yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/15/84)
My thanks to Jeff for forwarding a copy of his last submission. Thanks also for clearing up the '[nitpicking?] point' regarding Gamaliel's statement being at the trial of Shimon Keypha rather than Y'shua. I'm glad however that my inattention is kept to details rather than showered upon crucial basics as Jeff's are. I also have the ethics and courtesy not to twist and pervert his words. I wish he would extend me the same courtesy. I have been quite careful to emphasize at every step that I am definitely NOT discussing ANYTHING historical about 'Jesus'. This is a contradiction of terms - sort of like military intelligence. I have discussed the historical Y'shua IN CONTRAST TO the counterfeitted contra-image called 'Jesus' of Christianity! On the one hand, I had hoped that Jeff would have, by now, recognized Christianity's great void of knowledge in the very area they are dependent upon for their own definition - Jewish matters. In typical sophomoric fashion, he concludes that now that he has perused Parkes, Bagatti and Baron, he must be quite knowledgeable. This is hardly the case. I recommended these books because I knew that a Christian would be likely to resist anything said by a Jew regarding Christianity (I wonder how I reached that conclusion?) without really considering the merit of what was being said. Therefore, 2 of the 3 authors I recommended were Christians who, through scholarship, had come to recognize THE BASICS of what I've been writing on the net. There was never any implication that Christians would be authoritative on Jewish matters. Quite the opposite. But EVEN Christian scholars have come to realize THE BASICS of what I've been writing. Thus, Jeff is quite correct in his appraisal that the use of the term 'Nazarenes' by Parkes and Bagatti is an error betraying their ignorance of Jewish matters. But it DOES provide a place to start for those who wish to do so. Quoting 'St. Jerome' and 'St. Augustine' and Tertullian is a chuckle in the same vein. These are all guys who were long after the Christianization/Romanization and who were grossly overconfident of their insight into Jewish matters. If it's after 110 CE, it may well be relevant to Christianity, but it is quite irrelevant to the historical Y'shua and N'tzarim! Another example of perverting my words: I have neither stated nor implied ANYTHING about 'Judaean Christians'! Again, this is a contradiction of terms! There is NO SUCH THING as a 'Judaean Christian' (nor 'Judeo-Christian', nor any of the other similar descriptions). I have tried valiantly to distinguish between the historical N'tzarim Jews and the later non-Jewish Christians, the former who were 'nomian', and the latter who were antinomian. Further, I do not take any responsibility for Jeff jumping to the conclusion that I suggested the N'tzarim 'were fully accepted within the Palestinian (Pharisaic) community'. I said no such thing. I did say that they WERE persecuted by Christians. Jeff quite conveniently chose not to deal with that. I am also disappointed that he did not choose to present a more balanced selection of what Parkes and Bagotti were saying (either that or I am disappointed at how little he learned). At any rate, it probably suffices to say that of the many points I have made, most have gone undisputed. Earlier, I have dealt with the issue of the malediction. It was not intended solely for the N'tzarim as a perusal of my earlier articles shows. This malediction had been introduced a century before this time! Its purpose was to expose potential spies in the synagogue congregation who came to find out what they could about Jewish plans, etc. at the synagogue. Because of their many non-Jewish proselytes, the N'tzarim were especially suspected and specified. Jews also sometimes categorize people - even fellow Jews. You expected us maybe to be perfect? Again, I am capable of stating my own position. Do not thank me for something I never said, and for which I am intensely offended that anyone should suppose I would say such a thing. I refer to Jeff's 'thank you' to me for supposedly 'reminding us that Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew'. That is an outrageous lie!!! I have always maintained 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!!! That anyone should put words in the mouth of another is irresponsible. To outright pervert their words into the opposite of what they are saying is unethical, immoral and about as far from scholarly as anyone can get. I therefore take it as a personal compliment that he doesn't see me as a scholar. I certainly wouldn't want to be a scholar by his definition. Jeff writes that 'the earliest writings we have from any Christian source are from the letters of St. Paul'. I think the comical nature of that remark stands on its own. Regarding 'canon'. Jeff claims that 'it is the 27 books that have come to us as the New Testament'...'that claim to be the authoritative interpretations'... (and etc. drivel). He fails to acknowledge that even WITHIN these '27 books', THESE AUTHORS acknowledge other books. For anyone who has the fortitude, a study of 'canonization', the when, who, how and ESPECIALLY by whom! Finally, regarding the statement that 'Jesus did not feel restricted by Moses' word or thoughts', I don't know about 'Jesus' so I won't say. However, Y'shua's thoughts on the matter include the following quote from Mt. 23:1-3: 'The Torah Scribes and those of the rabbinic sect of Pharisaic Judaism have sat down upon the chair of Moshe. All things, as much as they would therefore tell you, do!' (He then goes on to admonish his followers just not to imitate their hypocrisy when they say and don't do themselves.) At the very least, get my words straight and don't pervert them into what you want them to read.