I agree that in the end it is often better not to be dualistic with good guys and bad guys but to realize we can at any time be standing in either camp.  I can imagine the day when the Romans will complain that they have all been painted with the same brush concerning the crucifixion.  It shows the problem with humans judging each other, rather than leaving it to God who is the only one who knows the whole story.  But then on the flip side  it is hard to stand up for the oppressed when you aren't sure who you should be standing up against.      Usually the oppressor is acting out of their own oppression by someone else. It is no wonder then that Womanist theologians tend to promote praying for healing for all parties.  

On a different note, as we know Biblical scholarship often looks to the culture and history of the time to help in interpretation.  As Carla mentions with fragmentary information it is often difficult to draw conclusions about past times.  This week in another book I came across the idea that the same study of the culture and history unfolding at the time of a theologians writing helps us to better understand their positions.  It's not an investigation that you hear encouraged a lot.  If someone looking back from the future came upon the writing of Amy Jill Levine what aspects of the society and history in which she lives would be important  in  comprehending her ideas?

It is certainly plausible that our picture of the times of Jesus has had the contrast levels turned up to the point of distortion: it’s black and white instead of grey on grey. “Exaggeration for effect” is an essential element of the storyteller’s craft. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible now to tell what would be a neutral, perfectly well balanced, representation. Can’t go too far the other way. I don’t think we can totally discount the assertion that some of the Sanhedrin behaved in ways that their fellow Jews took issue with. There is enough corroboration from the writings of the Essene community, for example. Levine’s point is that they were not all like that. I agree.

She is correct that we can read the parable of the Good Samaritan with nothing more sinister in mind than the age-old dispute between the two ethnic communities involved. It is thought provoking to consider a modern version of the parable might feature a couple of West Bank settlers and a member of Hamas.

Yes, it is refreshing to think that the Jews of the time of Jesus were probably not all that religious. It makes sense that in an occupied territory individuals wouldn’t do anything that would draw attention to themselves or their families. Going with the flow would likely involve adopting Greek or Roman ways. Trouble is I do not have sufficient background knowledge to distinguish specific points of view that we find fault with today (of women, of the disabled, of strangers, etc.) as being Jewish from those held by the Greeks or Romans of the time. It is quite likely that these ideas were ascribed to by both groups of people. The parables may not have been aimed at a group of people, in particular, but rather at a particular behaviour.

To follow-up on the idea of liberation theology and its impact: if you’d asked me who were the oppressors of the tale, the first answer that would come to mind would be the Romans (not the Jewish religious and political hierarchy). The second thought would be a reflection that the oppressors in a modern day version of the gospels would likely look a lot like us. Much of Jesus’ teaching is not comfortable to listen to at all. 

In Chapter 3 Levine raises the question of whether it is anti-Jewish for a Jewish comic to make a joke that plays on stereotypes about Jews, or similarly  if a non Jew tells the same joke.  There are a few new comics who make jokes about stereotypes about their own culture, race or  religion who then seem to feel that  makes it alright to branch into jokes about stereotypes of other cultures, races or religions.  How do you feel about that?  In these cases how does it feel to either be in the same group as the one the comic identifies with  or in the other groups he or she mentions?   

On the first page of chapter 2 Levine writes that their was a wide range of responses to the claim that Jesus was a ressurected Messiah from fellow Jews.  What has or would convince you that Jesus was the Messiah raised from the dead?

Levine mentions Jesus comments that he had come to "set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother." She states that he offered a family based on loyalty to him rather than blood.(pg. 56)  How far do you think this went? Do believe that the disciples maintained good relationships with their families once they began to follow Jesus? in what ways today are individuals asked to make choices between family and religion?  How do we know when those choices are healthy, promoting God's will for the world?