Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Clive wrote:

divorce

But of what?

If you do not know, you have no business discussing religion of any kind.

Christianity factually is a split from Judaism.

So I actually agree with something outhouse said?
So cite me as your authority, John.

outhouse wrote:

Clive wrote:Not worshipping the local gods was incredibly rude and anti social and in some way treacherous behaviour.

Christians were in deep trouble for not worshipping the Emperors divinity. They had no other deity beyond Jesus. Sorry fail

Those statements don't exclude each other. Clive is correct with regard to the Roman understanding of "religio". Not worshiping the local gods was seen as anti-social behavior and one of the main reasons why Jews and/or Christians were seen as a boil on society. It was the duty of everyone to pay respect to the gods whose sphere they touched in order to appease them and keep harm from everyone else. The ritual was a contract with a deity and bound it to society. A sacrifice was given to either get something positive in return or at least prevent a negative action from the deity ("do ut des"). Not doing that was damaging to community and state.

This is, by the way, also the official legal reasoning behind the Fiscus Judaicus. As, with the temple gone, the Jews ceased their sacrifices at that point, the money was officially used to perform sacrifices in their stead. In the beginning, this was in the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome, where the money (at least officially) went. This often gets only mentioned in the context of punishment and humiliation, which was certainly part of it, but the reasoning behind the tax was sound from the viewpoint of Roman "religio". The Jews and everyone living like them paid their dues to have someone else perform their civic duties. While this was certainly expensive, it also served as some kind of protection. When Christians (well, everyone not a practicing Jew) were excluded under Nerva from the Fiscus Judaicus in 96 AD, they not only lost the tax burden, but also the protection that the tax provided. There was no excuse anymore not to perform sacrifices, which Jews didn't need.

Ironically, this also means that a simple tax issue may have fueled along the divorce between Christianity and Judaism.

Not sure why you picked that line to quote. That one was completely sound.

Ulan wrote: Clive is correct with regard to the Roman understanding of "religio".

.

He is only correct that polytheism existed outside Judaism and Christianity, not within it during these periods CE

Ulan wrote: Ironically, this also means that a simple tax issue may have fueled along the divorce between Christianity and Judaism.

The divorce started before the Jesus characters perceived crucifixion.

Many Hellenist stayed as Proselytes for generations and would never fully convert to those pesky Jewish traditions in whole, while converting to monotheism.


Now we already know by Pauline text the movement had been fighting for admission of gentile proselytes, before the fall of the temple let alone Fiscus Judaicus.

Much of the gospel text deals wit taxs and money due to the oppression of all Israelite Jews, who were always known as rebellious trouble makers to Rome.


The divorce was well under way by the time the temple fell, as is obvious in Mark before the new tax, writing to and for a Roman audience.

Ulan wrote:
Not sure why you picked that line to quote. That one was completely sound.

True


This below was what I was more or less referring to.

I follow the true God and your gods are rubbish?

Ben C. Smith wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:Does anyone have knowledge of this article? or commentary about it? -

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio (2013) 'Why is John the Baptist Used as a Foil for Jesus? Leaps of Faith and Oblique Anti-Judaism in Contemporary Scholarship' Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Vol. 11, Issue 2; pp. 170–196.

Abstract -

Despite the existence of some differences between John the Baptist and Jesus the Galilean, there is no compelling evidence allowing us to infer that they were significantly contrasting characters, even less to postulate any significant opposition between them: the available sources are witnesses to the striking similarities in their messages, their radical personalities, their destinies, and their reception by their contemporaries. The widespread scholarly discourse of a considerable discontinuity between these two preachers of Second Temple Judaism is accordingly unwarranted and unreliable. What is even worse, there are reasons to suspect that the use of John the Baptist as a foil for Jesus might be the last Christian avatar of the centuries-long tendency ..of contrasting Jesus to Judaism.

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com ... 7-01102001

It's online: https://www.academia.edu/8139785/Why_Is ... 13_170-196.

If you do not have an account there yet, get one (free of charge).

Cheers Ben.

iskander wrote:The man Jesus seemed to have joined the group led by the man John. Is this all what the " widespread scholarly opinion " you have mentioned in the post is saying?. Perhaps in a new thread?

Once upon a time I was thinking about a few words of Mark and Matthew and about how some prophets used the phrase “in those days/in that day”.

Mark

	Intro	Kingdom-message?
John	1:4 ἐγένετο Ἰωάνης … It came to pass John baptizing in the wilderness	No! - 1:7 And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Jesus	1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ And it came to pass in those days it came Jesus from Nazaret	Yes! - 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;5 repent and believe in the gospel.”

Matthew

	Intro	Kingdom-message?
John	3:1 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται Ἰωάνης ὁ βαπτιστὴς … But in those days comes John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea,	Yes! - 3:2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Jesus	3:13 Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας … Then comes Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.	Yes! - 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

only two examples

I think that in this case one can see how Matthew understood Mark and how he changed Mark, how both positioned John in relation to Jesus und to the kingdom-message and that for both the phrase “in those days” had likely an eschatological meaning.

In some sense this is nothing and a wasting of time.

But then I think in another sense this is one of these few things which are not pure speculation.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

iskander wrote:The man Jesus seemed to have joined the group led by the man John. Is this all what the " widespread scholarly opinion " you have mentioned in the post is saying?. Perhaps in a new thread?

Once upon a time I was thinking about a few words of Mark and Matthew and about how some prophets used the phrase “in those days/in that day”.

Mark

	Intro	Kingdom-message?
John	1:4 ἐγένετο Ἰωάνης … It came to pass John baptizing in the wilderness	No! - 1:7 And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Jesus	1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ And it came to pass in those days it came Jesus from Nazaret	Yes! - 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;5 repent and believe in the gospel.”

Matthew

	Intro	Kingdom-message?
John	3:1 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται Ἰωάνης ὁ βαπτιστὴς … But in those days comes John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea,	Yes! - 3:2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Jesus	3:13 Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας … Then comes Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.	Yes! - 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

only two examples

Jeremiah 3:14 Return, O faithless children, declares the Lord; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 “And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. 17 At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart. 18 In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel, and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I gave your fathers for a heritage.

Isaiah 4:2 In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and honor of the survivors of Israel. 3 And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, 4 when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.

I think that in this case one can see how Matthew understood Mark and how he changed Mark, how both positioned John in relation to Jesus und to the kingdom-message and that for both the phrase “in those days” had likely an eschatological meaning.

In some sense this is nothing and a wasting of time.

But then I think in another sense this is one of these few things which are not pure speculation.

Mark introduces Jesus as a man on his way to join a religious group lead by John. It soon becomes apparent that Jesus is a talented student who will greatly influence the outlook of the group. The story is told as if sketched with a broad brush but the image it shows is clear : the teacher hopes this student will eventually lead the people on to greater goals.

Jan Hus and Martin Luther bear the same relation to each other although they never met. Hus died with the same hope voiced by John : he proclaimed, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” That man will be Luther. During the disputation of Leipzig Martin Luther identified himself with Jan Hus with his proclamation "Ja, Ich bin ein Hussiten”.


Jesus and john stood on the same side of the divide. bless them.

iskander wrote:
Mark introduces Jesus as a man on his way to join a religious group lead by John. It soon becomes apparent that Jesus is a talented student who will greatly influence the outlook of the group. The story is told as if sketched with a broad brush but the image it shows is clear : the teacher hopes this student will eventually lead the people on to greater goals.

Jan Hus and Martin Luther bear the same relation to each other although they never met. Hus died with the same hope voiced by John : he proclaimed, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” That man will be Luther. During the disputation of Leipzig Martin Luther identified himself with Jan Hus with his proclamation "Ja, Ich bin ein Hussiten”.


Jesus and john stood on the same side of the divide. bless them.

But were they not also second cousins, how the great historian Luke told us? And as children they could have played together.

And was John going in the wilderness, because he was unlucky in his love for Mary of Magdala? And what thought Mary about John’s camel clothes and about the fine white garments of Jesus?

And maybe Jesus disliked the locusts and the wild honey and later he ate only bread and fish.

And are these not the real questions of their everyday life?