>
> From: David Hindley [mailto:dhindley@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:20 PM
> To: 'No Reply'
> Subject: RE: [XTalk] Jesus was neither Jewish nor Christian
>
> Clive,
>
> Would you expand a bit on what you mean by the term "political citizenship?"
>
> I've seen several commentators who noted that Herod the Great's considerable
contributions to the Roman leadership won the "Jewish" people a number of very
significant concessions. In particular, he got he Romans to agree to treat all
"Jews" as members of an EQNOS with quazi-political overtones. "Jew" in this
context seems to have an ethnic designation, so I cannot find satisfaction with
the idea that the term is supposed to refer only to residents of the district of
Judaea. Herod, an Idumean by region, was king of a wide ranging area that far
exceeded Judaea alone. He won concessions only for Judeans, but not Idumeans, or
Samaritans, or Galileans, or Itureans, etc?
>
> It seems he won concessions for some group that was a common denominator
within all these regions within his rule, but also managed to extended those
same concessions to all people who shared this common factor wherever they lived
in the empire. On the other hand, it also seemed these concessions were being
granted to members of a pre-existing group, nominally centered on the Jerusalem
cultus and its high priest, with the privileges being extended to members who
were by chance distributed throughout the empire.
>
> In other words, members of this EQNOS no longer had to live in the temple
state area (Judaea) to enjoy the rights and protections normally enjoyed by
members who lived in that region. No matter where they lived in the Roman
empire, they were able to form their
> own courts of law, assemble freely to practice their ancestral customs, and no
one could force them to live contrary to those customs. "Ancestral" customs
suggests "Jew" is an ethnic designation. The many gentiles living within the
borders of Judaea are never called "Judeans" by anybody. Yet the rights granted
to "Jews" are like those granted to a formal political body, such as citizens of
a Greek polis.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dave Hindley
> Newton Falls, Ohio USA
>
Thanks for this invitation although I am not sure that such is needed
since your own statement "makes the case" for what I had in mind ... and
does so both clearly and cogently.  Your very last sentence is a most
excellent summation of my point, that the
nation-state of Jerusalem/Judea was dealt with by the Romans "back then"
as having members/citizens who were not limited by geographical
location.  I would only add that the Jews themselves saw themselves as
just such.

To illustrate a bit further (while not laying out any formal hypothesis
since I have not yet myself fully explored this dimension), so much of
what is often taken as "religious" or even "theological" language turns
out to be political or at the very least taken from the realm of
political issues and claims, the most obvious being the central terms of
"Christ/Messiah" (for a king of the line of David) and "kingdom," which
we normally explain as metaphors but why not in their simple and
original meanings?

Yes, this would place Jesus or at least his follows who were the
"founders" of Christian traditions and practices as nationalists, who
proclaimed the coming day when the Jewish nation would once again enjoy
political independence; certainly "the political" gets attenuated in
subsequent Christian history (perhaps congruent with its separation from
Judaism?) until it is repoliticized by becoming co-opted into being
Constantine's "department of religious affairs."

Likewise, it seems to me that both the Pharisees and the Sadducees who
have been all too often perceived as religious denominations behave more
like political parties, since both aspire to obtaining political power
and authority if only to enforce their own understanding of Torah upon
the entire citizenry.  As I used to suggest in my classes, you can
identity which variety of Jew a person back then was not just by such
religious tests as what he meant by "Torah" but also by whom he
considered ought to have and to wield political authority.

Finally, as for "Jesus and Torah" (as the touch-stone of "Judaism"), I
would respond to the other recent postings by the observation that in
the gospels at least Jesus is arguing with Pharisaic rabbis about the
interpretation of Torah which would at least seem to "include him into"
the cultural/political/ethnic realm I envision; similarly, he goes to
Jerusalem at Passover in the Synoptics ... as a pilgrim fulfilling the
obligations of Torah?  And what about the other Galileans with him?
They all seem to be "acting like Jews," much as those from the Diaspora
hoped to show up at the Temple for the great feasts (mo'edhim).  Sure
looks like "being a Jew" to me (???).

Truth to tell, before I go further into this, I should confess that I
have not yet read the several volumes that E. P. Sanders helped create
about Jewish and Christian identity, so I frankly am not yet ready to
argue about how "the Jews themselves" saw themselves and so whether or
not they would have accepted this term by which they were known by other
cultures and nations.
Perhaps Paul's letters clue us into the fact (???) that "the Jews"
themselves saw themselves as "Israelites," not at all meaning
"members of the northern kingdom" (i.e. Galilee) with its own separate
traditions and practices; here, I suspect that the Jews saw themselves
as "Israelites" in the sense of the "kingdom of David" or "the twelve
tribes," united by "Torah & Temple," even as they argued vociferously as
to just what that meant in practice!

Thanks for asking if only because it gave me an excuse for sharing,
sharing something that is not intended as a argument for any fixed
position but rather a perspective that I have come to over the years ...
and fairly reluctantly so, I must admit. Following the example of Matson
in his recent posting, I might add that much of my graduate work was
with W. D. Davies who also directed my dissertation ... and who was the
only member of my examining committee who was interested in its
content!!!  (Smile!)  So most of my "oral exam" was a chat he and I both
enjoyed while the others listened in, with varying degrees of interest
... if any!  (Smile!)

Frank

Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Seminary, NYC)
Professor of Religion, Emeritus
Pikeville College
Pikeville, KY

(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)

Mark Goodacre wrote:

> I am not convinced of this line of argument.  The
> fact that Jesus is
> returning to Galilee in this story does not affect
> his identity.  The
> narrator's aside ("for IOUDAIOI do not have dealings
> with Samaritans",
> 4.9b) suggests that what needs clarifying, for the
> reader, is not that
> the woman thinks Jesus is a IOUDAIOS, but rather
> that it is unusual
> for a IOUDAIOS to be talking to her.  i.e. the
> narrator's comment is
> not "for she thought that Jesus was a IOUDAIOS", or
> similar.
> Moreover, 4.9 should be read contextually, with
> 4.22, "Salvation comes
> from the IOUDAIWN", clarifying that being a IOUDAIOS
> is something with
> which the Johannine Jesus claims continuity, and
> casting doubt on the
> idea that the Samaritan woman has made a mistake in
> 4.9.  To say that
> this verse is "exceptional" rather confirms that it
> does not fit with
> the nearby reference to IOUDAIOS in 4.9.

That Jesus is moving from Judea to Galilee can
certainly effect the way a stranger (mis)understands
him as a Ioudaios, if the geographical meaning is in
view. In John's gospel the term is used this way or in
the broader sense, and given its elastic meaning, it's
perhaps making too much of the way 4:9 is at odds with
4:22. I do acknowledge the problem here, but 4:22 is
exceptional however we take 4:9.

> To pick up on a point made previously, we just don't
> know what Jesus'
> usage was.  What we have are some interesting
> post-70 reflections in
> Greek, some of which may have continuity with Jesus'
> usage and some of
> which may not.  I agree that we need to take the
> Gospel evidence
> seriously, of course, but taking it seriously means
> avoiding the
> straight transference between the evangelists' usage
> and Jesus'.

Well Mark, we're going in circles. I realize that by
this logic we know next to nothing about Jesus, for
want of first-hand information. But I think the
cumulative gospel testimony paints a telling picture
here -- just as it points (for instance) to an
historically apocalyptic figure, though the gospel
writers clearly had an eschatological bias to begin
with.

> What do you make of texts like Mark 1.44, which
> sounds a lot like
> priestly Torah / Temple observance, as does the
> whole emphasis in the
> Gospels on the Passover and Temple, with
> which they all climax?

Taken in conjunction with all the gospel data (and
assuming that a text like Mk 1:44 is historical), we
have a Jesus who comes off as both pro- and
anti-Torah, pro- and anti-Temple. I'm suggesting that
the ambiguity can be accounted for, at least partly,
in terms of centuries-long Galilean independence
followed by Judean influence. When the Hasmoneans took
over after centuries of independence, it must have
resulted in some identification with the temple cult
(on the basis of ancient allegiances more than forced
conversions, I would think), but plenty of resentment
too.

But I doubt I'll persuade you... :(

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!  
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

David,
I use the non-fully featured Digest. I reply by clicking on "Write" (or
"New Message" in Outlook Express) and copying and pasting anything I
wish to quote from another message.

Best Wishes

JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)
Penistone, Sheffield UK
www.christianreflection.org.uk

On 10/09/2007, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@...> wrote:

>  That Jesus is moving from Judea to Galilee can
>  certainly effect the way a stranger (mis)understands
>  him as a Ioudaios, if the geographical meaning is in
>  view.

  Why?  You're going to have to spell this one out for me. Also, I
would be interested to know what you make of the narrative aside I
mentioned in 4.9b, which does not seem to confirm the theory that we
are supposed to read her identification as mistaken.

> In John's gospel the term is used this way or in
>  the broader sense, and given its elastic meaning, it's
>  perhaps making too much of the way 4:9 is at odds with
>  4:22. I do acknowledge the problem here, but 4:22 is
>  exceptional however we take 4:9.

I don't think 4.22 is exceptional;  the broad plot of John's Gospel is
that Jesus came to his own (1.11) but that they did not receive him.
He goes to the temple, to festivals, quotes the scriptures etc., but
spends loads of his time arguing with those who did not receive him.
The line that salvation comes from the IOUDAIOI fits with this picture
without trouble, it seems to me.

>  Well Mark, we're going in circles. I realize that by
>  this logic we know next to nothing about Jesus, for
>  want of first-hand information.

No, that's go to for an either / or way of configuring things.  My
point is simply that we need to treat the Gospels with the usual
caution and to tread cautiously and critically -- but that does not
mean that we know next to nothing about Jesus.  In this context,
discussing the terminology used by the evangelists, we need particular
care, I think, especially in relation to claims about what Jesus
"never" said or thought.

> But I think the
>  cumulative gospel testimony paints a telling picture
>  here -- just as it points (for instance) to an
>  historically apocalyptic figure, though the gospel
>  writers clearly had an eschatological bias to begin
>  with.

Agreed.

>  Taken in conjunction with all the gospel data (and
>  assuming that a text like Mk 1:44 is historical), we
>  have a Jesus who comes off as both pro- and
>  anti-Torah, pro- and anti-Temple. I'm suggesting that
>  the ambiguity can be accounted for, at least partly,
>  in terms of centuries-long Galilean independence
>  followed by Judean influence. When the Hasmoneans took
>  over after centuries of independence, it must have
>  resulted in some identification with the temple cult
>  (on the basis of ancient allegiances more than forced
>  conversions, I would think), but plenty of resentment
>  too.
>
>  But I doubt I'll persuade you... :(

As you know, Loren, I'm always open to persuasion :)  Part of the
difficulty here, though, relates to the fact that the same data is
easily explained by the apocalyptic Jesus you mention above.  Other
apocalyptic Jews in this period also had radical ideas about the
Temple and we don't need Galilee to explain it, especially when we
look at Qumran.

Cheers
Mark
--
Mark Goodacre            Goodacre@...
Associate Professor
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://NTGateway.com/goodacre

Loren Rosson wrote:

> Taken in conjunction with all the gospel data (and
> assuming that a text like Mk 1:44 is historical), we
> have a Jesus who comes off as both pro- and
> anti-Torah, pro- and anti-Temple. I'm suggesting
> that the ambiguity can be accounted for, at least
>partly, in terms of centuries-long Galilean
>independence followed by Judean influence. When the
>Hasmoneans took over after centuries of
>independence, it must have resulted in some
>identification with the temple cult (on the basis of
>ancient allegiances more than forced conversions, I
>would think), but plenty of resentment too.

When I did research on Jesus and the Law, I couldn't
find anything in the synoptic tradition that is
anti-Torah. I do include Mk 7:19 in that too, btw, but
for the sake of argument let's just say that it is
some 'anti-Torah' insertion (I don't buy that for a
moment and you can see I have to qualify it already!).
Can you give anti-Torah sayings and with reference to
Jewish (or if you want Judean) legal discussion to
show how these sayings were so different to
'pro-Torah' views in early Judaism (or whatever we
want to call it). Also, it might be helpful to
distinguish between differing interpretations which in
turn may feed into the debate about Galilean/Judean,
though that may take a bit of convincing too I
suspect.

On 'anti-Temple', that might be worth nuancing too.
The DSS have hostility toward the Temple, in some ways
like (the Galilean) Jesus. But that does not mean the
Temple is deemed necessarily bad and like plenty of
other Jesus may have liked sacrifice etc when it was
practised properly from his perspective.

I really do bang the same drum sometimes but hey.

James

James Crossley,
Dept of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield, UK



       ___________________________________________________________
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good 
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html

At 06:52 AM 9/9/2007, sdavies0 wrote:
>Hi Folks:
>
>I'm glad Bob asked me to respond to these letters and get involved
>in Crosstalk again.
>
>I think the question of the separate religious situations in Galilee
>and Judea in the first century are effected by the political
>situation in the twenty first century. America's foreign policy is
>based on a defense of Zionism, Zionism claims the right to return to
>Galilee for all Jewish people. Accordingly, Galilee is part of the
>Jewish State. But if we follow the line of argument Horsley lays
>down, then Galilee wasn't part of Judea ever, except during the
>quasi-mythological reigns of David and Solomon 1,000 years before
>Christ and a few years under the Maccabees and the Edomite Herod. . . .

I just have time for a few quick comments.
First, I have read with interest all of the contributions on this thread--
thanks for the discussion!

Second, my perspective runs parallel to the Horsley comment quoted by
Stevan above.
The history of what was sometimes known as Judea, Samaria & Galilee for
more than a thousand years, from the era of Moses and Judges to the time of
Jesus, has contained a tension of counterbalancing centrifugal and
centripetal forces. On the one hand are the centralizing forces focused on
the United Kingdom, the Maccabees, and the Jerusalem Temple as the center
of the cult. On the other hand are the regionalizing forces, from the
period of Judges (and the old "amphictyony" model) re-appearing with the
breakup of the United Kingdom, the separate cult in Samaria, and
illustrated again by the Roman division into Judea and Galilee, in which
the local cult was deemed preferable to the central cult. I understand this
to mean that even when one of these two counterbalancing forces was
dominant, the other was always present. Furthermore, to attempt to separate
the "religious" from the "political" is primarily a modern enterprise that
often distorts ancient realities.

So I appreciate the discussion of what did it mean to be IOUDAIOS at the
time of Jesus, and what did it mean to who.
Perhaps the relevant question is not whether Jesus was Jewish or not, but
how Jewish was he, which is open ended on the issue of what is Jewish,
anyway --or WISA, to adapt and paraphrase a similar question on another
e-list I'm on. And since, on that list, the parallel question is endlessly
debated with no end in sight, I can see a similar prospect here. But that
does not diminish the importance of the question, or the answer.

Sorry I don't have more time for a more scholarly argument.

Bob Schacht
University of Hawaii






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Loren]
> That Jesus is moving from Judea to Galilee can
> certainly effect the way a stranger (mis)understands
> him as a Ioudaios, if the geographical meaning is in
> view.

[Mark]
> Why? You're going to have to spell this one
> out for me.

You mean other than by pointing out that she's a
stranger, probably never seen him before, and is
simply drawing a conclusion based on his directional
movement? Maybe we just can't trust Samaritans. :)

[Mark]
>Also, I would be interested to know what
>you make of the narrative aside I
>mentioned in 4.9b, which does not seem to
>confirm the theory that we are supposed to
>read her identification as mistaken.

I'll concede the point... for now.

[Loren]
> Well Mark, we're going in circles. I realize that by
> this logic we know next to nothing about Jesus, for
> want of first-hand information.

[Mark]
>No, that's go to for an either / or way of
configuring things. My
>point is simply that we need to treat the Gospels
with the usual
>caution and to tread cautiously and critically -- but
that does not
>mean that we know next to nothing about Jesus. In
this context,
>discussing the terminology used by the evangelists,
we need particular
>care, I think, especially in relation to claims about
what Jesus
>"never" said or thought.

I think this boils down to a question of argumentative
style. You're evidently sensitive to absolutes. I hope
(and would think) that people on this board know that
we really can't be sure about any of this stuff. But
again, I have no problems with the "never" here, as
long as it's taken with the implicit "… as far as we
know".

[Loren]
> Taken in conjunction with all the gospel data (and
> assuming that a text like Mk 1:44 is historical), we
> have a Jesus who comes off as both pro- and
> anti-Torah, pro- and anti-Temple. I'm suggesting
that
> the ambiguity can be accounted for, at least partly,
> in terms of centuries-long Galilean independence
> followed by Judean influence. When the Hasmoneans
took
> over after centuries of independence, it must have
> resulted in some identification with the temple cult
> (on the basis of ancient allegiances more than
forced
> conversions, I would think), but plenty of
resentment
> too.
>
> But I doubt I'll persuade you... :(

[Mark]
>As you know, Loren, I'm always open to persuasion :)
>Part of the difficulty here, though, relates to the
fact
>that the same data is easily explained by the
apocalyptic
>Jesus you mention above. Other
>apocalyptic Jews in this period also had radical
ideas
>about the Temple and we don't need Galilee to
>explain it, especially when we look at Qumran.

That's true. But it's also true that people say and do
things for more than one reason. I once wrote a
blogpost explaining why I think there is no "single"
reason for Jesus' conflict with the Torah/Temple. We
don't need Galilee to account for Jesus on this point,
but Galilee may be a part of the puzzle anyway.
(Pinpointing four reasons, I opined that Jesus was a
"regional, reasonable, macho, and millenarian" figure.
RRMM? Sorry.)

Apocalypticism accounts for Jesus' stance in a general
way. Honor issues seem account for more specific
cases, a Galilean view for others, and perhaps the
question of competing moral imperatives (within the
context of how Galileans understood the law?) for
still others. Obviously all of that needs plenty of
unpacking. I won't do that here and now, only mention
it in passing to indicate that I don't necessarily
stop at one point if something leads me to believe
that another may supplement it.

You do keep me honest; thanks. Now James Crossley is
on my back...

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/

At 09:26 AM 9/10/2007, Loren Rosson wrote, in part:
>[Mark]
> >. . .  In this context,
> >discussing the terminology used by the evangelists, we need particular
> >care, I think, especially in relation to claims about what Jesus
> >"never" said or thought.
>
>I think this boils down to a question of argumentative
>style. You're evidently sensitive to absolutes. I hope
>(and would think) that people on this board know that
>we really can't be sure about any of this stuff. But
>again, I have no problems with the "never" here, as
>long as it's taken with the implicit "as far as we
>know".

Loren, I have to say that I find your argument irritating and unscholarly.
[Of course, I have had the same beef with the late Bob Funk and the Jesus
Seminar.]
In my dictionary, "as far as we know" is not part of the definition of
"Never."
The national atmosphere of rhetoric has already become debased enough
without further debasement on a list that is supposed to be scholarly. And
to fob the differences as merely a matter of "argumentative style" strikes
me as being similar to arguing that the difference between a freshman
composition on biblical scholarship, and a professional article in a
refereed journal are merely differences in "argumentative style" is to
place on an equal footing things that are not equal.

Bob Schacht
University of Hawaii

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

James wrote:

>When I did research on Jesus and the Law, I couldn't
>find anything in the synoptic tradition that is
>anti-Torah.

Anti-Torah texts would be Mk 7:15, those in which
Jesus has a callous attitude towards honoring one's
parents (Mk 3:33-35; Lk 14:26) -- "let the dead bury
the dead" (Mt 8:21-22/Lk 9:59-60) -- and (the
non-synoptic) Thom 53, which is anti-circumcision. I'm
not claiming all of these go back to HJ (I have
special doubts about the last one), only that
anti-Torah texts are there, and in different gospels.

The sabbath controversies are more difficult, because
Jesus is never portrayed as abolishing it, but doesn't
exactly deny that he and his followers are in conflict
with divine will, and must justify himself
accordingly. (I.e. He's never able to reply with the
simple retort that "this isn't work".) Is that
anti-Torah? To an extent perhaps, though he preserves
the sabbath on his own terms. It's more like he's in
tension with it here, rather than against.

With divorce he called for a higher standard, and that
would again put him in tension with the Torah, though
not against it. And likewise with the statements in Mt
5: they're not anti-Torah, but they do imply that
Moses isn't good enough.

So Jesus was probably against the Torah, in tension
with it, and all for it, depending on the issue at
hand -- assuming, if we can, that the gospels are any
indication at all. I've appreciated the attempts of
people like you and Sanders to show that Jesus was
more on the Torah's side than often made out to be,
but I don't think we can escape the pervasive
testimony that he broke rules as much as redefined or
supported them.

> On 'anti-Temple', that might be worth nuancing too.
> The DSS have hostility toward the Temple, in some
> ways
> like (the Galilean) Jesus. But that does not mean
> the
> Temple is deemed necessarily bad and like plenty of
> other Jesus may have liked sacrifice etc when it was
> practised properly from his perspective.

Agreed. Jesus was like the classical prophets on the
subject of the Temple.

> I really do bang the same drum sometimes but hey.

Bang away, we all have our hot buttons.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

Loren, James and all,
On Sep 11, 2007, at 6:52 AM, Loren Rosson wrote:

> James wrote:
>
>> When I did research on Jesus and the Law, I couldn't
>> find anything in the synoptic tradition that is
>> anti-Torah.

Some thoughts:

First, "Anti-Torah" is a rather sweeping phrasing that needs
unpacking.  The Jesus of the Synoptic Tradition is clearly for
upholding the heart/ spirit of Torah (Mark 12:28-34 and parallels).

A second thing regarding the "Torah" part of that phrase: One has to
make a distinction of the relative weight/ importance between moral
laws, social laws and cultic laws.  I do not think the language of
"anti-Torah" fits, for example Amos' great slam against the outwardly
ornate and by the book worship in such as Amos 5:21 ff.  (Indeed Amos
there is intoning YHWH's own complaint!)  The Matthean Jesus again
and again challenges the strictest of adherents (the Pharisees) on
their claim to follow the letter of the law while destroying the
spirit.  Jesus is quite in line with both the Prophetic and Wisdom
traditions in Israel and such is not "anti-Torah" at all.

The third issue from the received tradition is the one of character
and how one best tackles living Torah.  Included for reflection here
are such things as the understanding that living Torah is "a
wrestling match"  (hence the name of the people from the charming
story of Jacob (the supplanter, aka "leg-puller") to be name
"Israel" (the one whom God strives with/ the one who strives/
wrestles with God).  The wisdom heritage in Ecclesiastes 3 opens the
court for this struggle in terms "a time for..." this and "a time
for..." that.  And old Koheleth presents the marvelous and perplexing
struggle of  actually living the struggle in Eccl. 7:15-18.  In light
of this, any avowal that following Torah can be reduced to the notion
that one only needs to know the rules and follow them, and conversely
one is "anti-Torah" if one does anything else, is to actually be
turned from "the wrestling match."

And so...
>>
>
> Anti-Torah texts would be Mk 7:15,

Surely note "anit-Torah."

> those in which
> Jesus has a callous attitude towards honoring one's
> parents (Mk 3:33-35; Lk 14:26)

I always want to suggest we be careful with "attitude language" when
reading ancient texts.  In this we need to consider such as the
differentiation between the actual historical situation and the way a
particular Gospel story is presented.  And I think it is good
practice to read aphoristic language putting on several moods (with
Mark 3... envision Jesus as worn out and in a bad mood,  then angrily
challenging questioners, then sadly wagging his head at people who
don't get his point, then grinning and saying such words in kindly
tones).  Language and body language and such as mood and tone have
everything to do with understanding messages, of course.  And the
very same words said in different tones can convey different
messages.  To proclaim that there is simply one right way to read
mood, tone, and "attitude" in ancient literature is a bit much to claim.
> -- "let the dead bury
> the dead" (Mt 8:21-22/Lk 9:59-60) --

And following on that last statement... this clearly aphoristic
language takes one to the whole genre of wisdom communication.  Such
communication on the whole is about challenging others to think/
reconsider/ re-sense what is going on and what is the best course of
action.  When considering tart sayings like this, one not only needs
to run the above mentioned gamut of possible tones/ demeaners of the
speaker, but also the use of such as hyperbole, contradiction (saying
the opposite of what one thinks in order to engage the hearer in the
challenge of the given issues/ circumstances/ thoughts) or the
possibility such language functions to tease or joke.  I think to
judge such aphoristic language as this as being "commandment
language" is to misjudge the very nature of the language.  And the
above uses of language that work to lift up the core nature of the
ethical struggle of a situation (here Jesus would seem to be
upholding that the call of God relativizes everything else and that
is hardly "anti-Torah.")
> and (the
> non-synoptic) Thom 53, which is anti-circumcision. I'm
> not claiming all of these go back to HJ (I have
> special doubts about the last one), only that
> anti-Torah texts are there, and in different gospels.
>
> The sabbath controversies are more difficult, because
> Jesus is never portrayed as abolishing it, but doesn't
> exactly deny that he and his followers are in conflict
> with divine will, and must justify himself
> accordingly. (I.e. He's never able to reply with the
> simple retort that "this isn't work".) Is that
> anti-Torah? To an extent perhaps, though he preserves
> the sabbath on his own terms. It's more like he's in
> tension with it here, rather than against.
>
> With divorce he called for a higher standard, and that
> would again put him in tension with the Torah, though
> not against it. And likewise with the statements in Mt
> 5: they're not anti-Torah, but they do imply that
> Moses isn't good enough.

I'll skip to this and say "Whoa!"  "Moses isn't good enough?"  What
does that have to do with following Torah?  At any rate, Matthew's
redaction of the Q Sermon is all about understanding that aphoristic
summation in light of truly living Torah as is completely clear in
Matthew 5:17ff.  Again, "spirit" and "letter" can certainly never
simply be equated when it comes to Torah.  And in the Five Books of
Moses, anyway, one already sees midrash taking place as one
progresses through the redactions that give us the extant Torah.

And one last thought regarding the modern context.  Ultra-Orthodox,
Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism all take Torah entirely
seriously, but all hardly have the same hermeneutics and/ or stances
in reading it.  I certainly don't think the language of "anti-Torah"
is the appropriate language to use in relationship to understanding
these differences.  Within hot insider debates, such language is used
in terms of the rhetoric of attack and parry regards who/ which party
"really has it right."  (so between the Sunni and Shia, so between
Presbyterians and Baptists and Roman Catholics).  In partisan
rhetoric words can get sharp, but that is a whole 'nother animal than
an outside description of the central devotions/ concerns of
religious groups.  The Jesus of history was clearly all about
devotion to Torah, as was Caiaphas, as were the Pharisees, the
Sadducees, etc.  I don't think it is helpful to call any of them
"anti-Torah," but rather it is helpful to lay out their varied
hermeneutics and praxis paradigms for living Torah.  Those
hermeneutics and praxis paradigms are where the arguments are and the
distinctions can be made.  And so I end on the avowal about the
Synoptic Jesus, at least, that he wowed a given bunch of fellow
Israelites in his day because they heard him speak with "authority"
that far exceeded the Scribes and Pharisees.  His partisans certainly
thought this!

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Thanks Loren and apologies for taking this a bit off
topic

> Anti-Torah texts would be Mk 7:15, those in which
> Jesus has a callous attitude towards honoring one's
> parents (Mk 3:33-35; Lk 14:26) -- "let the dead bury
> the dead" (Mt 8:21-22/Lk 9:59-60)

These are paralleled in early Judaism. Mark 7:15 can
easily be read as an attack on those who think insides
become impure, especially through not washing hands
and bodily immersion (cf. Poirier) - notice too how
the saying is in the context of hand-washing and an
attack on the tradition of the elders. Besides, we
know of similar sentiments in Aristeas which does not
reject the cultic system or anything related.

On parents, we know from Josephus and others that
there were people who explicitly put following God,
Law etc above following parents. We also have no one
telling Jesus off for such a radical attitude which we
might expect. As for Luke 14:26, 'hate' is admittedly
strong in English but in Greek and Aramaic (and
Hebrew) it can have the force of 'love less' (cf.
Matt's version).

Let the dead bury their own dead is again not as sharp
as many have argued. Firstly, the man is not going to
be left unburied. Secondly, there is no comment on
Jesus doing anything radical, which is a surprise
given the amount of times scholars say that this
saying is radical. Thirdly, though I don't think this
is the right analogy and I know at least one person on
this list really doesn't like this analogy but
nevermind, we know of exceptions about not buring the
dead in certain circumstances (see Bockmuehl,
Fletcher-Louis)

> The sabbath controversies are more difficult,
> because
> Jesus is never portrayed as abolishing it, but
> doesn't
> exactly deny that he and his followers are in
> conflict
> with divine will, and must justify himself
> accordingly. (I.e. He's never able to reply with the
> simple retort that "this isn't work".) Is that
> anti-Torah? To an extent perhaps, though he
> preserves
> the sabbath on his own terms. It's more like he's in
> tension with it here, rather than against.

Let's take plucking grain. We know that the rabbis did
not like the men from Jericho picking up fruit on the
Sabbath but presumably the men from Jericho felt that
they were not doing anything wrong and they could
easily point to the Hebrew Bible in defence should
they wish.Everything else in Mk 2:23-28 is paralleled
in early Judaism. If it showed up in rabbinic
literature and not the gospels, I doubt anyone would
even notice it. On the healings, Jesus uses the view
of saving life to extend to his healings on the
Sabbath (see esp. Lutz Doering on this). Some may not
have been happy with this but the argument is framed
to be a legal debate assuming the validity of the
Sabbath.

Similar comments can be made one other points: every
'legal' saying in Matt 5 is known in early Judaism,
some to the point of being completely uncontroversial.

> Bang away, we all have our hot buttons.

!

Thanks,

James

James Crossley
Dept of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield, UK



       ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/

James Crossley wrote:
> Mark 7:15 can
> easily be read as an attack on those who think insides
> become impure, especially through not washing hands
> and bodily immersion (cf. Poirier) - notice too how
> the saying is in the context of hand-washing and an
> attack on the tradition of the elders. Besides, we
> know of similar sentiments in Aristeas which does not
> reject the cultic system or anything related.


Interestingly, however, is the fact that Strack-Billerbeck don't list
any rabbinic text for Mark 7:15.

I wonder - as an aside - why Loren seems to want to drive a wedge
between Jesus and Judaism.  If I have misunderstood his intention I
apologize.  But it seems that the discussion so far is trending in that
direction and so it sounds very similar to the debates about the
Jewishness of Jesus in the 20's and 30's.

Best

Jim

--
Jim West, ThD

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

Jim wrote:

>I wonder - as an aside - why Loren seems to want to
drive a wedge
>between Jesus and Judaism. If I have misunderstood
his intention I
>apologize. But it seems that the discussion so far is
trending in that
>direction and so it sounds very similar to the
debates about the
>Jewishness of Jesus in the 20's and 30's.

Come now, Jim, this is the sort of rhetoric used by
Sean Freyne in implicitly comparing Crossan to
Grundmann. I want to do away with the term
"Jew/Judaism" for the pre-70 context because I'm
convinced it's inappropriate. But you don't really
think I -- not to mention Elliott, Esler, Malina --
are unwitting Nazis, do you? Bill Arnal's Symbolic
Jesus addresses Jesus' "Jewishness" as a hot-button
item, especially in light of the fears you're raising
here. I can't imagine how you'd draw the conclusion
anyway, since I don't understand Jesus outside an
Israelite (or even Judean, to an extent) matrix.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz

Loren Rosson wrote:

> Come now, Jim, this is the sort of rhetoric used by
> Sean Freyne in implicitly comparing Crossan to
> Grundmann.

I like Sean!  He's a brilliant guy.

I want to do away with the term
> "Jew/Judaism" for the pre-70 context because I'm
> convinced it's inappropriate.

You'll have to do away with Romans then- esp. 1:17f.

But you don't really
> think I -- not to mention Elliott, Esler, Malina --
> are unwitting Nazis, do you?

No I certainly don't.  Well, not you and Malina anyway.

Bill Arnal's Symbolic
> Jesus addresses Jesus' "Jewishness" as a hot-button
> item, especially in light of the fears you're raising
> here. I can't imagine how you'd draw the conclusion
> anyway, since I don't understand Jesus outside an
> Israelite (or even Judean, to an extent) matrix.

I draw the conclusion simply because the present argument reminds me of
the 20's argument.

Best,

Jim

--
Jim West, ThD

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

[Loren]
>> Come now, Jim, this is the sort of rhetoric used by
>> Sean Freyne in implicitly comparing Crossan to
>> Grundmann.

[Jim]
> I like Sean! He's a brilliant guy.

I like his work too, and in fact generally prefer it
to Crossan's. But comparing poor Dom to Grundmann,
however slyly, is a bit over the line, n'est-ce pas?

>You'll have to do away with Romans then- esp. 1:17f.

The point is that Paul isn't discussing Jews but
Judeans, and may be doing so with blinders on to other
ways of being Israelite.

>>But you don't really
>>think I -- not to mention Elliott, Esler, Malina --
>>are unwitting Nazis, do you?

>No I certainly don't. Well, not you and Malina
anyway.

I'll sleep better now.

>> Bill Arnal's Symbolic
>> Jesus addresses Jesus' "Jewishness" as a hot-button
>> item, especially in light of the fears you're
raising
>> here. I can't imagine how you'd draw the conclusion
>> anyway, since I don't understand Jesus outside an
>> Israelite (or even Judean, to an extent) matrix.

>I draw the conclusion simply because the present
>argument reminds me of the 20's argument.

Yes, I see. April DeConick had a strong reaction to
Elliott's essay today on her blog, and I can't help
but think that we come to rely on certain terminology
as a crutch to protect us from phantom fears, or that
we're fighting lost battles, however subconsciously.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/

I've learned today from one of my many secret (and greatly esteemed and
appreciated) sources that an additional item has been added to the SBL
Annual Meeting Program (even though it isn't listed online yet):

The panel /will be reviewing Hector Avalos' new book The End of Biblical
Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007). We will gather in San
Diego, on the weekend of the Annual Meetings of the American Academy of
Religion and Society of Biblical Literature, 17 November 2007, from 7 to
8:30 PM, in the Connaught Room of the Manchester Grand Hyatt/.

Mark your program books my friends, it's going to be a doosey.


--
++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD

http://drjimwest.wordpress.com
http://drjewest.googlepages.com




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

More information is available here:

http://www.iaacr.org/colloquia.htm

Jim


--
Jim West, ThD

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@...> wrote:
> Yes, I see. April DeConick had a strong reaction to
> Elliott's essay today on her blog, and I can't help
> but think that we come to rely on certain terminology
> as a crutch to protect us from phantom fears, or that
> we're fighting lost battles, however subconsciously.

I've just read through April's recent postings and she says this:

"Whether Jesus was a Galilean or a Judean can be an interesting
erudite discussion, but it means nothing in regard to whether or not
Jesus was Jewish by our conventional definition of that term. Like
his brothers and sister Jews who lived in the south, Jesus was a
Torah-observant, Temple-oriented, apocalyptic teacher who felt very
strongly that God's covenantal promises would be fulfilled in
Israel. He kept Sabbath, celebrated the festivals, was kosher, and
worshiped Yahweh.          I think that it is time for us to face up
to Jesus' Jewishness, and ask ourselves why the some in the academy
(which many of us are a part of) continue to want to deny, ignore or
get around this."

This sort of thing is just what I try to argue against. It's as
though she had never seen a map showing the location of Galilee vis
a vis Samaria and Judea and had no idea about the history of the
place. But surely she does. Knowing that, though, she declares that
it doesn't matter.

Note that her description of Jesus as a Torah-observant, Temple-
oriented Sabbath-keeping Jew is supposedly so obvious that anyone
who might deny it must have their motivations questioned. "Why do
some continue to want to deny this!?" Has she never read Mark's
gospel? She's read Thomas for sure, but dismisses the evidence there
against her own views without any trouble.

The fact that Jesus is Galilean should enable us to select from the
welter of contradictory evidence the more reliable bits. Instead, we
select bits that are intended to show that his being Galilean is
irrelevant.

Is it that she doesn't know that Matthew's Gospel is a version of
Mark re-written to give us the view of Jesus that she supports? Or
that Paul first persecuted, as a Pharisee, the movement that he
later joined, a movement that is not Torah-observant, Temple-
oriented, Sabbath-keeping until false brothers crept in to make it
so? (This is my eyewitness's testimony anyhow).

"He made all foods clean." "You have made my Father's house a
robber's cave." "The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath."

But I suppose even thinking these sorts of things makes me one of
the Nazis.

>>But you don't really
>>think I -- not to mention Elliott, Esler, Malina --
>>are unwitting Nazis, do you?

>No I certainly don't. Well, not you and Malina
anyway.

Steve Davies

Hi,

Given the recent interest in Jack Elliott's essay, "Jesus the Israelite Was
Neither a 'Jew' nor a 'Christian': On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature", I
want to draw to your attention that it is now available electronically at
Sage Publications online (available free through universities, etc., who
have an electronic subscription) or directly here:
http://jhj.sagepub.com/archive/

There was a glitch between publishing the hard copy and getting the
electronic version online which has now been corrected.


Bob Webb (editor of JSHJ).


Robert L. Webb
McMaster University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, ON   L8S 4K1
Canada


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob Webb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given the recent interest in Jack Elliott's essay, "Jesus the Israelite Was
> Neither a 'Jew' nor a 'Christian': On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature", I
> want to draw to your attention that it is now available electronically at
> Sage Publications online (available free through universities, etc., who
> have an electronic subscription) or directly here:
> http://jhj.sagepub.com/archive/
>
> There was a glitch between publishing the hard copy and getting the
> electronic version online which has now been corrected.
>
>
> Bob Webb (editor of JSHJ).
>
>
> Robert L. Webb
> McMaster University
> 1280 Main Street West
> Hamilton, ON   L8S 4K1
> Canada
>
Most welcome news indeed, but I find that I still can not access the
latest issue (???), through neither of my libraries, both of which
effectively give me access to all your issues ... but just through last
January's, which is what I could do yesterday!  I am puzzled and would
welcome any clarification!  Or have I just "jumped the gun"?  (Smile!)

Frank

Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Seminary, NYC)
Professor of Religion, Emeritus
Pikeville College
Pikeville, KY

(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)

Dear Frank,

The issue 5.2 of JSHJ is available at the cite noted below (Sage's own
electronic access site). Your library would have direct access to this if
they have either "Highwire Press Sage Publications" or "Sage Publications
Online" and subscribe to JSHJ electronically. I suspect it might take a
while for this to transfer electronically to other electronic source methods
(perhaps the ones used by your library).

Alternatively, you can go to Sage's website noted below and purchase a copy
of the article in PDF format.

Please note: I am merely the lowly editor; I have no ownership stake in the
journal or the press and its financial policies.

Bob.


Bob Webb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given the recent interest in Jack Elliott's essay, "Jesus the
> Israelite Was Neither a 'Jew' nor a 'Christian': On Correcting
> Misleading Nomenclature", I want to draw to your attention that it is
> now available electronically at Sage Publications online (available
> free through universities, etc., who have an electronic subscription) or
directly here:
> http://jhj.sagepub.com/archive/
>
> There was a glitch between publishing the hard copy and getting the
> electronic version online which has now been corrected.
>
>
> Bob Webb (editor of JSHJ).


Most welcome news indeed, but I find that I still can not access the latest
issue (???), through neither of my libraries, both of which effectively give
me access to all your issues ... but just through last January's, which is
what I could do yesterday!  I am puzzled and would welcome any
clarification!  Or have I just "jumped the gun"?  (Smile!)

Frank

Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Seminary, NYC) Professor of Religion, Emeritus
Pikeville College Pikeville, KY

On 12/09/2007, Frank Jacks <cfjacks@...> wrote:

>  Most welcome news indeed, but I find that I still can not access the
>  latest issue (???), through neither of my libraries, both of which
>  effectively give me access to all your issues ... but just through last
>  January's, which is what I could do yesterday!  I am puzzled and would
>  welcome any clarification!  Or have I just "jumped the gun"?  (Smile!)

Same issue for me too, Frank.  I can access January's through the
library here, but not yet July.  I've asked our librarian to check.
Perhaps it will come online soon.

Mark
--
Mark Goodacre            Goodacre@...
Associate Professor
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://NTGateway.com/goodacre

I'm very pleased to announce that we have a couple of great colloquia
coming up on the Biblical Studies list.  First, in November, Mogens
Muller will be our guest and we will discuss with him the significance
of the Septuagint.

Then, in January, Drs. Richard Bauckham and Gerd Luedemann will be with
us in a "head to head" discussion of the topic "What Can We Know of the
Historical Jesus".  As the time for these colloquia draws near we will,
of course, announce the specific details.  I just wanted to let you know
about them now so that you have something to look forward to after the
Annual Meeting of the SBL.

The list webpage is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical-studies

We would love to have you participate if you are so inclined.

--
++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD

http://drjimwest.wordpress.com
http://drjewest.googlepages.com

Jim,

Rikk Watts here. How does one join the colloquia ... and the bib studs list?
(Assuming, of course, that one is welcome :) ).

Thanks


On 13/9/07 12:25 PM, "Jim West" <jwest@...> wrote:

> I'm very pleased to announce that we have a couple of great colloquia
> coming up on the Biblical Studies list.  First, in November, Mogens
> Muller will be our guest and we will discuss with him the significance
> of the Septuagint.
>
> Then, in January, Drs. Richard Bauckham and Gerd Luedemann will be with
> us in a "head to head" discussion of the topic "What Can We Know of the
> Historical Jesus".  As the time for these colloquia draws near we will,
> of course, announce the specific details.  I just wanted to let you know
> about them now so that you have something to look forward to after the
> Annual Meeting of the SBL.
>
> The list webpage is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical-studies
>
> We would love to have you participate if you are so inclined.

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@...>
wrote:
> > Robinson said. . "The Jesus Project is not to launch into
> > endless new. but ultimately unconvincing arguments that
> > Jesus never lived, but to understand better that oldest layer
> > of tradition and how it can be made into a  more influential
> > force in  our society today".
>
> I understand from an email that James M. Robinson also was
> not asked to be a fellow.

A correction: I went back and reread the email after this statement of
mine was challenged and in fact he did not discuss specifically whether
he was or was not asked to be a fellow.  My apologies for
misremembering.  Mea culpa.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gerd Luedemann's latest is available in pdf here

http://www.antoniolombatti.it/FreeInquiry.pdf

Jim


--
Jim West, ThD

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

With apologies for cross posting.

Over the past few months,  Corpus Paulinum has become a target for spam
messages from purveyors of get rich quick schemes, body part enlargement
pills, pirated software, and any number of other dubious products and
enterprises.

The number of such of messages sent to the moderators has increased
exponentially with each passing day, so that a great deal of our time is
wasted in deleting these messages and making sure that they do not get
through to the List membership.

Requests to our host server asking if there was something that could be
done about the apparent harvesting and sharing of the C-P address have
gone unanswered, leaving the moderators with no recourse save to shut
down the list and reincarnate it at another address.

And this is exactly what I have done.

I have created Corpus Paulinum-2 at Yahoo Groups.

Our new home is  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Corpus-Paulinum-2

I will be attempting to switch all members of C-P over to this new List
as soon as possible.  But in the mean time I ask all current C-P members
to help me in this task by sending a subscription request to:

Corpus-Paulinum-2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Please forgive me if you are an old member and I send a screening letter
to you before I (re)approve your membership.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...

With apologies for cross posting.

It's that time of year again when the Society of Biblical Literature's
Annual Meeting is just round the corner (Nov. 17th - Nov.  20th) and I
begin to arrange the now traditional (11th annual!) gathering of all
those NT and Biblical and Biblically related e-list members (i.e.
XTalkers, B-Greeks, and members of Corpus Paulinum, John-Lit, Kata
Markon, Biblical Studies, T-C List, Ioudaios, Synoptic-L, Aramaic,
ANE-2, etc. ) who will be going to San Diego for the SBL
conference.

[For those of you who do not know what the Society of Biblical
Literature is and/or are unfamiliar with the SBL Annual Meeting, go
first to

http://www.sbl-site.org/

and then to

http://www.sbl-site.org/congresses/Congresses_AnnualMeeting.aspx].

The informal E-Listers' meeting is planned for Saturday, Nov. 17th at
11:30 a.m. (tentatively) at the Gorgias Press Booth (# 732) in the San
Diego Convention Center Exhibit Hall G-F.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous
SBLs.

As I've done in the past 10 years in arranging this meeting, I'd like to

get an advance head count of those of you who are intending to attend
this year's SBL.

I'd also like to know who among the intended attendees is presenting a
paper during the conference (and at what time and place and within what
SBL group or section and under what title).

So this is the first call to write me OFF LIST at jgibson000@...

and let me know the following:

(a) if you will be attending;

(b) if and when and under what aegis (i.e., SBL/AAR Section and Session
#) you are presenting a paper,

(c) your paper title, AND

(d) what you consider to be your "home" E-List.

I'll keep everyone updated as the info comes in to me.

Again, write to me OFF LIST (jgibson000@...) and please use a
header that says something like "SBL e-listers' meeting".

May I ask that if you are letting me know that you are giving a paper,
that   you adhere as closely as possible to the SBL/AAR Program Book
Format when you do so.  That is to say,  I'd be grateful if you'd
compose your information according to this formula:

Name and Institution
Section #
Title of Section
Date
Time
Room
Theme
Paper title

For example:

Mark Goodacre
S19-122
Q
11/19/2007
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: Emma C - GH

Theme: The Mark-Q Overlaps
Mark Goodacre, Duke University
Taking Leave of Mark-Q Overlaps: Major Agreements in Matthew 3.7-12 //
Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17


Looking forward to seeing you in San Diego!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...

The Telegraph has the sad news.

http://www.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=4702aec5d7f0cdc9&ei=sRECR8-2KpD\
EowKXhsCAAg&url=http%3A//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/news/2007/\
10/02/db0201a.xml&cid=0

Jim


--
Jim West, ThD

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

With apologies for cross posting:

I recall reading that in first century Judaism "hallowing the name" was
becoming (or already was) expressly identified with martyrdom.  But I
cannot at the moment locate the source or sources which
mooted/documented this idea.

Can anyone here help with this?

Who, if anyone, has made this claim?

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...