Re: [XTalk] Messianic expectations
- At 11:21 AM 3/1/04 -0700, you wrote:
>It was published in 1998. There's no review of it at bookreviews.org
>Has anyone on this list examined this book? If so, can you summarize
>Oegema's conclusions relevant to our interest in Jesus' self-image and
>Peter's "Confession"? Also, the above summary fails to mention the
>publication date, so I don't even know if this is a new book, or an old one
>that is being remaindered.
Dr Jim West
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com -- Biblical Studies Resources Weblog
"The way many young theologues are dissociating themselves from the church
is highly displeasing to me. It is also utterly unrealistic". Gerhard von Rad
- Linda & Ernest Pennells wrote:
> [Zeba Crook]Also, in his _Christ and the Caesars_, Satuffer conjectured that Jesus' entry into
> > don't mean to sound glib, but is it not likely that entering Jerusalem
> >on a donkey is how most people entered the city? How many other options
> >were there?
> Anthony Harvey (Constraints of History) makes a big deal of this: "The
> kernel of historical fact within the fairly elaborate layers of
> interpretation ... is Jesus startling and ostentatious reversal of the
> normal constraint which would have obliged him to enter Jerusalem on foot"
> (Harvey 1982, 129).
Jerusalem followed immediately after Pilate had made his grand entrance. If this
is so, then Jesus' method of entry takes on a whole new signification.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626
- Steven wrote:
>Anyway, for now, I will just augment my earlier post with a few of theadditional quotes that were from before the rabbinic period (we will
consider Saadia Goan as the first reference of the rabbinic period.)>
I realy appreciate seeing these references. Rabbinics is not my forte,
so could explain to me: how do we know that these Talmudic references
are first century or before?
I accept your suggestion that post-Christianity Judaism may have felt
the need to respond to Christian claims about their Messiah. On the
other hand, I would tend to be more generous to the Christian scholarly
attempt to distinguish between first-century Judaism and Christianity:
it's neither "mythicist" nor "anti-missionary" propaganda that seeks to
differentiate them. Rather it is based on the correction of a
long-standing traditional view that "the Jews" are to be faulted (as
willfully ignorant, or something like that) for not recognising the
very Messiah they were all waiting for and rejecting (and killing) him
instead. Post-Holocaust work has recognised that in fact, it's
entirely logical that the majority of Jews, being well familiar with
their own scriptures, were not convinced by the "scriptural proofs"
being offered by the members of the Jesus movement. In other words, it
is (and remains) anything but obvious that Jesus was a reasonable
likeness to any of the various messiahs Jews were hoping would come (I
think *expecting* is even putting it too strongly), and your claim
notwithstanding, the all the sources do not all make the same claim.
It is obvious, and I easily grant, that these things are all obvious to
believers (then *and* now), but that is another issue altogether.
I'm leaving shortly for AAR-SBL, so likely won't see a response to this
until the middle of next week.
Assistant Professor, Religion
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
613-520-2600, ext. 2276