Comments on: Jesus the Jew http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/jesus-the-jew/189/ – English & Swedish Blogs Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/jesus-the-jew/189/comment-page-1/#comment-2334 Kevin P. Edgecomb Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:52:29 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=189#comment-2334 Yes, and this fits in with what, say, Neusner writes, particularly in the conclusion to <em>A Rabbi Talks with Jesus</em>, wherein it is precisely the presentation by Jesus of Himself as an authority, rather than as one drawing on the established authorities of the sages, that causes a disconnection to occur between (proto)Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. But it is precisely this revelation of God as love (as well as personal and present and giving interpretation of the Law that He Himself had given!), with love motivating the halakhah of our Lord in His disputations with the Pharisees that shows (oddly enough) both a continuation of the old and a discontinuity of the new. A bifurcation happens here in Israel: divergent bases for halakhah, with one group being much more easily accomodating to gentile incorporation, led to two distinct groups. This latter aspect contributed to the more permanent break between the two, and the reinforcement of borders. There was, of course, for Rabbinic Judaism, no getting over the God-man! With time, this halakhic aspect was lost, as the Fathers adapted to the changing makeup of the Church and approched discussions in ways that were appropriate for the majority: through recognizable forms of Hellen(ist)ic rhetoric. But in Matthew (which I think must be recognized as the earliest Gospel, as it is only there that the elements of disputation remain in a coherent order and context) we find a record of Jesus arguing with Jews as a Jew would. In Luke and Mark, the audiences addressed were later and different, and so the sayings were economically adapted for the benefit of the new hearers. At least that's the direction I think the evidence points, these days. Keep up the good work and the faith, Anders! It's refreshing! Yes, and this fits in with what, say, Neusner writes, particularly in the conclusion to A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, wherein it is precisely the presentation by Jesus of Himself as an authority, rather than as one drawing on the established authorities of the sages, that causes a disconnection to occur between (proto)Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity.

But it is precisely this revelation of God as love (as well as personal and present and giving interpretation of the Law that He Himself had given!), with love motivating the halakhah of our Lord in His disputations with the Pharisees that shows (oddly enough) both a continuation of the old and a discontinuity of the new. A bifurcation happens here in Israel: divergent bases for halakhah, with one group being much more easily accomodating to gentile incorporation, led to two distinct groups. This latter aspect contributed to the more permanent break between the two, and the reinforcement of borders. There was, of course, for Rabbinic Judaism, no getting over the God-man! With time, this halakhic aspect was lost, as the Fathers adapted to the changing makeup of the Church and approched discussions in ways that were appropriate for the majority: through recognizable forms of Hellen(ist)ic rhetoric. But in Matthew (which I think must be recognized as the earliest Gospel, as it is only there that the elements of disputation remain in a coherent order and context) we find a record of Jesus arguing with Jews as a Jew would. In Luke and Mark, the audiences addressed were later and different, and so the sayings were economically adapted for the benefit of the new hearers.

At least that’s the direction I think the evidence points, these days.

Keep up the good work and the faith, Anders! It’s refreshing!

]]> By: Anders Gerdmar http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/jesus-the-jew/189/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Anders Gerdmar Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:05:07 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=189#comment-132 David, yes, this pespective by Boyarin is interesting indeed, and other authors do claim the same. I think it is basically true. But what seems to have been challenging is the claim that Jesus is ‘more than’ even the greatest figures in Judaism. David, yes, this pespective by Boyarin is interesting indeed, and other authors do claim the same. I think it is basically true. But what seems to have been challenging is the claim that Jesus is ‘more than’ even the greatest figures in Judaism.

]]> By: David Nyström http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/jesus-the-jew/189/comment-page-1/#comment-125 David Nyström Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:04:02 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=189#comment-125 Anders, have you read D. Boyarins "Border Lines"? He makes a very interesting case stating that not only Jesus but also the early Christians with their belief in Jesus fitted quite easily within the multi-coloured Judaism of the day. "Judaism" as contrasted to "Christianity", he claims, was something which was later created in the rabbinic and patristic periods. I certainly don't agree with everything he writes, but it is an interesting perscpetive... Anders, have you read D. Boyarins “Border Lines”? He makes a very interesting case stating that not only Jesus but also the early Christians with their belief in Jesus fitted quite easily within the multi-coloured Judaism of the day. “Judaism” as contrasted to “Christianity”, he claims, was something which was later created in the rabbinic and patristic periods.

I certainly don’t agree with everything he writes, but it is an interesting perscpetive…

]]>