lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (11/05/84)
<>
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.
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.
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?
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").
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 :-)
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).
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 Universitymrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/06/84)
Jeff Gillette's criticism of Yirmiyahu sounds very convincing to me. Neither Orthodox Judaism nor RC descended points of view are entirely justified starting points for interpretation of the bible. Consider attempting to analyze Marx right now. Should one start from the standpoint of the Capitalists of his era, or from the point of view of those who claim their ideas to be descended from his (such as the Russians, or the Chinese, or the ...)? In either case, distortions enter. If JC was truly as revolutionary as Marx, then it is inappropriate to view his teachings from the viewpoint they conflicted with. Yet it is also inappropriate to view them with the extensive baggage history inevitably appends, as offical state Marxist analyses demonstrate. What then is the solution? Depends on what the problem is. If you regard the texts as sacred, perfect, and essential, then the only solution is to construct a hypothetical viewpoint using data derived from its descendents. Both Jeff and Yirmiyahu both claim to be doing this: I suspect the source of their disagreement is simply that there is too little data, so they both assume significance of their data to justify their conclusions. I regard the problem differently. As an agnostic, I'm more interested in the range of possible interpretations. From these, I can pick and choose ideas that I consider to have desirable characteristics. It doesn't matter to me what the original meaning was if I can find a useful contemporary meaning by any process (including looking at opposites.) -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh