yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/05/84)
From lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206
Subject: BenDavid vs the World: Round 2
Organization: Duke Physiology
For a man who professes the desire to "retire" to his studies,
Yirmiyahu sure knows how to keep his name in the middle of
net.religion.
Just when I had despaired of ever finding the "Beef" in Mr.
BenDavid's rhetoric, an excellent article ("Re: awesome logic...
overwhelming") made an exemplary response to my methodological
challenge: what books count in the study of early Christianity
(the movement Yiri calls "N'tsarim"), and by what principle can
we interpret these writings.
******************************
Early Christianity has no valid relationship to the N'tzarim. This
continued insistence upon twisting my words in intolerable.
******************************
1. The Books
<Yirmiyahu BenDavid>
> The texts are the earliest extant manuscripts of the N'tzarim
> writings: at present the codices sinaiticus and vaticanus,
> Peshitta, and the papyrii. ... The texts of the N'tzarim are
> the earliest extant manuscripts.
Agreed! I am not sure if Yirmiyahu has ever seen a Greek New Testa-
ment. Three editions are currently in use - the 3rd edition of the
ited Bible Society text, the 26th edition of the Nestle "Novum
Testamentum Graece", and (for work in the Gospels) Kurt Aland's
"Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum." All three of these have the same
structure. The top portion of every page is the Greek text of the
New Testament (following the manuscripts mentioned by Yiri). Beneath
the text is the critical apparatus - lists of all differences and which
manuscripts contain which readings. Thus if the text departs from
Sinaiticus, or if one of the papyrii differs from the Peshitta, the
difference is fully documented in the apparatus. If any are interested
in such things, I will post a summary of textual critical techniques.
********************************
If I had not seen the Novum Testamentum Graeca, then how do you think I
translated the sinaiticus, vaticanus, etc? You are indeed very slow
and/or very myopic since you still haven't even figured that out.
Trouble is, from the average netter point of view, these are not
English. You must know Greek to read them - which is what I advocated from
the beginning. That will cut through at least the last 16 centuries of
evolution. That's a good start. Given Jeff's quickness in picking up
these other points, I don't see any reasonable prospects for much
progress however. If you can't figure out the simple things, you surely
can't figure out more complex things. By the way, your text was garbled.
That should have been United Bible Societies... and any reader can get
the address from their local library, I don't think they need your
rather feeble help. Besides, it's easier and quicker to get it through
the American Bible Society in New York. I recommend the Novum
Testamentum Graeca (probably still under $10). There still remains no
English translation of any merit... which is what I've been saying.
********************************
2. The Principle of Interpretation
> It is then but a short step to begin reading the N'tzarim writings
> thru 'glasses' which filter some of this antinomianism and anti-
> semitism, regarding such passages as suspect at least until support
> for such 'Jewish position' is also found in the Pseudepigrapha, etc.
> There is every reason to expect a Jewish sect to be in agreement with
> other Jewish sects in the main except where disagreement is specifically
> made.
Yirmiyahu's position - presume continuity with Judaism unless some clear
evidence demands otherwise - is one possible way to interpret the texts.
Others have suggested that, the (Jewish) writers of the New Testament
naturally harmonized the teachings of Jesus (which they did not under-
stand) to Judaism (which they did understand). Are either of these
two extremes best? Why not take the text (as defined by the earliest
manuscripts) at face value unless some evidence *from the text itself*
demands otherwise (e.g. inconsistencies or differences in reporting
Jesus' words). Is this not the best set of 'glasses' to use?
**********************************
One overwhelming reason for not accepting the text at face value is that
even Christian scholars concede that it was redacted by Christians to
bring it into conformity with Christian doctrines. Then you suggest that
we accept this as it is as proof of the authenticity of those doctrines.
Not everyone is that foolish. This is really getting old hat. Do you
really think that everyone has such a short memory they are going to
forget about that just because you choose to ignore its significance?
Why do you keep spouting the same old drivel? If you don't have anything
new you should have realized by now that repeating the old stuff isn't
going to make it any more persuasive.
**********************************
Yirmiyahu assumes that all First Century Jewish sects were "in the main"
agreed with all other Jewish sects. I suppose this statement is vague
enough to explain any possible behavior ("they all called themselves
*Jews*, didn't they" :-)). Still, try convincing the Zealots and the
Sicarii that they were "in the main" agreed with the party of
capitulating Herodians. Try convincing the Qumran sectarians (who
refused to recognize the Jerusalem priesthood) that they were "in the
main" agreed with the Saducees (whom they called "sons of darkness" and
"children of the devil").
*********************************
You're supposition of my statement is illogical and betrays your
great arrogance and presuptuousness in continuing to think you
understand First Century Judaism. You don't understand any kind of
Judaism. There is no point in suggesting that you go to a rabbi and
learn what tied all of the early Jewish sects together as Jewish.
I suspect some of the netters however, are more scholarly.
*********************************
Regarding the differences between Christian "redaction" and N'tsarim
"original," Yirmiyahu characterizes as Christian that which is "anti-
nomian" and "anti-semitic." A great deal rides on his definition of
these words. If he means that later New Testament manuscripts were
"lawless" and immoral, or that Forth Century Christians threw Jews to
the lions, I would challenge him to put forth the evidence. If, on
->the other hand, he means that Christian writers no longer saw the
->Torah as the focal point of their covenant with God, and that those
->related to Christ (the church) have replaced those (physically)
->descended from Abraham (Israel) as the people of God, then I suspect
->Yiri is absolutely correct. In fact, it seems to me that these features
->are not just present in 5th/6th Century redactions of the New Testament,
->but are present in the First Century originals! I would maintain that
->these two assertions are the core of Christianity, and accurately
->represent the implications of the teachings of Jesus (or, as Yiri prefers,
->Yeshua). There has never been, nor can there ever be, a Christian who
->fails to affirm these points. If Yiri hasn't gotten this far yet,
maybe Bickford was right, and Yirmiyahu ought to join himself to a
minister for 2-3 years :-)
**********************************
Referring to the lines marked above by arrows.
I am incensed that Mr. Gillette twists and perverts my words to suggest
that I ever implied that Y'shua was IN ANY WAY related to these
Christian doctrines which are the basis for the antinomianism, anti-
semitism and form the basis for the persecutions of the Jews down
through the ages. They are the teachings of Jesus Christ and the
Christians all right, but not of the historical Jew named Yeshua nor of
any historical Jewish sect (the N'tzarim). My thanks to Mr. Gillette for
making my point for me far more dramatically than I otherwise could
have. It also makes the point that this antinomianism and antisemitism
are ABSOLUTELY INTEGRAL AND ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIANITY as Mr.
Gillette himself states: 'There has never been, nor can there ever be, a
Christian who fails to affirm these points.' Well, Yiri HAS gotten MUCH
farther than that, thank God, but I didn't think it was proper for me,
as a Jew, to make such a charge. I had to wait for some Christian to
come along and say it for me. Thanks Jeff.
Mr. Gillette makes assertions about 1st century manuscripts.
Let the Mr. Gillette provide us with the first century originals which
support his claims. Otherwise the weight of evidence remains with my
position. Mr. Gillette continues to offer preposterous claims and
assertions which have no basis whatsoever. I refuse to answer any more
articles written by Mr. Gillete (or follow-ups referring to Mr.
Gillette's articles) since he cannot learn to distinguish between the
diametrically opposite Christian vs N'tzarim, Jesus vs Y'shua, etc. His
insistence upon continued confusion of the concepts contributes only to
continued confusion and I will be no party to that. I really think it is
reasonable to conclude at this point that most netters can see through
Mr. Gillette's feebleness on the peripheries of logic. The drivel below
regarding Mr. Gillette's self-proclaimed expertness in Judaism neither
needs nor deserves comment except to note that it does indeed reinforce
my assertions that he is best at making assertions about which he knows
nothing. Other reasons for not responding to Mr. Gillette's articles in
the future include a) I think most netters recognize his lack of
credibility and b) his reasoning is of such trivial nature that I
suspect most netters don't really need explanation to figure that out
and c) I think most netters are getting tired of hearing the same dreary
(and thinly disguised) repititious arguments from him which don't merit
repititive responses to the boredom of the net in general.
***********************************
3. Jewish 'Insight'
> Anyone who desires to understand Jewish writings in a Jewish light will
> have to abandon the counterfeit religion [sic] and study Judaism. ...
> attend synagogue for 2-3 years and learn how to mingle with the orthodox
> Jewish community and learn about their attitudes, values and culture.
> In the process, you will learn much about the basics of Judaism and
> some Jewish writings - and for which there is no substitute.
This sounds like pretty good advice to me - not so much to learn about the
New Testament, as to advance the cause of mutual understanding and
tolerance. My only question is why does the synagogue have to be
orthodox. That sounds rather as if I would claim that the only way to
understand Christianity is to attend a *Presbyterian* church for 2-3 years.
I do not claim to be an expert on the history of Judaism, but, somehow,
I feel confident I will be promptly and "courteously" corrected if I
err :-)
The orthodox Jewish synagogue has a long and illustrious tradition,
drawing extensively from mystics and scholars of the Torah from the
past 1500 years. While all of this tradition may very well be valid,
helpful, and true, it does not put the orthodox Jew in immediate contact
with his/her First Century ancestors.
The key link between orthodox Judaism and the First Century lies in the
teachings of the Talmud, which interpreted the Mishna, which contains
the sayings of Rabbis who were descendents of the Pharisees in New
Testament times. These Pharisees did not, BTW, leave any writings of
their own. It is not until the Mishna that we see any of their thoughts
(which was *composed* 200 years later - how many centuries after that is
our oldest manuscript evidence?)
It has already been pointed out that history is written by the winners.
Orthodox Judaism traces its teachings back to the authority of the
Pharisees - one power group in the First Century. What would the
orthodox synagogue be like if the Saducees - an equally influential
First Century power group - had won and shaped the development of
Judaism? Or what if the Essenes (Qumran sectarians) had won - would
Judaism be just as "obnoxious" and "arrogant" as Christianity?
What is the point? That orthodox Judaism, a venerable and worthy
religion *in its own right*, is not a time capsule that takes us back
to the virginal Judaism of the First Century (let alone the sect of
Jesus (Yeshua) followers). The only evidence available is in the texts -
the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea writings, and Josephus
(BTW Yiri never seems to mention the latter two sources in his 'back-
ground fabric'. If he hasn't gotten around to reading them, I can
recommend good inexpensive editions for both :-)). And this evidence
is accessible to *both* Jew and Christian (not to mention Moslem,
Buddhist and pagan). It does not take 2-3 years to read the
Pseudepigrapha - just a valid library card. And 2-3 years with
Aramaic and Hebrew grammars may prove more valuable for understanding
the New Testament than 2-3 years with a Rabbi (or, for that matter,
with a minister).
********************************
I don't need a library card, I have my own copies and have translated
the Dead Sea Scrolls from the photographs I have in my study. None of
this is new information... but you continue to be totally ignorant of
Judaism and the Jewish perspective. It is too bad that I have to
mention that I've read Josephus (as though if I had not it would somehow
automatically refute what I've been saying - same old silliness Jeff).
********************************
Yirmiyahu has once again challenged the world. If future offerings
are of the caliber of the one here referred to, he may finally
acquit himself as a student of religion.
Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke University
********************************
Let me not be called a student of religion. That is what you claim to be
and I have no wish to be on your level nor in your category. I'd rather
be recognized in other areas: logic, computer science, risk management,
personnel management, economics, etc. I also find that people in areas
other than 'religion' tend to have far more acute minds and are frequently
far more objective, pragmatic and scholarly. Certainly you have borne
this out eloquently.
********************************mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/07/84)
Gack. Yiri, can you lighten up on the ad-hominem attacks? I filtered these out of just one of your responses. They make it hard to follow your arguments. Each of these could be deleted or replaced by a one line statement of opinion. > You are indeed very slow > and/or very myopic since you still haven't even figured that out. > Given Jeff's quickness in picking up > these other points, I don't see any reasonable prospects for much > progress however. If you can't figure out the simple things, you surely > can't figure out more complex things. > I don't think they need your > rather feeble help. > Not everyone is that foolish. This is really getting old hat. Do you > really think that everyone has such a short memory they are going to > forget about that just because you choose to ignore its significance? > Why do you keep spouting the same old drivel? If you don't have anything > new you should have realized by now that repeating the old stuff isn't > going to make it any more persuasive. > You're supposition of my statement is illogical and betrays your > great arrogance and presuptuousness in continuing to think you > understand First Century Judaism. You don't understand any kind of > Judaism. There is no point in suggesting that you go to a rabbi and > learn what tied all of the early Jewish sects together as Jewish. > I suspect some of the netters however, are more scholarly. > I really think it is > reasonable to conclude at this point that most netters can see through > Mr. Gillette's feebleness on the peripheries of logic. The drivel below > regarding Mr. Gillette's self-proclaimed expertness in Judaism neither > needs nor deserves comment except to note that it does indeed reinforce > my assertions that he is best at making assertions about which he knows > nothing. Other reasons for not responding to Mr. Gillette's articles in > the future include a) I think most netters recognize his lack of > credibility and b) his reasoning is of such trivial nature that I > suspect most netters don't really need explanation to figure that out > and c) I think most netters are getting tired of hearing the same dreary > (and thinly disguised) repititious arguments from him which don't merit > repititive responses to the boredom of the net in general. > Let me not be called a student of religion. That is what you claim to be > and I have no wish to be on your level nor in your category. I'd rather > be recognized in other areas: logic, computer science, risk management, > personnel management, economics, etc. I also find that people in areas > other than 'religion' tend to have far more acute minds and are frequently > far more objective, pragmatic and scholarly. Certainly you have borne > this out eloquently. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh