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

Goodnes, Robbie, there is so much here to refute, where to begin?
I'll put the kettle on, set back with a cup of tea, & have at it. Back in a
moment,
tina

1>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 24 22:29:17 2003