yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/16/84)
First, my compliments to David Brunson, not only for having read one of
the texts I recommended, but for thinking, and asking some really good
questions about it. They are tough, penetrating questions and they are
relevant and central to the issue without being biased and, by all
appearances, objective and pragmatic; questions apparently reflecting
the desire to progress rather than merely challenge and 'grind one's
own axe'. I sincerely hope my acknowledgement of work well done is at
least as strong as my criticism of sloppy scholarship. I'm impressed by
results - not supposed credentials.
I will try to answer them with the dignity they have earned. (And take
respite in the momentary relief from the battle to convince the ignorant
that they should NOT assume they have the answers simply because most
opponents won't argue with them.)
In chap. 2, Bagatti is quoting St. Jerome and St. Augustine about the
beliefs of the N'tzarim. St. Jerome and St. Augustine lived in the
latter half of the 4th century. Thus, we have two sources of potential
error: 1) 240 years of antinomian evolution and 2) anti-Jewish
Christians making the statements. Bagatti does not treat either of these
problems adequately.
Just as we earlier found it useful to distinguish between the pro-Torah
N'tzarim and the anti-Torah (antinomian) Christians in order to know
which we were talking about at any given time, so now it is also useful
to distinguish between the N'tzarim prior to 110 CE and those of the
4th/5th century after 2-300 years of Christian persecution and
pressure. It should be clear that 2-300 years of Christian pressure has
an effect. We can see it on American Jews in less than 2-300 years.
(Boy, is that likely to put me in hot water.) Similarly, it can be seen
in the Jews of Spain (Sefardi) and Europe (Ashkenazi).
We need to recognize that it is likely that there was some change,
and that the change would almost certainly be expected to be dragged
along in the direction of Christian pressure. The question here is not
whether such a transition occurred, but rather the extent. I propose,
therefore, that we constrain the term N'tzarim to refer to the pre-110 CE
N'tzarim and that we use, say, N'tzarim-P to refer to post-110 CE
N'tzarim which were the Jewish remnant of the N'tzarim but which were
affected in some unknown measure by Christian pressures over the period
from (actually prior to) 110 CE through the 4-5th century. If we should
wish to refer to the commonalitiy of both we could use N'tzarim/-P.
There is no commonality of Christianity and N'tzarim except among
the proselytes so we need no additional designation there except perhaps
to distinguish proselyte(s) as of the N'tzarim from proselyte(s)-P of
the N'tzarim-P and proselyte(s)/-P as before.
Extrapolating backward from 4th or 5th century N'tzarim-P (let alone
Christianity) in an attempt to reconstruct N'tzarim teachings is an
exercise in futility and self-deception. We can determine the direction
of evolution quite easily (it was in the direction of Christian
pressure and antinomianism). But the degree of evolution cannot be
answered with any validity using this method. It's results are
misleading - particularly since the antinomian evolution has not been
taken into account at all (and attempts are begun from Christianity
rather than N'tzarim-P anyway - compounding the deception).
What then is, in my opinion, the best method:
1.) Consider seriously only pre-110 CE documents; later
documents are then considered only as they are in harmony with earlier
findings - otherwise they are shelved for future consideration when new
archaeological findings justify their reconsideration.
2.) Since this was a Jewish sect teaching Jewish concepts to
Jews in synagogues and involving Jewish writings to other Jews about
these Jewish matters, accept only Jewish documents and Jewish authors
and writings. Other writers should then be considered only as they are
in harmony with these previous findings. Since they are basically
anti-Jewish in the main, they should be afforded little credibility.
There are more sources than one might at first think. In addition to the
obvious (the Hebrew Tenakh, LXX & N'tzarim writings), there is the
Apocrypha, the Pseudipigrapha, the Genizah, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
Nag Hammadi codices, the Targums, etc. (For a good listing, ref. the
preface or intro (??) in Charlesworth's new book on the Pseudipigrapha.)
If we constrain ourselves thusly, a profoundly different picture begins
to emerge - a Jewish one quite in contrast to Christian notions. Hasn't
anyone ever asked: 'How did Torah-observant N'tzarim-ism turn into
anti-Torah Christianity?'
For example, the N'tzarim authors (excepting Shaul) spoke Aramaic and
Hebrew - not greek. They would have not used the LXX nor greek parthenos
(virgin) to describe Miryam the mother of Y'shua. (This is an example of
why the Christians so desparately wish to maintain that these writings
were in greek.) They would have instead used the Hebrew term from their
Hebrew Torah. But now we are deeply into the issue of whether the Dead
Sea Scrolls imply an earlier version from which were derived both the
Masoretic and the LXX. Did the N'tzarim quote a Torah reading "b'tulah"
(virgin) rather than "alma" (maiden)? While there is no lack of heated
opinion on this matter, there is, nevertheless, no definitive answer
obtainable from extant evidence. My answer here is that I don't know and
anyone who does is a charlatan. Perhaps archaeology will one day tell
us. The argument about the 'divinity of Jesus' (used advisedly) is
therefore a moot point for a host of reasons.
Further, if archaeology should find such a Torah, note that it would
predate the N'tzarim and show that this was a notion of Judaism in
general and therefore that the N'tzarim sect was not atypical of
pre-N'tzarim Judaism. On the other hand, if archaeology answers to the
contrary, then the N'tzarim would have quoted alma and not b'tulah and
the 'diviniity' concept would be a product of a poor interpretation of
the greek LXX and of the Hellenist world - not of the N'tzarim.
Note that in either event the N'tzarim would not be atypical of Jewish
thought of the period - but they would (as expected) be contradictory to
Christian/Roman thought in at least the second instance.
Since the question cannot, at present, be answered from a scholarly
point of view, it makes no sense to me to take a non-scholarly
postition on the matter. One need not look far to see ludicrous examples
of those who zealously assert 'beliefs' as though they were facts - and
then are later proven to be quite silly. There are a plethora of
examples within Christianity (though they are certainly not alone).
Although the N'tzarim-P resisted the pressures and persecutions of the
Christian church, it should be clear that their posture would, over 240
years, almost certainly have eroded to some extent in the direction
the Christians attempted to drag them (even though their resistance was
frequently valiant). It is inconceivable that they would have been
totally immune to such pressures and persecution. The question then
becomes not whether they slid toward Christian notions - but how much?
Extrapolating backwards usually compounds the problem. We are therefore
faced with the problem of how different were the N'tzarim-P from the
N'tzarim in any given point?
Additionally, Bagatti is quoting Christians who were anti-Jewish. Their
perceptions of Jewish matters cannot be taken as 'gospel' then on two
counts: 1) they are non-Jews ignorant of Jewish matters and 2) they were
anti-Jewish out to discredit the N'tzarim.
So Bagatti is correct as far as he went.
The N'tzarim sprouted from the fabric of 1st century Judaism rather than
as some alien mutant suddenly appearing in their midst proclaiming that
God used to be immutable but now everything is going to change. This
notion is a fabrication of antinomian Christians of later times along
with their counterfeit image - Jesus which champions these notions. For
this reason, it is my feeling that one can learn about the N'tzarim only
through the method outlined earlier and that other methods deceive and
mislead the individual rather than enlighten. N'tzarim ideas can only be
properly understood within the fabric of 1st century Judaism... but 1st
century Judaism can only be understood if one first understands orthodox
Judaism as it is today. I specify orthodox with reason which I will
avoid here. This will not come with less than immersing oneself into the
Jewish community for 2-3 years, attending synagogue regularly for that
time, studying with the rabbi during the time, and living and
interacting with other Jews for that time. At the end of that time you
will have learned volumes which will affect your perceptions in many
areas. Less is futile and self-deceptive. I never implied it was a
simple matter. But those who pretend to understand Judaism, understand
the N'tzarim, understand Judaism of the 1st century, etc. having done
less are charlatans and deceivers. For those who would complain that I
am requiring conversion, such would pervert my words (again). I'm merely
telling you what you need to know if you are to understand such things.
Whether you convert is another matter which I refuse to even get into on
this net. The rabbi not only wouldn't make you, he would advise you NOT
to - so you needn't fear that. But you can come away with new
understandings you will obtain in no other way.
Taking all of the above into account (the 'divinity doctrine' is far
from resolved so far - and won't be completely resolved either), we then
have precious little to deal with on the subject. We know that the
documents state that the charges brought against Y'shua in this regard
were, first of all, false charges supported by the testimony of false
witnesses. They further state that Y'shua's response was that, since ALL
Jews are sons of God, he couldn't very well deny that he was. Giving him
credit for the intelligence to discern that he was going to be convicted
in any case, his response was, to use modern parallel language, "Those
are your words". There are also phrases, principally in the book by Yani
"Ben-R'gaz" Bar-Zavdih (John) such as 'only-offspring' and the like
which must be considered. Being quite atypical of the other Jewish
writing and evidence (including within the N'tzarim writings
themselves) and quite alien to Judaism of the period and quite typical
of Roman thought of the period, I regard these as strong candidates for
Roman redactions. They are sometimes even inconsistent with the tone of
the passages in which they are found, giving the passage a rather
stilted quality. This becomes a matter of individual evaluation
regarding just what is likely to be authentic N'tzarim within these
writings and what is more likely the product of Christian redaction. One
can then only look at the Jewish fabric and the Roman fabric and
determine for himself from which the thread came. But this obviously
makes the understanding of the Jewish fabric an absolute prerequisite.
The simultaneous correctness and incorrectness of Bagatti and other
Christian authors and scholars emanate from these same problems. They
are due in large measure to a lack of understanding of Jewish matters
and a complete lack of accurate insight into these same Jewish matters.
But there is a 'catch-22' here. This same lack of understanding and
insight is, in turn, due in large measure to the Christian redaction of
these same writings by Christians who lacked.... It should also have
become clear by now that the confusion is due in no small part to the
sloppiness of confusing Christians, N'tzarim, N'tzarim-P and
proselytes/-P into one confusing lump. You could say almost anything
about them and be correct (as well as incorrect) and demonstrate most
anything you desired. And so papered pseudo-scholars have - and
continue to even when they've been told. The real losers are those who
base their beliefs upon the words of these 'experts' assuming that they
know what they're doing.
My [9-volume] text is not indexed to find antinomian redactions present
in papyrii or the Sinaiticus and absent in later mss. In retrospect I
can see that this should not have been overlooked. Nevertheless, that is
the way it is so I cannot quickly find such examples. I don't have the
time to research the matter. But I do acknowledge the importance and
relevance of your question and do not fault you for it. If the book is
ever published I will see to it that this insertion is included in the
index. In the interim, I offer only my personal observations which the
reader is free to leave or take:
1) that the N'tzarim writings clearly advocate remaining within
Judaism and the keeping of Torah and are clearly contradictory to any
notion of stepping outside of Judaism or, heaven forbid, coming into
conflict with Judaism or the Jewish people.
2) that the N'tzarim writings in no way imply that the Torah has been
invalidated, replaced, nor made obsolete by Y'shua nor any other.
Interpretations to the contrary are the most frequent redactions which I
found THAT ARE CLEARLY DOCUMENTED.
3) that the N'tzarim writings are completely in harmony with first
century Judaism and greatly at odds with Christianity.
Until and unless the text is published so that several thousand greek
and Hebrew word studies, cross-references, similar commentaries and
explanations, archaeological notes, documentation, etc. can be clearly
and completely presented, this will pretty much have to suffice. After
all, if the world really wants this information, it can publish the
book and do it right. I loathe halfdone presentations - I regard them as
less than persuasive at best and potentially downright misleading.
Trying to 'retire' again.
Yirmiyahu Ben-David