Gudjonsson

I am now reading the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, by Robert Price. Price talks about the subject of this thread briefly in pages 254-256 (maybe elsewhere too, I have not finished the book yet). Here is what he has to say summarized, sometimes by my own words – sometimes I quote, than I use quotation marks.

In Matthew, Jesus is the new Torah. His teachings are divided into 5 blocks, just like the pentateuch. 1. The Sermon on the Mount (5-7). 2. The Mission Charge(10). 3. The Parables(13). 4. The Manual of Discipline/Community Rule(18). 5. The Diatribe against the Pharisees/Olivet Discourse(23-25).

All the sections end in a similar fashion: And when Jesus finished these sayings… (7:28), And when Jesus Had finished instructing…(11:1), And when Jesus had finished these parables… (13:53), When Jesus had finished all these sayings… (19:1), When Jesus had finished all these sayings… (26:1)

Price says: “This new Torah is in no way intended to replace the traditional one.” The gospel of Matthew “belongs to a … genre of contemporary documents that provide a sort of ‘new edition’ of the old Torah.” Examples cited by Price are Book of Jubilees and Qumran Manuel of Discipline.

In Matt. 5:17-19 Matthew expands the Q source by adding these sentences: Do not think I came to abolish the Scriptures; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill them. AND: So whoever relaxes one of the least (important) of these commandments and teaches others (to do) so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

Now I will quote Price again: “The saying fits perfectly into the context of the Gentile Mission and the Pauline debate over the Torah” … “The same goes for Matthew’s homiletical expansion of the Q saying, just so no one misses the implication: no one is to go around, like Paul, teaching that Jesus came to abolish scripture so that some commandments are no longer binding. The context in life of this saying, too, is clearly that of early Christian debate, trying to invoke Jesus to rule on an issue he had never actually addressed, since, if he had, no debate would have subsequently arisen on the point”

Price says that the Matthean Antitheses (Matt. 5:21-48), do not be angry, do not look lustfully on women, do not make a vow, are a “hedge around the Torah” (and therefore he is not at all undermining the Law like Lutherans/Protestants sometimes think).

This makes sense to me. An example of “hedge around the Torah” I can remember is that Jews will not pronounce the name of Yahweh/Jehova in order not to accidentally take his name in vain. You will not murder, commit an adultery, or break a vow, if you will not be angry, not look lustfully at women, and not make a vow at all.

“If one can cut off the motive that leads to sin, one will not have to worry about breaking the commandment itself.”

Concerning the “hedge around the Torah” thing, “the old rabbis give three of the same examples: murder, adultery, oaths”

On other occasions Jesus is correcting wrong understanding of the Law, and providing a better understanding, but he is not abolishing anything from Scripture, au contraire!

In Pharisaism there had been made a “distinction between mere goodness and … and superior holiness”

“Another piece of rabbinic logic underlies the other three Matthean Antitheses, namely the willingness to forego what is permitted one by the Torah” (This is the difference between those who are merely good, and those who are super holy in rabbinic litterature)

“By the same token, Matt 5:38-39 has Jesus advise forgoing one’s due access to the lex talionis, the law of retaliation, ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’”

Gudjonsson

Why Nordic people think alike! I agree 100%

XOVER

Isn't this thread simply more evidence that Pauline Christianity is completely different from Jesus Christianity? IE, they are essentially different religions? One based on works. One based on faith?

Malachi151

To address both of these.

First you have to provide a good reason to think that what is written in the Gospel of Matthew is representative of "teachings of Jesus".

I suggest reading my article on the Gospel(s):

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

You may want to skip down to the section "Development of the Other Gospels".

BH

Dear Julian,

This post piqued my interest.

Do you know where I could go to find out what the differences were, at least what ancient writers at least said they were?

Chris Weimer

ECW: Gospel of the Ebionites.

Clouseau

I don't that it can be that before someone answers the question in #27.

Magdlyn

Fact: Jews have never thought the Torah applied to anyone but Jews. Their God, Yahweh, made Torah for them, not for the goyim.

The blathering in Matt about whether the Law should apply to Gentiles was about Gentiles who wished to convert to Judaism, in this case a form of Phariseeism led by "Jesus."

But soon, Judaism and this offshoot cult later called Christianity, diverged.

Jews stress the only law that applies to Gentiles (goyim) is the Noahide law, which is restated in the Acts of the Apostles.

You shall not make for yourself an idol.
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not commit adultery.
Revere God and do not blaspheme.
Do not eat the flesh of an animal while it is still alive.
You shall set up an effective government to police the preceding six laws.

(A bit off topic: it is actually forbidden by the Talmud for non-Jews to observe the Torah's 613 mitzvot!)

Jesus appears to be a Hillelian Pharisee, and his (a-historical) complaints against the "Pharisees" are to be read as the conflict between Hillelian Pharisees and Shammaian Pharisees, 2 proto-rabbinic groups of the day.

Clouseau

Not so:

'See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."' Dt 4:5-6 NIV

Anyone could become a Jew, and there were many proselytes, particularly after the diaspora.

But this debate is about whether Mosaic Law applies to anyone now.

Magdlyn

That says absolutely nothing about whether goyim should follow the 613 mitzvot. It just suggests that the goyim will be impressed with the Hebrew peoples' conduct.

There were some "proselytes." "Many" might be stretching it a bit. But unless you were a Jew, born as one or a convert, the Torah did not apply to you. My point stands.

Right, and as I also said, it applies to no one but Jews. (And of course, many of the mitzvot concern temple sacrifice, and no longer even apply to the Jews.)

We could go round and round forever on "what Jesus said" on this topic, reading various things, and shading nuances, into verses. The fact, from a rational POV (which we strive for here amongst skeptics) is that, no one knew what the hell to tell the Godfearers, and so the gospels just reflect the confusion and arguments between camps. Whether Jesus ever actually said anything on the subject is moot and can be discarded (unless you are unlucky enough to be a Xtian and need to figure out a way to make it all fit).