tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post7197679667114363971..comments2024-03-15T10:01:59.405-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: My Interview with Simon J. Joseph (Part One) - Le DonneAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-5706114390181492762014-07-10T15:16:17.056-07:002014-07-10T15:16:17.056-07:00Mr. Gaddie,
An interesting post, which as you kn...Mr. Gaddie, <br /><br />An interesting post, which as you know has been around for awhile. Interestingly, Dr. Simon J. Joseph, has written something akin to your post. Simon J. Joseph, "Jesus in India? Transgressing Social and Religious Boundaries," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80 (March 2012): 161–99. Wil Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-36988736063396767962014-07-10T10:34:16.930-07:002014-07-10T10:34:16.930-07:00Griffin, this is your second comment on this blog ...Griffin, this is your second comment on this blog that suggests that you're a troll. (1) You've shown little to no evidence that you've read much on the topics that you're writing about. (2) You seem to be adopting pseudo-scholarly and popular-level theses.<br /><br />These two factors lead me to think that you're hoping to provoke rather than contribute. You'll need to do better if you'd like to continue to post here.<br /><br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-59409117318023458852014-07-10T05:54:41.673-07:002014-07-10T05:54:41.673-07:00For me the otherwise inexplicably anomalous nature...For me the otherwise inexplicably anomalous nature of a nonviolent, nonmilitary messiah, is best explained by derivation from Eastern priestly, even Buddhist origins (dating from c. 500 BC). <br /> <br />Since the expansion of Greek thought to Jerusalem and Persia in 300 BC, and its reiteration in the Roman Empire c. 64 BC, Eastern thought was increasingly accessible even in the West, even in 30 AD Palestine.<br /><br />Solomon married foreign wives - and their gods some say. Was "Q" an Eastern sage, after all?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09546359000923471205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-7801152742877768542014-07-08T22:34:53.171-07:002014-07-08T22:34:53.171-07:00Simon’s answer about Jesus in Judaism is a bit con...Simon’s answer about Jesus in Judaism is a bit confusing. I can mine from Simon’s answer the following statements: (1) We don’t know what was “normative” or “orthodox” Judaism in the first century, but (2) Jesus wasn’t a “normative” or “Orthodox” Jew, yet (3) Jesus must be sited within Judaism, even though (4) Jesus offended “normative” or “orthodox” Jews to the point that he could be accused of blasphemy and leading Israel astray. Ergo (5) Jesus was a non-traditional Jew, who nevertheless (6) was understood to be a Jewish messianic figure. <br /><br />Now, it seems to me that if we don’t know or can’t say what was orthodox or normative Judaism in the first century, we also don’t know whether Jesus should be located within or outside of these categories. The fact that Jesus had opponents simply places him firmly within what we understand was “normative” in the first century, namely a sectarian Judaism where each sect sniped at the others. The business about Jesus “leading Israel astray” is I think from the Talmud, which makes its early first century historicity suspect. <br /><br />It also seems to me that if Jesus was seen as a potential messianic figure, this argues against his being unorthodox or outside of whatever might have been normative. I don’t think you get to be thought of as a possible Jewish Messiah if folks aren’t sure about your Jewishness.<br /><br />While I personally doubt that Jesus was ever accused of blasphemy, even if we assume that Jesus was accused of blasphemy, it is close to impossible to draw any conclusions from this accusation. The New Testament, which is our primary source for the historicity of this accusation, also takes the position that Jesus was innocent of the accusation. The accusation against Jesus seems to have been based on his messianic claims, and it’s certainly not the case that Jews who claimed they were the Messiah were located outside of the Jewish mainstream (Bar Kochba was the leader of the Jewish people, which is arguably as mainstream and orthodox as you can get). <br /><br />Yes, arguably Jesus’ blasphemy went beyond his messianic claims, and was based more on his statement in Mark 14:62 claiming that his judges would see the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. But even if Jesus was claiming that he himself was this Son of Man, it’s not completely clear that this claim was any more blasphemous than the claim to be the Messiah. Was it unorthodox to think that the Messiah might also be the Son of Man? In any event, Jesus' alleged blasphemy does not seem to be based on a non-orthodox belief – no one was upset that Jesus claimed that there would someday be a Son of Man seated at the right hand of God. The problem was not that Jesus had a non-orthodox Judaism, but that he allegedly held an exalted vision of himself. His blasphemy seems to be a matter of whether or not he was right, and not whether or not he was unorthodox.<br /><br />One of the most controversial figures in Jewish history was the Rambam (also known as Moshe ben Maimon, or Maimonides). But I don’t think anyone accused him of being unorthodox or outside of normative Judaism. Richard Nixon was controversial in his day, but that didn’t make him non-traditional. Not everyone who is controversial is unorthodox.<br /><br />I like what A.-J. Levine said on this subject: Jesus was exceptional, not marginal.<br /><br />My two cents, FWIW.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.com