesn't seem that the Jew-bashing in the gospels would be a very good way to accomplish that.

Spin, I could see this to some extent if the authors were essentially Hellenized apostate Jews in the Diaspora, but I can't see it from devout Jews simply due to the extreme hostility directed toward Jews in the writings. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you read Rodney Stark's Rise of Christianity? He theorizes that Christianity in the Roman Empire got most of its converts from the Jewish diaspora (presumably Hellenistic Jews), and the god-fearers. This makes sense - the gospels are written in Greek and have numerous Hellenistic references, but also incorporate Jewish themes.

Thanks for the welcome, Toto!

I haven't read the book you mentioned--I'll put it on my to-do list! As I mentioned to Spin, I could see this with apostate Jews, and certainly the god-fearers, since what usually held back the god-fearers from conversion to Judaism was the idea of circumcision and, to a lesser extent, the dietary restrictions.

One of the things that I think complicates the whole "Messiahship" issue is that one tends to think of Jews and Judaism at the time as one homogenous group, when in fact, Jews were anything but that. (Still aren't!) The different factions were so different from one another that it's impossible to speak of a group as "Jews" and actually mean anything by it. There were groups that wanted to do away with the Temple cult, groups that didn't recognize the oral law only the written, groups that emphasized the oral over the written, groups that wanted to (and did) take up arms against the Romans, groups that propounded daily immersion in the mikvah. Some factions believed in resurrection, some didn't; some wanted to include gentiles, some wanted to exclude them. Some thought the Last Days were upon them, some didn't. Some were hoping for an imminent Messiah; some weren't. I don't know that it's possible to construct a picture of what THE Jewish Messiah was at the time, because there was just no agreement amongst the groups.

Sarai

P.S. Wow--you guys were busy while I wrote this--The last 4 or 5 posts weren't there! I'll think a bit more on this and come back!

No Robots · 10-03-2007, 08:23 PM

The entire NT was written by, for, and about Jews. Some of these, notably John, "had become", in Constantin Brunner's words, "such fervent Christians in their enthusiasm for the new knowledge that they had to demonstrate a commensurate hatred for the other Jews and their Judaism." (Brunner, Our Christ, p. 441).

aa5874 · 10-03-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The entire NT was written by, for, and about Jews. Some of these, notably John, "had become", in Constantin Brunner's words, "such fervent Christians in their enthusiasm for the new knowledge that they had to demonstrate a commensurate hatred for the other Jews and their Judaism." (Brunner, Our Christ, p. 441).

Your statement cannot be verified. The authors of the NT are unknown.

spin · 10-03-2007, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

I'm sorry, I had no intention to attack the Jews in the Diaspora. The point I was trying to make was that I could not envision the authors of the texts in question being a Jew who had any investment in their own "Jewishness" (however they would have defined it) simply because of the anti-Jewish slant of the texts in question.

But where is the anti-Jewish slant in Paul or Mark? This was an era in which there were Jewish groups at odds with other Jewish groups, very fractious, with Sadducees against Pharisees, when much of the damage in Jerusalem during the Jewish war being Jew against Jew. That was the time for Jew to be negative about Jew.

It simply changed perspective when it moved to Luke, Matthew and John. These were anti-Jewish and I believe that helps to date them late with the imposition of Javneh orthodoxy. It wasn't good to be considered Jewish in the Roman empire at that stage and the various flavors of messianism were not considered in high regard in Judaism.

spin

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

10-03-2007, 08:23 PM	#88
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	The entire NT was written by, for, and about Jews. Some of these, notably John, "had become", in Constantin Brunner's words, "such fervent Christians in their enthusiasm for the new knowledge that they had to demonstrate a commensurate hatred for the other Jews and their Judaism." (Brunner, Our Christ, p. 441).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.