oatmealia

Side note: I picked up The Jesus Mysteries this weekend. It was actually an accident -- I mistook it for The Jesus Puzzle, which I was told I should read with a certain amount of skepticism. I've reserved the skepticism for the reading of this book instead. Obviously, most of the theories in the book are brand new to me, so I'm a little overwhelmed, but they interest me as they apply to thoughts on prophecy as well.

Anyhow, just wanted to note that I've started to read it, and any comments from others who have read it would be welcome.

Toto

The Jesus Mysteries is written by two British Neo-Gnostics. They are not primarily scholars and think that the wrong set of Christians won in the second century. Some of their statements are overly broad, some of their sources are outdated. They have a sequel to that book about the divine feminine principle.

angelo

Would that be ''The Goddess and Jesus''? [or something similar] I found TJM a very interesting book. They show that the gospels are based on the ancient ''mystery religions'' of the ancient world. Yet still consider that a historical Jesus actually existed. Never the less, their book is a very good read.

Toto

The Jesus Mysteries (or via: amazon.co.uk) does not exactly show that the gospels are based on the ancient mystery religions. It relies on a lot of 19th century speculation of parallels between all religions, especially the religions of the near east in the time of the Roman Empire. But they do not base their case on these parallels.

The authors do say that there is (barely) enough evidence for a historical Jesus to support a belief that he did exist, but they find the idea of an originally spiritual Jesus to be a more satisfying explanation.

It's been a while since I read the book. I thought that their discussion of the relation between the mysteries and the classical writers was provocative. I would not take them as a final word on the matter.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess (or via: amazon.co.uk) is the sequel. I haven't read that book, and can't comment.

angelo

Yes your right. Any controversial subject , no matter who writes it has to be read with an open mind, and no way taken as the last word. I first started doubting the historical existence of Jesus when I discovered a book by Albert Schweitzer. I think the title was ''The Historical Search for Jesus''. I no longer have a copy, and read this book more than 15 years ago, but it left me with a lasting impression the man knew his subject. Out of all the books I've read on this subject [ and there are many ] His work was probably one of the best.

judge

Hi Jane. Your posts here are very interesting. Can you expand on this point a bit please?

Thanks very much.

Sarai

Hi to everyone on this thread . I've been lurking on these boards for a while, but have just now decided to be brave and come out of hiding. I am Jewish and am now reading the NT for the first time in an effort to learn more about 2nd Temple Jewish history and thought, and have found these boards very helpful. I noticed that no one had yet given Oatmealia a comprehensive explanation of Midrash--

So I thought I would volunteer. Here's a link to an excellent (At least, I think so! ) article that describes both Halakhic and Haggadic Midrash and how the midrashim has been, and still is, used today.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...search=midrash

I hope this is helpful and thank you to all for making this such an entertaining and illuminating place!

Sarai

Jane H

Thank you for your comments, Judge. I’ll try to enlarge, although the ‘post’ format doesn’t really allow for the needed full analysis.


In the ancient world, a small allusion could summon up an entire implicit narrative. It’s not totally dissimilar today, when ‘freeze frame’ in a spoof can bring “The Matrix” film story to mind. This is the device that the N.T. writers are using when they quote prophecy. Part of that implicit narrative is the relationship between God and His chosen people, Israel. The OT functions as a matrix of statements about that relationship.

Now by C1, there were a range of interpretations for this matrix about what it meant. These could involve a Messiah (or two!); bodily resurrection (or not!); usually involved the restoration of Israel, and at the same time the bringing in of the Gentile nations to the equation in some way; at the same time the suffering of Israel via the ‘Day of the Lord’ seemed to be involved…and a host of other ideas all from the same basic OT texts. There was a mainstream viewpoint, however, which believed for instance that Israel was still in exile, and that YHWH would act to do something about it.

Then along comes Jesus. My belief is that He stepped into the middle of this, and made sense of it, but in a very different way to what people were expecting. Clearly His ideas were drawn entirely from the implicit OT storyline, but subverted the expectations radically.

After the resurrection, when the Early Church started asking the question, “What on earth was that all about?”, they set to look in the OT to make sense of it all. And running through their reading were implicit narratives- creation of humanity in the OT vs. creation of the new humanity through Jesus; covenant with God’s people in the OT vs. the new covenant with the new God’s people in the NT. All steeped in the OT prophecy and theology matrix, but redefined by the shocking impact Jesus made into something no-one predicted.


That’s why in the NT you get some very strange looking prophecy quotation. It’s not generally the ‘proof text’ they’re using, but implicit narrative they’re highlighting and the place in The Story.


Here is a useful link:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_C...n_Covenant.htm

Please ask where I’m particularly unclear…!