yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/09/84)
Several points have been forwarded by Jeff which might be persuading for less studied laymen. Though they are typical of the superficial and less than objective 'line' taught by seminaries, they are nevertheless more in-depth than the usual fare on the net and deserving of serious response. (Not that Duke should be offended, every seminary/divinity school/professor of same has their own axe to grind. So do I and everyone else to various degrees. Some are less gullible/more questioning than others.) Jeff attempts to deny that the Christian/pagan church cut itself off from its Jewish roots by arguing that "the testimony of the New Testament is that the same Jews who crucified Jesus (Yeshua , Y'shua, or whatever you wish to call him) persecuted his followers and created the '12th Benediction' (the Birkath ha- Minim) to be used in all synagogue worship...". Firstly, the N'tzarim writings indicate that Y'shua was executed by the gentiles (Romans) at the recommendation of a covert and hastily convened minimal quorum of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Under Roman rule, Jews did not have the power to execute anyone. So it was gentiles who executed Y'shua!!! Now regarding the counterfeit image Jesus and the counterfeit Christianized New Testament - well, if you say so Jeff I'll take your word for it. Again there is great difference between Y'shua and Jesus - they remain opposites; one an authentic historical Jew, the other a Romanized/paganized counterfeit contra-image. Several detractors keep questioning why I differentiate between Y'shua and Jesus. Simply put, there is a need to differentiate between the historical Jew, Y'shua, and the Romanized/paganized counterfeit contra-image. Granted, we could call that counterfeit image Mr. Nrgltwit or whatever. But you would have trouble convincing Christians they are following Mr. Nrgltwit. They already know they are following Jesus. Thus, Y'shua distinguished from Jesus is both a simple and practical means. It is also needful to make the uncomfortable point that the notion that 'Jesus was crucified by the Jews' is a vestige of the anti-semitism of the early Christians - and I use Christians advisedly. Again, read Parkes. Jeff betrays himself. At most, a relatively small but powerful group of Jewish leaders (aristocratic Sadducees and Temple Priests, who were at this point, appointed by and served at the pleasure of [and as puppets of] the Romans) who feared Roman retaliation plotted to remove Y'shua whom they perceived as more of a political threat than a religious threat. The Pharisees position was stated in the Sanhedrin by Gamaliel to simply not worry about them. (That this was not the prevalent feeling among 'Jews' is also evidenced by civil uproar some time later over the execution of Yakov.) But the Jewish aristocracy (the Sadducees, Temple Priests and wealthy laity) worried that Rome might get mad at a Jew who claimed to be king of the Jews in opposition to caesar - and if Rome got mad, it would be at Jews in general and they would lose their position, wealth, etc. Some also feared, of course, that Jews might then also lose their freedom, the Temple, etc. - which they only managed to postpone for a time anyway. But Jews don't recommend execution for opposing external rule. The ONLY solution was to find a religious reason. They brought in some false witnesses to accomplish that (according to the documents). These few influential men trumped up charges that Y'shua claimed to be THE son of God, therefore himself Divine and God in contradiction to monotheism - charges which he would not grace with an answer except to note that ALL Jews are sons of God according to Jewish scriptures. How then could he deny that he was? The passages in the New Testament touching upon this matter suffer from Christian redaction to MAKE the Divinity of 'Jesus' a 'true' doctrine and thus harmonizing the notion with popular Roman notions. The reality is that such ideas are indicative of Roman ideology of that period, not Jewish ideology of that period. At any rate, this small and non-representative (probably not even representative within the Sanhedrin which would explain why the members of the Sanhedrin were called selectively and in a hasty and covert manner) group of Jewish leaders managed to get a verdict of execution and then passed it over to the Romans. (That it was non-representative of Jews in general is evidenced not only by the 'moonlight' convening of the Sanhedrin at this time, but later also by the near riots caused by the execution of Yakov. Thouh Romans didn't execute based on Jewsih religious matters, the main fear in the first place had really been that Y'shua would bring down the fury of Rome on the Jews for opposing ceasar (which seemed to threaten these few Jewish leaders who feared they would lose their positions, etc. much more than it worried Rome - which seemed rather aloof from the whole 'threat'). Hence, the charge by the Romans was the kingship claim of Y'shua over the Jews. The point is that the Romans executed Y'shua for claiming kingship in opposition to caesar (even though they were a bit skeptical that Y'shua posed any real threat). The sign posted over Y'shua's head on the stake read "Y'shua - king of the Jews", indicating that he was being executed for attempting to be king over the Jews in opposition to Rome, and the sign was placed there by a Roman - not a Jew. The sign did NOT read 'Jesus - Divine Son of God'. There was no indication that he was being executed for claiming to be Divine in opposition to Judaism, etc. He was stabbed in the side by a Roman soldier, not a Jew. Mr. Gillette's allegation that it was Jews who crucified 'Jesus' betrays the anti-semitism inherent in Christianity in contradiction to the facts. He, apparently, cannot force himself to read Parkes and Bagatti as I have recommended earlier before sounding off. Further, the N'tzarim were NOT persecuted by the Jews. Somehow, being given the cold shoulder in synagogue doesn't seem to me to be in the same league with burning people to death, throwing them to the lions, crucifying them, etc. as the gentiles and Christians did to the N'tzarim. It is, therefore, vicious and unjust to equate a Jewish verbal slap with real persecution at the hands of Christians and other gentiles. They WERE persecuted by the Christians (will Gillette NEVER read Bagotti?). The Birkhat haMinim, first of all, has many variant readings due to its frequent adaptations to the various times. It apparently originated in the time of the Second Temple and was directed against "those Jews who collaborated with the enemy". It was then known as the 'Benediction to Him who humbles the arrogant'. A century later it was directed against the Sadducees. In the first century CE, it was directed against all sects/heresies - which I have discussed earlier. Moreover, Gillette fails to take into account that the N'tzarim were not a 100% pure Jewish sect on Dec. 31st (used for allegorical purposes only) of 109 CE and a 100% pure Christian sect on Jan. 1st of 110 CE. Such a simplistic approach. There had been a transition in progress which had been evident during the writing of passages in the N'tzarim writings circa 92 CE such as 'even now many contra-messiahs have become, whence we know that it is the last hour. They came out from among us, but they were not really from among us...". The growing numbers of gentile proselytes were growing to a majority during that time. I use proselytes here to describe what Abba Eban termed 'gentile synagogue worshippers' who proselytized themselves to Judaism but stopped short of circumcision. Thus, instead of becoming Jews, they were 'permanent proselytes'. (Proselytes who became Jews were no longer referred to as proselytes back then - because they were no longer proselytes, they were Jews. Since this is not the modern understanding, there will likely be disagreement. Ok.) These proselytes kept only the minimum requirements for ADMISSION to the movement and failed to follow-up in their study and observance of Torah as had been intended by Yakov (no need for us to harass the proselytes about keeping Torah since Torah is taught in every synagogue anyway - Acts 15:19-21). This is a particularly glaring failure in light of Y'shua's own instructions that followers of him, while avoiding the hypocrisy of their practice, were to recognize that the rabbis/Pharisaic sect had indeed assumed the 'chair of Moshe' in deciding 'mishpat' (judgements in matters of Torah) and that any followers of him were to obey them (Mt. 23:1-3: "All things, as much as they would therefore tell you to do, do it!. Just don't do according to their works because they say but do not DO". Thus, the abrupt change in leadership in 110 CE is not the only consideration- though it is certainly a significant turning point in the movement. One cannot, therefore, take out one voice who declares 'our instruction comes from the "porch of Solomon"' and make any legitimate induction that such is typical of Christianity of that time. In fact, the opposite is true. First, Tertullian was a Montanist, not a Christian for much of his later life. Secondly, if Jeff would EVER read Parkes and Bagotti and Baron he would learn that the bulk of evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite. It is also a mistaken notion to equate the adaptation (perversion) of N'tzarim teachings to Roman-pagan culture to 'looking around for a *greek* heritage to give his Christianity [Montanism] some root'. Gillette not only misses the point, he gets it backwards. Christians WERE (!!!) '*greek* heritage' looking for some legitimacy from the N'tzarim teachings while avoiding Jewish teachings which were 'out of synch' with Roman- pagan culture. The Jewish teachings, especially the Torah, were 'defined out' of Christianity. I am compelled to point out that one notion which Jeff has forwarded couldn't be more in error! When he writes that "the books that have come to us in the canon of the New Testament (sic) are *not* in any way translations. They are unquestionably indigenous Greek - language, style, literary allusions, the whole nine yards" he couln't be further from the truth. While there has been much controversy about this (this alone contradicts his assertion), modern scholars are increasingly becoming persuaded that there were ALMOST CERTAINLY at one time Hebrew manuscripts from which the extant greek were translated. I personally can attest (having translated them myself!!!) that the linguistic considerations, style and ESPECIALLY literary allusions argue FOR underlying Hebrew manuscripts!!! Gillette's weak point here (aside from relying upon merely relaying the words of others he assumes MUST be right rather than having direct personal knowledge through his own CRITICAL investigation) is that he and his Christian sources, like other non-Jews, are largely ignorant of Judaism and, therefore, unqualified to determine whether such allusions are of Judaism or of Hellenism. Though Jeff rightly recommends that David 'do his homework', I suggest that Jeff also has many years of homework remaining before he can justify coming off like a Charlesworth, a Yadin, or even a Parkes or Bagotti. Till then, it would be more appropriate to exercise greater precision and discipline in his assertions and avoid making erroneous assertions with the conviction of certainty or divine inspiration. Errors are all the more harmful when they come from someone who is 'supposed to' know what they are doing. In fact, if you read Charlesworth, Yadin, and others of this calibre, you'll find them vastly more careful than Jeff - certainly Jeff has more reason for restraint and caution? Don't take being a grad student in divinity school too seriously. Charlesworth, Yadin, etc. are eons beyond that! In short, Jeff, I don't 'consider it denied' simply because you assert it to be so.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/16/84)
[] "Yiri's Last Stand"? Looks to me like he's just getting started! > [Yiri Ben-David:] >The passages in the New Testament touching upon this matter >suffer from Christian redaction to MAKE the Divinity of 'Jesus' a >'true' doctrine and thus harmonizing the notion with popular >Roman notions. The reality is that such ideas are indicative of >Roman ideology of that period, not Jewish ideology of that >period. Bagatti in chapter 2 says that the Nazarenes held a divinity doctrine which distinguished them from the Ebionites who accepted only the Messiahship of Yeshua. Is Bagatti in error on this point? If so, then what did he find in his research that led him to believe this? Did the N'tzarim believe something more in line with Jewish ideology which Bagatti erroneously calls a "divinity doctrine"? If so, what? Also can you go into more detail on the specific redactions (at least provide a couple of examples, maybe? -- say the accounts of the virgin birth, "I and my Father are one", etc.) I'd like to note publicly that this is by far the most interesting discussion I've yet seen in net.religion. It would be nice if the quality could stay on this level. -- David Brunson "... and harmless as doves"