Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

In his Facebook page, Prof Price calls apologetic the general trend to define Jesus as a Jew of Second-Temple (it seems that he wants to write a book about this titled "Judaizing Jesus"). I wonder about this because I have assumed always that there is no doubt that the Christian origins were only Jewish (apart the pagan influence of the dying and rising gods and some tropoi in the Gospels).

Can someone explain about his?

Thanks in advance.

I've read on at least one occasion the view that the Christ or Jesus narratives were Judaized reasonably late. The implication is the initial or early Christ or Jesus narratives were hardly or far less Jewish than we have been led to believe. I can't remember where I read that view.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:37 am In his Facebook page, Prof Price calls apologetic the general trend to define Jesus as a Jew of Second-Temple (it seems that he wants to write a book about this titled "Judaizing Jesus"). I wonder about this because I have assumed always that there is no doubt that the Christian origins were only Jewish (apart the pagan influence of the dying and rising gods and some tropoi in the Gospels).

Can someone explain about his?

Thanks in advance.

I don't know about Price's views but I do know that some decades ago there was a view (infamous for its association with antisemitism and nazism) that since Jesus was from Galilee and not Judea he was not, prima facie, Jewish. The view held that Galileans long had a different racial and cultural heritage from the inhabitants of Judea. Judean domination was said not to affect very deeply the Galilean culture.

There have been many studies since then on the history and culture of Galilee. To what extent they have been motivated by a need to overturn the old antisemitic theory and other "liberal" interpretations of Jesus like Crossan's who said Galilean culture made Jesus a Cynic philosopher I don't know.

Luke 2
21 After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child;

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:34 am Luke 2
21 After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child;

Price doesn't believe it just coz the bible says it. Proof-texting doesn't work with him.

On what evidence then?

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:46 am On what evidence then?

Ask Price. Read his stuff.

Or if you're trying to address the summary I gave of earlier arguments for the "non-Jewishness" of Jesus then it is pointless just quoting a verse like a fundamentalist thinking that settles the matter.

(Or are you an apologist who thinks the "word of God" settles all such questions?)

On what evidence then?

Obviously if Jesus was historical then he was Jew (in which measure I am not interested). But isn't the debate more interesting under a mythicist premise? I would be curious about what is the point of Price more precisely. For example, I know an apologist who claimed polemically that Galilee is better named "Galilee of the Jews" more than "Galilee of Gentiles".

The argument seems to be something as:

1) The earliest writings were Jewish, Galilee itself was entirely and soundly Jewish, etc etc

2) therefore Jesus existed.

I see that this argument is used often by apologists even after the reading of Carrier's OHJ (where the idea of a hellenistic influence is introduced as normal consensus).

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:06 am Obviously if Jesus was historical then he was Jew (in which measure I am not interested). But isn't the debate more interesting under a mythicist premise? I would be curious about what is the point of Price more precisely. For example, I know an apologist who claimed polemically that Galilee is better named "Galilee of the Jews" more than "Galilee of Gentiles".

The argument seems to be something as:

1) The earliest writings were Jewish, Galilee itself was entirely and soundly Jewish, etc etc

2) therefore Jesus existed.

I see that this argument is used often by apologists even after the reading of Carrier's OHJ (where the idea of a hellenistic influence is introduced as normal consensus).

Thank you Giuseppe,
This methodology may be more interesting to you, but it is not based on any material evidence at all.