lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (10/20/84)
<Just when you thought it was safe on the net ...> A word of thanks to Yirmiyahu for a fine exposition of his program for the study of early Christianity (the N'tsarim as you call them). I must admit my disappointment over the response to my own report on three books Yiri strongly recommended (I assume his backpeddling and disclaimers for the scholarship of Bagatti, Parkes and Baron are Yiri's way of admitting that the books he recommended as advocating his own views are, in fact, in significant disagreement with him on all "THE BASICS" of the discussion). My disappointment was more than compensated, however, by the fine response to David Brunson's questions. This article an excellent piece of constructive argumentation. If, in fact, all articles on this net measured up to the standard of Yiri's reply to Brunson, we might actually find some issues resolved (or at least narrowed to their basic issues) on the net. I am, therefore, choosing to bypass the response to my own article, and take up some questions raised by Yirmiyahu's response to Brunson. 1. Some notes on terminology There has been some comment on Hebrew/English terminology. No doubt the man whom Christians look to as their founder was known as Yeshua (or Y'shua as Yiri spells it). Similarly, the early followers of this man were Jews who went by their Hebrew names (at least while they were in Palestine). The point is not simply English words versus their Hebrew equivalents. I certainly have no objection to the use of Hebrew words (after all, I've spent enough years studying the language). Yirmiyahu, however, uses Hebrew terms as a way of making his point that Y'shua was entirely different from Jesus, the N'tsarim were not Nazarenes (ie Christians), and the writers of the earliest documents were "Jewish writings to other Jews about these Jewish matters." It seems to me that Yirmiyahu is assuming the very points that must be proven. I would assert that the picture of Jesus in the Gospels is an interpretation of the historical man (whom I also call "Jesus" as a way of emphasizing the continuity between the historical person and his followers' interpretations of his life, death, and teachings). Similarly, I would assert that, although the followers of Jesus (Yeshua) who lived in Palestine still functioned in Jewish society (which includes synagogue and observance of customs and ritual prescribed by the Torah), understood their relationship to Jesus (as they interpreted him) in such a way as to make them qualitatively different from their fellow Jews - their bond with other Christians (both diasporic Jews and Gentiles) eventually proved more powerful than their loyalty to their nationality. Thirdly, I would assert that the writings of early Christians (followers of Jesus/Y'shua) accurately reflect their search for identity - a religion that was outgrowing its roots in Judaism. This struggle to understand the world in the light of Jesus (ie to interpret the significance of Jesus/Yeshua in new contexts) makes their books distinctively Christian, even if their subject is often the relationship between followering Jesus and following Torah. My assertions are no more "proven" than are Yirmiyahu's. The point is that terminology is as much a part of the debate as evidence. If Yiri uses Hebrew words to portray his theory of discontinuity, I will use English words to portray my understanding of continuity. To proclaim that "Jesus is nothing more than a counterfeitted image - which never lived, was never born (except in the minds of the Roman pagans) - and most especially - WAS NEVER A JEW IN ANY SENSE!!!" is either the conclusion for which Yiri must give evidence, or is a hallow argument from terminology - proof by semantics. 2. Just the facts ... Yirmiyahu has, quit rightly, pointed out that many sources must be examined to understand Judaism of the First Century - Hebrew Scriptures, their Greek translation (the Septuagint - LXX), and Aramaic renditions ( Targumim), Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha (note the spelling), Dead Sea Scrolls, and (I assume Yiri would be agreeable to this) the writings of Josephus. I doubt that any of the Nag Hammadi texts (with the exception of the fragment of Plato) go back to the First Century (but if Yiri had read these texts, I doubt he would want to claim them for the N'tsarim anyway), but perhaps Philo also would be a good source. Inasmuch as a thorough understanding of the richly diverse and pluralistic phenomenon of Judaism in the First Century is helpful for understanding Christian roots, Yirmiyahu is to be praised for pointing to the primary sources. The question (as I understand it) however is more narrow - which sources bear directly on the historical phenomenon of early Christianity? Where does Yiri find his "N'tzarim writings"? Are they to be identified with particular books of the Christian New Testament? Are they included in other (non-canonical) writings? Are they only available in bits and pieces as one ferrets them out of the Gospels composed at the end of the First Century? I have stated often my interest in the books which the church came to recognize as the canon of the New Testament - not because they are the earliest witnesses to the history of Jesus/Yeshua (though I think they are), but because their process of theological interpretation and self-definition is a paradigm (even an authoritative paradigm!) for modern Christianity. If Yirmiyahu does not want to accept my sources as evidence, let him clearly articulate what sources he does accept - which books, and what principles does he intend to use to come up with an objective understanding of them? 3. Will the real Jesus please stand up? Granted that the Gospels are redactions (editing) of earlier traditions. How can we attempt to decide which evidence is historical and which is redactional? For much of the early Twentieth Century, New Testament scholars (especially in Germany) felt that, since Jesus' followers were Jews, and since the writers of the Gospels were generally Jews, that they would naturally attempt to make Jesus appear as "Jewish" as possible. Thus only evidence that was un-"Jewish" was acceptable historically. Is it any wonder that their picture of the "historical" Jesus was something of an Enlightenment idealist, totally non-Jewish in his life and ideals? Yirmiyahu also has a program to discover the historical facts amidst the theological redaction in the Gospels. Since, says he, Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew who preached Torah in the synagogue, and since Jesus (Yeshua) observed the Law of Moses, the only acceptable traditions in the Gospels are those that portray Jesus in continuity with "established" Judaism, and the only acceptable teachings are those that affirm the Torah and the synagogue. Is it any wonder that Yiri's Jesus (Yeshua) comes off as an "observant" Jew who stood hand-in-hand with the Pharisees? But, is Yiri's program any more objective than that of earlier German critics? It seems that there are two major points that Yirmiyahu has not addressed that undercut his position. First is the crucifixion of Jesus. Granted that Jesus was hauled before a hastily convened Sanhedrin on trumped-up charges (the Gospels record these as statements against the Temple). 1) What was Jesus doing or teaching that provoked this illegal (not to mention unprecedented) judicial lynch mob? 2) What was there in Jesus' actions or words that provoked the accusation, "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God?" (Mt. 26.63) 3) Why did Jesus not choose to clear the matter immediately by denying the charge, and point out that he was a good Jew who taught Torah in the synagogue? BTW, Yiri claims that "Y'shua's response was that, since ALL Jews are sons of God, he couldn't very well deny that he was." There is nothing in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial that suggest this response, and I do not know where Yiri got this idea (unless from the 10th Chapter of John - a completely different context in a book Yiri feels is dominated by ideas "quite alien to Judaism of the period"). In any event, the council must have understood Jesus (Yeshua) quite differently, because the High Priest is reported to have torn his clothing and proclaimed, "He has blasphemed, what further need do we have of witnesses. Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy" (Mt. 26:65). The second major point Yirmiyahu has failed to address is the interpretation of Jesus' (Yeshua's) life, death, and teachings that sprung up within the first generation after his death. Within 30 years St. Paul was writing that "Christ is the end of the Law" (telos - goal or termination - in either case the point is that Christians look to Jesus, not to the Law), and "The law was our tutor [paidagogos] to lead us to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith; and with the coming of faith, we are no longer under the tutor [paidagogos]". Where did the first generation followers of Jesus (Yeshua) get the idea that "[Jesus] died for the sins of the world"? If from Roman culture, then was St. Paul not a good Jew? Or were the authors of the Gospels, written before the end of the First Century, totally mistaken when they picture Jesus breaking the Sabbath traditions simply on his own authority, or saying "You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'Do not break your oaths, but pay to the Lord your vows', but I myself say to you, 'Do not make a vow at all!'" Parkes was right: Jesus did go further than any of the Pharisees. And whether Jesus said every word attributed to him in the Gospels or not, the question remains: where did Matthew get the idea that Jesus went around changing and reinterpreting Torah *on his own authority*!! This cuts at the very foundations of Pharisaic (and modern orthodox) Judaism. One small point. Yirmiyahu has quoted one verse from Matthew time and again. Matthew 23.2: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. Therefore all that they say to you, perform and observe, but do not act in accordance with their deeds. For they speak but they do not act." Yiri takes this one verse as conclusive proof that Jesus (Yeshua) condoned in blanket fashion the role of Pharisees as authoritative teachers of the Law. One might ask if Jesus (Yeshua) intended that his followers learn religion from "hypocrites", a "brood of snakes" and "whitewashed graves"? Or, perhaps, is it possible that this verse is the redaction? Perhaps the verses where Jesus makes a break with the Law are historical, and Matthew (who elsewhere comes across as more sympathetic to Law and synagogue than the other Gospels) is editing Jesus' words to fit his own ideas. Or, perhaps, Jesus (Yeshua) meant that his followers were to accept the rules of the Pharisees as far as they were compatible with his own teachings, but were to avoid the hypocritical aspects of Pharisaic behavior. To make this admittedly vague verse the cornerstone of all Jesus's (Yeshua's) teaching on the Law seems a bit presumptuous indeed. Alas, there remain many other things to be said, but they will have to wait for a later time. Again, I commend Yirmiyahu for his fine article. Yiri has given us a nice big fluffy bun. Now we can ask, "... Where's the beef?" Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/21/84)
I don't know where the beef is.... but I do know bull when I read it. Using a Christian redacted book to argue Christian doctrines against the Jewish teachings of the Jewish authors. (After all that's been said.) Merits no more comment.