Looking through Bermejo Rubio's newest book, I can follow his citations of authorities pretty well, and his interpretations of them, as they were all topics of discussion in the old Crosstalk2 (XTalk), Synoptic-l, Orion and IOUDAIOS e-mail lists, and have been topics of discussion at times on IIDB & FRDB, and even on BC&H, if only in digested form.
In fact, I will freely admit I have personally looked at a good many of these sources, and find his summaries of alternate positions pretty mush as I remember them. No crazy twists or zig-zag patterns need be imagined. About the only thing I questioned was his heavy reliance on R. Horsley for his sociological perspectives, although he has not adopted Horsley's sociological explanations 100%. My opinion of Horsley is that he is trying to use sociology to rehabilitate the militaristic attributions in the NT, basically explain them away.
However, I think both you (guiseppe) and you (matyhelena) are trying to blame B-R with not examining events outside of NT literature.
Mentions of disciples having swords, cutting off an earlobe (something that actually happened to HP Hyrcanus II when the Parthian backed Antigonus II, the son of Hyrcanus' brother Aristobulus II, captured him in Jerusalem), as well as his disciples having names and nicknames that seem to relate to Judean anti-Roman sentiment, are not meant to zero in on Jesus' actual or imagined place in the historical narrative.
What you, giuseppe, need to do is develop the reasons to explain how these seemingly militaristic traditions came to be in the first place. I would recommend taking a really close look at the Marxist influenced hypotheses of Engels & K. Kautsky and even Kalthof, 1st, and digest what they are saying. Their hypotheses for the development of a Mythical Jesus Christ are rather well worked out, although their validity can be questioned (well, I do).
What you, maryhelena, need is to accept that someone can agree that there is a political Jesus out there somewhere, without feeling the need to react negatively to what he *should* have found (that that activity occurred in the time of Antigonus II). You can develop that idea, as you indicate you are doing, but you may have put too many eggs in one basket, and not happy that the basket got dropped, and just have to brush the disappointment aside.
BTW, mh, am sorry to misidentify you as "UK." My wife is half Irish, and I am of 100% English derivation, but I don't know much about the Irish experience. In US, we call US football (maybe because the beginning of the game commences with a kick to the ball) "football," UK or nearby country versions of Rugby (which is sometimes called "football" here because of the carrying/passing of the ball that resembles a US football) we usually just call "rugby," and any Soccer game (sometimes called "football" because of the kicking of a ball) we just call "soccer." If I mentioned "football" I would be thinking of Rugby, not that boring US version we know and love here. I would have said "soccer" if I meant that, although in some areas this is also called "football."
DCH
In fact, I will freely admit I have personally looked at a good many of these sources, and find his summaries of alternate positions pretty mush as I remember them. No crazy twists or zig-zag patterns need be imagined. About the only thing I questioned was his heavy reliance on R. Horsley for his sociological perspectives, although he has not adopted Horsley's sociological explanations 100%. My opinion of Horsley is that he is trying to use sociology to rehabilitate the militaristic attributions in the NT, basically explain them away.
However, I think both you (guiseppe) and you (matyhelena) are trying to blame B-R with not examining events outside of NT literature.
Mentions of disciples having swords, cutting off an earlobe (something that actually happened to HP Hyrcanus II when the Parthian backed Antigonus II, the son of Hyrcanus' brother Aristobulus II, captured him in Jerusalem), as well as his disciples having names and nicknames that seem to relate to Judean anti-Roman sentiment, are not meant to zero in on Jesus' actual or imagined place in the historical narrative.
What you, giuseppe, need to do is develop the reasons to explain how these seemingly militaristic traditions came to be in the first place. I would recommend taking a really close look at the Marxist influenced hypotheses of Engels & K. Kautsky and even Kalthof, 1st, and digest what they are saying. Their hypotheses for the development of a Mythical Jesus Christ are rather well worked out, although their validity can be questioned (well, I do).
What you, maryhelena, need is to accept that someone can agree that there is a political Jesus out there somewhere, without feeling the need to react negatively to what he *should* have found (that that activity occurred in the time of Antigonus II). You can develop that idea, as you indicate you are doing, but you may have put too many eggs in one basket, and not happy that the basket got dropped, and just have to brush the disappointment aside.
BTW, mh, am sorry to misidentify you as "UK." My wife is half Irish, and I am of 100% English derivation, but I don't know much about the Irish experience. In US, we call US football (maybe because the beginning of the game commences with a kick to the ball) "football," UK or nearby country versions of Rugby (which is sometimes called "football" here because of the carrying/passing of the ball that resembles a US football) we usually just call "rugby," and any Soccer game (sometimes called "football" because of the kicking of a ball) we just call "soccer." If I mentioned "football" I would be thinking of Rugby, not that boring US version we know and love here. I would have said "soccer" if I meant that, although in some areas this is also called "football."
DCH
Statistics: Posted by DCHindley — Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:03 am