Rick Sumner

The rise of Christianity is more or less framed on one end by the DSS, and the other by the Mishnah, since both of these mention the same issue, we could call it a "hot topic."

This needn't be the case, however, we also find mention in the DSS, the NT, and the Mishnah of what to do with the lamb that falls into a pit on the Sabbath, which, it seems to me, isn't likely to be a hot topic to anyone who didn't raise sheep. It might be more apt to suggest that the Law in general was always a hot topic in Jewish antiquity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

So the topic doesn't really suggest a specific dating and it was a "popular" enough controversy that a real Jesus may very well have mentioned it or a Christian author may have felt he would/should have. And Peter doesn't see it as relevant enough to Paul for him to necessarily have mentioned it had he known it.

Thanks for the info.

Wallener

Divorce was a highly contentious issue in The Day, with Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai coming down on opposite ends of the spectrum in the century preceeding BJ. Interestingly, where much of the BJ commentary sounds like warmed-over Hillelisms, on this issue the comments are in line with Shammai. From that perspective, it suggests the divorce-related passages are a later addition to the Christian texts.

Rick Sumner

What argument would you suggest for the primacy of the Mishnah's account on this matter? How firmly can we suggest that the oral tradition here is authentically pre-Pauline? In either event, how does that make it a late addition? If the Mishnah is based on an earlier oral tradition, then it is likely that Paul likewise drew from that oral tradition. If the Mishnah is later, then you have a rather widely attested tradition in the NT, which indicates that it is the Mishnah that borrowed, and not the converse.

Why would you suggest, allowing for such primacy, that Paul, a self-described Pharisee, would not be familiar with it? Were such debates restricted from everyone else ever hearing about them? That would rather defeat the purpose.

Given that the DSS comes down rather firmly on Jesus' side of the issue (let no man separate, yada yada yada), wouldn't that point strongly to the converse? That is, would it not indicate that this position precludes the authorship of the gospels (an undeniable fact), and subsequently precludes your argument for late interpolation?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

"precludes the authorship of the gospels". . .wow, that's pitiable even for my error prone fingers.

Precedes, rather.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Wallener

Entirely possible. The difference for me is that I'm fairly confident I have an appreciation for who put together the Mishna, whereas I'm not certain Paul even existed, much less if he wrote anything attributed to him. And I am very very sceptical of the claim attributed to Paul that he was a Pharisee.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr points out that Jesus rewrote the food laws in chapter 7 and 9 chapters go by without anyone challenging him on this topic. Similarly, 6 chapters go by after rewriting the divorce laws.

Rick Sumner

The entire discourses with the Pharisees on the Law are unrealistic, with the Pharisees silenced by Jesus' wise answers. That sounds suspiciously like a Markan redaction technique--it's certainly too consistent an occurrence to suggest it is grounds to consider a passage interpolated.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I can even allow this for our purposes here. The fact remains that the earliest witness to the position held in the gospels--right down to the scriptural citation Mark uses to back it up--is attested long before the Mishnah, the Rabbis, or the New Testament--in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The evidence of dating does not support your hypothesis that it is a later interpolation, on the contrary, it suggests that both the Rabbis and the NT are borrowing from an earlier tradition.

How would you propose to know what exactly a Pharisee was?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Avery

I am interested in the concept that "Jesus rewrote the food laws". Perhaps that is based on the alexandrian text, (which I view as woefully corrupt, as discussed elsewhere, as in the "country of the Gadarenes" discussion) and not the historic text. Could you give the precise verses involved ? Preferably in the historic text (Tyndale, Geneva, King James Bible, Textus Receptus) Thanks.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/