stephan huller

I don't want to rehash the usual questions about the 'historical Jesus' versus the 'mythical Jesus.' My question is rather simple. For those who believe in the historical Jesus, how is it possible that no religious pedigree is mentioned for Jesus? This has always puzzled me. If Jesus was a Jewish 'teacher' he must belonged to a school. Why is this not mentioned? Surely someone would have known someone who taught Jesus how to interpret the Torah. Hans Dieter Betz claims in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus was reinterpreting the Torah rather than promulgating a new law The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (or via: amazon.co.uk). But I can't think of a single example of someone learning Biblical exegesis 'on their own' - working things out in a cave or on a mountain top - wholly divorced from an established school of thought. Everything that we know about Samaritanism and Judaism tell us that there were established schools of exegesis. Is it really possible that someone just 'invented' ideas on their own? I know the heretics are always presented as working this way, but I think this is little more than propaganda.

Given that I can't think of an example of someone just 'making shit up' and being received favorably by the Jewish people, I can only conclude that (a) the gospel narratives inaccurately portray the circumstances of the reception of the message of an historical Jesus or (b) the narrative developed from the idea of Jesus as a god. Is there any reason for thinking otherwise?

semiopen

I was sure I posted something on this in the Ilan Ziv thread but was surprised not to have seen it this morning, but maybe it is more suitable here.

The Galileans were Itureans until 105 BCE or so when Aristobulis I conquered the area and force converted the people to Judaism, possibly involving forced circumcision.

This is amazing because there are apparently no hard feelings. These guys weren't that far from Judea and had apparently no interest in the religion prior to the annexation.

Outhouse's favorite city of Sepphoris even gets one of the five Sanhedrins in the country. Which in itself leads to all kinds of questions. To me it suggests that they weren't religious bodies for example. Also figuring that other than Jerusalem every place else had to have been a shithole, this gets a little puzzling.

One obvious conclusion is that there was some migration of Jews to Sepphoris -

Anyway, it seems that Jesus might not have been all that Jewish.

Duvduv

Where exactly is the indication that the Jews living in Galilee in the first century CE with the gospel story backdrop were descendants of gentiles originating from the Bekaa Valley and Lebanon who migrated to the Galilee and converted a century or so earlier under the Hasmoneans rather than native Jews who lived in the Galilee among gentiles??

I have not found any reference in the Talmud to the notion that the Jewish population living in the Galilee were specifically descendants of converts as opposed to Jews not descended from converts.

Anyway, here is a downloadable article that touches on the subject:
http://www.academia.edu/2383453/JOHN...dition_of_2006
And another article:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6475-galilee

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

You seem to suggest that the sophisticated exegesis in the Sermon without identification of a specific Jewish school of thought disqualifies it from being an historical speech. I do not think this is an historical speech, but I am not sure if there is any exegesis here.

The sermon in Matthew (chapters 5, 6 and 7) takes about ten minutes to recite. If we put in pauses after each line, we get a total of twenty minutes. Despite its short length, it does not cover a single issue or just a few issues. It jumps all over the place.

It is a feel-good speech. The poor and oppressed will be rich and blessed. Jesus gives no specifics whatsoever, and doesn't propose any real changes to solve any real problems at all. It does not address any specific problems or name any individuals. It is a generalized political speech in the "Vote for me and things will get better" vein.

It does attack two Jewish authority groups, the Pharisees and Scribes for being morally lax: "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"

A main point is that just outwardly appearing to follow Jewish laws is not good enough. You have to believe in the spirit of the laws and follow it.

Basically, it is saying that you should trust your own judgement by not listening to any Jews or Jewish scriptures or Jews authorities. Just follow your own moral instincts and trust in your father in heaven.

It is an appeal to conscience.

None of the issues raised show any kind of deep education in Jewish history or laws. There is no indication of any type of knowledge that the average citizen of Judea would not have known.

Only one issue of concrete law gets mentioned:

We can assume that it was relatively easy for men to get certificates of divorce any time they felt angry at their wives or tired of their wives. This must have put wives in a horrible position. At any time they could be divorced -- kicked out of their homes -- by their husbands. Once the divorce was granted, they would have no property and really little chance of making a living except as a prostitute or slave. This is really the only real legal issue that's raised. However, probably most women and a good number of men saw the terrible position that this put women in. Probably it was popular to condemn the easy availability of divorce for men. Jesus is just supporting an already popular cause here. Roman divorces favored the rights of women more, so this can be seen as merely supporting Roman law as against Jewish law in a land where dual law codes were in play. It would not be all that radical to support Roman divorce law which was more generous to wives over more misogynist Jewish divorce law.

So ultimately, the only radical thing we find here is the sermon's general opposition to Jewish authority, or specifically the authority of the Pharisees and Scribes. We can take it that the writers are members of an outlaw Jewish group opposed to the Pharisees and Scribes. The last comment in Chapter 7 really tells the whole story:
The people were astonished that someone who was not an authority in Hebrew Scripture was pretending to be an authority.

The writer seems to be telling us that anybody who delivered such a speech would have been laughed at and kicked out of town.

What we have is an outlaw Jewish group attacking Jewish authority by appealing to Jewish people's consciences. It could have been a speech written by any anti-Pharisee/anti-Jewish Authority outlaw group.

It is certain that if a large group of one or two hundred people had gone all the way to a mountain and listened to this 10-20 minute speech, they would have been sadly disappointed not to hear any of the real issues of the day brought up and only some zealous messages spouted.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Clivedurdle

I have never understood this anti pharisee spiel when they were the radical spirit of the law anti slavery lot! "Scribes and pharisees" is a false joining of two very different groups!

Duvduv

Clive, it would seem that the use of the separate terms is a giveaway that the authors did not know what the context was of these terms or at least the reader would never know or care about the meanings or context, with the impression that they are two kinds of separate groups, whereas presumably the scribes are the rabbis and the generic pharisees are the followers.

John 7:53-8:11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_a...cript_evidence)
Matthew 23:14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...d_Bible_verses
Mark 12:38-40 and Luke 20:45-47.

Minimalist

One wonders how that "Sanhedrin" dealt with this in their midst?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0811072503.htm

Iskander

I have the opposite problem: I cannot understand how anyone could have liked the pharisees



http://www.jewishhistory.org/sadducees-and-pharisees/

Vorkosigan

Well, hard feelings are difficult for some time after circumcision.....

Minimalist

On a more serious note lets not forget that at the beginning of the Great Revolt the good citizens of Sepphoris and Tiberias shut their gates to Josephus and, in the case of Sepphoris, invited Vespasian's tribune Placidius to garrison the town.

Does not sound as if they were overly committed to the cause.