Leviticus

[kejos]

Perhaps you were not aware that wiki has been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica,

No, I'm not. Not where religion is concerned.

But if you feel it's incorrect, you should edit it and thereby correct it.

I did, until the dead hand of the drudges got wind of it. Now I'm outnumbered.

The Simpsons was good, at first, too.

 

[Autodidact]

And where did you earn your Ph.d, kejos? What books have you published?

 

[fallingblood]

Ah, a serious response! Now why have we had to wait so long? You do realise the level of my fees, don't you?

The word 'Babylon' probably refers to Babylon, which was still well populated, and was easily within the Jewish diaspora for which Peter was responsible. The idea that it referred to Rome is probably due to the interests of those who wanted to create a papacy. There is no evidence that Rome was known as 'Babylon' before John's Revelation.

Polycarp's mention of 1 Pet. is of no relevance, because nobody suggests that it was written at a time after Polycarp wrote.

You base your opinion on what?

Polycarp's mention is important as it is the first reference we have to 1 Peter. It is one tool in knowing when 1 Peter was written.

Also, we know that Babylon was referring to Rome. We know by using the context of 1 Peter. So yes, there is a lot of evidence that Babylon was a cipher for Rome before John's Revelation.

 

[kejos]

there is a lot of evidence that Babylon was a cipher for Rome before John's Revelation.

What evidence is this?

And don't tell me to go and read something.

 

[fallingblood]

What evidence is this?

And don't tell me to go and read something.

The fact that it is used in 1 Peter to refer to Rome.

Also, reading Jewish Apocalyptic works from after the destruction of Jerusalem, especially in the 80's and 90's, we see Rome being equated with Babylon quite frequently. The reason being that Rome is now the new destroyer of Jerusalem, as the old destroyer was Rome.

 

[kejos]

The fact that it is used in 1 Peter to refer to Rome.

A fact is whatever fallingblood states, now.

Also, reading Jewish Apocalyptic works from after the destruction of Jerusalem, especially in the 80's and 90's, we see Rome being equated with Babylon quite frequently.

A quote, please.

The reason being that Rome is now the new destroyer of Jerusalem

John wouldn't have seen it that way, of course.

 

[fallingblood]

A fact is whatever fallingblood states, now.

So you can't argue this point? I'm glad you agree with me.

A quote, please.

2 Baruch THE BOOK OF THE APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH THE SON OF NERIAHHere is 2 Baruch. It was written around 90 C.E. It is a text talking about how Babylon conquered Jerusalem. The key point to remember is that this happened after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, and the writers were relating the Babylonians to the Romans. It was a common practice.

Bible, Revised Standard Version Text of 2 Esdras. Another example of the above.

The same can be found in the Sibylline Oracles. Scholars, the majority of them, agree that Babylon is cryptic for Rome.

John wouldn't have seen it that way, of course.

Why? How would he see it?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

First, while Nazareth was probably too small in those days to have much opportunity for learning, there were major learning centers in the Galilee not unreasonably far from there, including the city of Tzipori (Sepphoris), where there was a major Academy of the Rabbis of the Mishnah. He might well have been sent to such a place as a youth, as more well-to-do children sometimes were, presuming that he had a gift for learning (which clearly he would have) and that Joseph was a prosperous artisan.

The second possibility is that as a youth he was illiterate and could not write-- he might still have picked up a fairly large amount of memorized knowledge: people had far sharper skills at memorization in those days-- but that in early adulthood, he chose to attend a Rabbinic Academy, and upon arrival there, learned reading and writing. The Talmud tells us that he studied at the Academy of Rabbi Yehoshua the Elder, in Jerusalem. He might have learned there.

Going by what Luke wrote at 1v26; 2v4,39 Luke does Not call Nazareth a village but always as a 'city'. Close by was Sepphoris an important fortified city having a district court [Sanhedrin] so Nazareth was convenient to trade routes and main cities, so with that proximity the people would have had ready information available to them in order to learn. Luke 4vs16-23.

As Jesus grew up according to Luke 2v52 Jesus progressed,
and it was his family's custom to attend the local synagogue each week.
Mt 13v55,56; Luke 4v16. Since Mary knew Scripture she would have also taught what she knew to Jesus and his half brothers and sisters.
Since wax-coated writing tablets were available even Mary could have used them to teach reading and writing to all her children.

As far as Jesus learning in Jerusalem, there is a good indication at Luke 1v42,46 Jesus was already listening and questioning the spiritually older men in Jerusalem when he was very young.

 

[fallingblood]

Going by what Luke wrote at 1v26; 2v4,39 Luke does Not call Nazareth a village but always as a 'city'. Close by was Sepphoris an important fortified city having a district court [Sanhedrin] so Nazareth was convenient to trade routes and main cities, so with that proximity the people would have had ready information available to them in order to learn. Luke 4vs16-23.

As Jesus grew up according to Luke 2v52 Jesus progressed,
and it was his family's custom to attend the local synagogue each week.
Mt 13v55,56; Luke 4v16. Since Mary knew Scripture she would have also taught what she knew to Jesus and his half brothers and sisters.
Since wax-coated writing tablets were available even Mary could have used them to teach reading and writing to all her children.

As far as Jesus learning in Jerusalem, there is a good indication at Luke 1v42,46 Jesus was already listening and questioning the spiritually older men in Jerusalem when he was very young.

Regardless of what the author of Luke describes Nazareth, we know that during the time of Jesus, it was a hamlet. Simply, they were off the beaten path. It consisted of a small population of peasants, the lower class. It was nothing much.

Yes, it close to Sepphoris, but that would not necessarily mean that he had access to education. If we look at the work that his father was doing (and it was most likely that he followed in those footsteps for at least a little while), he was a tekton. He was of the lower class, a person who was easily replaceable.

When he is addressed by the term tekton (or when it is referenced to his father), it is a sign of just how lowly he was considered. To make somewhat of a comparison, it would be like saying, "isn't that the bum? How could he amount to anything. (Just to make it clear though, I'm not saying Jesus was the equivalent to a bum)" When reading Mark 6:3, or Matthew 13:55, the people are replying out of surprise. That is because they are shocked that someone of such a lowly stature is able to accomplish what he is doing.

The reason this is important is to show that Jesus was lowly, he was of the lower class, and really didn't have the means to do anything but survive. Especially considering that Sepphoris and Tiberius were so close to Nazareth. Basically, the two cities would have made the life of a peasant even harder and they would have drained the resources of the country side. In this historical reference, it is quite likely that Jesus was similar to a modern day handyman. Not exceptionally skilled, but was able to repair various tools or do patchwork on a house, etc. He most likely was paid enough to survive.

Looking at that, I think it is highly unlikely he would have had any time to really focus on learning. He was most likely fighting to survive. That was part of being in the social class that he was in. The Gospels really don't give us much reason to doubt that.

Maybe later on in his life, he did study somewhat. There is that possibility, and it is logical. We are missing a large portion of his life. He most likely worked during that time, and possibly, getting closer to the time of his ministry, went out and studied. I would personally say that he studied under John the Baptist, and actually go as far as saying that he was most likely a disciple of his. That is nearly the only logical reason why John would have baptized Jesus.

However, the Gospels offer no credible evidence that Jesus could read or write. We have a passage in Luke speaking of him reading in a synagogue that didn't exist, passages that simple could not have been read in the fashion the story states, and then being threatened to be thrown off a cliff that exists, but is too far off to actually relate to the Biblical story. That is why I personally lean towards the idea that he was illiterate. That and that the majority of the population by far were illiterate. This does not mean he was unintelligent in anyway, just that he lacked the skills of reading and writing. Which I don't think would have greatly been needed by him. He lived in an oral culture.

As for Jesus teaching in the Temple when he was of a young age. The story is highly unlikely. The primary reason being that we have just a single attestation to it. The other Gospels do not mention this event at all. More so, knowing the family status, that they were lowly and impoverished, it is very unlikely they had the means to actually make the trip every year to Jerusalem. During the 1st century, the fact was that many Jews simply did not make the trip as they could not.

I'm in no way trying to belittle the intelligence of Jesus. For his time, I do see him as being a wise person.

 

[fallingblood]

Made into a new thread.