seeker

Thanks Sharon. Do you have any opinions on my theory?

Layman

It can be a misnomer to refer to "Second Temple Judaism" when I am actually talking about Second Temple Judaisms. To say that Judaism has not changed since the destruction of the Second Temple is very naive. That is not to say that there is no continuity. Of course there is. Rabbnic Judaism is an offshoot of Pharisaism.

But saying that the "oral Torah" was as important to all Jewish branches during the first century is simply wrong. Are we to believe that the Sadducee sect which rejected ALL Jewish scripture except the first five books are the same as today's Orthodox Jews? I hardly think so. Or how about the Essenes? We just found many of their scriptures in the last century. How can it be argued that they represent modern Judaism?

This "theory" of Seeker's is an agenda in search of a foundation. While he may have put some thought into it, he has put little research into it.

sharon45

There is no such thing as "Judaisms", only Judaism and different sects within. Judaism is the belief in which
Jews understand that the Tanach is from G-d and is basicly unchanged since the beginning and if you want to call that "naive", you are free to do so, but that is the belief. Besides just stating opinions and "name dropping", you have yet to show any real evidence to have a point, so it might as well be seen as a belief and that you did little research as well.

In reference to the destruction of the Temple, passages from Hosea, 1 Kings, and Ezekiel talk about this subject giving what Jews are to do without a Temple and while in exile.

Layman

Name dropping? Who? By using the actual names of the various Jewish sects? How can I discuss the "real evidence" if I have to ignore the different beliefs of first-century Jews?

You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that I am attacking Judaism. I am not. I am responding to the allegation that because Christianity lacks something purportedly in modern Judaism that it must be a completely Greek phenomenon. Obviously, this contention is silly given the diversity of Jewish belief in the first century. I don't care if you call it sects or Judaisms, the Essenes and Sadduccees were very different than the Pharisees, who were the forerunners of modern Judaism.

Were the Sadduccees not really Jews and entirely the product of Greek influence because they did not believe in any scripture but the first five books of the OT? Of course not. In fact, it can be argued that Christianity is more like Pharisee sect than the Sadduccees were like the Pharisees.

Do you dispute any of this? Do you know about the different sects of first cenuty Judaism?

seeker

Layman - I admit that my theory hasn't yet been researched. Part of my reason for beginning this thread was to get some ideas of how to research this notion. What better place to start than with other people interested in the subject of the origins of Christianity?

My entire theory is based on the fact that christianity really isn't very Jewish. What branch of Judaism ever was so willing to adopt pagan ritual? Almost all of the mythology surrounding christianity, even early on, has more relation to pagan myth than Jewish myth.

Layman

I have little time to waste on someone who admits they do not yet know what they are talking about.

seeker

Then by all means don't waste it. I'm sure there are many better things you could be doing.

Baidarka

Hi Seeker
Like the Torah the NT is a layered text. Even with in the text of the Gospels Bible scholars are finding distinct layers. Luke and Mathew each share most of Mark, their own individual texts and a sayings document called Q. Q is supposed to record the oral sayings of Jesus. Some Jewish scholars believe that Q contains genuine rabbinic sayings. Much of Q parallels the saying of great Jewish sage Hillel.
David Stern wrote the “Parables in Midrash� (Harvard University Press) in which he claims the Parables of Jesus as genuine examples of 1st century Jewish oral wisdom.

Seeker -“I can point to examples in the New Testament to show that Jesus could not have known about the Oral Torah even though it predates the Torah.�


I don’t understand what you mean by Oral Torah here. The Oral Law (The Talmud) is Biblical commentary written long after the Torah. I think that perhaps you are referring to a theory that the Torah itself started as chanted songs passed down through many generations until it was finally written down in the Torah text. This theory might be true of some of the older biblical Poems like “The Song at the Sea�
I believe that you are right about many layers of the NT texts which are very foreign to Jewish thought but I think that the oldest strands of the NT are definitely Jewish.

seeker

Baidarka - Actually the roots of he Oral Torah are somewhat murky. A Jew would claim that the Oral Torah predates the Torah. If you go through the Torah you see many times when sentances end with the words "as God commanded" which seem to point to another set of instructions.

The legend is that the Oral Torah is the explanation straight from God of everything in the Torah. It consists of several books including the Mishanah and the Talmud. I tend to think it came later and was simply a way for the priesthood to preserve their exclusivity over the word of God.

In either case The Oral Torah was a staple of Jewish culture well before the whole Jesus myth came along. Some claim it was a big part of the rift between Pharisee and Sadducee, the Sadducees largely rejecting it.

What I am suggesting is that it's complete absence from Christian tradition, along with other aspects of Christianity, is decidedly un-Jewish. Even the Sadducees didn't completely reject the Oral Torah. I think it's more likely that christianity began among people who had no notion of the idea of an Oral Torah, the Romans.

They simply attached myths common to many of the ubiquitous mystery cults to the Torah and hung those myths around a combination of the many crucified Jewish "Messiahs" who had popped up over the century between about 50BCE to 50CE. This would explain some of the many anomalies christianity brings to the table might have come about.

For example, the Jews were very inflexible about the central tenets of their religion. One of the big difficulties I've always had with the traditional view of christian origens is that Jews would never have given up their status as a chosen people of God. A more likely possibility is that a Roman who studied Judaism a bit might have adopted that "chosen" status.