https://earlywritings.com/forum/
For me that totally depends on which level of redaction you identify as "Mark." Nobody who needed Mark 7.3-4 explained to him was going to understand anything of what you just wrote.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:09 pm So anyway my point is in the same way a movie has to take on stock characters- the need, the bombshell, the heroic good guy- I think the gospel took over pre-existent stock ideas i.e. Joshua as second Moses, suffering Miriam, anthropomorphic angel who visits righteous men. They don't make any sense for us. But they did for Mark's audience
i see it the opposite, that Christianity emerged from a reformist tradition and wasn't ultra-conservativeSecret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:36 am Jesus spends a lot of time examining the limits of the tenth commandment - do not lust - in the form preserved by Philo i.e. as a short commandment. Philo's Alexandrian tradition is undoubtedly in my mind Oniadic. In other words, it is ultra-conservative. All signs to me at least argue for Christianity emerging out of the most conservative tradition and making the case that innovations destroyed Judaism. I can't see how this argument could have been made through a tapestry of traditions.
Ulan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:19 am ... If you look at Jesus (well, his teachings from the gospels), you may conclude that you look at 4 parts Hillel and one part Shammai. All Pharisees, of course. But is that all there is? You will always look at some kind of mix. The origin may be from a specific movement, but if you don't know the exact origin, you are just guessing, so you have to fall back on the mix. Or, if you roll with a mostly "layman" movement from Galilee, all stops are off, as I doubt those people would have had any strong ties to any existing structures. In that case, the mix gives your thoughts some structure.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:36 am But the gospel is different. It was attempting to argue at once that it represented the fulfillment of a mystery hidden from the beginning of time. But that mystery was prepared in some sense by the Torah and the prophets ... the proper exegesis of 'God's plan' was known to some exegetical tradition only to be supplanted by a false exegesis.
...All signs to me at least argue for Christianity emerging out of the most conservative tradition and making the case that innovations destroyed Judaism. I can't see how this argument could have been made through a tapestry of traditions.
Interesting. As far as Ulan's point about the influences of the likes of Hillel and Shammai, I deposited a lot of information in a thread in the Jewish subforum titled The Mishna, etc. with a view to reordering it chronologically, but haven't got around to it, yet.davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:39 am i see...that Christianity emerged from a reformist tradition and wasn't ultra-conservative
i think what you see as ultra-conservative is a gloss from later on which wishes to project a conservative aura back onto Jesus
if you really think it was like this in it's origins then the problem is explaining the total 180 you see in Paul's writings, how to explain that massive ideological shift
What do you make of the Tenth Commandment being skipped in one of your favorite passages?Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:36 amJesus spends a lot of time examining the limits of the tenth commandment - do not lust - in the form preserved by Philo i.e. as a short commandment.
Conformably with that one tittle, the law constitutes the series of the ten commandments which expresses allegorically the divine mysteries of (those) precepts. For, he says, all knowledge of the universe is contained in what relates to the succession of the ten plagues and the series of the ten commandments.