yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/09/84)
Wingate writes: "Now this may be great conspiracy theory, but all the evidence in the world is against it." *********************** Yiri responds: Please provide all of this evidence which contradicts the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Parkes, Bagatti, et al. *********************** "...and that when the question of adherence to Mosaic law arose, the jewish members of this sect chose to abandon the old law." *********************** Yiri responds: Bagatti, Parkes, Baron, et al all agree that this was forced upon them upon pain of death. *********************** He demands that Jeff produce his first century text. Well, he cannot produce one of his own, and it wasn't that many years ago that theologians suspected that the Gospel of John was WRITTEN after 100! THe fact is that all the EXISTING texts follow the "Christian" formulation of the faith rather than the "N'tzarim" formulation, and that the only way to get to Yirmiyahu's formulation is to edit the existing texts according to his liking. *********************** Yiri responds: You obviously confuse the term "text" to represent either the early mss or modern interpretations according to your whim. The fact is that modern versions do indeed all follow the "Christian" traditional interpretations but that is less and less true as one follows the mss back into the 4th century and notes the antinomian evolution which has taken place. It would be more constructive to write more precisely. The mss. don't need editing. What is needed is to return to their authority in discussing the authenticity of the document. It is the editing which Christian scholars even admit that is the culprit. It is not I who defends editing the mss. It is the Christians who have been editing them. ************************ The one thing I really want to know is what Yirmiyahu thinks these people really believed. In all his articles, there does not seem to be a shred of explanation of what the texts would say if they were "unaltered". All he ever says is that we could not understand, because we are not jews. Give us a chance; tell us what they say. We like to believe we are intelligent people. One thing is for certain; his current Judaocentric view of the matter is not going to promote understanding, much less good will. ************************* Yiri responds: To apply anything other than a Judaic perspective when attempting to understand a Jewish document is ludicrous. What you seem to feel would promote understanding is to agree with you... which is also apparently the prerequisite to good will. For the past 2000 years, we have listened to this kind of news. Why should you be different? As to what the texts "would say" if they were unaltered, I am more interested in a scholarly and objective analysis of the document as a historical instrument. I'm not about to speculate on what it "would say". I leave that to the more speculative among you. ************************* From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Subject: Re: How we get N'tzarim Documents In article <1622@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: > I had thought most everyone knew what the texts were. I guess I hadn't > made it clear. The texts are the earliest extant manuscripts of the > N'tzarim writings: at present the codices sinaiticus and vaticanus, > Peshitta, > and the papyrii. The object is to use the same 'glasses' the authors > used when trying to understand them rather than rely on the traditional > non-Jewish 'glasses' which introduce a LOT of alien ideas which are > contradictory to the intents of the original Jews who wrote them. I see. We're supposed to slant the text according to Yirmiyahu's "Jewishness" theory rather than according to the traditional interpretation. Somehow I'm not suprised that you get a non-christian document when your interpretation philosophy outlaws any such ideas. Forgive me if I find this approach to be rather biased. ************************ Yiri responds: You will likewise understand that I find the notion of slanting these Jewish writings according to non-Jewish interpretation absurd. Somehow, I'm not surprised that you get a christian document when your interpretational philosophy admits redacting the manuscripts to read like you want them to and then applying christian interpretations to your own new product and outlawing the perspectives of the original authors. Forgive me if I find this biased. ************************ Besides, the codexes cited and the papyri are all written in Greek; as such they hardly represent Hebrew originals-- unless, of course, you do a LOT of redaction. ************************* Yiri responds: This is an unsupported premise. Kindly defend and be much more specific. ************************* Protestant theologians have been aware for some time that the theological concepts need to be examined in the light of their traditional jewish meanings. This does not for one moment allow cutting out the resurrection, the ascension, the virgin birth, the miracles, or the claims to divinity. The phrase "Rose from the dead" is a statement of fact, not a statement of theology. ************************* Yiri responds: 1) First, I've made no mention of any of these notions at all. 2) Just how do you justify your decree that certain questions shall not be considered or subjected to intelligent thought? And where is your authority to tell any of us what is "allowed"? I certainly don't recognize any such authority. You are afraid of the truth and have made up your mind to the point that you will not even consider the facts if they seem to threaten your christian doctrines which, if they are contradicted by early mss. interpreted as intended by their Jewish authors, do not then date back to Y'shua and his 1st century followers anyway. And I'm alleged to have a "mind set". Oy! 3) You cannot beg the question and claim to be logical. This is typical of the kind of "logic" which has been used with monotonous regularity to supposedly dispute what I have presented. There is no merit to such arguments. You'd think that if there was even a feeble case for the christian position that with a myriad of christians presenting arguments against just me that I'd be overwhelmed. Well, I'm underwhelmed. This is getting tedious and beginning to get redundant (I'm beginning to see the same tired arguments being posed again a second time). Further, time constraints are increasingly forcing me to devote more time to those who have shown some objectivity and a desire to learn something (via Email) rather than simply grind their axe and shut their minds from anything which might suggest that christian dogma could be mistaken. **************************
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/12/84)
This will probably be my last article on this subject; I am increasingly unable to understand Yirmiyahu's position, he is refusing to answer questions, and the personal attacks are really beginning to get tiresome. However, I'll give it one last gasp.... In article <1701@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: >Please provide all of this evidence which contradicts the Interpreter's >Dictionary of the Bible, Parkes, Bagatti, et al. I refuse to play these authority agaist authority games. I will point out that MY Interpreter's Dictionary does NOT support Yirmiyahu's interpretation; I had to get one of my Orthodox friends to help me draw any relation between what Yiri said and what was written. >He demands that Jeff produce his first century text. Well, he cannot >produce one of his own, and it wasn't that many years ago that theologians >suspected that the Gospel of John was WRITTEN after 100! THe fact is that >all the EXISTING texts follow the "Christian" formulation of the faith >rather than the "N'tzarim" formulation, and that the only way to get to >Yirmiyahu's formulation is to edit the existing texts according to his >liking. > >*********************** >Yiri responds: >You obviously confuse the term "text" to represent either the early mss or >modern interpretations according to your whim. The fact is that modern >versions do indeed all follow the "Christian" traditional interpretations >but that is less and less true as one follows the mss back into the 4th >century and notes the antinomian evolution which has taken place. >It would be more constructive to write more precisely. The mss. don't >need editing. What is needed is to return to their authority in >discussing the authenticity of the document. It is the editing which >Christian scholars even admit that is the culprit. It is not I who >defends editing the mss. It is the Christians who have been editing >them. When I say text, I mean the original Greek manuscripts, INCLUDING Sinaiticus. The JB and NAB both use Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as their starting point, and ARE NOT derivations of the Textus Receptus. Any translation into a language other than Greek requires editing; since words cover different areas of meaning in different languages, a translation HAS to affect the meaning. In recent years protestant theologians have considered reinterpreting the traditional translations of various theological terms to conform to the jewish usage. All of these efforts emphasize the fact that they do not in the slightest change the central Christian message: that a man, Y'shua benJoseph, died on a cross for our sins, and was raised from the dead. Unless Yirmiyahu wants to rewrite phrases like "He who has seen me has seen the Father", there is no way to eliminate this message from the manuscripts. I find instructive that, while the theologians have no problems confronting this change to the traditional language, Yirmiyahu refuses to give any example of how he thinks the Christian message would differ if it were made to conform to his views. [me] > The one thing I really want to know is what Yirmiyahu thinks these people >really believed. In all his articles, there does not seem to be a shred of >explanation of what the texts would say if they were "unaltered". All >he ever says is that we could not understand, because we are not jews. Give >us a chance; tell us what they say. We like to believe we are intelligent >people. One thing is for certain; his current Judaocentric view of the >matter is not going to promote understanding, much less good will. > >Yiri responds: >To apply anything other than a Judaic perspective when attempting to >understand a Jewish document is ludicrous. What you seem to feel would >promote understanding is to agree with you... which is also apparently >the prerequisite to good will. For the past 2000 years, we have listened >to this kind of news. Why should you be different? > >As to what the texts "would say" if they were unaltered, I am more >interested in a scholarly and objective analysis of the document as a >historical instrument. I'm not about to speculate on what it "would say". >I leave that to the more speculative among you. The way Yiri's statements read to me are that a) no gentile can understand what the texts say, and that b) he's only interested in ensuring that none of the Christian message from the manuscripts, and not in giving a true reading. Statement (a) alone is enough to convince me that Yiri is much more Judaocentric than his accusers, even as bad as Ken Nichols, especially since this is his only reply whenever he is confronted with a demand to show us what he thinks the documents say. [me some more] >I see. We're supposed to slant the text according to Yirmiyahu's >"Jewishness" theory rather than according to the traditional interpretation. >Somehow I'm not suprised that you get a non-christian document when your >interpretation philosophy outlaws any such ideas. Forgive me if I find this >approach to be rather biased. > >Yiri responds: >You will likewise understand that I find the notion of slanting these >Jewish writings according to non-Jewish interpretation absurd. Somehow, >I'm not surprised that you get a christian document when your >interpretational philosophy admits redacting the manuscripts to read >like you want them to and then applying christian interpretations to >your own new product and outlawing the perspectives of the original >authors. Forgive me if I find this biased. Claiming their Jewishness is begging the question. It is almost as if Yiri is claiming that Jews never ever have heretical ideas like the incarnation. No wonder they are the Chosen people. :-) >Besides, the codexes cited and the papyri are all written in Greek; as such >they hardly represent Hebrew originals-- unless, of course, you do a LOT of >redaction. > >Yiri responds: >This is an unsupported premise. Kindly defend and be much more >specific. My statement is quite clear. All manuscripts we have are in Greek. There are no Hebrew manuscripts. If you want a Hebrew manuscript, you have to translate. > >Protestant theologians have been aware for some time that the theological >concepts need to be examined in the light of their traditional jewish >meanings. This does not for one moment allow cutting out the resurrection, >the ascension, the virgin birth, the miracles, or the claims to divinity. >The phrase "Rose from the dead" is a statement of fact, not a statement of >theology. > >Yiri responds: >1) First, I've made no mention of any of these notions at all. >2) Just how do you justify your decree that certain questions shall not be >considered or subjected to intelligent thought? And where is your >authority to tell any of us what is "allowed"? I certainly don't >recognize any such authority. You are afraid of the truth and have made >up your mind to the point that you will not even consider the facts if >they seem to threaten your christian doctrines which, if they are >contradicted by early mss. interpreted as intended by their Jewish >authors, do not then date back to Y'shua and his 1st century followers >anyway. And I'm alleged to have a "mind set". Oy! >3) You cannot beg the question and claim to be logical. This is typical >of the kind of "logic" which has been used with monotonous regularity to >supposedly dispute what I have presented. There is no merit to such >arguments. You'd think that if there was even a feeble case for the >christian position that with a myriad of christians presenting arguments >against just me that I'd be overwhelmed. Well, I'm underwhelmed. This is >getting tedious and beginning to get redundant (I'm beginning to see the >same tired arguments being posed again a second time). WHOSE arguments are tired? I've only been arguing this for two months now! Yiri, if you are planning to leave in the virgin birth, the transfiguration, "He who has seen the Father", and in fact the majority of the Gospels, you STILL have the same Christian message. I'm even prepared to throw away everything besides the Gospels on this. Your own strongest argument against your position is that whenever a particular passage comes up, you retreat into claims that us gentiles are too stupid to understand. If there were any chance of your argument changing things, it would have to be there. Since you will not provide a single example of how the meaning has been distorted, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Charley Wingate