Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:23 pm
You can do nothing but read the texts, and nothing but the texts. Statements like "he fell out with the founder" are not only completely irrelevant, they are hearsay, gossip, unsubstantiated nonsense and they likely were made in order to derail, disinform, "to fake news da f*ck out of everyone". So please, don't
I advise you my friend to read the Odes, absorb them, live and breath them
Then read such lines as:
So they died, all those who were lacking because it was not to be for them,to give the Word so they might remain

That quite 1 John-ish, they went out from us because they were not of us... etc

The Pauline side of it then is
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them that desire an occasion, that in which they boast, they may be found even as we. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as Christ's apostles.. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I am more so
This is the split right here, and the Odes are on the other side. Simple, straight reading of the texts

The account of Odes community speaks of a split/separation in lots of places and they might well have used words similar to your quote above themselves
It's not a massive stretch to think they are referring to the apostle here and his party, why not?
In other words, the Odes is from the apostle's opponents...wouldn't that be a hell of a source? That's my reading of the Odes I might be wrong
but it is based on something. I have not done an exhaustive study of this, but it's an initial observation
I'd love to have an interactive translation of the Odes, but it'll have to wait I guess.
Yes, the Odes are spiritual above all - and Paul most certainly no Hebrew, Israelite or "of the seed of Abraham".
It's easy to rework spiritual texts into religious ones, Thomas and his canonical cousins abundantly attest to that.
The Odes fit right in with Psalms although they're softer, gentle, a bit Thomasine so to say. The Coptic ones are verifiable for me and at first sight Mattison's is legit
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by davidmartin »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:41 am I'd love to have an interactive translation of the Odes, but it'll have to wait I guess.
Yes, the Odes are spiritual above all - and Paul most certainly no Hebrew, Israelite or "of the seed of Abraham".
It's easy to rework spiritual texts into religious ones, Thomas and his canonical cousins abundantly attest to that.
The Odes fit right in with Psalms although they're softer, gentle, a bit Thomasine so to say. The Coptic ones are verifiable for me and at first sight Mattison's is legit
Your best bet is Zinner's interlinear. It has the Coptic interlinear as well (not by Zinner)
https://www.nuhra.net/manuscripts

He did a pretty neat job. There's a handful of occasions he see's a more Judaic reading but not many and easy to spot
The interlinear does show also the ambiguities that make translation difficult
Then combine this with Lattke's excellent commentary where he discusses all the difficulties. Those two have done most of the hard work already
I was able to use these to look up words in the lexicons after grinding away at the alphabet and basic grammar for a while

Yep, easy to rework spiritual texts into religious ones, and spiritual groups into religious ones. That's what the apostle is up to I recon
Take a few steps back... the Odes and the epistles seem pretty damn similar. But they're not the same, the movement is split at the moment of their composition this is obvious, the epistles show it's obvious. The apostle is saying 'my way or highway'. The Odes are saying 'we were first'. I'm surprised no-one has noticed this i don't know why
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:41 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:41 am I'd love to have an interactive translation of the Odes, but it'll have to wait I guess.
Yes, the Odes are spiritual above all - and Paul most certainly no Hebrew, Israelite or "of the seed of Abraham".
It's easy to rework spiritual texts into religious ones, Thomas and his canonical cousins abundantly attest to that.
The Odes fit right in with Psalms although they're softer, gentle, a bit Thomasine so to say. The Coptic ones are verifiable for me and at first sight Mattison's is legit
Your best bet is Zinner's interlinear. It has the Coptic interlinear as well (not by Zinner)
https://www.nuhra.net/manuscripts

He did a pretty neat job. There's a handful of occasions he see's a more Judaic reading but not many and easy to spot
The interlinear does show also the ambiguities that make translation difficult
Then combine this with Lattke's excellent commentary where he discusses all the difficulties. Those two have done most of the hard work already
I was able to use these to look up words in the lexicons after grinding away at the alphabet and basic grammar for a while

Yep, easy to rework spiritual texts into religious ones, and spiritual groups into religious ones. That's what the apostle is up to I recon
Take a few steps back... the Odes and the epistles seem pretty damn similar. But they're not the same, the movement is split at the moment of their composition this is obvious, the epistles show it's obvious. The apostle is saying 'my way or highway'. The Odes are saying 'we were first'. I'm surprised no-one has noticed this i don't know why
Ah, it is. Pity that he is so intent on the RTL instead of presenting a legible translation, and what I miss is a hyperlink to every morph but this is an awful lot better than the average translation

Is this something like a Philip you think? Is the Odes really naming and shaming Christian aspects like he is, for instance the virgin birth and resurrection?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by davidmartin »

Is this something like a Philip you think? Is the Odes really naming and shaming Christian aspects like he is, for instance the virgin birth and resurrection?
I think it's more amorphous than what's usually found in texts containing polemics, just when you expect them to start getting into the juicy details they trail off (as if anticipating anything more would not get past the censors lol)

The resurrection just seems overpowered by statements like 'and I did not die' (first person Jesus speaking unusual? naaah, its ordinary like milk on cornflakes), it's like they're saying the cross only looked like it killed the one on it and 'the son' didn't die and is accessible in visions and spirit possession. This is more like the Paul type of scenario, he never physically see's the risen Christ either.

Sure, a physical resurrection isn't explicitly denied but its hard to see that's what they had in mind. The virgin birth is more like a symbolic birth. The walking on water is symbolic as well. Other stuff is in the physical realm, like the temple, but that get's presented as a spiritual temple in the end.
Against this the material world and nature is mentioned a lot so it's not remote from the earth in other respects. It's not an easy thing to figure out

It all adds up to a different take than the gospel found in the epistles, they had their own complete system, There's no way the Odes would say Christ 'became sin' as an atoning sacrifice, that's the apostle's addition as the theologian he was. Someone needs to go through the epistles and the odes and work out what's going on exactly

Anything that's the same - the apostle got this from the odes community and didn't change it
Anything that's different - he changed it
Anything that's not in there - he added
Anything missing - he took it out
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:35 am
So no, when Paul makes a pesher of Hosea, he does it very specifically and respect what the texts says.
Hosea says that God will raise the bodies of the dead on the 3rd day. Jesus rises on the 3rd day. That is very specific. Not loosely.



But Hosea uses the imagery of being raised up in the context of the fall and restoration of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is not about resurrection of the dead and an End Time Messiah figure. That Hos. 6:2 is interpreted that way in Rabbinic writings doesn't change this. They are only reflecting earlier Pharisaic views (as was Paul and other Christians and Fourth Philosophers). But Sadducees used Hosea too, and as noted in the NT and Josephus, "the Sadducees ... say there is no resurrection."

Hosea may use the imagery of resurrection, but he is talking about the fall and restoration of Israel and Judah in the 700's BCE and not an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead. So for me Paul/Christians/the Pharisees/Rabbinic Judaism/Fourth Philosophers are all playing loosely with the OT here.

It's like the supposed "tefillin" passages in the Torah (which Gordon discusses below). That the majority of Jews understand these passages as referring to tefillin doesn't mean they aren't playing "loosely" with the OT here too. Yes, you can literally put passages from the Torah between your eyes and on your hand by wearing tefillin, and you can also take Hosea literally (and apply what he says to the End Time and a Messiah figure) when he says God will "raise us up" (meaning the fallen kingdoms of Israel and Judah) "on the third day." Seeing tefillin and End Time resurrection and a Messiah figure in these passages qualifies as playing loosely with the OT to me (even more so in the case of Hosea).


Upon closer examination it becomes clear that this phrase is a figure of speech and not a command at all. The brilliant Rabbanite commentator Rashbam (Rashi's grandson) was wise enough to realize the true meaning of this expression. Commenting on the verse "And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and a remembrance (Zicharon) between your eyes" he writes:

"'For a sign upon your hand' According to its plain meaning (Omek Peshuto), 'It shall be remembered always as if it had been written upon your hand' SIMILAR TO 'he put me as a seal upon your heart' (Cant 8,6). 'Between your eyes', like a piece of jewelry or gold chain which people put on the forehead for decoration" (Rashbam on Ex 13,9)

Rashi's grandson rightfully interprets the "Tefillin passage" as a metaphor which demands that we remember the Torah always and treasure it like a piece of fine jewelry. Rashbam and the Karaites realize that not everything in the Torah is to be taken literally as a command. The classic example of this is "And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart" (Dt 10,16). Obviously God is not commanding mass suicide but is rather commanding us to figuratively circumcise the foreskin of our hearts, i.e. remove our impurity and stubbornness and commit to his covenant with our hearts.


https://www.nehemiaswall.com/tefillin-phylacteries



Our posts are getting long and I have limited internet time so I will have to respond more to your last one in other posts.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:12 pm, edited 7 times in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:35 am
The context is not important in a "pesher". This is very clear in the Qumran writings that you keep mentioning.
The Chaldeans in Habakuk become the Kittim (Romans) in the Habakkuk pesher for example.
They do not care about the context since it is a matter of reinterpreting the scriptures according to their time.



But Paul is taking Is. 53 and Hos. 6:2 out of context by combining passages that aren't about an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead and applying them to an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead, in accordance with his time.

And he wasn't limited to a line by line commentary of one book of prophecy like the pesharim. All he has to do is say "according to the scriptures" (meaning, according to this or that verse in this or that book), while the pesher writers are "stuck" with commenting line by line on one book.

But even with this limitation there is some contextual sense about the interpretations in the pesharim. Habakkuk isn't talking about the Romans, but he's talking about people who were like the Romans, in that they "march through the breadth of the earth to take possession of dwellings which are not their own" and "Therefore their sword is ever drawn to massacre nations mercilessly," and it doesn't seem like a stretch to apply these verses to the Romans. It seems like even less of a stretch than Paul (and whoever else) seeing Is. 53 and Hos. 6:2 as referring to an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead.

And when the DSS writers aren't bound to commenting line by line on something in 4Q541 or the Hodayot, they describe a figure using Isaiah (or "according to the scriptures") like Paul does for Jesus. 4Q541 speaks of a future figure and Paul speaks of a past figure, but the Hodayot could be by and/or about the Teacher. In all cases there is a Suffering Servant figure described "according to the scriptures" in an End Time messianic context.

When all the allusions to Isaiah in 4Q541 are collected together, it seems as if there is a deliberate attempt to model the persecuted priest on the Isaianic servant figure.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Wr ... frontcover
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:39 pm, edited 7 times in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:35 am

I don't know what translations you are using but most translators consider it a future tense verse.

Hultgren notes some here (footnote 45 on pages 100-101) and I've seen two or three others I don't recall offhand.

The participle הבא is probably to be taken as a past tense (the Interpreter of the Law "who came" to Damascus) rather than as a future tense (the Interpreter of the Law "who will come" to Damascus) (in agreement with Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect 34-35 [German 48]; Chaim Milikowsky, "Again: Damascus in Damascus Document and in Rabbinic literature" RevQ 11 [1982] 104; Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 147; and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, The Damascus Document Revistied ... In support of taking it as a past tense are (1) the fact that CD VI,7 speaks of the Interpreter as a figure of the past; (2) that where the Interpreter of the Law does appear as a future figure at Qumran in 4Q174 1-2 i 11, the implication seems to be that the Interpreter will appear in Zion and not in Damascus, since the INtepreter is said to rise with the Davidic messiah who appears in Zion ...; and (3) the fact that the "star" that is interpreted as referring to the Interpreter of the Law comes from Amos 5:26-27, which in CD VII is interpreted of the events of the exile (in the past) ...


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fr ... frontcover
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Sinouhe »

John2 wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:54 pm
But Hosea uses the imagery of being raised up in the context of the fall and restoration of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is not about resurrection of the dead and an End Time Messiah figure. That Hos. 6:2 is interpreted that way in Rabbinic writings doesn't change this. They are only reflecting earlier Pharisaic views (as was Paul and other Christians and Fourth Philosophers).

I really don't agree. First the context is not important in a PESHER.

Secondly, the fact that Hosea 6:2 was interpreted as a verse about the resurrection of the dead in the rabbinic writings shows that PAUL did not invent anything since he most likely took over an earlier tradition concerning Hosea.
And it shows that he was not the only one to interpret this verse in this way. So Paul did not use Hosea 6:2 loosely since according to the interpretation of his time, Hosea was understood to refer to the resurrection of the bodies after 3 days. This is what Paul applies to the letter for Jesus.
But Sadducees used Hosea too, and as noted in the NT and Josephus, "the Sadducees ... say there is no resurrection."
Speculation. We have no Sadducean texts. We don't know if they used the Book of Hosea. The Jewish canon was not established in the days of the Sadducees.
And we know even less how they interpreted Hosea 6:2. On the other hand, we know how the rabbis interpreted Hosea 6:2 : in the same way as Paul
With such speculation, one could say that the Sadducees were using Isaiah 26 but not interpreting the verse as a resurrection of the dead. ditto for Daniel 12. Yet this is the best way to interpret these 2 chapters.
Hosea may use the imagery of resurrection, but he is talking about the fall and restoration of Israel and Judah in the 700's BCE and not an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead. So for me Paul/Christians/the Pharisees/Rabbinic Judaism/Fourth Philosophers are all playing loosely with the OT here.
This is what we call PESHER, Midrash. You may think that they are not respectful of the scriptures, but it is very interesting in order to understand how the NT was born. Once again we see that Paul is deeply rooted in the Judaism of his time.
But Paul is taking Is. 53 and Hos. 6:2 out of context by combining passages that aren't about an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead and applying them to an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead, in accordance with his time
Once again, context is of little importance in the interpretation of scripture that was practiced in Second Temple Judaism.
And since the majority of the Jews saw Isaiah's servant as the Messiah, this is very helpful in understanding how Paul conceived his theology. He did so by taking up the ideas of the Judaism of his time. Not by twisting the scriptures in an innovative and isolated way as some think.
And he wasn't limited to a line by line commentary of one book of prophecy like the pesharim. All he has to do is say "according to the scriptures" (meaning, according to this or that verse in this or that book), while the pesher writers are "stuck" with commenting line by line on one book.
This is another way of doing Pesher. Maybe Paul did it this way too, outside of his letters. Who knows? But it's obvious that Paul does make Pesher in his letters. And Mark will do the same.

https://academic.oup.com/book/27702/cha ... m=fulltext

Besides, the sectarians of Qumran did not have only one way of making pesharim. We see it for example in the Damascus Document, in the hymn of self-glorification, in 4Q541, in 4Q521, in 11Q13, in the Hodayot : they could use verses of the Bible to make pesharim without necessarily focusing on the whole book of the prophets with a line by line commentary.
But even with this limitation there is some contextual sense about the interpretations in the pesharim. Habakkuk isn't talking about the Romans, but he's talking about people who were like the Romans, in that they "march through the breadth of the earth to take possession of dwellings which are not their own" and "Therefore their sword is ever drawn to massacre nations mercilessly," and it doesn't seem like a stretch to apply these verses to the Romans
So changing the context of the book of Habakuk by replacing the Chaldeans to Romans doesn't bother you. And when the author of the Habakkuk pesher uses the context of the kingdom of Judah in the 7th century BC to interpret the persecution of the teacher in the 1st century AD, it's faithful to the scriptures.

On the other hand, when Paul takes a verse from Hosea that was interpreted by the Jews as being a verse about the resurrection of the dead, that bothers you because it is not respectful of the context.

That's a wonderful double standard :roll:
And when the DSS writers aren't bound to commenting line by line on something in 4Q541 or the Hodayot, they describe a figure using Isaiah (or "according to the scriptures") like Paul does for Jesus. 4Q541 speaks of a future figure and Paul speaks of a past figure, but the Hodayot could be by and/or about the Teacher. In all cases there is a Suffering Servant figure described "according to the scriptures" in an End Time messianic context.
The Hodayot do not present a context of end times. It is a book that most scholars believe was written by the teacher of Righteousness. To explain his persecutions, not to describe the end times and the Messianic times.

Contrary to 4Q541 which presents a messianic figure based essentially on the servant of Isaiah. And not only chapter 53.
Hultgren notes some here (footnote 45 on pages 100-101) and I've seen two or three others I don't recall offhand.
Most scholars translate the verse in the future tense. And the majority believe that it refers to the coming Messiah and not to dead teacher of righteousness or the teacher redividus.

You can speculate that the sect believed their teacher had been resurrected and/or would return to earth in the near future. But that will remain speculation.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:29 am
John2 wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:54 pm
But Sadducees used Hosea too, and as noted in the NT and Josephus, "the Sadducees ... say there is no resurrection."
Speculation. We have no Sadducean texts. We don't know if they used the Book of Hosea. The Jewish canon was not established in the days of the Sadducees. And we know even less how they interpreted Hosea 6:2.

While he doesn't name the books, Josephus says there was a canon of twenty two books in Against Apion 1.8. And while it is speculation as to which books he means, I think all the OT books fit his descriptions well. And if the Sadducees didn't use the same sacred books as other Jews, I think Josephus would have said so (like he says they were opposed to the oral Torah of the Pharisees).

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

... how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.

And bearing in mind that books like 1 and 2 Kings were one book in antiquity, it is easy to fit all the OT books into Josephus' canon.

"five belong to Moses"

1. Genesis; 2. Exodus; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy


"the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books"

1. Isaiah; 2. Jeremiah/Lamentations (one book); 3. Ezekiel; 4. Daniel; 5. twelve minor prophets (one book); 6. Joshua; 7. Judges/Ruth (one book); 8. 1 and 2 Samuel (one book); 9. 1 and 2 Kings (one book), 10. Ezra/Nehemiah (one book); 11. Job; 12. Esther; 13. 1 and 2 Chronicles (one book)


"four books containing hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life"

1. Proverbs; 2. Psalms; 3. Song of Songs; 4. Ecclesiastes


And a twenty-two book canon is supported by Origen in EH 6.25.1 and Jerome in the preface to his translation of Kings.
When expounding the first Psalm, he [Origen] gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: "It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters."
As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the human voice is comprehended within their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.

The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, 'Law.'

The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra.

To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.


http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

That the Twelve Minor Prophets were in one book in Josephus' time is supported by the Minor Prophets scroll that is dated to the first century CE (in a Greek translation, which suggests that the Hebrew version is even older). However, you may have some wiggle room since "only parts of the books Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah are identified"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Min ... ahal_Hever


All things considered, I'm comfortable with the idea that the Sadducees used the same books as other Jews. And since they didn't believe in resurrection, they presumably interpreted Hos. 6:2 differently than the Pharisees and those reflecting them.
Last edited by John2 on Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply