GUEST POST by The CandyMan
Most Orthodox Jews have never heard of a "table fellowship," but they'll understand the concept right away. It's a kind of religious club that was popular in the days of the Mishna, around the time when Jesus lived. Members of the club took voluntary oaths of purity to act like Temple priests even though they didn't have to. As a result, they could only eat at a table with someone else who was also observing the same level of purity, or else risk accidentally becoming 'contaminated' and violating their oath. It's kind of like only eating Badatz-certified kosher and worrying about eating over at your parents' house who eat Rabbanut.Jesus didn't keep a table-fellowship. He ate with anyone who would eat with him. Jesus' rabbis didn't approve. They complained, "Why is he eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus quipped back, It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. (Mark 2:16-17)
Ironically, being raised an Orthodox Jew is quite possibly the best preparation in the world for understanding the Christian gospel. A Protestant Christian can read the New Testament and perhaps imagine to herself the religious philosophy Jesus sought to overthrow. An Orthodox Jew has lived it. (The other side of this irony, of course, is that you can't truly understand Rabbinic Judaism until you've read the gospels.)
So who was Jesus?
Was Jesus a skeptic? Certainly, he challenged the status quo. But he never imagined that God might not exist, or that the Torah might be man-made. Indeed, Jesus sees himself as within the pale of traditional Judaism. In one of his most profound moments, Jesus explains, Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)
Jesus did not seek to destroy Judaism, or even halakha. He did not seek to start a new religion, or convert the entire world (that was Paul). He did not see himself as part of the Godhead (organized Christianity has done him a great disservice by representing him this way), or even necessarily as a prophet thereof. Jesus was a Jew who saw a bunch of well-meaning fellow Jews getting carried away with legal minutiae, stuff like table-fellowships. He also saw a Jewish laypeople in need of spiritual leadership, with whom this game of trying to out-frum the frum did not resonate.
And so Jesus came up with a simple message for his people: don't lose sight of the (ethical) forest for the (halakhic) trees. He invented a lot of fancy parables for this message. He engaged in a couple of provocative demonstrations to make his point. But the message was always the same. It is a message that has its roots in the Mishna and Torah, and has since been adopted by all Jewish denominations in one form or another. But Jesus gets the credit for articulating it most clearly and making it his own.
Who was Jesus?
Jesus was a rabbi.
----
72 comments:
avraham abulfia [kabalist born in 1240] held he was a kind of proto type messiah called messiah son of joseph.
this is scattered in his writtings.
but to make a long story short i agree with you that christians have done to him a terrible disservice by making him somehow a part of the Divine
Interestingly, Rabbi Hillel's text cites part of Jesus' "golden rule": "you shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Luke 10:27)
Phil,
My history isn't all that great but I'm pretty sure Hillel came before Jesus.
CM,
Ever read "Paul the Mythmaker"?
no one,
Do you have any sources? I'd like to see that inside.
Freethinking Upstart,
I wasn't claiming that Hillel got it from Jesus, I was just pointing out their similar theological world, in support of some points found in the post.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I'm not aware of anything original in Jesus' teachings. He was simply one more false messiah who came, raised the hopes of a few suckers, and died. We've seen this happen in very recent history as well. (I won't mention any names, mammash, hint, hint.)
Who's the old man in the picture with the Roman soldier?
There is a lot of interesting stuff to explore in this field for someone who is knowledgeable about Orthodox Judaism. Last year at college I took a class called Jesus the Jew, which explored this more fully. Naturally, due to my background, I had a much better appreciation for much of what we were discussing than everyone else in the class.
For example, in regards to the similarity of the statements of Hillel and Jesus, if you look in the text it goes much deeper than just being a similar idea of loving kindness. Hillel's actual quote is "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man." and adds afterwards - "This is the whole Law." (Babylonian Talmud Shabbos 31a). Jesus' message (which can be found in a number of verses) is as follows: "Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the law of the Prophets are all about." (Matthew 7:12) and also "...love others as much as you love yourself. All the Law of Moses and the books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:39-40). The similarity is more than just an idea of being kind to others - it is an acknowledgment that the whole rest of the law is built upon that premise.
A few books you might want to explore on this topic are "Rabbi Jesus" and "Jesus the Jew" (and other books by Geza Vermes).
The funny thing is that regarding divorce, Jesus seems to have taken Bais Shammai's point of view and said divorce is only permitted in case of adultery.
Interesting point about losing the ethical forest for the halakhic trees.
Isn't it ironic that Jesus' later followers lost that message, declared all the laws irrelevant and turned Jesus into God?
Thanks all for the interesting and insightful comments.
@no one,
avraham abulfia [kabalist born in 1240] held he was a kind of proto type messiah called messiah son of joseph.
I think Jesus certainly had a messiah complex. The gospels trace his lineage to David (of course they would), claiming that he is actually the "messiah ben david."
Whether he was the messiah is, of course, anyone's guess. Close as we're likely to come, I usually say.
@FU & Hedyot,
Ever read "Paul the Mythmaker"?
A few books you might want to explore on this topic are "Rabbi Jesus" and "Jesus the Jew" (and other books by Geza Vermes).
I haven't read these books, nor The Historical Jesus. It is amazing how much literature there is on this!
I read through most of the gospels a while back, and (as an Orthodox Jew) I was amazed at how modern they were.
@kvetcher,
Who's the old man in the picture with the Roman soldier?
It's Hillel, teaching the Torah on one foot.
@Phil,
Interestingly, Rabbi Hillel's text cites part of Jesus' "golden rule": "you shall love your neighbour as yourself"
Szyk had a knack for getting to the heart of the matter with his illustrations. The golden rule, of course, appears even in the Pentateuch.
A better version is Lev. 19:34, where the Torah tells us to love the *non-Jew* as ourselves.
@hedyot,
Last year at college I took a class called Jesus the Jew, which explored this more fully. Naturally, due to my background, I had a much better appreciation for much of what we were discussing than everyone else in the class.
Yes, this is what I was talking about!
Thanks for your comments. I'm no expert on the gospels, so it's good to hear a little more learned perspective.
@David,
Isn't it ironic that Jesus' later followers lost that message, declared all the laws irrelevant and turned Jesus into God?
And of course, they also got carried away with the ritual. Which is where Martin Luther came in.
There is a school of thought that says that Jesus did not exist as one historical person.
There is something to be said for this. Among the Evangelists there are different agendas and theologies being advanced, and the different Jesuses reflect their agendas.Here is an example of the "lamb of God" speaking:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)
I'd say it is more accurate to say that what you put forth as the 'teachings of Jesus' is really the views and beliefs of certain sects of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the first two centuries CE.
It is also interesting to note that Jesus' ministry only lasted 1-3 years.
I am not sure what you mean to call him a rabbi. He certainly doesn't seem to fit the traditional mold of a tannaitic sage. Do you mean he is akin to a modern rabbi? That doesn't seem to fit either.
Would appreciate your elaboration on this...
@kvetcher,
I'd say it is more accurate to say that what you put forth as the 'teachings of Jesus' is really the views and beliefs of certain sects of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the first two centuries CE.
I'd agree with this. You could make the same argument about any Biblical character. Few are wholly consistent. On the other hand, I'm not sure that should be a criterion for historicity.
For what it's worth, I do think there was a historical Jesus, just as I think there was a historical Abraham. I doubt he said everything that appears in his name, then or now.
I am not sure what you mean to call him a rabbi. He certainly doesn't seem to fit the traditional mold of a tannaitic sage.
The word "rabbi" means teacher (colloquially - that is the sense of the word, not its literal derivation), and I think that's the mold Jesus fits best. He was obviously not a Pharisee, but I'm not sure Hillel was, either. Jesus was a Jewish teacher at a time when there were many different Jewish "denominations," much as there are today. There were Pharisees, Saducees, sectarians, and others, all of whom had their own "rabbis." The common denominator is that these rabbis all had a school of disciples, they arrived at their ideas through both learning and independent though, and they believed that the Jewish tradition sided with them.
Candy Man,
A better version is Lev. 19:34, where the Torah tells us to love the *non-Jew* as ourselves.
Interesting! That's the point of the parable of the good Samaratan! It was told in response to Peter's question: "Who is our neighbour?"
He was obviously not a Pharisee
Perhaps not in the full sense of the word ... But both Jesus and Paul publically identified with them on key issues, especially on the contested question of physical resurrection from the dead (Pharisees pro, Sadduccees contra).
Jesus parted with them on the issue of the nature and function of the law. I posted on this here: Jesus and Jewish tradition.
I've also posted on the issue of Jewish and Christian appropriation of the Law of Moses.
Oy, did you all get this stuff wrong!
The parable of the Good Samaritan is to show that even the hated samaritan is a better humanitian than any jew. Jesus contempt for judaism and jews in general is shown throughout the NT. Please recall the famous John 8:44 where Jesus the prince of peace calls jews the sons of the devil who was a murderer and could not have been the sons of Abraham.
Jesus also had some oddball sayings like "man was not made for the sabbath but the sabbath was made for man" which he uses to violate shabbos.
A young man who wants to join Jesus says he can't come just then cause he must first bury his father to which the Prince of Peace responds "Let the dead bury the dead". Couldn't be more sympathetic to that one.
The interesting things about the NT (which most jews haven't read for good reason) is that Jesus never claims he is the Messiah, the son of God, or even holy. At no point is the phrase "And God said" ever used. The best you can get is a voice from heaven proclaimed this is my son. Imagine sitting around the Jordan and hearing that?
The NT is so contradictary and tries to do so much that it's no wonder it wasn't even formalized until centuries after Jesus death(how could the son of God be killed with 3 nails) And while Jesus was dead, who ran the world...there's 3 days I'd like to avoid.
In the NT, Jesus' mother is this very minor character whom he doesn't even acknowledge. Throughout the centuries Mary has become the object of veneration to the point that as late as 1840 the church came up with the concept of the Immaculate Conception. Anyone see "The Song of Bernadette" lately?
Any comments on Klinghoffer's book "Why the Jews rejected Jesus"?
CM
He did not see himself as part of the Godhead (organized Christianity has done him a great disservice by representing him this way)
Actually Jesus did see himself in that way. After a long and tense conversation with Rabbis in Jerusalem, during which Jesus was queried on whom he was he answered, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). The obvious meaning was not lost on the Rabbis. The immediately picked up rocks in an attempt to stone him.
There were many other statements in which he clearly claims divinity. You can reject what he claims for himself but you can't deny the claim was made.
David
Isn't it ironic that Jesus' later followers lost that message, declared all the laws irrelevant and turned Jesus into God?
"Later" might be overstating it. In Acts 15 they grappled with the question of requiring circumcision for Gentiles and decided it was not necessary. They could be saved without, anyone could.
And Paul, a first generation Christian said, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" Galatians 2:21. From the very beginning Christians understood that Jesus satisfied the demands of the law.
JP
The funny thing is that regarding divorce, Jesus seems to have taken Bais Shammai's point of view and said divorce is only permitted in case of adultery.
I have never thought he was giving boundaries for allowing or disallowiing divorce. As you have pointed out, many do. He was simply saying that if adultery does not occur before the divorce it will occur after.
Regarding the parable of the good samaritan, you can read the story here and judge for yourself what the moral is.
@ennis,
Actually Jesus did see himself in that way... Jesus was queried on whom he was he answered, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). The obvious meaning was not lost on the Rabbis... There were many other statements in which he clearly claims divinity. You can reject what he claims for himself but you can't deny the claim was made.
I think you have to see the forest for the trees and judge for yourself what Jesus believed. The gospels are not wholly consistent, even within any particular book, and John is a bit of an outlier. Personally, I see Jesus from a Jewish messianic perspective. Nowhere in the Jewish texts is there any hint that the messiah will be anything other than a human king.
Even if there are some claims in the early gospels, I don't think the evidence is compelling enough to argue conclusively that Jesus believed he was God. I see that as a later idea that took root and was projected backwards onto the gospels.
For instance, what I had in mind in the post is the tendency of NT translators to capitalize words like "He" whenever it refers to Jesus in the gospels. There was no capitalization in the original and I do not think that was the author's original intent.
On this topic, this quote from Mark suggests that Jesus did not see himself as God. Mark is believed to be the earliest gospel.
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone... (Mark 10:17-18)
@Phil,
A better version is Lev. 19:34, where the Torah tells us to love the *non-Jew* as ourselves.
Interesting! That's the point of the parable of the good Samaratan! It was told in response to Peter's question: "Who is our neighbour?"
That *is* interesting. Isn't it funny that neither Jesus, nor our current Orthodox rabbis, have Lev. 19:34 at the tip of their tongues?
I think it's b/c no one reads Leviticus! Not then, not now.
both Jesus and Paul publically identified with [Pharisees] on key issues, especially on the contested question of physical resurrection from the dead (Pharisees pro, Sadduccees contra).
Oh yea, that was a lightning rod back then.
I basically agree with you. "Ex-Pharisee," perhaps?
Rabbi Kushner (the why bad things happen to good people guy) wrote a book discussing the Jewish view of Jesus and the new testament.
"what is true is not new and what is new is not true".
You must recall that at the time the atmosphere between various groups of Jews was worse than that between republicans and democrats in the last election. The new testament which was written at the time is basically a long attack ad against traditional Judaism. The Talmud to a much lesser extent contained a few negative stories about jesus' disciples - mostly word play ( and you will draw water in 'sasson" - lit Joy - but also the hebrew name of one of the apostles. The apostle said it was a prophecy that meant the rabbis would draw water to serve sasson; the rabbis said it meant that they would draw water in a bucket made from his hide).
Kushner also notes that the old testament is replete with tales of how terrible the Jewish people were while the new testament is full of praise for those that followed Jesus.
A parallel might be found in the newspapers of the sixties.
The New York Times was filled with stories of riots, unrest, and dire predictions. Pravda in the former USSR was full of stories describing the wonderful workers paradise.
Would you have rather lived in 1960s U.S. or Russia?
The free press of the U.S. told the truth although was mostly negative about a nation of plenty and largely at peace. Pravda told lies about a totalitarian regime with shortages and food lines.
The purpose of the new testament was to denigrate their opponents the orthodox Jews, to make the leaders of that nation (priests and levites) look bad as in the story of the good samaratin.
My wife who was born catholic still recalls that at good friday services they would shout out loud "kill the Jews"
The only thing we jews know of the messiah is that he is to bring peace. jesus (and the lubavitcher rebbe) both failed in that endeavor.
Dr. Dave, have you actually read the NT? Kushner's view sounds pretty biased. Certainly not what I took away from the NT.
For what it's worth, there's plenty to complain about in the OT as well. Focus on the good stuff is my advice.
CM
On this topic, this quote from Mark suggests that Jesus did not see himself as God. Mark is believed to be the earliest gospel.
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone... (Mark 10:17-18)
Maybe it was a very subtle way of saying he was divine. "If you recognize me as good and only God is good then I am God."
Capitalizing the pronoun "He" when referring to Jesus or God is just a matter of English grammar. They had no caps, periods or paragraphs in Koine Greek, the language of the NT.
CM
Nowhere in the Jewish texts is there any hint that the messiah will be anything other than a human king.
What about Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Dr. David
You must recall that at the time the atmosphere between various groups of Jews was worse than that between republicans and democrats in the last election. The new testament which was written at the time is basically a long attack ad against traditional Judaism.
You can only read that kind of thinking into the text. I have read many commentaries on the New Testament (some written before the holocaust) and have never been picked up even a hint of anit-semitism. There were even Christian ministers in Germany who opposed the holocaust motivated by the teachings of the NT and they were executed for it. Anti-semitism shouldn't be projected onto the text.
The only denomination I know of to express any anti-semitic sentiments was Catholicism and you must remember that, at times, they didn't like or spare anyone who wasn't Catholic, even (especially) other Chritian denominations. They led the way in the Crusades and systematically destroy any person or institution who disagreed with them. Their attitude toward the Jewish nation was motivated by politics not the NT.
Paul, the most prominent writer of the NT clearly spoke of the resurgence of the Jewish people not their demise.
The teachers who taught me theology often and repeatedly pointed to the many contributions made to society by Jewish individuals not the least of which was the Old Testament.
Anti-semitism is definitely alive and well but please don't suggest that it originated with the NT or those who wrote it or anyone else who genuinely understands it.
I generally try and keep out of these debates as it's not really my field. Nevertheless, I'd just like to say that the following statement is patently false: new testament is full of praise for those that followed Jesus.
The exact opposite is the case. One of the arguments for the authenticity of much of what was written in the gospels, and I mean arguments by academics and not popular apologists, is the negative way in which the disciples are constantly presented. The epistles and Acts are equally candid. This is simply a fact that needs to accepted, regardless of your evaluation of the documents.
EnnisP,
a more explicit text from Isaiah is Isaiah 9:6:
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God [אל גבור],
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of course I've read the christian bible. While the synoptic gospels were written by Jews and were less harsh, Isuggest you re-read luke.
Also add to your reading list "constantine's sword" and all the writings of Dominic Crossan a former Catholic priest.
And the quote from Isaiah refers to Hezekiah (and the suffering servant refers to the people of Israel.
Yes I know john was the non synoptic one
@ennis,
They had no caps, periods or paragraphs in Koine Greek, the language of the NT.
So how do the translators know to capitalize? It's misleading.
Isa 7:14 , Isaiah 9:6
These are more like midrashic (exegetical) proof-texts that early Christians projected backwards onto Jesus. In the case of 7:14, it's clearly talking about someone else.
The belief in a Jewish messianic "return of the king" occasionally and rarely pops up in the OT (most of which was written while a king was already in power). That's as close as you get to a messiah. Daniel is probably the best example of "messianic" prophecies, but the guy was practically an apocalyptic.
I do find it very interesting one point you made, Ennis, which is that the virgin birth idea may lie behind the idea that Christ was God embodied. People believed the virgin birth story, from there it was a logical step that God was the father. (How Joseph fits in I never quite understood.)
@Dave,
Of course I've read the christian bible. While the synoptic gospels were written by Jews and were less harsh, Isuggest you re-read luke.
Yeah, I like to separate the synoptics from everything else. They're different, and the post was really about them.
I am no expert on the NT but coming from an OJ background I think Jews in general try to find fault in Christianity wherever they can. There's definitely plenty that turns me off about the NT and the OT, but much of Jesus' message as described in the synoptic gospels rings true even today. That was the point of the post.
Phil said,
A more explicit text from Isaiah is Isaiah 9:6:
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God [אל גבור],
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
I would have used that text next but there wasn't enough bite to bother. The reference does beg the question though.
CM said,
In the case of 7:14, it's clearly talking about someone else.
So who was born of a virgin and referred to as Immanuel (G_d with us)?
Ennis,
"So who was born of a virgin and referred to as Immanuel (G_d with us)?"
Nobody. The word in the passage is 'almah' which means maiden, not 'betulah' which means virgin. And the purpose of the whole birth and child's life was for a message to King Achaz, centuries before Jesus was even born. Read the verse in context.
OP
The word in the passage is 'almah' which means maiden
True but the word is translated "virgin" in some cases and the primary meaning of of almah is not one who's lost their virginity.
But, that argument aside, how do you manage the obvious futuristic nature of many of Isaiah's statements? Not only were many of them futuristic they clearly had a double application, referring both to the present and the future, and some had no meaning for his time at all.
Isaiah was Messianic in the extreme and focused on the future.
EP,
"True but the word is translated "virgin" in some cases and the primary meaning of of almah is not one who's lost their virginity."
Indeed, but it ought to make fundamentalists uncomfortable when they need to hedge on an unclear interpretation if they're using it as the basis of a chunk of their theology.
"But, that argument aside, how do you manage the obvious futuristic nature of many of Isaiah's statements? Not only were many of them futuristic they clearly had a double application, referring both to the present and the future, and some had no meaning for his time at all."
What do you mean how do I manage? I agree that Isaiah often had a messianic focus and so on. Does that mean he was ever talking about Jesus? No. Was he talking about anything (centuries-deeply) futuristic when it came to 'Immanuel'? I don't think so.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. We can get caught up in a referendum over the legitimacy of Jesus as the messiah, or as God, but if we do that, we have learned nothing from the man.
CM,
As you already know, there's nothing particular about Jesus' positive views that cannot be found in regular Jewish sources. He often mirrors the sentiments found in characters like Isaiah and Hillel and the Gemara is famous for similarly lambasting strutting Pharisees (Sotah 22b).
But where Jesus crossed the line was not necessarily in his general political or theological points of view but in his claims to being the messiah and/or god. It is there where as much good as he said he cannot be legitimately accepted by Jewish tradition anymore than can the likes of Shabtai Tzvi.
OP
Indeed, but it ought to make fundamentalists uncomfortable when they need to hedge on an unclear interpretation if they're using it as the basis of a chunk of their theology.
I would actually like to respond but CM is not happy with the direction the thread is taking so out of respect for him (it was his post) I will pass on the issue.
Unfortunately, I can't respond to your last comment because it was way over my head. I am fascinated by the references but unfamiliar.
CM
I'm not leaving, just backing off for the moment. If content comes up which I can speak to without compromising the thread I will.
Not to be divisive but to be grammatically correct
Almah ("עלמה") is the feminine version of elem ("עלם") a young boy.
The hebrew word for a female virgin is bisulah: ("בתולה"). There is no equivilant male term.
Perhaps the Hebrew language is sexist but there is no term for a male virgin as the concept of male virginity was not seen to be important.
I don't mean to keep linking to my blog, but this issue has occupied me somewhat so I hope it's OK to do so one more time ... The nature of Biblical prophecy and its fulfilment in Jesus is, even from a Christian perspective, nuanced. This may well just be of interest to EnnisP, but I'll link anyway to my post Immanuel in a canonical perspective. I think it gives substance to his comment that prophecy has various levels of referentiality. I think it's connected to the question of Jesus' "identity," which is one of the issues of this post.
Indeed, but it ought to make fundamentalists uncomfortable when they need to hedge on an unclear interpretation if they're using it as the basis of a chunk of their theology.
Is this really true? I've never heard anyone say that Isaiah forms the basis of Christian theology. If anything, it can be used in a supporting capacity, but even if you had 100% incontrovertible proof that Isaiah was not talking about Jesus, I don't see how any of the claims of Christians would be undermined.
E,
"Is this really true? I've never heard anyone say that Isaiah forms the basis of Christian theology. If anything, it can be used in a supporting capacity, but even if you had 100% incontrovertible proof that Isaiah was not talking about Jesus, I don't see how any of the claims of Christians would be undermined."
Well I suppose you are technically correct, but fundamentalists would take it hard to find out that Matthew was wrong. What else might he be wrong about?
I just think it's ironic that this whole controversy only begins because Matthew used the verse as a prooftext, but if Matthew hadn't so used it no one would even suspect that almah would mean virgin in that context. After all, the verse in Isaiah is talking about a pregnant woman.
Orthoprax,
if Matthew hadn't so used it no one would even suspect that almah would mean virgin in that context
Matthew did make it up. He was quoting the Septuagint, a Jewish translating dating from about 200 B.C. 'almah is translated with the Greek word parthenos, which does mean biological virgin in way that 'almah doesn't. The question is: what lead those Jews to translate the Hebrew like that?
Sorry, I meant "Matthew didn't make it up."
Some interesting text from Wikipedia:
Bethulah and `almah
Of the two Hebrew words בתולה (bethulah) and עלמה (`almah), most commentators interpret betulah as meaning a virgin,[24] and `almah as meaning a nubile young woman.[25] In regular narrative, `almah denotes youth explicitly, virginity is suggested only loosely and implicitly. Hence, some have argued that, strictly speaking, the youth of a mother, not virginity, was all that was suggested by Isaiah.
Some have argued, on the contrary, that bethulah does not necessarily indicate virginity and that `almah does mean a virgin.[26] While in modern Hebrew usage bethulah is used to mean a virgin, in Biblical Hebrew it is found in Genesis 24:16 followed by the statement "and no man had known her", which, it is claimed, would be unnecessary if the word bethulah itself conveyed this information. Another argument is based on Joel 1:8, where bethulah is used of a widow; but it is not certain that here it referred to a woman who had had sexual relations, since marriage was considered to begin with betrothal, some time before cohabitation began. As for the word `almah, this same minority view holds that the young women to whom it was applied in the Old Testament were all in fact virgins.
In an Ugaritic tablet, the words in that language cognate to bethulah and `almah are both used in relation to the goddess Anath who by union with the male lunar deity was to bear a son.[27]. The Aramaic counterpart of bethûlah was used of married women. The same holds for other cognate languages, "there is in fact no word for 'virgin' in Sumerian or Akkadian."[28]
[edit] Comparison of Isaiah and pre-biblical literature
The poetic or elevated prose context of the Isaiah prophecy,[29] lends itself to comparison with pre-biblical literature of similar genre in cognate languages, for establishing the semantic domain of its vocabulary. Semitic poetry is characterized by synonymous parallelism, that is, instead of the rhyming common in European verse of recent centuries, couplets are often formed by using near-synonyms. Cyrus H. Gordon considers a poetic passage in Ugaritic, a north-west Semitic language neighbour to Hebrew.
It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son ... The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah 'young woman' [>Glmh<]; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah 'virgin' [>btlt<]. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as 'virgin' for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.[30][31]
The argument that Gordon, Feinberg and others go on to make is that Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah referring to a virgin is consistent with early Jewish interpretation. This includes the Jewish interpretation of the passage provided by the LXX, produced centuries before Matthew.
[edit] Parthenos
The Septuagint's Greek term παρθένος (parthenos) is considered by many to be an inexact rendering of the Hebrew word `almah in the text of Isaiah.[4]
The Greek word παρθένος, from which terms such as parthenogenesis are derived, normally means "virgin", though there are four instances in classical Greek where it is used to mean unmarried women who are not virgins.[32] The Septuagint uses the word to translate three different Hebrew words: bethulah, "maiden/virgin"; `almah, "maiden/virgin"; and נערה, na`arah, "maiden, young woman, servant", as seen in the following examples:
Genesis 24:16 And the damsel [parthenos = Hebrew na`arah] was very fair to look upon, a virgin [parthenos = Hebrew bethulah], neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins [parthenous = Hebrew bethulah], that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Archaeological evidence is claimed to show that Jewish speakers of Greek used the word parthenos elastically, in that Jewish catacombs in Rome identify married men and women as "virgins".[citation needed] It has been suggested that in this case the word was used to call attention to the fact that the deceased was someone's first spouse.
As Christianity spread, Greek-speaking Jews stopped using the word παρθένος as a translation of עלמה, replacing it with νεᾶνις (neanis), meaning a "young (juvenile) woman".
PS,
"Matthew did [not] make it up. He was quoting the Septuagint, a Jewish translating dating from about 200 B.C. 'almah is translated with the Greek word parthenos, which does mean biological virgin in way that 'almah doesn't. The question is: what lead those Jews to translate the Hebrew like that?"
Right, parthenos can only mean virgin - which is why the Septuagint also uses the term to describe Dina after she was raped (Genesis 34).
If you want to blame this whole debate on a poor translation into Greek then you could have a decent position.
Separately, though you should be aware that the Septuagint wasn't translated all at once by one group of people. It was translated over a couple of centuries by many unknowns without any particular plan or order.
Orthoprax,
she's called a parthenos before she was raped. It's in Gen 34:3.
PS,
"she's called a parthenos before she was raped. It's in Gen 34:3."
Um, she's raped in Gen 34:2. Read the text, man!
KJV: '2And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. 3And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel [parthenos], and spake kindly unto the damsel [parthenos].'
@EnnisP,
I would actually like to respond but CM is not happy with the direction the thread is taking so out of respect for him (it was his post) I will pass on the issue.
I appreciate your effort :)
@Phil,
I don't mean to keep linking to my blog, but this issue has occupied me somewhat so I hope it's OK to do so one more time
Of course! I like your links. It's good to have people who know a little about this topic contributing to the discussion, and this is a great way to do it without reinventing the wheel.
@OP,
I just think it's ironic that this whole controversy only begins because Matthew used the verse as a prooftext, but if Matthew hadn't so used it no one would even suspect that almah would mean virgin in that context.
The same irony applies to most of Jewish halakha, which is based on rather flimsy "prooftexts" from the OT.
I guess the question is, do we really need these prooftexts? Were they ever really meant to be taken literally? What difference does any of it make, anyways?
CM,
"The same irony applies to most of Jewish halakha, which is based on rather flimsy "prooftexts" from the OT."
No doubt, but the Gemara is also fully aware of that too - like mountains suspended by a hair (Chagiga 10a/b). As you know, large chunks of Halacha are based on oral traditions [aka Oral Law] and were only sought reference in the text for the sake of double authority.
"I guess the question is, do we really need these prooftexts? Were they ever really meant to be taken literally? What difference does any of it make, anyways?"
That depends on how much of a fundamentalist you are. A modern-thinking guy like you wouldn't buy a single one of these 'implicit' prophecies, but these are still big deals to a good portion of the world's population.
CM,
And frankly, for a textual purist like yourself, I'm a little surprised that you're so nonchalant over what you must consider an alien misconstruction of the written word.
My understanding is that the Septuagint never translated anything but the first 5 books which would leave out Isaiah.
Standard answer to missionary question 101.
Asher,
What's known as the Septuagint is the whole corpus of translations from Hebrew to Greek of the books in Tanach as well as some apocrypha. These translations took place over at least a couple of centuries by the efforts of unknown but likely Jewish translators. Who else would have the knowledge or inclination to do the translating?
But it is true that the famous (though unlikely to be truly accurate) story of the 70-odd Jews (from where the Septuagint gets its name) put into separate rooms to translate the Torah was just about the translation of the Pentateuch. The other translations came later and were largely not as thoughtful as compared to the work done for the Pentateuch.
OP,
You are historically accurate on the details of the Septuagint but you seem to be a bit cynical about the whole thing. Significant individuals contemporary or close historically with the translators respected the effort and the outcome.
Philo and Josephus both thought the document was divinely inspired. My understanding of inspiration wouldn't allow for that conclusion but their attitude does mean the translation should be taken very seriously.
There was political as well as spiritual motivations behind the translation. The Jewish leaders of the day were giving copies of the Septuagint to visiting diplomats. When Philip the evangelist met up with the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was returning home from Jerusalem, he was reading from the Septuagint version of Isaiah (Acts 8:27-31). No doubt he received the copy during a diplomatic visit to Jerusalem.
Because the document represented the history and spiritual heart and soul of Israel in a common language I am sure there would have been meticulous care taken with the translation.
You really shouldn't be glib or cynical about this document. If nothing else, it substantiates the genuineness of the Tanakh and the purity of the text going far back into history. It is enormously significant.
OP,
No doubt, but the Gemara is also fully aware of that too - like mountains suspended by a hair (Chagiga 10a/b). As you know, large chunks of Halacha are based on oral traditions [aka Oral Law] and were only sought reference in the text for the sake of double authority.
The Mishna in Chagiga is a favorite of mine in these discussions and I'm glad to see someone else knows it out there. The great question is, if the (Pharisaic) rabbis themselves were aware that these were mountains hanging by a thread, then why didn't they challenge this "Oral Tradition" more thoroughly?
Or was it just that the rabbis who did challenge it joined the ranks of the Sadducees?
I actually think this issue is directly germane to Jesus' POV. He's like a Pharisee in some ways, but he's also like a Sadducee in that he challenges the Pharisaic "tradition." He also does some things that are totally new.
This is reflected in the tone of the NT, which is part Tanakh, part Mishna, and part... well, something new.
CM,
The great question is, if the (Pharisaic) rabbis themselves were aware that these were mountains hanging by a thread, then why didn't they challenge this "Oral Tradition" more thoroughly?
Or was it just that the rabbis who did challenge it joined the ranks of the Sadducees?
I actually think this issue is directly germane to Jesus' POV. He's like a Pharisee in some ways, but he's also like a Sadducee in that he challenges the Pharisaic "tradition." He also does some things that are totally new.
Where Jesus is concerned you are missing an important point. Yes, the Sadducees and Jesus both disagreed with the Pharisees but for very different reasons.
The Sadducees minimized the Tanakh. The Pharisees considered it primary. They (S's) were way left of center. For them the Tanakh did not represent critical material. Judging from your glibness about who wrote it questioning what diff it makes I would assess you as very like the Sads (no insult intended).
Jesus on the other hand endorsed the Tanakh and questioned the Talmud.
In the Sermon on the Mount he clearly said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets (Tanakh) and then went on in that sermon to attack the Talmud. He repeatedly said "you have heard it said...," referring to comments in the Mishna and then added the correction based on the Tannakh.
Jesus corrected the P's and completely ignored the S's.
Orthoprax,
Um, she's raped in Gen 34:2. Read the text, man!
Oops, I guess I read that too fast. Thanks for pointing that out.
This has piqued my interest, so I looked up the word parthenos in Kittel's Greek dictionary. It describes the various meanings of the word depending on context. It looks as if it can mean virgin (e.g. Lev 12.13; Ez. 44:22), but needn't do. Here are some snippets:
"In the LXX παρθένος has much the same sense as בְּתוּלָה for which it is used in the great majority of instances. ... In many verses it simply means “girl,” ... though the chastity of the παρθένος is usually included as self-evident even in more general use, ... In some instances virginity is specially emphasised, e.g., Lv. 21:13 f.
Only twice is παρθένος used for עַלְמָה, ... The Greek. would give παρθένος the intrinsic meaning of both בְּתוּלָה and עַלמָה. In the LXX, however, there is usually differentiation which strongly develops the one line of non-biblical usage for παρθένος; thus בְּתוּלָה implies virginity more forcefully. Nevertheless, one may see from Gn. 24:43 that παρθένος can have the sense of עַלְמָה: “a young woman ready for marriage,” ... In a special instance παρθένος can even be a girl who has been raped, Gn. 34:3 for עֲרָהןַ
Kittel concludes:
" This review... makes it plain that on purely lexical grounds it is impossible to say whether the translator is expressing true virginity when he uses παρθένος at Is. 7:14. The total picture of LXX usage demands no more than the sense of a “woman untouched by a man up to the moment of the conception (of Immanuel). ... On the basis of LXX usage it is also possible that the translator of Is. 7:14 envisaged a non-sexual origin of the virgin’s son."
I guess the key to Isa 7:14 is the context. I'll have a look at some (critical!) commentaries tonight, if I find the time.
Oh, it doesn't seem to always mean biological virgin in the New Testament either. It depends on context.
@Ennis,
The Sadducees minimized the Tanakh. The Pharisees considered it primary. They (S's) were way left of center. For them the Tanakh did not represent critical material. Judging from your glibness about who wrote it questioning what diff it makes I would assess you as very like the Sads (no insult intended).
Interesting. My impression (based on Talmudic literature) is that the Sadducees did follow the Pentateuch at least, but took it more literally than the Pharisees (e.g. Pentecost, lex talionis). When you say they didn't take the Tanakh seriously, do you mean the Law or the Prophets?
Jesus on the other hand endorsed the Tanakh and questioned the Talmud.
In the Sermon on the Mount he clearly said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets (Tanakh) and then went on in that sermon to attack the Talmud. He repeatedly said "you have heard it said...," referring to comments in the Mishna and then added the correction based on the Tannakh.
That is a complex text and a good place to start. I don't think it's really an endorsement of the Tanakh, nor an attack on the Talmud (Jesus is addressing the OT there, not the Talmud or Mishna). It's more like Jesus saying, Hey, that was the old way (Mosaic law), but here is the lesson for us today.
CM
That is a complex text and a good place to start. I don't think it's really an endorsement of the Tanakh, nor an attack on the Talmud (Jesus is addressing the OT there, not the Talmud or Mishna). It's more like Jesus saying, Hey, that was the old way (Mosaic law), but here is the lesson for us today.
Am I wrong in understanding the following terms all refer to the same thing: "OT," "Tanakh," "Law & Prophets" and "Hebrew Bible?"
And, am I wrong in understanding the Talmud (including the Mishna) were teachings based on the Hebrew Bible?
Assuming those understandings to be correct, if Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (OT, Tanakh, Hebrew Bible) then what teachings is he correcting in the rest of the sermon?
I don't think Jesus was introducing a new way. I think he was making corrections on what others (Pharisee, Sadducee or otherwise) had taught about the old way.
Here is what Jesus said exactly...
Matthew 5:17-20, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets (Hebrew Bible): I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (a remarkable endorsement of the OT) 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, (he didn't bother to mention the Sads) ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
He clearly honored the teachings of the OT and then immediately launched into a correction of what was being taught about the OT.
I think Jesus was separating the inspired writings (OT) from commentary on the inspired writing (Talmud, mishna, gemara). And, he was encouraging every person to maintain a strong interface with the inspired text rather than with the uninspired comments made by humans.
As a further endorsement of this understanding Jesus later accused the Pharisees of allowing their traditions (Talmud, Mishna) to supercede God's commandments (His word).
The Pharisees asked Jesus why his disciples didn't follow the tradition of the elders and Jesus answered...
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Pharisees vs Sadducees
The Pharisees were ultra conservative accepting all the inspired writings. The Sadducees were secularist accepting the parts of Scripture which served a political purpose and spitting out the rest. This is a simplification but explains what I understand to be true.
EP,
"Philo and Josephus both thought the document was divinely inspired."
Yes - they thought so specifically of the translation of the Torah, not so of the translations of the other texts.
"Because the document represented the history and spiritual heart and soul of Israel in a common language I am sure there would have been meticulous care taken with the translation."
Ok, you may be as sure as you want, but according to the late Sir Godfrey Driver (perhaps you've heard of him? he's a bit of an expert on the topic): "Written in the 'common dialect' of the Greek language current in the Mediterranean world, it is clearly the work of different translators of varying skill; for example, the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/driver1.html
"You really shouldn't be glib or cynical about this document. If nothing else, it substantiates the genuineness of the Tanakh and the purity of the text going far back into history. It is enormously significant."
And that's great and all, but if you're interested in a regular and reliable translation of Tanach then you should be looking elsewhere.
CM,
"The great question is, if the (Pharisaic) rabbis themselves were aware that these were mountains hanging by a thread, then why didn't they challenge this "Oral Tradition" more thoroughly?"
Because they generally agreed with it? That was basically the point of the Pharisees.
"I actually think this issue is directly germane to Jesus' POV. He's like a Pharisee in some ways, but he's also like a Sadducee in that he challenges the Pharisaic "tradition.""
I think Jesus makes the same error that I've called you on in the past - making a false dichotomy between observance of tradition and adherence to moral precepts. Granted there are hypocrites who do the former in place of the latter - and they persist even to this day, but there is no sense of mutual exclusion.
That some people care about kashrut and give no care to lashon hara doesn't mean that the two conflict or that there's nothing worthwhile in holding by kashrut.
EP,
"The Sadducees minimized the Tanakh. The Pharisees considered it primary. They (S's) were way left of center. For them the Tanakh did not represent critical material."
Say what? Both groups considered Tanach as holy scripture, but where the Sadducees interpreted it strictly and independently the Pharisees were exegetical and linked to oral traditions.
"Jesus on the other hand endorsed the Tanakh and questioned the Talmud. In the Sermon on the Mount he clearly said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets (Tanakh) and then went on in that sermon to attack the Talmud. He repeatedly said "you have heard it said...," referring to comments in the Mishna and then added the correction based on the Tannakh."
I'm sorry to say this, but it sounds like you're way off. The "you have heard it saids" are all quotes straight out of the Torah.
1) You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder' (Exodus 20:13)
2) You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' (Exodus 20:14)
3) It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' (Deut. 24:1)
4) Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' (Numbers 30:2)
5) You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' (Exodus 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21)
6) You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor (Lev 19:18) and hate your enemy.' (I don't know where the hating your enemy comes from.)
Jesus wasn't attacking the Talmud since most acutely the Talmud wasn't written yet, but in general he simply puts his own spin on those standard verses - some of which are perspectives similar to what is found in the Talmud and others which could simply be complementary messages (though most simply go a step or two too far).
OP,
That some people care about kashrut and give no care to lashon hara doesn't mean that the two conflict or that there's nothing worthwhile in holding by kashrut.
I don't think anyone ever suggested as much. My philosophy is, to each his own. If you enjoy keeping kosher the OJ way, go for it.
There is something to be said, however, for not losing sight of the (ethical) forest for the (ritual/halakhic) trees.
OP
And that's great and all, but if you're interested in a regular and reliable translation of Tanach then you should be looking elsewhere.
Where might that be?
I won't get into a mud slinging match over the Septuagint but I will say that Driver's comments in no way suggest that he disrepected the document. He was actually more critical of the Masoretic text than he was of the Septuagint and he made it very clear that each text was supportive of the other. Driver did not suggest that the Septuagint was less significant than the Masoretic text.
And, all scholars agree (including Driver) that the differences and errors shaken together amount to no significant change in meaning. The Septuagint endoreses the Masoretic text and vice versa.
OP
I'm sorry to say this, but it sounds like you're way off. The "you have heard it saids" are all quotes straight out of the Torah.
Yes, but he was correcting the interpretations of those passages not the passages. What Jesus taught about those verses was different to what the Pharisees taught.
He started with the Bible text because it simplified things. If he had tried to correct each and every interpretation/application common to his day, which were extensive, the sermon would have been as long as the NT.
And He frequently addressed particular teachings throughout the record of the Gospels.
OP
Jesus wasn't attacking the Talmud since most acutely the Talmud wasn't written yet,
The Talmud wasn't redacted as yet but what is contained in the Talmud was established in Jesus day. In fact, the Talmud was the written form of the oral tradition during Jesus time. And, it was put in writing because the sages were afraid the "oral" tradition would be lost due to the heavy persecution the Jewish people expreiencing. I'm sure yu know this. SO, YES, JESUS WAS CORRECTING WHAT LATER BECAME THE TALMUD.
Jesus was more interested in the Words of G_d thatn the commentary of man.
In Matthew 23 Jesus scathingly denounced the entire Pharisaic institution as "hypocritical" and repeatedly called their hand on particular teachings showing them to them have ulterior motives.
As an aside I think it is interesting that Jesus waited until the end of his ministry to make his most condemning remarks toward Phaiseeism. Up until this time he was patient and even kind in spite of being attacked and accused often.
So, maybe Jesus wasn't attacking the Talmud completely but he was attacking the attitudes they had toward these teachings. It would be like me honoring my library of commentaries over the actual text of the Bible.
OP said,
The "you have heard it saids" are all quotes straight out of the Torah.
Ennis said,
Yes, but he was correcting the interpretations of those passages not the passages. What Jesus taught about those verses was different to what the Pharisees taught.
I'm with OP here. Jesus was reforming Mosaic law, not correcting an interpretation. How can you interpret "an eye for an eye" as "turn the other cheek?"
On that note, perhaps Jesus took his authority to reform Mosaic law from passages in the Prophets that suggest its mutability, e.g. the famous "New Testament" (brit chadasha in Hebrew) passage (in Jeremiah if memory serves).
CM
How can you interpret "an eye for an eye" as "turn the other cheek?"
Perfect. Now we are getting somewhere.
The original command, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," was restrictive not prescriptive.
If it was prescriptive, you would be required to take the equivalent of an eye every time an offense occurred. But, being restrictve, we were being limited to only a punishment equal to the offense.
For example, how many times do people wish a broken leg or worse on someone who cuts them off in traffic. How many times do people become viciously hateful in response to minor irritations, obviously overreacting to the offense.
But Jesus was saying you don't even have to take as much as an eye. You can take less even to the point of requiring nothing at all, turn the other cheek.
That, of course, means he rejected nothing in the OT but was simply correcting the common teaching. The law was fine as it was. It just needed to be understood properly.
CM,
On that note, perhaps Jesus took his authority to reform Mosaic law from passages in the Prophets that suggest its mutability, e.g. the famous "New Testament" (brit chadasha in Hebrew) passage (in Jeremiah if memory serves).
Correct Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of the new covenant but he is speaking of a time that is yet to come in which an Israel centered kingdom will be established. In other words, that kingdom hasn't happened yet.
The only thing mutating, however, are the the people not the truth or the prophesies. In fact, Ezekial speaks of this very thing (Ezek. 36:26-27).
EP,
"Where might that be?"
None are perfect but there are several with consistent approaches throughout the whole. The KJV, for example, is decent usually. When in doubt, just read the Hebrew like I do, aright?
"And, all scholars agree (including Driver) that the differences and errors shaken together amount to no significant change in meaning"
For some parts yes, for other parts no. You're just wrong in saying that the paraphrased Greek interpretation of the book of Daniel didn't lose meaning from the original. If you compare an English translation from the Greek and and English translation from the Hebrew you will in fact find many discrepencies.
"Yes, but he was correcting the interpretations of those passages not the passages. What Jesus taught about those verses was different to what the Pharisees taught."
Oh, OK. Or maybe the Pharisees were actually more accurately representing what those verses meant. Hmm.
"The Talmud wasn't redacted as yet but what is contained in the Talmud was established in Jesus day."
Wrong. The general perspectives did exist, but the Talmud includes statements of people who lived centuries after Jesus. What was put in writing out of fear of persecution was the MISHNA - the basic text on which the Talmud is based.
This may all make no difference to you, but for the sake of accuracy and general knowledge try to read up on the material before you get all worked up about it.
..
"That, of course, means he rejected nothing in the OT but was simply correcting the common teaching. The law was fine as it was. It just needed to be understood properly."
There nothing wrong with not pursuing what's due to you, but that's simply not what the Torah meant, nor is it even good law. In addition, Jesus also made adulterers out of people who divorced for anything except adultery. He promoted self-mutilation in response to thought crimes.
These have no foundation in the Torah text and no support in any Jewish source I know of. They were purely his inventions - and bad ones for that matter.
OP,
There nothing wrong with not pursuing what's due to you, but that's simply not what the Torah meant, nor is it even good law.
I'm not sure why you think it to be "not good law." I trust you have your reasons. I, however, believe it to be great law and there are many professionals who will attest to it being great psychology also.
Additionally, I sincerely believe that is exactly what the Torah meant. If you give me arguments to suggest otherwise, besides your personal disagreement, I would gladly consider them.
FTR, I admit not being as well versed in Scripture from the Hebrew perspective as you and other contributors on this blog but I have done the research and I am beginning to suspect that you are attempting to confuse the issue with semantics. Unfortunagtely, there is no response for that.
EP,
"I'm not sure why you think it to be "not good law." I trust you have your reasons."
Because the redress of grievances and the balance of justice is precisely why law exists. If the law literally was "Do not pursue what is owed to you" then the unscrupulous would have a powerless herd from which to prey on.
"Additionally, I sincerely believe that is exactly what the Torah meant. If you give me arguments to suggest otherwise, besides your personal disagreement, I would gladly consider them."
Because that is neither what it says in plain words nor would it even make sense as a matter of law - as I explained above.
Hammurabi's Code uses precisely the same words to describe his legal system: eye for an eye, tooth for tooth - do you think *he* meant what Jesus says?
"I am beginning to suspect that you are attempting to confuse the issue with semantics. Unfortunagtely, there is no response for that."
I am attempting to teach you precision in the words you think you understand but do not. And I take offense to your accusation.
@Ennis,
The original command, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," was restrictive not prescriptive... Jesus was saying you don't even have to take as much as an eye. You can take less even to the point of requiring nothing at all, turn the other cheek.
I basically see your POV here and think it is pretty similar to how I see Jesus. I am no expert on Jesus' theology but we seem to be in agreement that he worked within the framework of Judaism at the time, while still being very innovative.
OP
Hammurabi's Code uses precisely the same words to describe his legal system: eye for an eye, tooth for tooth - do you think *he* meant what Jesus says?
I used to be concerned about the fact that Hammurabi's Code actually predated Moses. It worried me to think that Moses copied Hammurabi rather than the other way around. That seemd to speak against the character of the text.
But, then it occurred to me that all truth is G_d's truth and the revelattion of that truth doesn't always require inspiration.
As to Hammurabi's meaning, I actually think he could have had the same idea in mind, restriction.
Overkill is human nature. Grace is not. The only reason more people don't kill each other more frequently today (for little or no reason at all) is the text has reminded us for millenniums "thou shalt not."
OP
I am attempting to teach you precision in the words you think you understand but do not. And I take offense to your accusation.
I genuinely welcome any teaching from you or anyone else but please speak to the issues.
Offense wasn't my intent.
Candy Man,
I think you are on to something. The connection with the prophets is important, especially as Jesus was seen as one. Here's a succinct quote from the theologian Hermann Diem: "
Jesus
Jesus “opposes the tendency to establish the Law as an absolute by putting forward the point of view that the Law exists for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Law. By this means He refers us back from the Law to the Lawgiver, and thus changes as radically as possible the meaning of the Law itself by restoring its original connexion with the divine Covenant. The Rabbis have forgotten the consolation and the promise of the law and no longer envisage the Scriptures as a whole, as the Book of the Covenant, the document which bears witness to the Covenant grace of God.” (H. Diem, Dogmatics, 157)
Here, Diem picks up on your concern for not getting lost in the "halakhic trees" ("the Law exists for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Law") as well as your idea that Jesus was interpreting the Law within a broader Scriptural horizon: one that included not only the prophets but creation, its purpose, and the logic of divine election (e.g. "The Rabbis ... no longer envisage the Scriptures as a whole"). For more quotes on this issue go here and here.
Orthoprax,
you know your stuff. I'm hoping to find time to post on current commentator's views on the identity of the parthenos/almah. Not sure when I'll find time though. It looks as if the text itself as been so reconfigured over time that a straightforward reading from the immediate context is no longer possible.
EP,
"As to Hammurabi's meaning, I actually think he could have had the same idea in mind, restriction."
Well yes in this sense you are correct. But in the sense that the meaning of the text is that one should not seek recompense for wrongs done to him is simply a false reading of the text. The true meaning is that you should only be compensated in step to the amount you were wronged.
PS,
"you know your stuff. I'm hoping to find time to post on current commentator's views on the identity of the parthenos/almah."
Thanks. As for the identity of the women - try reading the next chapter in Isaiah.
What is the child's purpose: 7:16 - "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."
Compare with:
8:3 "Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."
So the "prophetess" appears to be the same person as the "almah." And it appears that Isaiah is the father of the boy so conceived. Isaiah's wife then?
Hi Candy Man,
Great post! I really enjoyed it, and appreciate your follow up in responding to some of the comments. I highly recommend that you check out the work of Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, who has devoted much of his career to studying the life and teachings of Jesus and attempting to strip away the theistic trappings that institutional Christianity has laid over him (http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/Preachers-and-Teachers/Christianity/John-Shelby-Spong/Bishop-John-Shelby-Spong-Who-Is-Jesus.aspx)
I have been planning a blog post on this theme at Unkosher Jesus, and would like to reference your blog post when I do. OK? Maybe we can have a bit of an inter-blog dialogue, or some such. Anyhow, thanks for this post.
Doug
Hey CM-
Thanks for your comment. I'm pumped to know you're up for an interblog dialogue. My wife and I are new parents, so I'm just getting back into the swing of blogging. Just give me some time and I'll get a post out in response to your post Jesus the Rabbi, and we'll get the ball rolling.
As a warm up act, here's one of my original blog posts in a similar vein:
http://www.unkosherjesus.com/2007/04/jesus-christ-nice-jewish-boy-your.html
Oh, and just for fun:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/211034/november-23-2008/a-colbert-christmas--toby-keith-sings
Merry War on Christmas!
Doug
@Unkosher,
Thanks for your comment. I'm pumped to know you're up for an interblog dialogue. My wife and I are new parents, so I'm just getting back into the swing of blogging.
Congrats on the new addition! I enjoyed your post on being interfaith. Take your time blogging (I'm sure the kid will keep you busy), just shoot me an e-mail when you want to get the dialogue going.
Thank you for this measured discussion. It's certainly been fun to read.
Myself, I always took a transcendental panentheistic view from the NT.
That is, we are made in G-d's image, we have free will, therefore saving ourselves or the post of messiah if you will, is up to any of us. We are all the offspring of G-d, we are all divine, we are all possessed of the potential G-d gave us. If you don't believe in G-d, or your fellow man, one is the same as the other from the transcendent point of view.
With panentheism, G-d is everything, we are part of everything, therefore we are part of G-d.
He is me, I am you, koo koo katchoo.
Of course much Jewish religious spiritual basic theorizing gets down to that very same notion in many ways so nothing surprising there. Then again, childrens' reasoning if often like this when it comes to an understanding of G-d and spirituality. It's adults who turn it into something out of South Park.
Post a Comment