yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (09/30/84)
The sincere inquiries and interest in the issues I have raised (especially in the mail) is both gratifying and physically overwhelming. I simply cannot keep up. I will try diligently to provide adequate source info, suggestions, and to ask the right questions to steer those who are sincere in the right general direction in order, hopefully, to make this my last submission because of the heavy constraints on my time. In answer to some mail questions which will be of general interest: Contrasting the Jewish perspective with the Roman/paganized perspective is not a matter of contrasting an original Jewish text with the teachings found in a Roman version. Would that it were that nice. Unfortunately, the earliest extant copies of the N'tzarim writings are found in Greek mss of the 4th centurh (the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus - the Sinaiticus being more likely to be more directly related to Jewish sources in my opinion). There are earlier papyrii fragments but they are just that - fragments here and there - some date from the 1st century CE. These also are Greek. So there is no extant original Jewish text to which we can refer. The Aramaic (Peshitta) is, most unfortunately, translated FROM these Greek texts and, therefore, give us very little added input. The best strategy is, again in my opinion, to analyze the 'evolving tendencies' of these mss to ascertain the direction of their Christianization (i.e., redactions and editings by their Christian 'handlers'). It soon becomes very clear that these Christian editors/redactors were antinomian and were editing their mss to read in a more antinomian light. A simple way to do this is to compare mss according to their date and how they read vis-a-vis the keeping of Jewish law/rejection of Jewish law (this same strategy works well on any other issue - again in my opinion. I reject some of the more popular [currently] notions of textual criticism that would like to contradict this strategy). To put it more succinctly, the Roman pagans attained dominance and control (the final stroke coming in 110 CE when the N'tzarim - being Jews - were kicked out of Jerusalem along with the other Jews, and the first 'gentile bishop' was installed in his place. Read 'The Church from the Circumcision', Bagotti, available thru the Bibl. Archaeol. Soc. in Wash. DC). Having achieved this control, they set about to adopt the Jewish ideologies to a 'more Roman (pagan)'/more palatable concept for those of the Roman Empire. It is no accident that it evolved into an ideology that Constantine saw would serve him politically and would feed his ambitions. It is also no accident that it was this budding counterfeit of the N'tzarim sect which actually persecuted the N'tzarim - forcing them to observe the feast to the pagan goddess Esotera (that's right - Easter) rather than Passover, and to eat pork on the way out - upon pain of death (again, re Bagotti). And Mr. Wingate persists in telling us they are one and the same (the Christian and the N'tzarim). For someone who knows so little about the subject, Mr. Wingate certainly speaks authoritatively. I must confess that Mr. Wingate is not an isolated instance of this phenomenon in my experience either. The majority of Christians with whom I have spoken share that characteristic. Fortunately, there are others who seek to learn and take a more scholarly approach. So, while Mr. Wingate "expects a Jew like Yirmiyahu" to take some position (as if it's in my genes and I have no intelligent basis for such preposterous views), I maintain that categorizing an individual based upon generalizations is more symptomatic of desperation and lack of valid argument rather than a scholarly inquiry. Even a statistical characterization (i.e., 'majority of Christians with whom I have spoken) does not justify categorizing the individual in my estimation. Quickie: None of the books of the New Testament/N'tzarim writings are found in the Jewish CANON. They are Jewish writings, as are the Pseudipigrapha, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., but they are not part of the Jewish canon. The study of 'canon', both Christian as well as Jewish is very illuminating by the way. The canons have very little to do with historical reconstruction of what went on during that period - just as archaeology is not canon, but has great influence on our knowledge of the period. Another quickie: for those who see little merit in historical reconstruction, apparently real truth is of little value to you. Yet, you claim to follow a guy who said you are to know the truth and THAT is what will set you free? I'm persuaded that Mr. Gillette misworded a statement when he wrote that 'few (if any) of their [the 3rd century rabbis] teachings predate Jesus'. Virtually ALL of their teachings predated Jesus. There are several things Mr. Gillette could have meant and been at least partially correct - but, as worded, this is a glaring error. Mr. Gillette also states: "the real question is whether the followers of Jesus who wrote the books of the Christian covenant applied their Master's teachings to new situations they found themselves in, and whether their followers correctly understood the Scriptures in formulating doctrines...". I submit that this, rather, AVOIDS the real issue which is: subsequent to 110 CE, the Roman/pagan offshoots of the N'tzarim wrested control and began to edit/redact those scriptures to suit their own Roman/pagan ideologies. Keep in mind that the earliest extant copies date from the 4th century - 300 years after the JEWS who authored the originals. With the invention of the printing press, industrial revolution, etc., we have a FAR better understanding of medeival life in the Mayan culture than the gentiles of the 4th century did of Jewish life in the time of the N'tzarim. Mr. Gillette asserted that N'tzarim is not found in the N'tzarim writings - that is because Mr. Gillette failed to read the Greek and, instead, relied on other Christians words. Mr. Wingate almost had it - had he not assumed that the distinct spellings was 'a matter which does not concern us'. In fact, it is found 19 times in the N'tzarim writings alone (hint, "Nazareth" is CORRECTLY found only 12 times). Y'shua himself as well as his 12 apprentices are identified as N'tzarim. Part of the problem is that gentiles don't know "Nazareth" from "Nazirite" in Greek nor Hebrew - and to a great extent not in concept either (a rather ludicrous suggestion made earlier that N'tzarim might mean "Nazirite"). While Mr. Gillette further asserts that "there is no evidence to suggest that followers of Jesus continued to offer sacrifices in the Temple, I need only remind the reader that the account of Shaul, along with some other N'tzarim, taking the Nazirite vow and shaving their heads and going to the Temple to offer the appropriate sacrifice, is indeed found in the N'tzarim writings. There is other evidence, but that would require some reading and study - neither of which seems very popular. I re-re-re-recommend reading "The Church from the Circumcision" by Bagotti available thru the Bibl. Arch. Soc. AND "The Conflict Between the Church and the Synagogue" written by a Christian (James Parkes) at Oxford available thru the Jewish Publication Society in Phila. Mr. Wingate acknowledges that the N'tzarim 'persisted in the observance of Mosaic law', yet he 'sees no reason not to identify' them with the post-110 CE Christian offshoot which forced them to substitute pagan festivals for Jewish festivals and forced them to eat pork - or killed them! They were all the same guys huh? No difference between the original authentic N'tzarim and the post-110 CE antinomian Christians? They were as different as night and day - one 'nomian' and the other 'antinomian', one historically authentic, the other a counterfeit contra-image. If one is to acknowledge that Y'shua was the messiah, that would surely make the Romanized/paganized/Christianized 'Jesus' the antichrist!!! But that is merely historical reconstruction and external to Christian doctrines and, therefore, not important? Well, that is for you to decide - I'm not a Christian so I'll merely pass along what I've noticed about Christianity. Another quickie: 'min' (plural 'minim') or 'sect' and synonymous with 'heresy' (in fact, translated in to Greek as 'airesis') was a term that each Jewish sect applied to all other Jewish sects outside of their own. If you weren't in MY expression of Judaism which, of course, was the TRUE form of Judaism, then you belonged to a sect/heresy. Hence, Sadducess called Pharisees and vice- versa, etc. So 'min' or 'sect' or 'heresy' does NOT ALWAYS refer to the N'tzarim' Another quickie: not every mention of 'Jesus' in Talmud refers to the one you're familiar with. That was not the only Y'shua. Mr. Wingate asserts that there was much friction between gentiles and Jews. I assert the contrary - and for a reason that few people have ever considered: the controversy was between Y'hudaean Jews (VERY roughly paralleling the Orthodox) and the Hellenist Jews of the Diaspora (VERY roughly paralleling Reform Jews). The term JEWS understood to mean 'gentile' was 'allogenes'. This was the term used over the entrance to the Temple forbidding entry to 'gentiles'. Allogenes is found only once in the entire N'tzarim writings - and then refers to a Samaritan. Although the term 'elleyn' is freely translated as Greeks or gentiles, reference to even most dictionaries will define Hellenist as a JEW who had adopted the ways of the Greek culture. Another term freely translated as 'gentiles', 'ethnos' is more properly translated as 'peoples', as may be discerned by anyone willing to do an exhaustive study of every usage of the term in the N'tzarim writings (as I have done). The impact of just these few differences between modern versions and ancient writings reveals a startling problem: the 'New Testament' has nothing to say to 'gentiles'. Rather, it is the writings of Jews, both to the more strict Y'hudaean Jews and to the Hellenist Jews of the Diaspora about Jewish matters. There is precious little about actual gentiles converting into the N'tzarim sect of Judaism, but quite a lot to say about backslidden Jews of the Diaspora and how much should be expected of them in order to be accepted into the N'tzarim sect. Non-Jews are going to have a lot of questions simply because they are ignorant of Judaism - and much moreso Judaism of this period. Mr. Wingate is correct in stating that 'the restrictive Jewish brance was eliminated' - let me append to that that they were eliminated BY Christians. Mr. Wingate further asserts that post-110 CE church fathers made many non-trivial changes 'in the interest of correcting the text to the "true" religion'. He is right but again pulls up short of finishing the statement. Let me append here that the notion of "true religion" to the post-110 CE Christians was the Romanized/paganized/Christianized antinomian counterfeit image of both Y'shua (Jesus) and the N'tzarim sect (Christians). So let's call it like it is - they edited the manuscripts to fit their pagan culture and to sell it to the Roman citizenry. By the time of Constantine, it was ready. But his has nothing to do with the original group - the N'tzarim - whom Mr. Wingate correctly acknowledges they had "eliminated". Ruefully, Mr. Wingate is also right is stating that 'there is not sufficient deviation to cause the translators to abandon traditional formulas'. I submit that NOTHING would EVER do that! Mr. Wingate's last point: what good is a religion which requires study? I can only answer that my interest is in the pursuit of a more authentic understanding of that period. I study Judaism and find it immensely rewarding. If study is a threat to Christianity, then that is something Christians must deal with - not me. Additionally, it was the Jew you claim to follow who is quoted as saying "you shall know the truth, and it is the truth which will set you free". It was this same Jew who offered the illustration of some who build their houses on sand while others build upon rock. With all of the bluster and authoritative manner that Mr. Wingate can muster he builds upon the sand of ignorance rather than educate himself FIRST in many areas in which he is lacking. If he is of a tender age then he should not pretend to be so authoritative. Further, no one said that 20 years of study is a prerequisite for any religion. It took me that long (a bit more than that actually) but some might discover these things much more quickly or perhaps have them 'revealed' to them or who knows what - while others NEVER learn. It is hard to deny that being born and raised in a given socio-religious environment has great influence on what one understands and learns about religon. Would Mr. Wingate assert that a Hindu child born in some poor outlying region of the world has no chance to be a Christian just because s/he will likely study all his/her life and NEVER learn about Christianity? That's much longer than 20 years. To state the reality of an individual situation as a prerequisite to a religion is rather a sloppy abuse of logic. In response to many pieces of mail primarily, I've taken more time than I can really afford to put some of these things out in the light - a couple for the first time. I haven't the time to deal with the mushrooming questions and issues which are (and even more which will be) raised. I really do think I've supplied sources and general directions which will take the desirous reader quite a good way. I really MUST leave a GREAT DEAL of the spade work to you. I'm going to try VERY HARD not to write any further articles on net.religion simply because of the time constraints. I do thank those who have shown interest and encourage any reader who gets impossibly bogged down to contact me for further direction AFTER s/he has done his/her homework in this area. Since I have a work which publishers won't touch, it is a bit taxing to re-type parts of it ad infinitum. Since the work spans 9 3-ring binders of typed pages, I'm not crazy about keeping this up. I'm really forced to admit that I cannot do it unless a publisher is found. (The work, by the way, is the translation of the N'tzarim writings from the perspective of a Jew). I hope this helps some of you. I regret that it will probably only rile most. Yirmiyahu Ben-David PS I know my name. It is Yirmiyahu, not Jeremiah. I am proud to be Jewish and do not like my name corrupted into a gentile version. I find the taking of such a liberty presumptuous and offensive. No doubt this liberty was taken just as similar practices of Christianizing/gentilizing of Jewish things have been done for millenia. Pretty soon you think it's yours instead and handle it as if it were. Do your own writings not tell you that it is YOU who are the graft? And not to boast yourself above the natural vine?