Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-07-2010, 01:54 PM

I think the Samaritans have a similar conception in the writings of Marqe. It should be noted that in Judaism Jacob eventually emerges as God - or a heavenly hypostasis - sitting at the top of the heavenly ladder watching the angels go up and down.

Petergdi · 09-07-2010, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Didache is not an apocalypse, Jewish or otherwise. It appears to be in the nature of a community order used by early Jews converted to a form of Christianity which would be considered heretical today. It deals with matters of church governance, ritual and interestingly the evaluation of itinerant teachers. It looks to be the product of a Christian community much closer to the original Judaism than any I know of today but still Christian.

Steve

I think you are right that it is written by Jewish Christians, but it seems to be written for new congregations which include gentiles. The instructions on food - do what you are are able, but be careful to avoid meat offered to idols because it is the worship of dead gods - would certainly seem to be directed towards gentiles.

What exactly do you think is heretical (by today's standards) in the Didache?

Peter.

Juststeve · 09-08-2010, 04:56 AM

Peter:

The omission of the Pauline notion of justification by faith is heretical. This seems to be a community that is still sufficiently Jewish to believe one becomes right with God by avoiding evil and doing good deeds. Most modern Christian would deny that you can be right with God on that basis, or on any basis other than by faith in Jesus.

Steve

Doug Shaver · 09-08-2010, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Could this letter have originated as some sort of pseudegraphic letter written not by the James of Christianity, but intended to be the James who was the namesake of Israel?

It's possible.

I think it most probable that it was written by some Christian whose name actually was James, but not the same James as any of the others mentioned in the New Testament (none of which, incidentally, he actually claims to be).

PhilosopherJay · 09-08-2010, 07:49 AM

Hi Steve,

I think that faith is the default position, and that is why Philo has to argue for works or "practice" in opposition to it. I'll try and find more quotes to back this up. I have teach three classes today, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow, unless someone else wants to dig up something.

In the meantime, the fact that Jacob is especially associated with the position that works brings salvation in Philo and in the epistle by James (Jacob) seems unlikely to be a coincidence. If the epistle was originally a Jewish epistle where Jacob the Jewish Patriarch was writing, the coincidence would disappear.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Jay:

Where in these three quotes does Philo contrast works with faith or even so much as suggest that faith could substitute for works? I don't see it. Do you?

All I see in these quotes is the oft stated proposition that one earns favor from God by avoiding evil and doing good works.

Steve

Juststeve · 09-08-2010, 10:58 AM

Jay:

As you think about this remember that while faith is the default position for Christians it is not for Jews. That's why there are righteous people in the Hebrew Bible who are not even Jews. They are righteous because they avoid evil and do good. It is only Christianity that insists that righteousness flow from faith in Jesus. It is this that makes Christianity so ethically objectionable.

I would also add that trying to understand Judaism by reading Philo is probably a waste of effort. Instead of calling Philo a Jewish Philosopher it is probably better to call him a Philosopher who happens to be a Jew. He is not one who would speak for the Jewish comminity, I would look to Rabinical sources for that.

Steve

aa5874 · 09-08-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

...I would also add that trying to understand Judaism by reading Philo is probably a waste of effort. Instead of calling Philo a Jewish Philosopher it is probably better to call him a Philosopher who happens to be a Jew. He is not one who would speak for the Jewish comminity, I would look to Rabinical sources for that.

Steve

But it is EXTREMELY important to try to understand those who "happen to be Jews" before the Fall of the Temple and during the supposed time of Jesus of Galilee.

It so happens that there are two Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus that cover virtually the ENTIRE 1st century.

Now, it must be NOTED that Philo was ONE who SPOKE for the Jewish community of Alexandria during the reign of Caligula.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 18.8.1

Quote:

...1. THERE was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Caius................... But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations...

Philo MUST have understood something about Judaism during the time of Caligula. He just happened to be a Jew.

Petergdi · 09-08-2010, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Peter:

The omission of the Pauline notion of justification by faith is heretical.

The Didache doesn't mention a lot of things. It is rather short, and it concentrates on conduct. The Didache has quite a bit in common with Matthew, and Matthew has JbF running right through it. (For instance: look at how much Matthew makes of the kurios/doulos relationship and his emphasis on the cost of this faith-relationship.)

The Didache doesn't mention anything about Jesus's death either, but I don't think it is a safe assumption that the author is unaware that Jesus died or even that he lacks a theology which makes it important. It may just be that it is outside the scope of the work.

Peter.

mountainman · 09-09-2010, 05:34 AM

Did the Christian's transform pagan literature to "Christian" literature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

... it was very easy to transform a pagan handbook into a Christian one, but almost impossible to make pagan what had been Christian. ..... the Origo Constantini imperatoris is a beautiful example of a short pagan work which, was made Christian by the simple addition of a few passages. The Christians could easily take it over because of the relatively neutral character of the original text.

source

Another classic example is found at Nag Hammadi the Sophia of Jesus Christ

How to fabricate the Sophia of Jesus Christ in Three Easy Steps

This is a purposeful explicit reconstruction of how Christian literature came into existence. As if they were sequentially presenting a geometrical treatise of Euclid, the editors of the NHC present three different versions of the one source text.

In the first instance a book called “Eugnostos the Blessed” (Eugnostos means "Right Thinking") is written by scribal hand at NHC 3.3.

It is then repeated a second time at NHC 5.1, with one small addition ... "The first aeon, then, is that of Immortal Man. The second aeon is that of Son of Man, who is called 'First Begetter' (and in Codex 5.1; "who is called 'Savior'" is added). Thus, the second version is exactly the same as the first version but with the addition of one phrase – namely "who is called 'Savior'.

Finally at NHC 3.4, the tract entitled "The Sophia of Jesus Christ" is a "Christianized" and redacted form of the original Eugnostos the Blessed. In other words, the editor of the NHC is perhaps setting out the modus operandi by which non-Christian wisdom was "Christianized".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Epistle of James is generally viewed as Jewish with a few Christian add ons.

Epistle_of_James

Quote:

The Interpreter's Bible calls James "... a Christian revision of a Jewish work." [The Interpreter's Bible Vol XII] p. 21 James' epistle is so Jewish that Adam Clarke[9] cites Talmudic sources for nearly every verse. The Interpreters' Bible posits a preexistent Jewish "Book of Jacob" adapted to a Christian audience; rather than point out Jewish antecedents, it highlights the less numerous Christian accretions.

"In the last decade of the nineteenth century … a French scholar" [L. Massebieau] "and a German scholar," [Friedrich Spitta] "working wholly independently, published almost simultaneously conclusions that were identical. Both maintained that the epistle was originally a purely Jewish writing which has been converted into a Christian work by an editor who merely added 'and of the Lord Jesus Christ' in 1:1 and 'our Lord Jesus Christ' in 2:1. Both writers stressed in support of their theory the extraordinarily difficult grammatical problem offered by the Greek genitives in 2:1 … a problem solved at once by the theory of the interpolation. And they argued further that if this interpolation is accepted, a corresponding interpolation in 1:1 may be inferred; especially since 1:1, as it now reads, contains language unique in the New Testament… Then, since these two occurrences of 'Jesus Christ' are the only explicit Christian terms in the letter, the remainder, they argued, not only represented a use of Jewish tradition, but was Jewish tradition and nothing else.

…
"… a generation later Arnold Meyer … [n]oting that in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, ‘James’ and ‘Jacob’ are the same word,… saw that if the Christian ‘interpolation’ in 1:1 was recognized as such, the original opening words could be read "Jacob, a servant of God, to the twelve tribes in the dispersion: Greeting.’… And for a letter from Jacob to the ‘twelve tribes’ a well-known biblical precedent was provided by Gen." [Genesis] "49, where Jacob addresses the ‘ancestor’ of each tribe in turn…. Meyer undertook to demonstrate that similar references to the twelve tribes can be detected in James …

"But even if Meyer is correct in his contention that a 'Letter of Jacob' forms the basis of James, it by no means follows that he is equally correct in contending that the former can be recovered by eliminating minimal Christian additions in 1:1; 2:1; 5:12; and 5:14. He seems vastly to have underestimated the contributions of the Christian editor. This appears most vividly in the long section 2:14-26 on the relative value of faith and works. … Not only is the general trend of the argument in 2:14-26 one impossible in Judaism, but the details of its wording show that the argument is directed against a non-Jewish opponent – an opponent who can be identified definitely as Paul… Only one conclusion appears to be possible: 2:14-26 was written not by a Jew, but by a Christian.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2010, 01:54 PM	#11
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think the Samaritans have a similar conception in the writings of Marqe. It should be noted that in Judaism Jacob eventually emerges as God - or a heavenly hypostasis - sitting at the top of the heavenly ladder watching the angels go up and down.

09-08-2010, 04:56 AM	#13
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Peter: The omission of the Pauline notion of justification by faith is heretical. This seems to be a community that is still sufficiently Jewish to believe one becomes right with God by avoiding evil and doing good deeds. Most modern Christian would deny that you can be right with God on that basis, or on any basis other than by faith in Jesus. Steve

09-08-2010, 10:58 AM	#16
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Jay: As you think about this remember that while faith is the default position for Christians it is not for Jews. That's why there are righteous people in the Hebrew Bible who are not even Jews. They are righteous because they avoid evil and do good. It is only Christianity that insists that righteousness flow from faith in Jesus. It is this that makes Christianity so ethically objectionable. I would also add that trying to understand Judaism by reading Philo is probably a waste of effort. Instead of calling Philo a Jewish Philosopher it is probably better to call him a Philosopher who happens to be a Jew. He is not one who would speak for the Jewish comminity, I would look to Rabinical sources for that. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.