Wallener

I have suffered no such thing. It is not, nor has it ever been, my New Testament. I'm quite happy with the Old one, thank you very much.

Vorkosigan

Is the New Testament a Jewish document? I thought it was rejected by the Jews.

Frieg, you seem to be unfamiliar with the reality of new testament studies. there are books like Burridge's work on the Gospels as Greco-Roman biography (see also Wills The Quest for the Historical Gospel. Tolbert has read Mark as a Greek historical novel (as do I; I will be pushing her thesis much farther). Numerous scholars have seen connections between Greek drama and the Gospels, especially Mark (see the recent book by Shiner or Smith, Stephen H. 1999. A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark's Gospel. In Orton, David E.(ed). 1999. The Composition of Mark's Gospel: Selected studies from Novum Testamentum. (Brill's readers in Biblical studies). Leiden: Brill.) The entrance into Jerusalem is often read as a hyporcheme, a parade or dance that emphasizes the greatness of the hero prior to his fall. Vernon Robbins and others have expended much ink documenting the way the Gospels are compiled with Hellenistic rhetorical techiniques. There's a revolutionary new book out on Paul that firmly links him to Stoicism, and Gerald Downing has a slew of books and articles on the Cynic roots of Jesus' sayings and attitudes, a cause also forwarded by Burton Mack and several others.

The Gospels and especially Acts are shot through with Hellenistic rhetorical and structural techniques. There include (for example) doublets, travel narratives, parables, religious and literary citations, epitomizing ("midrash"), recognition scenes, grand entrances into cities, trials by authorities, being mistaken for gods/sons of gods, empty tombs, survived crucifixions, prophetic and warning dreams, and other things too numerous to name. What you think of "Jewish" are actually Hellenistic features of the Gospel narratives; what you think of as the unique acts of Paul and Jesus are type-scenes in Hellenistic literature.

A second issue, worthy of a separate post, is the fact that Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized and Hellenism and Judaism cannot be so easily separated. To claim that Jesus came out of a Jewish background is to claim that he came out of a Hellenistic one. If you argue that Jesus is from Galilee, then you argue that he came from the least Jewish place in Israel, one that was full of Hellenistic cities, and one that was thoroughly familiar with Hellenistic philosophy and modes of discourse. There is no escaping this problem.

They have neither the evidentiary support nor the methodological weapons to fight that battle and win. And Crossan has welcomed much of the sociological and literary work that shows the links between Hellenism and Judaism and the portraits of Jesus in the early Christian writings.

Vorkosigan

freigeister

Upon reflection, I think it important that I emphasize that I do not consider mythicists to be anti-semites. Nor do I consider mythicism anti-semitic in its intent. I apologize for having given any other impression. I do submit that mythicism can be anti-semitic in its effect, pace Wallener.

Ted Hoffman

Later:
You should use: "I think it important that I emphasize that I no longer consider mythicists to be anti-semites".

My point being that your "apology" entails a denial of your past actions. And this is not about "impressions": you were very explicit.
As the Japanese say, if you have to bow, bow low. You either acknowledge and apologize or forget this whole apologetic stunt altogether.

Toto

There have been Christian anti-Semites, who used their view of a HJ to back up their anti-Semitism (either "the Jews" killed Jesus or Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier and not really Jewish.) But I am unaware of any mythicists who are anti-Semitic or use mythicism to support anti-Semitism. Have I missed something? What use would mythicism be to an anti-Semite? Mythicism attempts to prove that the Jews did not kill the savior of the world, which was Harold Leidner's motivation in his Fabrication of the Christ Myth.

Wallener

Shalom back at ya. If you were talking about the source material (which we don't have) laying at the root of what eventually became the NT, I think we'd be more in agreement. But the idea that the NT as we know it is a Jewish concoction is...I won't say ridiculous, I'll just say you'd better bring the heavy evidential guns if you want to convince me.

freigeister

You neglected to quote part of my statement: "I do submit that mythicism can be anti-semitic in its effect". I think that it is important to make clear to the many earnest mythicists that to the extent that they deny the strictly Jewish origin of Christianity, they are effectively denying that people the credit for the most important development in human history.

On the question of the legitimacy of the claim that Christian origins are wholly Jewish, I will consider the many promptings to start a thread on the subject.

andrewcriddle

I think you have to distinguish what one means by borrowing.

For Example There is a general tendency for followers of a great figure to give that figure an extraordinary birth and childhood. This is not a to be explained as borrowing but as an example of general human psychology.

In order to say that the extraordinary birth and childhood of one figure is borrowed from another, one has to show something much closer than that.

It is unhelpful IMO to show that many features of the birth story of one character can be found scattered throughout the birth stories of other characters.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

It is only "the most important development in human history" to Christians and certainly not to Jews so I think your concern is entirely misplaced.

In fact, I bet that there are Jews who would like to avoid being blamed for the existence of Christianity.