If I were a different person in a different life, I would try to publish these ideas, but alas, it takes so much work to write and article and my life is overfull.
I don't know if anyone has seriously suggested what I did in my explanatory notes Tuesday, that the situation in the first part of James 2 is a Christian Jewish subgroup of a larger synagogue and that the rich person is a wealthy Jewish patron from the larger Jewish community. The idea holds a lot of promise as it reflects new perspectives on Judaism and integrates new social scientific perspectives on the Mediterranean world. It would be a lovely contribution to scholarship on James.
If you beat me to it, which alas almost anyone could, remember me when you come into your footnotes. You can say you got the idea from Ken Schenck in private conversation, to save you the embarrassment of trying to publish something scholarly with a footnote referencing a blog :-) And of course if you'd like to have a private conversation, you know how to get hold of me...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting concept.
The Christian Jew would have resistance to what the Jewish patron was wanting from the Christian Jew as the patron had brought dishonor. Honor was of uptmost importance in the middle east.
I think in our modern day, we live by contractual relationships, which are equal footing in business endeavors. And those that attempt to apply ancient concepts in today's world also act dishonorably. These "modern day patrons" are treating another as a slave, which is abhorently offensive in the modern West.
As Christians were a subset of Judiasm, usually the "lower classes", then our Founding Fathers also "used" Christian-ease to formulate "their seating" or their vision for our nation.
Christian becomes a "name" for those that don't lead the nation.
Secular humanism is what I'd call our Founding Fathers, as they had various convictions about 'faith' but formed the nation in a separated 'power structure'. So, society would be for the "christian' and government would be for the secularists...(although Christians of nay persuasion could be a part of the governing body ) A separation of private beliefs and public service is of importance...here.
Post a Comment