stonewall1012

ok... I disagree and in my mind it explains how some here are able to reach the conclusions that they do based up nothing but the ability to "negate" someone elses assertion.

mountainman

That turn the other cheek thing was in the world before Buddha and Lao Tsu and the host of the Vedic rishis. Just what are you getting at? We are a product of our own thinking? We are what we eat and we are what we think?


Best wishes,


Pete

stonewall1012

Wow unbelieveably incoherent... You stated the gospel stories were created for the roman armies to "give unto caesar". This implies that the stories were created to control and influence the Roman military to remain loyal to the caesar.
My question was how exactally "turn the other cheek" works within this theory. If the caesar "made up" Jesus for control of the military why make Jesus seem very much like a pacifist?
Who cares if the Buddah or Lao Tsu said these things- they are not very condusive for getting armies to kill each other. It may have stemmed from other beliefs but a caesar putting it in a document to "control" the army seems kind of stupid. (on the caesars part)

mountainman

common stories for the common people.
the gospels were not written for academics.
but they were packaged with academic care.




See also healer and a physician. Such as the physician to Marcus Aurelius, Galen in regard to the therapeutae of Ascepius who served the Hellenic healing god Ascepius in his temples and sanctuaries across the Roman empire before Constantine utterly destroyed some of the more ancient and revered temples. Jesus was a repackaged healing god. And "Who was Lithargoel"?.



See also then Ardashir 100 years before Nicaea. The army marches better to the ONE TRUE SONG. Have you read the book called Barbarians --- by Terry Jones (2006)?


Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

Where can I find information to support such a view.?

The earliest form of the Gospels are in Greek and the authors are unknown, and seem to interpret words in the OT quite differently to Jews.

It would appear to me that the Gospels are NOT literature for the Jews, but for those who knew virtually nothing about Jews.

No Robots

This is the generally held view among scholars, at least implicitly. It is still a hot topic due to sectarian issues. You can start with the chapter "The Gospels as Jewish Literature" in Preaching Without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Marilyn J. Salmon.

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you please state more explicitly the specific ways that the Gospels are akin to Talmudic Midrash? Could you also give some examples of the Talmudic Midrash the Gospels are supposedly (formally, materially, thematically?) akin to.

The Gospel of Luke, with its awareness of the the conventions of Hellenitic history writing, is the product of the ʿam ha-aretz? The Gospel of John is too?

And who, besides 19th century scholars and some of the earlier form critics, says that the ʿam ha-aretz had no literature of their own?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

That the Gospels are "Jewish literature" designed to deal with intra Jewish conflicts is certainly the view now held by NT scholars. But are the rest of the things you claim about the Gospels -- i.e., that they are "akin" (in an as yet unspecified way) to Talmudic Midrash and that they are products of the ʿam ha-aretz?

It is? What "sectarian issues" are these?

Perhaps I've missed something. Yes, indeed Marilyn does indeed show that the Gospels are Jewish Literature and that, contrary to what the aaa man thinks (on the basis of what actual first hand acquaintance with NT scholarship, one wonders?), this view is something of a commonplace among Gospel scholars. But but I do not see where Marilyn also says -- as you seem to claim she does -- that the Gospels were "akin" to Talmudic Midrash and that they were the products of the ʿam ha-aretz. Can you cite where it is in her chapter on the Gospels as Jewish Literature that she actually does so?

And can you name any other recent scholar of the Gospel form -- i.e., Burridge, Aune, Talbert, Schuler, etc. -- or commentators on the Gospels (e.g, Collins or France or Gundry or Marcus on Mark, Davies and Allison or Carter or Luz on Matthew, Fitzmyer or Green or Nolland on Luke, Schnackenburg or Kasemann or Keener or Brown or Beaselt-Murray on John) -- let alone Jewish NT scholars like A.J. Levine or Montefiorre or Sandmel or Segal or Bammel, who in any way, even implicitly, note or argue that the Gospels are "akin" to Talmudic Midrash and are the products of the ʿam ha-aretz?

Jeffrey

No Robots

Let's just start at the beginning. Do you deny that the Gospels are Jewish literature?

Jeffrey Gibson

No. I do not deny that (with the possible exception of Luke). On top of this, I've argued here and in print that the Gospels were the one form of the literary expression of a larger argument between Christ believers and other Jews over the true nature of "Judaism". That should be apparent to anyone who reads not only Matthew and John, but Mark as well.

So let's now move on to my questions over your claim that the Gospels are "akin" to Talmudic Midrash. And I'd be grateful when you answer them that you use up to date (or at least post DSS) scholarship to support any claims that you might wish to make, especially since you seemed to have claimed that what you asserted in this regard is supported by modern scholarship.

Jeffrey