in Hebrew it's called
Ezra 4 or the External/Apocryphal Ezra). That particular section goes against one of the prime concepts in Judaism, which is the unbroken chain of tradition. Obviously the author wished to praise Ezra, but in doing so he was also undermining all of Jewish tradition.
Yes, it's also known as 4 Ezra.
Pardon my ignorance, but does this "unbroken chain of tradition" theory state that the Tanakh always existed - through the fall of Jerusalem and the exile? If so, what supportive writing is there for this? It would seem hard to imagine that the Babylonians would have left the texts untouched or allowed Yahudah to reproduce them in captivity. But possible I suppose.
Nevertheless, if 2 Esdras/4 Ezra is indeed true - we not only have an interesting testimony of how the writings were recreated (as well as the commentary that seems to be entwined in Torah) but also a witness to other books existed outside of the canon for the lay people.
Origen's explanation makes little sense to me, when considering that Tanach is stuffed to the brim with scenes that depict Israelite leaders in controversial positions and actions.
That's a fair comment.
Which undermines the term "Church Father". Meaning, being a "Church Father" is merely a title and doesn't mean that you were on a higher spiritual level than modern-day Christians.
I don't think that is his view and it certainly isn't mine.
These so called "church fathers" are not more worthy of praise simply because they came before us. However, their writings are worth consideration because they lived in a time closer to the first century Christianity or the Way of the Natsarim.
In this day and age, when many of the leaders of Christianity are very confused as to what the right way is, and many reject Torah - it can useful to read these writings of these "church fathers". But I don't think anyone affords them the same respect that Jews seem to afford their sages.
Generations long past were greater than us. Not infallible, but certainly greater than us in many aspects.
What makes you say this?
Thus, my personal analysis will only get me so far. I trust the teachings of our sages.
I find it sad to hear you limit yourself, your future and future generations with this opinion. Again, I would like to know what makes you think this.
You may appreciate at the very least that these men had access to ancient traditions long since lost to us. Consider that 1500-2000 years ago was much closer to the times of the last prophets (in particular according to the Jewish chronology) than our time.
But IF (and again, just as an idea -
IF) the Messiah did arrive for the first time in the first century and events took place according to the Besorah - they could be the possibility of some adaptability being made to traditions and acceptable books. As many removed ones supported the first arrival of Mashiach. And let's facr it, many traditions were introduced by the time of the first century, loosely under the authority of Torah, and supposedly according to oral tradition handed down from Mosheh. Judaism has seemed to grow quite a bit since Sinai to today, mainly by the hands of Rabbis.
I know you don't believe Yahushua, but I'm saying
IF such a Messiah figure appeared and first century Natsarim were leading many away from mainstream "Judaism", it's possible some heavy shepherding MAY have taken place, right? Or is the idea totally impossible to you?
While in the Talmud it says:
Ah yes, the Talmud...
To be completely honest, I don't think we're going to be able to agree on the authority of the Talmud. I appreciate it's importance to your community - but I don't recognise it's authority any more than you would in the book of MattitiYahu for example
So it's difficult to comment on what it says.
Again, thank you for considering my views though and sharing yours. It's inspiring to have a reasonable conversation about such matters instead of an angry debate,
Peace.
