barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/14/84)
[]
Though personally agnostic, I guess I must be interested in religion,
or I wouldn't read net.religion so faithfully. Anyway, this controversy
between Ben-David and the various Christian apologists has been raging
so long that I finally decided to do a little research of my own. In
the course of trying to decide whether Jesus/Yeshu'a preached observance
of the Torah or not, I was confronted with a related question that I'd
like to present to the net.
Background: The modern English versions of the Gospels (the only
ones I can read), seem to offer much support for Ben-David's position,
even if they have been extensively redacted, as he argues. There are
quotes from Jesus/Yeshu'a which demand obedience to Jewish law, just as
there are other quotes which seem to suggest such obedience is not necessary.
But a closer look at the latter sort is instructive: they seem
to fall into two categories. The first type do not seem to say that the
Torah has been superceded, but only that it may need some reinterpretation.
Reformism of various sorts seems to have been rampant at the time; many
other teachers were calling for changes in the then-current version of
Judaism, but they were clearly speaking of changes within the religion
of Judaism, not the replacement of it. It is even questionable whether
they saw themselves as really changing Jewish law; like many reformers,
they may have seen their teachings as a return to the true teachings
of the past, set against the popular misinterpretations of their time.
Many of the quotes ascribed to Jesus/Yeshu'a seem to fall in
this category, and seem no more to imply the superceding of Torah than
would the interpretations of Torah made by Hillel at about the same time.
The second type of "Torah-is-no-more" quotes attributed to Jesus/
Yeshu'a bring me to my question. Even in the no-doubt-altered texts I
read, it is *abundantly* clear that Jesus/Yeshu'a, the disciples, and all the
early apostles believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand. They clearly
felt that God was going to bring his Kingdom to physical fruition *on
Earth* within a few year's time.
The way I read Jesus/Yeshu'a's more radical renunciations of
Torah (I emphasize again that I am not a scholar on this subject, this
is my opinion) is that Torah will be superceded by God's direct establishment
of His Kingdom here on Earth. He seems to me to be preaching readiness
for this new order to his disciples when he speaks of principles that
supercede the Torah, and to tie the abandonment of the old laws to the
premise that *all* history will give way shortly to the establishment
of God's Kingdom. This does not seem to be at all the same as claiming
that he wanted countless generations of future adherents to lead their
entire lives on this same old sinful planet in freedom from the old laws.
As a non-Jew, this seems to me an even clearer example of the
non-historicity of present-day Christian thought than the Christian
rejection of Torah law. Present-day Christians are forced to ignore or
explain away the clear message of the Gospels that the (literal, physical,
Earthly) Kingdom of God would occur within a generation or so of Jesus/
Yeshu'a's ministry. Since this clearly has not occurred, this seems
an even more obvious gap between modern Christian doctrine and the explicit
teachings of Jesus/Yeshu'a, than the question of the Torah's validity.
One concession to the Christian apologists: I must agree with
Jeff Gillette that it is not possible to say with *certainty* what Jesus/
Yeshu'a taught. Original sources are not available; variant interpretations
are possible. Nonetheless, when we consider the opportunities the Christians
have had to reword the teachings of Jesus/Yeshu'a, it is interesting
to observe how *clear* this notion of the imminence of the Kingdom of
God is, even in modern translations of the Gospels. Given the apparent
lack of ambiguity on this point, how can Christian theologians maintain
so obstinately that the coming of the Kingdom of God that Jesus/Yeshua keeps
referring to is only symbolic, or refers to an apocalypse that has not
yet occurred?
Flame retardant: I want to emphasize that I'm aware of my lack
of expertise in these matters. I have neither the background nor the
interest necessary to defend the above ideas in a long debate. I would
rather sit back and hear what those who are better informed (Yiri? Jeff?
You there?) have to say about it. Who knows, I might even (gasp!) modify
my opinion.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
SOURCE: ST7891