lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (10/12/84)
<I wasn't going to say this, but ... There you go again ... > FIRST: THE RECANTATION (sort of) I would like to thank Yirmiyahu for a very fine discussion of the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion. His explanation of the relationship between Jews and Romans was much better than some I have read. Only one minor [nitpicking?] point: tradition says Gamaliel's advice was given at the trial of Peter and the apostles, not at Jesus' trial (see Acts 5) But, perhaps similar counsel could have been given at Jesus' trial also. Just a little more attention to detail, Yiri, and you will make a fine scholar :-) I also am grateful to Yiri for pointing out that one phrase I used could easily be misinterpreted. When I said that "the same Jews who crucified Jesus ... persecuted his followers," I was a bit imprecise. First, I did not intend to suggest that all Jews are "Christ killers." Second, I was taking for granted the scenario Yiri so ably articulated - that it was the Romans who actually crucified Jesus, but at the request of the Jewish council. The point I wished to make was simply that those among the Jewish leadership who saw Jesus as a heretic/revolutionary/threat, and who convicted him of a capital offense and persuaded Pilate to carry out the actual crucifixion; those same Jews and their followers also found the followers of Jesus threatening, and likewise sought to undermine their influence in the synagogue and in society. SECOND: A BOOK REPORT It has been suggested that my understanding of early Christianity might be improved by the perusal of three books on the subject. I must confess that, although I have spent many hundreds of hours scrutinizing primary source material (Josephus, Eusebius, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, etc.) in Greek and in Hebrew, and many thousands of pages of secondary books on the subject (mostly scholarly monographs), I had not read Father Bellarmino Bagatti (_The_Church_from_the_Circumcision_, Jerusalem, 1971), Salo Wittmayer Baron (_A_Social_and_Religious_History_ of_the_Jews_, Philadelphia, 1950s), nor James Parkes (_The_Conflict_of_ the_Church_and_Synagogue:_A_Study_in_the_Origins_of_Antisemitism_, New York: 1969). Let me thank Mr. BenDavid for suggesting these three delightful books. Perhaps for many of us who have found it a bit difficult to follow Yirmiyahu's arguments, some relevant citations from these three decisive sources for the history of early Christianity would prove helpful. A. N'tsarim - the name of Jewish Christians. By what name did the first Jewish Christians refer to themselves? The term N'tsarim has been suggested. None of these three books make any reference to "N'tsarim", or any similar term. They all do, however, refer to groups that called themselves "Nazarenes" (perhaps following the traditional transliteration which Yirmiyahu has informed us is a mistake which betrays ignorance of the Hebrew language) But what were these Nazarenes like? From Bagatti: "The Nazarenes always considered themselves the equals of the the other Christians of gentile stock, and they wished ... to appear as true Christians distinct from the heretics." (31) "[Quoting St. Jerome's letter to St. Augustine] ... a heresy which is called that of the Menei [Heb. minim], which to this day is condemned by the Pharisees; they are commonly called Nazarenes. They believe in Christ, Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary and they say that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, and that He arose, just as we believe." (34-35) "The first information which we have on the Nazarenes, of whom St. Paul is called the Standard Bearer, is given by the orator Tertulian." (31) Note, Yiri, this is the same Tertulian whose appeal to the Old Testament you reject as untypical of Christianity. B. The Relationship between Jewish Christians and Jewish Society It has been suggested that early Judean Christians were "NOT persecuted", but were fully accepted within the Palestinian (Pharisaic) community, until around 110 CE (AD), when Gentiles forced a schism. Again, Bagatti: "[Quoting Epiphanius, an early Christian historian] And although on account of their faith they are 'most inimical' to the other Jews, who curse them in their prayers, they hold to the same biblical canon [i.e. the Old Testament] ..." (34) This is, of course, a reference to the 12th Benediction recited in synagogue liturgy (text in a previous article). Yirmiyahu describes this prayer as "being given the cold shoulder in synagogue." James Parkes, however, has given a little different explanation: "The purpose of the malediction is to detect the presence of Minim [heretics - Parkes feels these were Christians], for if they were invited to pronounce the Eighteen Benedictions they would inevitably omit that particular paragraph from them." (78) Thus the Christian would be shown up as a heretic and expelled from the synagogue (78). The dating of this prayer is 80-90 CE (Bagatti, 102). It was formally carried to synagogues outside Palestine, so that, according to Parkes, "We may therefore presume that before the end of the century all the synagogues of the diaspora had been informed of the new malediction and warned to have no dealings with the Christians." (79) C. Jesus - a good Jew Again I suggest Yirmiyahu is to be thanked for reminding us that Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew. As I have said before on this net, there is a sense in which the founder of Christianity was not a Christian! The point, however, is that many of Jesus' early followers thought they saw in Jesus' teaching a principle that inevitably led beyond the Law and beyond the Jewish religion as they understood it. Is there any evidence that they correctly interpreted Jesus' teachings? Again let me quote from Parkes: "The origin of the profound difference which exists between Judaism and Christianity must ultimately be related to the teachings of Jesus, although He Himself lived and died a Jew." (34) "[Regarding Jesus' healing on the Sabbath] But so long as Jesus defended His action just on its own basis and did not interest Himself to explain it as a legitimate interpretation of the written Law, so long was He to their minds really doing harm and not good by His conduct." (40) "[In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus] went further than any Pharisaic teacher would permit himself to go." (42) Parkes has, I think, hit the nail on the head. The Pharisees were Moses' faithful disciples. To coin a (not original) phrase, they sought to think Moses' thoughts after him. Jesus did not feel restricted by Moses' words or thoughts. He defended his actions and teachings, not on their own basis as Parkes puts it, but on His own authority! Indeed this was far more than any Pharisaic teacher would dare to claim. Parkes is undoubtedly correct in saying that the separation between Jew and Christian was not "immediately apparent", but in the outworking of the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Rabbis, the Jews "came to believe in the irreconcilable nature of the new religion." (48) Similarly Christian thinkers whose congregations were not primarily Jewish were pushed to this point rather early (e.g within the first generation of Christianity). D. The Greek New Testament Finally (for this article), it has been suggested that "modern scholars are increasingly becoming persuaded that there were ALMOST CERTAINLY at one time Hebrew manuscripts from which the extant greek were translated." This may have been apparent to Baron, whom Yiri appears to be quoting (66 - a few pages later Baron says that modern scholars also believe that Barabbas was Jesus' alter ego, and thus Jesus appeared before Pilate twice. Whether Baron understands "modern scholars" or not in either instance is an open question.) In the 30 years since Baron, most scholars I have read do not take seriously the possibility of an Aramaic source for large segments of the canonical Gospels. But the real point is this: produce the documents. I promised Brunson if he came up with the Aramaic originals I would get him on the Johnny Carson show. I make this promise to Yiri. Show me the Aramaic originals for Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and I will find a publisher for those nine notebooks of yours that everyone else has rejected (:-)) [Hint: before you start talking about the Gospel of the Hebrews, read the excerpts for yourself - don't take St. Jerome's word for it!] The earliest writings we have from any Christian source are the letters of St. Paul. Was St. Paul one of the N'tsarim? Apparently Baron did not think so. "[Paul] succeeded in erecting the imposing structure of Pauline Christianity, not through a process of thinking, but by lending expression to his high-strung emotions and by seeking in creative fashion the reconciliation of his own Jewish and Hellenistic heritages." (76) "[Paul] substituted the circumcision of heart for circumcision of the flesh. ... In one word, the law had been abolished, and with it its bearer, the Jewish national group. Israel in the flesh had been replaced by a more universal body of men, Israel in the spirit." (78) "By [his] contrast between faith and law, ... Paul, perhaps unwittingly [sic] laid the foundation for a final separation of Christianity from the Jewish people." (79) I submit that if Baron is correct, the earliest written documents of Christianity already show significant theological progress (or regress - that is another discussion) beyond "observant Judaism", or any other type of Judaism. Indeed, if "Israel after the flesh" counts as observant Judaism, than Yiri had better start calling *me* Rabbi (:-)) BTW, there has been some question of my extensive attention to the *Canon* of the New Testament. This is on purpose. As I mentioned after Yirmiyahu's first posting, I do not think his historical reconstruction worth the time I have spent discussing it. (Sorry for the goyishe arrogance - I guess my friend and former mentor Jim Charlesworth has had a bad influence on me :-)) The letters of Ignatius and Clement, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Nag Hammadi library (among other early Christian documents) are all very important for historical reconstruction, and are worthy of careful study - on another occasion. It is the 27 books that have come to us as the New Testament, however, that claim to be the authoritative interpre- tations (dare I say even "inspired" interpretations) of Christian faith. My interest is in these books: how did they understand the significance of Jesus, how did they apply Jesus' life and teachings to their own settings, and how may we in the 20th Century reflect on their work as a paradigm for our own understanding and practice of Christian faith. If Yiri feels that I have not quite gotten his point, it may be because I am asking a slightly different question. Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/12/84)
I received nothing but the heading here???
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/14/84)
Will someone please mail me a copy of this article? The heading made it here but none of the text came with it. Thanks.