Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by TedM »

One poster here repeatedly derides other posters here for being ignorant about what he states are things Jews would NEVER have thought, interpreted, or done 2000 years ago, and conversely, what they ALWAYS would have thought/interpreted/done.

It seems to me that given the existence of multiple sects with very different beliefs, multiple sources of 'inspired writings', multiple languages, and multiple 'saviors' who gathered a following, and the dispersion of Jews for many miles, that viewpoint just cannot be accurate. It seems to me that among the 'Jews' would have been a very wide spectrum of philosophies about God and his revelations to man.

To be more specific, the claim was made in the Philo-Jesus-angel thread that there is simply no way in the world a Jew during Philo's time would have considered the possibility that Zechariah 6 was referring to a future Messiah in some way related/similar-to a priest named Jesus.

Is there really any intellectual basis for being that dogmatic about all Jewish minds 2000 years ago?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by Secret Alias »

I think we should begin by remembering what the responsibility of the student of ancient history is. We are dealing with probabilities at bottom. So our job is to separate 'likely' from 'unlikely' and concentrate on the likely outcomes of history rather than the unlikely outcomes. Moreover - and this is perhaps more contentious - we have to judge if one of our peers is being unreasonable because they like a particular outcome of their 'studies' of what is 'likely' in history.

In my own case - and it is terribly difficult to be objective about oneself - I think I am an extremely conservative scholar. I use the term 'conservative' in a sense which is different than 'traditional.' But I always go back to the idea that if no one in antiquity supports a particular idea it probably didn't happen. So in the case of the 'Jesus angel' while we do have various heretics and gnostic groups saying that 'Jesus' or 'Christ' was a supernatural entity and indeed there are practically no documented groups which thought that Jesus was ONLY an ordinary human being (or at least the evidence for what these groups believed is extremely difficult to discern WHAT they actually believed) there are no certainly NO documented cases of a pre-Christian community or post-Christian Jewish or Samaritan community arguing for or believing in a 'Jesus angel' (or 'Joshua angel').

I do think this is decisive.

Beyond that there are a number of factors which make such a belief even more unlikely - and I have gone over and over them in other threads and those views find no coherent argument against them. Joshua or Jesus were extremely common names. There are no examples that I know of in the period where angels took on human names or vice versa. Moreover and perhaps more decisively since Philo divided Genesis with Genesis 2:4 as a fault line whereby everything before Genesis 2:4 was a description of the ideal realm and everything there after the realm of particular things in the material world by its very nature an angel named 'Jesus' or 'Joshua' would be the ideal prototype ... of things named Jesus or Joshua rather than humanity as a whole. That being, 'heavenly man' would in the mind of a Jewish Platonist be properly called 'man' and so it is not surprising that Philo says in his discussion of Zechariah 6.12 that this heavenly anthropos is connected with the concept of the anatole and the anatole, not surprisingly is connected with the 'heavenly man' of Genesis 1.27 in the discussion of that verse and indeed that section of text where the heavenly proto-man is referenced.

I could go further and rehash things said in the other thread (namely Andrew Criddle's confirmation no less than Ben C Smith's too that the LXX passage cannot be read as if 'the high priest Jesus' is the anatole) but that would be an unnecessary digression. I think the thing to reinforce is that while we can never be entirely sure about any theses in the field of ancient history the fact that none of the people arguing in favor of the claim that Philo DID INDEED believe or could believe that Jesus was the heavenly man angel HAVE ANY FAMILIARITY WITH PHILO'S WRITINGS WHATSOEVER. This is particularly problematic given the fact that the real question here is whether Philo - as the leader of the community of Jews in Alexandria (and so by extension 'Jews' at the beginning of Common Era) - could have believed in this concept.

Surely familiarity with Philo's writings is the first step in properly answering this question. Why don't the people making these wild and outlandish claims never supported by an actual authority on Philo's writings take the first step and familiarize themselves with what Philo actually said or believed?

The reason they don't want to familiarize themselves with Philo is quite obvious. For various reasons they 'like' the idea that Jews could have believed that Jesus was an angel. It has nothing to do with whether Philo ACTUALLY believed it. And so having the cart lead the horse is at work once again and that is always a dangerous sign for the objectivity of any research.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by Secret Alias »

And so to continue back to TedM's side point in this discussion - were Jews 'rigid'? I do not think 'rigid' is a useful terminology. The Pentateuch is a 'rigid' text (to continue to use TedM's terminology). It has God uttering not only ten but six hundred and thirteen commandments and punishing with death anyone who disobeyed his utterances. This does not mean that all the commandments of the Bible were fulfilled with the severe penalties proscribed in the Pentateuch or even that the learned accommodated themselves with the rulers of the world. Of course they did. But the Pentateuch was a document written at a time when the Jews were subjects of a foreign power and the text establishes a line of priests to 'protect' the community from God's wrath. These priests certainly had fixed oral traditions (fixed oral traditions that exist in every primitive society even to this day or at least the last century in certain cultures) that interpreted the text which were passed on by word of mouth and these lines of interpretation were quite rigid at least until the destruction of the temple. The only times that I see any 'new interpretations' of scripture emerging would be in periods of political turmoil or a change of leadership at the top (i.e. the foreign powers which governed the nation). In those periods a change of preferred high priests was possible or even likely. But is it likely that a new group of priests could introduce a radically new concept like an angel named 'Jesus' or Tom' 'Dick or 'Harry'? I find this highly unlikely and in fact next to impossible.

The one exception would be the destruction of the Jewish temple. At this time the Jewish religion was completely transformed and not surprisingly we see a radical new religion emerge - Christianity (or whatever name it was originally known by among Jews). But even then it is difficult to conceive of Jewish worshipers being 'open' to the concept of an angel with a human name. But then again complete breaks with the past like this (i.e the end of sacrifices and the priestly religion) don't happen all the time and these new ideas would only emerge AFTER Christianity had already been established so it is a moot point.
“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
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by TedM »

Secret Alias wrote: I think I am an extremely conservative scholar.
I'm no expert, but my impression is that experts would find this statement even more funny than I do.
the real question here is whether Philo - as the leader of the community of Jews in Alexandria (and so by extension 'Jews' at the beginning of Common Era) - could have believed in this concept.
Not for me it isn't. One of the arguments you made against Philo believing it was that NO JEW of that day would have believed it. That's what I'm addressing in this thread. I think it is not an unreasonable proposition that some Jews familiar with the concepts Philo discussed took Zechariah as a clue for finding the Messiah's name, and that either resulted in the eventual 'adoption' of the name Jesus for the Messiah they created themselves, or the application of the Messiah lable to a real man named Jesus, who himself may have believed he was the Messiah in part because of his name.

My proposition is not provable, but it would be reasonable IF the Jews weren't as single-minded as you seem to think they are.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by TedM »

Secret Alias wrote: In those periods a change of preferred high priests was possible or even likely. But is it likely that a new group of priests could introduce a radically new concept like an angel named 'Jesus' or Tom' 'Dick or 'Harry'? I find this highly unlikely and in fact next to impossible.
Why does it have to be a 'new group of priests'? Was Philo a priest? Was Paul? Was John the Baptist?

The one exception would be the destruction of the Jewish temple. At this time the Jewish religion was completely transformed and not surprisingly we see a radical new religion emerge - Christianity (or whatever name it was originally known by among Jews). But even then it is difficult to conceive of Jewish worshipers being 'open' to the concept of an angel with a human name.
What's your main evidence that an angel couldn't/wouldn't have a human name? So many of the human names had religious meanings--it seems to me that it wouldn't be strange at all.

But then again complete breaks with the past like this (i.e the end of sacrifices and the priestly religion) don't happen all the time and these new ideas would only emerge AFTER Christianity had already been established so it is a moot point.
Not sure what you are saying here.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by Secret Alias »

Why does it have to be a 'new group of priests'?
I don't mean to be rude but you simply have to do some research on this on your own. It is not my job to educate you with respect to basic details of Jewish culture. But yes the aristocracy was priestly in Jewish culture. That's why even Josephus was of priestly lineage.
Was Philo a priest? Was Paul? Was John the Baptist?
Surely we have to separate known historical people to potentially fictitious people. In the case of Philo his priestly lineage would be expected and indeed is confirmed by Jerome, De viris illustribus 11.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by Secret Alias »

One of the arguments you made against Philo believing it was that NO JEW of that day would have believed it. That's what I'm addressing in this thread. I think it is not an unreasonable proposition that some Jews familiar with the concepts Philo discussed took Zechariah as a clue for finding the Messiah's name, and that either resulted in the eventual 'adoption' of the name Jesus for the Messiah they created themselves, or the application of the Messiah lable to a real man named Jesus, who himself may have believed he was the Messiah in part because of his name.
But surely you have an obligation to provide some corroborating evidence that Jews DID believe in this angel. I for one - to use an example - might have believed that Charlie Sheen engaged in homosexual acts because he is an actor but that by no means proves he did or that it was likely. It was a likely outcome of dealing with a profession that is traditionally associated with licentiousness (and I happen to hate actors). Then it came out that he had HIV and the odds became much higher. And then when a well known news site http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/24/ch ... iv-status/ claimed a video or at least claimed to have this video or at least report that a video existed of him giving fellatio to another man in a drug fueled haze this became a very likely possibility. But the evidence for Philo believing that the heavenly man was named Jesus isn't even at the first stage here. It is something like claiming that Charlie Sheen regularly gave fellatio to aliens from outer space. :D
“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
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by TedM »

Secret Alias wrote:
Was Philo a priest? Was Paul? Was John the Baptist?
Surely we have to separate known historical people to potentially fictitious people. In the case of Philo his priestly lineage would be expected and indeed is confirmed by Jerome, De viris illustribus 11.
So you are going to claim Paul and John the Baptist were not historical persons while also claiming to be an 'extremely conservative scholar'? Do you not see how funny that is?..

I'll let others continue the discussion from this point forward..
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by TedM »

Secret Alias wrote:
One of the arguments you made against Philo believing it was that NO JEW of that day would have believed it. That's what I'm addressing in this thread. I think it is not an unreasonable proposition that some Jews familiar with the concepts Philo discussed took Zechariah as a clue for finding the Messiah's name, and that either resulted in the eventual 'adoption' of the name Jesus for the Messiah they created themselves, or the application of the Messiah lable to a real man named Jesus, who himself may have believed he was the Messiah in part because of his name.
But surely you have an obligation to provide some corroborating evidence that Jews DID believe in this angel.
One last response from me.. The call for evidence is beside the point. The OP isn't about whether there is corroborating evidence. The OP is about whether Jews were flexible enough to consider alternative concepts or all thought one way about every single thing. The fact that these kinds of ideas (Messiah as priest, Messiah with name Joshua, Messiah as an angel) all WERE discussed by humans within 100 years of what we might call the 'pre-Christianity timeline' would seem to me at least indicate some possibility that Jews that lived 100 years prior were also capable of such creativity, and didn't have to be priests either.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Were Jews rigid or flexible 2000 years ago?

Post by iskander »

TedM wrote:One poster here repeatedly derides other posters here for being ignorant about what he states are things Jews would NEVER have thought, interpreted, or done 2000 years ago, and conversely, what they ALWAYS would have thought/interpreted/done.

It seems to me that given the existence of multiple sects with very different beliefs, multiple sources of 'inspired writings', multiple languages, and multiple 'saviors' who gathered a following, and the dispersion of Jews for many miles, that viewpoint just cannot be accurate. It seems to me that among the 'Jews' would have been a very wide spectrum of philosophies about God and his revelations to man.

To be more specific, the claim was made in the Philo-Jesus-angel thread that there is simply no way in the world a Jew during Philo's time would have considered the possibility that Zechariah 6 was referring to a future Messiah in some way related/similar-to a priest named Jesus.

Is there really any intellectual basis for being that dogmatic about all Jewish minds 2000 years ago?
Perhaps the book of Dr Benjamin Sommer may help us all in formulating an answer;
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1828
This study forces a revaluation of a common Jewish attitude towards Christianity. Some Jews regard Christianity's claims to be monotheistic with suspicion, both because the doctrine of the trinity ( how can three equal one? ) and because of Christianity's core belief that God took bodily form. What we have attempted to point out here is that biblical Israel knew very similar doctrines, and these doctrines did not disappear from Judaism after the biblical period....

No Jew sensitive to Judaism's own classical sources , however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one.
The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel
Benjamin D. Sommer
Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (January 17, 2011)
ISBN-13: 978-1107422261
Page 135
In page 136 of The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, Benjamin Sommer writes,

The Maimonidean, of course, still has the right to reject Christianity's theological model; but many a modern Jew recognizes the extraordinarily strained nature of the hermeneutic through which Maimonides attempts to deny the corporeality of the biblical and rabbinic God . For such a Jew, Maimonides' rejection would also compel a rejection of most of the Written and Oral Torahs. It would entail , in other words, the creation of a new religion whose earliest sacred document would be found in the tenth-century C.E. philosophical writings of Maimonides' predecessor , Saadia Gaon.
Post Reply