Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But love your God comes from the second Law, Deuteronomy. That can't be the original position of anyone. There are many traditions which recognize this. Heschel's book mentions those who say that Deuteronomy was written by Moses rather than God https://www.google.com/books/edition/He ... frontcover (this is just one chapter, there are many others). The Hebrew of Deuteronomy is different than the rest of the Pentateuch. Everyday Samaritans recognize this. It isn't just modern scholarship. As such, the idea that a religion would come along and completely push aside the traditions of the past can't have been original. The Shema wasn't original to Judaism or Samaritanism. There must have been a time where if it did exist it wasn't held at the same level as the Pentateuch and even further subordinated to the ultimate truth, the ten commandments. It isn't an opinion. It has to be true just because of Deuteronomy being a 'second' or subordinate part of the Law.

The overlap with Exodus again emphasizes its secondary nature. We accept all the books of the Bible as being on the same level but that's because we've systematically 'groomed' for this sort of abuse. But even the Samaritans recognize Deuteronomy as something separate, something subordinate. I will come up with some further examples while I continue (attempting) to work.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:32 am But love your God comes from the second Law, Deuteronomy. That can't be the original position of anyone.

No one is saying that Christianity is more original than pre-Christian Judaism in any respect. How would that even work? Of course the combination of "love your God" and "love your neighbor" is a reaction to previous traditions in Judaism.

But as I asked David - is the rejection of the temple something new or something arch-conservative? The Pentateuch does not proscribe a permanent building. Then we learn the Dositheans objected to just this on conservative principles AND a connection is made between the Dositheans and the early Christian sects. The tenth commandment interpretation is arch-conservative. Whenever you see the Samaritans and Philo agree it goes back through the Oniads to the foundations of Judaism.

I don't believe that everyone believed the Israelites were really sacrificing animals in the desert. Not sure if this helps my case. But again at the very least it demonstrates that Christians were trying to get back to the truth. The truth couldn't have been found in Deuteromony. Deuteronomy is secondary literally. No one could have developed a new theology based on a secondary document. Couldn't be true.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:43 am I don't believe that everyone believed the Israelites were really sacrificing animals in the desert. Not sure if this helps my case. But again at the very least it demonstrates that Christians were trying to get back to the truth. The truth couldn't have been found in Deuteromony. Deuteronomy is secondary literally. No one could have developed a new theology based on a secondary document. Couldn't be true.

In Hebrew Deuteronomy is just "the words."

I once knew people in a little religious sect in Texas which based itself almost entirely upon the later Pauline epistles. The earlier epistles were fine, but the later epistles were where the truly deep truth lay for them (what they called "the Christ life"); God had saved his best revelations for last: after the Old Testament, after Peter and the Twelve, even after the first half or more of Paul's ministry.

In Hebrew Deuteronomy is just "the words."

I don't know how early the reference to the text as 'second law' is but I imagine it's early and it comes from a Jewish or Samaritan tradition:

The Mishnah says "One does not create a break in the curses." That is, during the reading of the Torah Jews are forbidden to divide the section known as the Admonition into two sections which could be read by two different people The Amora Abbaye however wrote "The Mishnah refers only to the curses in Leviticus; however, one may divide the curses in Deuteronomy. What is the reason for this? The former were framed in the plural, and Moses transmitted them from on high, whereas the latter were framed in the singular, and Moses delivered them by his own mouth." The words of Abbaye, that the curses in Deuteronomy were delivered by Moses on his own and the distinction between the curses in Leviticus and those in Deuteronomy is fixed in Jewish practice. Rashi as well, in his commentary on accepted Abbaye's point of view.

Deuteronomy was subordinate. Even lower than the Pentateuch which was lower than the Ten Commandments. Third rate law.

My issue with all of this is that you do not seem to be describing early Christianity. Conservative? Trying to legitimately get at the origin of things? Focused on a hierarchy of texts and traditions going from the Ten Commandments through the words of God through the Pentateuch and then finally on to the prophets and the other writings? Celibacy so severe it inspired self castration? None of that resonates with early Christianity as a whole.

And the Jewish equivalent to deuteronomos is "mishneh torah." The Jews knew this book was third rate.

None of that resonates with early Christianity.

Maybe not for you because you were brought up in a forty third rate form of Christianity (evangelical American whatever Christianity). But for me, as someone who was raised by atheist parents and was only introduced to this religion through my parents participation in a Catholic German society in Toronto (Kolping) and later my wife I disagree. I think the reason Catholic priests are celibate is because of an ancient desire to be like the angels, like Adam before sex or my androgynous IS angel. That's what I mean by getting back to the truth. There was a truth beneath everything - like John Travolta's actual sexuality beneath all the guises of 'straightness.' We can buy into the Hollywood groom job (happily married to his now deceased wife) but just so happens to belong to a cult known to 'help' gay men cure themselves of homosexuality or we can dig deeper. I say we dig deeper. Find the proverbial clitoris that is the answer to everything or we can continue to fumble around until our partner secretly buys a vibrator and tell us she has a headache for the next twenty years.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:28 am

None of that resonates with early Christianity.

Maybe not for you because you were brought up in a forty third rate form of Christianity (evangelical American whatever Christianity).

Irrelevant. I mean that the earliest Christian texts do not match the description you are leaning into.