Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Charles Wilson wrote: *IF* we assume that "Jesus" was a Priest


CW

He was not a temple priest.

He would have been a Galilean teacher who learned under John, with no formal training at all.

(He taught daily in the Temple and they did not arrest him),

Lets say like everyone there, they were celebrating this drunken BBQ and talking theology around the campfire, and in small groups. WHICH the later Hellenistic authors rhetorically sensationalized.

So no these teaching are more or less rhetorical creations building him into a supreme teacher he never was.

With half a million people this man was invisible as a teacher.

You may assert that John and Jesus were NOT Priests but then you would have to explain how Jesus got into the Temple to "Cleanse it",

Same as any other Galilean, under watchful eyes for insurrection.

What would the Hellenized version of such a Story tell us?

Much of the so called teaching was introduce rhetorically further dividing Judaism from this new movement not wanting to be identified with rebellious Jews. BY showing the differences in theology they explicitly say he taught. Which of course what was important to these later authors communities.



MY example was that one book states at least one visit, and another multiple trips as if he was well known at the temple.



The temple elite would never let an Aramaic Galilean teach anything there. Now there would have been thousands of teachers at Passover of all types from all areas. Teaching at Passover means nothing more then small groups in a sea of people required to remain peaceful. Only one man did not.

As an aside, Klaus Berger is not taken seriously anymore in academia in Germany. The German Wikipedia doesn't mention that because the Christianity section there is strictly in apologetic hand. They count Berger as proponent of a "medium" dating of the gospels, which they describe as being around 50-60 (early dating is 30-40 for them and late dating 60-80). Berger was a Catholic who converted to Protestantism to become professor. He reverted back to Catholicism as soon as he retired. His later books are apologetic in nature and don't work with proper arguments. He's arguing against "critical" scholarship on ideological grounds. His books are popular though.

His earlier works are still mostly in the apologetic direction, but they are much better written and argued. I think he is missing competent reviewers and editors after he retired.

His NT datings did seem quite apologetics-driven. This title Im Anfang war Johannes seemed like click-bait, as he does place the Gospel of John the last of NT writings. His lack of literary criticism on John was a turn-off as well--no sources, stages of development for John? Quite an outlier position for a critical scholar.

Indeed. He is quite eloquent when he deals with positions he is against, but finding good reasons for the positions that he actually holds is not his forte anymore. It's mostly about accepting church traditions.