The Mishna, etc

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by Secret Alias »

I mean you just have to think about things. The original story of Israel is that Moses goes up the mountain brings back the Law (= the ten utterances), the Law is from heaven, the Law is authoritative because it comes from god, no sacrifices, not much other than a list of mostly negative utterances.

Let's suppose that this story is older than the Pentateuch. So at some point - I say in the Persian period, by Ezra - the story of the dispensation of the ten utterances is written. The odd thing however is that there are two dispensations now (this can't have been original) and a ton of additional commandments mostly related to sacrifice.

If the Israelite religion antedated the Pentateuch, which it must have, how were all these extra commandments explained? Christianity seems to be an outgrowth of a pre-existent hostility within Judaism/Israelite tradition to these extra commandments. Stephen in Acts is another. You can see this in the Pseudo-Clementines. There seems to be this palpable hostility to 'more than the ten commandments.'

The destruction of the temple in 70 CE seems to have been a catalyst for this movement. I've said many times before that you don't need a temple to have sacrifices. The Samaritans continue to this day. But it would seem that - if I may indulge in some speculation - that ONCE the temple was destroyed, the story of Jesus was retrojected back into the past to make the Jewish War related to sacrifices which it couldn't have been originally.

I only see a reality for Christianity in post 70 CE and it would seem that the rabbis were forced to deal with a highly polished group of proselytes who latched on to a religion of 'only the ten commandments' or perhaps a condensation of the ten into one commandment, it's hard to say. But the hostility of Marcion and others seems to be directed at Moses and his manipulation of the original dispensation to go beyond 'the ten commandments from heaven, the heavenly Torah' to a second Torah whether that be defined as Deuteronomy (which literally means 'second Law') or the host of commandments scattered through the Pentateuch above and beyond the original 10.

Then in due course when Akiba managed to define 'Torah' as the entire Pentateuch 'the second Torah' becomes the oral Law. But how utterly strange that this must have been accompanied by (a) an age where there were no longer sacrifices and (b) utterly bizarrely a tacit understanding that not sacrificing isn't an abrogation of 'doing the Law'!!! What a strange set of circumstances which leads to the foundation of rabbinic Judaism. It would seem reading the text badly as its necessary prerequisite.
“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
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

Cheers.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

Controversial or Dubious -

The Marcion Controversy

...He was a devoted follower of the Apostle Paul whom he believed was the only apostle who really understood Jesus. In his mind he saw himself as a reformer to bring the Church back to the true gospel of Christ as preached by Paul, who used such statements as “Christ is the end of the Law”, and ‘The law was a curse,’ Paul even went so far as to refer to Judaism as rubbish. (Phl.3:8) He understood the God of Paul to be the Heavenly Father, as he told the Corinthians; “There are gods many, but us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in Him.” (1 Cor.8:6)


The Basis of Marcion’s Teaching
Marcion’s Antitheses began by quoting the words of Jesus as recorded in his ‘Gospel of the Lord’ 4:17, that later found their way into Luke 6:43 & 44, “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit.” He then quoted Isaiah 45:6&7, “I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I Jehovah do all these things.”

Based upon this and other passages in the Hebrew Scripture, Marcion understood Jehovah to be the creator of darkness and evil, and represented the tree that bore bad fruit. He saw the tree that produced good fruit to represent the Heavenly Father, the God of Jesus. He based his view upon comparing the Hebrew Scriptures with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul.

We now present Marcion’s case for the antithesis as he compared the Old Testament with 'the New Testament'. It is not the purpose of this writing to deal with all the beliefs and teachings of Marcion. It is unfortunate that Marcion’s New Testament and his commentary called the Antitheses did not survive the destructive forces by the ‘orthodox fathers’. However enough was written about him, using quotes from his writings to show his ‘Antitheses’ made a very strong scriptural presentation for his case.

Thirty Seven Articles of the Antitheses:

1. Jehovah was untruthful to Adam.

2. Jehovah told Moses to get permission from Pharaoh to take the Israelites a three days journey into the wilderness to offer a sacrifice to their god. (Exodus 5:3)

3. We read something very interesting from 1st Kings. (1st Kings 22:22,23 & 40 ASV) ... This is a very detailed account of how Jehovah and his council, the ‘Principalities and Powers’, got together and plotted the death of King Ahab. This passage resembles a mafia gang as they devise some evil plan to murder a victim. The antithesis here is; Jehovah is a murderer but Jesus came to save lives not to destroy them. (Luke 9:56)

4. Jehovah also stirred up the Pharisees, who in a like manner plotted the death of Jesus; He “blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,” (John 12:40)

etc .... http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CB ... thesis.pdf
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat May 05, 2018 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

Controversial or Dubious -

Spiritualization of the Law
The Epistle of Barnabas, an influential letter written in the Second Century, indicates the general direction
the Church was heading in its attitude to the Old Testament. “The main theme of Barnabas,” writes one
church historian, “is a spiritualization of the Mosaic law. The writer holds that the Jews were wrong to take
the Old Testament literally.”[16]

Everything in the Old Testament was allegorized to give it a Christian meaning. Even the commandments
were taken figuratively, because, according to Barnabas, “the law of Moses had never been meant to be
taken literally.”[17] Even the dietary restrictions were said to represent not actual food, but various kinds of
sinful habits.

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue With Trypho also shows early Christianity’s negative attitude toward the Law.
Trypho the Jew expresses bewilderment when he tells Justin:
  • “[You Christians] spurn the commands. . . and then try to convince us [Torah-observant Jews]
    that you know God, when you fail to do those things that every God-fearing person would do. If,
    therefore, you can give a satisfactory reply to these charges and can show us on what you
    place your hopes, even though you refuse to obey the Law, we will listen to you most willingly,
    and then we can go on and examine in the same manner our other differences.”[18]
Justin replies by saying that the Law is “obsolete,” “abrogated,” “voided,” and tells Trypho, “You understand
all in a carnal way.”[19]

Torah Obedient Nazarenes Following Yeshua
The best-known of these groups who believed in Yeshua and practiced the Torah were the Nazarenes and
the Ebionites. There were other groups, more obscure and far less orthodox, such as the Elchasaites and
the Pseudoclementines.[21]

Some doctrinal errors in some of these predominately Jewish groups probably contributed to the decision
of the Mainstream, Gentile Church to adopt Marcion’s anti-law, anti-Jewish attitude. One writer notes that
“Jewish Christianity in various forms continued as a disturbing factor until almost the Fifth Century.”[22]

It is interesting that this is the same time that Marcion’s heresy supposedly “died out.” Once Marcion’s error
(in a modified, subdued f orm) had been f ully assimilated into the Mainstream Church, “Jewish Christianity”
was no longer a “disturbing factor” because the Law-keeping Christians were greatly outnumbered by those
who had adopted Marcion’s attitude toward the Law. The number of those who upheld both the torah and
the Messiah (see Rev.12:17 & 14:12) was so insignificant by the Fifth Century that the Mainstream Church no longer considered them a threat ...


http://www.protorah.com/wp-content/uplo ... ly_Say.pdf
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat May 05, 2018 9:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by Secret Alias »

Bullshit
“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
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:39 am Bullshit
I don’t disagree. I simply & quickly put these here to try to use them as a way of learning to discerne & unpack bullshit like that (which may be a pointless exercise b/c it is such bullshit), but, Are you referring to something specific or both post-links?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:16 am
JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Included in the locked up vault at FRDB (which is being handled by top women) is my Award winning Thread, "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter, where I demonstrate, and than some, that a primary literary objective of "Mark" was to discredit Peter as supposed witness to Jesus.

Most Believers will start with the conclusion that "Mark" credited Peter with historical witness to Jesus (mainly relying consciously or unconsciously on what "Mark" did not write) so it makes no difference to them how much evidence I present the other Way. Non-believers are much more open to the question, and the trend is definitely moving towards my conclusion, but I think most are still not convinced.
Could aspects of these narratives be based on narratives about messiah claimants such as those listed in the works of Josephus? Principally, Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War?
One of the messiah claimants is Simon of Peraea (4 BCE) -

Gabriel's Revelation is an atypical text about a messiah claimant from before the times that the Jesus narrative is set in.

Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, thinks -

"the specific messianic figure embodied on the stone could be a man named Simon who was slain by a commander in the Herodian army, according to the first-century historian Josephus. The writers of the stone’s passages were probably Simon’s followers, Mr. Knohl contends.

"The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a necessary step toward national salvation, he says, pointing to lines 19 through 21 of the tablet — “In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice” — and other lines that speak of blood and slaughter as pathways to justice."


Could Mark et al be discussing and comparing narratives such as these?

Josephus also narrates that Daniel prophesied that the Roman Government would make his country desolate -

Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7
  • "In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel ..."
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

Would the Samaritan in Jesus' parable have technically been a member of the covenant community according to Leviticus 19:17-18?
You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... ns_fellow/


SabaziosZagreus Jewish | Degree in Religious Studies -

I'm not even sure if it can be said that Jews of the time always regarded Jews of other movements of being part of the "real" covenant. There's some gray area on different issues. For instance, some Jews were actually descendants of forcibly converted Edomites, and they weren't regarded as fully Jews by everyone.

As for Samaritans, I don't know that there is an entirely clear answer. The later Talmudic opinion sorta classes them as neither Jews nor non-Jews. For instance, in the Talmud it actually must be discussed whether or not one may marry a Samaritan ...

.. Samaritans do embrace some of the Laws of the Jews and it is admitted that they follow them well. The reason given for not being able to marry a Samaritan is that they fail to properly follow marriage laws. As such, marriages with Samaritans may be adulterous and children of Samaritans may be children of adulterous unions. In regards to the children of Samaritans being regarded as children of an adulterous union, this class actually only applies when the parents are both regarded as Jewish.

Moving to an earlier period, Josephus is not clear about Samaritans. They certainly are not Jews like other Jews; they are either heretics or hearhens [sic]. Josephus recounts some events recorded in the Hebrew Bible. He writes (Ant. 11.4.3) ..

In response: SF2K01 | Scholar of Late Antique Judaism -
I'd also add that John Hyrcanus leads a campaign and destroys the Samaritan Temple, but at the same time he doesn't forcibly convert the Samaritans to "Normative Judaism" the way he does with the Edumeans, so there's certainly a balance between animosity and what they consider them religiously.

Also the NT's representation of the Samaritan provides additional insight. ...the entire parable of the "good Samaritan" best fits a cultural context where Samaritans are not expected to be good, i.e. they're the "lowest rung" on the social ladder who have poor relations with Jews, which is why the story of a Samaritan doing the "right thing" when a priest and a Levite, -people who are held in high esteem- did not.
and atapetasma -
I am wondering if Luke's use of 2 Chronicles 18:8-25 [sic; maybe just to v.15?] suggests that his Jesus affirmed a covenantal kindred relationship between Jews and Samaritans. In the story, the people of Samaria treat the warriors of Judah kindly because they are also children of YHWH and thus kindred: -
  • 8 The people of Israel took captive two hundred thousand of their kin, women, sons, and daughters; they also took much booty from them and brought the booty to Samaria. 9 But a prophet of the Lord was there, whose name was Oded; he went out to meet the army that came to Samaria, and said to them, “Because the Lord, the God of your ancestors, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand, but you have killed them in a rage that has reached up to heaven. 10 Now you intend to subjugate the people of Judah and Jerusalem, male and female, as your slaves. But what have you except sins against the Lord your God? 11 Now hear me, and send back the captives whom you have taken from your kindred, for the fierce wrath of the Lord is upon you.” 12 Moreover, certain chiefs of the Ephraimites, Azariah son of Johanan, Berechiah son of Meshillemoth, Jehizkiah son of Shallum, and Amasa son of Hadlai, stood up against those who were coming from the war, 13 and said to them, “You shall not bring the captives in here, for you propose to bring on us guilt against the Lord in addition to our present sins and guilt. For our guilt is already great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel.” 14 So the warriors left the captives and the booty before the officials and all the assembly. 15 Then those who were mentioned by name got up and took the captives, and with the booty they clothed all that were naked among them; they clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them; and carrying all the feeble among them on donkeys, they brought them to their kindred at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Mishna, etc

Post by John T »

Thanks for the mishmash on the Mishna. Oy, what a headache!
https://youtu.be/ZACMws38nU0

1. Can you shed some light on how Paul shaving his head in Acts 18:18 fits in with the Mishna?
2. Would James the Just (brother of Jesus) be considered a Nazarite under the Mishna?
3. What does the Mishna have to say about the religious observances of the Essenes?

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply