A Response to If_U_Knew: Jesus, the Law, and 1st century Judaism

[Oberon]

[

Isaiah 56:5 blows your assertion above completely out of the water, Oberon. :yes: Dare I say that you understand this as well?

You can assert for ever that Jesus was using Is. 56 because they both have the same english word. However, they also both have opposite interpretations of this word. There is no reason to assume that Jesus was referencing Isaiah, and Isaiah makes NO SENSE in the logion.

Let's look at this in more detail:

Isaia 56 address first foreigners who "convert" (for lack of a better word) and then the "eunuchs" who have been seperated from the Yahweh. Yahweh promises that even though they are "cut-off" they still are his people. Is. 56:5 ends by saying that these "eunuchs" who keep the commandments will not be "cut-off" and will not really be "eunuchs"

In other words, the thrust of the eunuch metaphor in Isaiah is a very negative one, addressing people who have been cut off from their god. It is followed by the encouraging remark that as long as they hold to god's law, they will not really be eunuchs.

Matt. 19:12 has a TOTALLY different approach, and uses a TOTALLY different metaphor. Jesus begins by stating that some people from birth are eunuchs, that some are literally eunuchs (in that they have actually castrated themselves) and then he goes on to the metaphorical eunuchs. In this case, however, the metaphor is to those who remain celibate. In other words, although they were not "made eunuch" in that they were not castrated, they choose to refrain from sex/marriage FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM.

Not only, then, is the "metaphorical eunuch" used completely differently, there is even MORE evidence that Jesus isn't talking about or referencing or alluding to Isaiah.

In Isaiah, the "eunuch" who is "cut-off" from God is in a BAD state. It is NOT a good thing, and in the end can be resolved.

In Matthew, the metaphorical eunuch is GOOD! It is a choice made by those who can, for the sake of the kingdom of god. It is a good thing.

So not only are the two metaphors very different, one is negative, and the other positive. They use the metaphor in the exact opposite way! So there is ZERO reason for reading Isaiah into Matthew.

You are doing so ONLY because both happen to use a term translated as "eunuch" in english.

 

[Mr Cheese]

There is NOTHING in the greater accounts of Jesus life (the gospels) that would point toward him being a part of the essenes. Nothing! :no:

Just jumping in here....

You're wrong...

one example:

Turn the other cheek, this was and is NOT a Jewish idea or "commandment"

It IS an Essene one though....

and there is more, but that is one GOOD example

 

[IF_u_knew]

Just jumping in here....

You're wrong...

one example:

Turn the other cheek, this was and is NOT a Jewish idea or "commandment"

It IS an Essene one though....

and there is more, but that is one GOOD example

Who said ANYTHING about "turn the other cheek?" It wasn't me. :no: I wonder, what do you think is entailed in being passive aggressive? For instance.. Gandhi.. do you take the position of ignorance that most do who consider him to be one that "turned the other cheek?"

I do understand what you mean.. that it was and is not a Jewish idea.. this was the anxiety felt by the prophets, such as Jeremiah when he encouraged the people to be taken into Babylonian captivity rather than remaining to fight those who were coming (he knew the mindset of the People at the time would not understand the strategy that had developed in his mind). They were brilliant in what they were laying out and Jesus was enlightened to this. Look at those who did not pay attention to their enlightenment during the time of the Roman occupation.. obviously they were NOT successful. But look at Israel now... being passive aggressive does not negate the latter part.. the aggressive part.. but the mind is the best weapon against oppression.

Sorry... I do not believe that God will EVER come down and fight off your enemies. He can enlighten you; but the People has to be paying attention and willing. Look at the brilliance of the Exodus.. the events weren't the miracle. It was the enlightenment that came to the brilliant mind of the leader that was the miracle.

But it was NEVER intended for Israel to stay a People who always needed a Leader to carry her as though she is a weak Nation. It was time to grow up and start using your own minds and that wasn't going to happen if you had continued to be coddled as a nation. There was a need for the "babes" to be kicked out of the nest.. so that when the People is back in the Land, as they are now, they actually can stand with Power .. not only for their ownselves, but for the world as a whole.

Israel was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth.. he had to work and earn the position. Hell, look at how Jacob, the 2nd born, even came about gaining the blessing of the firstborn... that was *not* cheating but rather that was brilliance. Can't always get what we want just because of who we *think* we should be; and we can't always get it by fighting physically (exampled by the comparison in Jacobs physical stature as compared to his brother's.. Jacob would have lost out on the blessing had he automatically "shot from the hip" without a strategy in place first); and it certainly won't happen if one never leaves the Nest. Those who are handed everything never have anything to offer back out.. and Israel is a Nation meant to bring not only Truth into the world, but Beauty.. it can't be accomplished by those who just sit around on their arses waiting and expecting all the time.

BY THE WAY: I am SO "Anti-turn-the-other-cheek" that I wonder, when will the abominations in the Holy City be *brought* to an end so that the Jewish can do what they were meant to do in the Land that is theirs. I support 100% any efforts to take back what OBVIOUSLY belongs to the People, Israel. It is quite evident the Land was never meant for the piggy back religions (Islam and Christianity).

 

[IF_u_knew]

You can assert for ever that Jesus was using Is. 56 because they both have the same english word. However, they also both have opposite interpretations of this word. There is no reason to assume that Jesus was referencing Isaiah, and Isaiah makes NO SENSE in the logion.

Let's look at this in more detail:

Isaia 56 address first foreigners who "convert" (for lack of a better word) and then the "eunuchs" who have been seperated from the Yahweh. Yahweh promises that even though they are "cut-off" they still are his people. Is. 56:5 ends by saying that these "eunuchs" who keep the commandments will not be "cut-off" and will not really be "eunuchs"

In other words, the thrust of the eunuch metaphor in Isaiah is a very negative one, addressing people who have been cut off from their god. It is followed by the encouraging remark that as long as they hold to god's law, they will not really be eunuchs.

Matt. 19:12 has a TOTALLY different approach, and uses a TOTALLY different metaphor. Jesus begins by stating that some people from birth are eunuchs, that some are literally eunuchs (in that they have actually castrated themselves) and then he goes on to the metaphorical eunuchs. In this case, however, the metaphor is to those who remain celibate. In other words, although they were not "made eunuch" in that they were not castrated, they choose to refrain from sex/marriage FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM.

Not only, then, is the "metaphorical eunuch" used completely differently, there is even MORE evidence that Jesus isn't talking about or referencing or alluding to Isaiah.

In Isaiah, the "eunuch" who is "cut-off" from God is in a BAD state. It is NOT a good thing, and in the end can be resolved.

In Matthew, the metaphorical eunuch is GOOD! It is a choice made by those who can, for the sake of the kingdom of god. It is a good thing.

So not only are the two metaphors very different, one is negative, and the other positive. They use the metaphor in the exact opposite way! So there is ZERO reason for reading Isaiah into Matthew.

You are doing so ONLY because both happen to use a term translated as "eunuch" in english.

And I have repeatedly stated that my knowledge of his enlightenment regarding the Eunuchs is based on MORE than just Isaiah.

I do not believe that Jesus came to enlighten the whole world .. that the people of the world might actually be so stupid that they can't figure out how to conduct their ownselves in their personal lives is not the issue Jesus was dealing with. He was dealing with the issues HIS People were facing at the time.

Given that Jesus also said right after, forbid NOT the little children to come unto me is enough to realize that YOUR ignorant view falls flat. It is being made clear that his view of the Eunuch was not to be taken as advocating the celibacy. He was NOT like the essenes who built their cities with the children belonging to others rather than with their own. HE WAS BRILLIANT and HIS mind was working in that brilliance as he was separating himself from the very views that you are trying to attribute to him.. to take your view only makes him appear to be an idiot really. There is nothing brilliant in telling people to use common sense and certainly nothing brilliant to tell people to cut off their "seed" from the face of the earth (that really is S-T-U-P-I-D and those who are stupid enough to believe your view.. well, they deserve the consequences of what they believe)... he spoke in this allegorical method though because HE WAS brilliant. The ignorant are STILL none the wiser as to the strategy he laid out for his People.. even when it is put right in front of their faces.

OH.. and for the record, though I know this is not a view supported widely in regards to *exactly* how I see it, but I wholly believe Matthew was written by a Jew with, yes, understanding of the Tanakh. I believe the "mistakes" (such as the four names missing from the genealogy at the beginning.. only one example of what I mean) were intentionally put there for a specific purpose.. it is mentioned in Isaiah, this strategy in fact. For me, it was the book of Matthew that made me question what I was being taught by my teachers and it is what caused me to look more closely at the Tanakh. I came to *this* conclusion when I read Isaiah 28 and immediately understood then that Matthew was written with this in mind based on what is true to my own experience. It is no wonder the creator of the covenant with death, Paul, strongly discouraged people to avoid wrestling with such things as genealogies, calling it a vain pursuit.. I found it to be a rather useful venture for shedding the power of suggestion to rather see what is ACTUALLY written there right in front of our eyes.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I don't understand. What do you imagine my motives to be?

I don't have to "imagine".. you already stated it.

 

[Oberon]

And I have repeatedly stated that my knowledge of his enlightenment regarding the Eunuchs is based on MORE than just Isaiah.

Not really. Every other biblical passage you have used to support your reading concerns a people being cut-off from god. This is a NEGATIVE, very bad, thing.

In Jesus, those who choose to be eunuchs (metaphorically) are praised, and it is a GOOD thing. So if we interpret Jesus as using the same metaphor, he his basically saying "some people choose to be apart from god for the sake of god's kindgom." That would hardly make sense, as Jesus, like any Jew but especially Jesus given his preaching about the kingdom, would hardly be advocating a cutting-off one from god for the sake of god's kingdon. Your use of the metaphor makes no sense in the passage.

If, however, we interpret the logion as three types of eunuchs, one group which from birth is defective, one group which is composed of actually castrated people, and the third group who "choose" to by eunuchs in a metaphorical sense because they want to enter god's kingdom, then the logion makes perfect sense.

Your reading makes no sense, because it basically is supporting those being cut-off from god. Mine makes a great deal of sense, because it is supporting those who choose to remain celibate.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Not really. Every other biblical passage you have used to support your reading concerns a people being cut-off from god. This is a NEGATIVE, very bad, thing.


Uhm.. no ONE that is alive at this moment can be "cut-off" from God except by way of death. God is Life... and as long as we are in it, we are in His presence (thus, the resurrection to awareness of Life as spoken of by the prophets and even Jesus his ownself as opposed to the mystical view of physical resurrection).

They were NEVER (emphasizing NEVER) cut off from God *except* by death. There is a difference between being cut off from the People and being cut off from God... one involves a time of temporary identity crisis (more or less) and the other involves... well, death. If God is Eternal Life, than why would anyone assume that they could be cut off from Him if they are still alive? *AHEM* and here you find the reason for the view of marriage that Jesus gave just prior to what he said about the Eunuchs... As is said in Isaiah 50, God will not find the bill of divorce and the Eunuchs would be given a name better than the sons and daughters.. because they valued what is given to us from God... LIFE!!

Thus.. the enlightenment. :yes:

In Jesus, those who choose to be eunuchs (metaphorically) are praised, and it is a GOOD thing. So if we interpret Jesus as using the same metaphor, he his basically saying "some people choose to be apart from god for the sake of god's kindgom." That would hardly make sense, as Jesus, like any Jew but especially Jesus given his preaching about the kingdom, would hardly be advocating a cutting-off one from god for the sake of god's kingdon. Your use of the metaphor makes no sense in the passage.

If *this* is God's creation, tell me Oberon..where do you think it is the Kingdom of God is? Death? Think.. Think...



If, however, we interpret the logion as three types of eunuchs, one group which from birth is defective, one group which is composed of actually castrated people, and the third group who "choose" to by eunuchs in a metaphorical sense because they want to enter god's kingdom, then the logion makes perfect sense.


The Eunuchs that Jesus was speaking of are one in the same as the Eunuchs spoken of in the Testimonies of the prophets. Your view only makes sense to the ignorant.

There is no consistency with the teachings of Jesus as it should regard to the Tanakh if your view is correct. It is, in fact, in complete opposition. Thus, it begs the question.. why is the NT even attached to the Tanakh?

Your reading makes no sense, because it basically is supporting those being cut-off from god. Mine makes a great deal of sense, because it is supporting those who choose to remain celibate.

NO.. a person who advocates being "cut off" from God on both a personal level as well as a more profound level (meaning if we "cut off" our "seed" from the face of the earth) can kiss the only "future" in Life we can know "goodbye." A person who advocates being "cut off" from God is a person that promotes death and not Life.

The Eunuchs in Isaiah were not cut off from God.. only the People... and AGAIN, that was the beauty written out in Isaiah 56:5. The people that listened to the prophets such as Jeremiah still had hope for their children.. unless of course they died. The end of hope is death. :yes:

 

[Oberon]

Uhm.. no ONE that is alive at this moment can be "cut-off" from God except by way of death.

Then you aren't reading Isaiah well enough. The people in exile did FEEL cut off from god (hence the "eunuch" metaphor). This was a bad thing, while in the Jesus metaphor it is a GOOD thing.

If *this* is God's creation, tell me Oberon..where do you think it is the Kingdom of God is? Death? Think.. Think...

Actually, Jesus thought it was beginning with his mission. But let if we assume you are right for the moment, it still makes no sense to read Isaiah into the passage. Then the passage would end by saying that some choose to be eunuchs for the sake of death (or heaven/god's non-earthly kindgom/etc). It is still a positive thing, something to be sought for those who can. In Isaiah, it not only means something completely different (referring to people who have had to leave the land of Israel thanks to the Babylonians), it is a BAD thing, and Isaiah ends by saying that the eunuchs will not be abandonded (cut-off) from Yahweh if they keep his commandments.

The Eunuchs that Jesus was speaking of are one in the same as the Eunuchs spoken of in the Testimonies of the prophets. Your view only makes sense to the ignorant.

Isaiah refers to people in exiled, while Jesus was neither in exile nor were Jews being exiled. Jesus refers to eunuchs in a positive way, Isaiah in a negative way, and ends with them not being "eunuchs" anymore. The two passages are opposite, and yet you insist on combining them simply because they have the same word.

 

[IF_u_knew]

[/color]

Then you aren't reading Isaiah well enough. The people in exile did FEEL cut off from god (hence the "eunuch" metaphor). This was a bad thing, while in the Jesus metaphor it is a GOOD thing.

Do you REALLY NOT see that you are only agreeing with me. Did you know, Oberon, there is a difference between "a feeling" and "reality?" I often feel I have TOO much on my plate ... but I know that despite that "feeling," if I push through it, I will see the reality is I can handle whatever it is that is put before me. If I gave into my "feeling" ... I would be fearful and anxiety ridden.. good for nothing and truly I would be a waste of life.. the life I was given.

Isaiah was not ignorant to this.. thus the hope in Isaiah 56:5 as well as the praise.. the praise is what Jesus was enlightened to and emphasizing in Matthew 19. Because the People would be choosing Life .. trusting God .. and the Nation was to be blessed for it. And look even now at the evidence of this blessing for their trusting God .. if there was not a People (if they had all died for the wrong type of Pride's sake.. meaning if they chose death because they couldn't handle Life), there would not have been a "return" to the Land.

Really, have you ever known of another Nation that was scattered without a home and yet, over a 2,000 year period, still remained a Nation. Thus the reward by way of recognition.. Israel, the Nation, the People.. in their land. :yes:

Also a good reason for the other two religions to quit waiting for what is inevitable and rather to CHOOSE to recognize this People, the Jewish by relinquishing via free will what doesn't belong to them. If the Christians and the Muslims would face the Truth on their own, it would go well for them I do believe. They still have the opportunity to show the goodness of their hearts... to not relinquish their grasp on the stolen goods is only a reflection of their selfishness.

Ever heard of the story in the Tanakh about the crisis of the two women who came before King Solomon both claiming to be the mother of the baby that was alive as opposed to the baby that died? If so, perhaps you will be able to see how it is King Solomon allowed for them to prove their own heart to see which mother the living baby actually belonged to.

2,000 years the Christians and the Muslims have had the Land and it only took the Jewish to return to it for anyone with a mind for seeing to realize who it is the Land ACTUALLY belongs to.

Jesus was as wise in his allegorical approach to the Eunuch as King Solomon was when he stated to the mothers that he would split the living baby in half. The mothers gave away who the actual mother of that LIVING baby was their ownselves. Same thing, Oberon. :yes:

 

[Oberon]

Do you REALLY NOT see that you are only agreeing with me.

I am agreeing with your interpretation of Isaiah. What I am not agreeing with is reading Isaiah into the logion in Matthew.


In Isaiah, the people FEEL cut-off from Yahweh, and Isaiah encourages them by saying that if they obey his laws they will not be cut-off.

In matthew, he gives two examples of biological eunuchs (from birth and truly castrated eunuchs) and the third (the metaphorical ones) are ENCOURAGED to be metaphorical eunuchs!

Notice the difference. In Isaiah, people are feeling bad because they feel like eunuchs cut off from Yahweh. In matthew, Jesus says that those who can be metaphorical eunuchs SHOULD BE. If Jesus were talking about what Isaiah was, he is basically saying that for the kingdom of god you should make yourself feel cut-off from Yahweh. This makes no sense, as Jesus is very clear about uniting the Jews with Yahweh. Instead, what he means is that those who can make themselves celibate for the sake of the kingdom should do so.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Who said ANYTHING about "turn the other cheek?" It wasn't me. :no: I wonder, what do you think is entailed in being passive aggressive? For instance.. Gandhi.. do you take the position of ignorance that most do who consider him to be one that "turned the other cheek?"

I do understand what you mean.. that it was and is not a Jewish idea.. this was the anxiety felt by the prophets, such as Jeremiah when he encouraged the people to be taken into Babylonian captivity rather than remaining to fight those who were coming (he knew the mindset of the People at the time would not understand the strategy that had developed in his mind). They were brilliant in what they were laying out and Jesus was enlightened to this. Look at those who did not pay attention to their enlightenment during the time of the Roman occupation.. obviously they were NOT successful. But look at Israel now... being passive aggressive does not negate the latter part.. the aggressive part.. but the mind is the best weapon against oppression.

Sorry... I do not believe that God will EVER come down and fight off your enemies. He can enlighten you; but the People has to be paying attention and willing. Look at the brilliance of the Exodus.. the events weren't the miracle. It was the enlightenment that came to the brilliant mind of the leader that was the miracle.

But it was NEVER intended for Israel to stay a People who always needed a Leader to carry her as though she is a weak Nation. It was time to grow up and start using your own minds and that wasn't going to happen if you had continued to be coddled as a nation. There was a need for the "babes" to be kicked out of the nest.. so that when the People is back in the Land, as they are now, they actually can stand with Power .. not only for their ownselves, but for the world as a whole.

Israel was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth.. he had to work and earn the position. Hell, look at how Jacob, the 2nd born, even came about gaining the blessing of the firstborn... that was *not* cheating but rather that was brilliance. Can't always get what we want just because of who we *think* we should be; and we can't always get it by fighting physically (exampled by the comparison in Jacobs physical stature as compared to his brother's.. Jacob would have lost out on the blessing had he automatically "shot from the hip" without a strategy in place first); and it certainly won't happen if one never leaves the Nest. Those who are handed everything never have anything to offer back out.. and Israel is a Nation meant to bring not only Truth into the world, but Beauty.. it can't be accomplished by those who just sit around on their arses waiting and expecting all the time.

BY THE WAY: I am SO "Anti-turn-the-other-cheek" that I wonder, when will the abominations in the Holy City be *brought* to an end so that the Jewish can do what they were meant to do in the Land that is theirs. I support 100% any efforts to take back what OBVIOUSLY belongs to the People, Israel. It is quite evident the Land was never meant for the piggy back religions (Islam and Christianity).

The point being you stated there is nothing in Essenic ideas that ties in with Jesus
I merely pointed ONE out, there are others...

 

[Oberon]

Ok, as promised, I am going to go into a bit more detail on Jesus' view on family. The problem is that it is difficult to go into this without going into what I believe Jesus' mission was. I have tried to avoid that as much as possible, but there are a few references. What is most important to note below, however, is that throughout the tradition, even in ways which we would hardly expect the gospels to record, and in extra-canonical gospels, we find tension between Jesus and traditional family ties. This, combined with other evidence, adds to the likelihood that Jesus never married nor started any family.

Jesus and Family – an intro

It is interesting that when it comes to Jesus’ opposition to traditional family structure and values, even scholars on opposite poles like Crossan and Wright can agree. The reason for this is clear: throughout our sources, there are numerous depictions of Jesus not only reacting negatively to traditional families in general but his own family in particular. Of course, each commentator has their own way of viewing the reason behind this (e.g. Crossan, who uses it to further his idea of Jesus as a 60s radical objecting to the patriarchal family structure). What it is clear enough is that for whatever reason, when it came to family Jesus definitely had issues with the status quo. This is attested to not only in numerous sayings against the family (recorded in Mark, Q, John, and Thomas) but also actions in which Jesus shows contempt for traditional family ties (e.g. “let the dead bury the dead, and the numerous calls for followers to leave the family). Additionally, we have multiple attestation of a “mutual” rejection of Jesus and his own family, from his family members thinking that he was out of his mind to his family and hometown’s disbelief. As I will go into in detail in subsequent posts (when I have some more time) our sources are quite clear in depicting a rift between Jesus and the traditional family, which was perhaps the most important cross-cultural symbol in the ancient Mediterranean, and was certainly a vital symbol for Jesus’ contemporaries.

 

[Oberon]

The first step is to go over the various passages.


1. Not peace but household division:

Mat 10:35ἦλθον γὰρ διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς·
Mat 10:36 καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ οἰκιακοὶ αὐτοῦ.

Ēlthon gar dichasia anthrōpōn kata tou patros autou kai thugatera kata tēs mētros autēs kai nymphēn kata tēs pntheras autēs
Kai echthroi tou anthrōpōn hoi oikiakoi autou

Luk 12:52 ἔσονται γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν πέντε ἐν οἴκῳ ἑνὶ διαμεμερισμένοι, τρεῖς ἐπὶ δυσὶ καὶ δύο ἐπὶ τρισί·
Luk 12:53 διαμερισθήσονται πατὴρ ἐπὶ υἱῷ καὶ υἱὸς ἐπὶ πατρί, μήτηρ ἐπὶ θυγατρὶ καὶ θυγάτηρ ἐπὶ μητρί, πενθερὰ ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφη ἐπὶ τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτῆς.

Esontai gar apo tou nun pente en oikō heni diamemerismenoi treis epi dusi kai duo epi trisi
Diameristhēsontai patēr epi huiō kai huios epi patri, mētēr epi thugatri kai thugatēr epi mētri, penthera epi tēn nymphēn autēs kai nymphē epi tēn penteran autēs

Now, both of these passages have been traditionally placed in Q. Certainly, they are similar, and they are obviously part of the same tradition. However, it has to be remembered that for some time after the existence of Q was postulated (and this is still true today) few NT scholars were doing much research into models of oral transmission. The earliest model proposed after Bultmann (Gerhardsson’s) was ignored for some time do to a misunderstanding (see Neusner’s apology to Gerhardsson in the preface to the new English release of Gerhardsson’s first to major works on orality).

We now have far better models, and far more research. The variety in the two sayings above do not appear to me copying by the authors of a written document. They differ more than most of the Q sayings, and not in a redactional way. The core of both sayings (mother against daughter, etc) is the same, but each other seems to have variations as to the extra material around this core. Moreover, these variations do not fit into either typical matthean or lukan vocabulary, nor are do they fit into the agendas of either author. Rather, it appears more like an oral saying has gone through some alteration either in transmission or through multiple sayings by its author (Jesus) or both.

For these reasons, I would hesitate to call this a Q saying, as long as it is assumed that Q was written. It is easier to explain the variations as those from oral transmission than from copying a text.

As for the saying itself, it is clearly sensational, extravagant, and more than a little melodramatic. Such is the nature of oral performances. What is important to note at this point is that both sayings begin by stating that Jesus comes not to bring peace, but rather division (a sword in Matthew, and simply division in Luke), yet this division is cutting through only familial and household ties. Now, as everyone knows who has studied the ancient Mediterranean in general, or ancient Jewish concepts of family in particular, family was THE social organization par excellence. Individualism did not exist, but rather each individual oriented self-identity around the community, which grew outward from the family. Not only that, but family was (in Jewish circles) not just a social given but even a religious symbol. The Jewish family was a smaller model of Israel in a very real sense. In the quotes above, Jesus might be using hyperbole, but the point is clear enough. It is a challenge to (or, as we shall see, redefinition of) one of the most important Jewish symbols and even to the base of Jewish society and community.

 

[Mr Cheese]

2,000 years the Christians and the Muslims have had the Land and it only took the Jewish to return to it for anyone with a mind for seeing to realize who it is the Land ACTUALLY belongs to.

So you think it is good to hold a grudge for 2000 years????

:sarcastic

Of course this is literalism....
One could argue that the temple of God, is the entire planet...not one patch of land in the middle east

But of course there are many ways to see "all" that is being discussed here...
To pretend there is only one (or two) is rathert dishonest

But that is largely what occurs when you try to prove history:sad:

 

[Oberon]

2. Leave your families:

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδείς ἐστιν ὃς ἀφῆκεν οἰκίαν ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ ἀδελφὰς ἢ πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ἣ γυναῖκα ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγροὺς ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ/ amēn legō hymin, oudeis estin hos aphēken oikian ē adelphous ē adelphas ē patera ē mētera ē gynaika ē tekna ē argous heneken emou

You will notice I bolded the word for wife, as it fits nicely into the reason for this whole thread. However, it is clearly part of a larger picture: the call to discipleship. In other passages, it is clear that this involves leaving possessions, house, and home. However, here what is being singled out is FAMILY. All of the traditional family ties, so vital to social functioning in Jesus’ day, are less important than his mission.
3. Hate your family:

Mat 10:37 ῾Ο φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστι μου ἄξιος· καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστι μου ἄξιος/ ho philōn patera ē mētera hyper eme ouk esti mou axious ka ho pilōn hion ē thugatera hper eme ouk esti


Lk 14:26: εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρός με καὶ οὐ μισεῖ τὸν πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τὰς ἀδελφάς, ἔτι τε καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν, οὐ δύναται μοι μαθητὴς εἶναί/ ei tis erchetai pros me kai ou misei ton patera heautou kai tēn mētera kai tēn gynaika kai ta tekna kai tous adelphous kai tas adelhpas eti te kai tēn heautou psychën ou dynatai moi mathētēs einai

Thomas 55 (and in 101): [translation from The Complete Gospels] “Whoever does not hate fathers and mothers cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me.”

Again, attested to in three sources (and although I would argue that Thomas is dependent on the synoptics, but that Matt/Lk here are not taking from a written Q, most scholars would argue the reverse), we have Jesus’ hyperbolic denunciation of the family.

4. Let the dead bury the dead:

In Q, (Matt. 8:22/Lk. 59), Jesus is approached by a would-be disciple, who wants to follow, but first needs to attend to his fathers burial. Jesus’ response: ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς. This response, given the absolutely vital need for a son to make sure the proper burial arrangements of his father were made, would have been absolutely scandalous.

5. Jesus and his own family

Not only do we possess multiple attestations of Jesus’ denunciation of the traditional family, but the gospels also record tension between Jesus and his own family (which is interesting, and certainly fulfills the criterion of embarrassment). John 7:5 records that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. Mk. 3:21 has Jesus’ family so concerned they actually think he is mad and are going to restrain him. Mark 3:35 (present also in Matthew and Luke) and Thomas 99 both have Jesus rejecting his family in favor of the “true” family.


Why all these hostile sayings against families in general and the break between Jesus and his own family? I don’t think that Jesus was opposed to families per se. However, part of his mission, I believe, was recreating or restructuring Israel for the kingdom of Yahweh. The old ties of family were superseded by the newer call, just like the old Israel was being redefined in Jesus’ mission.
Now, I did not do all this to get into a debate about Jesus. One could write several books on this and only scratch the surface. The big names in the historical Jesus quest of late (Crossan, Meier, Wright, and Dunn) have all written more than one book, and Meier recently finished his fourth volume on the subject.
What is important is that it is clearly represented in the Jesus tradition that Jesus’ teachings undermined how family was understood. This included marriage. Actually, his teachings on divorce, represented not only in the gospels but in our earliest witness (Paul) are ALSO radical. Paul merely forbids divorce (radical enough for that time) while the gospels presume a teaching wherein one man and one woman marry. The important point is that when all this is combined, we get a very clear view that Jesus did not respect the traditional family ties as he was supposed to. He is even quoted as cursing his own community.

In light of all this (combined with the Matthean logion of 19:12, the constant travelling of Jesus with multiple different women, along with no mention anywhere of a wife, and Paul’s lack of a reference to Jesus when defending a right to marriage, as well as what appears to be an allusion to the Jesus tradition promoting celibacy) I hardly think it is a stretch to suppose Jesus was a celibate. In fact, I think it very likely, given all of the above.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The first step is to go over the various passages.


1. Not peace but household division:

Mat 10:35ἦλθον γὰρ διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς·
Mat 10:36 καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ οἰκιακοὶ αὐτοῦ.

Ēlthon gar dichasia anthrōpōn kata tou patros autou kai thugatera kata tēs mētros autēs kai nymphēn kata tēs pntheras autēs
Kai echthroi tou anthrōpōn hoi oikiakoi autou

Luk 12:52 ἔσονται γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν πέντε ἐν οἴκῳ ἑνὶ διαμεμερισμένοι, τρεῖς ἐπὶ δυσὶ καὶ δύο ἐπὶ τρισί·
Luk 12:53 διαμερισθήσονται πατὴρ ἐπὶ υἱῷ καὶ υἱὸς ἐπὶ πατρί, μήτηρ ἐπὶ θυγατρὶ καὶ θυγάτηρ ἐπὶ μητρί, πενθερὰ ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφη ἐπὶ τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτῆς.

Esontai gar apo tou nun pente en oikō heni diamemerismenoi treis epi dusi kai duo epi trisi
Diameristhēsontai patēr epi huiō kai huios epi patri, mētēr epi thugatri kai thugatēr epi mētri, penthera epi tēn nymphēn autēs kai nymphē epi tēn penteran autēs

Now, both of these passages have been traditionally placed in Q. Certainly, they are similar, and they are obviously part of the same tradition. However, it has to be remembered that for some time after the existence of Q was postulated (and this is still true today) few NT scholars were doing much research into models of oral transmission. The earliest model proposed after Bultmann (Gerhardsson’s) was ignored for some time do to a misunderstanding (see Neusner’s apology to Gerhardsson in the preface to the new English release of Gerhardsson’s first to major works on orality).

We now have far better models, and far more research. The variety in the two sayings above do not appear to me copying by the authors of a written document. They differ more than most of the Q sayings, and not in a redactional way. The core of both sayings (mother against daughter, etc) is the same, but each other seems to have variations as to the extra material around this core. Moreover, these variations do not fit into either typical matthean or lukan vocabulary, nor are do they fit into the agendas of either author. Rather, it appears more like an oral saying has gone through some alteration either in transmission or through multiple sayings by its author (Jesus) or both.

For these reasons, I would hesitate to call this a Q saying, as long as it is assumed that Q was written. It is easier to explain the variations as those from oral transmission than from copying a text.

As for the saying itself, it is clearly sensational, extravagant, and more than a little melodramatic. Such is the nature of oral performances. What is important to note at this point is that both sayings begin by stating that Jesus comes not to bring peace, but rather division (a sword in Matthew, and simply division in Luke), yet this division is cutting through only familial and household ties. Now, as everyone knows who has studied the ancient Mediterranean in general, or ancient Jewish concepts of family in particular, family was THE social organization par excellence. Individualism did not exist, but rather each individual oriented self-identity around the community, which grew outward from the family. Not only that, but family was (in Jewish circles) not just a social given but even a religious symbol. The Jewish family was a smaller model of Israel in a very real sense. In the quotes above, Jesus might be using hyperbole, but the point is clear enough. It is a challenge to (or, as we shall see, redefinition of) one of the most important Jewish symbols and even to the base of Jewish society and community.

the whole argument(s) you have are based (largely)on the fact that we have good histroy with the gospels....

What if this is untrue...

then yer up the creek without a paddle; but then you are hardly the first:flirt:

 

[Oberon]

the whole argument(s) you have are based (largely)on the fact that we have good histroy with the gospels....

What if this is untrue...

then yer up the creek without a paddle; but then you are hardly the first:flirt:

Actually it isn't. It is based on the arguments that we have an oral traditions that has been fairly reliably passed on in the gospels. It is not completely reliable, but reliable enough that we can apply various criteria to determine what sayings or events go back to Jesus.

For example, the criterion of multiple attestations (exists in more than one source), the criterion of embarassment (it is in the gospels, even though it makes Jesus look bad), and the criterion of coherence (it coheres with other aspects of Jesus established by other criteria) are all good tools. All of them fit here.

Moreover, my own research into orality within the Jesus tradition indicates that transmission was controlled by particular people who were considered authoritative. Jesus' teachings were first transmitted by his disciples, and then by their disciples. Even in the writings of Papias, active in the late first and early second century, we can see that he regards the teachings of the disciples of Jesus as important, and doesn't care what just anyone has to say about Jesus. Of course, I have already addressed this more in depth here

 

[Mr Cheese]

Actually it isn't. It is based on the arguments that we have an oral traditions that has been fairly reliably passed on in the gospels. It is not completely reliable, but reliable enough that we can apply various criteria to determine what sayings or events go back to Jesus.

For example, the criterion of multiple attestations (exists in more than one source), the criterion of embarassment (it is in the gospels, even though it makes Jesus look bad), and the criterion of coherence (it coheres with other aspects of Jesus established by other criteria) are all good tools. All of them fit here.

Moreover, my own research into orality within the Jesus tradition indicates that transmission was controlled by particular people who were considered authoritative. Jesus' teachings were first transmitted by his disciples, and then by their disciples. Even in the writings of Papias, active in the late first and early second century, we can see that he regards the teachings of the disciples of Jesus as important, and doesn't care what just anyone has to say about Jesus. Of course, I have already addressed this more in depth here

How do you deal with the fact that there were obviusly, competing factions....

and arguably, at least some of the texts we now have, are actually competing with each other. Some say for example that some of the canonicals are deliberatly written to denounce the Gospel of thomas... Others point out that in mark the disciples are likend to simpletons....

Not wanting to detract from your thread, as frankly it is interesting, kind of...but just a thought

What do you think of the merkavah mystics as related to a historical Jesus? Or not something you ahve covered?

 

[Oberon]

How do you deal with the fact that there were obviusly, competing factions....

The competing factions initially seem to have passed on the same traditions. The problem came mainly from interpretation, not from the alteration of the tradition itself. Most of the competing texts are far later than the canonical ones, and I use Thomas and John with equal skepticism. For more on this topic, though, see the link I provided in my last post.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The competing factions initially seem to have passed on the same traditions.

um, like the essenes had a solar calendar, Jews had a lunar
essenes stated the 2nd temple was a bad thing, Jews didnt

Some sethian groups thoroughly thought the group/s that became catholics/orthodox were suspect (to be polite)

Some argue vegetarianism was an aspect of certain groups...others not

The merkavah mustics, the Enochians... were hardly the same as other jews

Then of course there is cosmology... the Gnostic cosmology, emanationism, neoplatonic etc etc etc these are the same as "orthodox/catholic"?

I understand how Christians, the orthodox can be seen to be the first "messianic jews"...but I think its a bit simple to say "The competing factions initially seem to have passed on the same traditions."

Or perhaps I am wrong