One God, One Saviour the Creator

[metis]

The vast majority of Jews and Gentiles may have been illiterate country bumpkins but the authors of the Gospels were certainly not. These men were highly educated Jews.

Actually most Christian theologians that I have read would disagree with you, with maybe the exception of Paul and possibly James, If you have a chance, read Martin Marty's "The First Christians" or Dr. Hansons "Tradition In the Early Church" Either way, it's highly unlikely they had their own Torah to refer to, so their references would most likely have been added later.

Their goal was not to reinvent Judaism but to renew it. They saw the end of the Temple period, not the end of Judaism.

Each Jewish group undoubtedly claimed as such, much like we've seen happen over and over again with Christian denominations. It's the "You don't have it right, but I do, so follow what I believe" approach.

 

[metis]

My attention span doesn't allow for much reading apart from online which I'm sure it's available.
It seems so easy to do as we are told to, keeping the Sabbath, that I struggle with, something always comes up. I find joy in helping the needy, Loving God is concrete.

The Sabbath Laws are only several amongst 613, and helping the needy is a basic requirement found in the Law both for us and individuals and also us as a people and as a society.

 

[metis]

Can you name a scholar on the New Testament who is not a Christian? There may be some but I don't know of any.

One that teaches N.T. theology down in the Dallas/Fort worth area that I have had correspondence with for many years is Dr. Howard Cohen, whom you can find on-line as he teaches N.T. courses both at one of the universities there and also on-line classes, and whom has had some articles written about him at another multi-faith website. He speaks regularly at churches in that area as well.

 

[metis]

Can you name a scholar on the New Testament who is not a Christian? There may be some but I don't know of any.

Does one really have to belong to a specific religion in order to be a scholar? The most impressive theologian I ever run across was Joseph Campbell, and he was brought up Christian but later became more in-line with Hinduism. I don't know if you read many of his works, but this guy was absolutely knowledgeable about a great many religions. I was reading some of his stuff back in the 1960's with my anthropology courses. His "The Power of Myth" is a classic when it comes to comparative religions.

 

[sojourner]

Can you name a scholar on the New Testament who is not a Christian? There may be some but I don't know of any.

What Levite said, but it doesn't matter. Reputable scholars who contribute to scholarly commentaries simply don't do that -- Xtian or not.

 

[sojourner]

The New Testament was written by Men for Men.

So were the Hebrew texts.

 

[sojourner]

The vast majority of Jews and Gentiles may have been illiterate country bumpkins but the authors of the Gospels were certainly not. These men were highly educated Jews. Most definitely they didn’t take a few night classes in creative writing. These men sought to preserve Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Their goal was not to reinvent Judaism but to renew it. They saw the end of the Temple period, not the end of Judaism.

I don't think you can ale that claim with any degree of certainty.

 

[roger1440]

One that teaches N.T. theology down in the Dallas/Fort worth area that I have had correspondence with for many years is Dr. Howard Cohen, whom you can find on-line as he teaches N.T. courses both at one of the universities there and also on-line classes, and whom has had some articles written about him at another multi-faith website. He speaks regularly at churches in that area as well.

There are very few non-Christian New Testament scholars in comparison to Christian New Testament scholars. Few non-Christians are willing to spend the time, money and effort to invest in being a New Testament scholar. Many have no incentive.

I did a search on Dr. Howard Cohen and came up with an interesting article. "When I read your red letters," Cohen tells Christian groups (in some Christian Bibles, Jesus' words a re-printed in red letters), I don't see anything that contradicts Judaism. I see an observant Jew." I have been saying that in this forum for the last two years. “"I want Christians to hear their own testament from a Jewish perspective," Howard says.” Twenty years ago I used to attend Bible Study on a regular basis at a United Methodist Church in a town that had a high Jewish population. The topic of the customs of the ancient Jews had come up. I had suggested to our 37 year old Pastor who was going to Princeton for his Doctorate in theology to invite a Rabbi as a guest speaker. My reasoning was some old Rabbi would know more about ancient Jewish customs then some young Pastor. I’m not sure what ever came of my suggestion. Shortly after I had moved from the area and never returned.

On another note, one time during Bible Study the topic of the names of God came up. I had mentioned to our Pastor something like. “One school of thought among the Jews is the entire Torah is the name of God”. The Pastor shook his head and said, “I don’t think so”. He wasn’t even willing to discuss it. I find it sad some people are so closed minded.

Dr. Cohen's Gospel - Beliefnet.com

 

[roger1440]

What Levite said, but it doesn't matter. Reputable scholars who contribute to scholarly commentaries simply don't do that -- Xtian or not.

I found a video on the Jewish New Testament scholar Levite had mentioned earlier today on a post, Amy-Jill Levine. The interviewer had asked her, “Do you think he thought he was the Messiah?”. Her reply was often scholars end up looking into a mirror rather than looking into the window of history. In other words they see what they want to see depending on what they came to the table with. Listen to 16:30 of this video. She agrees with mostly what I had said. I like her already.

 

[roger1440]

Does one really have to belong to a specific religion in order to be a scholar? The most impressive theologian I ever run across was Joseph Campbell, and he was brought up Christian but later became more in-line with Hinduism. I don't know if you read many of his works, but this guy was absolutely knowledgeable about a great many religions. I was reading some of his stuff back in the 1960's with my anthropology courses. His "The Power of Myth" is a classic when it comes to comparative religions.

I have seen the documentary "The Power of Myth" on TV when it first came out. It was a six part series. Years later I had taken the video out from the local library. Once Campbell left Catholicism the study of myth was fair game for him.
Did Joseph Campbell Believe in God? | Lancelot Schaubert

 

[sojourner]

I found a video on the Jewish New Testament scholar Levite had mentioned earlier today on a post, Amy-Jill Levine. The interviewer had asked her, “Do you think he thought he was the Messiah?”. Her reply was often scholars end up looking into a mirror rather than looking into the window of history. In other words they see what they want to see depending on what they came to the table with. Listen to 16:30 of this video. She agrees with mostly what I had said. I like her already.

Well, of course you like her; she agrees with you. But there are several different kinds of scholars. Apologetic scholars do apologetics. theological scholars do theology. Exegetical scholars do exegesis, which is the kind of work found in scholarly commentaries. Exegesis means "to read out of." The kind of activity Levine references is eisegesis, which means, "to read into." This sort of looking in a mirror is eisegetical, and has no place in commentaries. Eisegesis may work well in apologetics and even in theology, but not in exegetical commentaries.

 

[roger1440]

Well, of course you like her; she agrees with you. But there are several different kinds of scholars. Apologetic scholars do apologetics. theological scholars do theology. Exegetical scholars do exegesis, which is the kind of work found in scholarly commentaries. Exegesis means "to read out of." The kind of activity Levine references is eisegesis, which means, "to read into." This sort of looking in a mirror is eisegetical, and has no place in commentaries. Eisegesis may work well in apologetics and even in theology, but not in exegetical commentaries.

It is difficult to go into depth in any type of research with an objective view. To come to the table with a completely empty plate is nearly impossible. Most scholars are on a quest.

 

[sojourner]

It is difficult to go into depth in any type of research with an objective view.

Of course it is, and honest, trustworthy scholars acknowledge this and do their best to work around it.

To come to the table with a completely empty plate is nearly impossible.

Yes it is.

Most scholars are on a quest.

I agreed with your first two statements. This one, not so much. I feel it's way too melodramatic for what's really going on. The critic's personal lens is manifested more in the flavor than in the makeup of the work. Biases are usually not as dire as you seem to make them out to be here. If that were the case, no serious scholar would use commentaries.

 

[roger1440]

Actually most Christian theologians that I have read would disagree with you, with maybe the exception of Paul and possibly James, If you have a chance, read Martin Marty's "The First Christians" or Dr. Hansons "Tradition In the Early Church" Either way, it's highly unlikely they had their own Torah to refer to, so their references would most likely have been added later.
.

Bart Ehrman on Literacy in the First Century
Posted on April 2, 2012 by Mike Gantt
Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book. And who were the people in this 10 percent? They were the upper-class elite who had the time, money, and leisure to afford an education. This is not an apt description of Jesus’s disciples. They were not upper-crust aristocrats.

In Roman Palestine the situation was even bleaker. The most thorough examination of literacy in Palestine is by a professor of Jewish studies at the University of London, Catherine Hezser, who shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3 percent of Jews in Palestine were literate. Once again, these would be the people who could read and maybe write their names and copy words. Far fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. And once again, these would have been the urban elites.

Source: Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 702-712). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Bart Ehrman on Literacy in the First Century | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God

 

[sojourner]

Bart Ehrman on Literacy in the First Century
Posted on April 2, 2012 by Mike Gantt
Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book. And who were the people in this 10 percent? They were the upper-class elite who had the time, money, and leisure to afford an education. This is not an apt description of Jesus’s disciples. They were not upper-crust aristocrats.

In Roman Palestine the situation was even bleaker. The most thorough examination of literacy in Palestine is by a professor of Jewish studies at the University of London, Catherine Hezser, who shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3 percent of Jews in Palestine were literate. Once again, these would be the people who could read and maybe write their names and copy words. Far fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. And once again, these would have been the urban elites.

Source: Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 702-712). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Bart Ehrman on Literacy in the First Century | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God

I think I would agree with this, and add a couple of things:
1) To my understanding, students of Torah learned the texts mostly by rote memorization -- not by reading.
2) Most of the written stuff was temporary, being written with a stylus on wax tablets, because writing wasn't common.

 

[metis]

There are very few non-Christian New Testament scholars in comparison to Christian New Testament scholars. Few non-Christians are willing to spend the time, money and effort to invest in being a New Testament scholar. Many have no incentive.

I did a search on Dr. Howard Cohen and came up with an interesting article. "When I read your red letters," Cohen tells Christian groups (in some Christian Bibles, Jesus' words a re-printed in red letters), I don't see anything that contradicts Judaism. I see an observant Jew." I have been saying that in this forum for the last two years. “"I want Christians to hear their own testament from a Jewish perspective," Howard says.” Twenty years ago I used to attend Bible Study on a regular basis at a United Methodist Church in a town that had a high Jewish population. The topic of the customs of the ancient Jews had come up. I had suggested to our 37 year old Pastor who was going to Princeton for his Doctorate in theology to invite a Rabbi as a guest speaker. My reasoning was some old Rabbi would know more about ancient Jewish customs then some young Pastor. I’m not sure what ever came of my suggestion. Shortly after I had moved from the area and never returned.

On another note, one time during Bible Study the topic of the names of God came up. I had mentioned to our Pastor something like. “One school of thought among the Jews is the entire Torah is the name of God”. The Pastor shook his head and said, “I don’t think so”. He wasn’t even willing to discuss it. I find it sad some people are so closed minded.

Dr. Cohen's Gospel - Beliefnet.com

Howie and I have had many discussion over many years and we are pretty much on the same page except for one area, namely the timing of when the early church began to walk away from most of the Law and Paul's position and teachings that relate to that. He contends that the walking away from the Law was done pretty much after 70 c.e. by the gentiles that began to form the majority, along with an increasingly gentile leadership, and my contention is that it started before this and that Jesus had to open that door in that direction one way or another, intentionally or not. He also sees Paul as pretty much being a renegade that was not really much welcomed by the apostles.

My contention is that Paul, even though he seems to have added teachings that Jesus probably didn't enunciate, nevertheless was welcomed by apostles, even though there does seem to be at least somewhat of an "issue" that James has with him. I see Jesus as a charismatic figure who was radical enough in his theology, especially in his dealing with the Law, to create problems with especially the Jewish leadership and eventually the Romans. Both of us agree that Jesus' actions at the Temple and his talking about the "kingdom" probably got him crucified.

This general area Howie and I debated for months on end, and sometimes it got quite heated, and he would blame me for relying too much on the gospel accounts, and I would blame him for reading too much into what they say when reading between the lines. Fortunately, over the years we became such good friends that he invited my wife and I to come stay and visit with him down in the Dallas area, and we invited him and his wife to come stay with us in the U.P. Unfortunately, neither of us have had the opportunity to do so. He no longer does message boards, but he and I talk via e-mail a few times a year.

 

[metis]

I have seen the documentary "The Power of Myth" on TV when it first came out. It was a six part series. Years later I had taken the video out from the local library. Once Campbell left Catholicism the study of myth was fair game for him.
Did Joseph Campbell Believe in God? | Lancelot Schaubert

I'm not certain I understand what your saying in the part I underlined.

 

[roger1440]

I think I would agree with this, and add a couple of things:
1) To my understanding, students of Torah learned the texts mostly by rote memorization -- not by reading.
2) Most of the written stuff was temporary, being written with a stylus on wax tablets, because writing wasn't common.

Also, keep in mind the local office supply store didn’t have their grand opening until about two thousand years later. Writers in ancient times would be stuck with the tedious task of creating their own paper and making their own ink.

 

[metis]

Bart Ehrman on Literacy in the First Century
Posted on April 2, 2012 by Mike Gantt
Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book. And who were the people in this 10 percent? They were the upper-class elite who had the time, money, and leisure to afford an education. This is not an apt description of Jesus’s disciples. They were not upper-crust aristocrats.

In Roman Palestine the situation was even bleaker. The most thorough examination of literacy in Palestine is by a professor of Jewish studies at the University of London, Catherine Hezser, who shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3 percent of Jews in Palestine were literate. Once again, these would be the people who could read and maybe write their names and copy words. Far fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. And once again, these would have been the urban elites.

Source: Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 702-712). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Bart Ehrman on Literacy in the First Century | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God

This has long been a contentious issue, and all too often the results are just mere speculation. There is literally no way to be able to judge the literacy percentage, and even though I think it's likely quite low, that I wouldn't even be willing to bet my house on that.

But the one thing that many of these "experts" seem to forget is how many would have had any kind of regular access to a Torah 2000 years ago? It's not like today whereas we can go to the bookstore and buy one (I have about 10 Bibles), and studying Torah at a synagogue or at the Temple would be very time consuming.

During services, people would listen of course, but that doesn't much avail one to compare and contrast scriptures except at the surface level. Obviously it was different with priests, rabbis, and scribes, which would have created a two-tier system as compared to the general populace that probably fueled distrust and suspicion at times.

 

[julio.2]

What Levite said, but it doesn't matter. Reputable scholars who contribute to scholarly commentaries simply don't do that -- Xtian or not.

Really, so it takes a Scholar to understand this.
*
I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.
19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.
21 This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.
22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel.
I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand
*
Scholars learn what other Scholars teach them, they study the Words of Men, and then add their 2 cents worth, hoping they will get credit for some revelation they've dreamed up.