Message

How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:54 pm

TedM wrote:
Secret Alias wrote: But for the moment I am talking about the legal debates in the gospel and how I think they are framed around an impossibility - an apparent idiotes debating the learned. But this sort of thing is never recorded as happening in the rabbinic tradition unless it is mythical (like the Sadducee from 'castrated town' story).


Doesn't sound impossible. What makes it impossible? Where is it recorded that it never happens, and never could happen? I'm not sure why you are calling it a 'legal debate' either. Why are you using that term?


You know! because oppressed Jews would never discuss religious laws with those Jews that helped to keep them oppressed ;)


I'm surprised he didn't say they spoke Greek and the apostles spoke Aramaic so they could not connect :facepalm:


Dude its laughable to think Jews would ever agree on anything let alone religious laws in a time where no one thought the same, and a time with no orthodoxy. Its a joke.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Michael BG » Fri Oct 09, 2015 5:44 pm

This is a very interesting question. It is a great shame that Secret Alias has not even begun to discuss it here. His approach is the complete opposite of mine. I agree with Adam that we should start by considering the oldest version of the story we have, in this case Mark, then we need to consider what we think has been added by Mark. Then we need to consider if what is left could be historical and sometimes we do this by comparing it with similar sayings where the oldest version is not in the same source. Examples might be Mt 5:21-22 killing or Mt 5:33-37 swearing.

We might consider is the event likely to have occurred in 1st century Palestine. Secret Alias has gone straight to this stage and then made some premises but does not make a strong case for them. In fact I am not convinced he has given 1st century examples as he is very unclear about what evidence he is using.

It is known that some Jews read their religious writings in Greek, but if only the priests read them why would they need them in Greek. I think it is established that the part of the book of Daniel was written in Aramaic. Jews have a special interest in the written word as they are called upon to wear verses of the Bible. Synagogues were built and used at least 75 years before the traditional date for the birth of Jesus. The Wadi Qelt Synagogue seems to have places for scrolls and it seems highly likely that the Jewish religious texts would have been read there and possibly studied.

We know that in the first century CE there were rival interpretations of the Jewish religious texts and many texts were written then or in the century before. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah is evidence that a new religious celebration could be added to Judaism in the 2nd century BCE. The writing of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees are evidence that some Jewish people were reading or having read to them new religious texts.

We know that the Pharisees added to the Torah to ensure that Jews kept it. These additions I think were the Oral Torah, the Prophets and the Writings and they must have told the people about these things or what would be the point.

In the Old Testament there are two traditions; one priestly based on sacrifice and ritual and the other prophetic. It can be argued that Jesus is part of the prophetic tradition as is John the Baptist. This tradition did ask the Jews to do things on top of following the Torah and it is therefore possible that Jesus as part of this tradition also did so.
Michael BG
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:09 pm

Michael BG wrote:In the Old Testament there are two traditions
.


I would hope you do not limit to just the two.


We might consider is the event likely to have occurred in 1st century Palestine.


Great point. The context we actually know, is mind boggling to how much we actually do know with certainty.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby John2 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:28 pm

What about Dt. 31:9-13, which mentions reading the Torah out loud to all Israel every seven years?

“At the end of every seven years ... when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the foreigners residing in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law. Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn..."

So in theory everybody (even foreigners) would have heard and learned from the Torah (at least Deuteronomy).

Neh. 8 mentions reading all of the Torah out loud to everyone:

"Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law" (8:2-3).

"The Levites ... instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read" (8:7-8).
Think this through with me, let me know your mind.
John2
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:12 pm

Now to address the lesser minds:

What makes it impossible?


But this is what white people do. They make it like Jewish history is up for grabs by 'plugging in' white people habits into ancient Jewish habits. The question should be - based on what you/we know about Jewish tradition in antiquity is it likely or even possible that Jewish idiotai (or for those of you with some knowledge of these matter = עם הארץ) stood up and had a debate about the Law AND THEN PUT FORWARD A POSITION THAT HAD NO FUCKING LEGAL PRECEDENT AND WON THE DEBATE OR CAME CLOSE TO CONVINCING ANYONE. No white people this didn't happen in antiquity and it doesn't happen in Sunni or Shi'ite circles either today. What is wrong with you people? Learn something about non-Western cultures. This stuff simply didn't happen. There is no precedent.
“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
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:14 pm

Another one:

I agree with Adam that we should start by considering the oldest version of the story we have


There is no 'earliest' version with these counterfeit texts. They are all corrupt.
“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
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:16 pm

What about Dt. 31:9-13, which mentions reading the Torah out loud to all Israel every seven years


John2 wins the day with the best question (because he is Jewish or at least has some grasp of Jewish issues). Unfortunately Torah here means the ten commandments not the five books which couldn't have been published yet because Moses hadn't even died. In some circles the Book of Deuteronomy is/was read. But Torah here means ten commandments.
“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
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:22 pm

But John2 brings up an interesting point. If the Jews of the Second Commonwealth period lived in an age which was centered around the giving of the ten commandments - not the Pentateuch - from God, Jesus's critique of Moses is remarkably antinomian but not in the sense we are used to when dealing with figures like Marcion. There are two laws - the ten commandments and the Pentateuch - the former came from God the latter from Moses. If the Pentateuch itself reinforces the higher holiness of the ten commandments Jesus's remarks begin to make sense (a) if he is appealing to the עם הארץ and (b) if he was God. The ignorant only heard the word of God. His rejection of Moses's commandment on divorce is very similar to the position ascribed to Agrippa and/or Hadrian and/or Aquila regarding the value of circumcision (i.e. why if circumcision is holy wasn't it included by God in the ten commandments = circumcision is not from God but man).
“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
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:31 pm

Moreover the question then comes to - if the עם הארץ only heard the liturgy (and in this way parallel Irenaeus's Christian community c. 180 CE) they must also have heard the weekly parsha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Torah_portion. But what did they make of the Pentateuch? My take is that the liturgy placed the ten commandments on a higher plane (notice John2 reference to Deut 31) THIS IS IN THE PENTATEUCH! It is basically similar to the Catholic liturgy in the sense that the gospel takes a higher place than the 'Old Testament' reading and the 'Apostolic reading' that precedes it. In Jewish antiquity we might imagine that the Pentateuch was read in 'sections' but that the holiness of the text was not what it is today. All things pointed to the great revelation of the ten commandments where a monument to the revelation were plainly in sight of all congregation members and could be read by anyone (as opposed to the Pentateuch scrolls which locked away from public view).

The members of the forum might actually want to familiarize themselves with the situation in Israel at the time of Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am_ha%27aretz They will see that John outhouse's 'Galilean peasant' was really עם הארץ and thus an idiotes.
“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
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:37 pm

I know this is over the pay grade of the people here but I post it anyway. Point by point through Pesharim 49. For God's sake people what more needs to be said:

4) WHOM ONE SHOULD MARRY
(a) (Beraisa): One should sell all his property [if necessary] in order to marry a Chacham's daughter. Even if he will die or be exiled, his children will [learn from her and] be Chachamim.
1. One should not marry the daughter of an Am ha'Aretz. (= a Jewish ignoramus.) If he will die or be exiled [from his house], his children will be Amei ha'Aretz.
(b) (Beraisa): One should sell all his property in order to marry a Bas Chacham and to marry his daughter to a Chacham;
1. This is like [planting pits of] grapes of a vine with grapes of a vine. It is a nice match and yields proper progeny;
2. One should not marry a Bas Am ha'Aretz. This is like grapes of a vine with grapes of a shrub. It is repulsive and does not yield proper progeny. (It is like Kil'ayim - Iyun Yakov.)
(c) (Beraisa): One should sell all his property in order to marry a Bas Chacham;
1. If he cannot, the order or preference for the girl's father is as follows - a great Tzadik; a head of the congregation; a treasurer of Tzedakah; or a Rebbi of children;
(d) He should not marry a Bas Am ha'Aretz, for an Am ha'Aretz is Sheketz and his wife is Sheretz (Rashi - not careful about Mitzvos. Ha'Rif - issue of something Tamei is Tamei.) Regarding their daughters it says "Arur Shochev Im Kol Behemah." (They lack understanding; like animals.)
(e) (Beraisa - Rebbi): An Am ha'Aretz may not eat meat. (Maharsha - it has many prohibitions that one must be careful about - Shechitah, meat and milk...)
1. It says "Zos Toras ha'Behemah veha'Of" - only one who engages in Torah may eat meat of animals and fowl.
(f) (R. Elazar): One may be Nocher (tear the windpipe and esophagus of) an Am ha'Aretz, even on Yom Kipur that is on Shabbos. (Tosfos - he intentionally angers Hash-m. He is prone to kill others. Maharsha - one may shame him, which is likened to murder, even on a day of Shalom amidst Yisrael. Ya'avetz, citing Sefer Chasidim - if he is pursing someone to kill him, anyone may kill him, even if he could be stopped by wounding him.)
1. Talmidim: Why don't you say that one may slaughter him?
2. Answer: One blesses on Shechitah [of animals], but not on killing an Am ha'Aretz.
(g) (R. Elazar): One may not accompany an Am ha'Aretz on the road - "Ki Hu Chayecha v'Orech Yomecha." If he is not concerned for his own life (he does not learn), all the more so he is not concerned for another's life!
(h) (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): One may tear an Am ha'Aretz like a fish.
(i) (R. Shmuel bar Yitzchak): He tears him from the back [to kill him immediately].
(j) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): When I was an Am ha'Aretz, I used to say 'if you give me a Chacham, I will bite him like a donkey!'
1. His Talmidim: You should have said 'like a dog'! (It is more wont to bite.)
2. R. Akiva: A dog bites but does not break bones. A donkey bites and breaks bones.
(k) (Beraisa - R. Meir): Marrying one's daughter to an ignoramus is like tying her up in front of a lion:
1. Just like a lion tramples and eats [without waiting for his prey to die] without shame, an Am ha'Aretz hits his wife and has relations [without waiting for her to consent] without shame.
(l) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If Amei ha'Aretz did not need the business of Chachamim, they would kill us!
(m) (Beraisa - R. Chiya): Learning Torah in front of an Am ha'Aretz is [shameful to him] like having relations with the latter's betrothed in front of him. We read "Torah Tzivah Lanu Moshe Morashah Kehilas Yakov" as if said Me'orasah (engaged, to all Yisraelim).
(n) Amei ha'Aretz hate Chachamim more than Nochrim hate Yisrael. Their wives hate Chachamim even more (Pesach Einayim - because Chachamim's wives do not lend Kelim to them and distance themselves from them at a time when there is Taharah).
(o) (Beraisa): A Chacham who ceased to learn hates Chachamim even more than wives of Amei ha'Aretz. (He knows how much Chachamim despise him.)
(p) (Beraisa): Six laws were taught about an Am ha'Aretz:
1. We do not give testimony in front of him (and two other judges - Me'iri. We need not say that we do not summons him to be a witness, this follows from the next law), and we do not accept testimony from him;
2. We do not reveal secrets to him, we do not make him an overseer over orphans, or over Tzedakah, and one may not accompany him on the road.
(q) Some add, if we find something which was surely lost by an Am ha'Aretz (it is clear from the object or location), we do not announce it [to return it].
(r) The first Tana holds that we return it. Perhaps he will have worthy children who will benefit from it - "Yachin v'Tzadik Yilbash."
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Advertisement

by »

 

PreviousNext

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Giuseppe, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MrMacSon, powindah, Steven Avery, Stuart and 55 guests