Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 03-21-2009, 08:51 AM

Volume 4 Law and Love (or via: amazon.co.uk) is due to be released in May

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 03-21-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

"The quest for the historical Jesus requires the quest for his historical context, late Second Temple Judaism in the land of Israel. With learning both broad and deep, John Meier constructs this context and uncovers therein a prophet and healer and teacher of the Law-an historical Jesus fully incarnate within the Judaism of his time. . . ."-Paula Fredriksen

What happened to the criterion of dissimilarity?

Huon · 03-21-2009, 02:30 PM

For those (like me) who did not understand, at first :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

Quote:

The criterion of embarrassment is a tool used by some Biblical scholars to help determine whether certain actions or sayings by Jesus in the New Testament are historically probable or not. John P. Meier, in his book A Marginal Jew, describes the purpose behind this criterion (p. 168):
"The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels."
This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation along with the historical method.

Toto · 03-21-2009, 02:58 PM

Wikipedia does not have an article on the criterion of dissimilarity.

This criterion only accepts as authentic items of the gospels that are dissimilar from Judaism.

Quote:

Bultman, one of the earliest users of CDD gives us the following definition.

‘We can only count on possessing a genuine similitude of Jesus where, on the one hand, expression is given to the contrast between Jewish morality and piety[CDJ] and the distinctive eschatological temper which characterised the preaching of Jesus; and where on the other hand we find no specifically Christian features[CDC]‘.

It appears that this criterion is even flakier than the others.

If Jesus was so clearly a Jew of his time and place, how will this new publication explain the conflict between Jews and Christians?

jon-eli · 03-21-2009, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If Jesus was so clearly a Jew of his time and place, how will this new publication explain the conflict between Jews and Christians?

As one sect vs. another sect, I suppose. I don't imagine the Sadducees and Pharisees got along very well.

andrewcriddle · 03-22-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

"The quest for the historical Jesus requires the quest for his historical context, late Second Temple Judaism in the land of Israel. With learning both broad and deep, John Meier constructs this context and uncovers therein a prophet and healer and teacher of the Law-an historical Jesus fully incarnate within the Judaism of his time. . . ."-Paula Fredriksen

What happened to the criterion of dissimilarity?

We may have to read the book to find out.

However, IIUC what Meier is proposing does make some sort of sense in terms of the criterion of dissimilarity.

We would have a Jesus who differed from early Christianity in his interest in the details of halakhah and who differed from the Judaism of his day in the unusual and distinctive approach he took to the principles to be used in resolving halakhic disputes.

Andrew Criddle

jon-eli · 03-22-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

[...] who differed from the Judaism of his day in the unusual and distinctive approach he took to the principles to be used in resolving halakhic disputes.

Just out of interest... do you think it truly safe to assume that his approach was so distinctive and radical? I've had the occasion to ask modern Jews what they think of Jesus (as portrayed in the gospels), and they have all been pretty unanimous in describing him as a great rabbi who just didn't happen to be the messiah. If you contrast Jesus with the kinds of teaching found in the Gemara, I personally cannot see much of a difference. Surely every great teacher is somewhat radical for his time, no?

andrewcriddle · 03-22-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon-eli

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

[...] who differed from the Judaism of his day in the unusual and distinctive approach he took to the principles to be used in resolving halakhic disputes.

Just out of interest... do you think it truly safe to assume that his approach was so distinctive and radical? I've had the occasion to ask modern Jews what they think of Jesus (as portrayed in the gospels), and they have all been pretty unanimous in describing him as a great rabbi who just didn't happen to be the messiah. If you contrast Jesus with the kinds of teaching found in the Gemara, I personally cannot see much of a difference. Surely every great teacher is somewhat radical for his time, no?

Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels does seem to have a different approach to halakhah to that found in rabbinic Judaism.

If you take the discussion on Corban in Mark 7:9-13 and parallels and compare it with rabbinic discussion of the same issue (Which is basically the problem of vows/solemn promises to do something antisocial which are later regretted by the one making the vow.)

Jesus took the position that vows to God to do something of which God disapproves are null and void in principle and/or by definition.

The Rabbis shared Jesus' concerns about rash and antisocial vows but dealt with this by developing an elaborate doctrine of the authority of a rabbi to dispense/release someone from a vow on very technical grounds. Although they recognised that this doctrine of a Rabbi's discretionary authority had little scriptural basis, they refused to take the step of declaring antisocial vows to be intrinsically invalid.

They seem to have had the legitimate concern that if my vows in general have the explicit or implicit proviso that I am only bound by this promise insofar as (I think) God approves of it, then the institution of vowing is radically undermined. (Compare Thomas a Becket infuriating the King by promising to obey the secular law only insofar as this was acceptable to God)

Although Jesus and the Rabbis both disapprove of rash vows and seek to deal with the problem, there seems to be a difference in approach. For good and bad the Rabbis are more legalistic than Jesus more concerned with precedent and abstract legal principle. Jesus makes the issue of moral principle central while neglecting to deal with the problems that this may cause in practice.

Andrew Criddle

No Robots · 03-22-2009, 10:59 AM

[H]e [Christ] teaches no dogma, no halakha. He is the great prophetic darshan, quite independent of scripture, tradition, and every convention of his time; and the New Testament has no halakha and would be nothing but a midrash like other midrashim, did the personality of Christ not live in it.--Our Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) / Constantin Brunner, p. 217.

Rick Sumner · 03-22-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Wikipedia does not have an article on the criterion of dissimilarity.

If Jesus was so clearly a Jew of his time and place, how will this new publication explain the conflict between Jews and Christians?

Meier's Jesus has always fit his Jewish context. There used to be an interview on BibleInterp that explained his choice of title. "Marginal Jew" to represent how he was different from Judaism, but still fit the context of his Jewish world. Meier preferred "Marginal Jew" to what he considered to be a common misnomer, by pluralizing it to "Judaisms." Thus he is seeking a Jesus who fits the Judaism (singular) of his day, but only "marginally." Though that might be a misnomer as well.

In any event, reconciling a Jesus who offended with a Jesus who fit the context of first century Judaism has always been one of Meier's stated aims, whether one feels he's successful at it or not.

It's something of a conundrum, I suppose. I look forward to reading what he has to say about it.

As my own aside, and not (to my knowledge) reflecting Meier's position, I'm also increasingly skeptical that there was any strong conflict in the early movement--after all, James had set up shop in Jerusalem apparently unmolested. Historical Jesus or not, the conflict between Judaism and Christianity seems to be somewhat overstated. I think there's a tendency to read too much into Paul's "persecuted," probably because of the lens of Acts.

With all that said, I'm very much looking forward to the new volume. It's been a long time coming. Thanks for the head's up, Andrew.

03-21-2009, 08:51 AM	#1
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	New Marginal Jew book by Meier Volume 4 Law and Love (or via: amazon.co.uk) is due to be released in May Andrew Criddle

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

03-22-2009, 10:59 AM	#9
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	[H]e [Christ] teaches no dogma, no halakha. He is the great prophetic darshan, quite independent of scripture, tradition, and every convention of his time; and the New Testament has no halakha and would be nothing but a midrash like other midrashim, did the personality of Christ not live in it.--Our Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) / Constantin Brunner, p. 217.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.