Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

WHICH jews ?????????????????????????

Have you ever read the Mishnah? 'Which Jews' do you think are reflected here? Both Sadducean and Pharisaic halakhot make their way into the collection. Similarly Samaritanism embraced both principle sectarian groups (as witnessed by the fact that various orthodox Samaritan positions today are reflective of known 'heretical' Dosithean POV in antiquity). What survived in the second century isn't a pure representation of any school in the second commonwealth period. We can't really identify 'which Jews' or 'which Samaritans' or 'which heretics' are being talked about with any certainty in most cases. But since the only the ten commandments position of the minim reflect the Samaritan POV to some degree and more importantly because the Samaritans never excised the recitation of the ten commandments in their services we can be assured their tradition reflects to a greater extent the religious views before the ban put in place 'because of the minim.'

But the recognition that Jews and Samaritans at one time held the ten commandments to be the only Torah from heaven is critical to understanding the fictitious debate in Matthew 19. Jesus is throwing his hat into the 'only the ten commandments came from heaven' side by saying 'Moses shouldn't have granted divorce bills' bit. With this Jesus is not only distinguishing God's commandments and Moses's, in doing so he is necessarily depreciating the entire Pentateuch and Moses.

If we imagine the people of the land as ignorant peasants the fact that they had never read the Pentateuch insulated them from the charge of heresy. When the patchwork of things said by Jesus are put together it is clear that he is identifying himself as someone (or I would say 'something') greater than Moses but also someone from beyond traditional obligations to the Pentateuch. Who could this person or thing who was greater than Moses be? Who is this man who identifies himself as the I AM of Exodus? Who is this person who has the authority to knock down the authority of the scribes, the priests and - importantly - the law of Moses? An idiotes? An ignorant peasant who happened to find a copy of the Pentateuch in the library of Alexandria and then developed his own theology - one which identifies him as the Son of God - through some imaginary flight of fancy? No chance. The story was originally that of the god of Moses coming to earth to have himself known to those who were placed under darkness by Moses.

Secret Alias wrote: 'Which Jews' do you think are reflected here? '

Not the ones that would become christians. It doesn't have anything as far as converts and reflect 3rd century Judaism as being redacted in 217.

Secret Alias wrote:If we imagine the people of the land as ignorant peasants the fact that they had never read the Pentateuch insulated them from the charge of heresy. .

So they were not jewish is what your saying?


What fact? BS.

Secret Alias wrote:. The story was originally that of the god of Moses coming to earth to have himself known to those who were placed under darkness by Moses.

Stop the horse crap.

Secret Alias wrote:

You have asserted that the Pentateuch was written by Ezra

So the pagans and Jews of antiquity. Not an assertion. A tradition.

So now you are asserting that somewhere there is a tradition that Ezra wrote the Pentateuch and this is a basis for a rational discussion without stating where the tradition comes from and how reliable this tradition is. You would reject this with regard to Christian traditions so why is this tradition any different? What about the tradition that Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch is that a good basis for a rational discussion?

Secret Alias wrote:

There is a more generally accepted view that someone

Why does any of this matter for the discussion at hand? …

I have already tried to explain to you how intelligent discussions should be conducted. I do wonder if your problem with academia is the result of your rejection of the norms of how discussions should be conducted?
If your argument does not depend on who wrote the Pentateuch then you should say so and then you will not need to present a rational case for why you think Ezra wrote it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Secret Alias wrote:

As far as I know no one believes that the whole of the Pentateuch was written by Ezra

ALL OF MY POSTS DEVELOP FROM TRADITION. I don't care if people ignore tradition. It is at least something to work. The entire thread deals with the existing tradition of the Jews.

You really should know that using capital letters does not make a bad claim better, it just shows your intolerance. You have not provided any evidence that there was in the 1st century a tradition that Ezra wrote the Pentateuch. The only traditional view I am aware of is that Moses wrote most of it. There are differing scholarly views but these should not be called traditions without any clarification.

Secret Alias wrote:

You next assertion is that the Samaritans represent a truer form of Judaism.

Closer to the truth but this develops from a multitude of sources. The discovery of versions of the Pentateuch which agree or reflect Samaritan doctrine at Qumran is decisive but common sense should have revealed that a long time ago (after all the Pentateuch is set in Samaria and traditional Samaritan sites with no mention of Jerusalem). But again none of these points are material to the underlying argument. Deliberate attempt at distraction. Please go away.

If I wanted to include in one of my positions that the Samaritans had an older less adapted form of Judaism I am sure I could make a rational case for it. I wonder why you keep raising this issue if it is not relevant to the case you might wish to try to present.

When you ask me to go away is this your way of saying that you can’t present a rational case for your position?

Secret Alias wrote:

Then on this house of cards you assert that no Jewish preacher in the prophetic tradition would discuss the Pentateuch

How do any of these points destroy my thesis? How is Samaritan primacy critical for understanding the people of the Land reference which I notice you have never tackled.

You raised these issues and I am happy to dismiss them. The People of the Land reference could be an interesting topic of discussion if you could present your case rationally, quote evidence I can check and discuss the nature of the evidence.

Secret Alias wrote: None of it was important for determining whether the evangelist has in mind a historical incident where an idiotes not only debated the authorities on the proper interpretation of the Pentateuch but claimed to be the messiah while rejecting the authorities.

This is the wrong place to start. What makes you think the evangelist thought he was writing history?

Secret Alias wrote: None of these things have ever happened in the history of Judaism (and Jewish history is a long history). Since what is described in the gospel is historically anomalous it didn't happen. This becomes especially clear when (a) we realize that the people of the Land ignored the Pentateuch

So according to you the Pharisees didn’t exist; no Jews accepted the Prophets and the Writing; the Jews still only have the Pentateuch as their religious texts because Judaism never changes; that only Jewish priests read their scripture; no Jews read their “scripture” in Greek, which included all three types of work; the Jews didn’t write the Talmud; Jewish didn’t continue to write religious works in the 1st century CE and that the Qumram community didn’t write new works and read them.

You claim that the vast majority of people living in Judea and Galilee are what 6th century CE rabbinic Judaism refers to as the people of land without providing any 1st century evidence.

Secret Alias wrote: (b) there were traditional debates in Israel over which Pentateuch was from heaven and Christianity falls on the side of the ledger which is what is usually identified as antinomian (i.e. against the Pentateuch). Indeed the identification of Jesus as 'antinomian' in this manner is reflected in Jewish sources.

When all things are put in their proper context we have to imagine that evangelist championed the people of the land through a description of God debating the Pharisees that never happened.

In the 1st century CE I thought this was exactly what was happening especially after 70 CE. Do you have any evidence it didn’t happen then?

Secret Alias wrote: It can't be that Jesus was a 'person of the Land' because by definition he would be illiterate or at least unfamiliar with the Law. It doesn't make sense that Jesus as a person of the Land could have invented an entirely new theology based strictly on the ten commandments. The authority of Jesus, a point stressed in the first story in the gospel, is answered when a demon identifies Jesus as a heavenly power (according to the earliest interpretations of the passage). When all things are put together, the gospel was originally about the second god who gave the ten commandments to Moses announcing the destruction of the temple, the tradition seat of the sacrificial religion of the Pentateuch of Moses. The announcement is clearly to affirm that the true religion would follow. These sorts of things can't be put in the mouth of a prophet or even a messiah, but a God. The entire narrative unfolds in an anomalous manner which is the antithesis of tradition Jewish understanding of the revelation of the messiah.

You have a strange view on how to discover what Jesus did and said and what the early church was doing. Do you not recognise that the Jesus presented in the gospels is the Jesus of faith coloured by the belief that he was resurrected? Once this is recognised, nothing can be said about the historical Jesus until the Jesus of faith has been removed. I think for some people there is nothing left and for others there is, but before being able to answer your original question, the question regarding what goes back to Jesus if anything should be answered. And this is where we started with your failure in methodology.

And if I cited the rabbinic tradition, Irenaeus and Porphyry is that going to change your mind about Ezra? No of course not which is comical in itself. Ignorance and certainty. A deadly combination

Here's what Porphyry says according to Hoffmann's translation.

All the things attributed to Moses were really written eleven hundred years later by Ezra and his contemporaries.

But you should know that. You should also know that Irenaeus says it too ... approvingly. The rabbinic sources ... well you can do some research too you lazy ignoramus

You would reject this with regard to Christian traditions so why is this tradition any different? What about the tradition that Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch is that a good basis for a rational discussion?

But surely Moses COULDN'T have written the Pentateuch as it describes his death. Unless ... whoa ... what? ... huh. Oh I never thought of that.

And the description pardes (a Persian word) in the shape of a Persian garden necessitates a date at least as old as Ezra. Right?

So given that every ancient tradition that explains the origin of this story that concludes with Moses's death and contains Aramaic etc identifies Ezra as the author, that's a pretty good working hypothesis no? An acceptable working hypothesis? Because Moses is excluded right off the bat, right? Unless he died and came back to life and wrote the account of his death and then died again ... but didn't include that interesting detail in his narrative.