Clivedurdle

My point is I think you have to prove they did not influence each other. The Library of Alexandria was just down the road, the major shipping ports were on the coast there. It was not a backwater!

Rick Sumner

And my point is that you're wrong, I don't. We have a great deal of information about Roman and Jewish culture of the era. Could we use more? Sure, but the same can always be said. None of that evidence supports your conclusion. Great gobs of it support mine. Philo and Josephus, for two easy Jewish examples. Every Greek writing of the era, for a whole bunch of Graeco-Roman examples. Why do none of these so much as hint at an influence of the magnitude you are suggesting?

That I can't "prove" your suggestion wrong does not mean that your suggestion is equally meritted, thus far, you've provided no merit at all--just because you can imagine a scenario doesn't put it on equal footing with conclusions that have evidence.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

A lot of the evidence has already been stated - Paul from Tarsus with very strong Greek leanings and claiming to be a Pharasee. John chapter 1 - the concept of logos.

It feels to me the evidence is being ignored - I cannot work out why though.

Rick Sumner

Because you're missing the point and moving the goalposts. You have suggested earlier that influence occurred of such magnitude that Greeks utilized Rabbinic eisegesis. Yet we don't find any Greeks who did so. That is completely unevidenced.

Where Paul is from is irrelevant. Jews lived in Tarsus. The prologue to John has nothing to do with Paul, and there's certainly no mistaking John for a Greek. Further, the prologue to John has nothing even remotely resembling Rabbinic eisegesis. If you'd stick to the question at hand, and produce evidence in favor of what you've suggested (That Greeks engaged in Rabbinic prooftexting), you might find I have more interest in what is being presented for purposes of the present discussion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

But that is my point - and it is not moving goal posts. Where has the concept that you have these separate species - Greeks, Jews, Romans etc come from and that somehow their ideas do not mix? Paul is a classic example, claiming some form of Roman citizenship and judaic background. and I thought some of these Jewish writers worked for the Romans. They often spoke Greek and Latin.

Why do we assume these rabbinical jews were not heavily influenced by the Greek world? Islamic fundamentalists are accepted as reactions to the contradictions modernism is causing them. Why do we not see rabbicalism and maybe xianity in a similar light?

I am sorry, there is an assumption here of separate worlds that makes no sense, unless it is to back up some propaganda about a Son of God coming to the chosen people and then on to the gentile world. The idea of Jew and Gentile, clean and unclean, be ye separate - only make sense as reactions - they were not pre existing. And the Greeks and Romans were very intersted in this funny group - one of them wrote a book called the history of the jews didn't they?

Rick Sumner

Nobody has suggested anything of the sort. What has been suggested is that Paul was Jewish. A Pharisee, in fact. This in response to someone who suggested that Paul was Greek. If you are not, in fact, suggesting that Paul was a Greek, then fantastic. We have no quarrel. If you are backing away from your earlier suggestion that Greeks would be familiar with Rabbinic eisegesis, then fantastic, again we have no quarrel. If you seek to maintain your suggestion that Greeks would be familiar with Rabbinic prooftexting--so familiar, in fact, that they could have employed it in their writings--then I would be delighted to see a shred of evidence. Why do I keep having to ask for this?

Nobody has assumed anything about "separate worlds," and the only person saying anything about a "Son of God coming. . ." is you, just now. And what a pretty strawman it is.

Let me give you an analogy. Fundamentalist Muslims in Iraq would be tough to confuse for a Fundamentalist Christian in America. That doesn't mean that America hasn't influenced Iraq, it means that the two cultures are distinct and identifiable.

Likewise Jews and Greeks. So much so, in fact, that plenty of Greek and Roman writers commented on Judaism's uniqueness, in both positive and negative lights.

"History of the Jews?" I can only presume you mean "Antiquities of the Jews," which was written by Flavius Josephus, a Jew who gained Roman citizenship. Lived Jewish. Died Jewish. Identified with Judaism his entire life. Antiquities is, in fact, a Jewish apologetic, as Josephus makes clear in his opening paragraph.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Let's be absolutely clear about this - I am arguing everyone - no matter what they said - were Greeks! I am using the idea of gestalt - foreground and background. The background is a Greek - Roman world, the foreground particular rabbinical beliefs and practices. We call ourselves different labels for different reasons, the Jews - and xians played a game of labelling themselves the chosen people. We cannot talk about the Greeks over here and the Jews over there as if never the twain shall meet.

Which as far as I am concerned makes the concept of Jesus as myth very plausible as an invention to deal with contradictions they were facing between their belief systems and the Greek world.

Anthropology has a classic study of the Arunta Australian Aborigines, whose society fell apart when steel axes were introduced by westerners.

Any contact by anyone anywhere changes both sides irrevocably. The effects of the changes depend on many things, like the mind sets of both parties. The Jews reaction to the Greeks and the earlier Babylonian exile was to formalise their beliefs - to retrench, and later with John, to achieve a brilliant synthesis - but an utterly new idea that again changed everything.

Rick Sumner

That's akin to saying that the entire Western world is American. It renders the term meaningless, it's semantic quibbling to cover up an untenable position. Judaism is identifiable both as a religion and a culture, over and against the remainder of the Graeco-Roman world.

It's also moving the goalposts. You were clearly aware of the aforementioned distinction in your first post, when you stated "The Greeks loved debate, they would have studied in detail rabbinical thinking, and the two would have co-evolved together."

You'd just distinguished "The Greeks" from "Rabbinical thinking." Now you claim that you have been arguing all along that "Rabbinical thinking" was Greek. I grow weary of chasing your ever-changing point. If you can support your original claim, rather than the shapeshifting forms it's taken since then, then please, provide some evidence.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Have a look at the Alexander thread! I almost posted last time that I am arguing the whole world now is American - that is probably exactly what loads of people are moaning about!

It is not meaningless to point out the connections, relationships and power holders.

And I thought the point of debate was to clarify matters!

The sentence before the bit about the Greeks loving debate has the word could, when writing I thought about typing could instead of would in the phrase you quote but went with would - possibly a vague attempt to say might! I am not that precise sometimes. Remember there were loads of philosophers and people studying everything then! Aristotle - tutor of Alexander - was very important to the church right up to the nineteenth century.

I did deliberately use the term co evolve as that is what I think is going on here!

norma98026

It isn't unreasonable at all to accept that impossible events are impossible. But, how do you know that resurrection of the dead is impossible? The absence of a resurrection in my personal experience (so far) or yours or even generations of people doesn't preclude the possibility. There were at least a couple cases in the Hebrew segment of the Bible. Can scientists prove with 100% certainty that it is impossible?

I'm just wondering how you can be so sure.

I'm still thinking over some of your other responses. These postings can get long, eh?

Norma