Secret Alias wrote:And we can see that the research into the historical Jesus is improving. Undoubtedly owing to pressure from mythicists, this is a growing field. They've started to take the cultural background for Jesus seriously and for the most part associated him and Christianity in general with the People of the Land. But it is difficult for someone who begins with the assumption that there must have been a 'historical Jesus' to see the obvious difficulties of following the thread of logic back to the real absurdity at the core of the formulation. We all do this on a personal level (i.e. ignore paradoxes or difficulties). But in this case we have the alternative staring at us in the face too.
I do not know if may have affected me but.
I hold a much more minimal stance then most professors and the Jesus seminar I find over attributes what is known.
I know I'm not the first to hold this minimal stance and believe I'm a HJ. I assume little but find it plausible a man was martyred at Passover based on the limited literary evidence.
I would say there is a problem for typical scholars to over assume historicity, and I know a few universities that do teach a semi apologetic approach passed off as credible work.
Yes, I agree that there is a general Sadducee vs. Pharisee dynamic in the DSS and that the meaning of "simple ones" is debatable. But it commonly means "naïve" in the OT (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_6612.htm), and 1QpHab likens them to animals and associates them with poverty and "naïve" aptly fits this context.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Regarding the meaning of "simple ones" in the DSS, Berrin writes (pg. 200):
"The word ... implies gullibility ... [and] in the pi'el means to entice, and in the qal the meaning is "to be simple" or "gullible." A [pethi] is a simple, naïve person ... The term can signify both acceptable and undesirable sorts of simplicity .. Thus, although the term is somewhat pejorative at Qumran, repentance is nonetheless foreseeable for the simple ...."
But you fail to quote important parts of Berrin's discussion. In one section of text you skip over Berrin says it is only 'mildly negative' and deserves to be quoted in full:
At the same time, he is someone who has allowed himself to be deluded.
going to says, as you quote that "the term pethi can signify both acceptable and undesirable sorts of simplicity." In another passage you omit a pethi:
is not only susceptible to wickedness, but is also a suitable recipient for divine assistance toward over-coming his short-coming (Ps 19:8; Ps 116:6; 119:130).
In no way is compatible with the basic description of the 'people of the Land' as ignoramuses, idiots and morons. A strong case I think can be made for a compatibility of the pethi with the high praise given to children (as an ideal) in early Christianity. I don't know what the English equivalent is. 'Naive' is too strong a negative. Perhaps 'openness' but that isn't strong enough. “Inexperienced?” The people of the land by contrast are crafty, shrewd and worldly. Not quite the same sense here.
Perhaps Cervantes provides the proper distinction. Don Quixote is the one, Sancho Panza the other.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The more I think about pethi the more I see it rooted in immaturity. It basically refers to someone who is young and naive but capable of learning (look at the use in Psalms). The pethi needs training and learning to control his foolish impulses. So it was used to describe a young lad or student on the path to virtue but also the individual who becomes seduced or enticed by youthful indiscretion. This concept is totally foreign to the am ha-aretz who are basically understood to be 'fucking retarded' - i.e. having no hope of changing their status as a moron through instruction - according to modern parlance.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Flusser too posits a correlation between the "simple" in the DSS and the am ha-aretz (pg. 243):
"The term that most closely parallels 'the simple folk' in rabbinic literature is am ha-aretz, often translated as 'ignoramous' or 'unlearned.' It can be used to identify an individual who is not a sage, but it also means one who is not a member of the Pharisaic community [in 1QpNah], and it is in the latter sense that it approximates Qumran's 'simple folk' [in 1QpHab], i.e., individuals who accept the community but are not part of it."
Flusser was fucking nuts. I was doing some research at the Hebrew University archives. He had all sorts of stupid opinions - including originally claiming the DSS were fakes. Not interested in pursuing anything Flusser says.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The use of the terminology is interesting but the context is 'child-like simplicity' rather than extolling being an ignoramus. In fact I can't imagine how an ignoramus COULD delight in being ignorant because - after all - he'd be brought into awareness of his ignorance, and thus - would no longer be an ignoramus. Since you have so much time on your hands, why not research the terminology associated with the am ha-aretz, see if pethi is there (it became absorbed into Jewish Aramaic). I strongly, strongly doubt it. We are dealing with two different things.
And thanks for derailing my thread again, Bob. Whenever you want to make a self-reference feel free. .
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
But it's more than about the meaning of pethi. The "simple" are also likened to animals and associated with poverty like the am ha-aretz.
As for "derailing" your thread, I felt like I was only contributing to it, and it was nice to pick your brain on the simple ones issue, which came to my mind because of the reference to the am ha-aretz as animals in your quotation of the Talmud.
And again I'm not Eisenman and it's surreal to me that you think this. I was born deaf and didn't do well in school and didn't study religion until my twenties and my Hebrew isn't very good, so thanks for the "compliment," I guess.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
MISHNAH. A PRIEST TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A LEVITE, A LEVITE OVER AN ISRAELITE, AN ISRAELITE OVER A BASTARD, A BASTARD OVER A NATHIN,39 A NATHIN OVER A PROSELYTE, AND A PROSELYTE OVER AN EMANCIPATED SLAVE.
THIS ORDER OF PRECEDENCE APPLIES ONLY WHEN40 ALL THESE WERE IN OTHER RESPECTS EQUAL.
IF THE BASTARD, HOWEVER, WAS A SCHOLAR AND THE HIGH PRIEST AN IGNORAMUS,41 THE LEARNED BASTARD TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE IGNORANT HIGH PRIEST.
(41) Heb. ‘am ha-arez