Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-16-2004, 01:26 PM

I don't have all my references here, but google has this:

From here

Quote:

Normative Judaism

Normative refers to what subsequent Jewish tradition considered legitimate and normative (See Avot chapter 1 and subsequent tradition - Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, Geonim etc[2].) It implies no value judgment on the historical legitimacy, sincerity, piety or morality of the likely majority of Jews of every period who lived outside of the retrospectively blessed �normative� tradition. Thus the Sadducees, Essenes, Apocalyptic Jews, Pharisees, Zealots and others were all developments of earlier Jewish tradition. However, all of these, except the Pharisees, were retrospectively rendered �non-normative� by later rabbinic tradition which was the only Jewish tradition to survive. This is not at all dissimilar to the approach of the Deuteronomistic History in the late First Temple of Exilic period. Put another way, normative refers to the Rabbinic literary tradition which remained normative in Rabbinic circles until the beginning of the 19th century, and in traditional circles, until the present.

It is interesting to note that:

Josephus, a Pharisee, described the Pharisees as being few in number but with a strong following among the people;
There are only a few hundred rabbis mentioned in the Mishnah and Talmuds;
Roman-Byzantine period synagogue mosaics in Galilee, synagogue art in Dura-Europos, Jewish magic bowls from southern Mesopotamia and Hellenistic Jewish literature indicate that the majority of Jews had, at most, only one foot in the �normative� tradition

From here (on the role of women)

Quote:

. . . In recent years, largely because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a clearer perception of Judaism in the time of Jesus has developed, a perception which would call such a simple conclusion into question. Before the discovery of the scrolls it was much more usual to assume that the Judaism of Jesus' time was a fairly uniform phenomenon, dominated by the teaching of the scribe rabbis (perhaps: Pharisaic scribes), who were the forebears of the rabbis who wrote the Talmud and Midrash. Their teaching was much the same as that of the later rabbis. It was known that other forms of Judaism existed in the period before the uprising against Rome, and that there was some question as to how far back it was possible to attribute a Mishanaic opinion, but the idea of "normative Judaism" as reconstructed through rabbinic material had a strong hold and often controlled the discussion of Jesus and his relations to Judaism.

It is much clearer now that Judaism before 70 A.D. was a variegated phenomenon, and that the Pharisees were only one sect among a number, although they were the strongest.(14) The Pharisees were opposed not only by the Sadducees, but by groups as spiritually strong and respected as the Qumran community. Movements like that of John the Baptist could grow even in opposition to the Pharisees and still be enthusiastically supported by the people. In fact, the am ha-aretz, the 11 people of the land" who did not follow the law in a way that was acceptable to the Pharisees, often included prominent and respected people not attached to any particular sect in Judaism. Possibly many of the scribes would not have accepted Pharisaic interpretations of laws such as those regarding purity and tithing. Finally, the influence of the Pharisees was probably weakest in Galilee-Jesus' own area. In short, it is clearer now that the fact that Jesus did not follow the ways of Pharisaic scribe-rabbis is only one consideration in evaluating his relation to the approach(es) of the Judaism of his time.

Moreover, there is the further question of just how much the material in the Talmud and Midrash clearly illustrates the approach of the scribe-rabbis of Jesus' time. Some of the material that reflects the approach ascribed above to the rabbis in the area of men's and women's roles is attributed to rabbis of the period before 70 A.D. However, most of this material comes from rabbis after that time. In 70 A.D., the upheaval caused by the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, the Temple, and the sacrificial system caused a break in the approach of the scribal-rabbinic tradition. Thus, it is not always clear how much of the teaching, even in the earlier Micirashim, can be attributed to the period before 70 A.D. This might be particularly true for customs concerning the roles of men and women. After 70 A.D. a greater strictness was introduced into rabbinic customs and a greater strictness in regard to the roles of men and women could easily be another illustration of the same trend. Moreover, many of the customs cited above are not found directly in the law, nor are they decisions interpretive of laws; hence they were probably freer to change.(15)

capnkirk · 02-16-2004, 03:39 PM

Thank you Toto.

It will take some time to fully digest what you have posted, but I will carefully evaluate it, especially that part having to do with the Pharisees, since reasonableness the gospel depiction of the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees depends on an accurate description of who the Pharisees of that era were and what they thought. In a PM I sent to another poster over the weekend, I had mentioned that as the next area of study in testing every facet of the scenario I have been presenting, as so much hangs on it.

Nom · 02-16-2004, 05:29 PM

Ahhhh...good steak for dinner...crack open a beer...kid's embroiled in a Fairly Oddparents marathon...and I get to play the Romulan Commander (no, not the hot one, the Mark Leonard one) to capnkirk ("In a different reality, I might have called you friend.")

Oh, heck, maybe I still will...

Originally posted by the famous interstellar Don Juan

Quote:

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I AM CONTENDING.

Okay, okay, capn, chill. No need to shout. Remember what Dr. McCoy said about your blood pressure...

On this point, I agree with you. Erhman should have used a more inclusive term than "Christianity" for all these early Jesus-related movements. Maybe something like "Jesus Messianity"? It seems appropriate for the pun value alone, but could encompass everything from fully human political to fully divine messiahs.

Quote:

Let's go back and take a look at Ehrman's perspective of the Ebionites, beginning at the bold subtitle: Christians who would be Jews: The Early Christian Ebionites.

I'd be glad to, capn, but could you do me a favor and pay a little attention to detail? For example, contra your last post, Erhman twice mentions the Ebionites' GMatt was missing the first two books, once within the section on page 102 and again in his bullet point chapter summary on page 109. And how his spending several paragraphs emphasizing the unreliability of proto-orthodox writings about the Ebionites, before he even opens his discussion on those views, is intended to suggest that the ensuing discussion is completely reliable, is beyond me. (Especially considering that he goes on later in the book -- in parts you previously admitted you hadn't read -- to detail all manner of proto-orthodox shennigans with the literature. As I've said before, how does this indicate that we can believe anything these proto-jokers had to say? Your reading is, IMHO, forced, to say the least.)

But yes, let's examine Ehrman's presentation of the Ebionites and see if it is, indeed, biased. As I understand your argument (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in any respect), it is that Ehrman misrepresents the Ebionites as Christian. Moreover, he does this deliberately, in order to avoid calling attention to Paul. Were he instead to categorize the Ebionites as messianic Jews, he would be forced to admit that Christianity was a wholly Pauline invention with no connection to Jesus beyond Paul's alleged visions and revelations.

I hesitate to comment directly on that argument, since it's my construction and I don't want to be accused of attacking a straw man. So I will save my comments on that front, pending any clarifications you might make. (And one side note: I, as should be obvious, have way too much time on my hands today, courtesy of the holiday. If we end up in a lengthy conversation, reality will slow my response time considerably.)

I will say that an afternoon's research into Ebionite beliefs has shown me that I need more than an afternoon to figure out what scholars think the Ebionites believed, much less what they actually did believe. However, Ehrman's synopsis seems pretty uncontroversial. For example,

Quote:

Most of the features of Ebionite doctrine were anticipated in the teachings of the earlier Qumran sect, as revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They believed in one God and taught that Jesus was the Messiah and was the true "prophet" mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Ebionites believed Jesus became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish Law. They themselves faithfully followed the Law, although they removed what they regarded as interpolations in order to uphold their teachings, which included vegetarianism, holy poverty, ritual ablutions, and the rejection of animal sacrifices. The Ebionites also held Jerusalem in great veneration. (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online)

Pretty unconventional, that is, with the exception of his claim on page 101 that the Ebionites believed Jesus died "for the sins of the world." I would like to see Ehrman provide support for that position. However, Jesus still gets top billing in Ebionite belief, and seems to me at least to be "more than your average Messiah."

It appears certain that the Ebionites did see Jesus as God's main man. For example, they believed,

Quote:

Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God.

Per http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/ebionites.html

He was something new, king and prophet. (This is a long one, sorry.)

Quote:

In view of the thesis, argued earlier, that the Nasarenes were a monarchical movement of which James was the Prince Regent and Jesus the awaited King, we may ask whether there is evidence that the Nasarenes or Ebionites of later times looked upon Jesus as their King. Most of our Christian sources do not mention this aspect. Instead, they stress that the Ebionites, while insisting that Jesus was no more than a man, achieved prophetic status by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, which was identical with 'the Christ', a divine power. Of course, the Gentile Christian historians who wrote these accounts were strongly affected by the Pauline Christian definition of the word 'Christ', by which it lost its original Jewish monarchical meaning and became a divine title (partly because it became assimilated, in the Hellenistic mind, to the Greek word chrestos, meaning 'good', which was a common appellation of divine figures in the mystery religions). Apart from this inauthentic use of the word 'Christ', the accounts ring true; for the idea that prophecy is attained by the descent upon a human being of a divine force (called in the Jewish sources 'the Holy Spirit' or ru'ah ha- qodesh, or sometimes the shekhinah or indwelling presence of God) is common in Judaism, and must have been shared by the Ebionites. But the monarchical overtones of the word 'Christ' (Hebrew Messiah) are lost in most of these Christian accounts. Where the monarchical aspect reappears, however, is in the occasional mention of the millenarian or chiliastic beliefs of the Ebionites, who believed that Jesus, on his return, would reign for a thousand years on Earth. Here the concept of Jesus as King of the Jews (and by virtue of the priest role of the Jewish nation) spiritual King of the whole world is clear, and the Ebionites are shown to regard Jesus as the successor of David and Solomon. The thousand-year reign does not point to a concept of Jesus as a supernatural being, but reflects the common idea that human longevity in Messianic times would recover its antediluvian dimension.

The prophetic role assigned to Jesus by the Ebionites also deserves some comment. Even in the New Testament, there is much evidence that Jesus, in his own eyes and in those of his followers, had the status of a prophet. Thus some of his followers regarded him as the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah, with whom John the Baptist had also been identified. Jesus saw himself at first, as a prophet foretelling the coming of the Messiah, and it was only at a fairly late stage of his career that he had came to the conviction that he was himself the Messiah whom he had been prophesying. Jesus then combined the roles of prophet and Messiah. This was not unprecedented, for his ancestors David and Solomon were also regarded in Jewish tradition as endowed with the Holy Spirit, which had enabled them to write inspired works (David being regarded as the author of most of the Psalms, and Solomon of the canonical works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs). Nevertheless, these works were not regarded as having the highest degree of inspiration, and were included in the section of the Bible known as the 'Writings', not that known as the 'Prophets'. Jesus was not the author of inspired writings, but he belonged, in his own eyes, to the ranks of the non-literary, wonder-working prophets such as Elijah and Elisha. Such a prophet had never before combined his prophetic office with the position Messiah or King, but there was nothing heretical about the idea that the Messiah could be a prophet too. Such a possibility is envisaged in the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, where the Messiah is described as an inspired person and as having miraculous powers, like a prophet. This assumption of a prophetic role distinguished Jesus from the more humdrum Messiah figures of his period such as Judas of Galilee or, later, Bar Kokhba (though it seems that Theudas also sought to combine the two roles). Thus the Ebionite belief that Jesus had the status of a prophet was not at all inconsistent with their belief that he was the King of Israel, who would restore the Jewish monarchy on his return. To be both king and prophet meant that Jesus was not just an interim Messiah, like Bar Kokhba, sent to deliver the Jews from another wave of Gentile oppression, but the final, culminating Messiah, who would inaugurate the kingdom of God on Earth, as envisaged by the Hebrew prophets, a time of worldwide peace and justice, when the knowledge of God would cover the Earth 'as the waters cover the sea' (Isaiah 11: 9).

I found that at http://www.essene.com/Church/TheEvid...bionites.html.

As to how "Christian" the Ebionites beliefs were, I discovered someone had actually made a list! It's at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/E...511/nazeb.html
These include:

Quote:

They reject the virgin birth of Christ (I,T,O,Eu,Ep)

They hold Christ to be a mere man (I,T,H,Eu,Ep)

They maintain Jesus had to "merit" His Title, Christ, by fulfilling the Law (H,Ep)

They celebrate the mysteries (The L-RDs' Supper) with unleavened bread and mere water (Ep)

They hold that Christ came to abrogate (permanently put an end to) sacrifice in the Temple (Ep) [This belief would not have authorized or condoned in any way, the rebuilding of the Holy Temple at Jerusalem or the reinstitution of the Levitical sacrificial system whatsoever]

They believe that G-d set the devil and Christ to rule over this world, and the world to come, respectively (Ep) This was a Dualistic belief-system.

They give up all goods and possessions (Ep)

They admit Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, but none of the prophets [David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Elijah, Elisha] (Ep)

They claim the Christ alone is the True Prophet (Ep)

Note: the parenthetical letters are footnotes found on the site. (And just for the record that bit about Christ & the Devil sounds like someone took a heresy-hunter's line too seriously!) Note also the cite features a list of Nazerene beliefs that sound a lot more Christian.

Which translates nicely into the subject of the difference between the Ebionites and the Nazerenes, the answer to which appears to be, some believe there was and some believe there wasn't. Note this bit from http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/E/ebionites.html

Quote:

In Eusebius and Origen, they talked about the Ebionites being a two-fold sect, while the others do not make the distinction, and some scholars considered that Eusebius and Origen were confusing them with another group called the Nazarenes. Thus it is necessary to be careful about which group (if there really is more than one) one is referring to. Origen claimed that he obtained commentaries of Symmachus, an Ebionite, from a certain Juliana who inherited it from Symmachus himself. Symmachus attacked the Gospel of Matthew in his commentaries

The essene.com source (the long one) from above also lumps them together:

Quote:

In general, however, the Nasarenes or Ebionites held fast to their original beliefs which we find mentioned again and again in our Christian sources: that Jesus was a human being, born by natural process from Joseph and Mary; that he was given prophetic powers by God; that he was an observant Jew, loyal to the Torah, which he did not abrogate and which was, therefore, still fully valid; and that his message had been distorted and perverted by Paul, whose visions were deluded, and who had falsely represented Jesus as having abrogated the Torah.

Finally, just to overcomplicate matters, there are some modern claimants to the Ebionite throne, depending on whether you append ".com" or ".org" to "ebionite" in your address window. The dot-org folks at http://ebionite.org/faq.htm deny that Jesus was even the messiah:

Quote:

Was Jesus the Messiah?

Jesus was not the Messiah. There is no Reign, no Kingdom of God on earth. Christians have a problem of putting emphasis on people, but it is a bad practice by anyone to put so much importance on an individual whether it be a Christian or Jewish sect. We feel that the important thing is every person's relationship to God and in the Messianic Age the best relationship will be realized for the entire world in a time of wisdom, peace, and the knowledge of Yahweh and His commandments. Jesus knew this and wanted to see this age come also.

He realized that the way to bring this age was to devotion to God and our fellow man and not in force of arms, strife and hate. Today most Jews believe that righteousness on the part of Israel will signify that mankind is ready for the Messianic Age, and speak of "bringing the Messiah." This is what Jesus wanted to do also. And so do we. And in that sense, the work of Jesus was messianic, and wherever he succeeded he was acting as a messiah---but was not the Messiah who will actually begin that Age.

This was one of the problems Christians had with Ebionites in ancient times. They criticized us for the belief that anyone could be a messiah. They were fixated on an individual, not the Reign. They did not understand that Yahweh empowers individuals only in that they help bring His desires to fruition to aid His children. Jesus was empowered to try to convince people to look to God and repent and prepare for the Reign of God. Instead Christians made Jesus into an idol.

Meanwhile, the dot-com folks have a site complete wth pictures of Yeshua at http://ebionite.com/ where one can find:

Quote:

Yeshua/Jesus did not come to promote belief in the Messiah/Christ - neither did he come to promote the worship of Messiah/Christ - Jesus came to teach the people TheWay to become Messiah/Christ, and fulfill the vision of a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation of Anointed (Messiah/Christ) Disciples who are set aside for the service of the Most High God that Yeshua taught was the Father of all of mankind. The path of TheWay could not be walked by many Jews because they were carnal in their perception of the Law (Torah), and could not use the Key of Knowledge to open the inner door to the Kingdom._ In like manner, the majority of the Roman and Greek followers who were too Pagan to embrace the teachings of Yeshua, were not interested in a life of genuine change and spiritual transformation, so they made Jesus their God so they didn't have to pick up their own cross and follow in TheWay. Thus, the Church itself betrayed and crucified Messiah/Christ when it immersed itself in the way of the heathen, and worshiped the messenger instead of imitating the pattern and example that Yeshua set as the required standard for all those who called upon the name of the Lord. The Good News is that once you understand and are willing to live in accordance with the Original teachings of the New Covenant, the Promise is that you will Know the Truth for yourself as you are permitted entrance into the Kingdom within you (Lk 17:20-21).

Which all seems rather gnostic to me, which the dot-orgers swear to Yahweh they're not.

Anyhow, upon this first blush I can't find much to be unhappy about in terms of Ehrman's presentation of the Ebionites. The good capn's point that he threw the died-for-our-sins thing in without support is well-taken, and is definitely in need of support. But to dismiss the book out of hand, declining to even finish reading it, because of that seems to me an over-reaction. At least.

(Subcommander, activate the cloaking device and prepare to take evasive action...

)

Toto · 02-16-2004, 06:35 PM

Here's another online article on the variety of 2nd Temple Judaism:

Diversity and Unity in Judaism before Jesus

capnkirk · 02-17-2004, 07:06 AM

Nom,

Due to the length of your very impressive post, I am going to post several separate responses, each dealing with different parts of it. First:

Quote:

Originally posted by Nom
....As I understand your argument (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in any respect), it is that Ehrman misrepresents the Ebionites as Christian. Moreover, he does this deliberately, in order to avoid calling attention to Paul.

Not quite correct. I opined that his internal religious convictions closed his mind to readily seeing interpretations that would seriously threaten those convictions, and I called it a "blind spot". That is not the description of a "deliberate" act. I have carefully refrained from attaching any willfullness to my characterization (and that was a deliberate act).

Nom · 02-17-2004, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk
Nom,

Due to the length of your very impressive post, I am going to post several separate responses, each dealing with different parts of it.

That works for me as well. I'm up to my nostrils at work, but I ought to be able to respond to shorter posts in a more timely fashion. BTW, thanks for the kind words. I'm enjoying our discussion as well.

Quote:

Not quite correct. I opined that his internal religious convictions closed his mind to readily seeing interpretations that would seriously threaten those convictions, and I called it a "blind spot". That is not the description of a "deliberate" act. I have carefully refrained from attaching any willfullness to my characterization (and that was a deliberate act).

That's certainly possible. Ehrman does hew strongly to what appear to be (in my limited looking-around) standard Christian conventions, like lumping the Ebonites in as "Christans." On the other hand, by the end of the book he explicitly states that the whole "Eusebian" history of how Christian belief developed in the first few centuries is a B.S. redaction written by the winning side and designed to set their claim as the One True Faith beyond all doubt.

What I see in reading this book isn't so much a writer blinded to certain interpretations, but rather a writer going to great lengths to avoid offering any interpretations at all. The impression I had after reading Lost Christianities was one of a big, uncompleted connect-the-dots puzzle. The book, to me, seemed to end abruptly; there's no "what it all means" or "how it all ties together" concluding chapter. Instead, he just wanders off on his "how history might have been different if another version of Christianity had won" fantasies for a while before ending the book (see p. 257) with a blinding glimpse of the obvious: that some beliefs survived and some were lost. Well, yeah there, Ehrman, I kinda figured that out from the title of your book!

The only explanation I can come up with for this is that it's deliberate. He saw the interpretations you see, knew where they were leading him, and decided he didn't want to go there. I wish he had. I think it would have been a more intellectually honest book (of course, it might also not have been published, or have gotten him fired!). On the other hand, his dispassionate delivery of the facts, especially pointing out and not making up excuses for the liars and forgers in the proto-orthodox movement, is almost subversive: you almost can't help but draw the unpleasant conclusions he never states.

godfry n. glad · 02-17-2004, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nom
That works for me as well. I'm up to my nostrils at work, but I ought to be able to respond to shorter posts in a more timely fashion. BTW, thanks for the kind words. I'm enjoying our discussion as well.[/i]

Yeah... When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

Quote:

The only explanation I can come up with for this is that it's deliberate. He saw the interpretations you see, knew where they were leading him, and decided he didn't want to go there. I wish he had. I think it would have been a more intellectually honest book (of course, it might also not have been published, or have gotten him fired!). On the other hand, his dispassionate delivery of the facts, especially pointing out and not making up excuses for the liars and forgers in the proto-orthodox movement, is almost subversive: you almost can't help but draw the unpleasant conclusions he never states.

I'm fairly sure he doesn't go there because his continued teaching would be imperilled by suggesting the complete ahistoricity of Jesus (or, even several options short of that conclusion). He would be anathemized. Better that he continue putting critical analyses out to the public and training future ministerial types as to the truer, and much more doubtful, lack of sufficient evidence.

But... That's just supposition upon my part.

As for his undermining of the Eusebian history, I'm not really surprised. Eusebius tends to be defended by Roman Catholic apologists. Ehrman's critique looks to be of very "Protestant" tenor, in that he harkens back to a "more primative" and "truer" Christianity that was subsequently sullied by RC attachment to the secular powers and the resultant construction of an institutional hierarchy that promulgates and protects their own power and dogma.

godfry

capnkirk · 02-17-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nom
...On the other hand, his dispassionate delivery of the facts, especially pointing out and not making up excuses for the liars and forgers in the proto-orthodox movement, is almost subversive: you almost can't help but draw the unpleasant conclusions he never states.

My sense of the above is that, when he is outlining the quarrels of the various factions, the camel had already been swallowed so to speak (the various sides were arguing over how to interpret an event, not about whether such an event ever took place); either way, SOME version of Xtianity prevails. IOW, they were straining at gnats.

I at no time have condemned his writing outright. I only thought it necessary to post a caveat in view of the problems I had found. The extension, expansion and defense of those objections has somewhat sidetracked the original subject of the thread. For that I apologize.

Impresario · 02-17-2004, 02:27 PM

This is a fascinating thread. What I�m having trouble with is the notion that messianic hope during the second temple was limited solely to a Davidic (earthly) messianic figure. If I�ve mischaracterized your position Capn I apologize and perhaps I�ve missed something in this lengthy thread.

The Aramaic Levi Documents found at Qumran date to the middle first century BCE:

2.1 4Q541 frag. 9 col. I
1 [. . .] the sons of the generation [. . .] 2 [. . .] his wisdom. And he will atone for all the children of his generation, and he will be sent to all the children of 3 his people. His word is like the word of the heavens, and his teaching, according to the will of God. His eternal sun will shine 4 and his fire will burn in all the ends of the earth; above the darkness his sun will shine. Then, darkness will vanish 5 from the earth, and gloom from the globe. They will utter many words against him, and an abundance of 6 lies; they will fabricate fables against him, and utter every kind of disparagement against him. His generation will change the evil, 7 and [. . .] established in deceit and in violence. The people will go astray in his days and they will be bewildered (DSST, 270).

The Aramaic Levi fragments from Qumran are non-interpolated and suggest that a Messiah-Priest will atone (possibly) through his own suffering:

2.2 4Q541 frag. 24 col. II
2 Do not mourn for him [. . .] and do not [. . .] 3 And God will notice the failings [. . .] the uncovered failings [. . .] 4 Examine, ask and know what the dove has asked; do not punish one weakened because of exhaustion and from being uncertain a[ll . . .] 5 do not bring the nail near him. And you will establish for your father a name of joy, and for your brothers you will make a tested foundation rise. 6 You will see it and rejoice in eternal light. And you will not be of the enemy. Blank 7 Blank (DSST, 270).

The notion of the Messiah-Priest does not necessarily support the concept of a divine messiah but the following Aramaic Qumran fragments dated to the first half of the first century do:

4Q246 col. l
1 [. . .] settled upon him and he fell before the throne 2 [. . .] eternal king. You are angry and your years 3 [. . .] they will see you, and all shall come for ever. 4 [. . .] great, oppression will come upon the earth 5 [. . .] and great slaughter in the city 6 [. . .] king of Assyria and of Egypt 7 [. . .] and he will be great over the earth 8 [. . .] they will do, and all will serve 9 [. . .] great will he be called and he will be designated by his name (DSST, 138).
Col. II
1 He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks 2 of a vision, so will their kingdom be; they will rule several years over 3 the earth and crush everything; a people will crush another people, and a city another city. 4 Blank Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword. 5 His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth and uprigh[tness]. 6 The earth (will be) in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease in the earth, 7 and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a great God among the gods (?). 8 He will make war with him; he will place the peoples in his hand and cast away everyone before him. 9 His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all the abysses (DSST, 138).

The interpretations of these fragments are subject to debate but what is clear is that they reference a superhuman figure capable of providing eschatological salvation. The Aramaic Qumran documents tend to show that the notions of a messiah included not only that of the (narrow) Davidic Royal King (political messiah) but also something wider. The expression of messianic hope as evidenced in these Aramaic Qumran fragments seems to be broader then what exists in today�s normative Judaism

Nom · 02-17-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
Yeah... When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

It's not so much the alligators I mind, it's that it appears that I'm supposed to fight them off with toothpicks.

Quote:

I'm fairly sure he doesn't go there because his continued teaching would be imperilled by suggesting the complete ahistoricity of Jesus (or, even several options short of that conclusion).

Like you said, it's just supposition, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were true.

Quote:

As for his undermining of the Eusebian history, I'm not really surprised. Eusebius tends to be defended by Roman Catholic apologists. Ehrman's critique looks to be of very "Protestant" tenor, in that he harkens back to a "more primative" and "truer" Christianity that was subsequently sullied by RC attachment to the secular powers and the resultant construction of an institutional hierarchy that promulgates and protects their own power and dogma.

Yup. But still, the picture he paints isn't a very promising one for anyone seeking a "truer" Christianity. If such a thing ever existed in the first place. Which brings us to...

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk
My sense of the above is that, when he is outlining the quarrels of the various factions, the camel had already been swallowed so to speak (the various sides were arguing over how to interpret an event, not about whether such an event ever took place)

Oh, no doubt about it. Among the assumptions are that someone named Jesus or Yeshua or something like that actually existed, and if so, that there was ever any "original" agreement about what he said. But for purposes of Erhman's book, I was prepared to "suspend disbelief," take a look at the early records and see if they shed any light on those issues. And in the end I don't think they did. If there was a flesh-and-blood person in the beginning, he'd been mythologized into oblivion within a couple hundred years of his death. And everything he (allegedly) said has been subject to 2,000 years of transcription errors, translation errors, and deliberate editing -- when it wasn't simply tossed into the fire and forgotten because it didn't fit this or that group's beliefs.

Quote:

I at no time have condemned his writing outright. I only thought it necessary to post a caveat in view of the problems I had found. The extension, expansion and defense of those objections has somewhat sidetracked the original subject of the thread. For that I apologize.

Oh, if anyone owes anyone an apology, I owe you one. I'm the one that got all hopped up over your caveat. I'm not sure why, probably just because I like the book and learned some things from it, and your dissimilar experience just pushed my buttons, I guess. But I don't mind the direction the discussion has gone, and I hope it's helping you out. I know I'm learning from it.

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

02-16-2004, 03:39 PM	#82
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	Thank you Toto. It will take some time to fully digest what you have posted, but I will carefully evaluate it, especially that part having to do with the Pharisees, since reasonableness the gospel depiction of the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees depends on an accurate description of who the Pharisees of that era were and what they thought. In a PM I sent to another poster over the weekend, I had mentioned that as the next area of study in testing every facet of the scenario I have been presenting, as so much hangs on it.

02-16-2004, 06:35 PM	#84
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here's another online article on the variety of 2nd Temple Judaism: Diversity and Unity in Judaism before Jesus

02-17-2004, 02:27 PM	#89
Impresario Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	This is a fascinating thread. What I�m having trouble with is the notion that messianic hope during the second temple was limited solely to a Davidic (earthly) messianic figure. If I�ve mischaracterized your position Capn I apologize and perhaps I�ve missed something in this lengthy thread. The Aramaic Levi Documents found at Qumran date to the middle first century BCE: 2.1 4Q541 frag. 9 col. I 1 [. . .] the sons of the generation [. . .] 2 [. . .] his wisdom. And he will atone for all the children of his generation, and he will be sent to all the children of 3 his people. His word is like the word of the heavens, and his teaching, according to the will of God. His eternal sun will shine 4 and his fire will burn in all the ends of the earth; above the darkness his sun will shine. Then, darkness will vanish 5 from the earth, and gloom from the globe. They will utter many words against him, and an abundance of 6 lies; they will fabricate fables against him, and utter every kind of disparagement against him. His generation will change the evil, 7 and [. . .] established in deceit and in violence. The people will go astray in his days and they will be bewildered (DSST, 270). The Aramaic Levi fragments from Qumran are non-interpolated and suggest that a Messiah-Priest will atone (possibly) through his own suffering: 2.2 4Q541 frag. 24 col. II 2 Do not mourn for him [. . .] and do not [. . .] 3 And God will notice the failings [. . .] the uncovered failings [. . .] 4 Examine, ask and know what the dove has asked; do not punish one weakened because of exhaustion and from being uncertain a[ll . . .] 5 do not bring the nail near him. And you will establish for your father a name of joy, and for your brothers you will make a tested foundation rise. 6 You will see it and rejoice in eternal light. And you will not be of the enemy. Blank 7 Blank (DSST, 270). The notion of the Messiah-Priest does not necessarily support the concept of a divine messiah but the following Aramaic Qumran fragments dated to the first half of the first century do: 4Q246 col. l 1 [. . .] settled upon him and he fell before the throne 2 [. . .] eternal king. You are angry and your years 3 [. . .] they will see you, and all shall come for ever. 4 [. . .] great, oppression will come upon the earth 5 [. . .] and great slaughter in the city 6 [. . .] king of Assyria and of Egypt 7 [. . .] and he will be great over the earth 8 [. . .] they will do, and all will serve 9 [. . .] great will he be called and he will be designated by his name (DSST, 138). Col. II 1 He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks 2 of a vision, so will their kingdom be; they will rule several years over 3 the earth and crush everything; a people will crush another people, and a city another city. 4 Blank Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword. 5 His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth and uprigh[tness]. 6 The earth (will be) in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease in the earth, 7 and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a great God among the gods (?). 8 He will make war with him; he will place the peoples in his hand and cast away everyone before him. 9 His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all the abysses (DSST, 138). The interpretations of these fragments are subject to debate but what is clear is that they reference a superhuman figure capable of providing eschatological salvation. The Aramaic Qumran documents tend to show that the notions of a messiah included not only that of the (narrow) Davidic Royal King (political messiah) but also something wider. The expression of messianic hope as evidenced in these Aramaic Qumran fragments seems to be broader then what exists in today�s normative Judaism

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.