Against the Argument for 'Influences' in Early Christianity

[Secret Alias]

The thing is IF the ten were displayed in the temple they only make sense if they could be read from some distance. That's the only way they could be a testimony. I don't think this could be read from the back row of a large room.

[Secret Alias]

So anyway my point is in the same way a movie has to take on stock characters- the need, the bombshell, the heroic good guy- I think the gospel took over pre-existent stock ideas i.e. Joshua as second Moses, suffering Miriam, anthropomorphic angel who visits righteous men. They don't make any sense for us. But they did for Mark's audience

[Ben C. Smith]

So anyway my point is in the same way a movie has to take on stock characters- the need, the bombshell, the heroic good guy- I think the gospel took over pre-existent stock ideas i.e. Joshua as second Moses, suffering Miriam, anthropomorphic angel who visits righteous men. They don't make any sense for us. But they did for Mark's audience

For me that totally depends on which level of redaction you identify as "Mark." Nobody who needed Mark 7.3-4 explained to him was going to understand anything of what you just wrote.

[Secret Alias]

True. I am dealing with a hypothetical gospel. One entirely of my own creation. Entirely true.

[davidmartin]

Jesus spends a lot of time examining the limits of the tenth commandment - do not lust - in the form preserved by Philo i.e. as a short commandment. Philo's Alexandrian tradition is undoubtedly in my mind Oniadic. In other words, it is ultra-conservative. All signs to me at least argue for Christianity emerging out of the most conservative tradition and making the case that innovations destroyed Judaism. I can't see how this argument could have been made through a tapestry of traditions.

i see it the opposite, that Christianity emerged from a reformist tradition and wasn't ultra-conservative
i think what you see as ultra-conservative is a gloss from later on which wishes to project a conservative aura back onto Jesus
if you really think it was like this in it's origins then the problem is explaining the total 180 you see in Paul's writings, how to explain that massive ideological shift

[Secret Alias]

Why did Christianity.oppose the temple?

[MrMacSon]

... If you look at Jesus (well, his teachings from the gospels), you may conclude that you look at 4 parts Hillel and one part Shammai. All Pharisees, of course. But is that all there is? You will always look at some kind of mix. The origin may be from a specific movement, but if you don't know the exact origin, you are just guessing, so you have to fall back on the mix. Or, if you roll with a mostly "layman" movement from Galilee, all stops are off, as I doubt those people would have had any strong ties to any existing structures. In that case, the mix gives your thoughts some structure.

But the gospel is different. It was attempting to argue at once that it represented the fulfillment of a mystery hidden from the beginning of time. But that mystery was prepared in some sense by the Torah and the prophets ... the proper exegesis of 'God's plan' was known to some exegetical tradition only to be supplanted by a false exegesis.

...All signs to me at least argue for Christianity emerging out of the most conservative tradition and making the case that innovations destroyed Judaism. I can't see how this argument could have been made through a tapestry of traditions.

i see...that Christianity emerged from a reformist tradition and wasn't ultra-conservative
i think what you see as ultra-conservative is a gloss from later on which wishes to project a conservative aura back onto Jesus
if you really think it was like this in it's origins then the problem is explaining the total 180 you see in Paul's writings, how to explain that massive ideological shift

Interesting. As far as Ulan's point about the influences of the likes of Hillel and Shammai, I deposited a lot of information in a thread in the Jewish subforum titled The Mishna, etc. with a view to reordering it chronologically, but haven't got around to it, yet.

[Ben C. Smith]

Jesus spends a lot of time examining the limits of the tenth commandment - do not lust - in the form preserved by Philo i.e. as a short commandment.

What do you make of the Tenth Commandment being skipped in one of your favorite passages?

Matthew 19.16-22: 16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he says to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, 19 honor your father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself [ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν].” 20 The young man says to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

Mark 10.17-22: 17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

Luke 18.18-23: 18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.

Jerome, On Ephesians 3, commentary on Ephesians 5.4: Ut in Hebraico quoque evangelio legimus, dominus ad discipulos loquentem: «Nunquam,» inquit, «laeti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in charitate.» / As we read also in the Hebraic gospel, the Lord, speaking to the disciples, says, “Never be content except when you look upon your brother in charity.”

Liège Diatessaron: Doe sach ihs lieflec op hem. / Then Jesus looked upon him lovingly.

The rest of the Second Tablet is there: adultery, murder, theft, and false witness. And so is parental honor. Heck, Mark even adds fraud, and Matthew adds love of neighbor. But desire is not there. What do you think is going on with that?

[Secret Alias]

As always a perceptive question. Unfortunately (a) I hadn't noticed that before and (b) I have no ready answer. I will say (as a tangent):

1. Clement takes an interest in this 'do not lust' commandment
2. I think it all leads to castration (Julius Cassian takes an interest, Origen etc)

I will drop off my son at soccer practice in a half hour at which point instead of arguing with my dog's vet (for not allowing me to order her kidney disease dogfood with Amazon - you have to get vet permission) I will focus on this problem for 1 hour and hopefully come up with something.

[Secret Alias]

Just as I finished typing that something came to me as a start. Monoimus takes an interest in the tenth commandment. I think he identifies Jesus as the tenth.

Conformably with that one tittle, the law constitutes the series of the ten commandments which expresses allegorically the divine mysteries of (those) precepts. For, he says, all knowledge of the universe is contained in what relates to the succession of the ten plagues and the series of the ten commandments.