andrewcriddle

The T12P certainly drew on earlier Jewish sources.

What I'm doubtful about is whether material in the T12P whose earliest known parallels seem to be with Christian ideas, (eg 30 coins for the betrayal of Joseph in the Testament of Gad), can be used as evidence for pre-Christian Jewish tradition.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Neusner's doubts about the pre-70 CE nature of material in the Mishnah are not based on scepticism about the accuracy of oral transmission of Mishnaic material.

Neusner's argument (simplified) is that:
a/ Certain types of attribution in the Mishnah, eg attribution to the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, are not reliable historical evidence because of their prima-facie polemical function in debates that can on other grounds be linked to the second century CE.
b/ The claim, popular among conservative Jews, that unattributed Mishnah traditions are usually old is generally unfounded, much of the unattributed traditions occurs in a context of debates that can be linked to attributed traditions mostly post 70 CE.
c/ When you remove i/ material attributed to the houses and similar, and ii/ unattributed tradition with no genuine claims to early status, the great majority of the Mishnah and Tosefta appears as clearly post-70 CE material (Most of this being post-135 CE.)

I'm not sure if we can take this much further unless you give specific instances of material that Neusner dates after 70 CE which you regard as probably older.

Neusner's hostility to Morton Smith may be related to Morton Smith's efforts to publicize and distribute the posthumously published hostile review by Saul Lieberman of Neusner's work. See Lieberman on Jacob_Neusner

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

In Studying classical Judaism: a primer (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), Jacob Neusner has this to say about the Historical-Critical method:

The Bankruptcy of Historical-Critical Method

No primer on the study of formative Judaism can ignore the way in which historical studies are carried forward. It is the simple fact that, outside of a very small circle, historical-critical method in the study of Judaism and the history of the Jews in late antiquity is typified by the New Testament scholar and the older and younger scholars of the Jews and their religion whom I have cited here [Lawrence Schiffman, Helmut Koester, Shaye Cohen, etc]. Numerous others can have supplied still more striking examples of what can only be called intellectual bankruptcy. It is not as though alternatives have not been laid before the scholarly world. …

A paradigm shift such as I have claimed has taken place [mainly through Neusner's own work over the previous 15 years] is marked by a fresh range of questions, deriving from a different perception of the evidence and what it tells us. That shift further redefines what is at stake in the very enterprise of learning. The movement from a historical to a religious-historical reading of the same sources has taken place … . If the historical gullibility of the study of Judaism, its positivism and naïve notion that we know exactly what happened, have not been found an honorable place in a museum for ancient notions, the results, as we have seen, prove not very compelling. Not only so, but interest in this sort of information wanes, as we begin to see much more engaging questions emerging. Reading the sources as holy books, which portray a religious system, produces more interesting results -- so many have concluded – than reading those same sources for such information as they give us about precisely what is going on in the time to which those sources refer.

So, it looks like Neusner has no faith in the abiity of the historian to retreive from texts written well after the age they refer to any reliable information about historical events, much less information that will allow us to impute motive or strategy to specific figures and parties described, and as such, these documents' value lies in their ability to edify us in the form of "holy books, which portray a religious system."

This is, coincidentally, the position of many conservative Christians, principally fundamentalist evangelicals, when it comes to the bible and early christian literature. The name fo this type of criticism is "reader response" criticism, a subset of postmodern lit-crit.
Ironically conservative Jews, such as Orthodox Jews, don't like him either, mainly because Neusner takes this position to the point that he denies that we can know concretely that events preserved in Jewish tradition actually happened at all. Wha is important is the story and how we react to it today. Conservative Christians just like the part about dissing the historical-critics, but go on merrily believing everything in scripture is literally true.

And worse yet, this is all off-topic.

DCH

andrewcriddle

Hi Dave

I agree this is very much off-topic (though I found it interesting).

I'll just add that Neusner's increased doubts about the Historical-Critical method may be related to him now working primarily with the Talmuds. Previously he worked primarily with Mishnah and Tosefta. I believe he found problems in applying to the Talmuds the methods he used to distinguish early and late traditions in the Mishnah.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

So Christians were falsifying Jewish sources to reflect Christian doctrines? :notworthy:

So you are citing the presense of the 30 coin betrayal of Joseph in TGad to indicate that the 30 coin betrayal of Joseph in TGad is doubful. :constern01:

Jake

Godless Raven

Brian Flemming talks about "Hero's" and the commonology of the stories behind "The Hero" in history. The language was pretty specific from my memory. So do you think Thor, Baldr and Baal should be considered Hero's in their stories?

I've seen this film probably a dozen times, and I think it's bloody brilliant.

p.s. - I deny the holy ghost.

No Robots

Thomas Carlyle has an excellent treatment of the Norse gods in his On Heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

Are you doubting that there is a substantial Christian element in the T12P as a whole, or are you just defending the pre-Christian origin of this specific passage ?

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Christians falsified and forged all manner of documents, so it is entirely possible that they accused Judah (the patronym for the Jews) of embezzling the 10 extra coins. Judas is the Greek form of Judah, so you can see where this was going. (Origen, Matthew Commentary, XI.9)

badger3k

"Smelter" makes a bit of sense if the coins were to be destroyed (melted down), or else were to be used to a statue or other item for the temple (oil lamp, etc). Of course, thirty small coins would be very little silver, but that interpretation can be, ahem, thrown into the lot. :wave:

I'd have to agree that the idea of another deity in the temple is a bit unlikely, unless this is a relic of earlier polytheism that didn't get fully erased.