Re: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

Tina writes:
<< Turn the other cheek refers to an act of defiance, If you turn the other
cheek, then the Romans cannot backhand you, as they were want to do.
Therefore, there is a fountain of analogies in Greek literature of passive
aggression. >>

I'll agree with you that turning the cheek is a sort of defiance, but not
that "the Romans [then] cannot backhand you." I don't think that this was
the point, and I'm sure it isn't true.

If anyone should strike you on the cheek, Jesus says in Matthew 5.38,
"Strepson autôi kai tén allén," literally, "turn to him even the other."
This doesn't sound like an evasion of any sort, but an offering.

And such offerings are often accepted, as was recognized by the Muslim
writer Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who relates in al-Zuhd:

      Jesus was walking by the Pass of Afiq with one
      of his disciples. A man crossed their path and
      prevented them from proceeding, saying, "I will
      not let you pass until I have struck each of you a
      blow." They tried to dissuade him, but he refused.
      Jesus said, "Here is my cheek. Slap it." The man
      slapped it and let him pass. He said to the disciple,
      "I will not let you pass until I have slapped you too."
      The disciple refused.
      When Jesus saw this, he offered him his other cheek.
      He slapped it and allowed both of them to go.

And I do not see how it follows that there is in Greek literature a
"fountain" of analogies of passive aggression.

Tina also writes:
<< First of all, trying to discern anything about Jesus or his politics from
John is pure crap. John was the last written, the most insane, and the
least familiar with Jewish politics and traditions. >>

Trying to discern from any ancient text anything about Jesus or any other
historical or maybe-historical figure presents great, often insurmountable,
difficulties. But it is not -- and certainly not in the case of Jesus and
the Gospel of John -- "pure crap."

I would bet that you're correct about John's being the last written of the
gospels (or at least that it is the last substantial addition of new
material to the gospels), though nobody really knows this and I'm curious
about how you came to seem so sure (you sound like you've been reading Hyam
Maccoby). In any case, the oldest fragment we have of any of the gospels,
only about the size of a credit card, is referred to as P52 and is
recognizably a fragment from the Gospel of John, dating to approximately 125
CE. To people who pay attention to the dates on these things, that is Very
Early. It was very probably not written by anyone who ever saw Jesus, true
enough (there's at least a decent chance that none of the New Testament
was), but that doesn't render it pure crap in any sense, even in a
historical one.

I don't think it qualifies as "insane" either, though on a sliding scale
which includes everything, I suppose it is more insane than the other three.
It is certainly the most complex. The suggestion that it is in any way
unfamiliar with Jewish politics and traditions is utterly false. Of the
gospels it is probably the most critical of the Jerusalem Jews, but it
remains a fundamentally Jewish book, and while its Greek is the most
beautiful and fluid of the gospels (even of the New Testament) it is not
wholly free from pointed Hebraisms. I expect that it was written for Jews,
at least primarily, and probably for Hellenized Jews some distance away from
Jerusalem.

(And in case it changes how you think of my saying these things, you might
care to know that I am not a Christian, and that my interest stems primarily
from Judaica and Hellenism.)

Tina then writes:
<< Jesus was a rebel. Virtually all of his followers were zealots or less
respectable "freedom fighters" against Roman occupation. >>

Of course we cannot know, but I remain very skeptical about Jesus' being
much of a political rebel. From all accounts it seems to me much more
likely that he was a religious reformer who was taken to be a political
rebel, and whose religious reform involved politics insofar as this resulted
from the political nature of the religious institution.

However little we know about the historical Jesus, we know far less about
his followers during his life. Probably some of his followers were rebels,
as you say, since they were probably quite common and there was something
very rebellious about what Jesus was doing. But it seems to me unlikely
that many of his closest followers were really political rebels, and it
seems to me that your claim (that it was "virtually all") certainly cannot
be validated.

Also:
<< Judas Iscariot was so called because he was a "Sicarius", a carrier of an
assassin's knife. >>

This is probably so often claimed because it is so interesting and
provocative, but unfortunately, it is probably untrue. It would be an
unusual Greek corruption of the Latin, which itself would not eliminate it
as a possibility but for the naturalness of the Greek corruption into
Iskariôth (or, as it often is, Iskariôtés) from the Hebrew Ish Qrayoth,
which means, much less provocatively, Man of Cities. (Or, since this is a
rare word for city, it is certainly possible that it was a proper
village-name, Man from Karioth -- "Qriyoth" is in fact identified as a
village in southern Judah in Joshua 15.25)

This all remains, as etymologies most always do, uncertain; though the
latter seems to me more plausible than the former.

And:
<< Jesus, despite the watering down that the Holy Roman Empire gave him, was
a rebel and a defier of Rome. He was killed because he, as a Benjamite, and
also from the house of David had a legitimate claim to the throne, and was
killed for it. A pacifist, he was not. >>

Again, I am skeptical of claims that Jesus defied Rome. If his execution
was the result of defiance, it seems to me more likely that it was defiance
of local religious authorities. John suggests that the chief priests wanted
him dead because they perceived a risk that the people would make him king
in spite of himself, whether he wanted to be or not, and that Rome would
then destroy them all. But it isn't clear.

Of course, Rome DID destroy them all only a few decades later. And there
were other rebels, before and after Jesus. It also is not clear that he
really did have a legitimate (or Davidic) claim to the throne. There might
even be the subtle suggestion that he was, or was suspected of being, a
bastard.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 24 03:01:50 2003