maryhelena said
spiker: ”What interests me here is for those who think John was written by the Disciple John, it’s got to strain credibility to think a Jewish man was that hostile (if not antisemitic) to the Jews”Instead of reading ‘Jew’ try reading ‘Herodian Jew’ and the gospel of John might start to make more sense….
We aren’t masking “assumptions” here, are we?
gavriel said
maryhelena said
spiker: ”What interests me here is for those who think John was written by the Disciple John, it’s got to strain credibility to think a Jewish man was that hostile (if not antisemitic) to the Jews”Instead of reading ‘Jew’ try reading ‘Herodian Jew’ and the gospel of John might start to make more sense….
We aren’t masking “assumptions” here, are we?
I’m not above making assumptions…
The point however, is do the exercise – try it out…
The blame the Jews scenario leads to anti-semitism – Jews blaming Herodian Jews, whether for the historical execution of Antigonus or for the execution of a historical Jesus makes more sense. After all, the power of Rome was undisputed – the power of the Herods a more deeply felt personal affront.
”…..the hatred they bare to Herod.” (Ant. book 15 ch.1)
”….Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction,” (Ant. book 14 ch.16)
maryhelena said
Judith said
FOUND IT!What Can We Know about the Life of Jesus posted May 2015. There are only eleven “true to historical reality” possibilities that most scholars agree with.
Thanks, Judith. Here is the link:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
”If we are looking for gist memories that appear to be true to historical reality among these materials, most scholars would agree with at least the following.”
Well, now we shall have to wait for that new book. It would be nice to see the book reviewed and debated on this site – as I’m pretty sure it will be on ahistoricist/mythicist sites.
I’ve not seen the book for pre-order on amazon yet.
———————————-
update:
Bart Ehrman’s new book is now featured on amazon – release date 1 March. Kindle edition plus hardcover. Think I’ll go for the Kindle edition – better for researching….
Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
** you do not have permission to see this link **
maryhelena said
spiker: ”What interests me here is for those who think John was written by the Disciple John, it’s got to strain credibility to think a Jewish man was that hostile (if not antisemitic) to the Jews”Instead of reading ‘Jew’ try reading ‘Herodian Jew’ and the gospel of John might start to make more sense….
WHY? particularly since the issue is an APPARENT antisemitism
spiker said
maryhelena said
spiker: ”What interests me here is for those who think John was written by the Disciple John, it’s got to strain credibility to think a Jewish man was that hostile (if not antisemitic) to the Jews”Instead of reading ‘Jew’ try reading ‘Herodian Jew’ and the gospel of John might start to make more sense….
WHY? particularly since the issue is an APPARENT antisemitism
** you do not have permission to see this link **
maryhelena said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What does that have to do with your claim about Herodian Jews? What is a herodian Jew? And How is the author of the fourth gospel connected to them? Why is the blood libel about Herodian Jews vis
Jews as such?
If the issue is Jews in a Quisling government,as it were, why identify them as Jews? Opposition brings distinctions and strong opposition brings sharp differentiation of the you’re not one of us kind. The idea that John the disciple would describe “Herodian Jews” in a way (as Jews) that might cause him to be identified with them, strains credibility to the breaking point. Further, since we have zero knowledge of who John was (or who John the Disciple was) there’s no reason to assume he was a.) a Jew b.) any way involved in in the originating events of Christianity and c.) saying something other than what his words actually say.
spiker said
maryhelena said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What does that have to do with your claim about Herodian Jews? What is a herodian Jew? And How is the author of the fourth gospel connected to them? Why is the blood libel about Herodian Jews vis
Jews as such?If the issue is Jews in a Quisling government,as it were, why identify them as Jews? Opposition brings distinctions and strong opposition brings sharp differentiation of the you’re not one of us kind. The idea that John the disciple would describe “Herodian Jews” in a way (as Jews) that might cause him to be identified with them, strains credibility to the breaking point. Further, since we have zero knowledge of who John was (or who John the Disciple was) there’s no reason to assume he was a.) a Jew b.) any way involved in in the originating events of Christianity and c.) saying something other than what his words actually say.
From the Wikipedia article:
Gospel of John
The ** you do not have permission to see this link **
For example, in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** hiding behind locked doors, “for fear of the Jews”.
In several places John’s gospel also associates “the Jews” with darkness and with the ** you do not have permission to see this link **
John’s use of the term ‘Jews’ is a complex and debated area of biblical scholarship.
Because of this controversy some modern English translations, such as ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
** you do not have permission to see this link ** writes:
The Gospel of John has the dubious distinction of being both the most popular Gospel (widely considered the most “spiritual” of the canonical Gospels) and the most anti-Jewish. The term the “Jews” (** you do not have permission to see this link **
———————————————————————–
Rather than put a ‘blood guilt’ on Jews – I’d much rather seek a historical understanding to the story in the gospel of John.
The historical situation between the Jews and Herod:
”…for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king…..the hatred they bare to Herod..’. Antiquities book 15 ch.1.
The disciples, re gJohn, were, after the crucifixion, in fear of the Jews. Historically:
”…He (Herod) also slew forty-five of the principal men of Antigonus’s party,…”
That historical situation, re Josephus, gives me a far better awareness of what the writer of the gospel of John was doing with his anti-Jewish rhetoric – hence I find making a mental note to add ‘Herodian’ to this gospel’s reference to ‘Jews’ makes more sense of the gospel i.e. as a reflection of history not a historical account itself.
So you figure reading the same stuff copied and pasted from wikipedia will better answer my questions than me clicking the link
and reading it on wikipedia? Did the content change when you copied and pasted it or are you just in the habit of missing the point?
Still , no mention of Herodian Jews or their relevance
The ** you do not have permission to see this link ** collectively describes the enemies of Jesus as “the Jews”.
A point never in dispute. Nor was the antisemitic character of the book. Oddly, your own article doesn’t recommend the substitution of Heordian Jews for Jews. It does mention the substitution of Judeans for Jews, but not in an effor to attain historical understanding.Instead it is to ” avoid anti-Semitic connotations” Even more peculiar is this section is has no source. Hence the.[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
As if that doesn’t cut the wheels out from under your argument, your own source adds,
“The term the “Jews” (** you do not have permission to see this link **) in the Book of John functions as a hostile collective stereotype and is identified with “evil” and the “devil.”
Didn’t Tovia Singer know about the small group of Herodian Jews?
And again,
“The odious charge of deicide is clearly leveled against the Jewish people in the Christian Scriptures.”
And just in case these last are ambiguous, Tovia adds,
“This selective vilification is not only directed toward those Jews who allegedly plotted and collaborated in Jesus’ crucifixion, but it places the responsibility for the death of Jesus on the Jewish people as a whole.” [http://outreachjudaism.org/who-killed-jesus/]
Rather than put a ‘blood guilt’ on Jews – I’d much rather seek a historical understanding to the story in the gospel of John.
Why put “a blood guilt” on anyone?
The disciples, re gJohn, were, after the crucifixion, in fear of the Jews. Historically:
”…He (Herod) also slew forty-five of the principal men of Antigonus’s party,…”
Yet that had nothing to do with the disciples. Was Antigonus or his party disciples? Herod was long dead. Are you trying to argue that the disciples thought Herod was a ghost coming to slay them?
“Historically” as you put it, the disciples were more likely in fear of the Romans
spiker said
So you figure reading the same stuff copied and pasted from wikipedia will better answer my questions than me clicking the linkand reading it on wikipedia? Did the content change when you copied and pasted it or are you just in the habit of missing the point?
Still , no mention of Herodian Jews or their relevance
This is what I wrote in my previous post:
That historical situation, re Josephus, gives me a far better awareness of what the writer of the gospel of John was doing with his anti-Jewish rhetoric – hence I find making a mental note to add ‘Herodian’ to this gospel’s reference to ‘Jews’ makes more sense of the gospel i.e. as a reflection of history not a historical account itself.
That’s it spiker – I’m not going around the houses with your over this. If you don’t care for what I’ve said – OK.
That’s it spiker – I’m not going around the houses with your over this. If you don’t care for what I’ve said – Ok
Allow me to apologize. It seems theres a bit of miscommunication here. Let me acknowledge your pet theory, say how cute it is, come over and pet him. He’s just so cute! Yes he isss and here’s a biscuit for him! Oh look at that, he rolled over and wants me to scratch his belly! He’s just sooo cute! Anyone that doesn’t agree is just a big meanie. How can anyone not love such a cutey, I’ll never know!
spiker said
That’s it spiker – I’m not going around the houses with your over this. If you don’t care for what I’ve said – Ok
Allow me to apologize. It seems theres a bit of miscommunication here. Let me acknowledge your pet theory, say how cute it is, come over and pet him. He’s just so cute! Yes he isss and here’s a biscuit for him! Oh look at that, he rolled over and wants me to scratch his belly! He’s just sooo cute! Anyone that doesn’t agree is just a big meanie. How can anyone not love such a cutey, I’ll never know!
”Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.”
Oscar Wilde
————————————-
”Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning that the disposition of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they cannot comprehend.”
Samuel Johnson
So now you want to “go around the houses”?
Quotes are things people use when they have no argument, no evidence and no idea what they’re talking about.
And nothing has more retarded the advancement of ideas on this site than someone with a pet theory who is impervious to evidence, even that which she offers.
~ A Vulgar Mind
spiker said
So now you want to “go around the houses”?Quotes are things people use when they have no argument, no evidence and no idea what they’re talking about.
And nothing has more retarded the advancement of ideas on this site than someone with a pet theory who is impervious to evidence, even that which she offers.
~ A Vulgar Mind
spiker – I’m truly embarrassed for you 
The manner in which you have approached someone who has different ideas than you have is disturbing. It is disturbing to anyone who values rationality and old fashioned good manners. Resorting to ridicule, as you have done, reflects badly not only on you as a poster on this forum – but also reflects badly on the forum itself. If you owned the forum then, of course, you can allow the discussions to degenerate into ridicule and mockery of people’s ideas. But you don’t own this forum; hence a measure of respect for the privilege of posting here should be evident by how we conduct ourselves. If your desire is to ridicule and mock the ahistoricst views on the gospel story – there are other forums where you can give vent to your disdain and frustrations. This forum is not that place. This forum has been set up by a NT scholar. Scholarship is about engaging with ideas without letting emotions lead us away from rational discourse.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert