Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness

[Tenorikuma]

The story of Ezra, like that of Josiah, is a fictional attempt to provide a historical pedigree for the Torah and explain why none of the ancient Israelites knew about it (since it kept getting "lost" and rediscovered, supposedly). It was a nationalistic (Hellenistic) story placed in a narrative setting that is anti-Samaritan.

If I'm not mistaken, Garbini thinks Ezra-Nehemiah (the Hebrew/Aramaic text, not the Greek Esdras) dates to the first century AD.

[Secret Alias]

Curious how 'Moses-like' Ezra appears:

Ezra, a descendant of Seraiah the high priest, was living in Babylon when in the seventh year (c. 457 BCE) of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the king sent him to Jerusalem to teach the laws of God to any who did not know them. Ezra led a large body of exiles back to Jerusalem, where he discovered that Jewish men had been marrying non-Jewish women. He tore his garments in despair and confessed the sins of Israel before God, then braved the opposition of some of his own countrymen to purify the community by enforcing the dissolution of the sinful marriages. Some years later Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah (a Jewish noble in his personal service) to Jerusalem as governor with the task of rebuilding the city walls. Once this task was completed Nehemiah had Ezra read the Law of Moses (the Torah) to the assembled Israelites, and the people and priests entered into a covenant to keep the law and separate themselves from all other peoples.

But the Torah came from somewhere and the myth of Moses had some purpose. I've always felt that the 'apocalypse' in Deuteronomy was written with someone like Ezra in mind. The fact that the story of Ezra may have had fictitious or mythical elements in it doesn't mean it didn't have a ring of historical truth. Some one wrote the Law and then had to introduce it to a population which only believed in the Ten Commandments and then accept it as a heavenly revelation. No mean task.

[Tenorikuma]

One serious problem would be, why doesn't Ben Sira know about Ezra when he lists all the heroes of the Bible and Israelite history in 180 CE?

[Secret Alias]

Kartveit has an interesting observation from Epiphanius that some source he knew identified Ezra as the founder of the Samaritan religion too. Well worth the read:

https://books.google.com/books?id=lZSl6 ... ra&f=false

[Tenorikuma]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Secret Alias]

Also Hjelms retelling of Gaster's interpretation of the SHARED understanding (Samaritan and Jewish) that Ezra copied the Torah into Paleo-Hebrew

https://books.google.com/books?id=yGatA ... ra&f=false

Talmudic tradition recognizes Ezra as the first to commission the writing of the Bible in "Assyrian'' Vassihit) characters (b. Sanh. 21b-22a; /. Sanh. 4: 7; y. Meg. 1: 8b). Indeed, the term 'ordinary people' in the dictum in b. Sanh. 21b is explained as 'Samaritans' by Rab Hisda in the continued discussion, but it is not clear whether only the Samaritans continued to write in the "early" Hebrew script. The point is clearly that there is an understanding somewhere in this that Ezra established the Samaritan text of the Torah.

[Secret Alias]

For Gaster now, getting back to our main point of interest, Ezra (= 'helper') is described as the' sofer mahir' meaning 'a very high functionary, either equal to the high priest or commander of the army.' Perhaps this is getting to the heart of the matter - the Term sofer mahir as designating a Courtier in the Old Testament and the Ahiqar Story,' Ugarit-Forschungen 34 (2002) 217–221. This is clearly who Ezra was (i.e. a Hebrew working in the court of the Persian king). https://www.ugarit-verlag.com/publikation.html?id=278 Here's all I can get (the conclusion):

To conclude, mhyr when said of a scribe means a scribe in a very high position, who even keeps the royal (state) seal. As for the expression ›mahir‹ in the ›Law of Moses‹, meant that this person had real administrative and political power of his coreligionists, the Jews, but was not the High Priest.« Für die Herleitung der Bedeutung

Number: 1807
Proto-Semitic: *mary/w- / *mahir-
Afroasiatic etymology: Afroasiatic etymology
Meaning: subordinate; service man, soldier
Akkadian: marû 'subordinate' (CAD: 308)
Ugaritic: mhr
Phoenician: mhyr
Hebrew: mhyr
Aramaic: mhyr
Arabic: mhyr
Geʕez (Ethiopian): mhyr

The terminology is explicitly applied to Moses in Ephrem - [Moses] made [it] one computation / [being] a practised teacher (spr' mhyr')' (CrucifVl, 18, 7-5). https://books.google.com/books?id=Z_AKA ... kQ6AEwBDgU

[MrMacSon]

... How much speculation is there in Jewish circles about Moses? Surprisingly little. That's odd because Moses is supposed to be everything. My suspicion (I should use stronger language) is that the raising of the writings outside of the Torah was not simply a natural development. It's a lot (IMO) like the expansion of the NT canon. In both cases you have a direct revelation from God being watered down by 'lesser shit' in some way.

In fact I should qualify that statement (because I write most of these statements with little in the way of a filter).

If we accept what the Jewish writings (and the Samaritan and early Jewish exegesis of the Torah) you have:

• 1. a direct revelation of God in the Ten Commandments
  2. then the story of the giving of the Ten Commandments within a greater historical context (= the Torah)
  3. all the lesser shit added later by the later sectarians

In Christianity you have Paul:

• 1. a direct revelation of God in the gospel
  2. then the context of the giving of the gospel (according to the original Marcionite exegesis) in the Pauline letters (it's all about Paul and his relationship with Jesus through revelation)
  3. all the lesser shit added later by the later heretics (including the Catholics)

Cheers.

With respect to Moses, what about Joshua/Jesus, sun/son of Nun/Nave (who succeeded Moses) ??

How about Paul being based on Saul (of the Books of Samuel)??

• eg. 1 Samuel 10
  . .. 6 And the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
  
  . . 10 ... the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

and Jesus being based on David?? (who brought the Ark of the Covenant (containing the 10 commandments) to Jerusalem)

[Clive]

The snag is that finding relationships and types is apologia 101.

David, as king, was an illustrious type of Christ. "I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." (Psalm 2:6.) "All Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the deliverer." (Romans 11:26.) Jesus was recognised as "The Son of David"; He is "King of the Jews"; "King of kings," and "of His kingdom there shall be no end." This passage suggests several analogies between King David and King Jesus.

1. David was king by Divine ordination (v. 2, 12.) And so Christ was elected from eternity to be the Monarch of mankind, was predicted of old. "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom." (Daniel 4:3, 34.) It was asserted by Himself, "My kingdom is not of this world." He claimed kingship of Divine origin and authority.

2. David was ordained to be king for two purposes: "Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel." It is the function of a shepherd to feed; of a captain to guide and protect. So Christ is the good Shepherd and the Captain of Salvation. He supplies the need of His people, and leads them to victory.

3. David was qualified by kindred relationship. "We are thy bone and thy flesh." So Jesus took our nature, "in all things was made like unto His brethren." "He is not ashamed to call us brethren." His humanity, linked with His deity, qualified Him to be the "Mediator between God and men"; THE Shepherd-King of His people; "the Man Christ Jesus."

4. David was king by mutual covenant. The Son of David is proclaimed from heaven as King of men; and He engages to rule in equity, and to guard His people from harm. We, on our part, accept Him as our Lord: we declare that we desire Him to rule over us; there is a mutual covenant. He says, "Ye are My people"; and we say, "Thou art our King."

5. David assailed the strong fortress of his foes. David's greater Son lays siege to the human heart, fortified against Him by unbelief and sin. He summons it to surrender; brings the battery of truth against its walls; promises pardon if it will open its gates.

6. David conquered the-fortress and dwelt in it. So Jesus has entered many a heart by its opened doors, and has proved His power to subdue the most determined resistance. He then makes it His abode.

7. David enlarged the captured city. "He built round about." Thus the kingdom of David's Son is constantly being enlarged. Faith in the soul grows as seeds. The leaven leavens the whole lump. Every part of our nature progressively owns the sway of its Lord.

8. The King of Tyre sent cedar-trees and carpenters to help to build David's house. So the Gentiles built up the Church of Christ. Earthly wealth is consecrated to His service. Not Tyre alone, but every people and clime shall help in raising up Jerusalem, and making Zion a praise throughout the earth.

9. David reigned in Hebron and Jerusalem forty years. David's Son reigns everywhere, and His kingdom shall have no end. "He shall reign for ever and ever."

10. David had the joy of being assured that God had exalted His throne. "He perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel." And David's Son "shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied." LESSONS: — Let us individually enter into covenant with Christ as our King. Let us open our hearts for Him to dwell in. Though "blind and lame," He will heal us, and help us to fight His battles and share His triumph.

(N. Hall, D. D.)

http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/hall/k ... christ.htm

There were two Sauls who played significant roles in the Bible. One Saul is spoken of in the Old Testament, and the other is spoken of in the New Testament. The one in the Old Testament, Saul the King, is probably most remembered as the man who sought to kill David, while Saul of Tarsus, is probably most remembered not as Saul but as Paul the apostle.

These men, besides having the same name, were similar in quite a few ways.



The name Saul means "Prayed for". The meaning of the name is significant because the children of Israel did ask God for a king and Saul was His immediate answer to them.



King Saul was not born a king and neither was Saul of Tarsus born an apostle. Both men were from the tribe of Benjamin and both of them were called by God to become something special. In one's case, it was to become the first king of Israel and in the other's case, it was to become an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ's.

http://northwind.hubpages.com/hub/The-T ... -Of-Tarsus

[Secret Alias]

With respect to Moses, what about Joshua/Jesus, sun/son of Nun/Nave (who succeeded Moses) ?? How about Paul being based on Saul (of the Books of Samuel) ... and Jesus being based on David??

But you're ignoring the one thing I hoped to impart in this forum. The Samaritan paradigm was clearly the original namely:

1. the existence of a pre-Ezra veneration of a (undoubtedly 'short formed') Ten Commandments revealed by God on Sinai (i.e. before Ezra's composition of the Torah)
2. Ezra's composition of the Torah (perhaps without Deuteronomy)
3. all the other shit

To this end we can never lose sight of the fact that only (1) was certainly 'from heaven' (= the heavenly Torah). Then (2) was holy but somehow not as holy as (1) and (3) wasn't holy at all but later was added to the collection of holy writings. The core message of the gospel i.e. at the Marcionite level only works on levels (1) and (2) often times juxtaposition (1) against (2) as in the discussion of divorce (i.e. God said x but Moses said y). But it originally had little or nothing to do with (3). Otherwise the earliest traditions wouldn't consistently be identified as 'Samaritan' (i.e. developed from the differences between the Samaritan text and those of what was a minority opinion of Jews in the early second century but later became canonized as 'authoritative' by the late second century. In other words a specifically 'Jewish' Torah (i.e. unlike or slightly different from the original text of Ezra written in Assyrian letters).