freigeister

The point is that Christianity's root is wholly Jewish. The influence of Hellenism is marginal at best, with only the Epistle to the Hebrews and the prologue of John having definite ties to Hellenistic thought, or, more accurately, Alexandrian Judaism. To continue my comparison, no one would say that Shakespeare's work is essentially Venetian, with some English influences.

Amaleq13

Apparently, you haven't read his book or website because he does describe an early mixture of both resulting in Christianity. Even if you were entirely relying on what Jacob has posted, your assumption is not warranted. It would only have been justified if he had written "exclusively non-Jewish roots and precedents". And even then your conclusion would still have been unjustified.

When there is a basis for the accusation, it is entirely appropriate to speak out against it. There is no basis for the charge in this instance. Such an unsubstantiated exaggeration serves only to create irrelevant tangents.

Amaleq13

That is your opinion but you need to demonstrate that it should be accepted as fact. There appear to be several folks who would be interested in arguing that point in a thread were you to start it.

I think, however, you might want to reconsider the extreme nature of the claim (ie "wholly") given that your next sentence offers a qualifier.

I have to warn you, though, that it isn't just mythicists who believe earliest Christianity was significantly influenced by Hellenism or that a complete understanding of its origins requires one to look outside Judaism.

freigeister

The mythicists are merely continuing the ancient Gentile appropriation of Jewish texts. In fact, mainstream Christians are showing more contrition and generosity in this regard than the mythicists, and acknowledging the Jewish root of Christianity. Ironic, isn't it, that it is the mythicists who are perpetuating the worst abuse of traditional Christianity?

Amaleq13

You mean the one begun by the authors of the Gospels?

There may be mythicists who deny any Jewish roots for Christianity but you are mistaken to generalize this to Doherty or Price.

It might ironic be ironic if it were true. It is, however, false with regard to Doherty or Price. It certainly isn't indicated by the quote you have misinterpreted.

I encourage you to start a new thread and present an argument that the entire New Testament is wholly Jewish or that Christianity is wholly Jewish in origin.

Vorkosigan

Yes, that will be much fun. One can learn a lot defending/attacking extreme positions.

Wallener

To claim someone urging people to dismiss Torah is bringing them "into Judaism" is, using your terminology, bordering on the anti-semitic.

Chris Weimer

I'm sure Shakespeare had non-English roots: he had deep Roman roots as well, taking much from Roman history and mythology. That's not anti-English. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Peter Kirby

It's an established pattern, well-entrenched in scholarship today, to dismiss any connection of Jesus or Christian origins with non-Judaism as being antiquated, or even "anti-semitic," which is of course sophistry, a misunderstanding of the real prejudices against Judaism out there, and an insult to the Jewish people by trivializing the real injuries against them by comparing them to scholarly theories on the origins of the ideas of early Jesus people.

best,
Peter Kirby

freigeister

The fact is that the Jewish people have for countless centuries suffered real injuries precisely as a result of "scholarly theories on the origins of the ideas of the early Jesus people." In particular, they have suffered from the cultural appropriation of their New Testament: it has been taken from them and they have been repeatedly beaten over the head with it. And, yes, thank goodness the affirmation of a wholly Jewish origin for Christianity is now well established in scholarship. I just wish guys like Borg and Crossan had the guts to take on the Hellenizing fantasists crowding the sidelines.