Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: What difference did Jerusalem make?

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... I can t tell the difference between this reasoning and the reasoning that the Civil War really had no effect on the culture of Southern States because it
    Message 1 of 105 , Nov 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:41 AM 11/3/2005, John C. Poirier wrote:
      >Bob Schacht wrote:
      >
      > > [The destruction of the Temple] also, as a result, changed the authority
      > > structure of Judaism. This was a huge change. The advent of Rabbinic
      > > Judaism could not happen until after the destruction of the Temple.
      >
      >Yes, but it didn't really become *the* form of Judaism until some time after
      >the destruction of the Temple. The rabbinic takeover was a slow process,
      >and in the early days of their movement they possessed a lot less power than
      >they want us to think.

      I can't tell the difference between this reasoning and the reasoning that
      the Civil War really had no effect on the culture of Southern States
      because it took some time for new cultural forms to emerge.


      > > Ha! But what do we know of "Christian theology from the start"? Mostly
      > > what we know is Pauline theology. But what about Jacobine theology (the
      > > theology of James)? His vision of the place of Jerusalem was rather
      > > different from Paul's, wasn't it? In the literature that survives, we have
      > > only a rather biased sample of Christian theology.
      >
      >I agree that Palestinian Christianity was not Pauline, but I still don't see
      >how the destruction of the Temple would have greatly impacted any form of
      >Christianity that we either know about concretely or which scholars have
      >reconstructed.
      >
      > > How do you know that? Would not the removal of James' seat of power had
      > > some effect on the Palestinian Christian Community?
      >
      >I'm not at all sure the Temple was "James' seat of power". Just because his
      >theology seemed to have a priestly imprint (which may or may not be related
      >to priestly claims of his own), that does not mean that the Temple lent
      >James his authority. Despite all that's wrong with Eisenman's
      >reconstruction of James's relationship with Qumran, there is still much to
      >glean from the similarity between his form of piety and that of the
      >Qumranites. If the Qumranites could make a great deal of priestly authority
      >without depending at all upon the earthly temple, then why not the early
      >Palestinian Christians as well?

      Well, here we get to whether "Palestinian Christianity" is a useful
      category. Maybe we had "Jerusalem Christianity", "Christianity in the
      tradition of John the Baptist," and Galilean Christianity.

      Nevertheless, the "Church in Jerusalem" features prominently not only in
      Acts, but also in Paul's letters. It seems unlikely to have survived in the
      same form after 70 CE.

      Bob
      Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
      University of Hawaii
      Honolulu, HI

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard H. Anderson
      Liz, I assume you mean the url for the journal which I posted this am Xtalk member, Lisbeth S. Fried s, new book is now available, The Priest and the Great
      Message 105 of 105 , Dec 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Liz,

        I assume you mean the url for the journal which I posted this am

        Xtalk member, Lisbeth S. Fried's, new book is now available, The Priest and
        the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, together with
        this review in Denver Journal.
        http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2005/0100/0109.php

        Richard H. Anderson
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.