yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/23/84)
I certainly don't know how I overlooked all of these things Jeff points out. How could I assume that writings by N'tzarim authors to N'tzarim Jews about N'tzarim Jewish matters were either N'tzarim or Jewish... or should be understood in a Jewish perspective? Why any fool can see that we should avoid such a silly notion and assume instead that these were Christian writings of the goyim - after all Jeff says so... and he sees it. As a Christian, Jeff can beg the question and utilize such logical arguments as circular reasoning and then challenge me to prove the opposite. Gee Jeff, I think I'd better just watch you work. You're doing a fine job of making the point and my input lacks evidence and credibility. It was REALLY silly of me to insist that Y'shua can only properly be viewed through a Jewish perspective too. Why, anybody can see that viewing a Jew and Jewish matters is far more accurately perceived and CORRECTLY understood only when looking at them with gentile glasses like Jeff and other Christians (at least unless some heretical moron PROVES to the contrary). Now, at last, I'm beginning to see why Jesus should PROPERLY be perceived as a Christian. Say Jeff, would you consider working on the staff of one of the rabbinical assemblies and help us to understand ourselves today the way you understand us in the 1st century? I must apologize for the lack of logical proposition like you use Jeff, but when all I have is arguments out of emotional and ethnic pride and insecurity like those above, they just don't compete with your steeltrap logic. I certainly do not belong in a scholarly debate with you. Further, I'm grateful that Jeff enlightened me that it is the sociologists who are concerned with treating historical infor- mation within its historical perspective and context. Silly me, I had thought that was historically important. Now I can better see the folly of my thinking that the 'historical' would be something which agrees with Judaism of the period when I should have recognized right off how obvious it is that the historical facts agree with the gentile Christian perspective. How could I have been so silly? No wonder it wasn't convincing. It is apparent from what I can now see that Jeff should use Christian documents to support his views. That is obvious from the above. The Christian translations and interpretations are vastly more accurate than Jewish ones would be because they were interpreted, translated and changed where necessary to correct them in areas where gentile Christians know more about Judaism than those silly Jews did. The idea of filtering these writings through 'Jewish glasses' is preposterous. No wonder I kept getting a Jewish slant on things. It's a good thing those early Christians straightened things out for us. Ya'll keep your gentile Christian glasses on like Jeff. I don't see any challenge in dealing with this kind of thinking. I think Jeff is right here too... I should move to net.jokes... and pamper my emotions and insecurities before I have no arguments left at all. Moving UP to net.jokes. If anybody wants to talk with me seriously, I'll be happy to correspond via mail.
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (10/26/84)
Whoa, Yiri. I've been reading you and wondering where the texts were myself. Your arguments are consistently interesting, but I kept saying "Okay, now on to the actual primary documents." Is there a way that I can put *that* particular part of Jeff's uh... challenge that won't send you up the nearest vertical surface :-). I know it must be hard, but bear with us.
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/29/84)
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. There is nothing 'secret' about it. In fact, the great majority of what I've been writing here is not new at all. The only 2 things which are new are that 1) a lot of information from many different scholars has been compiled in one place and 2) the compiled information has been relayed to laymen rather than being left in the relative obscurity of the many diverse scholarly texts. The texts which provide the 'background fabric' within which to pro- perly interpret the N'tzarim writings include the Pseudepigrapha, the Apocrypha, etc. which have been listed before. However, it must be remembered that these are also Jewish writings which, therefore, must also be understood through Jewish 'glasses' to come to under- stand the background fabric. All of these Jewish writings can be harmonized if one merely determines to do so - and is willing to shelf 'pre-assumed facts' (Christian doctrines). Without legitimate insight into Jewish things, everything gets off track - which has been the problem. Examples include Easter vs Passover, Shabbat vs. Sunday, whether to eat kosher, and the entire issue of keeping Torah. (A better-than-average treatment of Shabbat vs Sunday may be found in the Sep/Oct '78 issue of BAR). Even though the codices sinaiticus, vaticanus and the Peshitta date from the 4th century, comparison of the changes made in subsequent mss. shows clearly an anti-semitic and antinomian evolution in progress (which SHOULD be entirely expected given the history during that evolution to the present). Since the antinomian and anti-semitic evolution of the manuscripts is PROVABLE from the 4th century thru the present, there is no reason to think that it was absent from, say, circa 60 CE thru the 4th century; and all of the available evidence (some of which I have presented and some of which may be found in the references I've cited as well as elsewhere) makes it quite clear that such anti-semitic and antinomian evolution took place during that period also. 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 inagreement with other Jewish sects in the main except where disagreement is specifically made. In the case of the N'tzarim writings, we also have to take into account the Christian redactions and introduction of antinomian and anti-semitic 'rewordings' which are provable in many instances sub- sequent to the 4th century and there is every reason to believe the same is true from the 1st-4th centuries as well. But, as I believe I have mentioned often, the same phrase can mean one thing to a Jew and something entirely different to a non-Jew. Which is the correct interpretation? It depends on who wrote or spoke it. If it was written of spoken by a gentile, then the gentile interpretation is the correct one. If it was written/spoken by a Jew, then the Jewish interpretation. Communication is only accurate when you have understood the originator. One of the biggest problems is that non-Jews cannot imagine just how far off track they get from how Jews understood the N'tzarim writings. (Today, of course, Jews have little to no interest and are content to accept whatever translation or interpretation you want to advance. I've been hoping to turn on a few light bulbs in a limited time.) The only solution for that is to become familiar with Judaism - an in-depth understanding. Nothing else will enable you to develop a Jewish insight - and that is what you absolutely must have if you are ever to understand them as they were written and intended. That in no way makes it impossible for you or anyone else. It does make it mutually exclusive with respect to Christianity. Anyone who desires to understand Jewish writings in a Jewish light will have to abandon the counterfeit religion and study Judaism. Since no orthodox rabbi accepts that Y'shua was the messiah, you will have to be tolerant of their beliefs while you learn. You will also have to come to a realization within yourself (as you soon will after you begin your studies) that you don't know very much so you shouldn't be trying to preach to the rabbi and other Jews. But, at the very least, you will need to take a basic course such as converts take (you don't have to convert to take the class), 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 insight which you will find invaluable in understanding Jewish writings - and for which there is no substitute. If you are willing to do all this, I hope you will keep in touch. So to summarize, the texts of the N'tzarim writings are the earliest extant manuscripts. They have evolved in an antinomian and anti- semitic direction from the 4th century thru the present and there is much evidence to to believe this was also true of the 1st-4th centuries and there is no evidence to doubt it. Even if original Hebrew manuscripts were dug up today and then became our earliest extant mss., Christians could still not interpret them as they were intended by the Jewish authors because they have enormous misunderstandings of Jews and Jewish things - both then and now. This cannot be remedied by an intellectual 'instant breakfast'. It took years to develop your frame of reference just as it took years for a Jew to develop his. It will take some time of concen- trated effort to develop what is now to you an alien frame of reference, but a perspective you MUST have to understand those Jewish writings as they were intended. To provide you with any more of the N'tzarim writings would require the publishing of their translation. Find a publisher. There are many helps in it in the way of commentary, cross-references, Hebrew and Greek word studies (especially bridging across LXX), index, a trans- lation which maps one-to-one from Greek to English so that the reader always has an insight how that word has been used in other parts of the text (better stilted in English than lose so much trying to make it read smoothly), explanations for Hebrew/Aramaic metaphors, etc., and explanations of events not presented anywhere else (example: the date of the execution of Y'shua can be precisely fixed with a high degree of confidence) and answers to many questions which have plagued non-Jewish 'experts' because they were non-Jewish (and, by definition, THEREFORE not experts on Jewish writings). If this information is desirable, please find a publisher rather than pulling it out of me a bite at the time - it could drag on interminably and I just can't afford that kind of time. My purpose was to show the basics and show that Christianity has no basis to presume 'correctness' over Judaism. I've done that. Now I'd really like to retire. If someone wants to read this text, I've worked for years on it and I feel like I've done my part. It's there. If you want it, get it published. If not, well, I'm working on a master's in computer science so I can earn an income again; just let me get on with that. For those few who might want to learn, please correspond via mail. That was a good question and I hope I answered it appropriately.