I thought I'd make a comment, sort of in juxtaposition of the  statement I quoted below this paragraph. It doesn't fit in the thread of kerygma, where it was suggested that I was aligned with a couple of authors I've never read.  I did read the blurb in the bookseller's catalogue and wrote something.

"America's survival in the Second World War came about only because almost all American Christians rejected Jesus' advice to "resist not evil." "

I just read the bookstore blurb for a book by Hitchens and one by Dawkins. About “God is not Great”: “Christopher Hitchens identifies his reasons for believing that religion brings a malignant force into the world, and argues that God is a human construct. Describes how a secular view of life, based on science and rational thought, would improve the human condition.”  About “The God Delusion”: A preeminent scientist and prominent atheist, Dawkins asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11. He makes the case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly, and offers insight into the advantage of atheism to the individual and society.”

Those are quite rational views. I agree with both first statements. I disagree that a life “based on science and rational thought” will improve the human condition, but I do believe that atheism, or at least non-theism is a healthier approach to life and death than theistic religion. I wouldn’t read the books, because they state the obvious, according to the blurbs. After reading Carroll’s “Constantine’s Sword,” there is no way one can believe that Christianity has been much other than a deadly force, a coercive force, and yes, a malignancy.  After reading a series of essays published as “Requiem for Hitler” and after reading portions of “The Protocols of the Ancient Elders of Zion,” (I think that was the name) in a book written about forces that helped cause Shoah, it was obvious that Christianity played the prominent role in this horror. There is no other way to honestly look at it. And, from a survey I saw the other day, it seems as if anti-Semitism in Europe is again on the rise. If this is true, it is actually excused by Christians, who can find reasons in their holy books for this hatred.

If one sees America's survival in World War II being a direct effect of ignoring the message of Jesus, I am certain that the climate in Germany after World War I, a climate largely manipulated by Cardinal Pacelli (who became the pope during WWII) and the Protestants, had everything to do with Shoah and genocide of Jews.  So, if the outcome of the war is correlated with "ignoring the historical Jesus," Shoah was a product of the Passion narratiives, especially Matthew. Either way, what does that have to say about Christianity?
Dennis

Idealist, you stated, "The gospels were written during a time when the second coming was believed to be imminent. That is the interim ethical frame that I think justifies loving your enemies, turning from your family, communalism and pacifism."

I'm not sure that this is correct. According to the two plus decades of work by the Jesus Seminar scholars (which is also bolstered by the Tubingens and many twentieth century scholars not associated with the JS), the gospels were written from 70-80 ce until the end of the first quarter of the second century. The latest JS date I have seen for Matthew, in the Fall 2008 Seminar Papers by Ted Weeden, using Overman, is that it was an early second century work. Work done on Acts of the Apostles places it at around 120-125 and, since it is a companion to Luke, Luke would fall into the second century. John was placed at the very end of the first, if not the second century (Vermes puts it into the second century). So, that leaves Mark in the first century.

All were after the Jewish Roman war of ca 67-73.

Now, I am willing to say you are correct, if you will stipulate that the Paulines were written for a Gentile audience in the second century, but that, of course, meant that it was Greeks who were waiting this "second coming." If one puts the Paulines with tradition in order to create the "second coming" myth of the origin of Christianity, the gospels were written when that wasn't even a worry, compared to the apocalyptic events that happened in the war.

Another footnote: The JS papers I have read do not believe that the "resurrection moment" was the impetus for proto-Christianity to begin.

Dennis

part two: Where Wuz I?

Disclaimer: My writing is convoluted, according to most people, when it comes to these Jesus subjects. That is because I am thinking as I go, tweaking.

“Awaitin’ on Jesus.” I have a feeling that apocalyptic, eschatological expectations, as an imminent happening died with the temple and destruction of the Jewish armies. A messiah hadn’t come to lead them to victory.  I see it as postponed and sent to the ambiguous future, while the survivors licked their wounds and tried to become “Romanish,” under the radar teachers of turning one’s cheek, going an extra mile, loving one’s enemies. These Cynic sayings became put on the lips of Jesus as ways to survive, as much as anything else. As the population of C. Philippi, including the author of Mark, watched Titus throwing Jewish soldiers to animals and watched Jewish soldiers smoldering in the fires of Titus to celebrate brother Domitian’s birthday on his way to more mischief in Antioch (Josephus, War, Book 7), former thoughts of this perfect world were completely crushed. If it was going to happen, it was a future event, and probably in the far future. There was only one word that could be said: “Why?” Why had this happened?

The first gospeleer, author of Mark, put an interesting twist in his "gospel," if one looked at it in literal terms. He had his "Jesus" escaping the grave and heading back to Galilee, from whence he came. This, along with the predictions, cast a Greco-Roman Mystery religion tenor on the writing. Despite the 161 (or was it 166) allusions, quotes and muffed quotes from the Hebrew scriptures, this stands out as the same imagery the Mysteries used. I don’t think it was meant to be understood literally any more than the resurrection of Osiris or Attis. The “resurrection” of Jesus pointed to the resurrection of Israel as a great nation once again, a nation of Davidic messiah leadership. That is why it ended abruptly. There was nothing more to say.

If one looks at it in metaphorical and parabolic terms, one gets a different picture. In the current issue of "The Fourth R," an article talks about the many small chiastic structures within Mark. Burton Mack, in "A Myth of Innocence," p. 333, notes that the book as a whole can be seen as a chiasm:
A. John the Baptist  (old story expectations)
B. Jesus' Baptism (mythic transformation)
C. Temptation  (encounter with demonic).
D. Call of disciples (positive response)
E. Teaching in synagogue (cleansing)
F. Mission in Galilee (power)
G. Jesus Transfiguration (mythic transition)
F. Way to Jerusalem (passion)
E. Cleansing in temple (teaching)
D. Response of disciples (negative)
C. Temptation and trial (encounter with authorities)
B, Crucifixion (mythic transition)
A. Angle at tomb (new story expectation)

Alongside this chiasm is a parabolic structure, found on p. 336 of the book.  Everything begins in Galilee and ends going back to Galilee.  This seems to me to be purposeful fictive writing. It is the creation of a myth, the myth of Jesus. Portions of it would have been untenable to a Jewish population, like the Lord’s supper and a totally (as far as we know) unheard of person  being a dead messiah that “they killed” who came back to life. Spooky, sayeth the X Files!  Affinities to the Mystery religions (death and three day old resurrection) would not have “set well” either, probably. 

How can we understand this gospel, thus the other synoptics, within the reality of first century “Temple worship” Judaism? I don’t believe that we can. We can, however, see it as a diasporan attempt to re-order Judaism in a way that explained the devastation AND, at the same time, gave the worshipper the distinct hope of a future divine eschaton, if that is the word. 

The affinity to the mysteries, along with the very Greek way Mark, with his chreia and Matthew, with his Cynic lore, did not work with the general Jewish population. We see some evidence of this in the difference of the “enemies” of Jesus from Mark to Matthew. In Mark, it seems like it was more the temple goons who were after Jesus, whereas in Matthew we find quite a bit more mention of Pharisees, who were the rabbinical movement after the war. Certainly by the time we get to writers such as Justin, we have the defense of Christianity as having superseded Judaism. (I agree with nineteenth century scholars about 1 Clement, the Ignatia and Polycarp as being later than the Church wanted folks to believe. Twentieth century scholarship, probably in deference to fundamentalist bullies, has been more apologetic than nineteenth century, especially when it comes to so-called “epistles.”)

Whew. Enough for now!

Dennis

Mar 24, 2009 -- 2:51PM, RJMcElwain wrote:

Gene,

Just as an experiment, I went ahead and joined the Facebook Jesus Seminar site I mentioned elsewhere. And since they're brand new and no one had started any discussion, I did. And I used your topic about HJ and Hitler. I thought it was a good subject. Anyway, I posted it here:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=8009&uid=51107864849#/group.php?gid=51107864849

Please take a look and tell me if this site has potential. And feel free to join in and comment on your article.

 

Bob, I'm completely taken back.  I don't know anything about the Facebook site and am not sure how to evaluate it.  It seems to have the Westar logo in prominence.  Does that mean that Westar sponsors it and intends to be sponsoring multiple discussion groups?  There didn't seem to be any discussion going.  How long has it been around?  Was the beginning of the site officially announced somewhere along the line in this group, and I missed it?  I've certainly no objection to you using the Hitler/Jesus topic.  Are the people at the Facebook site unaware of the beliefnet group, which, I guess, has the official approval of Westar.  I really am confused.

 

Gene

It is plagiarism at the very least and copyright or trademark infringement at the most. He'd get an F, after being booted from my class! I could not imagine, in a college class I have taught, passing off something like this without permission.

The dickens of the whole thing is that ne or anyone can start a great egroup without the slime of copying another's logo and "program."

Dennis