Comments on: The ‘Jewish Turn’ in exegesis http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/ – English & Swedish Blogs Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:25:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anders Gerdmar http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Anders Gerdmar Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:40:18 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-35 Jag instämmer i att man absolut inte behöver köpa hela paketet bara för att man inser att en judisk vändning ur vetenskaplig synpunkt är det enda möjliga. Dissimilaritetsriteriet är ytterst besvärligt att använda på ett trovärdigt sätt. Stendahls produktion är ju egentligen ytterst lite; han visar hur man är inflytelserik utan att skriva tjocka böcker. Sanders har gjort ett pionjärarbete både när det gäller Paulus och Jesus, men har ingalunda rätt i allt. Vad man behöver är att både ta fasta på Jesu kontinuitet med samtidens judendom – den är uppenbar - och visa at han kom med något radikalt nytt. Alltså: Jewish turn: yes! Men om Jesus inte varit annorlunda hade han varken väckt hopp eller vrede. Jag instämmer i att man absolut inte behöver köpa hela paketet bara för att man inser att en judisk vändning ur vetenskaplig synpunkt är det enda möjliga. Dissimilaritetsriteriet är ytterst besvärligt att använda på ett trovärdigt sätt. Stendahls produktion är ju egentligen ytterst lite; han visar hur man är inflytelserik utan att skriva tjocka böcker. Sanders har gjort ett pionjärarbete både när det gäller Paulus och Jesus, men har ingalunda rätt i allt. Vad man behöver är att både ta fasta på Jesu kontinuitet med samtidens judendom – den är uppenbar – och visa at han kom med något radikalt nytt. Alltså: Jewish turn: yes! Men om Jesus inte varit annorlunda hade han varken väckt hopp eller vrede.

]]> By: Magnus http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Magnus Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:29:53 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-34 Den judiska vändningen är onekligen välkommen visavi det exegetiska studiet. Jag kan dock uppleva att denna s a s tredje fas av Jesusforskningen på något sätt negligerar de aspekter av Jesu förkunnelse som bryter av mot det kontextuellt judiska... Jag vet inte om det är tillbörligt att s a s korrigera evangeliernas vittnesbörd om Jesus mot bakgrund av andra tempelperiodens judendom. Varför är det så osannolikt att Jesus (ur teologisk synvinkel) i sin undervisning och praxis kom med något essentiellt nytt (visavi samtidens judendom eller den tidiga kyrkans förkunnelse)? Jag tror att man i någon mening (dock försiktigt) måste tillgripa dissimilaritetskriteriet för att göra rättvisa åt evangeliernas vittesbörd om Jesus. Båda exegeter du nämner Stendahl och Sanders går långt i sin korrigering av Jesus... Magnus Den judiska vändningen är onekligen välkommen visavi det exegetiska studiet. Jag kan dock uppleva att denna s a s tredje fas av Jesusforskningen på något sätt negligerar de aspekter av Jesu förkunnelse som bryter av mot det kontextuellt judiska… Jag vet inte om det är tillbörligt att s a s korrigera evangeliernas vittnesbörd om Jesus mot bakgrund av andra tempelperiodens judendom. Varför är det så osannolikt att Jesus (ur teologisk synvinkel) i sin undervisning och praxis kom med något essentiellt nytt (visavi samtidens judendom eller den tidiga kyrkans förkunnelse)?

Jag tror att man i någon mening (dock försiktigt) måste tillgripa dissimilaritetskriteriet för att göra rättvisa åt evangeliernas vittesbörd om Jesus.

Båda exegeter du nämner Stendahl och Sanders går långt i sin korrigering av Jesus…

Magnus

]]> By: David Robles http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-15 David Robles Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:56:18 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-15 Dr. Gerdmar: Greetings! I have a question, please. In your book "Roots of Theological anti-Semitism", do you approach the subject of anti-Semitism in the Orthodox Church, particularly in Russia and Greece? Is the charge of anti-semitism against such as Dr. Nikolai Velimirovich (who was a bishop in the Serbian Church), warranted? Were some of the Church Fathers anti-semitic? Thank you Dr. Gerdmar:
Greetings! I have a question, please. In your book “Roots of Theological anti-Semitism”, do you approach the subject of anti-Semitism in the Orthodox Church, particularly in Russia and Greece? Is the charge of anti-semitism against such as Dr. Nikolai Velimirovich (who was a bishop in the Serbian Church), warranted? Were some of the Church Fathers anti-semitic?

Thank you

]]> By: admin http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-14 admin Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:11:08 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-14 I think you are quite right about Schürer: the reason ‘he’ retains his position is because none has still done the work he did. However, that is greatly needed. As for Bultmann his work is so over-ideologised that not much is useful for today’s scholarship. Yes, Stemberger has done a great job, and I think he in act is respected for he work as being his own. I think you are quite right about Schürer: the reason ‘he’ retains his position is because none has still done the work he did. However, that is greatly needed. As for Bultmann his work is so over-ideologised that not much is useful for today’s scholarship. Yes, Stemberger has done a great job, and I think he in act is respected for he work as being his own.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Kevin P. Edgecomb Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:54:12 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-13 Absolutely. It'll be fascinating to read what you can dig out on Schürer. I haven't read the first edition of his history, but the second edition edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar is now a classic, and still regularly recommended, if only because no one else has put together such a detailed work on the period. I see plenty of single volume treatments, but none that I've yet read are satisfactory. Stemberger has corrected the failings of the earlier Strack-Billerbeck introduction, thankfully. It could rightly stand alone as an entirely new work under Stemberger's name. Isn't Bultmann odd? He's still more popular than he deserves, in my opinion. Absolutely. It’ll be fascinating to read what you can dig out on Schürer. I haven’t read the first edition of his history, but the second edition edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar is now a classic, and still regularly recommended, if only because no one else has put together such a detailed work on the period. I see plenty of single volume treatments, but none that I’ve yet read are satisfactory. Stemberger has corrected the failings of the earlier Strack-Billerbeck introduction, thankfully. It could rightly stand alone as an entirely new work under Stemberger’s name.

Isn’t Bultmann odd? He’s still more popular than he deserves, in my opinion.

]]> By: admin http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-12 admin Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:33:48 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-12 Of Schürer I have not yet written, but he stands firmly in the Enlightenment-oriented research tradition, and his chapter about Judaism and the law is a depressing read. Strack-Billerbeck belongs to the salvation oriented research tradition and they show a much greater respect for Judaism as such. Yet, it has its critics because of what may be a caricaturing of Jews and Judaism even here. Of Schürer I have not yet written, but he stands firmly in the Enlightenment-oriented research tradition, and his chapter about Judaism and the law is a depressing read. Strack-Billerbeck belongs to the salvation oriented research tradition and they show a much greater respect for Judaism as such. Yet, it has its critics because of what may be a caricaturing of Jews and Judaism even here.

]]> By: admin http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-11 admin Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:30:28 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-11 I fully agree. Funny enough, though, his disciple Bultmann had not learned from his master, being too identified with what I call the Enlightenment-oriented research tradition, with which in many respects Weiß courageously broke. I fully agree. Funny enough, though, his disciple Bultmann had not learned from his master, being too identified with what I call the Enlightenment-oriented research tradition, with which in many respects Weiß courageously broke.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Kevin P. Edgecomb Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:11 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-9 I wrote <a href="http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=1460" rel="nofollow">something very similar</a> to this, drawing on some notes I took while reading your <i>Roots of Theological Anti-semitism</i>. Weiss really was ahead of his time. Had he lived longer, I think his impact would have been quite far-reaching. On nearly every point he anticipates the developments of the 1970s and the "New Perspective on Paul". What a fascinating character! I wrote something very similar to this, drawing on some notes I took while reading your Roots of Theological Anti-semitism.

Weiss really was ahead of his time. Had he lived longer, I think his impact would have been quite far-reaching. On nearly every point he anticipates the developments of the 1970s and the “New Perspective on Paul”. What a fascinating character!

]]> By: Bernard M. Levinson http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/the-%e2%80%98jewish-turn%e2%80%99-in-exegesis/117/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Bernard M. Levinson Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:48:31 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=117#comment-8 Fascinating topic, to which you have contributed greatly. But was there not a similar larger aim already in Strack-Billerbeck and certainly Schuerer? Fascinating topic, to which you have contributed greatly. But was there not a similar larger aim already in Strack-Billerbeck and certainly Schuerer?

]]>