Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site phs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!duke!phs!lisa
From: lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Jesus, N'tzarim, and Yirmiyahu Ben David (pt 3)
Message-ID: <942@phs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 21:39:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: phs.942
Posted: Mon Oct 1 21:39:57 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 07:21:07 EDT
Organization: Duke Physiology
Lines: 145
> [The] early followers of Yeshua were observant Jews some 40 years
> after the execution of Yeshua. ... Christian doctrines of today
> originate in the paganism of the Roman Empire - not with the
> authentic early group of Jewish followers. ... The heretical
> evolution of Christianity didn't get rolling well until 110 CE
> when the N'tzarim leadership was booted out of Jerusalem with
> the other Jews and the first gentile "bishop" was installed.
In the past two postings, I have tried to emphasize a few points:
First, Jesus was a Jew. He lived in a Jewish society, worshipped
in synagogues, and kept the Sabbath and dietary laws. Palestine
in the First Century was not, however, a homogeneous society.
Beneath the bonds of community, ritual and tradition that linked all
Jews together, many competing sects claimed to teach the "real"
meaning of Torah and God's covenant. The followers of Jesus
undoubtedly saw him in this very role - one who taught the way
of truth and life.
The second point I have attempted to make is that the writings of
early Christians which have come to us as the Greek text of the
New Testament have been preserved in a most remarkable way. We
have so many different lines of transmission - manuscripts from
all parts of the Roman Empire, quotations in other Christian
writers, early translations - that the careful scholar can critically
compare the evidence and make a pretty good statement about what
the original autographs really said. By all evidence available,
the text of the Greek New Testament has greater claim to *reliability*
and *accuracy* than any other document from antiquity. Thus our
*interpretations* of the New Testament may well be fallible and
corrupted by theological prejudice, but the *text* stands the most
rigid scrutiny of textual criticism.
The crucial question (and the one I find most interesting) is the
middle term. How can we claim that those who wrote the 27 letters,
tractates, apologies, etc. that have come to be called the New
Testament, *really* understood and *correctly* applied the teachings
of Jesus.
The first point here is that the books of the New Testament are not
the work of "observant" Jews writing to other "observant" Jews about
interpretations of the Mosaic Law. The Acts of the Apostles record
that the church quickly expanded to include Samaritans, and even
Gentiles at Antioch. The dominant question of that generation - what
to do with the "uncircumcised" was answered at a council in Jerusalem
around the early 50s: let them observe four basic commands incumbent
upon all people (Jew and Gentile alike), and let them live in peace
with their Jewish brothers and sisters.
Among the Gospels, Matthew knew of a time when Jesus commanded his
disciples to go only to the "lost sheep" of Israel, but for the
present generation, the command of Christ was to "go and make
disciples of *all* nations" (ethnoi - nations, peoples, etc.).
The audience of John's Gospel certainly included non-Jewish elements.
The opponents of Jesus are referred to as "the Jews," and basic
Hebrew/Aramaic terms like "Rabbi" are interpreted for those not
familiar with the language.
By the way, *all* of the New Testament is written in Greek. A few
scholars occasionally posit a possible Aramaic original for a few
(mainly liturgical) verses here and there, but the vast majority of
the text in no way resembles a translation. In fact more quotations
of the Old Testament are from the Septuagint (an Greek translation
used in the synagogues) than are from the Masoritic (Hebrew) text!
And even the most unliterary books of the New Testament are unquestionably
Greek originals. They adopt Greek sentence style. They argue on
the basis of Greek words and idioms (ever try to translate a
pun to another language :-) ). In short, there are *no* Hebrew/
Aramaic originals standing behind the New Testament. There may be
an Aramaic source used by the Gospels (as Papias, an early Christian
writer suggested), but the only writings from the first (and second)
generation of Christianity which have come to us were written in Greek.
St. Paul gives us a most radical re-interpretation of Jesus' teaching.
For him Christ is the "end" of the Law (telos - goal or termination).
The Law of Moses was a "schoolmaster" (paidagogos - a tutor) that led
to faith in Christ - now that faith has come, the paidagogos is no
longer in authority. Paul tells of a visit to Jerusalem where he took
along Titus (an uncircumcised Gentile) specifically to make an issue
of *not* circumcising him! Paul's operating principle is the "theology"
that the death/resurrection of Jesus is the basis of Christian existence
and ethic, and thus the (old) covenant of Israel and the Law of Moses
are no longer relevant to one's relationship with God. (By the way,
was Saul/Paul one of the N'tzarim, or was he one of the "pagan"
Romans :-). )
But, would Jesus have agreed with Paul? In one sense it is impossible
to say with certainty what Jesus believed. The only reports of his
teachings come from the very writers in question. On the other hand,
those who claim Jesus to be the ultimate revelation of God to mankind
have to try to reach some conclusions!
All four Gospels speak of the questioning of Jesus the night before
his death. In each of them the gist of the charge is that Jesus
deserves to die because he has claimed himself to be the "Son of
God/Son of Man" - the Messiah who would usher in the reign of God.
Now it was not a capital offense to claim to be the Messiah. In
the Second Century Aqiba, a respected Rabbi, endorsed the Messianic
claims of Bar Kokhba. When the Jews were crushed and Bar Kokhba was
killed, Aqiba was reported to be somewhat chagrined (:-)), but remained
a respected Rabbi. The obvious implication is that there was something
different about Jesus' claim that was incompatible with established
Judaism.
Perhaps a hint comes through in Matthew and Mark, where Jesus is
initially charged with disrespect for the Temple - the focus of
Jewish life and religion. Did Jesus preach a "kingdom of God"
without Temple, without sacrifice, even without the Torah of
Moses (which laid out extensive regulation of ritual practices)?
Did Jesus preaching about worshipping God "in spirit and in truth"
rub the religious establishment the wrong way? Did the freedom
with which Jesus reinterpreted - and even revoked - Torah regulations
rub the scholarly establishment the wrong way? Apparently Jesus'
capital offense was elevating himself from a "disciple" of Moses
and teacher of Torah, to a "greater" than Moses and a giver of
Torah (instruction). And because of this subversiveness, the
Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death.
What is the point of this discussion? Simply that Jesus, a good Jew,
an "observant" Jew, even a loyal Jew, saw God's kingdom focused in
*himself* not in *Judaism*. Thus Matthew correctly interpreted the
significance of Jesus commission - "Go and make disciples of *all
peoples* ... teaching them to observe all that *I* have commanded."
Similarly, Paul was correct that "in Christ, it is neither circumcision
(being a Jew) nor uncircumcision (being a Gentile) that has any
importance, but rather faith which works through love."
Alas, I have said enough (someone might say too much!). The question
I wish to leave is this: If the writers of the New Testament were
able to cut through the cultural trappings in Jesus life and teachings
(his observance and teaching of ritual practices) and adapt the
"essential core" of Jesus' message to their non-Palestinian (and often
non-Jewish) congregations, how may we at the end of the Twentieth Century
appropriate the "essential core" of Jesus' message to the faith and
practice of our own situation?
Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke University