yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (09/26/84)
There are several observations to be drawn from Mr. Wingate's article. 1.) he is clearly interested and thoughtful about these issues as evidenced by his contribution to the net. I salute him for that. 2.) it seems to me that there is an underlying trust in men (experts and theologians) rather than in God and/or the ancient writings. This is so because he has no direct knowledge of those writings and, since knowledge of God is frequently linked to knowledge of these writings, no direct knowledge of God. I am deliberately exaggerating the point in order to show the contrast between trusting God vs.men and between trusting the genuine ancient writings vs. men. I wish to show the contrast in these and then retract any link to Mr. Wingate. In other words, I wish to show this contrast in general without any real reference to Mr. Wingate personally. 3.) It is my feeling that the reader would be thoroughly traumatized if s/he became aware of the feebleness of the "experts" and "real theologians". I've taken the pains bring these issues before chaplains and "real theologians" - and even before some of the leading scholars in the field. In point of fact, these issues are nothing more than a compendium of findings from a number of those leading scholars. The "experts" and "real theologians" sputter, mutter, poo-poo, ignore, fume, rant and change the subject. The scholars will give you a rather bored "yes, there's nothing new there; we all know that". And they are right. Unfortunately, not much filters down through the religious "pseudo-scholar" theologian. I rather take offense that you would suggest I go to them for answers. I spent decades looking for answers. I found pretty much what there is to be found. I certainly would not look to chaplains nor the average theologian for the answer to anything! 4.) Since there have been other requests, I'll append an abridged compendium of the previous articles. 5.) Due to my workload and the interest which has been generated in these issues, I am unable to devote the time to in-depth explanations to every inquiry - particularly when there are thousands of potential questions (there have been more mail inquiries than net articles obviously). I hope everyone will understand that the best I can do frequently is to pose a pertinent question and where to find the answer. How much (and whether) the reader learns will be dependent upon the effort the reader puts into it. At least you will have been afforded the opportunity. I wish I could do more. 6.) Questions/challenges which seem more argumentative than relevant will simply be ignored. Abridged compendium of previous articles follows... Having spent several years translating both the Tanakh and the "New Testament" (more appropriately the writings of the N'tzarim sect of Jews), I'm always amazed at how much confidence is placed in the version ordered and supervised by an anti-semitic Episcopalian king of England. Certainly it should not be astonishing to find that this, and subsequent versions, are sympathetic to the established Christian doctrines. Yet, the earliest mss. such as the codex sinaiticus, vaticanus and various papyrii translate quite differently unless they are strongly colored by first assuming Christian doctrines and then attempting to justify them. If one, rather, simply puts the various passages in harmony, one learns that these early followers of Yeshua were observant Jews some 40 years after the execution of Yeshua - keeping the seventh day Sabbath (while meeting on other days as well and collecting monies on the first day - certainly not Shabbat - as Jews today still do). They even continued to sacrifice in the Temple. Christian doctrines of today originate in the paganism of the Roman Empire - not with the authentic early group of Jewish followers. One should read "The Conlfict Between the Church and the Synagogue" Oxford doctoral thesis (Atheneum Books), "The Church from the Circumcision" by Bagotti (from the Biblical Archaeology Society), and vol 2 of "The Social and Religious History of the Jews" by Baron (Jewish Publ. Society). I would suggest that a good place to begin, if one wants to be knowledgable in this area, would be to define exactly what the Bible is: the KJV? Is it English? Based on the Textus Receptus? Perhaps one might read the section on "Text, NT" in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon, 1962. One of the major problems with citing passages from modern versions is that there it is slanted by so many interpretations from the Roman Empire which were alien to the early N'tzarim sect - are are alien to Judaism today. Relying upon "Christianized" versions promulgates the muddying of the distinction between Christian and Jew - one cannot be both at the same time. (The notion that Jews are merely a race has, I hope, been recognized as falsehood.) Similarly, as the teachings espoused by the early N'tzarim sect are distorted in modern versions, so also is the picture presented of Y'shua. The two different versions present two different pictures: one of an observant and thoroughly Jewish Y'shua and another of a Christian Christ (Jesus). For clarity it is really necessary to distinguish whether one is speaking of Y'shua or Jesus - they are so diametrically different (Y'shua teaching Torah in synagogues to Jews while Jesus came and freed everyone from the Jewish law of sin, the observance of which causes one to lose one's salvation - one Torah- observant, the other antinomian.) We're talking about a figure (Jesus) who differs considerably between the historical figure (Yeshua or Y'shua) and the (mythical) image created of him later by pagans of the Roman Empire (the Christian Jesus). It seems to me that we are inundated with "instant experts" who have all the answers, yet in reality cannot even tell you WHAT the Bible is - much less quote the first word of it! Do you recog- nize the KJV by an anti-semitic medeival Christian king of England? Is that the Bible? Is it the textus receptus by the medeival Catholic Church. These have little to do with the N'tzarim sect of Jews of 2 millenia ago. And the interpretations have been dras- tically distorted and perverted in the interim. But you wouldn't know that unless you had learned to translate greek and hebrew for yourself and translated it for yourself as I did. If you will read the texts recommended in the other article you will have a little better basis for understanding what I'm talking about. These writings were deliberately twisted over the centuries to conform to the prevailing evolution of Christian dogma - see The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Text NT by Abingdon (at least in the old edition). Before you set off telling the world the way, you should educate yourself about your way rather than taking the word of your co-religionists. In fact, the way you point is toward a mythical image conceived in the paganism of the Roman Empire which is diametrically antithetical to the historical figure. Thus, if Y'shua is the messiah then Jesus is the contra- messiah or antichrist. Y'shua taught Torah in synagogues while Jesus died to save the world from the Jewish law of sin and death. The historical N'tzarim sect which followed Y'shua kept the Sabbath and even offerred sacri- fices in the Temple until the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. The heretical evolution of Christianity didn't get rolling well until 110 CE when the N'tzarim leader- ship was booted out of Jerusalem with the other Jews and the first gentile "bishop" was installed (and has remained gentile ever since). You have every right to practice Christianity if you want, but I don't think you should disguise it in a mantle of pseudo-scholarship.