If I'm not wrong, the problem of ambiguous "recognition of Jesus’ Jewishness" was already raised by JP Meier in his tremendous Volume IV (how to forget the Meier's mantra of the "Halakic Jesus"?). However, I agree with Crossley that such problem may affect the view of Ratzinger, and (at a different degree) NT Wright, but I think that including Sanders in this "black list" is probably exaggerated. Also, the only person who may have had some interest to appear "nice to the Jews" was Ratzinger, while I'm not sure if historians like Wright and Sanders had a similar goal in mind. It could be more a problem of superficial understanding and acceptance of the "Jewish Jesus" notion.
If I'm not wrong, the problem of ambiguous "recognition of Jesus’ Jewishness" was already raised by JP Meier in his tremendous Volume IV (how to forget the Meier's mantra of the "Halakic Jesus"?). However, I agree with Crossley that such problem may affect the view of Ratzinger, and (at a different degree) NT Wright, but I think that including Sanders in this "black list" is probably exaggerated. Also, the only person who may have had some interest to appear "nice to the Jews" was Ratzinger, while I'm not sure if historians like Wright and Sanders had a similar goal in mind. It could be more a problem of superficial understanding and acceptance of the "Jewish Jesus" notion.
ReplyDelete