Jesus and Greek Philosophy
Several biblical scholars, my two favorite being John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack, suggest that Jesus was influenced by Hellenistic thought. They specifically argue that he was a Jewish sage who advocated a bridge between Judaism and Cynicism (the version that existed during antiquity not the modern day characteristic of being cynical). I can also see parallels in the synoptic gospels between the teachings of Christ and Aristotelian and Stoic ethics. A Platonist take on the teachings of Jesus would be found in the Johannine literature, specifically the Gospel of John. What does everyone else think of this? I think the connections are logical.
Comments (406)
Absolutely fascinating stuff. So fascinating in fact, that if I wanted to talk about it, I'd have no idea where to even begin.
Pierre Grimes is an insightful man. However due to my piety as a Christian, I must disagree with him when he says that the teaching of Jesus comes directly from the “Greek tradition.” There is a clear observable synthesis of Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy going on. What bugs me is fellow Christians, minus those of the eastern flavor (Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholics), do not take this kind of scholarship seriously.
In regard to the Judaic elements, you may be interested in Oliver5 comments in the "Jesus Freaks" OP.
Well seeing as how he grew up in a very Hellenistic society he must’ve been familiar with the kind of philosophy accessible to the every day man. The ascetic commands of Jesus to the apostles do resemble the practices of the Cynics. But I like to think that Stoicism had a huge influence on him; this was the philosophy of the working man, a man that lived in society.
I don't know if Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the several Roman Senators who considered themselves Stoics can be considered working men, or even Musonius Rufus for that matter. Epictetus of course was a slave, however. it would seem Stoicism appealed to people of different social status and wealth.
I'm not sure how Hellenistic Judea was at the time Jesus is said to have lived. Alexandria and Antioch had Jewish communities influenced by Hellenism. I don't know about Jerusalem or Judea. We do know that when Hadrian tried to create a Hellenistic city on the site of Jerusalem and it resulted in a bloody three-year revolt. We have nothing indicating Jesus spoke Greek or could read it. We don't have much information about him, and asceticism wasn't limited to Cynics or Stoics, so I think we're best advised to be cautious in our assertions of influence.
Paul and others were clearly influenced by pagan philosophy and the pagan mystery cults, however.
I suppose this question doesn't make any sense in revelatory contexts (from God, through angels, duh!)
However, ignoring this point, it would be very interesting and highly informative if we could trace Christianity's origin to Hellenistic philosophy. Platonism, Aristotelianism, Soticism, etc. are known to have had some influence on Christian thought. Unfortunately, my memory fails me and I can't fill you in on the details. Someone could! Let's hope s/he'll read this thread while it's still alive & kicking!
He was probably one of a number of preachers who were associated with the Essenes and apocalyptically minded Jews.
The world his teachings spread in was heavily hellenized, so we don't need Jesus himself to have been influenced by Plato.
The Sadducees were hellenized.
Roman aristocrats tended to have a pretty dim view of anyone who worked for a living (rather than living off the profits from their estates) so I doubt it.
And you're probably right about Jesus and Greek influence; there's no indication Jesus could read or speak Greek, or had much of an education, and the rural backwaters of Galilee where he did most of his preaching were probably unlikely to be especially Romanized, or centers of culture or learning rather than just small fishing villages and so forth.
So there is probably very little direct influence in terms of Jesus himself (especially given Jesus's likely background coming from Nazareth), but there's no question that Greek philosophy (Plato in particular) tremendously influenced subsequent Christian church leaders and theologians in the decades and centuries that followed.
this is sort of the key part of the article-
Jesus was a peasant from a tiny village in the backwaters of Roman Judea. He probably spent the "lost years" (the years of his life that are omitted from the Gospel narratives) doing the same sort of stuff peasants from rural Judea at the time tended to do. The most interesting thing he realistically could have gotten up to would have been studying with different Jewish sects, possibly the Essenes or Pharisees.
Of course they are logical. Hellenistic culture was dominant in the eastern parts of the Roman empire, especially in Alexandria (Egypt), which had a large, Greek-speaking Jewish community, but also in Syria-Palestine where there were ten large Greek cities (Decapolis) and elsewhere. Jesus' home town of Nazareth was very close to Greek towns like Sepphoris.
Moreover, especially if Jesus was the son of God and planned to establish a new religion, Hellenistic culture would have been ideal for its dissemination, in the same way the Greek language was chosen for the composition of the Gospels and later writings .... :smile:
IMO what happened was that in later times a new narrative emerged that was based on the "Athens-vs.-Jerusalem" polemic and sought to paint any Greek influence as "alien" or "Pagan".
The reality is that many Jews like Philo of Alexandria were sufficiently assimilated (and educated) to not have any problem with Greek thought.
I wonder how many observers of Jewish orthodoxy condemned the works of people like Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, and the Stoics. Perhaps very few due to the majority of the Middle East being Hellenized?
There's no indication Jesus planned to establish a new religion (or saw himself as "the son of God"- this was probably a later theological development); Jesus was an observant Jew, who encouraged others to follow the (Jewish) Law. So far as we can tell what Jesus himself thought, Jesus saw his own role in terms of the fulfilment of the thoroughly Jewish expectation that God would overthrow the hated Romans and establish a good kingdom under the Davidic kingship of Israel in accordance with the Biblical covenant.
The exact percentage is probably difficult to establish. But let's not forget that Greek influence was sufficiently strong to give rise to the cultural phenomenon of "Hellenistic Judaism".
St Paul himself was well-versed in Greek philosophy and in the school of his teacher Gamaliel students were instructed both in Jewish and Greek wisdom:
What is unquestionable is that the concept of divine knowledge as an enlightening force is central to Christianity as it is in Platonism where the Good, the Source of Knowledge and Truth, is compared to the Sun who illumines the world (cf. "I am the Light of the world", etc.)
There is no doubt that more traditionalist trends existed, but those with an open mind had many parallels to choose from for a more syncretic stance.
Well, I did say "IF he was the son of God", etc.
Plus, even for the early Christians, Jews included, Christianity was not a "new" religion but the restoration of the eternal Law of God.
Christianity did not even call itself Christianity in the beginning, but "the Way of God", "the Way of Righteousness", "the Way of Truth", etc. which is consistent with the reestablishment of an existing tradition:
So, I think there was a combination of cultural continuation and newer elements, which is not entirely surprising given the syncretic tendencies of the period. After all, we can't ignore the fact that even within Judaism there were different trends.
Great analysis. I was going to say something similar here but you said it first. Judea proper was most likely not a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy- at least not in the Jewish living areas (perhaps coastal cities and parts of Nabatea were exceptions). If you want to look at Hellenistic-influenced Judaism, you should look no further than Philo of Alexandria who married the Torah with Platonic thought, and ideas of the "logos". Paul I guess would be another early synthesizer, possibly influenced by Philo, but as you stated, he added in elements of the dying-resurrecting pagan ritual. If he was from Tarsus, he had one of the biggest mystery-cult centers to draw from- Mithras, with its sacrificial bull.
Correct. But we mustn't forget (1) that Greek thought and language were common in the region and (2) there was an established Jewish tradition that used Greek thought not to undermine but to support Judaism, in the same way Christians used Plato and Aristotle to support Christianity.
In Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy, Martin Kavka contests the perceived opposition between "Athens" and "Jerusalem" and argues that Jewish thinkers use "Athens" "for Jewish ends, justifying Jewish anticipation of a future messianic era, as well as portraying the subject's intellectual and ethical acts as central in accomplishing redemption," and that "this formal structure of messianic subjectivity is not simply an acculturating move of Judaism to modern or medieval philosophical values, but it can also be found in an earlier stratum of the Jewish tradition, particularly in an ancient midrashic text discussing a group that refers to itself as the Mourners of Zion".
Indeed, there was nothing to prevent Jews from observing their own religious tradition while at the same time taking an interest in philosophy, just like other educated citizens of the Roman Empire. Philosophy did not entail the renunciation of one's religious beliefs and customs.
Right, and I'm pointing out that he probably didn't (these were later theological inventions, which not present in the earlier Gospel accounts)- I wasn't faulting you for the statement, just answering that "if".
Quoting Apollodorus
From the perspective of those early Christians, absolutely. Jews appear to have taken a different view, even from the beginning; as Paul notes, the idea of a crucified messiah was always a tough pill for the Jewish audience to swallow, since a dead (let alone crucified) messiah was basically a contradiction in terms (the messiah, in Jewish thinking at the time, was to be a glorious political/military figure, the person who would defeat the Romans... not get squashed by them) and the early evangelists had more success converting pagans than Jews for precisely this reason.
As some here would say: :100: :fire:
Is there a need for Judea to have been a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy? I think it is quite sufficient for the Ten Greek Cities (Decapolis) in the region to have had a common Hellenistic culture that they shared with those among the Jews living there that took an interest or otherwise were influenced through social contact with their Greek neighbors.
Sure. But this didn't apply to all Jews. Otherwise, the existence of figures like Paul would have been impossible. So, we have to assume that a number of Jews, especially Greek-educated ones like Paul, or even uneducated ones who were unfamiliar with official objections to Christian teachings, would have found it easier to accept the new religion.
If the majority of converts were non-Jews, it doesn't follow that all of them were non-Jews.
No, but there's a reason for that... He was from the Diaspora and not Judea proper. It makes total sense regarding his syncretism- especially with mystery cults. I also mentioned Philo in Alexandria, another place for Hellenistic Judaism.
Quoting Apollodorus
Correct, and Paul was probably targeting (at first) Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora.. Jesus brother, James, who was more familiar with Jesus the man, and his actual teachings seemed to have deeper disagreements than what Acts portrayed (more similar to Paul's continual griping in Galatians)... Anyways, the original Jesus movement seems a different character than Paul's overlay interpretation (his "vision" on his way to Damascus, if you will).
Quoting Apollodorus
No, again, there were Hellenistic-leaning Jews around the diaspora and there were "good-fearers" (non-Jews who were interested in Judaism and who were onlookers at synagogues around the empire, but didn't fully convert or marry into the religion). These were probably Paul's first targets.
Well sure, I never meant to imply otherwise- there's exceptions to just about everything, after all. So obviously there were Jewish converts (Paul himself being one). But overall or on average, Christians found Jews to be a tough audience, as Paul explicitly admits, and the Jews who weren't inclined towards the new Christian religion certainly wouldn't have seen it as a continuation or restoration of the Jewish faith.
Well, I'm not convinced that Hellenistic Judaism was restricted to places like Alexandria. After all, people traveled throughout the area and maintained contact with centers of Greek culture. This is evidenced, among other things, by the widespread use of the Greek language. Even local languages like Hebrew and Aramaic contained thousands of Greek words in addition to other changes under Greek influence, such as phonology, syntax, phraseology, and semantics.
Another thing is that Jewish religion doesn't seem to have been quite as different from its Greek counterpart as often assumed. They both had temples, animal sacrifices followed by communal meals, belief in one supreme deity (Yahweh, Zeus), etc.
In particular, both religions associated God with light, especially with the sun. For example, Apollo in Greek tradition was the God of light, truth, prophecy, poetry and music. He was often identified with the Sun God (Helios) whom he eventually replaced in importance and was adopted by the Romans.
With Alexander’s conquest of the Mid East, the cult of Apollo/Helios together with its Greek iconography (in which he was depicted with a solar halo around his head and riding in a chariot drawn by four horses) spread throughout Syria, Palestine, and Egypt and archaeological evidence suggests that it was widely adopted by the Jews:
- From ancient Greece to ancient Judea: The Hellenization of Jewish culture, Biblical Archeology Review.
See also:
Under the Influence: Hellenism in Ancient Jewish Life – Biblical Archaeology Review, 36:1 Jan/Feb 2010
First Person: The Sun God in the Synagogue - Biblical Archaeology Society
And, of course, there are references to God as the Sun in Jewish scripture:
And if we really wanted to, we could find parallels to the Jewish messiah in the just and wise king of Plato and Aristotle, the divine king or pharaoh of Egypt, etc., without stretching it too far .... :smile:
Correct. But the issue is the Jews who were so inclined.
When Paul says:
he is clearly addressing Jews, not Pagans. And the Talmud speaks of a tradition according to which at Gamaliel's school students were instructed in Jewish and Greek tradition.
It follows that in addition to uneducated Jews (farmers and fishermen), there were educated Jews that would have been open to "unorthodox" ideas. Those who rejected Christianity out of hand would have been members of the clergy who felt that the new religion undermined their position of authority in Jewish society (and their income).
And even among them, there were some who sided with Jesus, like Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Council (with a Greek name!):
If leading Jews like Paul and Nicodemus accepted the new religion, this must have had some influence on other Jews.
So, there seems to have been a section of the Jewish community that, though relatively small, was nevertheless sufficiently large to provide a Jewish basis to the new religion, in addition to the increasingly more numerous Pagan converts.
I don't doubt the connections of Hellenism you describe. That is well-known. At least since Alexander the Great's takeover of the region, there were gymnasiums, art, literature, that was permeating that region. The whole Maccabean Revolt was because a faction of Hellenistic priests were going to completely turn the Jerusalem Temple into basically a Greek-styled temple. Even the Maccabean family that defeated the ultra-Hellenists still took on Greek names, were friends with Greek and Roman officials, went to Greek amphitheaters, gyms and the like. Sepphoris was a very cosmopolitan Greco-Roman town very close the ancient Nazareth. So though I agree that Greek trappings influenced the people and religion in numerous ways that they probably weren't even fully aware of, we have to distill what of Jesus had Greek-influenced beliefs versus what was later interpolated upon Jesus and his first followers from Greek-influenced writers. We'd have to look at what things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, apocalyptic literature, the Talmud, parts of the Gospels (both canonical and non-canonical), and what Josephus say for any hope for primary sources. It seems that mainstream Judaism was based around the festival days of the Temple, and depending on proximity, participating in synagogue membership on the Sabbath and certain meeting days in the week (synagogues themselves being probably Greek-influenced). Pharisees and Scribes had bigger influences most likely in synagogue centers. Most Jews in this region were probably illiterate at this time. If they were scholars, they would most likely have been from the priestly, scribal, or pharisaic communities. It would have been less-likely (but not necessarily impossible) for a Jew in the Galilean region to have been a scholar in Greek philosophy other than through diffusion of ideas that was taking place in all areas of culture (so not specifically a student of Greek but unintentionally). Likely other groups were being diffused with Greek sayings and parables, and this diffusion may have been seen in both Jesus and his predecessors (such as Hillel). It is more probable that Jesus was a sort of Hillelite Pharisee with influences from Essenic traditions through John the Baptist.
Also, you are possibly glossing over even stronger outside influences than the Greek culture, and that is the often overlooked influence of the Persians on Second Temple Judaism. Cyrus was even called a "messiah" which is how strong the admiration for parts of the Persian leadership of the time. Ezra and Nehemiah and the returning king (without the prior authority) of Zerubbabel, were all officials in the Persian court prior to their return to Yahad (Judah/Judean Persian province). Certainly the influence of Zoroastrian had a tremendous influence on ideas such as good/evil, light/darkness, angelic beings, and the idea of a cosmic ending to the world.
But there is difference here between Jewish receptivity to the message of Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jewish receptivity to the Christian message. As already noted, Jesus was a Jew, who was preaching the Jewish faith, and an interpretation of the Jewish faith that wasn't unique or particularly radical at the time (we know of other Jewish apocalypticists at the time, including, notably, Jesus's mentor/associate John the Baptist). So no real problem there. The real problem, as far as theology goes, appears with Jesus's death and the distinctively Christian message of a crucified messiah: a concept that was antithetical to most Jewish understanding, for the reasons already mentioned.
Quoting Apollodorus
No, not just the religious authorities, and not just because they were worried about protecting their positions or privileges: the concept of a crucified messiah was, to most Jews, a contradiction in terms. The messiah was, quite literally, the King of Israel. And under the geopolitical circumstances at that time, being the messiah meant throwing off the Roman occupation and re-establishing Israel as a sovereign nation under the Davidic kingship. Which Jesus not only failed to do, but worse, he was crucified- a particularly shameful way to die.
So there were plenty of ordinary Jews who dismissed Christianity out of hand simply because the Christian message was, to their mind, completely absurd: a crucified criminal could NOT be the messiah, simply as a matter of definition.
An excellent account. Thank you.
Agreed.
Quoting Seppo
I think we must look at James, Jesus' brother to see how the original group acted and thought. The Ebionites are a group to look at, which is "evionim" or "poor ones" in Hebrew. This may represent the original beliefs before Paul.
No problem, thank you! :up:
Also the older creeds and poems/hymns Paul occasionally mentions, as these represent probably the earliest Christian traditions that survive (quite possibly going back to the early-mid 30s CE). The lack of available/surviving information is still extremely frustrating.
My rough theory is thus...
Jesus may have actually been a part of the pharisees, in a more liberal sect like Hillelites. He was also influenced by the John the Baptist movement, and consequently became more of an apocalyptic miracle-working teacher.
His interpretation of Jewish law (halacha) represents that of a Hillel-influenced pharisee (more inclusive, less strict, ethics-oriented). His ability to hold his own and quote at will against other pharisees also to me (if ANY of this is true) seems to give more credibility here. An illiterate peasant with no training, would probably not be able to do that. However, I do recognize this can all be interpolation and perhaps he quoted nothing, and was just a sort of local miracle-worker with later sayings. In this case, he would have represented more the "am ha-aretz" or "people of the land" in perhaps contradiction to the pharisees.
His apocalypticism represents the influence of John the Baptist. Thus his Son of Man imagery, and Kingdom of God being at hand
His goal was to show he was the messiah by "cleansing" the Temple of foreign influence (including the Sadducees, the priestly/elite party that ruled the Temple and more aligned with political Roman status quo of Rome rule over Judea). He probably hoped for a miracle to occur and perhaps thought he would somehow make it through any punishment like crucifixion. He didn't, he died.
His actual brother James took over the sect after he died and led this reformist pharisee/apocalyptic hybrid in Jerusalem. Hillelite pharisees and some zealots (extreme anti-Romans/Saducees) in Jerusalem probably sympathized with this group as well. Ananus I believe was related to Caiaphas, and remembered Jesus opposing him, and thus makes sense that he would want to destroy the remnant of this reformist/rebellious group that represented an affront to the current authority, and the family of priests that were running the Temple.
This is an interesting theory. Truthfully I have never ever in my life believed in the whole substitutionary view of atonement, where Jesus gets what we deserve, a punishment by God and, if we don’t accept Jesus’ death in our place, we end up in Hell. David Bentley Hart, despite his brash and at times crude attitude, suggests that Patristic Christianity did not believe in an eternal Hell; it was temporal. It is probably because of my interest in ancient history and ancient philosophy (in this case Greek thought) that I can’t believe in substitutionary atonement. The Bible condemns the very idea: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16).
This of course does not make the death of Jesus irrelevant. There just needs to be a different view in agreement with what ancient historians and biblical scholars find.
Yeah I've heard this suggestion before, that Jesus was involved with the Pharisees. Its certainly plausible and has some merit, the problem is the lack of positive evidence that this was indeed the case... as with so many other aspects of Jesus's life (hence my comment about how frustrating it is).
But the influence of John the Baptist on Jesus's ministry is difficult to doubt, and we can trace a line through John the Baptist as as sort of mentor figure at the beginning of Jesus's ministry, to the apocalypticism of early Christians like James and Paul, making this one of the few things we can know with a reasonable degree of confidence.
Of course. Hence my conjecture based on what I see presented and the context of the time, place, culture, etc.
Quoting Seppo
True. While the Jesus Movement may have been a smaller branch from the bigger JTB branch, the JTB sect eventually had its own evolution into Mandeanism which also mixed with Zoroastrianism most likely around Iraq and Iran. Some of this branch didn't even know who Jesus was, or barely mentions him, so this just shows how influential even JTB was at the time. Of course I don't think the Mandeans were any more representative of the original JTB group than the gentile Christians were. It probably had its own interpolations and mixing over time, especially with Syrian gnostic sects.
Perhaps you would find this passage from Mack’s book The Lost Gospel interesting:
“We tend to think of Galilee as a natural part of the land of Israel because the kingdoms of David and Solomon included it, and because the extent of their kingdoms became the ideal realm for any Jewish state centered in Jerusalem. But Galilee belonged to the kingdom of David and Solomon for less than one hundred years. After that it was part of the kingdom of Israel with its own ‘northern’ traditions and its capital at Shechem, the provincial center later to be known as Samaria. Then it was annexed as a province by Assyria, transferred to Neo-Babylonia, and invaded by the Persians. The stories of the Jews who returned from deportation to Babylon belong to the history of Jerusalem and Judea, not to Samaria and the district of Galilee. The stories say that the Jews found the Samaritans unworthy to help build the temple at Jerusalem because they had intermarried with the people of other cultures. And as for Galilee, it was known among Jews as ‘the land of the gentiles.’
After Alexander, the hellenizing programs of the Ptolemies and Seleucids dotted the landscape on all sides of Galilee with newly founded cities on the Greek model. Greek cities were founded in Phoenicia, southern Syria, the Decapolis (region of ‘ten cities’ to the east of the Sea of Galilee), northern Palestine, and the coastlands to the west. Theaters, schools, stadia, porticoed markets, administrative offices, foreign legions, and transplanted people with franchise as ‘citizens’ took their place as signs of the hellenistic age. Samaritans and Galileans did not resist. They did not generate a revolution like that of the Maccabees in Judea.”
I think the idea that Galilee was a melting pot in the Middle East makes the connection between Jesus and the Hellenic tradition much more interesting.
I think what I said previously encapsulates what you present here. I am not unaware of what you are saying. I think this passage summarizes the region nicely:
Quoting https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/galilee.html#:~:text=Galilee%2C%20throughout%20the%20time%20of,Judea%20under%20the%20Roman%20Governors.
Also just an interesting descriptio here:
Also note that Sepphoris was a Greek-like city near Nazareth here:
Mainly speculation, but based on a lot of this, I would say that Jesus represented families of Jews who inhabited the region after the Maccabean takeover. There was a sort of "pioneer" element to Galilee.. the Jewish inhabitants were probably mainly newcomers for the last 200 years or so from the southern areas around Judah. The Hellenists, and Samarians were thus to be avoided for these folks. They probably also developed a bit different Hebrew/Aramaic than their southern neighbors based on John the Baptist and Judas the Galilean messianic claimant, it was indeed a hotbed of Jewish rebellion as opposed to the more tenuous situation in Jerusalem where any outward rebellion can be identified and crushed easily.
Sorry, it’s hard to follow all this at work.
I never considered the actual change in dialect of Aramaic in the region of Galilee. To my knowledge Hebrew was whitewashed in various parts of Judea by Jesus’ day hence why I strongly believe the lingua franca of religion during the time of Christ was Greek (at least in his circle). I like to think that Jesus was somewhat familiar with the Septuagint but I’m sure there is debate regarding this.
Not really. I have always been of the opinion that there was considerable outside influence on Judaism, which however, points back to some key elements of Ancient Jewish (Hebrew) religion.
Judaism seems to be seen, and it tends to see itself, as an utterly exceptional religion. IMO, this perception is simply overblown and must be met with a large dose of skepticism.
The fact is that every religion regards itself as “special” and, in a way, this is justified. But this doesn’t change anything about the fact that religions, no matter how different from one another, do have certain aspects in common.
To begin with, the idea that Jews have always been “monotheistic” is unsupported by historical or archaeological evidence (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed). Even culturally, it doesn’t make sense to have a single monotheistic population appearing out of the blue in a polytheistic world.
The truth of the matter is that most cultures in the ancient world had one deity that held a higher rank among others. Nations were divided into cities or city-states, each with its own main deity.
If we look at the culture of the region in pre-biblical and even biblical times, one major deity was the Sun God. This was the case in Israel’s neighbors, Egypt and Mesopotamia (especially the city-state of Babylon).
Moreover, in addition to having sun-worshiping Egyptians and Babylonians as close neighbors, the ancestors of the Jews are said to have lived in captivity for some time first in Egypt, and then in Babylon, and their homeland itself was under Egyptian and Babylonian occupation. This means that the influence of “foreign” solar cults on Jewish religion cannot be ruled out.
In Israel itself, we find solar deities like Yarhibol and Shapash, worshiped among local populations like the Canaanites:
Canaanite religion – Wikipedia
What is of particular interest is that references linking the deity with the Sun can be found in Jewish scripture itself:
The OT also relates that the Kings of Judah had horses and chariots dedicated to the Sun and worshiped images of the Sun (2 Kings 23:5, 11).
King Solomon himself married the Egyptian pharaoh’s daughter in order to cement a political alliance between the United Monarchy of Israel and Egypt and, significantly, built the First Jewish Temple:
We are further told that the temple was filled with the light of God following the dedication ceremony:
It is hard if not impossible to distinguish here between an Egyptian temple to the Sun God and the Jewish Temple:
Another interesting detail is that the Jewish menorah, the seven-branched candelabrum or lamp stand, has a central lamp that is used to light the other six, and that is called “shemesh”, the Hebrew word for Sun which is cognate with Babylonian “shamash” (the name of the Sun God) and Arabic “shams”.
I think it is clear that the Gospel of John did not need to borrow the “light of the world” from the Greeks, though there were obvious parallels between Greek and Jewish religion going back to OT times. This is precisely what facilitated the Roman-era syncretism that culminated in Jewish synagogues displaying mosaics depicting the Greek Sun God Helios being built until the 600’s AD when Islam began to take over, and Christian representations of Jesus modeled on Helios or Apollo (as a beardless, long-haired youth).
IMO this syncretism was an entirely natural result of the cultural developments of the time and does not represent an artificial “adulteration” of the original movement somehow intended to “paganize” or
"distort" Christianity.
Yes, no doubt that Judaism started as a henotheistic religion (pantheon with El-Yaweh and variation on Canaanite/Midianite religions), that then had a contingent of "Yaweh-alone" prophets (still not the mainstream but starting to become a thing.. kind of reformist prophetic movement), and then kind of reconstituted with Yaweh alone with Second Temple Period. The people who held these beliefs were possibly the pastoralists who didn't settle in city-states, that occupied the hill country areas. They thus started making more and more demarcations between themselves and the city-state Canaanites (with practice of abstaining from pig and circumcision being probably the earliest traditions that marked differences).
As far as what I was saying with Galilee region earlier, my summation was here:
Mainly speculation, but based on a lot of this, I would say that Jesus represented families of Jews who inhabited the region after the Maccabean takeover. There was a sort of "pioneer" element to Galilee.. the Jewish inhabitants were mainly newcomers for the last 200 years or so from the southern areas around Judah. The Hellenists, and Samarians were thus to be avoided for these folks. They probably also developed a bit different Hebrew/Aramaic than their southern neighbors. Based on John the Baptist and Judas the Galilean messianic claimant, it was indeed a hotbed of Jewish rebellion as opposed to the more tenuous situation in Jerusalem where any outward rebellion can be identified and crushed easily.
In other words, Jews in this region would have possibly been fierce separatists to the syncretism you might be thinking. We are both speculating really.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
Aramaic is still the consensus. Even Josephus stated:
I think that assumption is questionable. See Exodus 3:15: "God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation."
Why would the author(s) attempt to unify what appears to have been the worship of different gods?
In addition there is the problem of the many names of God:
Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” (3:13-14)
In addition the various names: El, Elohim, El Shaddai, YHWH
I'm not getting your objection.. all of this points to polytheistic origin..
Elohim is plural.. It COULD be that it is like the royal "we", but more likely that it started as a pantheon.
El Shaddai is possibly "God of the Wilderness
El Elyon is probably "God of the High Places" (as in sacred high places where worship took place by ancient Canaanites).
Yahweh corresponds with a warrior god of the Midianites.. this was absorbed as the major God of Hosts and attached to the El deity as one and the same.
Yes, that is my point. Polytheistic rather than henotheistic. As you say: a pantheon.
It seems as though in time it because henotheistic and eventually monotheistic, but its origins are in polytheism.
You pointed to the Persian influence. I would add the importance of the Ugaritic/Canaanite influence.
Ah ok, then yes I think we are in agreement.
"Possibly", yes. Which is "speculation", as you say. A degree of speculation is always involved when interpreting historical events.
But how does Josephus show that Greek wasn't spoken at least as widely as Aramaic?
By the way, circumcision appears to have been practiced in Ancient Egypt, so it wasn't quite so "different", after all:
History of circumcision - Wikipedia
I don't think the matter is quite as simple as that.
1. It is not known to what extent all Jews had the same concept of "messiah".
2. Jesus was not necessarily crucified "as a criminal" from a Jewish perspective. He could have been seen as a rebel against Roman rule as well as against sections of the religious establishment.
3. The Christian message was NOT that the crucifixion was the end, but that Jesus would return to reestablish the rule of divine righteousness, which did attribute a messianic role to him.
4. Most early Christians were Jews who formed a Jewish Christian community:
Jewish Christian - Wikipedia
Yeah, I'm just saying compared to other Canaanites.
Quoting Apollodorus
That quote seems pretty definitive to me that it wasn't widely spoken. Also, the NT has a decent amount of Aramaic phrases. It seems to be the main language across the large swath of the Near East from Judea to Babylonia at least since the times of the Neo-Babylonians. Even parts of the Hebrew Bible were written in it towards the end due to its popularity. It was the common language. Greek was the educated one of the cosmopolitans. Look at Bar Kochba's letters.. Interestingly, since he may have thought he was the messiah, he wanted to change the lingua franca to Hebrew and started writing in Hebrew.
But Josephus did write some of his works in Greek. And Aramaic phrases in a Greek text do not show that Greek wasn't spoken.
We need to remember that the Greek spoken by the Jews of Roman Palestine was not exactly the same as that spoken in Athens. And this shows that a version of Greek existed in Palestine that could only have emerged by being spoken by Palestinian Jews.
By the way, what language would you say Jesus used when he spoke with Pilate, and why is he using Greek words like "Hades"?
Yeah but look at that quote again.. He said it was hard for him to write in Greek and that it wasn't usual or encouraged by his countrymen!
Quoting Apollodorus
So the question is, "Did Jesus speak Greek?". The definitive answer has to be, "We don't know exactly". However, using various filters, we can try to make the best guess:
Greek was generally used by various people who needed to speak Greek. Who needed to speak Greek? Mainly three types of people: Highborn elite and government officials who spoke with other Greek-speaking leaders in the Empire, and people involved in trade who spoke with Greek-speaking traders across the Empire.
Aramaic was spoken amongst the peoples of the Near East from Judea to Mesopotamia since the time of the Neo-Babylonians. Some of the Hebrew Scriptures are written in Aramaic even, along with some prayers. It is known to be the language of common folk via texts like the Talmud, even though the Talmud itself was actually written in Midrashic Hebrew.
Aramaic phrases were poking out of the Gospels, because that was the lingua franca used. The writers were translating (most likely oral) sources, and simply used the Aramaic original phrases where they saw it most effective to keep.
So knowing this:
A. Was Jesus a high born person?
It seems not. He was definitely not a Herodian or Maccabee descendent as far as we know. He wasn't a Sadducee or in a priestly class. Certainly they would be more likely to have Hellenistic tendencies due to need to speak with Roman overlords and officials.
B. Was Jesus a government official?
It seems not. He wasn't part of the Sanhedrin. He wasn't working on behalf of Roman political hierarchy. He wasn't a government functionary as far as we know.
C. Was Jesus a trader or in commerce?
It seems not. Though, this might be the most likely out of them all. If he was indeed a "tekton" maybe there was some wheeling and dealing with Greek-speaking folks. If so, it's never presented.
So what have we? As far as we know, his birthplace, following, and destinations were all pretty heavily Jewish populated areas where the lingua franca was indeed Aramaic. He probably knew Hebrew too if he was quoting from actual scripture and not just memory. If that was the case, then in my view, he may have been a variety of Pharisee, as it was uncommon for just anyone to know Hebrew without being elite priestly class, Pharisee, etc.
Now, does that mean he may have known Greek, nonetheless? Perhaps. It is not out of the land of possibility. I just think it is less probable, that's all.
Quoting Apollodorus
You'd have to give me the quote, but while I think some of the NT has a broad accuracy to the events of Jesus [mainly the "gist" of some of his sayings (very much parallel to things found in the Talmud by the way), his stance on halacha, his being known as a miracle-worker, and his trying to "cleanse" the Temple], I don't think a lot of exact words in there were what was said and transpired. In other words, the Greek-speaking writers took liberties.. either simply filling it in or hearsay traditions. I don't read the gospels like they're gospel or anything.. Just some crude accounts with a lot of interpolations.
I mean, it sort of is: in the OT, the literal translation of the word "messiah" is "anointed one", and refers to the kings of Israel, who were anointed with oil by the high priest. So this would have been the common/general understanding of the term among Jews at the time, if not a universal one.
Quoting Apollodorus
Crucifiction was a Roman practice, not a Jewish one. But Jews under Roman occupation certainly knew its significance, that it was a shameful punishment reserved for criminals.
From the Jewish perspective, it actually might have been worse, since to be hung from a tree (including a wooden cross) was a terrible curse (Deut 21): this was such a problem that Paul had to come up with a neat theological explanation for why this happened and why its OK, actually (Galatians 3).
Quoting Apollodorus
Right, because they had to come up with some explanation for how this was all supposed to work, since the concept of a messiah who wasn't actually the anointed king of Israel was a total non-starter... But as Paul noted, this continued to be a problem for the Jewish audience, since the expectation was that the messiah, being the anointed King of Israel, would throw off the Roman occupation and re-establish the Davidic line in accordance with scripture. Jesus did the literal exact opposite of this: he was squashed like a bug by the Romans, and killed in a most shameful manner.
Quoting Apollodorus
Right, Jesus's closest disciples were Jews. The earliest Christians were those disciples, and their friends and family that they managed to convert... also mostly Jewish, probably. But I'm talking about the period where the Christian church went from a handful of Jewish radicals to a genuine religion; and, as Paul reports, they had trouble converting Jews, but more success converting pagans.
Of course, maybe he was more widely travelled during the "lost years", or maybe the other Jewish sects he's speculated to have studied with during this years acted as a vehicle of such influence, but this is all very speculative.
With all of these conditions observed regarding the mixture of language and culture in such a time of extreme violence, it is difficult to say what actually happened, So I am curious why you make it a matter of faith when you reject Grimes who suggests Jesus received an education from one of the Hellenistic schools. How is that an article of faith rather than a question of fact?
We simply don't know if he actually did have an education like that. Perhaps the “lost years” may suggest he went to a Greek gymnasium in order to receive a correct education. This can be mixed with the tenets of faith, however. I am convinced, by my own experiences and intellectual pursuits, that Christianity is true. I just think that a certain strand of it is very misguided in the modern age. But this does not make other religions or philosophies any less true than Christianity.
So, if Grimes turned out to be correct, you would have no problem with that?
But he did write in Greek, for people who could read Greek, no?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not necessarily. There could have been a number of other reasons. The text may be simply rendering what was actually said in Aramaic, etc.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, by that logic, we might as well ignore the Gospels altogether. PLUS the fact they were written in Greek. In which case, there wouldn't be much point in me giving you any quote .... :smile:
But here it is, anyway:
What language did Jesus and Pilate use? I doubt it was Aramaic.
Note the Greek term "Hades" and the Greek wordplay involving "Petros" and "petra". Aramaic?
Quoting Seppo
Of course it was a Roman practice. And of course it was reserved for criminals. It wouldn't have been reserved for law-abiding citizens, would it? But "criminals" included those that rebelled against Roman rule. It doesn't make sense for Jews to treat one of their own as a "despicable criminal" just because he was crucified by the Romans.
Quoting Seppo
Sure. But they still converted sufficient numbers to start a movement ....
I suppose that would depend on the crime. It was still a disgraceful way to die- left to rot and then thrown in a mass unmarked grave. And it was also still considered a curse by Jews. So... not good all-around.
And so either way, the suggestion that a crucified peasant was the messiah- the anointed king of Israel- would have struck most Jews as absurd, not just the religious authorities. It was a shocking, shocking claim that they were making, especially for Jews, and it was received as such.
Quoting Apollodorus
Sure, chiefly because they had great success converting pagans, and ultimately managed to become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
This is a fascinating summary of the influence of Greek culture of early Christianity.
I find it a bit not quite misleading, that would be too strong to say but... let's say peripheral. Jesus's thought and early Christian teaching focussed around:
- the acceptance of the holy trinity
- the elevation of everyman to the status of the highborn, in terms of how God looks at them
- the importance of moral behaviour
- and reward reaped in the afterlife based on Earthly toils.
This, around and based on an already established Jewish moral and religious substructure of faith.
If Greek thought was more than superficial and peripheral in Christian culture, I'd venture to say they would really have tried to avoid logical self-contradictions. This by me here is not a criticism of Christian faith; it is rather the view that Greek philosophers did not make an impression during and on the formation of Christianity. There would have been more philosophy in the New Testament, which basically is a teaching guide, for rote memory, not a road map or a programming structure. The guidance that the NT provides is authoritarian, and new at the time of Christ; tremendous inventiveness was there, but there was no arguments or convincing of others, no connection to what and how we know the Greeks thought. The angels, and later, the saints, indeed served in Christian faith as lesser gods served in Greek mythology and faith, but this similarity was borne not only to the Green faith, but practically to all polytheists faiths. It is a fallacy to say it was due to an influence by the Greeks.
I am not trying to convince anyone of my truth, but I do believe that the vehement insistence that Christian faith was connected to the teachings of the wise Greek philosophers is only a reference fabricated (falsely) to gain acceptance, reverence, and credibility, but in essence it's simply not there. Much like a young man at a party of common people would boast that his uncle is a physician, or that his aunt is a congresswoman, only for the belief, that it would garner more respect and also higher social ranking in the community.
This is my opinion, but I'd be trying to stop a speeding locomotive with my bare hands if I thought I could garner any support among Christian philosophers and historians to my opinion as above.
If sufficient evidence appeared proving Grimes’ thesis then yes, I would not have a problem with that.
I had the understanding that the influence flowed the other way - that early Christian doctrine was considerably influenced by Greek philosophy and the Greek-speaking theologians such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others of that ilk. That they found in (neo)Platonism a philosophical framework which they could blend with the Biblical revelation, although this was not without tensions ('what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?')
But I would find it unlikely that Jesus himself was 'influenced' by Greek thought. Jesus was many things, but a philosopher-pedant, he was not. My orientation is not specifically Christian, but I'm by no stretch atheist, and I recognise Jesus as at the very least divinely inspired, with a direct intuition which in my view was greater than that of the philosophers. Origen, whom I already mentioned, said the same - though Platonist by education and training, he insisted that the teachings of Jesus contained more wisdom than could be found in the philosophers. And don't forget the early Christian theologians were quick to incorporate whatever they found congenial in the Greek teachings, even saying that Socrates and Plato were 'Christians before Christ'. But I can't see that Jesus would have needed to benefit from their philosophy.
He wasn't "left to rot and thrown into an unmarked mass grave" at all.
The body was taken by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus by express permission of Pilate (John 19:33-34, 38, Luke 19:50-52). Joseph of Arimathea was "a respected member of the council", as was Nicodemus, and the body was given a proper burial, in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea himself.
If Jesus had disciples among the Sanhedrin who did not consider him as "cursed", there is no logical reason why he couldn't have had disciples among the common people.
Moreover, Jesus was said to have come back to life and promised to return and establish the kingdom of God, which was an additional reason for the populace to treat him with honor and respect. Clearly, he had respected followers among the Jews both before and after crucifixion.
Plus, there is no evidence that he was a "peasant".
So, I don't think it is quite the way you are describing it ....
Well, truth be told, the exact teachings of Jesus are difficult if not impossible to reconstruct. All we have is an account of how he was perceived by others.
What seems clear is that Hellenistic culture had more influence on later Christianity than on Jesus himself. And, of course, there were other influences, the culture of the eastern parts of the empire being quite a mixed bag at the time, otherwise there wouldn't have been Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion or mythology.
Grimes also claimed that the core of Jesus' message did not reflect the concerns or concepts of Judaism. I hope the contributions by schopenhauer1 and Oliver5, amongst others here, show how ridiculous that claim is.
What I find to be particularly galling about Grimes' idea is that it means that Jesus was importing one religion into another, like a Manchurian Candidate taking control of an alien territory. It is as if the Letter to the Hebrews had been written before all the rest had happened.
Let me get you that quote again...
It seems here that Greek wasn't encouraged amongst religious-minded Jews. It was to be avoided as for its association with Hellenists, etc. So he reluctantly learned it so he could explain Jewish history better to Greco-Roman audience. He wrote part of the Jewish Wars in his native language, which was the same as the "Upper Barbarians" which are the Parthians/Babylonians, which again, is Aramaic.
Quoting Apollodorus
Because people generally spoke Aramaic! :lol:.
Quoting Apollodorus
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying, because something was written down, it must be true? I hope you aren't committing the often religious-based circular logic that, "The (X holy scriptures) is true because it is considered holy and thus can't not be true". Rather, any writing from ANYONE (gospels, letters, epistles, histories, etc.) always needs to be read with skepticism. Especially so for anything before what we might consider "scientifically-minded" history written after the Enlightenment. And even MORE so in ancient times, when history was replete with mythological tangents, speculations, and the like. Also, everything has a bias. The Gospels were written with a purpose, not just "stating the facts, mam". It was trying to convey something and convince an audience of a point of view.
Ok, regarding your Book of John reference, there are a couple things..
1) The Book of John is without a doubt the MOST Greek-influenced.. They had Jesus fit into the scheme of being an incarnated Logos, etc. There are definitely shades of influence of Plato (probably via ideas from Philo of Alexandria).
2) There is really no way for the author to know what was really stated in private if this was not open to the public. In other words, the authors took literary liberties here. It isn't live, captured recording or anything :lol:.
3) This is a much less important point but possibly relevant. Just because people didn't speak Greek, doesn't mean they couldn't borrow words after 100s of years of cultural diffusion. Hades could have been a term borrowed from Greek without speaking Greek, if it was even used at all and not an interpolation (which is probable anyways). Also, there is a term in Hebrew/Aramaic, and that is Sheol which means "the pit". You don't have to be fluent Spanish, but when someone says, "Comprende?" These are just words that have made it in the vernacular.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that it was a 'melting pot'. It was a place where you could meet Greeks, Cananeans and Phoenicians, as well as many Samaritans IF YOU WANTED to meet them.
Interestingly, at the time of Jesus, Galilean Jews were reputed less observant of the Law than Judeans. Less literal too.
Samaritans are originally from the Hebraic tribe of Ephraim and the kingdom of Israel. They have a slightly different Torah and tradition than the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, aka 'Jews', who lived predominantly in the kingdom of Judah. Today the Samaritans are almost instinct.
I never would have thought that the Jews living in Galilee were “less observant and less literal” than others. Could this have been because of the presence of other groups of people that weren’t Jewish? Greeks of course but Samaritans were at least similar to Jews because of their reverence for the Torah (despite the differences between Judaism’s version).
I agree. All the evidence points to the concerns of Jesus caring about issues within Judaism and among Jewish society whether he was influenced by Hellenic thought or not. I like Grimes but I think he has a tendency to insert his opinion too much. For example I once listened to him say that logos actually means “self” or “whole” rather than “the Word, reason, or rationality.” I don’t speak Greek (maybe someday soon) but to my knowledge it doesn’t mean any of these. He likes to say that St. Paul “cut out” the Greek tradition from Christianity but says 20-25 years earlier in the 90’s that the similarities between St. Paul and Seneca the Younger are remarkable.
They invest into it. Readers, midrashers, commentators, translators have always taken sides, made interpretative choices... Hiding or dismissing something important, highlighting something else that might be trivial, as might be necessary to buttress their own view. And nobody is immune to this.
I think the idea of a direct filiation between Greek and Jesus' ideas is improbable, a kind of wishful thinking for convergence between two great literary, religious and philosophical traditions of the Mediterranean sea, the Semitic and Greek, PRIOR TO JC. But historically (the way I see it) this convergence happens after Jesus, not before.
Now, a general terrain favorable to convergence existed at the time, be cause of the population mixing brought about by successive empires, as we were saying.
In this terrain, there was some demonstrated interest on the Greek side for understanding Judaism, and vice versa for Jews to read Greek philosophy. But there were also very strong prejudices on both sides, that prevented convergence.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Biblical canon at least somewhat “defined” by Christ’s day? Or are you just saying people do naturally pick and choose what they want to read because that is also very true.
Jesus himself most probably read scripture from a "targum" ie a translation in Aramaic. That's already an interpretation, literally.
I meant: people understand / interpret scripture the way they like.
Scholarly opinion is divided on this:
Josephus - Wikipedia
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not at all. People could have spoken Greek and Aramaic and used each language in different situations, Some may have spoken only Aramaic, etc.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's a big "IF" there. It is not unusual for people to communicate to others what had been said in private. :smile:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I see. If it is "Greek-influenced" then is mustn't be true. :grin:
Quoting schopenhauer1
In other words, it is "literal and reliable recording" when it comes to Aramaic phrases, but "pure fiction" when it comes to the Greek text. Very scientific methodology you've got there, I must say .... :lol:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure. But this does not constitute evidence that Greek was not spoken together with Aramaic, does it?
No, rather it is fitting into a framework the author wanted.. Logos, virgin birth, heavenly version of Jesus that is pre-made and has an end goal in mind.. Jews are looked at more contemptuously as "other" than Jesus.. etc. It has more Greek-inspired rhetorical dialogue, etc.
Quoting Apollodorus
I already explained in what contexts that it would make sense that Greek was spoken by a person in Judea/Galilee.
Quoting Apollodorus
Scholarly opinion is not divided on whether Josephus spoke Aramaic.. His native tongue was Aramaic, as he states himself. And that quote also states Josephus' experience of Greek before he learned it to write (or with others who helped him ghost-write) his Jewish Wars and Antiquities. That is to say, that he didn't know it well, nor would any self-respecting religious-minded Jew (his quote, note mine on this). Also note that I don't doubt Josephus' main audience was fellow Jews primarily and gentile secondarily, but the Jews he was writing to weren't the defeated and depleted countryman from Judea/Galilee but the Jews around the diaspora- that is to say, more Hellenized Jews around the diaspora (Paul and Philo of Alexandria are examples of this).
Quoting Apollodorus
Uhuh.. right. Anything is possible.. Maybe the author got an exclusive with Pilate's bodyguard!
So I'm sort of done with this debate. You can say whatever you want otherwise, but I presented my view which aligns generally with most scholarly consensus on this. Say your piece, but if I give you the last word on it, it doesn't mean I agree, or what you say is the last word on this.. I just don't wish to keep harping on this particular part of the history of Jesus.
I get it. By that logic, if a scientist writes a paper that fits into a framework that he wants, then it's all lies.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I know you did. Not very convincingly though.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Correct. My comment referred to your claim that Josephus wrote his Greek book "to explain Jewish history better to Greco-Roman audience". This is the point on which scholarly opinion is divided.
Quoting schopenhauer1
"Pilate's bodyguard"?! The exchange took place in the "judgement hall" (praetorium) where there would have been many eye-witnesses.
The scene is also mentioned in Matthew and Luke, if you don't like John.
Plus my question was "what language would you say Jesus used when he spoke with Pilate?"
Another possibility is that Grimes is overstating the presence of an element and has come up with a cause to explain its apparent absence. The natural question to ask is if there are other accounts that give some evidence for this "cutting out."
He very probably was, as scholars like Ehrman have persuasively argued. The Joseph of Arimathea story is very probably a later- and non-historical- addition to the narrative. Victims of crucifiction were thrown in mass graves, and there's no reason why Jesus would have been different.
But even if that weren't the case, it was still a disgraceful way to die, and particularly for a Jew, in light of the Biblical curse against being hung from a tree, and the notion of a crucified criminal being the anointed king of Israel would still have been an absurdity for most Jews.
Quoting Apollodorus
Who said he didn't have disciples among the common people? As I've said already, his disciples were both Jewish and common people/peasants. The point is that Christianity's great explosion was due to their success converting pagans, because they had a tough time converting Jews in any great numbers.
Quoting Apollodorus
You're joking, right? He was, according to all our records including/especially the Gospels, a peasant born of a peasant family living in a small peasant village- a carpenter/artisan, which, in the social order at the time, was about as low as one could get.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, it was very much the way I'm describing, and nothing that I've said here is particularly controversial as far as the relevant scholarship goes.
Just so you know who you are dealing with. From Apollodorus:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544386
Well, it's a well-known fact that Ehrman woz there. And with eye-witnesses like him, who needs scholars, right? :smile:
IMO things could perfectly well have been different in Jesus' case (a) if Pilate sentenced him under pressure and (b) if influential members of the Jewish Council requested a proper burial for him.
Quoting Seppo
So, Jews were not common in Roman Palestine?
Quoting Seppo
Sorry, but I don't think Ehrman is "relevant scholarship" at all. The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general:
Bart D. Ehrman – Wikipedia
Interesting… When exactly was the Jewish Canon actually formalized or closed? I’ve heard that the Council of Jamnia in the 2nd century was the official date but some scholars debate this.
Who needs critical scholarship when we can just uncritically accept religious narratives? Because critical scholars weren't there, we should just trust uncritical religious narratives that also came from people who weren't there? :lol:
Clearly, you didn't think this response through before posting it.
And in any case you're still missing the point. Suppose Jesus did receive a proper burial (he very probably didn't, but suppose he did, for the sake of argument). He was still crucified as criminal by the Romans, and still died on a wooden cross (a curse, for Jews). Calling a dead person, let alone a crucified criminal, the anointed king of Israel would have been an evident absurdity to most Jews. And dying on a wooden cross was still considered a curse by the Jewish scriptures.
All things confirmed by Paul, when he tells us how they had difficulty converting Jews because the notion of a crucified messiah was a contradiction in terms from a Jewish perspective.
Quoting Apollodorus
Um... What?
Quoting Apollodorus
Of course he is, he's a New Testament scholar. And I'm not only referring to Ehrman, or to arguments Ehrman has made that are controversial. All the things we've been talking about here are uncontroversial among most Biblical scholars and historians- crucifiction was a disgraceful way to die, the Jewish scriptures claim that dying on a tree is a curse, Jesus was a peasant, Christians had trouble converting Jews in any large numbers, and so on.
And btw, "some people criticized this person, therefore everything this person says is wrong" isn't a particularly good argument. You're sort of bringing a plastic butterknife to a gunfight here, so unless you have something serious to argue I think we can conclude this conversation.
I often work under that assumption. Some people have a vested interest in things being as they believe them to be and will go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to discredit the work of generations of scholars because their work leads to conclusions at odds with how they want things to be.
What someone ignores what is said in the very sources they quote to support their claims things will seem to be other than they are. Daniel Wallace was selectively quoted. This is what he said in the wiki article:
[quote]Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known". [emphasis added][ /quote]
I pointed this out months ago, but as he often does, he ignored it and now repeats this misrepresentation.
Yes, the canon was set in Jamnia, which is widely seen as the birth date of modern rabbinical judaism. But the text itself in a fully vocalized and punctuated version (the masorah) was only finalized in the 10th century.
He is considered one of the best specialists of that period in the English-speaking world.
Clearly, you didn't think that question through, because "uncritically accept religious narratives" is exactly what you are doing - when it suits you:
Quoting Seppo
Quoting Seppo
Quoting Seppo
Etc., etc.
And you seem to be oblivious to the fact that most original Christians were Jews and that they succeeded in converting other Jews, including Paul himself!
Quoting Seppo
1. If he was a "peasant", so were most other Jews. So, why would peasants look down on other peasants???
2. In the NT Jesus is addressed or referred to by the title of "teacher" many times, so clearly not everyone considered him a "peasant"!
Quoting Seppo
I don't think "some people praised this person, therefore everything this person says is right" is any better.
It looks like you not only uncritically accept religious narratives (when it suits your agenda), but also uncritically accept the dogmatic narratives of dodgy scholars .... :smile:
No, I never said that being hung from a tree is cursed... only that the Jewish scriptures say so. Accepting that the scriptures say something obviously isn't the same thing as accepting the thing it says.
Once again, are you even thinking this stuff through before pounding out a reply? This is the sort of thing that should go without saying, and which makes me question your seriousness.
Quoting Apollodorus
Are you drunk? Quoting myself from earlier in the thread, saying the exact thing you're now saying I'm "oblivious" to (and I don't think this was the only time I said it, either)-
Quoting Seppo
So, are you responding to my posts without reading what I said? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting me as saying the exact opposite of what I actually said? I'm not sure which is worse. :grimace:
Quoting Apollodorus
I didn't say other peasants "looked down on him", I said that the notion of a dead peasant (not to mention a crucified criminal) being the literal anointed King of Israel struck most Jews as absurd. Being a peasant and being the king are sort of mutually exclusive- or are you going to dispute that too?
Quoting Apollodorus
Being a teacher and being a peasant are not contradictory. He was a peasant. All of our surviving documents say so; even the Gospels tell us he was a peasant. What's next, are you going to dispute that his name was "Jesus" or that he was from Nazareth? Again, are you even being serious here?
Quoting Apollodorus
Good thing, then, that I never said such a thing. Is this another instance of you not reading the posts you're attempting to respond to, or deliberate misrepresentation?
Quoting Apollodorus
Yikes. That's a swing and a miss there friend. But hey, at least you tried.. sort of. I think the level of effort and seriousness you're putting in here would probably be better suited to Twitter or Reddit or something, but hey whatever floats your boat I guess, right?
Nice catch. It was such a naked ad hominem that I didn't even bother chasing down the quote.
And in any case, Daniel Wallace and Bart Ehrman are in agreement about many (if not most) things, certainly the basic sort of stuff that has come up in this thread, their disagreements tend to pertain to matters of degree, not of kind, and often to very specific details that aren't of much interest to non-experts. The idea that Ehrman is some renegade atheist who is out of step with the general consensus in the field is entirely fictional.
Well, you are using scripture as "evidence" for your arguments, aren't you? :grin:
Quoting Seppo
Quoting Seppo
Quoting Seppo
Quoting Seppo
Quoting Seppo
You are constantly citing religious narratives to "prove" your point. Or are you retracting your statements?
Quoting Seppo
1. IMO it is entirely conceivable for a peasant to become king. Joseph was a slave and became second-in-command after the Pharaoh, which after all is much higher than a Hebrew king.
2. The NT states that Jesus was of royal descendance (from King David):
Clearly, not everyone thought he was a peasant. So, on what scientific basis are you accepting religious narratives claiming he was a "peasant" and rejecting religious narratives claiming he was of royal descent?
Asked and answered-
Quoting Seppo
If you can't even read the posts you're responding to, why should I waste the time extending you a courtesy you're unwilling to extend to me? Either get serious, or stop wasting my time.
Quoting Apollodorus
We're not talking about a peasant becoming king, but a peasant being the king. The anointed king. Despite not having been anointed, and not being the king. You still don't see the problem?
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, everyone thought he was a peasant. A carpenter or artisan, specifically. And we accept this particular scriptural detail as probably historical because it is attested to by literally all of our sources, and because its not really the sort of thing someone would make up, if they were inventing details. If you were going to make up a story about a guy secretly being the rightful King of Israel, you wouldn't invent the detail that he was a peasant. When people lie, they tend to lie in a way that serves their interests, not in ways that harms them.
Obviously there's always the possibility that despite all that, our sources are wrong. But that's an unavoidable problem in history, since unlike the observational sciences we cannot recreate or re-test the hypothesis. So the best we can do is determine the degrees of probability or confidence in light of the relevant evidence. And we have no reason to doubt that Jesus was, as he was claimed to be, a peasant artisan from a peasant village.
This part is quite exiting: "anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority". You aren't fooling anyone."
Do the activists go to secret meetings in order to train together? Are special handshakes involved?
And who will be the "Christian" in this matter? There are so many interpretations and forms of worship under this name that it is like being Anti-Smith as an agenda. Even self-identified anti-Christians have to say what it is before they slap it up the side of the head.
Oh dear, did he really call Ehrman an "anti-Christian activist"? :lol:
I didn't realize quite the level of religious crank we were dealing with here. Suddenly things make a lot more sense.
Yes. Click on the link Fooloso4 provided.
Oh brother, they really did say that :gasp:
I'm genuinely embarrassed for our poor friend Apollodorus. Yikes.
For my part, I don't want to assign an agenda to someone assigning an agenda. i can oppose it or question it without doing that.
That is my ideal, anyway, which I often fail to accomplish.
This is only part of it. When he first joined the forum he was touting the work of Kerry Bolton.
In 1980, Bolton co-founded the New Zealand branch of the Church of Odin, a pro-Nazi organisation for "whites of non-Jewish descent".
He founded the national-socialist Order of the Left Hand Path (OLHP).It was intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis"
Bolton created and edited the Black Order newsletter, The Flaming Sword, and its successor, The Nexus, a satanic-Nazi journal
And to defend Bolton Apollodorus cited Kevin B. MacDonald. Kevin B. MacDonald is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB). In 2008, the CSULB academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.
The moderators deleted his threads. He claimed ignorance, but he routinely digs up dirt on academics who hold views contrary to his own. I will leave it to the reader to decide how credible his pleas of ignorance were,
Of course not. What your beliefs are makes no difference to me. I'm simply pointing out that your argument doesn't add up. You seem to be rejecting or accepting bits of text depending on whether they fit or not some preconceived opinion or yours. If you think that's a "scientific" method, that's your problem. But you can't expect people to take you seriously.
Quoting Seppo
I don't think so. Some called him "son of David".
Of course, that genealogy could be made up. But then the whole text could be made up, in which case it's a waste of time discussing it. :grin:
Quoting Seppo
You did imply that if Ehrman says so, then somehow it must be so. You are also using terms like "probably", etc. Have you personally calculated the mathematical probabilities in each case? And even if you did and you could demonstrate that something is probable, "probable" doesn't mean it must be so, does it?
I'm not saying you can't hold those beliefs. Only that your statements seem to be based on belief rather than fact.
Well, that does count as an agenda. Disregard my previous reserve on that point. This place is stranger than I thought.
:lol: okay now if this isn't the Platonic Form of Pot-Calling-the-Kettle-Black. Sorry man, I didn't realize you were such a diehard religious crank, so I'm not longer interested.
Well, I told you your logic was flawed! Just because you are a religious crank, that doesn't mean that others must be religious cranks, does it? :wink:
And since you know absolutely nothing about my religious beliefs, I can only assume you're a fantasist in addition to being a religious crank.
BTW, how does calling Ehrman "anti-Christian" make you a "religious crank"?
Plus, if you look at your own comments, you might notice the many "probably", "possibly", etc., none of which amounts to "proof" even if you invoke Ehrman a thousand times.
Quoting Seppo
No, I don't, actually. If some believed that Jesus was of royal descent, as they obviously did, then they couldn't have regarded him as a "peasant". In fact, some even believed that he was the son of God. It follows that it is incorrect to claim that everyone believed he was a "peasant".
As I said, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies and flaws in your arguments (without calling you names). IMO, that's what discussion forums are for. But if you expect people to take your (or Ehrman's) word for it, good luck with that .... :smile:
P.S. For your information, none of my threads were ever "deleted" by anyone, as there was no reason to do so.
Btw, if you have any book recommendations, I shall be immensely grateful to receive them. I am not the best at choosing :p
Josephus is a good place to start I suppose. Popular writers of Historical Jesus secondary literature abound: Ehrman, Sanders, Vermes, Eisenman, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Maccoby, Levine, Maier, Pagels, Chilton, Falk, Tabor, even just writers like Reza Aslan did a decent job coalescing sources. Then just look up any academic journal article in Second Temple Judaism, Palestine under Greeks and Romans, History of Israel under Greco-Romans, New Testament Studies, Historical Jesus, Jerusalem Church, James the Brother of Jesus, Jewish Christians, Early Christianity, and have a ball.
Thank you so much!
Where?
Right. But that could be simply because the writers checked on the source they had access to while writing the gospels.
He spoke Aramaic.
The NT does indicate reliance on LXX (Septuagint) as a principal source. But this in turn puts into question the whole Aramaic Hypothesis. If Aramaic was the sole (or even main) language spoken and written in Roman Palestine, why would anyone turn to the Greek LXX instead of Aramaic or Hebrew texts?
IMO this seems to suggest that Greek was more widely spoken than sometimes assumed.
At any rate the language of education during that time period was Greek, not Latin. The transition to Latin as a scholars language took a couple of generations because there was no printing press and the predominant scholar language must be what scrolls and books are written in. Outside of the synagogues that was Greek.
Unless a person was a member of the religious (and thus ruling) class they simply had no way to learn Hebrew.
I'm not aware of any of the apostles that even knew Latin except for Peter (who was a Roman citizen).
In the end, however, almost all of this is extrapolated from the dead sea scrolls and cultural norms pieced together from historian accounts (largely Josephus). We can pick up a lot of cultural evidence of the impact of Aristotle's "science" as the ideas spread up through Italy even before the idea of Rome had taken shape. There is a great deal of academic speculation on the impact of those ideas on the shape of political structures to come. Keep in mind that the renaissance started in Italy which at the very least should give us a massive clue that science and Greek culture had penetrated to the soul of that people.
That is simply not true. Targumin existed for a reason, and they were not sacrilegious. Or not too much, not anymore than the Septuagint...
Jesus read the Tanak in Aramaic. Like everybody at the time.
Note that modern Israelis speak Hebrew. Nobody speaks Yiddish anymore.
They wouldn't, not in 1st century Palestine, but a century later, when Greek speakers wrote the story, they used the LXX to check that they had the quotes right.
Well, it is entirely possible that the Gospels are fictitious narratives fabricated by Greek speakers in the second century.
However, who exactly were these “Greek speakers”?
I think it is fairly clear that they were Palestinian Jews as they were obviously familiar with the local geography, society, culture, and language.
And if there were Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews in the 2nd century, there is no reason why there couldn’t have been Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews a few decades earlier, in the time of Jesus.
It follows that the original quotes could perfectly well have had the LXX as source, in which case there would have been no need for anyone to check.
Of course there were. But it does not follow that Jesus was one of them.
Consider the "two powers in heavens" heresy within Judaism. In a now famous book, Alan Segal demonstrated that this belief was widespread among Jews and even some rabbis by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity, when ultimately the rabbis rejected "Binitarianism". In this view, god has two sides: a good one and a bad one. In other similar views, the demiurge or prince of this world is not the god who created the world (who is good), but a bad god. Like Sheitan if you prefer. This maps well with Jesus' tendencies to reject this world as inherently corrupt, and the Devil as dwelling in it.
Of course, Jesus must have been influenced by the Greek culture that had ruled the Middle East for centuries. But the actual "sayings" of Jesus reflect his own Jewish culture -- especially the wisdom literature of the Essenes. So, It may have been the apostles to the gentiles that presented their Christian doctrine in terms familiar to non-Jews.
Paul was educated in both traditions, but even staunch-Jewish John used the Greek philosophical concept of the abstract principle "Logos" as a metaphor for the super-human notion of "Christ", the eternally existing deity who manifested in human form. That hybrid god-human model was sacrilegious to monotheistic Orthodox Jews. Anyway, I doubt that Jesus himself was as Hellenized as the Catholic canon of scriptures made it seem. For example, a god trinity was common to both Greeks and Romans. :smile:
Jesus' World :
Things like Platonic philosophy and Stoic philosophy at the level it was appropriated by a person like Philo, probably would not have had a direct impact on Jesus.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/hellenisticculture.html
Triple Deity :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
Whatever the source of that idea, it is incongruous with the Platonic teaching, expressed continuously over hundreds of years before Jesus, that there can only be a single universe and that evil is distance from the Good that provides order to it.
Correct. But it does follow that he could have been one of them. In which case the LXX quotes in the NT could have been original and not inserted later by "Greek speakers" to make them sound more "authentic".
As regards Persian influence on Judaism, it seems highly likely, as does Assyrian, Egyptian, and Babylonian influences.
I think the main Greek influence on Jesus was linguistic, as was the case with other Palestinian Jews of the period. But cultural influences shouldn't be ruled out. After all, there was such a thing as Hellenistic Judaism and, as is well-known, Jewish texts like the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, 4 were composed in Greek and show clear Greek influence.
Logos obviously has meaning in the narrative as a Greek word but how it is used as a source of creation is evident in Judaic literature in many different roles as well.
There is the whole dialogue of creation where God says for beings to be and they emerge within certain conditions.
Proverb 16:1 is "The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord."
In Job, the test is if the righteous man will admit to a sin which he knows he has not committed. He does not admit it.
Peter is said to betray Jesus by what he does not say.
In the conversation Pilate is purported to have had with Jesus, Pilate asks, 'are you the king of the Jews?" the reply is "Thou sayest."
This observation is not to claim one set of references takes precedence over others. It is only to note that translating the word "word" is going to be a tough rugby ball to grab in the ensuing scrum.
I think you are misplacing Logos.. How it is used in John seems very much akin to Philo of Alexandria's usage.. It was more influenced from that variation of a broader Greek concept that may have been mixed with a bit of Gnosticism from Alexandria which I wouldn't doubt influenced Philo's Hellenistic Judaism...
I meant to give the word its due as a Hellenistic concept. I question that it is the only reference to the importance of speaking words in the different traditions.
Not if he had no business with the Kittim. You learn a language for a reason. Jews in the diaspora had very good reasons to learn Greek, but not those in Palestine.
Yes. I suppose the Jews were familiar with the notion of the "word" (dabar) of God, referring to spoken creative power. But the implication of Greek "Logos" was probably intended to suggest that Jesus had existed eternally as a disembodied spirit. Which was the emerging explanation for the disappointing demise of their long awaited Jewish revolutionary leader & king, who died before completing his mission : to drive-out the Roman colonizers.
"Messiah" was always described as a flesh & blood sword-wielding descendant of David, not a wizard casting spells with magic words. But "Christ" was a new spiritualized concept, that allowed the mission to be completed at some unspecified later date. Thus, Jews & Christians are still waiting for deliverance, 2000 years later. That's the illogical theological advantage of an eternal spiritual savior : time has no meaning for him. So, the exegetical scrum goes on. :meh:
Your account discounts the role of the Essenes and Enoch groups in viewing the matter beyond the sweaty business of winning wars. The notion expressed in Isaiah that the 'rivers would reverse flow' to Zion is not simply a claim upon real estate but concerned the rest of the world.
I mentioned that Jesus seemed to be influenced by the Essenes, who were mystics, Instead of physically fighting the Romans, they withdrew to the desert. And their main occupation was preserving the written word of God. Ironically, "unlike the Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body". https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene
However, the recorded words of Jesus were somewhat ambiguous on his role. He may have hinted that his mission was mystical & spiritual, but it's obvious that his followers were expecting a real flesh & blood Messiah. So, they waited for him to come forth from the grave, like Lazarus, and continue the good fight, to show his power over both Romans and Death. Not to retreat into the safety of Heaven; leaving his followers leaderless.
Upon any interpretation, it's clear that Satan (or Rome, or Babylon, or Death) won that round of the cosmic battle. So, Donald Trump --- held by some to be a Conservative Messiah, and by others to be the AntiChrist --- would probably privately call Jesus a "loser". :joke:
Enoch is an interesting odd insertion in that era. It probably shouldn't be diminished that this aspect had influence on certain Jewish groups like the Essenes. It can be argued that Son of Man = Enoch = Metatron = Angel of Judgement = Angel of the Lord = Head of the Archangels, etc. etc. etc.
Even Rabbinic Judaism, in early Mystical (but not quite Kabblah proper) place a lot of emphasis on Metatron/Enoch.
[quote=Wikipedia Metatron]The Babylonian Talmud mentions Metatron by name in three places: Hagigah 15a, Sanhedrin 38b and Avodah Zarah 3b.
Hagigah 15a describes Elisha ben Abuyah in Paradise seeing Metatron sitting down (an action that is not done in the presence of God). Elishah ben Abuyah therefore looks to Metatron as a deity and says heretically: "There are indeed two powers in Heaven!"[34] The rabbis explain that Metatron had permission to sit because of his function as the Heavenly Scribe, writing down the deeds of Israel.[35] The Talmud states, it was proved to Elisha that Metatron could not be a second deity by the fact that Metatron received 60 "strokes with fiery rods" to demonstrate that Metatron was not a god, but an angel, and could be punished.[36]
In Sanhedrin 38b one of the minim tells Rabbi Idith that Metatron should be worshiped because he has a name like his master. Rabbi Idith uses the same passage Exodus 23:21 to show that Metatron was an angel and not a deity and thus should not be worshiped. Furthermore, as an angel Metatron has no power to pardon transgressions nor was he to be received even as a messenger of forgiveness.[36][37][38]
In Avodah Zarah 3b, the Talmud hypothesizes as to how God spends His day. It is suggested that in the fourth quarter of the day God sits and instructs the school children, while in the preceding three quarters Metatron may take God's place or God may do this among other tasks.[39]
Yevamot 16b records an utterance, "I have been young; also I have been old" found in Psalm 37:25. The Talmud here attributes this utterance to the Chief Angel and Prince of the World, whom the rabbinic tradition identifies as Metatron.[40][/quote]
What? You did say that there were Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews, didn't you?
Quoting Olivier5
Plus, if there was Persian influence on Judaism, why not Greek? Why do scholars speak of Hellenistic Judaism? And what about Jewish texts like the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, 4 that were composed in Greek and show clear Greek influence?
IMO we shouldn't ignore the fact that NT Greek is NOT Alexandrian Greek, but Palestinian Greek, i.e., Koine Greek with Palestinian characteristics. It is the very existence of a distinct Palestinian Jewish dialect of Koine Greek that enables us to know that Greek was spoken in Roman Palestine by local Jews.
No one is denying Hellenistic forms of Judaism existed, only the influence it had on Judea and Galilee regions as opposed to the diaspora. No one disputes the kind of Hellenistic influences on Alexandrian, Antochian, Ionian, and Greek Jews. Another region with less Hellenistic influence was Babylonian region under Parthians.
Sure. But if we start from the fact that Jews in 1st century Roman Palestine spoke a distinctive dialect of Koine Greek, then it is legitimate to look into other Greek influences on Palestinian Jews.
For example, Scott Greaves writes:
And Alexander Roberts:
That people could write Greek that region is not disputed either. It is not if this then cannot be that kind of thinking. What we do know is the first gospel was written at least 30-40 years after Jesus' death.. Obviously it would have to be someone with a good deal of education in Greek. Doesn't mean gentiles or Hellenistic Jews didn't contribute to the New Testament's writings.. They clearly did from Mark up to John..John clearly being the most Greek in style.
From Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted:
Modern scholarship has enough knowledge of 1st-century Koine Greek dialects to tell the difference between, say the LXX which is Alexandrian Greek, and the NT which is Palestinian Greek.
And Greek linguistic and even cultural influence on Palestinian Jews was considerable. Many Jews even gave their children Greek names, e.g., Nicodemus of the Jewish Council at Jerusalem. The Council itself had a name derived from Greek: Sanhedrin from synedrion, etc.
What I find particularly interesting is the Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion and mythology that were built in the region into the 600's, i.e., until the time of the Muslim conquests. Clearly, these mosaics are not mere decoration but seem to have a religious content that illustrates the cultural syncretism of the time.
The question is when exactly did this syncretism begin. I tend to believe that it must have begun prior to finding expression in art and architecture, e.g., in the 1st century if not earlier.
Dude, slow your roll. Everyone who studies this knows that.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, already know that. Again, it was not common for religious-minded Jew to speak Greek unless certain mitigating circumstances or from the diaspora. Aramaic was the lingua franca. Did ancient Jews borrow from Greek motifs. Absolutely, since the time of Alexander's conquest and Hellenization.
Well, I don't know what their "mitigating circumstances" might have been, but I think the guys that wrote the NT were (a) religious-minded Jews and (b) spoke Greek .... :wink:
We actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were! That's Ehrman's point! His (many people's) conjecture is they were urbane members somewhere in the Empire.. Who can say.. Maybe Antioch.. maybe Alexandria, etc. Most likely not Palestine itself. All we know is they were highly literate (actually writing in Greek) . precisely the people Jesus was not supposed to be hanging out with or came from. Paul is the only person with perhaps the most substantiated authorship, and by his own account he was a thoroughly Hellenized diasporan Jew with Roman citizenship even (something most Jews in Judea did not have the status of).
Yes, perhaps little green men from Mars. If you put NT parchments under the microscope, I believe you can still make out a subtle green tinge. If you wear green lenses, that is. And especially if you stare at them for long enough while focusing on the word "green", and slowly and attentively repeat it in your mind.
Or, perhaps, it woz Greeks pretending to be Jews, or Jews pretending to speak Greek. Or Romans pretending to be Greek-speaking Jews. I think I'm beginning to like that idea ....
On a lighter note, and having regard to the fact that even scholars like yourself admittedly "actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were", it would be premature to conclude that it is known that they weren't Greek-speaking Jews from Palestine. In which case, they could have been Greek-speaking Jews from Palestine, as Scott Greaves says. Not that it makes any difference to me, to be quite honest .... :smile:
Is it possible yes, just not probable. And what are we calling Palestine? Decapolis, Caesarea, Perea? Gentile Palestine if you will.
"Gentile Palestine" is not Palestine? Places like Nazareth were close to Greek cities like Sepphoris. And carpenters and other "peasants" traveled to where the customers and the markets were. Bilingual Jews cannot have been that uncommon.
Anyway, Ehrman argues that there were writers who composed Christian texts under false names, including the Gospels, in order to “influence” or “shape” Christianity. If this is the case, the NT cannot be used as reliable testimony. Some may claim that a particular NT statement is more “probable” than another, but this does not constitute hard evidence.
Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels
IMO if we go down Ehrman's path, the whole discussion becomes pointless. This is why I prefer scholars like Scott Greaves who seem to make more sense.
No, I did not say any such thing. But I suppose those Palestinian Jews who needed to learn Greek for their dealing with the Greeks might gave gone through the trouble of learning it.
People don't learn languages for no reason, you see? How many languages have you learnt just because you could?
I think a very good reason for Jews to have learned Greek is that the area was under Greek control for two centuries following Alexander the Great's conquests. At Maresha (Marisi) in Judea 60 tombs from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC were excavated with paintings of animals and mythical figures from the Hellenistic world. All inscriptions are in Greek and indicate that Jewish children were given Greek names.
This is why there were members of the Jerusalem Council (Sanhedrin) with Greek names, e.g. Nicodemus at the time of Jesus.
And, of course, Greek language and culture experienced a revival under Roman rule. People, including Jews, communicate and share ideas, beliefs, and customs. A Jewish artisan from Nazareth could perfectly well have discussed things with his Greek patrons in the nearby town of Sepphoris, the farmer with his customers at the market, etc. And the same goes for people with an interest in philosophical or spiritual matters ....
This assumes quite a lot, for instance that Greeks were likely to patronize Jewish carpenters at the time, in spite of all the hatred and prejudice on both sides.
And what is the advantage of this hypothesis? What does it explain better than the "zero hypothesis" that our favorite Galilean carpenter spoke only his mother tongue? What does a polyglot Jesus bring to the table?
Well, it may look like assuming a lot superficially. But the value of assumptions lies in their explanatory function, as you say. And that’s where I think the root of the problem lies, i.e. in the belief that there was this universal “hatred and prejudice” all over the country, which not only fails to explain the cultural syncretism brought to light by archaeology, but is unsupported by the evidence.
There is no doubt that animosity existed but it was not as universal as assumed. Essentially, Jews were more religious-minded while Greeks were more culture-oriented and tended to promote literature, philosophy, theatre, gymnasiums, etc., i.e., things that were appealing to many Jews, especially in the cities.
These differences divided Jewish society into two factions, one traditionalist that rejected Greek culture, and one progressive that sought to achieve various degrees of cultural assimilation or reform. This tension between traditionalists and reformists can also be seen in the OT books and in some members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin siding with Jesus (and his “Christian” group) and others opposing him.
Quoting Olivier5
For starters, if it turns out to be supported by the evidence, it will be more historically accurate. Second, it will afford us greater insight into early Christianity and it might even open the door to the possibility of greater influence of Greek thought on the new religion. This, of course, does not exclude the possibility of Persian, Egyptian, and other influences.
Speaking of table, I think an interesting example is the Greco-Roman custom of eating in a reclined position, especially at triclinia. The Greek triklinion (Latin triclinium) was a dining room with three couches (triclinia) arranged alongside the walls, on which diners reclined during meals.
Triclinium - Wikipedia
The custom was probably introduced from Persia from where it was adopted by the Greeks in the early 7th century BC, after which it reached the Etruscans and Romans, and became widespread in the areas of the Roman Empire that were at the time under Greek influence, including Roman Palestine.
Apparently, "Jews followed many of the customs found in other associations [Greek and Roman], including meals in communal halls, eating sacrifices, and reclining at triclinia"
Jewish Associations in Roman Palestine: First Century Evidence from the Mishnah – Academia Edu.
This raises the possibility or probability that the participants in Jesus’ last supper, for example, took their meal in a “Greek-style”, reclining position rather than sitting on chairs.
It doesn’t mean that Jesus was a “Greek philosopher”, only that Greek influence had penetrated Jewish society and culture in Roman Palestine deeper than sometimes assumed, which makes it legitimate to look for other forms of influence - so far as the evidence allows.
For example, it is well known the Herodians and Hasmoneans before them were highly intertwined with the broader Greek world. Architecture and gymnasiums and theaters were established. It is also well known of the ancient Jewish practice of reclining like the Greeks. It’s mentioned in modern day Passover seders. It’s in the Haggadahs.
Logos, the significance of a resurrecting god, substance, rhetorical styled epistles vs rabbinic styled midrash or strict halachic rules of Dead Sea Scroll sect, or essence and substance, virtues, matter and form, even the idea of communion, etc. can be considered added as part and parcel of later layers of Christianity that developed when it spread to the greater Near East, and Mediterranean world.
So it's important in terms of the history of furniture?
Well, Olivier for one seems to find the idea "amusing". :smile:
BTW the question of (compulsory) reclining at Passover is an interesting one as (1) the custom of reclining at table seems to have been widespread, and (2) it may not be quite as old as it is thought in its compulsory Passover form.
The Mishnah says:
And according to Instone-Brewer & Harland:
- Jewish Associations, above
Quoting schopenhauer1
That’s the big question, isn’t it? Here is one way of looking at it:
Logos Theology In pre-Christian Judaism – Israel Institute of Biblical Studies
So you are basically just restating what I just said. Okay. Now I'm beginning to think you just like arguing for arguing's sake as you are now seeing disagreements where there aren't any.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yeah you aren't paying attention to what I wrote earlier about similar matters, so not going to speak much on this. I am familiar on Boyarin's ideas on this. There is also the idea of the shekinah, etc. etc. One can try to connect it, and this is very much up for debate.
It is definitely something that was discussed previously by Philo. But to what extent this is traditional Judaism is more tenuous. It seems more a product from Plato via Philo (or someone of similar schools of thought) than anything directly in mainstream Palestinian sects (who were not studying Hellenistic Judaism or concepts).
Also, if you want to bring up the Enoch connection of a sort of "head of angels" and that is fair game, but you didn't really connect it. I do know Boyrain is very much involved in that kind of connection of Enoch-Metatron and possible Early Christian connections. He is also considered very extreme and out of the mainstream with a lot of scholars. His popular book is called Jewish Christ and that should tell you something of the connections he's trying to make. There was also an author before him, Alan Segal who wrote about similar matters about certain "minim" discussed in the Talmud, and the book's name was Two Powers in Heaven. That tells you right there, what the heretical belief was.
What I wonder is how these disputes about Hellenization relate to theological views on the Christan side. There are many texts in early Christianity that see the new world as the replacement of the old in regard to what was practiced and believed by the Jews.
Against that background, is the desire to amplify the importance of Hellenization reinforce the replacement idea or under-cut it?
Neither, though this brings up major questions in the historiography of Early Christianity and its implications in general for the Christian development.
There are a lot of things to consider here regarding the general historiography. There are basically several schools of thought you have to keep in mind:
1) The religious (supersessionist/replacement theology) view: The New Testament is more/less accurate. The history and traditions of the Christian Church are basically correct as they have developed in the Catholic, Protestant, and various Orthodox denomination. This view sees Jesus as part of a trinune godhead whereby Jesus represents the "Son" element was sent from the "Father" element in order to "redeem" mankind through his death and resurrection. The main thing here is his teachings and bodily resurrection were meant to completely change the "Old Covenant" that the Jewish Law represented. Being "right with God" meant, believing in the power and teachings of Jesus, the resurrected Son of God who was with The Father since almost the start of creation. Thus, the "Old Testament" (Hebrew Scriptures) is all discussion of the prelude of these concepts.. Logos, Son of God, redemption through faith without following the law, the deeds and biography of Jesus, it's all "there" in the Old Testament...Prophesizing and extolling this, with Jesus fulfilling these prophesies. That is to say, Jesus would have believed all the things taught by the Church about him and his beliefs as it developed into the proto-Orthodox Church (Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant beliefs mainly).
This religious view is not taken seriously by anyone outside schools of theology and religious adherents. In other words, most secular scholars would never take this to actually be the case. Rather, it is to excavate probabilities based not on dogma, but on the variety of resources available and with the understanding that religions don't come out full-baked but have developments that retroactively create a mythic-history to justify their doctrines and legitimacy as "true".
2) I'll just call this the "mainstream consensus" (Jesus a Jew of His Time) view. That is to say, Jesus the Jewish X (teacher, Pharisee, Essene, am ha-aretz (peasant) Galilean, etc.). That is to say, the Jesus of the first view mentioned is alien to his culture and the historical evidence of the Second Temple Judaism that was actually practiced. That is to also say that Jesus was only interpreting how to follow the Torah/Mosaic Law) and would be horribly aghast at the idea that he was trying to advocate for abrogating or ending it. It takes into account much more heavily what historians like Josephus wrote about, the histories informed by Maccabees, and apocrypha books. It takes into account the historical elements that are directly or indirectly explained in the Talmud, Church Father writings, non-canonical Gospels, Dead Sea Scrolls, understanding Paul's biases in his Epistles, and Acts, Jewish practices and beliefs represented in the Gospels that were downplayed or ignored, Philo of Alexandria and his Hellenistic contrast with traditional Judaic understanding, etc.
Basically, using historical methodologies and using the assumption that just as Greek philosophy is a cultural development out of a place, time, and culture, the same goes for the context for Jesus and the Jesus Movement/Jewish Christians. It must be understood in the greater cultural context of Second Temple Judaism. If Jesus was truly born in a certain place, and to a certain society, that should be the where one looks for how Jesus was representative of a strand of Judaism of that time. Thus, most people try to see to what extent he was representative of an apocalyptic Judaism (like the Essenes or Zealots), or a certain halachic approach (like a certain sect of Pharisee like Hillel.. which is my view), or that he was similar to other miracle workers (like Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, who are discussed in Josephus and the Talmud), or a Galilean Jew (versus the southern Judeans around Jerusalem or contra the Pharisees). This would emphasize that Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) had actual brothers (not cousins or step-brothers) such as James (Jacob), and Simeon, Jude, and Joses. That the Ebionites and Nazarenes were Jewish Christian groups that kept the Torah and were rebuked by Church Fathers (which is how we know of them).. That Paul in his writings and Acts seems to be AGAINST the original group headed by James and had more contention than has been discussed (in Galatians, Paul is very angry with James and Peter). The fact that James also killed by high priests associated with Caiaphas.. suggesting perhaps even a familial feud with reformists and entrenched power in Jerusalem. There are so many ways to understand the Jewish context of Jesus and his early following.
Most scholars believe it is Paul who became the pivot point and how Jesus started becoming more "the Christ". Paul represents the beginning of the process of Hellenization. Same with the Book of John, as seeming to be influenced by Philo and Hellenistic ideas of Logos. A resurrecting god-man that dies for your sins seems introduced by Paul, and moves the Jewish messianic redeemer deeper into general Mediterranean "mystery-cult" and away from nationalist messiah that perhaps Jesus was originally seen as..
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Judaism/Hellenistic-Judaism-4th-century-bce-2nd-century-ce
Great article that can explain a lot if you haven't been studying this.
3) The alternate view.. I'll call this a sort of mainstream-consensus reactionary view. That is to say, some scholars try to push the idea that the "hellenistic" elements that were started under Paul and further developed by early Gospel writers and Church Fathers, were actually a part of some strand of Second Temple Judaism in Palestine itself. So Boyarin makes the move, for example, that Logos could have been a concept in certain elements of Judaism.. The most recent debates in this camp, often revolve around the Book of Enoch and how influential that may have been. This I think is the more interesting parts of this view.. That perhaps in certain strands of Jewish thought (even in Rabbinic writing later on as represented by Jewish Mystical texts like Enoch 3), that there was a concept that the messiah is linked to a not only an earthly King and be redemptive in the nationalist sense (Return of the King to restore order politically and metaphysically), but that indeed, somehow this redeemer would be connected to the Son of Man that was described in Daniel. The Son of Man is a vague concept that may have gotten attached with the idea of Enoch becoming an angel (eventually tied with Metatron), and the Metatron was connected as a sort of protector/redeemer of Israel.. And so for someone to claim they are or is the herald for the Son of Man, means they are linked with this redeemer angel in some way.. However, this is very speculative of later developments of the idea of Metatron, and many consider anachronistic to place this idea of Metatron in its full form retrospectively to the time of Jesus when that concept was not quite fully developed yet.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Metatron
Anyways, a ton more can be said.. but I'm giving a lot of broad strokes as to how I am organizing this but are good places to start looking at this.
Yeah and you aren't paying attention to I'm saying, are you? What I'm saying is that to get to the truth we need to eliminate the untruth in the form of false assumptions and erroneous beliefs.
So, I'm not talking about you personally, I'm referring to beliefs that are commonly held, like that the Jews of Roman Palestine spoke no Greek, had no dealings with the Greeks, were never influenced by Greek culture and thought, that they passed most of their time trying to hate Greeks as much as they possibly could, and that kind of stuff. And this includes the issue of "Greek-style" reclining at (communal) meals.
Yes, Boyarin and others are making some reasonable points, which is precisely why we need to listen to a broader range of scholarly opinion.
Anyway, what is "traditional Judaism"? Judaism in the time of Jesus was relatively new. As shown by Silverman and Finkelstein (The Bible Unearthed), Jews had been polytheistic for most of their history. There probably had been monolatrous and even monotheistic tendencies for some time - as among the Greeks and others - but monotheism proper was relatively recent and only imposed itself after the construction of the Second Temple - which, if we think about it, is pretty late when compared with the supposition that Jews were monotheistic in the 2nd millennium BC or earlier.
In addition, Jews were surrounded by polytheistic populations and, as is well-known, neighboring cultures naturally influence each other.
In any case, it is only when we get rid of preconceived ideas, that we begin to get a clearer picture and we are in a position to see if and how we can connect cultural elements that may otherwise seem totally disparate and unconnected.
You insult my intelligence by quoting me stuff I already know and then latching into stuff you want to argue about.
What you quote is also well known. I mean Judaism as reconstructed by Ezra and Nehemiah after Babylonian exile with priests as head of a Temple complex and a belief in the idea of a covenantal Law and commandments.
Another informative, well-written post. There are some here, perhaps most, who prefer historiography to a mythologized history designed to support certain assumptions that have more to do with Christian dogma and Neo-Platonism than historical evidence. As with the Christian apologists, history is distorted or ignored and rational argument buried under misdirection and misrepresentation in favor of some version of transcendental truths they imagine they know something about.
But even though Apollodorus will never acknowledge the weakness and vacuity of his arguments, others can and do see them for they are.
What I am arguing is, indeed, well-known. Unfortunately, you chose to deny it:
Quoting schopenhauer1
The truth of the matter, of course, is that Hellenistic influence went far beyond Alexandria and as shown by Scott Greaves and others, it had deeply penetrated Roman Palestine to the extent that Jesus and his disciples must have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic.
I do realize that Ehrman and his followers will never acknowledge the weakness and vacuity of their arguments, but the rest of us can and do see them for what they are.
If I were you, I would feel more insulted by Ehrman's preposterous theories, in fact, much more so. So, perhaps you should try changing your intelligence. Or your hat .... :wink:
I'm trying to understand why it matters. What would change, or what's the implication if Jesus had read Plato? Why do you find the idea seducing? What perspectives would it open, dinning manners aside?
Personally, I have no particular interest in demonstrating Greek influence on Jesus beyond language, as I believe that different cultures have sufficient elements in common as to not necessitate external influence in all cases.
For example, the concept of “righteousness” was fundamental to Eastern Mediterranean cultures, including Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and Israel. IMO if we start from basic cultural and religious elements, we begin to see more similarities than differences.
This is why I was arguing against the idea that there was no possibility of influence or similarity of concepts and beliefs. Having said that, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
That statement does not fit in with you saying to Fooloso4:
"anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority." You aren't fooling anyone."
They are doing a good job of fooling me. I don't see how the differences of opinion about historical conditions are attempts to establish a nefarious narrative in this matter. What part of it is anti-Christian?
Good of you to admit it! :smile:
As to the rest, I've already explained that many times over.
Ehrman doesn't believe in the Christian God and he has made it his mission to argue that Christian texts, including the Gospels, were composed by writers using false names in order to “influence” or “shape” Christianity.
Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels
To me, this sounds more like an anti-Christian than pro-Christian position. Of course, it is entirely possible that he is pro-Christian or even a Christian pretending to be anti-Christian in order to cause controversy and encourage debate.
However, if Christian texts were composed for the purpose of deceiving the public, then they cannot be used as reliable testimony and it is a waste of time to discuss them. This is why I prefer scholars like Scott Greaves who seem to make more sense and whose arguments are more consistent with traditional views and with the historical and archaeological evidence.
See his earlier post:
Quoting Apollodorus
What he leaves out here is what he says elsewhere, that the Good is God. As he sees it, the revelation of divine knowledge goes through Plato to Plotinus to Jesus. Conspicuously absent is the revelations of the Jewish prophets.
What is a Christian?
The "Good is God" according to Plato, NOT according to me! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Google it and find out if you don't know.
So, you treat the matter as something that is common knowledge while unable to give your own testimony. In my congregation, we refer to that as cowardice.
Actually, it is your questionable and overly simplistic interpretation of Plato. Anyone interested can search other threads here. I have no interest in rehashing it.
Even if one were to grant that Plato said this and he meant what you think he did, what are we to make of your silence on the other points I raised?
That's the standard interpretation in Platonism. There is nothing I can do about it. And neither can you .... :grin:
What "testimony"??? And how is it my "cowardice" if you are too lazy to look it up???!!!
Are you guys related by any chance?
Right, and you fail to make the distinction between Plato and Platonism. Where did Plato say the Good is God?
But rather than rehash that, what about the rest of what I said? Is your silence an indication that it is accurate?
Some time back you made the extremely tenuous and convoluted argument that Jesus was not a rabbi because he is the Son of God.
Is this god who begat a son the god of Plato? If the good is god then this god is not the god of the Hebrew Bible.
I am a Christian by my understanding of it. I have spent a lot of time trying to understand the texts and my own experience in that light. I don't need to google it. From my point of view, saying what something is against, is a testimony. You wear the garment too lightly.
That's supposed to be MY fault???
I didn't write the Hebrew Bible, did I???
Plus, you mean the God of the Hebrew Bible is "not good" or "not God"??? :lol:
Well, that's your point of view. And why are you speaking in parables? What do you mean by "testimony"???
P.S. As you can see, Foolo is implying that the God of the Bible is not good (or not God). What do you say to that as a Christian?
One common element between the experiences of the Jews and Christians, under the rule of alien empires, is the refusal to swear or submit to gods other than what they actually believed. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple because of this refusal. Christians were fed to lions for the same reason.
Those are examples of testimony, when people don't surrender their convictions in the face of terrible consequences.
(Isaiah 45:7)
Evil is a translation of the Hebrew 'rah' - bad, adversity.
Plato in the Republic explicitly denies that the Good is the source of evil.
Quoting Apollodorus
Another brilliant argument. Right up there with your earlier response to me:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Apollodorus
Your argumentative prowess are wanting when they mimic the old schoolyard response: I know you are but what am I.
You still have not responded to my questions. An all too common practice of yours.
You've really lost me now. What has that got to do with Hellenistic influence on Jesus?
Yeah, and you sound like someone who's got nothing to do. Anyway, have a nice day!
I was not making a claim about the 'Hellenistic influence on Jesus', you were, sort of, in a vague and fuzzy fashion.
You seem to want to make a claim upon what is Christian or not but cannot say what it is for yourself.
You're kidding, right?
It was others that inserted bits of comments from other discussions for their own agendas and started calling me names for no reason. Of course I can say what a Christian is for myself. But it's got nothing to do with the OP here, and I've got other things to do ....
Then go for it.
It does have something to do with this thread since you have been saying the scholarship is tainted in the context of it.
Well, I disagree. And if you have such unshakable belief in "scholarship", then you don't need to discuss it here. You can email your favorite scholars direct and discuss it with them. It would save you a lot of time that you could spend reading the Bible instead .... :wink:
I was not testifying to an unshakeable belief in scholarship. You questioned the results of certain studies. You have not presented the standard you measure them by.
Then do it.
Ok, so it doesn't matter. Likewise, one could go on and on with the hypothesis that Plato was influenced by Jewish monotheism, but it doesn't actually matter. It changes nothing whatsoever. Plato would still be Plato.
So it's an attempt to arianize Jesus. To un-Jew him.
I think that would be self-evident.
It is telling that he attempts to make a connection, what he calls "an unquestionable connection", between Platonism and Christianity via divine knowledge, then denies he has any interest in wanting to demonstrate that connection, but refuses to address a central feature of Judaism, revelation. As if Jesus was a Platonist rather than a Jew.
I see. Now I understand where your confusion comes from! :grin:
You haven't read the actual NT text, presumably due to spending too much time posting questionable and misinformed hypotheses on forums. If you had intimated this to me earlier I would have explained it to you and saved you a lot of wasted time.
However, the text is very clear and states the facts in unambiguous terms:
The Christian Creed itself states:
There is an extensive literature on this, much of it written by the world's most eminent scholars, not fake or second-rate ones like Ehrman.
In any case, it is clear from the NT text that, in Christianity, Jesus had the external appearance of a human, but in reality he was the Son of God manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, I'm afraid you guys got it all wrong. You really need to urgently revise your understanding of the topic in order to avoid future confusion - and unnecessary waste of time .... :wink:
So Jesus was NOT influenced by Hellenistic thought, the Son of God don't need no human influence!
You have confirmed the following:
Quoting Fooloso4
If you believe in it, I suppose. But what if one does not believe in the idea that gods have actual, literal offsprings on earth? What if one was to read "He will be called the son of God" as meaning: "that is a phrase or a title people will use to speak of him"?
That is the context of what I was asking schopenhauer1 about upthread. Is the emphasis upon Hellenization an evolved development of the replacement theology advanced by Paul and company?
Grimes, for example, says the prophetic tradition brought nothing to the party. That approach is more honest than saying the tradition was actually different than what most historical accounts record. In both cases, however, the view directly challenges Augustine placing the revelation of the 'Israelites' above the fruits of Athens.
That was precisely what I was referring to and I’m glad you are beginning, however belatedly, to grasp the basic elements of the NT narrative and of Christology in general. As they say, it's never too late. :smile:
To my knowledge, most scholars who have studied the subject matter agree that there are three basic theoretical possibilities:
(1). Jesus was the Son of God, i.e., divine, in which case he was omniscient and needed no influence from anyone.
(2). Jesus was a human being, in which case he may have been influenced by Hellenistic Judaism and Platonism.
(3). Jesus never existed, in which case the question of his connection with Platonism does not arise, and all discussion of the subject is rendered superfluous.
Another, more distant possibility, would be that Ehrman was there and therefore he knows better than the rest of us. But I think we can safely discount this - for the time being.
In any case, it’s good to see that Foolo has opted for possibility (1) and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate him for his choice. I’m almost certain he would make a good Christian if he tried to, perhaps even better than Paine who seems less certain about his beliefs.
I can't tell if you are being serious or attempting to be clever.
If you affirm (1) then why all the effort to argue influence? If you affirm (2) then why the smokescreen of (1)?
Quoting Apollodorus
This just shows how woefully limited your knowledge is. Are you unaware of the differences in the versions of Christianity between the Johannine literature and Paul's writings? Or the differences between Paul and Jesus' disciples?
The conclusions of the council at Nicaea were made by men who were by no means unanimous in their decisions. If the NT is authoritative, then Arius' arguments should have prevailed. Even if one accepts that Jesus was in some sense divine, (this is not a unitary term), that a group of self-appointed human beings gets to decide what this means, whether Jesus was god or man, man who became god, one and the same being as God or not, is, to say the least, problematic.
Okay, a bit of a "who said it first?" question.
My money is on Greeks having heard of monotheist cults from afar very early.
Is there anything I said you disagreed with, or are you just trying to be obnoxious for no reason?
You are obviously confused, if not worse. I never affirmed absolutely nothing. It was YOU who affirmed (1):
Quoting Fooloso4
I was arguing (2) i.e., influence, solely on Crossan & Mack's hypothesis to the effect that Jesus was "a Jewish sage" as stated in the OP:
Quoting Dermot Griffin
So ... is it advanced alzheimer's or are you just being controversial for the sake of it? :smile:
That is the conclusion that follows from your appeal to the NT and the Son of God, not my opinion!
Quoting Apollodorus
and yet you claimed:
Quoting Apollodorus
You claim that what you quote are the facts and use this to argue against the claim that Jesus the man of his time and place, an individual.
Are you now reluctant to affirm what you claim are facts?
Quoting Apollodorus
So, you do not affirm (1) or (2). That leaves (3):
Quoting Apollodorus
Creatures of the shadows abhor the light.
The "facts" according to the text, Einstein! :lol:
Anyway, I think you’re exerting your brain cells rather too hard and, God forbid, at your age it might cause you to suffer a stroke or something. I notice with some concern that schopenhauer1 has turned the shade of a boiled shrimp already.
In addition, I’ve got other things to do. So, good-bye Mr Foolo ….
The point raised by @Olivier5 was not about the religious claims found in the NT, but rather, the fact that Jesus the man was of his time and place.
Now either it is a fact that Jesus was a man or he was not. You cite the NT in support of the claim that he was not man but God, that the NT states the facts in unambiguous terms. Either the facts according to the NT are the facts or not.
Which is it?
Like your hero Euthyphro you hurry off claiming to have other things to do. At least he had the courage to state and stand by his convictions.
I wasn't thinking of it in terms of the ultimate source for the idea of Monotheism.
Platonism and Neo-Platonism do make references to Orphic and Eleusinian Mysteries but both of those are firmly ensconced in the Homeric theogony. The dominant theme of Platonism in the first three Centuries, however, was the unity of a cosmic whole whose nature is ordered by the same agency that permits us to understand it.
That is radically different from the talk of one cosmic order being replaced by a new one in the immediate future. Plotinus railed against those who said the cosmos needed to be saved from the evil that ruled it. He directed this rebuke toward the Gnostics: Paul could have taken their place in the penalty box.
Sorry, Foolo, but I am not Euthyphro, and you are not Socrates, except perhaps in your dreams!
Regards to the northern cardinal and your fellow Christian .... :smile:
Jesus was a carpenter, not an academic.
The Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation shows the influence of Greek Philosophy. Revelation even states that John lived on the Greek island of Patmos.
Paul was the academic mostly responsible for Greek Philosophy influencing Christianity at its very beginning. And the Christian Apologists from the first century onward were highly influenced by Greek Philosophy.
Once again, which is it? Why are you so afraid of stating where you stand? And why are you so intent on burying this and other threads? Are you that intolerant of views that do not match your own views which you keep hidden?
You need to read the texts more closely. Saul was a cop hunting down Christians for committing heresy according to his form of Jewish Law. He changed teams on the way to Damascus to punish Christians there. He didn't get a Master's degree before he assumed the role of Paul the Apostle.
Apart from Paul, apostles referred to the direct witnesses and disciples of Jesus. He hacked himself into a time he had not personally experienced. Let's call whatever that might be something different than an academy.
Paul was a Hellenistic Jew from Asia Minor (Tarsus) with a pretty good Greek education in forms of Greek rhetoric as seen in the epistles. This was his background before he even got to Jerusalem and even by his own admission was searching for where he belonged. He found it with his own syntheses of Hellenistic concepts, mystery cult , and the original Jesus movement he co-opted to his own syntheses and cause.
No argument with your description.
The story of his conversion and the subsequent interchanges with Christians in Jerusalem suggests the 'co-option" was not only a narrative made after the fact but an attempt to marginalize some people in real time.
Targumin are spoken sermons and were forbidden to be written as ... drumroll... sacrilege
There are a very (very) few examples that were written down later on but religious leaders weren't at all happy about it. The oldest is something close to 60 AD IIRC but that dating is seen as controversial.
Quoting Olivier5
Now who's getting things wrong? Firstly:
And second it didn't even exist until several hundred years after the period of time of Jesus.
Do you have some source to show me that what I was taught and studied is wrong? I'm all for evidence-based knowledge but at this point it's some dude on the 'net vs. a couple of years of study. (which, incidentally, I double-checked before writing this comment)
Edit: also based on skimming the previous couple of pages of... catfight... I'm out of this. This isn't philosophy it's ego battle royale.
But isn't the idea that matter is corrupt part and parcel of the platonic creed? It doesn't sound that different from the idea that the world is corrupt.
PS: if I can go a bit on a limb, as a Plato ignoramus, and ask you what what you think of the following comparison with some brands of 2nd Temple Jewish mysticism: in both cases it seems to me that a monotheist 'creation story' has to put forth a theory of how the world as we know it, full of contradictions, confusion and seeming imperfections and problems, could have been once created (or be eternally created) by one unique good god or principle. In other words: a theory of evil, or at least of imperfection.
The problem does not arise in polytheism, but one would logically expect that a unique, perfect, good god or principle would create a perfect, good, coherent world. But no matter how much philosophical distance and rationalisation you try to put between you and reality, reality always bites your ass in the end. That's the lesson of Candide. There is no justice in this world, there's only a hope for justice.
So the monotheist must explain this world apparent imperfection.
Plato, correct me if I'm wrong, wrote that ideality (ideal forms) when 'implemented' in reality can only be imperfect. Some currents of Jewish mysticism say that in the process of creation, something wrong happened (so to speak) but it couldn't have happened any other way: God's ideality had to compose its creation as necessarily separate from Him and hence imperfect. I think it's the same idea.
Your question is worthy; It makes me nervous to venture a reply, but I will try.
I take your point that invoking a single creator is to locate the source of evil within the creation. One big difference between the story of Genesis and Timaeus is that the Creator and Man have a direct interaction with each other that changes over time in the first story while the Craftsman of the Timaeus brings all the components of the world into the realm of Becoming and that structure does not change even though our experience within it does.
There is a myth of the age of man's innocence in Plato's Statesman. It consits of the Pilot reversing the motion of the entire cosmos when disorder threatened its existence. Time and growth go backwards in the repair sessions. Once the place is reset, time runs forward again, and the Pilot lets go of the tiller. Our age is described as such:
Quoting Plato, Statesman, 274b, translated by Fowler
To see our condition in that way is sharply different from the story of our relation to a Creator who can spare us from evil if he wills it. We are given the choice to follow the way of the righteous and that is the possibility of our happiness as expressed in Psalm 1. But we need more help than that to overcome what confronts us. It is in that register I hear Paul saying that he needs help in his struggle with sin. The Creator as a participant in our person.
I could say more but figure I shouldn't bring too many points forward at a time.
Paul also should be recognized as departing from '2nd Temple Judaism' when he said this world would be replaced by another one. Connecting a personal conviction to a change in the grounds of our existence is different than hoping the Creator will help you overcome suffering and oppression in this one.
In that way, one can see Job as the antithesis of Paul. Certainty of righteousness is no guarantee of outcomes. Job had to fend off his 'friends' who insisted that such an algorithm was in place.
Not sure that is so original. Judaism was not monolithic back then , not as much as now anyway, and eschatologic hopes were a big thing.
Are you going to tell me that you were wrong about Paul not being an academic and about me needing to read the texts more closely, or just keep writing whatever pops into your head at the moment … when you’re not flattering your “friends”, that is?
True, the idea was not a new one.
But Paul conceived of the process as happening outside of what was happening in Judaism. The need to believe in order for the change to happen becomes integral to the vision. I don't know if there is a version of that kind of agency in 1st Century Judaism.
But it is that sense of a vanguard that Augustine amplifies in the City of God. The order of heaven has not been established yet, but the agent of change is here.
I take schopenhauer1's point that Paul must have been educated for us to have any trace of his presence.
The point I tried to make that Paul was involved in resisting Christians and then became a voice for them is right there in the text of the New Testament.
Make of that what you will.
Yeah, he’s your “friend”.
Paul was a Pharisee, a learned Jew who was a Roman citizen, not a “cop”.
Paul is literally called the Hellenistic/Jewish Apostle.
There is literally a Pauline Christianity, and a religious order the Paulist Father, and I met some of them when I was a Franciscan Friar.
I’ve known who Paul was and what Paul wrote for over 40 years.
But you listen to your “friend” who Googled Paul, and you keep telling me about the point you were trying to make when you insulted me and told me to go read again.
Make that of what you will.
I am not sure about this 'friend' business.
Paul did say himself that he persecuted Christians before he did not. I characterized that as being an enforcer of the law.
I regret that making that point insulted you.
I will try to avoid doing that.
Okay
How do you reconcile Jesus' strict adherence to the letter of the Law with Paul's telling the Gentiles that this was not necessary? When in Matthew Jesus is reported to have said:
(Matthew 5:19)
He was not making any such distinction.
Jesus was telling the people before him that the Old Testament laws governing their behavior were not only still valid, but he was making them even stricter because he was internalizing them.
Jesus knew he was humanity’s spiritual Messiah, the fulfillment of the outward law through spiritual rebirth.
Jesus was not talking about them becoming circumcised, or some other religious observance law, but about the laws governing them to do good and be good.
When Paul said that the Spirit replaced the Law, he was talking about religious observances not doing good.
Paul did not contradict Jesus’ teaching, and it’s poor hermeneutics to suggest he did.
It is one thing to give your opinion, quite another to declare other readings that attend more closely to the text and do not bring assumptions to the text in order to fit a particular outcome"poor hermeneutics".
If, as you claim, Jesus was internalizing the Law, then that internalization would include this:
(Matthew 5:18)
The internalized Law cannot be other than an internalization of the smallest letter and least stroke of the Law. The internalization of the Law cannot be an internalization of only a part of the Law you separate out as "religious observance". Purity laws were not a matter of religious observance.
The problem of interpreting the Law was a divisive topic at that time. Jesus and Paul were born into and participated in these disputes.
Paul himself attests to his disagreement with Peter. Peter, who actually knew Jesus and could talk to him and ask him questions. To suggest that Peter's objection to Paul was a matter of "poor hermeneutics" is the height of arrogance.
Jesus was providing his interpretations of the Law, not telling people to reject it.
Paul's view was fully his own, supposedly directed by not the human Jesus but the "spiritual" version (of his own admission).
That's all there is to it. Everything else is apologetics for the Christian doctrine.. It MUST be traced back to Jesus himself. If Paul is JUST giving HIS interpretation, then things start collapsing. It is wise to also understand that the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's influence was already taking hold. It was written AFTER more urbane, Hellenistic Jews and gentiles had their broader influence on the original group.
But:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Paul stands between us and whatever Jesus might have said. But not only Paul. We should be cautious in assuming that what human beings hear and understand and repeat is what was said and meant.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It may be that if Paul had not given his interpretation Christianity might never have survived. It is Paul's promise of grace and easy salvation for all that many latched onto.
Disputes about the Law, which Saul zealously pursued in both speech and action, were all but rendered moot by Paul. The end was at hand and those who believed in Christ would be saved.
It was a man searching for something.. Became "zealous" in one way, and then "zealous" in another.. I don't even know if he really became a Pharisee despite his own appellation as such.. He certainly seemed to be a lackey for the High Priest and found his role wonting in this manner. Perhaps being a shill for the High Priest gave little meaning and his "conversion" to Christianity was a natural result of his own search for meaning. He synthesized various elements he picked up and molded the sect into his own vision. This became proto-Orthodox Christianity and then just Orthodox Christianity under Constantine.
My own view is far more impious. I don't think his conversion was either a natural result of his own search for meaning or supernatural intervention. It was neither a rational and deliberate synthesis nor a miracle of divine origin. His rhetorical powers of argument clearly show, however, that he was not devoid of reason.
Im not really saying what he did one way or the other. Just that he seemed to jump to various sects and chose to create something himself based on the one he was opposed at the time.
Whichever side he chose he did seem convinced at the time that he was on the side of truth and that it was his unquestionable mission to promote it.
But I don't think he thought of himself as deliberately creating something, but rather, as with the prophets, testifying to what he believed was revealed to him. Which is not to deny he created something, but only that is not how he saw it.
I wasn’t giving you my opinion or making assumptions.
Read further on in the “texts” and you will see Jesus talking about not even looking at your neighbor’s wife with lust, and Paul talking about circumcision.
I haven’t looked up the texts, because I’ve known for 40 years what Jesus and Paul taught.
And I’m certainly not plagiarizing some modern “scholars” who do have simply opinions and assumptions.
I’m a former seminarian and Franciscan Friar. I read the New Testament a dozen times and was taught by scholastics, not skeptics.
Every book written about Jesus in today’s world is horrible hermeneutics, for only someone who actually attempted to do the things Jesus told us to do knows if Jesus is who he said he is.
Google searching is what opinionated assuming people do.
I never use Google for any of my posts, because if I don’t know something I don’t pretend that I do.
You’re regurgitating what you heard from modern writers.
The Gospels were “finished” after some of Paul’s letters, for it took the Gospel writers decades to compile all the witness accounts they used. A journey in the ancient holy land took a long time, and people stayed at each other’s house for weeks or months.
And there is no proof whatsoever that the words and deeds of Jesus were influenced by Paul.
And the greatest thing that influenced Paul’s writing was that he had a special direct revelation of Jesus. From that moment on he wrote with the same authority Jesus spoke with.
For, as Jesus said: “We speak about what we have seen and heard.”
Paul certainly did, and that’s the most important point. But you won’t hear that from the modern “scholars” you’re plagiarising.
Paul was not an actual witness of Jesus. Nor was he a contemporary. He acknowledged that in the texts we have to read about it.
What is the basis of this "plagiarizing" charge? Who is being copied here?
Ok, let's not pretend ancient writers followed modern standards for sourcing information.. The term "compiling..witness accounts", is a bit anachronistic as to how ancient "historical" writing was conducted. Besides which, the Gospels aren't a true "history" like say, Josephus Jewish War or Antiquities was. Rather, it is very much trying to prove a spiritual point using stories and sayings of Jesus. It wasn't with an eye for complete accuracy as to the actual events on the ground.
Quoting Joe Mello
I can point to a bunch of themes in the Gospels that seem Pauline influenced, but that won't convince you. There are plenty of historians who recognize that Paul's influence was already present before the Gospels were written, and certainly prior to subsequent edits.
Quoting Joe Mello
So, I'll just leave you with this post link, as the post will take care of my view on your whole perspective versus how modern scholarship approaches Jesus, Early Christianity, and Second Temple Judaism:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/658553
That is exactly what you are doing, but you are blinded by your unwarranted belief in the correctness of your opinions that you mistake them for the truth.
Quoting Joe Mello
That much is evident. If you did you would see that Paul is talking about more than circumcision. Dietary laws were a point of contention between Paul and Peter. This can be found in the texts you delude yourself in thinking you don't have to look at because you assume you know exactly what is there.
Quoting Joe Mello
By no means does this confer expertise on you. In fact, it is in your case a detriment. Without challenges from contrary scholarly opinion you only hear what what confirms what you already believe. Reading the same texts over and over again is a pointless exercise as long as you are convinced you will find only what already supports your beliefs and nothing else.
As long as there has been Christianity there has been contrary opinions. The Franciscans are no exception.
Quoting Joe Mello
Of course everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. If they weren't they would not disagree with you. Either you were not paying attention or your degree in philosophy was nothing more than indoctrination. A trained philosopher may be convinced she is right, but does not dismiss other claims out of hand. Conspicuously absent from your posts is reasoned argument.
You can’t even understand that dietary laws and circumcision are both mere religious observances and not the internal “sins” Jesus preached against.
This basic lack of understanding nullified anything else you had to say.
And every Internet troll plagiarizing what he has read, and who is not really educated or experienced in the subject matter, cannot appreciate someone who is.
You had a chance to learn something, but you choose to listen to yourself and some other writers your skepticism and inexperience has an affinity to.
There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Gospels did anything more than interview witnesses and simply write down what Jesus said and did.
The very fact that each Gospel is written without any attempt to create a cohesive narrative shows us that each Gospel is written honestly and simply, not with the grand schemes that modern writers are writing with.
Skeptics simply do not have the experience and open mind to write about Jesus or Paul correctly.
Jesus was a carpenter who walked with fishermen … for a reason.
So no one could say that his power came from anywhere but God.
Paul literally said this about himself.
But that’s not stopping you and your fellow skeptics from making shit up to make yourselves into experts, when you’re just clueless and superficial thinkers.
They are part of the Law. Plain and simple. There is no distinction between "mere religious observance" and other parts of the Law. What textual evidence do you have that Jesus makes such a distinction? When he says:
(Matthew 5:17)
he does not mean fulfill the Law by abolishing it.
The internalization of the Law for Jesus, in distinction from Paul, was not an alternative to or nullification of observance of the written Law, it was a necessary part of its fulfillment.
Quoting Joe Mello
Nonsense. I pointed to the text of Matthew, which you have refused to address. I have also been at this a long time. Long before the internet. I have been at this long enough to know that anyone who is "really educated" does not rely on sweeping condemnation of biblical scholarship, philosophy, and science based on nothing more than the fact that he possesses the truth.
Jesus never preached a single word about observing a religious observance. Not one. In fact, Jesus had numerous encounters with the "Teachers of the Law" where they accused him of not following the Law. It was even brought up at his trial that he didn't observe the law. And he called Pharisees hypocrites for following the Law but not doing the will of God.
And you ignore all this about Jesus to get to some opinionated nonsense about Jesus telling people they must obey all the Old Testament Laws, which are myriad and detailed.
You take one line from Jesus, which you don't even understand to begin with, and you claim it's proof that Jesus was preaching the adherence to every Mosaic Law.
Jesus was expanding on the Ten Commandments and the moral preaching of the Old Testament Prophets. Scholastic Theologians and Biblical Scholars all knew this basic truth. And it is basic, easy to understand, and the only interpretation given everything Jesus said and did.
It's today's skeptics who look for a sentence or two to put in a book they want to claim is scholarly and new thinking who don't know or understand the basics about Jesus.
You have nothing else but a single sentence or two that you misinterpret.
Quoting Joe Mello
If he did not preach a single word about "observing a religious observance" then you have undercut your own tenuous distinction between the Law and religious observance The Law includes religious observance. Jesus said nothing to the contrary.
Quoting Joe Mello
There was the Law, and the laws were myriad and varied. Hence:
Quoting Joe Mello
The burden is on you to show that he was preaching something other than the Mosaic Law. As you said:
Quoting Joe Mello
Those laws governing their behavior included the practices of religious observance. Problems and disputes regarding interpretation of the Law existed long before Jesus started preaching. Soon after Moses brings the Law to the people the need for judges to interpret and administer God's will becomes apparent. See Exodus 18:13-26.
Quoting Joe Mello
Let's take a look at what Paul said:
(Romans 3:19)
Paul made a distinction between those who were under the Law and those who were not. He did not understand the Law to be limited to the Ten Commandments and "moral preachings" to the exclusion of religious observance. He did, however, think the gentiles were not under the Law.
He goes on to say:
(Romans 3:28-31)
Making the point even clearer:
(Romans 6:14)
Paul claims the power of grace over observance of the Law. Jesus made no such claim. It is not a question of which laws but of whether those who do not observe the Law will enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says no. Paul says yes.
You put a lot of work in to be right about something that you couldn’t be more wrong about.
Jesus explicitly said that a person must be born again in the spirit to see the kingdom of God.
Paul used the word “grace” to say the same thing.
Jesus never said that a person must follow the Law to see the kingdom of God. In fact, when a rich person asked him how to get into heaven, he said, “obey the Commandments” (like I told you was his focus and not religious observances), and then after the rich person said he already did, Jesus told him to go and sell everything and give it to the poor, and then come follow him. This is Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets by giving human beings an internal spiritual life worth living.
Jesus even said that “The Kingdom of God is within you”.
You can keep Googling all day if you like, but you will only find Jesus building a foundation under Paul’s understanding of Christianity.
To suggest that Jesus and Paul saw the spirit of God differently because Paul understood “grace” is idiotic.
Jesus didn’t enlist a single teacher of the Law and said that the only teacher his followers had is “the Lord”.
And at the end of Jesus’ teaching he sent “the Paraclete”, the Holy Spirit who would instruct and lead his followers until the end of time.
(No Google was used to write this post.)
You have literally provided the Jesus quotes that show him taking the Laws of religious observances that the Pharisees thought were important and saying that we must go beyond these religious observances and obey God’s “commands”.
A commandment is not to do a religious observance but to do a good behavior.
I’m telling you guys basic stuff, not some deep hermeneutics.
Skeptic “scholars” today challenge every basic teaching because they have an agenda to prove that modern thinkers are the greatest thinkers.
They’re the opposite, as you guys keep proving in your regurgitations of them.
The basis of my plagiarizing charge is that most posters on this forum Google their asses off before and during most of their posts, and then make statements of knowledge they read about from others.
When your premise is that the self-referential claim that the Gospel as taught by X church is correct because it is taught by X church, then we get your particular brand of intellectual gaslighting. I wish you would Google more so you can escape the cave of your own circular dogma. If Jesus is just another Jew similar to others of his time, he loses the luster of metaphysical Other, and this threatens your worldview. Jesus the Savior becomes Joshua ben Joseph vMiri, along with his brothers Jacob, Simeon, Jose, and Judah. And so his group just another example of the multiple groups of the time defining themselves in relation to the Law and the Roman overlords and the popular idea of an End Times and a heralding Son of Man angel. A group probably influenced by John the Baptist.
Many criticisms of Pharisees were also found in the Talmud regarding OTHER Pharisees. Jesus had views on Mosaic law like OTHER Pharisees.
OR see him as am Haaretz, opposed to the ritual purity laws being expanded by more strict Pharisee groups. That interpretation doesn’t negate his fitting in that period. A Galilean peasant opposed to the stricter purity laws insisted by some groups.
Of course, believe what you want to believe. I don't care what you put faith in or don't put faith in as a personal matter. However, you are debating on a philosophy forum and you are trying to call out various posters such as myself about the historical methodologies we are using, so fair game to criticize your views.
First, if you were the scholar you claim to be you would know that it is standard practice to cite your sources. Second, you would know that quoting John as a reliable source of what Jesus said, is questionable, but, of course, you dismiss any biblical scholarship that does not support your beliefs. Nowhere in the synoptic gospels do we find such a claim. Third, and perhaps most important, when in the sermon on the mount Jesus says:
he says nothing about being born again or the necessity of belief in himself or himself as "his only Son". Instead Jesus emphasizes human capacities.
(5:28)
You are actually trying to teach me about Jesus because you think you're a good reader?
Wow.
Then go read about the time Nicodemus, a truly great Pharisee who was a notably honest man, went to see Jesus and wanted him to explain his teaching because it troubled him since it went against something that was a major tenet of Judaism he learned as a Pharisee -- i.e., observance of the Law brings righteousness.
And bring with you your great learning, in particular where you taught me that "[Jesus] says nothing about being born again".
I'll refute your further statement that "[Jesus] says nothing about ... the necessity of belief in [him]" with the simple quote, "No one can come to the Father except through me".
But wait ... both the Nicodemus story and the quote above came from John, and your great learning has made you not trust the Gospel of John for anything Jesus said and did.
And, of course, you didn't "read" from someone else that the Gospel of John was not a good source.
No. That's all you, man.
It's "my" view that Jesus was not just another Jew?
And I'm just believing in Jesus?
What's the date? How many crosses are in the sky? How many people will call on Jesus for help today, or feel love for him, or quote him, or claim they know him personally?
Not bad for "just another Jew".
You're like a brilliant guy, huh, who knows that the greatest person who ever lived may have never lived, and if he did live, he was just another person.
And you are not simply "believing" this about Jesus but know this about Jesus because you have a Google Machine.
Yup. Brilliant.
In order for you to be able to discern such a shallow level of scholarship, you would need to have spent some time and effort reading the sources you believe some forum participants are ripping off.
A number of your statements lead me to think that you think there is something wrong with the historical approach altogether. That suggests you have no interest in such studies.
Exactly... That is ironically debating in bad faith :lol:.
Look man, I don't care what you believe.. You can believe the Spaghetti Monster sprinkles parmesan on the evil Meateballio to defeat him..
My point is similar to @Paine. Your one and only source is the very thing that is being questioned. How is that informed scholarship? If you don't care, then why even go on a philosophy forum, where these things are hotly debated? You can meditate in your monastery if you want to merrily believing whatever it is you want to believe.
I'm not doing any of those things. I'm telling you what has been known for two thousand years, and I have known for 40 years.
You're the person believing in what you read from modern skeptics, when you don't have any experience actually trying to understand who Jesus was by looking at your own life.
Dry and rattling thoughts in your head don't make you wise. Experiencing what you talk about does.
I understand that perspective. I grew up in it.
It does suggest to me that I was not wrong saying that you have no interest in a "historical" Jesus.
In response to my questioning the reliability of John as an historical account you repeat a story from John.
Quoting Joe Mello
What I said was:
Quoting Fooloso4
So where in the sermon does he say that or that no one comes to the father except through him?
Quoting John does not reconcile what Jesus said in the sermon with what Paul said, or for that matter with what John said.
Quoting Joe Mello
Of course I read other sources! That is a fundamental part of scholarship. Closing your eyes to what modern scholars say is not scholarship but a display of close mindedness. I see nothing wrong with reading the NT inspirationally, but that is something different than biblical scholarship.
Now you’re just lying.
What kind of a critical thinker makes a declarative statement and then discovers the exact opposite is true, and then refuses to admit he obviously doesn’t know who or what he’s talking about?
All my corrections of you and the other believer in the cult of modern thinkers are from knowledge and experience I acquired 40 years ago when getting a scholastic education and living in response to Jesus’ many promises and directions.
And now I’m supposed to go on Google because intellectual skeptics are telling me to read the texts and figured out Jesus was really just an ordinary guy, if he even existed, and my favorite Gospel isn’t reliable?
No thanks. I gave up simply believing in something decades ago.
There are no experienced professional auto mechanics who only read books about fixing cars.
And likewise there are no great New Testament scholars who only read texts about Jesus.
Until we experience something we’re talking about, we cannot know for sure if it’s true.
Your unwillingness to examine anything that does not fit your long entrenched beliefs appears to be engendered by fear and existential self-preservation.
I will let you be.
I have never talked about believing but about knowing.
You are the believer who has no knowledge of God and Jesus through personal experiences and a scholastic education but says he does because he read a skeptic Bible telling him what to believe.
And I’m not religious and never have been, so your skeptic talking points you read from another skeptic (Shermer) that religious people are fearful of death and suffering are just another belief of yours that I have never witnessed in any religious person.
God inspires love and wisdom, not fear and ignorance.
I see your point and this is exactly what I think the issue is. I see myself as a devout Christian who believes that through the study of the Jesus of history we can draw closer to the Christ of faith. I like to say that we need to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith and find a balance between the two. One can believe in a historical Jesus and still be a devout Christian.
I think you had mentioned in a prior post that you were a Franciscan friar. I myself considered the Trappists or Dominicans at one time but my stance on this has changed. Christianity is the largest religion in the world for good reason; despite the corruptions and scandals that have gone on in Western Christendom there is a beauty in the traditions of it. There needs to be dialogue between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy as well as dialogue with biblical scholars and ancient historians.
Your scholastic experience that gave to you simple and wise knowledge of Jesus is showing.
But we’re not in Kansas anymore.
The world today is filled with modern thinkers without your experience spewing nonsense about Jesus that they back up by taking a text or two and applying their ignorant inexperience to it.
On this thread, skeptics are painting Jesus as just another Jew who was not the cause of Christianity, but just an Old Testament follower who didn’t claim the authority of the Son of God or even know that he was changing human history through a spiritual awakening.
Jesus was a complete success as humanity’s spiritual Messiah.
Christianity is of course flawed because it’s a religion populated by flawed human beings.
But a doorknob is perfect if it opens a door.
So likewise Christianity has been the perfect religion that spread the Truth about Jesus.
Good luck with choosing your path to greater Truth and greater Love.
And always remember that …
“The Glory of God is a human being fully alive.”
Religion is a means not an end.
I’ve considered Orthodoxy over the years, maybe someday. They tended to respect Greek thought long before people like Anselm and Aquinas showed up. It’s not that I don’t like Catholicism it’s just that I think there needs to be room for improvement within its ecclesiastical hierarchy. Theologically many modern Catholics are very open to other theological positions in my experience.
In the Vatican II documents the Catholic Church stated that the true “Church” is the Mystical Body of Christ, which includes every good religion and every person of “good will”.
Very true. The problem with the prolonged after effects of Vatican II is that a certain faction of Catholics seem to put down tradition. I’m not saying return to saying everything in Latin and return to women covering their heads in church but people seem to favor a more charismatic form of worship that, in quite honesty, has never been right for me. Not that it isn’t right at all I just feel more at home with a more ancient style of praxis. Then again, you find groups that are of a more “traditional type” that label every pope since Paul VI to be heretics. That also doesn’t exactly fly with me.
The Vatican II documents need to be read before they are judged.
And a priest with his back to his congregation speaking a language no one understands and being the only one receiving the bread and wine was not close to being what the ancient Christian churches did to celebrate the Last Supper.
Jesus said “take and eat”, “take and drink”, and he said it in Aramaic, the common language spoken.
The Catholic Mass became a pompous ceremony with a high and mighty priest.
I lived with and met hundreds of priests, and I only met a handful of holy ones, spiritual priests who walked the grounds of the monastery contemplating God.
So the old Mass was not real in its depiction of every priest facing away from people in direct communication with God.
It is ironic. Another irony is that your review of the texts supports the following observation made by JM:
Quoting Joe Mello
It is not only that Pau's words don't match what Jesus said about the law, Paul describes the centuries of life under it as a bondage that Jews had to suffer for the sake of "justifying the Gentiles by faith" in the Letter to the Galatians 3:6 ff.
It was the rejection of the idea that a people could live a lie for the sake of the truth that I began to seek for ways to understand the teaching that did not require Paul's testimony.
Words not matching and words contradicting each other are two very different things.
I pointed out to you boys that Jesus and Paul were not differing on the Spirit being greater than the Law.
Jesus used “fulfilling” and Paul used “replacing”, or some similar term.
But both knew that strictly adhering to religious laws was not what we were supposed to be doing, because the life of Jesus gave to us the Way to God, the Truth about God (and us), and the spiritual Life we now can live.
Before Jesus, there was a holy person or two around.
After Jesus, and through the coming of the Paraclete, every person living had the spirit of God within them and could do great things.
Jesus and Paul both taught this.
And the “Acts of the Apostles” tell this story.
And we have only to look at human history and the spread of Christianity around the world, and the witness testimony of countless individual persons claiming to know and love God, either through Jesus or not, either religious or not, to see this story playing out.
Other religions can claim the power of this Spirit within its followers, but no other religion can claim to be the reason for the presence of this Spirit.
When some Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them that it wasn’t “here” or “there”, but “within you”.
Jesus was not only not just another Jew.
Jesus was not just another human being.
By their fruits, you will know them.
Right to ad hominem because you can’t allow yourself to actually consider reading and pondering anything from someone else who very well may be vastly your superior on a particular subject.
Your critical thinking is inexperienced and self-centered and therefore boyish.
Do you really not see that saying "you boys" is ad hominem?
You have already admitted you have not explored the texts beyond the interests of your creed. The historical is only what you believe it to be. That is not a contribution in a conversation about the history of Jesus.
I will leave you with the last word.
And thus you follow in the footsteps of everyone who encounters Mr mellow. Wise move.
Some will argue that black and white are the same. They are, after all, colors.
Was Saul any less convinced of the rightness of what he said and did before his conversion than Paul was afterwards?
The desire to be an effective agent is present before and after the conversion. How that agency is understood is sharply different between the two conditions:
The mantle of authority taken here is not only directed to his speaking for the Son of God as an apostle but to the right to speak of himself as the last Jew. What he surrenders, all others should too. Perhaps in that latter sense of conviction, that he is truly what a Jew should be, it could be said the 'conviction' is the same.
I'm not sure I follow. It seems that he did not believe he was acting on his own authority in either case.
Before his conversion he believed the right thing to do was to persecute the followers of Jesus in the name of the Law, afterwards he believed the right thing to to was to persuade everyone to become followers of Jesus.
But my point is not simply with regard to Paul but with regard to anyone who believes absolutely that they possess the truth and cannot be wrong. The content of one's convictions seems to be secondary to the absolute certainty of those convictions. If conviction is the measure of truth than both Saul who persecuted Jesus' followers and Paul who attempted to persuade them to put their faith in Christ were in possession of the truth.
Nope, Paul was just another Jew, too.
He wrote about Jesus and sacrificed the rest of his life for Jesus because he “believed” it was the right thing to do, not because he had absolute certitude that it was the right thing to do because he saw with his own eyes, and had a conversation with, the resurrected Jesus.
I mean, if we talk about Jesus actually doing anything after he died, we would be acknowledging the Resurrection, and we can’t do that.
No. Let’s talk about a psychological conversion and beliefs, not actually seeing things and hearing things and knowing things.
And let’s not ever talk about an act of God? No way, man. They’ll put us in the loony bin.
God ain’t doing anything. We do everything.
He acted on his own authority when he represented himself as an apostle and direct witness of Jesus. The communities he formed were based upon this role in them. So, in that sense, he spoke with the authority referred to in Matthew in reference to Jesus at the end of the Sermon of the Mount:
So, when you say, " The content of one's convictions seems to be secondary to the absolute certainty of those convictions" it seems to me that what is claimed matters. What is being asked from others seems to be central to the differences.
I agree, but I don't think he saw it that way.
Quoting Paine
Indeed! But when one believes he is doing God's will he may draw no sharp line between acts that benefit and acts that harm. Acts that hard may not be seen as an indication by him that he is not doing God's will. The most celebrated and disturbing example is Abram's sacrifice of Isaac.
But it is not just such extreme cases that I was pointing to. When one is convinced that his own beliefs and opinions cannot be wrong his absolute certainty remains the same even if the content of those convictions were to become their opposite.
We cannot witness what other people are 'absolutely certain' about. We can witness what is excluded on the authority of such certainty. Paul's vision excluded other views as a denial of his truth. That is different from simply saying other people don't get it. it is the spirit of that sort of condemnation that has called forth Christianity's darkest aspect.
For myself, the instruction to not judge so as not to be judged is a lesson that does not fit with this view. It is a proposition of physics more than an article of belief.
I think this is more a reflection on Saul/Paul than on what Christianity might have been and in some cases was. He seems to have had conflicting impulses. On the one hand he sought unity but on the other he sowed division and divisiveness.
We see this in John too. According to the author Jesus said to Thomas:
(John 14:6)
Only in John are we told of "doubting Thomas". And only in John are we told that Jesus stands between man and God, and of this claim of exclusivity.
As with all movements, factions develop. John's message of exclusivity seems to reflect one such division. John's message is not simply that Jesus is the way but that to follow Thomas and his writings is the way of doubt.
I agree, they seem to be particularly open to Marxism, Atheism, and Islam. Though not necessarily in that order ....
Quoting Joe Mello
Just out of curiosity, is that what it said in the local paper, or were you there in person? :smile:
I originally adhered to Marxism and dubbed myself a staunch atheist early in college but soon discarded these beliefs. I think Marx got a few things right but the solution to the problem is what makes me criticize Classical Marxism. Marxist humanism attempts to rectify the problem by stripping Marxism of economic terminology to focus more on everyday problems but this too did not impress me. As far as my faith goes, believe me, I am at odds with some of the things in Catholicism; I like to say I’m culturally Roman Catholic but sympathetic to Eastern Orthodoxy. If Traditionalist Roman Catholics and Evangelicals were open to biblical studies I think they would have no problem being reasonable people while also practicing their faith. This, of course, does not mean that every Traditionalist and Evangelical is against biblical studies. I’m sure it is only a select group.
I’d answer you, but you’re obviously way too smart for me.
I only got a scholastic education, and didn’t spend time on the Internet Googling my ass off.
And isn’t it weird how our calendar represents an imaginary person’s life?
And all those crosses in the sky, and becoming the greatest person who ever lived — just weird.
Thank us for the Internet, where everyone can become a genius overnight.
Great. And part of your scholastic education was to make evidence-free statements?
So, would you agree with @Joe Mello's statement "Jesus said “take and eat”, “take and drink”, and he said it in Aramaic"?
Well I am still a believer in the fact that Jesus understood Greek at least a little bit. It is well documented that Koine Greek was popular in his day. Aramaic just so happened to be his native tongue. So yes I do believe Jesus gave his lectures in Aramaic. When it comes to “Take and eat” it really depends on the theology behind it. Catholicism teaches transubstantiation, the belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. This not only defies modern science but also defies Aristotelian natural philosophy. This being said I’ve never believed in it. If one were to believe that the real presence of Christ was in the heart of the believer receiving communion then I would not have a problem with this as this is something I believe; “transignification” is what this tends to be called and it is very close to how High Church Protestants view it.
Sure. However, even if his "native tongue" was Aramaic, it does not follow that the language he used was always Aramaic. On the contrary, precisely because Greek was popular, it would have made sense for Jesus to use Greek, the language that would have been understood by Jews and non-Jews alike.
As per the NT text, there was a conversation between Jesus and Pilates in the judgement hall. It seems to me that the most logical language to have been used in that exchange was Greek.
Moreover, Matthew says:
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell (lit. Hades) shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16)
Note the Greek term "Hades" and the Greek wordplay involving "Petros" and "petra", which suggests that the language used may have been Greek.
The same goes for the Last Supper event, where Jesus conveyed a message that was addressed to the whole community of believers, not only to Aramaic speakers.
To look up on Google if he spoke Greek is idiotic.
The way I see it, much of biblical scholarship seems to be stuck in the 1940’s when Israel was controlled by Marxists and there was an effort to dismiss early Christianity as a minor Jewish sect with links to the Qumran scrolls.
However, 1st century Galilee was heavily Hellenized and some of Jesus’ own disciples had Greek names, e.g., Andrew, Philip, Simon, which suggests a Hellenized cultural background.
Moreover, if, as per the NT text, Jesus was the Son of God, then (a) he would have spoken fluent Greek and (b) it would have made sense for him to use the universal language of the time in order to spread a universal message – which, incidentally, is precisely why Greek was chosen as the language of the Gospels.
The alternative view would have to be based on the assumptions that (a) Jesus was not the Son of God but an uneducated man, and (b) that his intention was not to establish a universal religion but a small Jewish sect, all of which IMHO seems to undermine the very foundations of Christianity.
So, I think it all depends on the kind of "Christian" you choose to be .... :wink:
Quoting Joe Mello
That may be so, if only because Jesus' speaking Greek in addition to Aramaic is a logical conclusion. However, you haven't told us what language you think Jesus used when he spoke to Pilate.
Which was the native language of neither of them?
I imagine that Pilate, in his official capacity as a Roman governor, would speak Latin and that he would not lower himself to speak the native language of the people who were subjected to him (even if he were fluent in the language).
It's a power play: In a conversation, he who speaks the other's language thereby becomes the inferior one. It's why old-school politicians and academics insist in either speaking their own language, or a language that is a foreign language for all participants (but which they're all fluent in).
It seems theoretically possible that Pilate spoke Latin and Jesus spoke Aramaic and that both understood eachother's language, but insisted on speaking each their own.
You can present to them the greatest person who ever lived, a person whose life is relevant to our calendar, whose words and deeds changed humanity for 2,000 years, who actually said that we will never die and gave everything he had to show us, and modern thinkers will not spend a moment pondering what this person actually means, but will spend weeks and weeks pondering what language this person spoke.
Here’s a question this person asked in Aramaic:
“When the Son of Man returns to the earth, will he find any faith?”
What a clever fellow this person was.
Theoretically, anything is possible. However, Greek was universally spoken in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire because the region had been under Greek rule for several centuries and Greek rulers promoted Greek culture and language. Educated Romans, especially the nobility, spoke Greek which was the language of culture, philosophy, and science.
In Roman Palestine, Greek was the common conversational medium between the locals and the Roman authorities, as evident from the NT text itself:
Obviously, Paul addressed the Roman commander in Greek, even though as a Roman citizen, he might have been expected to know Latin. But Greek was the common language, Latin being limited to the Roman-born military and administrative authorities.
For the same reason, as the NT clearly says, Pilate had an inscription written in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, attached to Jesus' cross (John 19:20).
PS To understand the cultural and linguistic situation of Roman Palestine, it is useful to refer to scholars like Martin Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism) or G. Scott Gleaves (Did Jesus Speak Greek?).
Well, this goes some way toward explaining what you meant by calling some scholars 'anti-Christian'; You were referring to secular Jews. Perhaps you could cite examples of such influence and motivation.
The origins of historical research in Jesus' life go back at least 200 years. How does your narrative fit into that?
Quoting Apollodorus
If you are going to appeal to the divinity of Jesus to say that he would not be bound by any historical condition he found himself in, then it is meaningless to argue for any historical condition being more likely than another. Joe Mello is at least consistent on this point. If one believes that the words and actions of Jesus was accurately recorded and relayed to us is a matter of faith, all questions regarding their veracity has been solved for all time.
IMO it is absolutely crucial to understand the status of Greek in the Roman Empire. The Italic Peninsula itself had been colonized by Greeks for many centuries. Greek culture was regarded as more advanced than the local Italic culture. Even the Italic scripts (Latin, Etruscan) had been adopted from the Greeks. Greek was widely used even in Rome, especially by the educated upper classes. Emperor Claudius referred to Latin and Greek as the mother tongues of the Empire (lit. “our tongues”).
Jesus is said to have grown up in Galilee. The population of Galilee was a mixture of Aramaic, Iturean, Phoenician, and Greek elements, and Greek was widely spoken. It doesn’t say anywhere that 1st-century Galilean carpenters weren’t allowed to speak Greek.
The Language and Literature of the New Testament – Academia Edu
The Use of Greek in Early Roman Galilee - Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT)
Moreover, we also need to take into account that Jesus was not the only one present in Pilate’s judgment hall. There were also the chief priests and the elders, i.e., Jesus’ accusers, who wouldn’t have spoken Latin. And as @baker has correctly pointed out, Pilate is unlikely to have used Aramaic in a Roman court of law.
All facts considered, the most likely language for Jesus to have used in his conversation with Pilate is Greek.
Quoting Paine
Nonsense. Whether divine or not, Jesus would have used the language that had the widest currency at that point in time and space. There is nothing wrong with trying to establish what that language was. Indeed, the growing scholarly consensus is that it was Greek, more precisely, Galilean Greek, i.e., a local dialect of Koine Greek.
That might be if it was Jesus's intention to spread a universal message and establish a universal religion, as you assume. It is clear that Paul sought to establish a universal church, but it is also clear, according to Paul himself, that he was opposed by Peter.
You say that if Jesus':
Quoting Apollodorus
But you also cite in Matthew Jesus saying that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. In Matthew we also find Jesus saying:
(5:20)
and:
(7:13-14)
Indeed, this undermines Paul's Christianity, but Paul's Christianity is not the rock on which the church is to be built according to Matthew. Far from being universal, the gate is small and the road narrow and only a few who are exceedingly righteous find it.
But you just argued that Jesus had to have known Greek on account of him being the Son of God
Quoting Apollodorus
You use the divine to explain capacity and motivation. And then you abandon that argument to justify your thesis on historical grounds again. It is not so much a species of circular reasoning as it is a mobius strip.
On the contrary, the "mobius strip" is entirely yours. The scholarly position is that Greek was widely spoken in Roman Galilee, therefore Jesus himself most probably spoke Greek, especially with Pilate.
So, I think your opinion is irrelevant for all practical purposes .... :smile:
Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus - Cambridge University Press
Incidentally, even the coins that Pilate minted have Greek inscriptions on them. They were minted in Jerusalem and were the official currency in the whole province:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#/media/File:Coin-of-Pilate.jpg
The term 'son of God' as it is used in the Hebrew Bible always refers to a human being, not to a man who becomes a god or a god who becomes a man. The fact that such notions were accepted in Greco-Roman culture does not mean they were accepted by the Jews of Galilee.
Well, if that's what you think then you're on the wrong thread here! :lol:
The OP states in clear and unambiguous terms:
Quoting Dermot Griffin
Jesus - Wikipedia
At any rate, the evidence indicates that Jesus spoke Greek and made use of Hellenistic cultural elements because that was the common language and culture at the time ....
Have you read your own posts? For example:
Quoting Apollodorus
The expression "Athens and Jerusalem" refers to the difference between the authority of reason versus revelation. It is not a polemic against Greek influence.
The point you are evading is not about what most Christians believe but about what the term 'son of God' meant to Jesus and his disciples.
The Lord's Prayer does not say "my father" or "the father of the only begotten son" but simply "our Father". Jesus referred to "the children of God". In John Jesus defends himself by saying:
(10:34-36)
He is most likely referring to Psalms 82:6-7:
If Jesus understood himself to be a son of God in this sense then he is not the one unique Son". And, of course, those who die like mere mortals are mere mortals. Jesus goes on to say, according to John, that he does the work of his father. (10:37-38) He makes the distinction that later Christians do not pay proper attention to on the basis of something he said a bit earlier:
(10:30)
this expression of unity is later taken to mean one and the same. But this can only be done at the expense of ignoring the distinctions between him and the father that he repeatedly makes. It is only when his words are heard with foreign ears that his words come to take on a very different meaning. A pagan meaning where the distinction between man and God is obliterated.
Perhaps you should learn how to read before commenting on other people’s posts. :smile:
Please note that I said “Athens vs. Jerusalem” which does in fact refer to the perceived conflict between (a) Greek philosophy (= Athens) and (b) Judeo-Christian revelation (= Jerusalem), and goes back to Tertullian’s Against Heretics (the title itself says it all) where he argues that the former has no place in the latter:
So, very clearly, it has to do with a Judeo-Christian rejection of Greek influence and subsequent attempts to “de-Hellenize” Christianity. This has culminated in a range of spurious theories to the effect that the Gospels were originally composed in “Aramaic”, that Jesus “couldn’t have spoken Greek”, and other historical and logical aberrations.
Quoting Apollodorus
and:
Quoting Apollodorus
At one point you admit:
Quoting Apollodorus
And yet:
Quoting Apollodorus
This notion of divine knowledge is quite different than a linguistic influence. In addition, it ignores the fundamental difference between Athens and Jerusalem. There is no revelation from God in Plato. He was not a prophet.
As Christianity develops attempts are made to reconcile reason and revelation, but this was on "later Christianity rather than on Jesus himself". Moreover you have not shown that those later developments, most importantly, of man becoming God or God becoming man, were not pagan ideas, that they were not foreign, and can be found in Judaism.
Hellenistic influence increased after the destruction of the Second Temple, which is why synagogues with mosaics representing themes from Greek religion and mythology began to appear throughout the region:
The Metamorphosis of the Sun God in Ancient Synagogues in Israel – Haaretz
Stunning Biblical Mosaics Discovered in Ancient Synagogue - Patterns of Evidence
In other words, there was growing Hellenistic influence from 305 BC into the early centuries of the Christian Era, followed by a counter-movement in Christianity and Judaism alike, that sought to eliminate that influence, as evidenced by the anti-Greek polemics of Tertullian and later authors. There is nothing unclear or contradictory about it whatsoever.
The question of Plato himself being a prophet is irrelevant. According to Plato, knowledge has a divine origin, the divine Form of the Good being the source of all knowledge (Republic 508e1-4), and philosophers and prophets can be inspired by it. “Prophet” (prophetes) is a Greek word originally applied to those who communicate the will of God (Zeus) to man!
Your claims go far beyond that. It is not a matter of language or art.
Quoting Apollodorus
This is what you have been doing your best to avoid. First, either this claim can be found in the Jewish literature or it is pagan. Either it is found in Judaism or it is foreign. Second, either Jesus claimed this about himself or it is foreign to his teachings. Third, either Paul claimed this about Christ or it is foreign to his teaching.
Much rests on how the term 'son of God' is to be understood. If it is to be understood in the sense in which it is used in the Hebrew Bible, then claims about a man becoming God or God becoming a man are foreign and pagan. It remains to be seen how it is used in the NT. I addressed this already:
son of God
What about your claim that Jesus only had the appearance of man? If Jesus was not a man then he did not suffer on the cross, did not die, and was not resurrected.
The linguistic and cultural milieu in which Jesus operated was Hellenistic.
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.
An important element of Greek culture was philosophy.
- Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition
- H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament
- Stanley Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?
In support of this you cite Gruen, but things are not so simple and straightforward.
Quoting Apollodorus
From the publisher:
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520235069/heritage-and-hellenism)
In Gruen's own words:
(https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/b7e85690-e10d-49f4-9127-698f80b7c1fe/1001727.pdf)
Gruen does not show that Hellenistic Judaism simply combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. His claim, as quoted above, is that the aim was to define or reinforce a distinctive cultural character. This is quite different than combining elements.
[Added: note the manipulation of (Greek) myths, the reshaping of (Greek) traditions, the elaboration of (Greek) legends, fictions, and inventions, the recasting of ostensibly alien cultural legacies .
As to Porter:
(file:///home/chronos/u-99af47985f8715d9d2e97f4e9de2f1803413812c/MyFiles/Downloads/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf)
If we grant that Jesus could speak Greek this does not address the question of whether he was and to what extent and in what way he might have been influenced by Greek thought. Although Porter suggests he "possibly" taught in Greek, it is not a question of a possibility that he taught in Aramaic. There is widespread agreement on this, including Porter's agreement.
Once again, what is at issue is not language or art but thought, or more specifically, theology. Christian theology as it developed misunderstood and altered the meaning of 'son of God' and created a pagan religion in the name of a Jewish man, a teacher, a rabbi who would have been outraged if he knew what would be done in his name.
As stated by Plato, knowledge and truth are of divine origin. So, I think it makes sense to assume that divine truth is universal and that different aspects of it are revealed at different points in time and space, and under consideration of the prevalent culture.
At the time of Moses, the dominant culture was Egyptian. Which is why we are told that “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22).
Similarly, at the time of Jesus, the dominant culture was Hellenistic, i.e., Greek-influenced, and this applies to Judaism itself. Therefore, Jesus must have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic, and the Judaism he was at home in was Hellenistic Judaism. It is also entirely possible that he had knowledge of Greek wisdom in the same way Moses had knowledge of Egyptian wisdom.
Hellenistic Judaism – Wikipedia
L. Grabbe, Hellenistic Judaism
Hellenism – Jewish Virtual Library
Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, when the Romans razed the place to the ground and banned all Jews from the city, Jews became focused more on the scriptural texts as that was all they had left.
But before that, in Jesus’ time, Judaism, i.e., Hellenistic Judaism which was the dominant form of the religion, was very similar to Greek and Roman religion, being centered on animal sacrifice. Even the ten commandments (Decalogue) were almost identical to Greek laws and customs, as the Greeks had similar prohibitions against blasphemy, murder, theft, adultery, perjury, injunctions to respect one’s parents and honor the Gods, etc.
So, we can see how Greek ideas disseminated by traveling philosophers and missionaries would have been transmitted to those sections of the Galilean population that were receptive to them in the same way Greek language had become the lingua franca of the whole region.
Unfortunately, attempts were made by later generations of Christians, Jews, and Muslims to claim that truth belongs exclusively to them. But I think at least some aspects of truth must be universal ....
This is an assertion. The truth of that assertion may not be questioned by Rommen, but it has not been objectively established
Quoting Blake4508
More precisely, the Church designated itself as the mouthpiece.
Ritualistic sacrifice was a part of Judaism but Judaism was not centered on animal sacrifice. For a general idea of what is involved see: Sacrifices and Offerings
You are still evading the fundamental theological differences between Judaism and Christian paganism.
You quote Jewish Virtual Library but skip this very important point:
(emphasis added)
Rommen's book seems to be more about political philosophy but he does make some interesting points.
I think what is important to understand is that there is a lot of mythology involved in the mainstream perception of Judaism as an absolutely unique religion that developed in complete isolation from all external influence.
The truth of the matter is that Judaism did not emerge in a cultural vacuum and that the ancient Hebrews often were (consciously or unconsciously) influenced by neighboring cultures.
For example, following their departure from Egypt, they asked their leader Aaron, the elder brother of Moses, to make them a god to lead them. Aaron made the image of a calf from gold and presented it to his people as the God that had brought them out of Egyptian captivity. He also built an altar to it and the next morning a festival was held in honor of the God, with burned sacrifices, and “the people sat down to eat and to drink, and got up to party” (Exodus 32:1-6).
Obviously, they wouldn't have made such a request and held a festival with sacrifices, food, drink, and dance, unless they thought that this was the right thing to do. And they wouldn't have thought it was the right thing to do unless this was established practice.
Indeed, this may have been ancient Hebrew tradition. But it was also the tradition of neighboring peoples like the Egyptians and the Canaanites, among whom images of calves or young bulls represented the sacred or divine.
Similarly, the OT description of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25), a wooden chest decorated with winged deities, which contained the Law Tablets, and which the Israelites carried with them on poles, is virtually identical with the ritual chests or coffers used by the Egyptians.
- The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context – Biblical Archaeology Society
The Covenant itself follows the established pattern of ancient Near East treaties:
Moreover,
J. A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties And The Old Testament
Following their return to Canaan, the Israelites requested to be ruled by a king like all other nations:
It may be added that circumcision was widely practiced in Ancient Egypt and thus was not an exclusively “Jewish” custom. Even the prohibition against eating pork is paralleled in an Ancient Egyptian view of pigs as unclean animals and as suitable only for consumption by the poor.
Archaeological evidence shows that, for many centuries, polytheism and idolatry continued to be prevalent in the area inhabited by the Jews. Quite possibly, a religious elite existed that adhered to strict monotheism centered on the God Yahweh. But this doesn’t seem to have been the case in the general population, and monotheism began to gain ground only after the return from Babylon and the construction of the Second Temple in 516 BC (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed).
- Asherah - Wikipedia
Even in the Second-Temple period, the region was under Persian rule for two centuries, followed from the 300’s BC, by Greek rule and, finally, in Jesus’ time, by Roman rule.
As in Greek and Roman religion, animal sacrifice formed a central part of Jewish temple service until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD:
Korban – Wikipedia
In any case, by the time of Jesus, Judaism was heavily Hellenized and there is little evidence that all or most Jews rejected Greek influence. This is supported by the NT description of Jesus and his disciples reclining at table in the Greek manner (Mk 14:18), by later synagogue art depicting the Greek Sun God (or God Yahweh as the Sun God), etc.
So, I think the curious hypothesis to the effect that Jews hated Greeks and therefore couldn’t have spoken Greek or adopted elements of Greek culture including philosophy, can be safely dismissed as bogus.
In fact, as clearly pointed out by the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews took a great interest in Greek ideas and this is confirmed by the works of numerous Jewish philosophers from Philo to Maimonides.
While religious fanatics attempt to see (or imagine) irreconcilable differences, true philosophers understand that Greek philosophy is perfectly compatible with Judaism and Christianity alike.
For example, Platonism, Judaism, and Christianity all believe in one supreme reality or God. Even apparently incompatible beliefs such as reincarnation and resurrection can be reconciled when applied to different classes of souls occupying different levels of spiritual evolution and inhabiting different realms of existence in the afterlife.
That is not a mythology that any educated person holds. It is not a mythology that anyone here has supported. Quite the opposite! You have given a lot of effort, however, to minimize or negate what is unique about Judaism and its ineliminable influence on Jesus, an influence that far exceeds whatever "possible" influence of Hellenism you might conjure out of you own Platonism.
Quoting Apollodorus
You completely miss the point:
(Exodus 32:26–28)
From the time of Moses the worship of idols was expressly forbidden. The story does not show that the people of Israel were like their neighbors. To the contrary, this distinguishes them from their neighbors.
Does Jesus have anything to say about this? In the Sermon on the Mount he says:
"You are the light of the world" (5:14). As you acknowledge, Hellenistic influence was widespread, and yet, it is only the righteous who are the light.
Quoting Apollodorus
They are not the light of the world because of Greek wisdom but because of "the law and the prophets". (5:17) In this they stand apart from and against other nations.
In Proverbs the contrast is made between the wisdom of Solomon, that is, fear of the Lord, and the "foreign woman", that is, Sophia. We are told from the start that we must "understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles." (1:6)
(5:1-5) (5:15)
Quoting Apollodorus
When one ignores differences everything appears to be the same.
Quoting Apollodorus
Elsewhere you point to reincarnation as central to Platonism, but reincarnation and resurrection are incompatible. If divine truth and knowledge is universal then it cannot be true both that the soul is reincarnated and that it is resurrected, either with or without the body.
As shown by Finkelstein and Silberman, the best way to debunk the mythology and propaganda surrounding the origins and nature of Judaism, is to go to the historical and archaeological sources.
According to the OT, the God of Moses states:
Though this is often interpreted in a monotheistic sense, the existence of more than one god is implied in the very words “other gods”: if no other gods existed, the question of “having other gods” would not arise. The sentence “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” makes sense only in a polytheistic context. The same applies to phrases like “the God of Israel”, “the God of Abraham”, “the God of Moses”, etc., which are clearly intended to differentiate between the God of the Jews and the God(s) of other nations.
However, even supposing that what is described at Exodus 20 is a form of monotheism, as observed by Freud (Moses and Monotheism), this still has close parallels in the Egyptian cult of Aten/Aton (the Orb of the Sun), introduced by Pharaoh Akhenaten.
Interestingly, Akhenaten also built a new capital city with a large temple to Aten/Aton and prohibited the cult of other gods and the use of religious statues.
Moreover, the word for “lord” or “master” in Hebrew is “adon” and in Jewish tradition the name of the God of Israel is read as “Adonai” (plural of “Adon-i”,“my Lord”).
As Freud concludes,
Indeed, if as the OT tells, Moses (whose name is Egyptian, as noted by Philo and Josephus) was raised as an Egyptian prince (Exodus 2:1-10) then he must have been familiar with Egyptian religion and, as suggested by Freud and others he may have been Egyptian.
In any case, what is certain is that Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following:
Henotheism or monotheism.
God equated to the Sun and described as having war chariots.
Creation myth.
Psalms.
Prayers.
Covenant.
Code of moral conduct inscribed on stone or clay.
Ark.
Kings.
Prophets.
Temple.
Spring and fall festivals.
Animal sacrifices.
Male circumcision.
Prohibition against eating pork.
The equation or comparison of the supreme being to the Sun, which as we have seen is common to the traditions of Greece, Egypt-Israel, and Christianity, is of particular importance on account of the philosophical message it conveys, namely that just as there is only one Sun, there is only one Truth or Ultimate Reality, which however, is perceived differently by different individuals and cultures in the same way the light of the Sun is reflected differently in different objects or at different points in time and space.
This is why true philosophers at the time of Jesus, whether Jewish, Pagan, or Christian, would have had no problem discerning that all truth has one source and that it makes no sense to reject truth just because it is spoken by someone from a different religion or culture.
For the close links between Israel and Egypt see also:
J. Assmann, Moses the Egyptian
F. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
This is a concept that live on in the Church to this day. Much of the Catholic philosophy has been influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas had a deep respect for Aristotle and the Scholastics were very keen on studying the Hellenistic philosophers. But the fact that the philosophy does not contradict revealed dogma means that it can certainly influence Catholic thought and be a good thing to incorporate. At the end of the day, ALL TRUTH is good, no matter what religion or philosophy discovers it.
You quote Rommen regarding objective truth. How are we to determine that what you claim to be objectively true is? Simply asserting something is true does not make it true. This has nothing to do with "Empiricist-positivism".
Where do we find God equated to the "Sun" or the sun in any way that goes further than metaphor? In Genesis 1 God does not create the sun until the fourth day. The sun gives light to the earth (1:17) but on day one God says: "Let there be light". This is clearly a rejection of any religion that worships the sun.
You continue to avoid addressing the crucial issues that on the one hand separate Judaism and paganism and on the other Jesus' Jewish teachings from pagan Christianity.
Correct. Truth is perceived as “bad” only by those who are afraid of it and seek to impose their own mythology on reality. :smile:
Quoting Blake4508
As pointed out by many scholars, some of whom I have mentioned here, archaeology doesn’t lie. History is a different story given that it can be, and often is, distorted for political and ideological reasons.
As shown by M. Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism), J. Scott Gleaves (Did Jesus Speek Greek?), S. Porter (Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?), and many others, Judaism and Early Christianity were heavily influenced by Greek culture. Hengel, in any case, is an absolute must-read.
The way I see it, the discovery of truth can only happen through the elimination of untruth.
Like the Sun, truth is a self-luminous force that reveals (a) itself and (b) things other than itself by casting its light on them. As sunlight can be obscured by clouds when seen from the earth, so the light of truth can be obscured by layers of ignorance arising from conditioned existence.
Truth then, can be unearthed only by chiseling away at the layers of untruth that have sedimented around it.
Most Christians I know are surprised, or even shocked, to learn that Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper did not sit on chairs as medieval or modern Europeans might have done, but were reclining in the Greek fashion – which was to lean on the left elbow on a dining couch and take food from the table in front with the right hand.
And yet the Greek NT says very clearly, “And it came to pass, that, as Jesus reclined (katakeisthai) [at table] in his house …” (Mark 2:15). The Latin translation of the Greek original naturally has accumberet (“reclined”) because the Romans ate in the same way as the Greeks from whom they had adopted the custom (as had the Jews).
The Gothic translation from the Greek similarly has:
“Jah warþ, biþe is anakumbida in garda is …” (Wulfila Bible, c. 350 AD).
However, later translations into English changed “reclined” to “sat”.
Middle English:
“And it was doon, whanne he sat at the mete in his hous …” (Wycliffe's Bible, 1383).
Modern English:
“And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house …” (King James Bible, 1611).
The same occurred with other passages like “While they were reclining (anakeimenon) and eating, he said, “I tell you the truth …” (Mark 14:18). The Latin has discumbentibus (“reclining”), which as we have seen is preserved in Gothic (anakumbjan from Latin accumbere). But later translations into English change this to “sat”.
Middle English:
“And whanne thei saten `at the mete, and eeten, Jhesus seide, Treuli Y seie to you …” (Wycliffe's Bible, 1383).
Modern English:
“And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you …” (King James Bible, 1611).
Another “surprise” or “shock” is to learn that Greek was widely spoken in Galilee (and other parts of Roman Palestine) and that Jesus most likely spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic, and that, as some scholars have argued, he probably even taught in Greek.
As stated earlier, there are three basic possibilities: (1) Jesus was the Son of God, (2) he was a man, (3) he never existed. If we take the mainstream Christian position (1) that he was the Son of God, then it stands to reason (a) that he knew Greek and (b) that he taught in Greek as Greek at the time was the ideal medium of disseminating what was intended to be an universal message to the whole Roman Empire – which is precisely why the NT Gospels were written in Greek.
Even on the hypothesis that Jesus was not the Son of God, it is generally accepted that his message was very powerful and universally applicable and, therefore, it made sense for him to use a universal language like Greek to convey that message to the masses.
Indeed, it is absolutely clear from the NT text that Jesus’ message was for Jews and non-Jews alike. For example, he says that one day non-Jews will dine in heaven with the Jewish patriarchs:
(It should be noted that the original Greek text consistently uses "will recline (at table)" (anaklithesontai) even in reference to eating in heaven.)
And
Likewise, Paul says:
Obviously, if Jesus knew Greek like most inhabitants of Roman Palestine did, it would have made sense for him to use Greek in his sermons which were addressed to a population that was ethnically mixed and bilingual.
Now, according to the NT, Jesus made some important statements such as “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12) and “I am the truth and the life” (John 14:6).
If we go back to the historical roots of such statements, we arrive, as Freud says, at the Ancient Egyptian solar cult of Aten/Aton whose founder Pharaoh Akhenaten not only regarded the Sun (or its power) as the supreme divine source, but also regarded himself (as all Egyptian kings did) as the son of the deity.
Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible we find statements like “God is the Sun”:
And:
Psalm 84:11 literally reads “Lord Yahweh [is a/the] Sun [and] shield” (Shemesh Yahweh Elohim). However, we must recall that “Yahweh” (YHWH) is articulated as “Adon-ai” out of respect:
As observed by numerous scholars, this is a very curious practice. In any case, if "Adon(ai)" is substituted for "Yahweh", the text reads “Shemesh Adon(ai)”, “the Sun (Shemesh) is the Lord God” or, in the Egyptian context, “the Sun is God Aten/Aton [and the shield or protection of those who take refuge in him]”.
Here we find all the elements of the NT text: Truth = Light of the World = life-giving Sun = Way of Uprightness or Righteousness that brings protection or salvation.
The same idea occurs in Plato's Republic where the divine Form or Idea of the Good which is the source of truth, knowledge, and justice, is compared to the Sun which is the source of life on earth.
Of course, if we look at it from a modern Western perspective, we may find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Hebrew Bible could have equated the God of Israel with the Sun in any other way than metaphorically. However, the perspective changes if we consider that this was written many centuries ago in a totally different cultural environment and that even Plato equates the source of truth with the Sun which in Greek religion was a deity. If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero.
This is not to say that no Hebrews saw the Sun as the “light of God” instead of as a deity in its own right. But for the Hebrew masses, as for their neighboring nations, the Sun, Moon, and other heavenly bodies most certainly were divine. And this is entirely consistent with truth, though being one, being perceived differently by different beholders depending on each individual’s cultural and intellectual development.
What remains to be considered is the relation between universal and particular realities (or experience of them), or between Father (universal) and Son (particular). Here, again, we can turn to the NT where Jesus says “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34). The OT itself says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:6).
Indeed, particular realities are creations of universal reality, and humans being creations of the deity, are its “children” and, by implication, divine. The problem is that the “children” or creatures are not consciously aware of the fact that they hold within themselves the divinity or truth of the “Father” or Creator, and as a result of this they think and act in ways that are contrary to the divine or truth.
The task of both religion and philosophy, then, is to make man “divine” or “perfect”, i.e., to bring him into harmony with reality or truth, as far as humanly possible. Becoming or making oneself as godlike or perfect as possible is the central aim of both Platonism (Theaetetus 176b) and Christianity: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).
This necessity of the individual to strive for moral perfection is also acknowledged by Jewish thinkers, as observed by Kavka in his discussion of philosophers like Maimonides, Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig, and Emmanuel Levinas:
Maimonides certainly used Greek philosophy, in particular Aristotle, to address issues related to religion and ethics. As he put it:
The true philosophical position then, as Kavka concludes, is that “there is no gap between Athens and Jerusalem”.
This doesn’t mean that one needs to renounce Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Platonism, Judaism, or whatever tradition one happens to belong to. Only that one must overcome one’s psychological and cultural resistance to truth, and allow truth, or the light of reality, to illumine our mind and act as a force for good in our life.
Unfortunately, the unphilosophical lovers of darkness and untruth prefer to stay trapped within Tertullian’s polemical distinction which is the only place where they feel at home ….
PS Despite baseless claims to the contrary made by some here, Kavka states very clearly:
And yet you ignore it when the untruth of your own mythology that you seek to impose on reality is pointed out to you.
Quoting Apollodorus
If you really saw it that way you would eliminate the untruth of your own untrue claims.
Quoting Apollodorus
Once again you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Archaeological evidence must be interpreted. That interpretation is not free of historical and other assumptions.
Quoting Apollodorus
And what do you point to in order to show this influence? That they ate the Passover dinner while reclining! Unlike most Christian you know this does not come as a shock to Jews who celebrate the Passover. Does it come as a shock to you that Jesus ate with his right hand because he wiped his ass with his left hand? Or do you think he did not shit? Or that what came out of his ass was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit?
And what is the other thing you point to in order to show this influence? That Greek was spoken in Galilee! The language that may have been used tells us nothing about what was said in that language. or how religious beliefs were influenced.
Quoting Apollodorus
But it does not stand to reason that he was the Son of God. That is an article of faith not reason.
Quoting Apollodorus
You left out the rest of the statement: "and shield". Now if we take this literally then just as God is literally the sun he is also literally a shield. God is then literally a physical entity both a sun and a shield.
Quoting Apollodorus
Another fabrication. Adonai is not an articulation of YHWH. It is articulated as "Yahweh" or some variant, although many Jews regard the name as too sacred to articulate. Adonai means lord. Often Adonai is combined with Elohim, another name for God, as it is in the Psalm - Lord God.
Quoting Apollodorus
In the Republic it is explicitly stated that:
(379b)
It is also explicitly stated that the sun is an image of the Good.
Whatever similarities there are between the God of the Hebrew Bible and Plato's Good, they are not the same.
Quoting Apollodorus
Again you ignore what was pointed out. In Genesis 1 the sun is created on the 4th day. It did not create itself and it is not the main source of light.
Why do you ignore this? It is because you are afraid of the truth?
Quoting Apollodorus
Things take on a very different meaning when taken out of context. Who are the assembly of gods who know nothing and understand nothing and walk about in the darkness? (82:5) What kind of gods die like mortals? (82:7)
Name dropping should not substitute for understanding. Kavka is not denying the difference between Athens and Jerusalem. His is a project for the future, for what is not-yet. This not to be done by denying differences or an attempt to make what is different appear to be the same.
From the introduction to Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy
His project is not what you claim "remains to be considered":
Quoting Apollodorus
It is not about a universal and particular reality, but rather about “a meontology which affirms a meaning beyond Being, a mode of non-Being (m¯e on)". What it shares with Plato is indeterminacy, open-endedness. This was discussed in my thread Plato's Metaphysics
Your own negative comments there show that you do not understand what is at issue either for Plato or for contemporary thinkers like Kavka.
I think you make some very good points! I would however, disagree in a certain sense with regard to the idea that the sun was literally seen as a deity, or rather, THE deity. In a certain sense I’m sure there were mixtures of cultural practices where many Jews did have these notions, that being said, God being the sun as a deity in and of itself seems like a stretch. The fact that many times in the OT where God talked to prophets like Abraham at night I think would be sufficient to at least put a roadblock in that idea. If the sun is down, and it’s opposite is all that is visible, why would God speak at night? Now one could argue that maybe God is NOT the sun but can simply work through it instead, but that is traditionally how God was seen as operating anyway. There’s always been the idea that certain natural object have divine qualities, but I think the point of disagreement we have is whether or not those are intrinsic or external. Is the sun divine intrinsically, or does it simply have divine qualities from the Creator working through it?
That being said, do note that in exodus, God made the Hebrews kill a lamb and put its blood on their door mantels. The lamb was seen as a sacred creature to the Egyptians and this was a way where God essentially had them reject many of the religious/cultural tenants of their polytheistic faith. But whether there was a resurgence of such beliefs in the Hellenistic era is of course another discussion.
Consider the problem of false messiahs. During the messianic age there were many who claimed or were claimed by others to be the messiah. And many who demanded proof. What is to stand as proof? Does the death of an alleged messiah stand as proof that he was not the messiah? As you know, with Christianity it does not. All kinds of stories developed - a necessary sacrifice, part of God's plan, he was not a man, he was resurrected and sits on the throne.
What is often missed is that the question of who is the messiah is answered for Christianity only by changing the meaning of what the Messiah is. In other words, it is not a simple matter of something being true but of what it is that is true and how we are to determine that this nexus of beliefs is true rather than another with some or many of the same elements.
I'm curious, do you think the Enoch tradition had any influence on Pharisaic and Essenic forms of Judaism at the Second Temple time period? By Enoch, I also include ideas that the messiah is somehow attached to the Son of Man iconography in Daniel and the apocryphal Books of Enoch (1-3), and the idea of Metatron, which by Enoch 3 seems to be Enoch made into an angelic figure.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Metatron
I do love that name as it sounds like a transformer or some cartoon ha.
My own interpretation is kind of rudimentary but it looks something like this:
800s-400s BCE (Israel/Judah Kingdoms/First Temple Period) a Yahweh alone contingency formed amongst a polytheistic pantheon. The tribes that formed into the two "kingdoms" were basically derived from pastoral groups that didn't really settle in the bigger Canaanite cities. Was Moses a real historical figure? Not sure, but if he was, he might be attributed to certain tribal rituals already being practiced.. Again, speculating. Perhaps there is some merit to a group of peoples escaping Egypt into Canaan and formed with the other non-settled Canaanites to contribute their cultural practices which became a more unified mythology of all the tribes.
400s-300s BCE- (Yehud/Judah as a Persian province/Second Temple Judaism started). The Yahweh alone contingency won out as scribes and reformers (like Ezra and Nehemiah), reestablished the Temple with a consistent Priestly lineage clan, and Levites, reestablished. Ideas were brought in from Persia from Zoroastrianism.. mainly End of Times conflict, angelology (like Book of Enoch), good vs. evil, and things like this. The Torah was compiled and redacted from earlier myths and established as THE LAW and retroactively written as it if it was written in its full form prior. It was during this time that the commandments were codified as THE way to live as a Judean.. There probably was a sort of "Oral Law" (not nearly as expansive as written in the Mishna or Talmud though), established by the very same characters as people like Ezra/Nehemiah and later "prophets" who came back to the Judah to reestablish a sort of theological state under the hierarchy of the satraps and Persian power structure.
300s BCE- 135 CE- (Greek Rule/Maccabean Rule/ Herodian/ Roman Rule): Basically groups formed.. Some kept traditions of the Oral Torah set out in the reestablishment/Persian period and EXPANDED them from Priestly to general population (mainly regarding purity laws). These were the Pharisees (or proto-Pharisees, maybe called originally the Hasadim).. The Sadducees comprised mainly of the Priestly class, and were influenced by Greco-Roman culture more. They did not care as much about Oral traditions, and were influenced by power as it was lived in the real world (not the afterlife or End of Times). Pharisees may have had more of the Persian influence in general, with angels and afterlife, and other more mystical elements. I can see them harkening back to the Great Assemby/Reformation period of Ezra whilst the Sadduccees basically went along more with the outlook of the more contemporaneous Greeks. The Dead Sea Scroll sect represented Sadducees/Priests that thought the more Greek-influenced Priests were lax. They in fact had more in common with the Hasidim/Pharisees which kept more of the Persian influence. I find it interesting, that Pharisee is said to come from "perushim".. which means "separate ones", but it could also derive from Pharsee (Persian).. Either way it could be a good either and sort of thing.
The ideas of angels had perhaps much more of a hold in Judaism (both in Pharisaic and Essenic varieties) around the 300s BCE-135 CE. Perhaps the idea of messiah was fluid, and some of these groups interpreted Son of Man to be an angelic protector figure that protected Israel in Heaven, but also became associated with the judgement at the End of Times, and to this end also became attached to either the harbinger of the messiah or had some direct correlation with the messiah.. Perhaps it was more like how people in astrology view your "sign".. The Messiah was born under the angelic "sign" of the Son of Man.. He need not be an actual angel, but sort of have a metaphysical connection somehow.. It could have been a part of the narrative at the time of how the messiah manifests. Mind you, none of this has to mean that the Son of Man is MORE than a connection with the eponymous angel (which could also be Michael and later Metatron.. "Beyond the Throne"). It was basically the Book of John which combined the Son of Man tradition with the Platonic tradition (via Philo) of a Logos that was a sort of "blueprint" of creation. If you remember, even the Ebionites, who seemed to be fully Jewish in character except believing as Jesus as a messiah, thought Jesus may be some sort of association with an angel..
This is a difficult question for me to address for two reasons. First I really do not know much about it, which may have a lot to do with the second reason, there are a lot of stories being told that are difficult to disentangle. Names and terminology overlap. For example, the Essene belief in a coming new age is not eschatological. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls do not mention a messiah, others the messiah of David, a warrior, and still others the messiah of Aaron, whose work will be concerned with priestly things - the Temple, purity, and worship.Essenes
The first book of Enoch tells a very different story:
As far as interpretations of the 'son of man' I have nothing particular to point to, but in the text of Daniel "one like a son of man" is something he sees in a dream. (Daniel 7:1). I take this to mean that the image or likeness he saw in his dream was that of a man. In Enoch 1: "there was a righteous man" (1.2)
As to Metatron and Enoch: "Because I am Enoch, the son of Jared." (Book 3, chapter 4, 2)
I also think of Transformers when I see the name.
I agree that there were mixtures of cultural practices and I think this is the key to understanding ancient Judaism. However, seeing the Sun as a deity was in fact pretty common in Ancient Israel.
In fact, at the time of the original composition of Psalm 84:11, the words "Shemesh umagen Yahweh Elohim" could perfectly well have meant "God Yahweh is the Sun (source of light and life) and a shield/protector (to those who take refuge in his cult).
Moreover, it must be remembered that the OT was put into writing at the earliest in the 600’s BC, after which it underwent many additions and editing in the Second Temple period, so the current version is the product of an effort to bring the text into line with later beliefs and ideologies.
Quoting Blake4508
As a pastoral people, the Hebrews had always sacrificed lambs at their annual festivals and, presumably, so did the Egyptians. The conflict seems to have been that the Hebrews also sacrificed rams (which had a higher sacrificial value than lambs), whilst the Egyptians held rams as sacred. Clearly, there were cultural differences. But this doesn't mean that there were no other elements that Hebrew and Egyptian cultures had in common, or that the former didn't borrow anything from the latter.
Both the OT text and the archaeological and other evidence indicate that the Jews preserved their ancestral religious practices for many centuries. This doesn't mean that no strictly monotheistic group could have existed. Only that the vast majority became monotheistic many centuries later than usually assumed, as pointed out by the Wikipedia article, "possibly, as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC)".
A curious fact about the Moses myth that scholars have attempted to address is that neither he nor his brother Aaron made it to the promised land. How is it possible that the man chosen by God to lead the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan, inexplicably died before reaching the goal?
Indeed, not only did Moses and Aaron die in mysterious circumstances, but we are told that God himself buried Moses secretly!
One interesting solution proposed by Old Testament scholar and archaeologist Ernst Sellin is that Moses was an Egyptian who gave monotheism to Jews, rescued them, and in turn was killed by them in retaliation for the strict regulations he imposed on them. Freud adopted Sellin’s idea in his Moses and Monotheism.
Also of interest is that the Egyptian priest Manetho who wrote a history of Egypt in the 3rd century BC, similarly thought that the Moses myth is based on a renegade Egyptian priest who had made himself the leader of a religious group – another possible memory of Pharaoh Akhenaten who appointed himself high priest of the Aten/Adon cult.
Another Egyptian connection was seen by Philo who thought that Moses had been initiated into Egyptian philosophy (De vita Mosis). Quite possibly, these beliefs were based on oral traditions that were still in circulation at the time but that were regarded as inconvenient in certain circles, for which reason they were suppressed by Jewish and Christian authorities.
What seems certain is that an effort was made to erase the memory of Moses’ connections with Egyptian religion.
As observed by the Egyptologist Jan Assmann (Moses the Egyptian), “the most efficient way of erasing a memory is by superimposing on it a counter-memory”.
However, it isn’t only the memory of Moses’ Egyptian connections that is being suppressed. Another important piece in the historical puzzle that has become a casualty of the official narrative is that the dominant form of Judaism for many centuries was not what is officially being claimed.
What becomes clear from the OT text and is corroborated by archaeological and other evidence is that popular Judaism was a form of polytheism and that even in those cases where the Israelite God Yahweh was the principal deity, he was worshiped together with a female consort.
The OT has numerous references to Sun-worship and other forms of Paganism in Israel. To begin with, there seems to have been a tendency among Israelites, that is found in all neighboring cultures, to look on the Sun and other heavenly bodies as deities. Hence the OT’s warning against this: “When you look to the heavens and see the sun and moon and stars—all the host of heaven—do not be enticed to bow down and worship what the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19).
Despite all warnings, however, it seems that it was not uncommon for the populace to do just that, as indicated by the following law: “If a man or woman among you in one of the towns that the LORD your God gives you is found doing evil in the sight of the LORD your God by transgressing His covenant and going to worship other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven—which I have forbidden— and if it is reported and you hear about it, you must investigate it thoroughly, and you must bring out to your gates the man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you must stone that person to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).
Even the law failed to have much impact though, as we are told that the Israelite kings themselves observed those very practices: “the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets (2 Kings 23:5). Indeed, we are told that “all the cities of Judah had high places (places of Pagan worship) and sun images” (2 Chronicles 14:5).
Joseph Campbell writes:
So, basically, we are told about the conflict between prophet Jeremiah and his Pagan rivals in the 500’s BC. Historical records also show that in the same period there was a Jewish community on the island of Elephantine who had built a temple to God Yahweh and his female consort Anath.
The OT has another parallel passage:
The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians in 587 BC are said to have been caused by the "Pagan" worship of Jewish kings, including King Solomon himself. So, the religious practices prevalent at the time are clearly acknowledged.
The extent of “Pagan” worship in Israel has been conclusively demonstrated by numerous scholars from Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) to J G Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun).
As cities in the whole of Canaan worshipped one main deity for whom they were named, we can tell exactly what deities were worshipped: Beth-El (House of El), Beth-Shemesh (House of the Sun), Ir Shemesh (City of the Sun), Jericho (Yareakh, [City of] the Moon), Jerusalem (Ir Shalem, City of the Evening Star), etc.
The Pagan Gods That Still Exist in the Holy Land's City Names – Haaretz
Interestingly, not a single Israeli town or village is named after Yahweh. This suggests that the exclusive cult of Yahweh became established at a very late date, not at the time of King David as often assumed.
In fact, the OT clearly states that David was not allowed to build a temple to Yahweh and Solomon who did build the First Temple, also built shrines to other Gods.
Moreover, the Iron Age temple found at Tel Motza outside Jerusalem, which is from the period of Solomon, follows the established Near East temple architecture which suggests that the Judaism practiced there was not very different from the traditional religion of the region.
If we think about it, even if there had been one central temple in Jerusalem, like Solomon’s Temple, it is highly unlikely that the rural population, for example, would have taken the trouble to travel all the way to Jerusalem to worship some invisible god, when local shrines to traditional deities were at hand as and when needed for everyday purposes.
An interesting case is that of an ancient local god called Reshef whose worship survived well into Hellenistic times when he became identified with the Greek God Apollo and his coastal city Arsuf became Apollonia.
And, as already stated, for several centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Jews had no problem conducting synagogue services in Greek and decorating their places of worship with images of the Greek Sun-God alongside mosaics with biblical themes.
In any case, Hellenistic influence at the time of Jesus is evidenced by the Greek names of some of his close disciples (Andrew, Phillip, Simon) and even members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin like Nikodemus. The population of Galilee was certainly multiethnic and multilingual, with Greek as the universal language, as was the first Christian community established at Antioch.
Obviously, there is a tendency in hardline reactionary circles to attempt to erase all memory of historical facts. Fortunately, modern archaeology is slowly but surely uncovering the truth and we must move forward with the recent findings instead of staying stuck in the 70’s or 80’s. Or in the 3rd century with Tertullian …. :smile:
It could not "perfectly well have meant" that. If it did then either the sun speaks, and walks, and gets angry and has hands and face or these things are all later amendments. But you have no evidence of such amendments. Based on the passage you cite, which you seem to illogically and inexplicitly assume was preserved in its ancient form, it is only by forcing the text to conform to your assumptions that it could mean what you claim.
Quoting Apollodorus
You are doing a good job of arguing against yourself. The issue with which we started was the pagan influence in Christianity that was not present in Judaism. By the time of Deuteronomy worship of the sun and moon and stars has not past of Jewish life.
You have gone on and on elaborating on things that others have already said. The religion developed and by the time of Jesus and his preaching regarding the law and prophets pagan beliefs that became part of Christianity had become foreign to Judaism.
Quoting Apollodorus
Of course not! You seem unaware of the stupidity of this observation.
Quoting Apollodorus
Once again, and you have refused to address this to the detriment of your argument, Greek names does not translate into Greek religious influence.
This is an important point.
Confluence and influence. Various stories and beliefs that are for one reason or another embraced, are embellished, altered, and combined. There is a sense in which influence flows in both directions of time. On the one hand I do not think there is a linear progression, old ideas gain new currency. On the other, redaction distorts and erases the direction of influence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I find the ambiguity of the status of angels interesting. Their intermediary place has been fertile ground for the imagination.
Exactly.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, but also for the ancient Jews.. which is why they get attached to so much mysticism, including the messianic claimant, at various times in the history. I think there is definitely a lot to mine in the way of the Ebionite connection with Enoch tradition with Son of Man tradition with messiah.. It's like there was some odd ideas rolling around about a Son of Man that may have been a motif that was popular in the Jesus day. It was certainly talked about in the Babylonian Talmud:
I think the influence of an angelic superhero in 1st century Judaic thought, cannot be discounted.. The idea that Jesus, a messianic claimant, would be attached to this idea, might not then be unreasonable, and is sort of "kosher" in the sense of the popular mythos of its time. I can see Jesus' original followers seeing Jesus as some sort of incarnation of Enoch/Michael/Son of Man/Metatron (later figure), and that this motif of the messiah being attached to an angel, could be the first step thus making Jesus "othered".. I would argue that this first step would be still Judaic in its origins... It was the next steps of making Son of Man into a literal Son of God and apart of a the divine Logos, and a complete intercessor necessary to save humanity by way of his worship that Jesus becomes completely cut of from this first incarnation (as possibly represented by the Ebionites). In other words, there is room in this debate for a "squishy middle" whereby a "metaphysical" messiah was not out of the question of beliefs of Jews in 1st century Judea.. This does not mean later revisions of a full-fledged Son of God theology was present.. just that attachments with angels could have been a thing, being that Daniel's Son of Man imagery became popularized by later books like Enoch. Really the last step is to then attach Enoch/Son of Man to a messiah.. And even later Rabbinic writers seem to indicate that this was/is considered "kosher" tradition in Judaic thought.
That is what I had in mind.Quoting schopenhauer1
A son of man is also ambiguous and fertile ground for imagination. The imagination has always been an essential part of theology.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is in one sense a codification of behavior but in another an attempt to arrest the imagination. This is even more pronounced in Christianity.
Although there are a few notable exception the term 'god' is singular and refers to a unique being, the terms divine is used to refer to the elevated or supernatural status of angels by some but objected to by others. The passage from the Talmud points to the mistake of confusing what is divine a deity. Failure to understand the difference has caused @Apollodorus a great deal of confusion, especially with regard to his neoPlatonic interpretation of Plato, where he makes both the sun and the good gods and conflates this with the Christian God.
Quoting schopenhauer1
As with these other terms, messiah is a fertile imaginative ground. The question was not only who is the messiah but what is the messiah. I don't think the Hebrew expression translated as son of man, that is, 'ben adam', son of Adam, is ambiguous. It refers to a human being. I think it is in this sense that Jesus and his disciples used and understood the term.
Cyrus ll, Cyrus the Great, was, according to the Book of Isaiah, was anointed by God. (45:1) Anointed is the translation of the Hebrew word transliterated , as messiah. Here the term means liberator. There is a clear a clear connection here with the divine but Cyrus, although of elevated status is still human.
Given the diversity of beliefs within a fairly narrow range, it seems likely that different beliefs regarding such things sprouted.
Yep agreed on pretty much all of that.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yeah, but I think this was ambiguous and various groups interpreted it differently, including different Rabbis later on. A rationalist approach would be to say that it means "Mankind" specifically "Israel" or the "Elect" of Israel.. However, I think Enoch shows that there was definitely a more literal and concrete version of this as a title of Son of Man... That being some sort of angelic figure representing Man... So, I can see an ambiguous but logical line of thought that goes something like:
Jesus was baptized by John, and a sort of "spiritual union" happened whereby Jesus took on the characteristics or was the mouthpiece of the Son of Man angelic figure.. This original notion of "adaption of God" became more embellished. So they thought him a human, but one sort of possessed by the spirit of the Son of Man, a sort of redeemer angel. At the least, they though Jesus a harbinger for such a figure if not embodying the figure himself.
I know that the impulse is to point to another messianic claimant like Judas the Galilean or Simon Bar Kosiba (Kochba) as more military/practical messiahs, but as you state, I think the idea was ambiguous enough for it to really be various flavors.. One flavor was a more prophetic Son of Man.. The other was to be a triumphant military leader. Things like this.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yeah political redeemer for sure, but how this was supposed to manifest was probably very nebulous and looked different to different groups and people. I just think Son of Man was probably one form of it was popular. The very fact it needs to be addressed in the Talmud tells us that it was at least part of the discussion. The rabbis didn't discount Enoch/Metatron, they just reprimanded against elevating him too highly.. Clearly he was seen as part of the divine hierarchy.. The question becomes, was Enoch/Metatron at all believed to be some part of the messianic claimants identity? I think there can be some proof for this, and the original Jesus movement (very early I am talking) could have represented this.. prior to his becoming elevated to another thing altogether by later Greek writers and embellishments and separated from Judaic thought almost completely.
One problem with this is that Jesus died on the cross. Angels don't have bodies and don't die. But as you said earlier:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think this is part of the standard view found in both the HB and NT.
The miracles that Moses performed were not the result of him being more than human. The metaphysical connection is the power of God.
This is not to say that some may have seen things differently. Judaism never had the dogmas and "official" doctrines that Christianity does.
Yep true.. However, the Torah seems to be a product of about the 600s-400s BCE, with the prophets ranging from 800s-200s BCE (Daniel being one of the later ones) not the 1200s BCE. That being said, it isn't very far down the line of its compilation that we see a lot of variations start to take place regarding its interpretations.. So Daniel is already an oddity (along with Ezekiel), regarding its more elaborate metaphysical visions. Daniel is especially nebulous, especially in regards to Son of Man.. We also know that apocrypha like the Book of Enoch seems to also have been popular and puts Enoch in the light of a hero person who becomes an angel.. Angels in general become quite a popular motif, not just in the apocrypha communities but in Rabbinic circles as evidenced by quotes I just presented. It is not a stretch that by the time of the 1st century angelic associations with a messiah would be prominent. It may be one "kosher" view of a messiah in that the messiah is not "quite" divine, but is very much blessed with the spirit of the divine in some metaphysical way, but not quite divine himself, if that makes sense. If an man can ascend to an angel, it can be a weird notion, but perhaps angel descend to at least be a spiritual mouthpiece through a man. That sort of thinking.
Readers of the OT tend to focus on the creation story in Genesis. But the fact is that there are numerous references to creation in Psalms. Psalms is also one of the OT books where some interesting defining characteristics of the biblical God are found. In addition to being described as a luminous force and as “covering himself with light as with a garment”, he “rides on the clouds as on a chariot”, he makes his ministers “a flaming fire”, and the hills “smoke at his touch” (Psalm 104).
In ancient religions, the Sun-God is often associated with a mountain (or pair of mountains) from which he is said to rise. For example, the Ancient Akkadian Sun-God Shamash rises from a great mountain and lights up the world. The God of Israel also resides on a hill, namely Mount Zion (Isaiah 8:18; Psalm 74:2).
Zion (Zi-On) may be derived from Hebrew ?iyya ("desert") and Egyptian Iwnw or Wn Thus, “On of the Desert”, an Ancient Egyptian city and center of the cult of the Sun-God Aten, known as Heliopolis (City of the Sun) in Hellenistic times.
1 Samuel 6 relates that the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem from Beth Shemesh (House/Temple of the Sun). There are several places of that name in Israel, but Beth/Beit Shemesh also refers to the Egyptian city Iwnw/Wn a.k.a. Heliopolis, above.
2 Samuel 5:7-9 states that king David “took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David … So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David.”
There is no historical evidence for a Hebrew king of the name “David”. However, there is plenty of evidence for an Egyptian pharaoh called Thutmose (Twt-Ms, “son or heir of Twt) III whose name in Hebrew would be Dwd (Dawid/David). We know from the original royal archives that Thutmose III led a series of military campaigns into Canaan (see Battle of Megiddo) and Syria, in which the Ark of the Sun-God (a portable shrine holding the statue of the God, or a miniaturized replica of it mounted on a pole like a standard) was carried at the head of the advancing army:
- Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 236
Thutmose (Dawid-Mose) III was one of Egypt’s greatest rulers and military leaders, comparable to Alexander the Great. It is highly unlikely that the Israelites who lived next door to Egypt and whose land (Canaan) was an Egyptian colony for many centuries, would have failed to preserve some memory of him. After all, they did remember Pharaoh Necho II defeating and killing King Josiah at Megiddo a few centuries later (2 Kings 23:28-29).
Therefore, it seems that the OT has preserved some of Thutmose's memory, but under the Hebrew version of the name (Dawid). Moreover, Thutmose belonged to Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty whose founder was Ahmose (Aa-Mose or Ia-Mose) I, another notable Egyptian ruler whose name connects the OT narrative with Egypt.
In any case, key factors that shouldn’t be ignored include the following:
The Hebrews came to Canaan from Egypt where the Sun-God Aten was the principal deity, and Akhenaten’s cult had the Sun-God as sole deity.
The Ark was reportedly brought to Jerusalem from a place called “House/Temple of the Sun” (1 Samuel 6).
The First Temple was built by Solomon who was the son-in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh and who built shrines to the Sun-God.
When the Temple was dedicated, it got filled with the light of God which was so strong that the priests could not stay inside the temple to do their work (1 Kings 8:11).
The temple structure excavated at Tel Motza outside Jerusalem, which is from the period of Solomon, follows established pre-Israelite temple architecture with east-facing entrance to enable the rising sun to illumine the cult statue located in the interior.
When Josiah (640-609 BC) became king, he found horses and chariots, which the previous kings of Judah had dedicated to the Sun, at the Temple entrance (2 Kings 23:11), and his successors continued the same “Pagan” practices all the way to the destruction of the Temple by Babylon in 587 BC.
The fact is that though regarding the Sun as a deity is condemned in the OT, it is also described as official practice of Israelite kings from Solomon to the destruction of the First Temple. And if Sun worship was practiced, it stands to reason that there were also prayers and hymns to the Sun. The similarity of OT psalms to parallel texts from the Akkadian and Egyptian traditions is indeed striking:
- B.R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, p. 644
Indeed, even in later religion, the Sun in said to be under the control of God, which makes all its actions the actions of God. Whether the Sun acts independently as a deity in its own right or under the control of a higher deity, makes little difference to mankind in practical terms.
All facts considered, I think it stands to reason that references to the Sun (Shemesh) such as Psalm 84:11 may constitute evidence of the divinity of the Sun among the Israelites. If we think about it, the chances that an Israelite who saw the Sun in everyday life as a deity and built shrines to it, would have seen it any differently in a hymn, are pretty slim, not to say nonexistent. Of course, things may have changed many centuries later, when the text was edited to put a more "Yahwist" spin on it.
In the final analysis, it is evident that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value, and that, by comparison, the NT is more consistent and more credible. This is why outdated mythologies must be corrected by attested facts. A major source of resistance to truth is religious fanaticism as manifested among other things by the Muslim authorities’ refusal to allow excavations at the Temple Mount and other important archaeological sites.
Freud may be right, after all. The mysterious death and burial of Moses may be the expression of some Israelites' wish to bury his true identity and their past. But truth tends to come to light eventually ....
I wonder if there is a connection between an increased emphasis on the difference and distance between man and God. Is there a parallel between the increase of distance and an increase in the appearance of angels as intermediaries.
The idea just occurred to me. I have not tried to find support for it. One problem in doing so may be later redaction. Note the ambiguity between Genesis 18:1 and 2:
Is 2 a redaction reflecting later beliefs?
Hey, very well could be. But it was still angels visiting man.. I think the trend towards the end of the Bible and post-Biblical (apocrypha and Merkabah literature), was for Man to visit the Divine Realm, passing through various angels to get to the highest echelons.. But again, perhaps there were ideas of going back and forth... I could be off with my speculation.. It is purely piecing together possibilities. Son of Man perhaps was simply a metaphor for Israel or Mankind.. But there does seem traditions in various areas as Son of Man referring to a protector Angel..
[quote=Daniel 7] “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
The Interpretation of the Dream
15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this.
“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’
19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.[b]
26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’
28 “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.”[/quote]
You must remember the context within the story is that Daniel is basically enslaved in Babylon and having a dream vision.. Thus it makes sense to talk about evil empires (the beasts) falling away and the holy people of Most High (my guess is the Israelites, or the righteous amongst the Israelites) will rule forever at the End of Days kind of thing..
So again, "that like a son of man" could be simply "Israel" or "the Kingdom of Israel". However, in Enoch 1 we see Son of Man as an actual character.. Most historians believe this to be pre-Christian.. but must have had a huge influence if it was on the proto-group..
Also, Son of Man in the form of Metatron (not just Enoch as the first two books but the name of the angelic being itself is associated with Metatron), is seen in Enoch 3.. Enoch 3 is written much later and is interesting in that it is RABBINICAL in nature.. That is to say, the ascent to heaven is through a famous Talmudic Rabbi..:
The more you attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you dug the deeper down you go. It follows from your claims that the sun covers "himself" with light. Why would the sun cover "himself" with light? Is the light of the sun not enough? Does it need light to cover its light?
Quoting Apollodorus
You are not the only one who can play this juvenile game:
The "Fool on a the Hill" also lives on a hill.
But a hill top is not a mountain top. Davy Crockett was born on a mountain top.
Quoting Apollodorus
What is your source? The Hebrew letter dalet (with the dot) ?? is pronounced as 'd' not as 'th'. In addition, 'th' in the first part of Thutmose is not the same as the 't' at the end. There are, however, different pronunciation guesses. Most pronounce the first part differently than the last.
Quoting Apollodorus
First, there is about a 400 year gap between Thutmose lll and King David. Second, it there is a connection it would not be a matter of preserving Thutmose's memory but of erasing it.
Quoting Apollodorus
Beth Shemesh was named by the Canaanites.
Quoting Apollodorus
It is not clear whether this an attempt to distort the truth in order to save your failed argument or simply a reflection of your ignorance.
This is not evidence of Jewish worship of a sun god or any other god other then the God of the people. Solomon turned away from his God. That is the point. See God's response to what Solomon did.
Quoting Apollodorus
The East, the Hebrew word means "the direction of the rising sun", does not derive its significance from pre-Israelite temple architecture. The garden of Eden was planted in the east. (Genesis 2:8) God was not following established pre-Israelite temple landscape architecture.
Quoting Apollodorus
Once again you undermine your own argument. If the sun is under the control of God then clearly the sun is not God.
Quoting Apollodorus
We are not talking "in practical terms", but the question of worship.
Quoting Apollodorus
Correction: it stands to your perversion of facts and reason.
Quoting Apollodorus
Your "final analysis" does not even begin to address the lack of consistency and credibility in the NT.
It seems that the more you're attempting to "think" the more you're demonstrating your inability to do so! :smile:
Why would Yahweh need to cover himself with light? Or ride on the clouds, make his ministers “a flaming fire”, make the hills “smoke at his touch”, etc., etc.?
Why would Yahweh need to reside on a hill like other deities in the region?
Thutmose's memory was erased by preserving it in a distorted form, as suggested by eminent Egyptologists and other scholars who know what they are talking about and don't require your opinion.
Beth Shemesh may have been named by the Canaanites. But the Hebrews were Canaanites:
Canaan - Wikipedia
And Beth Shemesh was also the Hebrew name for the Egyptian city On a.k.a. Heliopolis.
The fact that English "Jesus" is phonetically distinct from Greek I?soûs and Aramaic Y?š?a, does not mean that it doesn't refer to the same person. Likewise, "Twt"/"D?wtj" (Thut) and "Dwd" (Dawid) are phonetically sufficiently close to represent distinct yet related pronunciations of the same name.
Or take English "David" and Arabic "D?w?d". Different pronunciations of the same name. There is nothing unclear about this.
The issue is not whether Sun worship was "against the rules" but that it was practiced for many centuries. The OT (2 Kings 23:5) indisputably states that the kings of Judah including Solomon, dedicated horses and chariots to the Sun and appointed priests to serve the Sun and other deities. This is corroborated by the archaeological and other evidence (see J G Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun).
The Solomon-era temple excavated at Tel Motza has nothing to do with "the Hebrew word for the direction of the rising sun", but with the fact that its entrance is oriented toward the east, a common feature in Near East temple architecture intended to allow sunlight to enter the temple at sunrise:
Tel Motza - Wikipedia
These are well-known and undisputed facts, that don't need your approval.
The Sun was originally regarded as a deity in its own right and later as controlled by a higher deity. Again, this is a historical fact, not a contradiction.
More importantly all of this is nothing more than an attempt to bury the real issues regarding Judaism at the time of Jesus and the pagan influences of Christianity. Judaism had changed significantly by this time.
First you attempt to bypass Judaism and go straight from neoPlatonism to Jesus. When that failed you attempt to make Judaism indistinguishable from other religions.
Yep.. We have to be careful to understand the stability and solidity of ideas in the right context of their time period. By the time of the Second Temple, Judaism went from a henotheistic religion with heterogenous traditions to a very strong covenantal based/commandment based one. This is the Judaism Jesus would know. Retroactive mythologizing had already taken place by the time of the return from Babylon as to how Israelite history was perceived. It was to be perceived as a covenant that goes back to the figure of Moses, with commandments, to an immaterial godhead, with pilgrimage festivals to a central Temple location in Jerusalem, etc. Except in variations like Philo's clearly Hellenistic influences in the diaspora, this was the core of Judaic thought.
I almost forgot "Todd the Polka King". Here we see both T and D. Some pronounce this Dot. This has caused a great deal of confusion because he had a sister named Dot. And as if that was not enough they had a brother named Tad, although some insisted that Tad and Todd were actually the same person. One intriguing piece of evidence is a scrap of paper that says: "Dat polka playa", clearly showing that T and D are just different pronunciations of the same letter. Which explains why when the two or three of them were young they were called tots.
There are a few things touched on here in Francesca Stavkakopoulou's "God: An Anatomy". A few key points,(pages 386-387):
As the pantheon of gods shrinks to one, the angels proliferate. The idea that this god is the source of both good and evil is rejected. Evil is ascribed the agency of some of the angels. She points to the book of Job. Job asks his wife:
"The Satan" is introduced by a second writer as part of a junior council of gods. It is the Satan and not God who becomes responsible for Job's afflictions. And, I might add, our own.
From about the third century BCE the anonymous divine messengers became a hierarchical organization of angelic beings, headed by powerful archangels, with distinct roles and personalities. Most prominently Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. On the other side a group of malevolent supernatural adversaries of God.
Yes, but of course this is all basically accepted as consensus.. The question is to what extent the apocalyptic angels were widespread in all Jewish circles. For example, did Pharisees put a lot of stock in angels. Though I acknowledge the fact that the Talmud was written much later, I think the passages about Metatron in the Talmud and Enoch 3 show that it indeed was thoroughly part of most sects by the 1st century.. not just pockets of apocalyptic/Essenic movements. These were major themes there were diffused throughout.
I think there has been a tendency in modern times to ensure that emphasis on angels were simply a Christian thing.. But it could have come from the same Judaic pool. The very major difference became when groups started separating the commandments (Ezra/Nehemiah's centrality of Mosaic Law of Second Temple Judaism reconstruction), from the mystical.
This is especially expected when Jewish Christianity (30-135 CE, very small early followers and family based near Jerusalem) became Gentile Christianity (timeline overlapping with Jewish Christianity from Paul.. 50 CE-325 CE and beyond), and the covenantal/commandment nature of an ethnic-based religion of the people of Judah (Judaism) gave way to universalist tendencies that were created from the synthesis of various figures like Paul and the Book of John, and early Church Fathers in general, creating the new religion, layer upon layer.. to become the basis for full-fledged "Christianity" representative of the Nicene Creed. Simply put, ethnic-based commandments were not useful to Gentiles who had no use for it.. Much easier to retain and emphasize were the mystical elements as influenced by Daniel/Enoch/Apocalyptic literature....
We can maybe speculate:
Sadducees...very little mystical influence.. commandments were central, but most purity laws were simply belonging to Priestly class.. more Epicurean version of reality as the here and now.. perhaps simply pre-Second Temple Judaic ideas of God's efficacy only matters in THIS life...makes sense for the Elite who were more interested in current power structures that maintained their authority).
Pharisees...a moderate amount of mystical influence... commandments were central, purity laws to be followed by all Jews (Ezra's Constitution), mystical elements influenced by Zoroastrianism/Persia.. End of Times, resurrection, angels, souls, etc.
Essenes/apocalyptic groups... varying views of commandments from more extreme versions than Pharisees (Dead Sea Scroll sect which may have just been a breakoff Sadducees that disagreed with lax version in Jerusalem), to more emphasis on mystical elements only..
I believe the mythos of the mystical elements (such as hierarchies of angels) had such a hold on certain populations, that rabbis feared that people would only be preoccupied with these speculations and not the commandments. That is why they condemned the average person from speculating what is above and below and beginning and end of time. Note, that they didn't deny such things, they just didn't want it to overtake the commandments and their centrality to Second Temple (and post Temple) Judaic practice. They still held such views as sacred and practiced Merkabah "ascent" mystical practice whereby they tried to ascend the heavens, encountering certain angels, for some theosophical vision of the Divine Chariot.
That being said, I think Jesus fit into this broader Jewish context.. He had studied the Law and major debates to some extent (possibly Hillelite Pharisee), but was also influenced by the major trend of angeology.. So the Son of Man imagery was useful to identify with.. This was the redeemer and protector angel of Israel, come to show man the Final Days.. Surely, if a man sees himself as a represenative (in some way) of this angel, then this gives an even more urgent impetus on the messiah's part.. In a way, Jesus is trying to check all the boxes that were popular at the time for what the messiah was to be..
1) Descended from David (check.. even if that can never be confirmed.. but it couldn't be denied! At the least, Joseph was probably not a Kohein or Levite, which means he could just be Judah/Israelite)
2) Had proper view of the Law [of course contingent to being convinced by it].. (check, Hillel-style common man view of commandments.. You can heal on the Sabbath, etc.).
3) Heralding the Kingdom of Heaven and trying to appeal to the poor and Lost Sheep of Israel..
4) Challenging corrupt forces and Empires that were controlling Israel and Jerusalem.. check
5) Son of Man redeemer come to herald the End of Times..Check!
There are various other ways too..
Of course, Jesus died and the End of Times did not occur and this posed an existential dillemma for a group centered around a charismatic leader.
Anyways, I just wanted to highlight some of these points in how Jesus fit into the context of his time.
Yep, you've already exposed your total ignorance of the subject, so there is no need to do it again. :grin:
However, the fact is that the OT not only says that Yahweh (Adonai) is the Sun and the protector of his followers, but also calls him “the Sun of Righteousness”:
In Mesopotamian religion, i.e., right next door to Israel/Canaan, the Sun-God Shamash was the God of truth, justice, morality, and healing.
Shamash was said to ride through the heavens in his sun chariot and see all things that happened in the day. Therefore, he knew everything and enforced divine justice on earth.
The Sun-God was symbolically represented as a winged Sun Disk throughout the region (Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia) and as such was used for protection.
Representations of the winged Sun Disk occur on the cult stand from Taanach near Megiddo (11th-10th centuries BC) and other artifacts from across the country attesting to the prevalence of a solar cult in Israel.
The winged Sun Disk even appears on the seals of the kings of Judah in the period the OT was composed (700's and 600's BC):
Winged Sun – Wikipedia
As the Book of Malachi that calls Yahweh/Adonai "Sun of Righteousness" was composed in the 400’s, this shows the enduring influence of the pre-exilic Sun cult, promoted by the kings of Judah, on post-exilic Judaism. Moreover, as the Sun-God continued to be officially worshiped in next-door Egypt where there were large Jewish communities, and Israel at the time was under Persian and later Greek rule during which the Sun was an important deity, this influence persisted for several centuries and re-emerged in the early centuries AD as can be seen from Hellenized Jewish synagogues with representations of the Greek Sun-God Helios.
The Metamorphosis of the Sun God in Ancient Synagogues in Israel – Haaretz
Note that this was in Israel, NOT Alexandria!
Obviously, the importance of the Sun in Jewish thought decreased over time, but its central place in earlier forms of Judaism is indisputable, as shown by Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun) and many other scholars.
Incidentally, it is a well-known fact (except, perhaps, to the blind and the unthinking) that the Sun surrounds or “covers” itself with its own light “as with a garment”, which is precisely why it has always been represented as a disk or orb surrounded by rays of light!
So, I think Psalm 104 makes perfect sense in a solar context, unless you can explain to us why Yahweh is riding on clouds and making the hills smoke:
Anyway, your vehement denial of established facts can only serve to expose your ignorance and your inability to think. But feel free to converse with your alter ego who, unsurprisingly, seems to relish your counterfactual claims .... :smile:
The history of Ancient Israel is inextricably intertwined with that of Egypt, though not in the way that is usually assumed.
The Bible states that Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph already lived in Egypt. It also says that Moses was born in Egypt and raised at the royal palace, that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, that he could not speak Hebrew, etc. Indeed, his very name is Egyptian, as recognized by Philo and Josephus.
But history shows that there is much more to the story if we take into account the Egyptian side of it which is missing in the OT narrative.
Pharaoh Ahmose (or A-Moses) I is one of Egypt’s most celebrated rulers. In the second millennium BC, Lower (North) Egypt and part of Upper (South) Egypt were controlled by foreign rulers of Eastern (Levantine) origin, known as Hyksos.
Ahmose/A-Moses, the ruler of Upper Egypt, liberated the North from the foreign rulers, united the country, thus establishing the New Kingdom of Egypt, and restored Egyptian control over Canaan. From the 1500’s BC, Canaan was firmly under Egyptian control. Thus, there would have been no Hebrew population in Egypt capable of invading and taking over Canaan at the time of Moses (13th century BC), and there is no evidence whatsoever that there was.
According to the Book of Kings (re-edited in the 500's BC), the law of Moses was mysteriously "discovered" in the Temple in the late 600's BC during the reign of king Josiah (2 Kings 22:8).
If Moses existed as described in the OT, he may or may not have introduced a new religion. But this religion was not widely known or observed until many centuries after Moses, according to some scholars not until the 2nd century BC.
This was followed by a long period of increasingly Hellenized Judaism:
Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time, most Jews had no reason to resist Hellenistic influence, though a small nationalistic-minded group may have done so. Jesus was definitely not one of them.
In any case, Hellenistic influence on Jesus and on the Greek-speaking Jewish community in general (e.g., Philo) is evident not only from language and culture, but also from well-known philosophical concepts like “perfection”.
In the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions. In contrast, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection:
To strive to become perfect, to see the truth perfectly, etc. is exactly what Plato thought centuries before:
The aim of becoming perfect or godlike is common to Greek philosophy and Christianity alike, and I think it is safe to say that this is due to Hellenistic influence, and that Jesus used a blend of religious and philosophical currents to convey his message, most likely in the universal language of the time which was Greek.
According to Stavrakopoulou it was not at that time widespread. Of course much of the evidence for such beliefs comes from written works, that is from scribes. These works reflect their views and not necessarily what initially were more commonly accepted views. In what she writes she does not identify scribal circles and apocalyptic groups with particular sects,
Quoting schopenhauer1
She places the development of changing beliefs in angels in the third century BCE and eschatological beliefs in the second century BCE, well before Jesus.
Quoting schopenhauer1
An important layer is pagan belief in human gods and offspring of men and gods. We do find the sons of gods and daughters of women in Genesis 6. Whatever this might mean, such a thing was not part of Jewish beliefs during the time of Jesus. We do find, however, the pagan misunderstanding of the HB term 'son of God' and 'sons of God'
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yeah, leave it to the professionals. I think there was probably more that a little jockeying for power and authority here.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think it is an open question how much are things ascribed to him rather than things he took to be true of himself.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And the explanations his followers found to overcome what might have been the end rather than the beginning for them was quite a feat!
Well, and that is the main argument we are discussing, right? So my whole post earlier was about whether Son of Man as a redeeming angel could have been a realistic view in 1st century Judaic thought, and I believe it was. I don't even think it would have, by default, even be opposed by Pharisaic thought, pace evidence in Enoch 3 and the Talmud's description of Metatron and ascent literature. In other words, were there certain "trends" at various times in Jewish history for how the Messiah was to present himself? I think there is good argument for yes.
Look at examples like Abraham Abulafia, and Solomon Molko, two kabbalist-mystical type messiah claimants versus Bar Kochba or David Reubeni, two militaristic-type claimants.
Even though Rashi, a highly revered Rabbi of France, is much later in Rabbinic Judaism (1000s CE), he may have preserved earlier traditions with his commentary on Daniel where he indeed stated that the one like a son of man is indeed the Messiah.. Then in the Babylonian Talmud itself you have this passage:
In Sanhedrin 98a of the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Alexandri tries to solve the contradiction of Daniel's vision and Zechariah's vision of the Messiah.. He said that if the Messiah is deserved then he comes from clouds in Heaven like in Daniel, and if not deserved, riding on a donkey like in Zechariah.. You can clearly see the writers trying to make Jesus a messiah for all the en vogue conceptions as such.. Probably from traditions where these rabbis got their traditions.. So it is clear based on this evidence that the one like a son of man was indeed interpreted as the Messiah even in Rabbinical Judaism, as is shown in the Talmud and Rashi.
Anyone who reads through this knows what's what.
Quoting Apollodorus
Do you think that by repeating this yet again it becomes true? You attempt to give a literal reading to something that makes no sense when read literally.
Quoting Apollodorus
And yet you go on and on and on. None of this makes any difference to the issues you are trying to bury. Namely, the influence of paganism on Christianity. Whatever views may have been held hundreds of years earlier, does not address the view of Judaism at the time of Jesus.
From the article in Haaretz:
(Yup, more stuff you skipped)
All of this stands in opposition to your claim that they worshipped the sun as a god.
Quoting Apollodorus
It is not a given. It is a claim you have failed to substantiate. The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. They did not accept a trinity of gods.
Quoting Apollodorus
The term had a specific meaning:
[quote="Wiki Matthew 5:48"]In Jewish scripture certain individuals such as Abraham and Noah are referred to as perfect because of their obedience to God. In these passages perfect is used as a synonym for complete, and perfect obedience to God is simply complete obedience to God./quote]
Now your game of word association may reveal something about your psychological make-up but says nothing about Judaism at the time of Jesus.
I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you making a distinction between a son of god and a son of man? And/or between a son of man and one like a son of man?
I don't know how much of an of emphasis was put on distinctions between these terms.
Angels do in some cases to look like men. The story of Abraham's visitors is puzzling. The Lord appeared but when Abraham looked up he saw three men. A bit later:
Genesis 19 begins:
Is this just two stories joined together without due care? Or is the ambiguity intentional? Are they men or like a son of man? Men or angels? Perhaps it has something to do with what you suggested earlier, to keep the average person from speculating. Or maybe such speculation leads not just the average person but rather human beings from speculating about divine matters.
In most cases 'son of man' refers to a human being. I do think it possible that some regarded son of man as it referred to the messiah as a reference to an angelic rather than human being. But this creates all kinds of problems if one also regards Jesus as the messiah and that he suffered and died on the cross.
Then again, perhaps none of these issues was of much concern. What was of concern an anointed one who would save or redeem the righteous or the people. I think it is even possible that Jesus' disciples may have held differing beliefs and expectations of the kingdom at hand.
The OT says they did in the First Temple period!
And you're obviously unable to grasp the concept of "Hellenistic Judaism". Regarding Hellenized synagogues in Israel, the Haaretz article says very clearly:
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-the-metamorphosis-of-the-sun-god-in-ancient-synagogues-in-israel-1.9157775
No one is saying that the Jews worshiped the Greek or Greco-Roman Sun-God, though some Jews may have done just that, in the same way some modern Jews worship Jesus.
But the Jewish God they worshiped was "portrayed as a solar deity", exactly as in the First Temple period and before, because that was how Hellenistic Judaism, the dominant form of the religion, conceived of God at the time.
The article states in unambiguous terms:
Can't you read??? Rabbinic Judaism, or what you counterfactually choose to imagine Judaism "must have been" at the time, did not exist. It's something that emerged centuries later, after the decline of Hellenistic influence and the rise of Christianity and Islam.
I bet you even walk on all fours. Or maybe on a zimmer frame .... :smile:
You said:
Quoting Apollodorus
And:
Quoting Apollodorus
And:
Quoting Apollodorus
And:
Quoting Apollodorus
You are trying to backpedal on your claim that they worshipped the literal sun.
It should be noted that the temples in question were built between 1,500 and 1,700 years ago. Long after the period in question. You skipped over this important fact. The article you are relying on said:
The article places the rise of Hellenistic Judaism after the death of Jesus.
As to the Roman cult:
EMPEROR WORSHIP, the Roman cult established during the reign of Augustus, first in the provinces but not in Italy, and practiced throughout the Roman Empire. It is the direct continuation of the Hellenistic worship of the ruler. Emperor worship first appeared in Palestine during the reign of *Herod the Great. Although it was completely unacceptable to the Jewish population, Herod could nevertheless not afford to lag behind other vassal princes in establishing the cult. Roman Cult
Basically.. one like the son of man in Daniel was ambiguous but popular interpretation was that it represented the messiah.. That this figure was later also attached with angelic being (like Enoch/Metatron), and the Jesus was (at least portrayed as) some sort of representative of this son of man figure who was to herald the End of Times.
Quoting Fooloso4
Oh sure, it all has to be retroactively justified.. but I am just arguing that people could have thought of him as a sort of "Son of Man" representative.. Adapted to this title perhaps.. some special status conferred to him.
Quoting Fooloso4
Well, I agree there were differing beliefs of the characteristics of a messiah. I actually think the Gospel writers were trying their best to fit him into various versions of popular messianic belief (descended from David, riding a donkey on his way into Jerusalem, Son of Man title, etc.).
Again, look at Sanhedrin 98a again and see that this at least matches up with the Rabbis' interpretation of Messiah coming on clouds of Heaven (if deserved) and a donkey (if not deserved).
You are confused. First they worshiped the Sun as God, then God as the Sun, and then God as God. And later some turned to Marx .... :smile:
Quoting Fooloso4
Nonsense. It became more influential after Jesus, but it started centuries earlier. The region had been under Greek control from around 300 BC:
Lester L. Grabbe, Hellenistic Judaism
Quoting Fooloso4
Nope. NOT "the Roman cult", but "a Roman cult".
It was a form of the Roman cult. Or, more precisely, a Greco-Roman cult (hence "Hellenistic Judaism") in which the Jewish God was artistically represented as the Greek Sun-God and, presumably, associated with the Sun, just as among Christians Jesus was represented in a similar way to God Apollo, i.e., as a beardless young man with long hair and a solar halo around his head:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/%22The_good_Shepherd%22_mosaic_-_Mausoleum_of_Galla_Placidia.jpg
Emperor Worship - Jewish Virtual Library
Though Jews adopted aspects of the Roman or Greco-Roman cult, it doesn't mean they adopted emperor worship. There is nothing unclear there except to the ignorant and the confused ....
More backpedaling. When you say:
Quoting Apollodorus
that is quite different than saying that at one time Judaism had such beliefs.
Quoting Apollodorus
So, the article you present as authoritative is nonsense? You even quoted from it:
Quoting Apollodorus
No particular Roman cult is the Roman cult. The Roman cult is a term that cover the particular cults. Such hairsplitting is tediously argumentative.
There you go. Once again you undermine your own argument!
Quoting Apollodorus
Exactly! And yet you underline that the article said it was a Roman cult.
The question remains in what way Judaism in the time of Jesus was influenced by paganism? Not by worshipping the sun and not by worshipping a man. Unless you can identify these pagan practices and beliefs at this time then any pagan influence evident in Christianity was foreign to Jesus' Judaism.
:lol:
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Common sense 101!
From what I can see, the only one that is backpedaling here – to pre-kindergarten levels of discourse – is you! :rofl:
For your information, Haaretz isn’t “my authority”, I merely quoted the article as an example of mainstream knowledge of which you appear to be ignorant.
By “Judaism” I meant Judaism in its historical form in the period under discussion, i.e., from its beginnings in Ancient Canaan, not Modern Judaism which is a totally different story!
“A Roman cult” can be ANY cult observed by inhabitants of the Roman Empire, e.g. the worship of a particular deity. “Imperial cult” is the worship of the emperor. They are two TOTALLY different things. Hellenistic Judaism was the former but not the latter. Very simple and easy to understand - to normal people, that is.
Hellenistic Judaism “flowered” in the 4th and 5th centuries in the sense that it increased in influence and appeal, not that it started at that time! A plant sprouts, grows, and flowers at successive points in time without ceasing to be the same plant. Hellenistic Judaism was established before Jesus, it was growing at the time of Jesus and flowered after him. Are you sure English is your first language???
History has records of a pharaoh Ah-Mose(s) I, who was Egypt’s national hero, but not of a Hebrew leader of that name. In fact, “Moses” itself is an Egyptian word meaning “son” or “heir” (“ms”) to which the Greek ending “-es” was later added, as already recognized by Philo and Josephus.
ms – Wiktionary
Egyptian “ms” (Hebraized as “moshe” and Hellenized as “moses”), was often added to the name of a deity to form a personal name. In this case, Ah-Mose(s) birth name was “Jah” or “Aah” (the word for “moon”) + “ms”. On being crowned king, he assumed the official title Nb-Pehti-Re (“Lord-Strength-Sun”).
The OT does mention a prophet Amos and an “Amoz”, but the information provided is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the origin of the name or the identity of the character(s). Quite possibly, Amos/Amoz is a distorted memory of Ah-Mose(s) as is Moses himself. It must be remembered that as pharaoh, Ah-Mose(s) was not only the head of the Egyptian state, but also the religious leader.
Another OT name that may be linked to Pharaoh Ah-Mose is King Mesha of Moab. However, as with Moses and Amos, the evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions.
All that can be said is that, unlike the historical Pharaoh Ah-Mose who was Egypt's political and religious leader, the Hebrew Moses is a legendary and, possibly, ahistorical figure.
Indeed, having been under Egyptian control for centuries, the whole of Canaan and particularly the Israelites (who allegedly had lived in Egypt) must have preserved some memory of a great leader like Ah-Mose in the same way Persians preserved memories of Alexander the Great, for example.
However, just as Alexander in Persia’s national memory became Iskandar/Sekandar and son of a Persian king, not a Greek, so also Israelite memory of Ah-Mose gradually began to fade and was reconstructed centuries later when a new national consciousness had rendered Jewish history inconvenient or embarrassing and a conscious effort was made to erase and rewrite it to fit a new political and religious ideology. The result was that Ah-Mose became Moses.
Additionally, as the OT text was composed centuries after the supposed time of “Moses”, and underwent subsequent editing, it is impossible to form an objective idea of the kind of religion he introduced, if any. This means that “the religion of Moses” is necessarily a retroactive construct.
This being the case, all we can do is to go by what evidence we have. The OT (2 Kings 22:8) states that “the book of the laws of Moses” was mysteriously “discovered” in the Jerusalem Temple by a priest named Hilkiah in the reign of King Josiah (c. 641-609 BC). We are also told that on the basis of that book the “original religion of Moses” was reinstated.
Now this event supposedly took place at the end of the First Temple period. Indeed, the Book of Kings was apparently composed in the 600’s BC and edited in the 500’s BC, after the destruction of the Temple.
So, what had been the religion of the Israelites prior to the "discovery of the laws of Moses"? The OT tells us exactly. It was a polytheistic religion centered on a solar deity (Sun-God) and his female consort Anath or Asherah a.k.a. “Queen of Heaven”. On the Island of Elephantine, there was even a Jewish temple dedicated to Yahweh and Anath.
Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine - JSTOR
The OT also states that Sun worship was introduced by King Solomon, the builder of the First Temple, and promoted by his successors, the kings of Judah. This logically means that Sun worship formed a central part of Judaism throughout the First Temple period (957 BC to 587 BC), in other words, for the entire history of Judaism as official religion of the Jewish state!
The “Queen of Heaven” is equally mentioned as a central deity. Following the destruction of the First Temple and the deportation of the Jews to Babylon, Hilkiah’s son Jeremiah wrote his own book in which he described the religion of the Jews:
Jeremiah condemned this and cited it as the reason for the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. But in the same book we are told that the people in fact rejected the “religion of Moses” which the priestly elite apparently sought to enforce, as well as the claim that God was punishing them for following traditional religion:
This is a point also made by leading archaeologists like Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) who note that the periods corresponding to the reign of “renegade kings of Judah” were actually periods of relative peace and prosperity, which is inconsistent with claims of “divine displeasure”. Indeed, it makes little sense for God to allow traditional religion for centuries and then suddenly show his “wrath” and “punish” the people by sending in the Babylonians.
Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel · The BAS Library
As a matter of fact, the existence of a Goddess cult in Israelite religion has been suppressed for many centuries with words like “grove” being routinely substituted for “Asherah” in OT translations:
In addition, archaeological evidence shows that Jewish homes had house altars for cult images, like all other peoples in the region.
It follows that the modern concept of ancient Judaism as “the religion of Moses” is a highly idealized, i.e., imaginary one that is inconsistent with the evidence and with logic alike.
What remains to be considered is the religion of the Second Temple. The Temple was rebuilt in 516 BC. But at this point Judah was a province of the Persian Empire, the Persians having taken over the Babylonian Empire. So, the official religion of the empire was Zoroastrianism and traditional religion continued to be observed throughout the region.
Cult images seem to have gradually disappeared from Jewish homes, but there were still scriptural references to Yahweh associating him with the Sun and, in 333 BC Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, initiating the Hellenistic period that produced Hellenistic Judaism:
The evidence shows that the Hebrews were Canaanites and that their original religion and culture were Canaanite in character. In addition, Canaan was controlled by Egypt for many centuries, followed by Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. While the majority of the population naturally preserved its ancestral, i.e., Canaanite religion, the political leadership was influenced by the religions of their successive overlords (see the kings of Judah’s Sun-God seals), and this influence may have spread to some extent to the rest of the population.
In any case, there is no evidence that Judaism in its current form existed at any time in Ancient Israel. Hellenistic Judaism was a Jewish-Greco-Roman cult. And Rabbinic Judaism only began to replace Hellenistic Judaism in the 500’s AD.
So, the Judaism of Jesus’ time was not very different from Greco-Roman or Hellenistic religion. There was a central Temple at Jerusalem where animal sacrifice was practiced as in Greek and Roman religion. There was no emperor worship. God Yahweh was worshiped but he was probably associated to some extent with the Sun which was a prominent deity throughout the region as it had been for centuries, and which explains why Palestinian Jews saw Hellenistic representations of the Sun-God (or Yahweh as the Sun) in their synagogues as entirely acceptable and normal.
If this had been such a “scandalous” practice as some believe today, there would have been records of strong opposition to it. But no such opposition existed, because Jews were largely Hellenized, however inconvenient this may sound at present.
The problem, then, is cultural and psychological. People start with a retroactive construction of Judaism as a purely monotheistic and uniquely “Jewish” religion introduced in Canaan by “Moses” and his followers, and from this they extrapolate all kinds of conclusions that are not only unsupported but positively contradicted by the evidence. For example, the claim that the Jews (or their Hebrew/Canaanite ancestors) rejected all external influence.
The truth of the matter is that Hebrew religion and culture were heavily influenced by the religion and culture from which they emerged, i.e., the religion and culture of Canaan and surrounding areas. We know that the Hebrew calendar was borrowed from Babylon and that the Hebrew months were later given Babylonian names which they bear to this day:
As Canaan had been under Egyptian control for many centuries, the Hebrews prior to the adoption of the Babylonian calendar seem to have used an Egyptian-style calendar in which the months were referred to by numbers. Similarly, though Passover is said to commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, it also has parallels in the Egyptian spring festival Shemu and the Babylonian New Year’ festival (which fell in the month of Nisannu, March/April).
Even the term “messiah” (Hebrew mašía?) seems to be of Egyptian origin, the word msh (messeh) being connected with the ritual anointing of Egyptian kings. As the OT states, the Israelites, who admittedly did not have a king until that time, specifically requested to have a king “like all other nations” (1 Samuel 8:4-5).
Like all other peoples, Jews have always borrowed from other cultures and continue to do so. It’s time to let go of silly prejudices and acknowledge that the teachings of Jesus and his disciples may well have been influenced by Hellenistic concepts such as striving to become morally and spiritually perfect (teleios) as taught by Socrates and Plato, that are not found in the Hebrew Bible but appear in Greek-influenced Jewish thinkers of the first century AD like Philo of Alexandria.
Even resurrection (anastasis) has close parallels in Greek religion:
Early Christians were naturally aware of this. For example, Justin Martyr wrote:
Ultimately, by incorporating teachings from various traditions such as those of Greece and discarding others, Christianity was able to offer a powerful and timely message with a universal appeal, thus becoming a world religion, whilst Judaism in its Rabbinic form went in the opposite direction, rejecting Hellenism and remaining a self-centered national cult increasingly focused on the “Exodus” and “law of Moses” narrative.
What is the "period under discussion'? From its beginning around 1250 BCE to the temples you point to build between 1,500 and 1,700 years ago?
Quoting Apollodorus
Have you forgotten what is at issue? You pointed to the article about the temples which were not built until 1,500 to 1,700 years ago and underlined that Hellenistic Judaism is best understood as a Roman cult in order to support of your claim that:
The issue is not different Roman cults but rather what significance Hellenistic Judaism being a Roman cult had for the question of pagan belief in Judaism at the time of Jesus. This is a central question. You have not addressed it. Instead you have gone on page after page after page attempting to bury it
Quoting Apollodorus
Correct. See the definition of 'rise':
Quoting Rise
The start of a movement is not the rise of the movement. But such semantic differences distract from the issue. The question is how influential Hellenism was for Judaism at the time of Jesus?
The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. They did not accept a trinity of gods.
You obviously have zero knowledge or understanding of textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter.
I think I have demonstrated (1) that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value and (2) that the notion that the Jews in general were resistant to Greek thought or impervious to its influence is total bogus.
As per the OP, the issue at hand is Greek influence on Jesus. IMO Jesus' belief in moral and spiritual perfection (Matthew 5:48), resurrection and immortality (John 11: 25-25), Hades (Matthew 16:18), etc., is best explained as Greek influence.
Quoting Fooloso4
Well, that's precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to Greek influence on Jesus and other Christians!!!
So, I think what you urgently need is someone to teach you English. Or maybe a psychiatrist. So long & take care, Mr Foolo .... :smile:
An internet search followed by cut and paste is not textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter other than cut and paste.
Time after time I have pointed to your misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misrepresentation. But you just ignore it and more on to something else. I could point them out but what would be the point. You would not acknowledge and move on to something else. Although sometimes you do come back to it and repeat the same thing.
Quoting Apollodorus
You may be the only one who has argued otherwise. For example:
Quoting Apollodorus
The Psalms are not a theological doctrine. The fact of the matter is the Psalms are metaphorical.
Quoting Apollodorus
First, the statement contains weasel words such as "in general". What is at issue is something specific, something you continue to evade. Greek names and Greek language are not the same a theological influence. Second, there is evidence of resistance. I pointed to an example from Proverbs. Of course you ignored it.
Quoting Apollodorus
None of the examples you cite show a clear influence on Jesus. They do not show an influence on Jesus' Judaism. They show an influence on the authors of the NT texts. No one has dispute that influence.
I addressed the concept of perfection. Once again you ignored it and now repeat the same false claim. The term had a specific meaning:
— Wiki Matthew 5:48
Perfect obedience to God is not the result of Greek influence.
Quoting Apollodorus
In typical fashion you omit what does not fit your claim. Right above what you quoted from Wiki is a section on resurrection in ancient religions in the Near East including Egypt and Canaan, that is, in the lands the ancient Israelites. The influence does not come from the Greeks.
Quoting Apollodorus
Jesus might have used the term if he was addressing a Greek audience, but is more likely to have used the term 'Sheol' when talking to Simon Peter. The author is likely to have know the Hebrew Scriptures from Greek translation where Sheol is translated as Hades.
Quoting Apollodorus
No, that is precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to the Greek influence on pagan Christians!!! If Jesus preached strict adherence to the Laws and prophets he would not have accepted
the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men or the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god.
Keep digging.
If you keep swallowing and regurgitating your own illogical garbage and digging yourself in deeper and deeper, you'll soon drown in your own crap.
If Jesus had preached "strict adherence to the Laws and prophets" as understood by the religious authorities, he wouldn't have got killed by them in the first place, you twat!
He got killed by the Temple Taliban precisely because of his unorthodox teachings like being the Son of God and equal with God (John 5:18,10:25-38) which the Temple Taliban twisted into charges to the effect that he claimed to be the "king of the Jews" in order to get the Roman authorities involved and have him executed.
Jesus' teachings also included moral perfection instead of rituals and sacrifices (Matthew 5:48); resurrection and immortality (John 11: 25-25); future life in paradise instead of Sheol (Luke 23:43), etc. As pointed out by Justin Martyr, such teachings were already found in Hellenistic tradition.
I think it is evident from Jesus' statements that he was a pretty open-minded person who took the best from all traditions to forge a powerful and inspiring message to the world.
Obviously, his teachings were rejected by Jewish fundamentalists and extremists, but they were accepted by sufficient numbers of Jews and non-Jews to start a religious movement that sought to unite all believers and establish a universal faith, which is exactly what Christianity became.
You refuse to accept this because, as a committed anti-Christian, you like to paint Jesus (and, presumably, all Jews) as a narrow-minded and petty fanatic who couldn't have been a Christian and who would have rejected everything "Pagan" or Greek including language, philosophy, and culture!
It certainly doesn't make sense for Christians to have "falsified" and "Paganized" the teachings of some Jewish fundamentalist when many other religious teachers of all denominations and creeds were available for that purpose. In fact, they could have easily composed a random set of teachings and claimed that they came from God as others had done before, even without a teacher.
It follows that your spurious claims are not only unsupported by the evidence, but they don't stand to reason. So, as far as I am concerned, you haven't got a leg to stand on. But you can keep walking (or digging) on all fours if it makes you happy .... :grin:
There were no laws forbidding capital punishment and plenty of cases where it was given as the proper response to infractions.
Quoting Apollodorus
You ignore historical sources and appeal to the gospel of John.
Quoting Apollodorus
And appeal to a Christian apologist born 100 years after Jesus. In any case, you've got it backwards. Martyr tells a story of an old man who corrected his Platonism and told him of the Hebrew prophets:
Quoting Apollodorus
You may think so, but if we accept the Sermon on the Mount as indicative of his views, he was more rigorous and demanding than the Pharisees.
Quoting Apollodorus
Without Paul's claims about the Law and his conversion of Gentiles it is likely there would be no Christianity. His teachings run counter to Jesus'. According to Matthew Jesus said:
(Matthew 10:5,6 ESV).
This is consistent with what Paul says about his split with Peter.
As previously pointed out, which of course you ignored because it runs counter to your claims:
This is not Paul's message of salvation through faith or belief. It is a matter of obedience to the law and prophets. A matter of being perfect. In Hebrew: Tamim
Quoting Apollodorus
When you cannot adequately defend your claims you resort to personal and false accusations. Disagreeing with you does not make me anti-Christian. I paint Jesus as a man, not a god. This is against the Nicene Creed, but what was decided at the councils never was and is still not accepted by all Christians.
What you may presume about my view of "all Jews" finds no support in anything I have actually said, and is very far from my actual opinion. It has, however, been noted by several participants in this discussion that you have attempted to erase Judaism, going right from neoPlatonism to Jesus as if Judaism is little more than a collection of foreign influences. This seems like a case of projection on your part.
You might have some success with your rhetorical tactics might work with some but I have been quite clear and consistent in saying that what is at issue is not "everything Pagan" but theological claims about divinity.
Quoting Apollodorus
What makes no sense is your claim. It is not as if Christians went in search of someone whose teachings they could falsify and paganize. The Jewish followers of Jesus believed he was the Messiah. It was largely gentiles, under the influence of Paul, who brought their pagan beliefs to bear on their understanding of the messiah and God. It was these pagan beliefs that informed and so deformed the Jewish notion of a 'son of God'.
I would reply to Apollodorus myself, but you are doing an excellent job already explaining the major points, especially that last post.
Thanks. I may not bother responding much longer. It's been fun but it gets tedious. I haven't decided whether he can't see when he is wrong or just won't admit.
I have received enough support from different members to quiet any concerns that I might be the one getting it wrong and not being able to see it. And, of course, in his somewhat more sophisticated version of "I know you are but what am I?" that he plays this is likely to be what he says or maybe even genuinely believes.
The fact is that the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won. This may be inconvenient to anti-Christian activists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Get over it.
When Alexander in 333 BC conquered the Persian Empire including what had earlier been the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the country fell under Greek control and influence (though this influence had started earlier). Jews were attracted to Greek culture, went to the theater, frequented gymnasiums (which also functioned as educational institutions), attended sporting events, participated in sacrifices to the Greek Gods, adopted Greek names and customs, and studied Greek literature and philosophy.
Greek education which included classical literature like Homer conferred equal rights with the Greeks. At Alexandria Jews underwent initiation into the Hellenistic mystery cults. Elsewhere Jews participated in sponsoring Dionysian festivals (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism).
In Judea itself, in addition to many ethnic Greeks (Yevanim), there were growing numbers of Hellenized Jews (Misyavnim), estimated to have amounted to about a third of the population.
Whilst traditionalist Jews felt that the Hellenists threatened their culture, the Hellenists thought that the traditionalists held back cultural and religious progress. This resulted in tensions between Judaism and Hellenism and led to a civil war between the two groups, the Maccabean revolt, and the rise to power of the Hasmonean dynasty (140 BC - 37 BC).
However, though the Hasmoneans were Jews, it would be wrong to believe that this was the end of Greek influence. Judea remained at first a vassal of the Greek Seleucid Empire (which controlled Syria and Babylon), its kings bore the Greek title of basileus, minted coins with Greek symbols, had royal palaces with Greek architectural features (including heated bathhouses, swimming pools, and triclinia with dining couches), and the entire administration was run by people with Greek names.
Under the Hasmoneans the Hellenization process gradually resumed and Hellenistic-influenced, Greek-language literature, e.g., the Book of Wisdom, began to appear at this time.
As Hengel points out:
Greek thought was available not only through books like Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey but also through the dramatic performances held at the theaters in the Greek cities of Galilee and other parts of Roman Palestine, and through traveling philosophers and missionaries. After all, Palestine was a Roman province. Herod I (72 BC – 4 or 1 BC) had renovated and expanded the Jerusalem Temple, but he also introduced games and spectacles, and built theaters and hippodromes in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Jericho, with the clear aim of culturally integrating Palestine with the rest of the empire.
There is no doubt that fundamentalist rabbis were opposed to such developments, but the political leadership was fully aware that it could not afford to isolate the country or risk being perceived as anti-Roman by Rome.
Both the Greek city of Sepphoris (the capital of Galilee rebuilt by Herod’s son Antipas) and the nearby town of Nazareth (located at only three miles distance), were close to the ancient trade route between Egypt and Damascus. Like Sepphoris, Capernaum, which was at the center of Jesus’s ministry in Galilee, was a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual city. Dora, situated on the coast west of Nazareth (about 11 miles away), was a Pagan Greek city with large Hellenistic temples, etc.
Moreover, Alexandria which had a large Jewish community, was the cultural center of the Hellenistic world, as well as home to several popular religious cults. Though located in Egypt, it was within easy reach from Palestine with which it had close trade and cultural links.
By the time of Jesus, Hellenism was a considerable cultural force in Roman Palestine. Notwithstanding “the laws of Moses”, written or oral, Judaism was not a strictly codified, monolithic religion. Different groups and individuals had different attitudes toward Greek culture and religion. Greek thought was far from universally proscribed and access to it was available to those who had an interest in widening their cultural and spiritual horizon.
In any case, key NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant at the time of Jesus and there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on his teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians. On the contrary, it is more consistent with the evidence to regard Jesus as a teacher operating within an already-Hellenized social and cultural environment.
See below:
Quoting Apollodorus
Let's look more closely. You said:
Quoting Apollodorus
In Matthew "King Herod" attempts to have Jesus killed when he was born. He asks:
(2.1)
This was not fundamentalist rabbis but the Roman established king of the Jews who was threatened by "the one who has been born king of the Jews". Herod's concern was not religious. In fact, Herod, being thoroughly Hellenized, seemed to have little or no regard for Judaism. As you quote:
According to the gospel of Luke, Pontius Pilate sent Jesus to Herod. When Herod sent him back to Pilate, they became friends, when before they had been enemies (Luke 23:6-12) Their friendship had nothing to do with fundamentalist rabbis but with political expediency. Like Herod, Pilate was hated by the Jews.
If Pilate gave into pressure from the Jews it was not for religious reasons but as a matter of expediency. According to the gospel of John, Pilate was threatened:
(19:12)
While the Jewish authorities might have wanted him dead, they had no authority sentence him to death. Pilate had no regard for the Jews or their religion. He acted in order to save his own precarious position. He had Jesus crucified in Roman fashion.
Quoting Apollodorus
You are still trying to avoid the issue. Where does the influence of Hellenism on Judaism extend to belief in the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men or the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god?
Yep, let's look more closely at your confused and irrational statements! :lol:
I said "he got killed by the Temple Taliban", i.e., by the high priest and his allies who persuaded Pilate to execute Jesus as related in the NT.
I never said "he got killed by Herod". Herod wanted to eliminate a child believed by some to be the rightful "King of the Jews". However, he didn't kill Jesus because Jesus was taken to Egypt by his family and returned after Herod's death (Matthew 2:20-1) while still a young child.
Herod simply feared a potential challenger to the throne. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. And nothing whatsoever to do with Herod being "pro-Roman" or "anti-Jewish" or anything!
Incidentally, Pilate didn't send Jesus to the Herod who had ordered the killing of the children of Bethlehem but to his son, Herod Antipas.
Also, Pilate didn't sentence Jesus for his own religious reasons, but for the religious reasons of the Temple Taliban who objected to Jesus' claiming to be the Son of God. That's why he washed his hands and said “I am innocent of this man’s blood; It is your responsibility!” (Matthew 27:24). As far as Pilate was concerned, he wanted to avoid civil unrest instigated by the Temple Taliban.
And yes, the fact is that ultimately, the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won.
Which shows why fanaticism isn't a good idea and why Jesus' more inclusive views were right.
Nope, I'm not "avoiding" anything at all. YOU are denying the fact that NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant in Hellenistic tradition at the time of Jesus and before, which is why there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on Jesus' teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians.
The Greek origin of most of these teachings is precisely why they were rejected by fundamentalist rabbis, even though some of them, e.g., "Son of God" do occur in the writings of the Essenes and even in the Hebrew Bible and in Ancient Egyptian inscriptions:
Son of God - From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings to Jesus, Biblical Archaeology Review, 13:3, 1997
Egyptian inscriptions read:
“[Sun-God] Re has installed the King
on the earth of the living
for ever and ever …”
And the king is called the “beloved and only Son of God”
‘AXIAL’ BREAKTHROUGHS AND SEMANTIC ‘RELOCATIONS’ IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND ISRAEL
Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (Egyptian Hymns and Prayers) (uzh.ch)
The OT states in very clear and unambiguous terms that the Israelites demanded to have "a king like all other nations" (1 Samuel 8:4-5). And that's exactly what they got, see David and Solomon (Psalm 2:6-7):
So, if Jesus was a descendant of King David as stated in Matthew 1:1-16, then he was correctly following tradition!
Moreover, the OT says:
So, arguably, the NT does have a point in some key respects.
Unfortunately, the dictatorial Temple Taliban were control freaks who thought they could control what people believed and history shows where that led to - the Temple was obliterated and its location is currently under the control of a new Taliban with the same outdated ideas .... :grin:
Yes, you did. But he didn't. He was sentenced by Pilate and the sentence was carried out by Roman soldiers in Roman fashion, crucifixion. Not by the high priest and his allies.
Quoting Apollodorus
And I never said you did.
Quoting Apollodorus
Hence my point about political expedience. The real issue for both Pilate and Herod was political. It has nothing to do with religion.
Quoting Apollodorus
That is not the story the gospel of John tells. Why would Pilate carry out the wishes of the Jewish leaders?
Quoting Apollodorus
Are you claiming he did not have the power to prevent or stop civil unrest?
Quoting Apollodorus
It is simply not true that history is always determined by those with more inclusive views and fanaticism never prevails.
Quoting Apollodorus
Once again you try to erase the fact that Jesus was Jewish. You have not provided any evidence that the influence of Hellenism on Judaism extended to belief in the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men or the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. Such beliefs run counter to Jesus' Jewish beliefs. They are not Jewish beliefs, they are pagan.
Quoting Apollodorus
Once again, it was largely gentiles, under the influence of Paul, who brought their pagan beliefs to bear on their understanding of the messiah and God. It was these pagan beliefs that informed and so deformed the Jewish notion of a 'son of God'. It has nothing to do with retroactively superimposing anything on Jesus teachings. It was simply the way they understood the teachings of Jesus as they heard it as it was told to them.
Quoting Apollodorus
First of all, it is not because the are of Greek origin but because they are beliefs that are contrary to Judaism. Second, unless you can provide evidence otherwise, it is likely that Jesus, who stresses the law and the prophets would have rejected it as well.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, we went through this before. More than once. You are actually demonstrating my point. The Gentiles, and you as well, understood 'Son of God' in a pagan sense that is foreign to Jewish literature and tradition, especially as it was at this time.
The article you link to refutes your claim and supports mine:
The language of kings is appropriated and used to refer not to gods but to human kings.
Quoting Apollodorus
So, once again you have undermined your own argument. If Jesus was a descendant of King David, then Jesus was a descendant of a man. A son of God in the sense consistent with Judaism, a man not a god or a literal son of God.
Quoting Apollodorus
And what is that point? Taking a statement from Isaiah and telling a story of the virgin birth of Jesus in order to make it appear that Isaiah was talking about him is an example of retroactive superimposing Jesus on Isaiah. Except one problem, the man's name is Immanuel not Jesus. Of course apologists attempt to explain this discrepancy away
Many Christian scholars:
It should be noted that Paul himself readily admits the differences between a resurrected savior and the expectations of the Messiah as was hoped for by the first witnesses. The transfer of the promise of protection from one chosen people to another (as noted upthread regarding the Letter to Corinthians) is the ultimate form of differentiation. The efforts of the Church Fathers was devoted to claiming an ancestry while cancelling it.
If they were all at the same summer camp, why did Paul bother to back-date the story to claim the inheritance?
Paul had to tie in the fact that Jesus was crucified. Jesus' crucifixion was central to Paul's story of the Messiah. The claim that it was necessary for the messiah to die, to suffer, to be sacrificed by God for our sins is not something found in the accounts of the messiah in the Jewish scriptures.
The idea that Jesus is God undermines this story. Paul's God could neither physically suffer nor die. If Jesus is God or a manifestation of God then Jesus' suffering and dying was a sham, pretend, an act. Show business.
And, of course, his resurrection was a new invention. While the idea of resurrection was not new, it was new to the promise of a messiah. New because death had never been part of the story.
I am not sure if the middle paragraph does. The focus on suffering is clear in Paul's testimony. He did not claim it made sense.
Although Paul used the term 'kurios', that is, Lord, he did not claim that Jesus was God.
What comes from God comes through Jesus. Some interpret John to be saying that Jesus is God. The Nicene Creed is clear that Jesus is God. For Paul, Jesus is a man who suffered physically, but God does not suffer physically. With the claim that Jesus is God either God can suffer physically and die or there is an irreconcilable contradiction between saying that Jesus suffered and Jesus is God.
To recap, it is beyond dispute that all or most of Jesus’ teachings are consistent with Hellenistic tradition which was on the rise at the time.
Equally beyond dispute is that Herod I a.k.a. Herod the Great, ruler of Judea, was a Hellenized client of Rome. He had received a Greek education at the Greek school at Jerusalem attended by the Jewish aristocracy, bore the Greek title of basileus, minted coins with Greek inscriptions and symbols including sunburst, and built theaters, hippodromes, and large Pagan temples at Caesarea, Sebaste, and Omrit (or Caesarea Philippi, according to Josephus).
The Temple of Caesar Augustus at Caesarea Philippi - Associates for Biblical Research
It goes without saying that the theaters and hippodromes built by Herod were not exclusively for a Roman and Greek audience but also for Greek-speaking and Hellenized Jews, and represented avenues through which Greek culture could spread to the non-Greek population, in addition to Greek gymnasiums and schools, travelling philosophers and spiritual teachers, etc.
The historical and archaeological evidence clearly indicates a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual background to the Jesus story – with Greek as the universal medium of communication.
Indeed, what makes Jesus’ teachings unique and lends them a genuinely universal character that goes beyond ethnic and cultural boundaries, is that they are not only consistent with Hellenistic tradition but some of them, e.g., “son of God”, are equally consistent with Jewish and Egyptian tradition.
The Israelites admittedly had no king and had expressly requested a king to be appointed over them “like all other nations” (1 Samuel 8:4-5). The foremost nation at the time was Egypt whose kings controlled Canaan. Therefore it was entirely logical for the Israelites to borrow the Egyptian model of kingship which was the most authoritative, most ancient, and most prestigious at the time.
In Ancient Egyptian tradition, the king or pharaoh was both head of state and supreme religious authority. Being responsible for maintaining divine order on earth, the king was a manifestation of God and actually referred to as “Son of God”. The Sun-God Ra (or Re) being the chief deity, “Son of Ra” became official title of Ancient Egyptian kings.
Kings David and Solomon’s being called “Son of God” in the OT is entirely consistent with the Israelites’ adoption of the Egyptian model of kingship, and indeed, with Solomon’s and the kings of Judah’s observance of a solar cult as described in the OT.
In the same way different people today have different conceptions of God, various interpretations of this solar cult existed, ranging from the Sun being seen as a symbol or metaphor for a monotheistic deity, to the Sun being seen as a manifestation of a chief deity in a polytheistic pantheon. After all, it is highly doubtful that the majority of the Israelite population which consisted of uneducated farmers and shepherds, would have grasped such abstract concepts as an invisible, all-powerful, and sole deity.
In any case, as shown by the archaeological evidence (Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun) and by OT statements, the Israelite God Yahweh was indisputably associated with the Sun for many centuries, including during the Hellenistic period and well into the Christian era.
Regarding Jesus’s claim to be the “Son of God”, if he was a descendant of King David, which he may well have been, he had a legitimate claim to that title.
Indeed, according to Jewish tradition, King David had been born in Bethlehem, which is why the NT refers to it as “the City of David” (Luke 2:4), and the future Christ, Messiah, or Savior King was expected to be a descendant of King David.
It follows that if Jesus was a descendant of King David, Israel’s first divine king and “Son of God” (Psalm 2:7), then he was correctly described, or described himself, as “King of the Jews” and “Son of God”. And if the people, including Herod, believed (rightly or wrongly) that Jesus was a descendant of David, then it made perfect sense for Herod to fear being dethroned and to seek Jesus’ death. After all, Herod also ordered the killing of his own son.
Interestingly, in support of the claim that Jesus was the expected King of the Jews and the Messiah, the NT not only invokes Jesus’s birth in the City of David (Bethlehem), but also refers to Isaiah’s prophecy that “a virgin shall give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Why would Jesus be called “Emmanuel”? Matthew 1:23 states that this word (“Immanuel” in Hebrew) means “God (El) is with us”.
However, “Imn” is the Egyptian spelling for Amun (Sun-God Amun-Ra), which means that in an Egyptian-Israelite context, and considering the Egyptian origin of Israelite kingship, “Emmanuel” can be interpreted as “Amun-u El”, i.e., “Amun (Amun-Ra) is El (the Lord). (See A. S. Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in its relation to the Egyptian, Vol. 1, p. xxvi.)
We must further consider that El was the supreme Canaanite deity who, as stated in the OT, was the original God of the Hebrews (who were themselves Canaanites):
Clearly, at the time when the Hebrews were “in Egypt”, and before the covenant, their God was El. And El’s symbol was the bull - which may also have been influenced by similar Egyptian cult images. Thus it makes perfect sense for the Hebrews to have made and worshiped a golden calf (figurines of which have been excavated in Israel) at Mount Sinai and to have said “This, O Israel, is your God who brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 32:3). This is supported by the fact that their leader Aaron had no hesitation in complying with their request and immediately made the statue and announced a religious festival.
As for Moses, he was an Egyptian (or Hebrew brought up as an Egyptian). Therefore he naturally spoke no Hebrew (which is why he used Aaron as translator) and had little knowledge of Hebrew religion, which is why it was necessary to be explained to him who God El was.
If Moses did actually become angry on descending from the mountain, and this is not a later interpolation, he couldn’t have been angry with the Hebrews for "going Pagan" as they merely followed their ancestral, Canaanite religion. He was angry because he had expected them to follow the new religion which he clearly regarded as superior.
What religion this was is impossible to determine at present given that the “laws of Moses” were “discovered” many centuries later. However, it seems reasonable to assume that he had been initiated into the higher forms of Egyptian religion during his childhood at the royal palace and that, therefore, (a) this religion was a higher form of the cult of Amun-Ra, knowledge of which was reserved to royalty, and (b) it was more evolved than the religion of the Hebrews.
In any case, it makes sense for Amun-Ra, the supreme God of Egypt, to be equated with El, the supreme God of the Hebrews. And, as already noted, even after the Hebrew God came to be called “Yahweh” instead of “El”, he continued to be associated with the Sun, especially on more popular levels of the religion, and was described as riding on and above the clouds, while his name was read “Adon/Aten” which in Egyptian religion referred to the Sun Disc or Orb (Itn) as a symbol of the deity.
Moreover, Egyptian amun (imn) literally means “hidden” which refers to the “hidden” or “unseen” aspect of God. Egypt’s supreme deity Amun-Ra was a self-created being with two aspects, a visible one represented by the rising and mid-day Sun (Ra), and an invisible one represented by the setting and night Sun (Amun).
On a higher level, therefore, “Emmanuel” specifically equates the Hebrew God El with the Egyptian God Amun. In connection with Jesus, this refers to the revelation of a doctrine that was, or had become, “hidden”, “secret”, or suppressed among the Jews. Indeed, the cult of Amun had spread far beyond Egypt, so that in addition to the Hebrew Amun-El there was also a Greek Amun-Zeus or Zeus-Amon, whom Alexander the Great regarded as his divine father. Jesus represented the spirit of that religious renaissance in Israel and sought to initiate a movement that was at once timeless and in line with the cultural and spiritual developments of his time.
Though Jewish writings like the Babylonian Talmud tend to refer to Jesus (Hebrew “Yeshu”) in derogatory terms, they seem to link him with Egypt, by claiming that “Jesus the Nazarene went to Alexandria, Egypt, and practiced magic (i.e. worked wonders)” or “brought magic from Egypt”, and by referring to him as “Jesus son of Joseph Pandira/Pantera” (Sanhedrin 107b; Hullin 2.22-3).
Such references were later removed under Christian pressure. However, “Pandira/Pantera” is very obviously a non-Hebrew word and, in view of the Egyptian context under consideration, the Egyptian royal epithet “Pa-Ntr-Ra” (“The-God-Ra”), by which Egyptian kings were known, must be regarded as a more likely alternative. Thus “Jesus son of Joseph (and) Pandira (Pa-Ntr-Ra)” clearly refers to his having a human and a divine father, a fact Justin Martyr alluded to in defense of Christian teachings (1 Apology 21).
The adoration of new-born Jesus by “three wise men from the east” bearing gifts (Matthew 2:1-11) is another tradition reminiscent of Egypt, as royal vassals and allies from lands to the east of Egypt used to bring gifts to the Egyptian rulers (and less often, if at all, to Hebrew ones).
As stated earlier, Nazareth is another element in the NT narrative that connects Jesus with Egypt, Nazareth being situated on the ancient trade route from Heliopolis (the City of the Sun) in Egypt to Damascus in Syria.
Indeed, the whole narrative from Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt in infancy or youth, and the various teachings pointing to Egyptian religion, to Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, suggests the true historical origins of Christianity, emerging from Egypt and proceeding via Hellenistic Palestine to Damascus, Athens, Rome, and beyond ....
Saying it is beyond dispute does not make it so. The fact of the matter is, we do not have any reliable, direct evidence of his teachings. We can, however, piece some things together.
What is not in dispute is that he was seen by his followers as the messiah. This is not part of the Hellenistic tradition.
Whatever influence you might imagine Hellenistic tradition had on Jesus you have not provided any evidence that extended to his teachings regarding the law. If we accept the authenticity of Paul's account, his dispute with Peter shows that James and the Jewish Christians sided with Peter against Paul regarding the law. Jesus' disciples would not have learned from Jesus' teachings to disregard the law.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus was a Jew and no amount of Hellenic influence can change that. If he was thought by his followers to be the messiah, this was a Jewish messiah. Not God's son in a biological sense. Not a son in the pagan sense of a god impregnating a woman. Not a half man half god or full god. A man.
Quoting Apollodorus
It is an attempt to use the prophecy in Isaiah to support the claim that Jesus is the messiah. But the virgin in the prophecy does not name him Jesus. In addition the gospels of Mark and John say nothing about virgin birth.
Quoting Apollodorus
This is a story told only in Matthew,. Luke tells a different story that contradicts this. Although some scholars claim Matthew's story is reliable, others reject it. In any case Matthew does not tell us how long they stayed there, only that they returned when Joseph had a dream assuring him it was safe to return. That they stayed there long enough for Jesus to be influenced by Egyptian beliefs and practces is completely without supporting evidence.
Your continued attempt to separate Jesus from Judaism is suspect. Of course Egypt plays a role in Judaism. Much of Genesis and Exodus takes place in Egypt. What you seem unable to grasp is that Egypt is used as a foil. It is not a matter of accepting Egyptian beliefs and practices but rejecting them. The story of Judaism is not about assimilation to Greece or Rome or Egypt.
"You" does not refer to the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians. Those he is addressing, the Jews, sons of their father in heaven, stand apart. They are the chosen people because they adhere to the laws and prophets. Jesus' teaching is not about assimilation but about shining a light and standing as an example for other nations to follow.
I wasn't thinking of it in terms of whether a god can suffer but focusing on the claim that Paul's encounter with the resurrected Jesus was with the one said to be the fulfillment of the prophecies.
It is in the sense of being a chosen people that doesn't fit the Hellenistic imagination of how the divine interacts with man and community. The 'choice' involved leads man and community to becoming an instrument of purpose and intent for the Lord. Paul recognized that the one element he could not provide Gentiles through his manifestation of Spirit rising above the Law is the promise of the Covenant.
Apollodorus' desire to marginalize the influence of Judaism is similar to Marcion, the church father, who declared Christians and Jews worshiped different gods. Marcion was denounced by the others because that would separate Christians from the narrative of a God who is changing the world of men through his instruments. That participation in the change is why Augustine condemned Athens but praised the 'city' of the Israelites. The City of God is the vanguard of the change.
That, of course, is true. Paul quite ingeniously came up with a new version in which death was not a sign of the failure of Jesus to fulfill the prophecies but the way in which they were fulfilled. Two keys points: 1) The death of the messiah becomes a necessary condition for the fulfillment. 2) It is not the people who are saved but the individual who might not even be of the people of Israel.
Quoting Paine
This is what Apollodorus misses when he rejects the distinction between Athens and Jerusalem. He points to Kavka for support, but completely misunderstands the project. For Kavka the messiah is yet to come. The messiah is for him the people rather than one person. In this sense he reverses Paul. It is not the hope that the passive, helpless individual will be saved but that the actions of the people will save the world.
[Quote]When you look to the heavens and see the sun and moon and stars—all the host of heaven—do not be enticed to bow down and worship what the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19).[/quote]
This subsequently resulted in the Temple Taliban’s demand that Jesus be executed for his “blasphemous” teachings, and finds its most recent manifestation in Islamic extremism and Shariah law.
The Koran says:
However, Talibanism and Jihadism are based on a false narrative fabricated by fundamentalist priests after the construction of the Second Temple and enforced only gradually, over the following centuries. In other words, Mosaic Judaism did not exist in Judah at the time of David and Solomon, and only took shape in the late Persian and Hellenistic periods.
Indeed, as demonstrated by the mounting evidence produced by archaeologists, historians, and other scholars, the notion that the Hebrews were obediently complying with the “laws of Moses” is complete nonsense, particularly as they had no knowledge of such laws (given that they were admittedly “discovered” in the days of King Hezekiah) and that they continued to follow their traditional Canaanite religion until the destruction of the First Temple.
The Israel Antiquities Authority’s website on the OT texts found at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) states:
And according to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:
Indeed, admissions of forgery are found in the OT text itself:
In fact, the Book of Jeremiah appears to have originally been composed in the 500’s BC by Jeremiah, son of the priest Hilkiah, who had allegedly “discovered” the “laws of Moses”, and it was heavily edited by generations of scribes into the second century BC:
And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism, attempts were also made to suppress the history of Christianity.
It is a well-known fact that a popular form of religion from the Classical era onward was mystery cults consisting in secret teachings and practices that were observed in addition to those of conventional religion.
Though not a mystery religion as such, Christianity does have some elements in common with Classical mystery traditions. To begin with, the Gospels are full of symbolism pointing to esoteric content.
For example, it is clear that Jesus’ statements such as “I am the Light of the world” (Eimi to Phos tou kosmou), have more than one meaning. To a first-century AD person, the words “light of the world” meant, in the first place, the light of the Sun which illuminates the world.
On a higher level, “Light of the world” can refer to the Light of Truth that reveals a higher knowledge to those who are able to perceive and understand it.
As related in the NT, Jesus himself often taught in parables and, when asked about it by his disciples, he replied:
In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says:
And in the Second Epistle:
Similarly, Origen makes many references to mysteries, e.g., “the secrets of wisdom and the mysteries of knowledge”, and stresses the secret meaning of Scripture:
Commenting on Paul’s Epistles above, Origen says:
And:
Indeed, the Classical mystery traditions were not only known as “the mysteries” (ta mysteria), but also as “the perfections” (telea or teletai), due to the fact of being the rites or instructions through which the initiate attained the ultimate goal of life (telos) by becoming perfect (teleos).
And becoming morally and spiritually perfect was also the goal of Jesus’ teachings:
While in the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection. This is one of the key distinctions that sets Christianity apart from Temple Judaism.
Perfection in Christianity, as in Hellenistic philosophy, is not to be attained through religious rituals and sacrifices, but through an inner conversion or transformation (metanoia) or, in Plato’s words, a “turning around of the soul” (periagoge) towards a higher reality:
This inner conversion, transformation, or “turning around of the soul” is only possible through a refocusing of attention away from this world and toward the next.
Like the philosophical life of Classical tradition, Christian life is a life oriented toward the next world and toward moral and spiritual perfection as a means of achieving everlasting life in Paradise in the company of God and other divine beings (Angels or Gods).
In contrast, the Hebrew Bible has no clear reference to life after death and it is not known whether Moses, the founder of Mosaic Judaism, even believed in afterlife at all. If he did, the OT does not say.
In any case, the reorientation toward afterlife advocated by Christianity, shows the common ground the new religion shared with the mystery traditions. And, like the latter, the former seems to have mainly developed in urban areas such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Caesarea, etc.
According to Luke,
He clearly could read from scripture and, as Luke states, “All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips” and “Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent. And He continued to preach in the synagogues of Judea” (Luke 4:43-44).
Jesus’ actions are inconsistent with the claim that he was an ignorant and uneducated peasant. In fact, as a member of the urban artisan class he most likely was literate and had a sufficient degree of education to be able to discuss religious matters with leading members of the urban community.
Already at the age of twelve, we are told that:
Indeed, the urban artisan class was far from ignorant and uneducated. Artisans naturally sought an urban setting in which to pursue their professional career because it offered a broader patronage system. But the same urban setting that had greater economic potential, also offered greater opportunities of acquiring knowledge, including literacy and contact with the educated classes, and even with other cultures.
Archaeological evidence from first-century Galilee shows a degree of familiarity with writing even in small villages, for example, Aramaic words and even Greek abecedaries inscribed on local ossuaries and ceramic pottery. Another key evidence indicating close interaction between Jewish and non-Jewish communities is provided by the use of Roman and Tyrian coins in addition to local ones.
In sum, the presence of Roman and Greek communities, as well as Hellenized Jews in Roman Palestine, the widespread use of the Greek language, the theaters, gymnasiums, hippodromes, and Pagan temples built by Herod the Great, the Hellenistic-Roman-style cities built by his son Herod Antipas, the cults of Dionysus and Heracles observed for centuries at nearby Scythopolis, Tyre, and Alexandria, etc., etc., all show that it makes little sense to claim that no Greek influence on Jesus’ teachings was possible.
After all, Israel is a very small country and, with people traveling and communicating, exchange of information including cultural interchange, becomes inevitable.
This hyperbolic rant has nothing to do with anything that has been said by anyone here.
Quoting Apollodorus
No educated person today would perpetuate this pernicious accusation unless they have an ulterior motive. If the Jewish authorities demanded he be put to death they would have stoned him.
THIS
Quoting Apollodorus
First of all, the Hebrew Bible is not a history book by the standards and practices of contemporary history. Second, it is not surprising that a group of books written over a long period of time contains changes reflecting various beliefs. Only some sort of fundamentalist would think otherwise.
Do you think what was said about Jesus, what he said and what he did, did not change during the time before and during the time the gospels were written?
Quoting Apollodorus
Evidence and specifics are needed.
And do you think 'you' includes you? What do you know of the kingdom of God? Do you think you are excluded from the majority of readers Origen refers to? If there are mysteries you do not have access to them. At best this shows that you do not understand the NT to the extent it contains mysteries.
Quoting Apollodorus
Before posting stuff you make up it would be a good idea to do a little research:
Quoting Perfection
Quoting Apollodorus
Again, it would be a good idea to do some research first. Neither the Hebrew Bible nor Judaism ends with Moses. It is from Jewish sources that Jesus the Jew inherited the idea of resurrection and life after death.
Both claimed to be God in one way or another.
I wouldn't say that this redemptive action is completely missing in Paul. The community of Christians is said to be the new chosen people. The way they treat each other is central to them becoming instruments of the Spirit. Augustine presents them as agents of change in the world. As a defender of Pauline Christianity, Kierkegaard focused on this element in his Works of Love as a response to the command to love that ties the Sermon on the Mount to the faith of the single individual.
Kierkegaard also addressed the limits of the 'Hellenic' but did not claim ownership of an inheritance, as Paul did, to make his argument. In his Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard compared truth as something we already have the capacity to know to a truth that requires us to be changed in order to be made aware of.
The idea of Plato's recollection describes the first condition. The divine aspect of our being emerges as we separate it from the dross of unimportant pursuits. Learning expressed as recollection says this inborn condition relates to what has already been created.
The second condition requires an encounter with a being who provides what our inborn nature does not. As an expectation, it is directed toward a future redemption. Expressed this way, the relationship of the individual to the community is not established yet. This aspect is reflected in how different denominations of Christianity place importance on the order in this world as it relates to the vision of another one.
It is true he talks about rightful action:
But to be a part of the whole is not an act of redemption.
The day of redemption is not something Christians are responsible for. It is coming and one can either be a part of it or not. It seems as if there are competing forces within us:
The Spirit may be in you but it is not of you. In other words, you are not in the driver's seat. We can, however, go along for the ride.
It is not by one's own actions that they save or are saved, not by one's actions that the are redeemed or can redeem the world. It is not up to us. And, of course, the world in its present form has not passed away. The bus never arrived.The first generations of Pauline Christians believed it would happen in their lifetime, but as time went on it was eventually pushed to some future time that has not been disclosed.
My purpose in bringing up Kierkegaard, however, was that he underscores how the universal nature of the truth, as Paul spoke of it in the Greek understanding, needed the narrative of the messianic to become the expectation of 'this cosmos' giving way to the kingdom of heaven. This observation does not sort out what those expectations were or could be now. It does focus the question of how to understand the messianic in the legacy of the Greek view of the world. The more one insists that the true purpose of Christianity can only be expressed in those terms, the more one is left to explain why Paul's claim of the inheritance of the Covenant was unnecessary. That is not a problem of sorting out what is Greek versus Judaism but a problem of how Christians understand their own beliefs.
Could you clarify a few things?
What did Paul say about the Greek understanding of the universal nature of truth?
How does the narrative of the messianic relate to this?
Is it that the advent of the kingdom of heaven seems to be at odds with the cosmos, the well ordered whole?
How does this relate to the Covenant? Is this part of the problem of Christian self understanding?
The overwhelming evidence is (a) that the OT narrative is largely mythical and (b) that even its true teachings have been misinterpreted and misunderstood.
As stated in the Wikipedia article on the Exodus,
The total lack of evidence is not the only problem of the Exodus narrative. It is generally accepted that the material presented in the Book of Exodus is a blend of different and often contradictory strands that has undergone successive redactions.
For example, the Pharaoh refuses to let the Hebrews go, but relents after a series of plagues have visited Egypt (9:14 - 12:31).
However, even though he allows them to go, he pursues them with a large army (14:6 ff.).
At the same time, the Pharaoh is said to have “driven out” the Hebrews (12:39).
According to yet another strand in the same chapter, the Hebrews leave in goodwill and depart with gifts from their Egyptian neighbors including silver, gold, and clothing (12:35), etc.
There are numerous other problems. It is claimed that God appeared to Moses “in a burning bramble bush” (Exodus 3:2). Why would God hide in a bush? And why would he “appear” and “hide” at the same time?
So, to a rational person, the story is not credible. This is why it is imperative to get to the bottom of it and see what the whole mythology is actually trying to hide and why.
To begin with, as shown by Finkelstein & Silberman, it is impossible for 600,000 Israelites to have spent 40 years in the Sinai desert (that separates Egypt and Canaan) without leaving a trace. Yet no evidence whatsoever has been found. On the contrary, the available evidence positively contradicts the OT version of events.
As the OT itself relates, the land of Canaan (comprising modern Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, southern Syria, and Transjordan) was home to various ethnic groups. The Philistines are said to have originated in Caphtor (Crete) (Amos 9:7; Jeremiah 47:4) and appear to have settled in southwestern Canaan in the 12th century BC. They were soon assimilated into the local population, but preserved distinct cultural features for many centuries.
Most of the other groups, including the Hebrews, were local Semitic groups (related to the Phoenicians, Arameans, and Arabs) who had inhabited Canaan from times immemorial, to which Eurasian settlers were added between 2500 and 1000 BC. DNA data shows that modern Lebanese are genetically closest (more than 90%) to the Ancient Canaanites, and this is supported by the archaeological data.
In addition to being a great regional power, Egypt was also a prosperous country thanks to its Nile delta to which many people from adjacent areas migrated in times of drought and famine. One such group were the Hyksos (Egyptian Hekau Khasut, Foreign Rulers), originally from Canaan, who settled in the eastern part of the delta and eventually took over Lower (North) Egypt.
In around 1570 BC, Ahmose I, ruler of Upper (South) Egypt retook the North from the Hyksos and expelled them from the country, chasing them all the way to their southern Canaanite city of Sharuhen (near Gaza) which Ahmose besieged and razed.
Most writers in antiquity, including Josephus (Contra Apion I.90), tended to identify the Hyksos with the Hebrews. However, this has been ruled out for a number of reasons, such as the early date and the fact that the Hyksos culture was urban and connected with maritime trade and, therefore, inconsistent with the agricultural and pastoral culture of the Hebrews.
Nevertheless, an event of such magnitude must have left traces in the collective memory of Canaan and may have served as a basis for the Exodus myth (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times; Assmann, From Akhenaten to Moses). Ahmose himself, as head of state and supreme religious authority, may have inspired the Moses character in the OT narrative.
What is certain is that, as shown by the archaeological and historical evidence, Canaan at the time of the supposed “Exodus” was firmly under Egyptian control, which means that no “Israelite conquest of Canaan” could have taken place.
As Finkelstein & Silberman put it:
1230-1220 BC is the date suggested by scholars simply because (a) Exodus 1:11 mentions Israelite laborers involved in the construction of the city of “Raamses” which seems to refer to the city Pi-Ramses (“The House of Ramses”) built by Ramses II (ruled 1279-1213 (BC), and (b) the stele of Ramses’s son Merneptah mentions Israelites in Canaan at the very end of the century. While Hebrew and other Canaanite laborers employed in the Egyptian construction trade would have been pretty normal, “Israelite conquests” of (Egyptian-controlled) Canaan can be safely ruled out.
Still, the fact is that the myth of Moses exists and it must exist for a reason. So, it is right to look for some explanations for its existence. Given that Egypt was the dominant power, it seems reasonable to look at Egypt for the answer.
From the time of Ahmose I to Ramses III, Canaan was under increasing Egyptian control. Among the many pieces of evidence showing who was in charge of Canaan, one in particular illustrates the situation, namely a basalt statue of Pharaoh Ramses III seated on his throne, found at Beth-shean in North Israel, and dating from 1184-1153 BC.
Beth-shean (Scythopolis in the Hellenistic period) was a center of Egyptian administration in northern Canaan after its conquest by Thutmoses III, and the Egyptians built a succession of Egyptian-Canaanite-style temples there where Egyptian and Canaanite deities were worshiped. Temple construction was continued by Thutmoses’ great-grandson Amenhotep III who also built temples in other Canaanite cities where Egypt held garrisons. As Jerusalem (Urusalim) had an Egyptian garrison, it is likely that it also had an Egyptian temple. If so, a logical location for its construction would have been the Temple Mount ….
As the OT states, King Solomon was the son-in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh:
This raises two important questions: (1) who was this son-in-law of the pharaoh and (2) what kind of temple might the pharaoh’s son-in-law build?
If Solomon was a Hebrew, the chances of his being the son-in-law of the pharaoh are as good as non-existent. This is because, as Egypt was the dominant power, it was customary for other monarchs in the region to give their daughters in marriage to Egyptian kings, but not the other way round. This is expressly stated in the correspondence between the Egyptian pharaoh and other kings (the so-called “Amarna Letters”) in which the latter complain that “since earliest times no daughter of the king of Egypt has ever been given in marriage” (Letter 4, from Kadasman-Enlil I of Babylon to Amenhotep III).
These pharaohs' private letters expose how politics worked 3,300 years ago - National Geographic
Moreover, at the time under consideration, there was no Hebrew kingdom with the resources to build the kind of sumptuous temples and palaces as the OT alleges King Solomon to have done. On the contrary, Finkelstein, Silberman, and others dispute the very existence of a unified monarchy to begin with, the kingdom of Israel, with the capital at Shechem, and the kingdom of Judah, with the capital at Jerusalem, having developed independently of each other and after the supposed time of David and Solomon (1010 – 931 BC).
Finkelstein & Silberman explain:
As no kingdom of Israel (or Judah) existed at the supposed time of Solomon, this takes us right back to the possibility, or probability, that the biblical “King Solomon” was himself an Egyptian king.
The ideal candidate for this role seems to be Amenhotep III who is known to have built many temples not only in Egypt but also in Canaan. A particular type of Egyptian temple consisted of (1) an entrance hall, (2) an inner chamber, and (3) a raised shrine. Other key elements included a porch flanked by towers, and winged figures referred to as “cherubs” in the OT (1 Kings 4:23-8). Outside Egypt, Canaanite temples followed the same tripartite plan, but incorporated a blend of Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Syrian-Phoenician, and other elements.
The city of Shiloh, situated halfway between Jerusalem and Shechem, was the Israelites’ main cult center before the construction of the First Temple at Jerusalem, and the Ark is said to have been housed in a temple or sanctuary there before being moved to Jerusalem (1 Samuel 1:3). Similar temples in Egyptian-Canaanite style, dating from the fourteenth century BC, also existed at Beth-shean and may well have served as models for the First Temple. Temples with similar shrines in Palestine, Syria, and elsewhere were constructed into the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
Going further back in time, we find pharaohs Thutmose III and Ahmose I, who also controlled Canaan, and who may have served as models for David (Twt/Dwd) and Moses (Ms/Moshe), respectively. During the reign of Ramses III (1186–1155 BC), Canaan was invaded by a coalition of foreign groups including Philistines (Peleset). Ramses successfully prevented the invaders from taking Egypt, but the Philistines settled in southwestern Canaan (“Philistia”) and then extended their rule northward into the Jezreel Valley and beyond, thus bringing most of Canaan under their control.
As Philistine power declined over the following centuries, Egyptian, Philistine, Assyrian, and local rulers were competing for control of Canaan, and it was against this background that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah gradually emerged in the highlands stretching from the Judean Hills in the south to Upper Galilee in the north. However, together with Philistine territories, they soon fell under Assyrian domination and in about 750 BC the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Assyria, with part of its population being deported and another part fleeing to Judah. Judah itself avoided destruction by paying tribute, but Assyria was defeated by Babylon, and the Babylonians began to compete with Egypt over control of the region. In 587 BC Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon and destroyed along with the Temple, and some of the population was carried into captivity.
While there is some extrabiblical evidence for later Israelite rulers, there is none for David and Solomon, and even less for “Moses”. This suggests that David and Solomon were legendary figures modeled on Egyptian pharaohs, which is supported by the Israelites’ demand to be ruled by a king “like all other nations”, by the first Israelite king and his son (David and Solomon) being referred to by the title “son of God” in the Egyptian manner (Psalm 2:6-7), by Solomon’s marriage to a pharaoh’s daughter, etc.
The very name Solomon is traditionally interpreted as being derived from Hebrew shalom (“peace”) which refers to Solomon’s peaceful reign: “They called him Solomon (peace) because there was peace in his days” (Targum Sheni). However, this corresponds to Egyptian Amenhotep (Amn/Imn-Htp) which means “Amun is At Peace”, and in Hebrew this would be Shalom-Amun, abbreviated as Shelomoh/Shlomoh.
As explained earlier, the OT equates the Egyptian God Amun with the Hebrew God El in the phrase “Emmanuel/Immanuel” (Imn-u-El). Imn/Amn in Egyptian religion was the invisible or “hidden” supreme deity symbolized by the setting and midnight Sun, whose visible aspect (Ra) was symbolized by the rising and midday Sun.
The cult of Amun-Ra attained its highest point during the reign of pharaoh Akhenaten, when the God came to be worshiped as the sole deity, represented as a solar disk or orb. Egyptian pharaohs were not only heads of state but also religious leaders. As an Egyptian prince or pharaoh, “Moses” was naturally initiated into the highest teachings or mysteries concerning the supreme deity known as Aten/Adon to the initiated and as Amun-Ra to ordinary believers.
The cult of Aten was eventually suppressed by the priestly class and Egypt reverted to its established religion. It is entirely conceivable that a leader of the Aten religion, who was a member of Egyptian royalty, recruited followers from among various ethnic minorities, including Hebrews, and this gave birth to or inspired a new monotheistic religion in Canaan and elsewhere.
Moreover, if the founder of the new religion was a member of the royal family or even a pharaoh, he would have been in a position to promise Canaan (or, more likely, a certain territory within Canaan) to his followers in exchange for adherence to the tenets of his religion. Indeed, a pharaoh would have been regarded as “divine”, which would explain why the Sinai Covenant is believed to have been a contract between the followers of the new faith and God, and why the first two monarchs of this group were referred to by the title “son of God”.
At the same time, the true identity of the “Unseen Deity” remained “hidden” to the majority of the population who continued to worship the Sun (or some other celestial body, meteorological phenomenon, or anthropomorphic concept) as God.
In Egypt itself, the secret of the true God was preserved among members of the priestly class and was revealed to initiates from all over the Ancient World, including to Greek sages like Thales and was passed on to Plato, Aristotle, and their royal disciples like Alexander and his successors who regarded themselves as “sons of Amun-Zeus (Zeus-Amon)”.
Jesus himself represented the same tradition based on truth, justice, and ethical conduct. This is why he is correctly referred to as “Son of God”, “Light of the World”, “The Truth”, and “Embodiment of Righteousness, Holiness, and Redemption”, etc. Moreover, the Truth not only had been hidden (or suppressed by fundamentalist rabbis and Temple priests) but remained (and remains) hidden to most people. Hence the OT reference to the “Hidden God (Amun) is El” and “birth from a virgin” (Isaiah 7:14) which is itself a play on the word alma which can mean “young girl” but also “the hidden one”.
Similarly, the Greek aletheia (“truth”) literally means “un-hidden” or “not hidden” (a, “not” + letho, “to be hidden”) and refers to Jesus being the visible or manifest aspect of the unseen, hence “the light of the world” that makes the truth known to those who “have eyes to see and ears to hear” (Matthew 11:15). It follows that, however inconvenient this may be to anti-Christians, the NT seems to be fundamentally correct when analyzed in the proper cultural and religious context.
Moreover, truth is not only ethical and religious, or philosophical/metaphysical/spiritual, but also religious-historical. By suppressing Jesus, the Temple Taliban also sought to suppress the history of the origins of the true faith originally professed by the prophets of old and disseminated by philosophers and spiritual teachers down the centuries.
However, truth eventually comes to light and, given that the OT itself admits that the Religion of Righteousness, which is the eternal divine truth, originated in Egypt and was taught to the Israelites by an Egyptian (or Hebrew raised as an Egyptian), it becomes clear that its true origins can no longer be suppressed – excepts in certain quarters where darkness is preferred to light and untruth to truth ….
Let's compare this to what you said in your last post before this one:
Quoting Apollodorus
To which I responded:
Quoting Fooloso4
It is nice to see that I have helped you learn from your mistake. It is telling, however, that you did not bother to even check in order to find that overwhelming evidence before making your accusation about modifying "the true history of Judaism".
Your claim that Jeremiah 8:8 is an admission of forgery is not supported by the text or the scholarship. First it should be noted that a ‘scribe’ does not mean simply someone who copies text. A scribe is a scholar and teacher.
Jeremiah’s condemnation of the scribes is part of a larger condemnation:
God has forsaken the people and Jeremiah is urging them to turn back to God. (8:4-5) It is in this context that we should interpret “a lying pen”. Jeremiah makes a distinction later used by Paul for a different purpose. He opposes what the scribes write with their pens to the law God writes in the heart. (31:33) The scribes “have the law” but have “handled it falsely”. (8:8)
A lying pen might refer to what they teach or it may be that what they do puts the lie to what they have written down. In the latter sense, by their actions they have falsified what is written. Having the words from the pen does not make one wise. The law must be internalized.
Quoting Apollodorus
If the story is " a myth and cannot be treated as history in any verifiable sense" then the lack of evidence is only a problem for someone like you who misunderstands and misinterprets it as historical.
Quoting Apollodorus
The answer to the first question:
As to the second question, God hides in the way he appears. God is not a burning bush.
Quoting Apollodorus
You are still confusing history and mythology. Why would you attempt to apply historical standards to what you acknowledge is mythological? And what is behind your accusation of hiding something?
Quoting Apollodorus
This makes no sense. You argue that the kingdom of Solomon did not exist and conclude that this king without a kingdom was an Egyptian king. Except you go on to question the existence of Solomon. A king without a kingdom who did not actually exist was actually an Egyptian king.
Quoting Apollodorus
Is this the"Moses" who you say did not exist?
Quoting Apollodorus
Judaism traces its roots back to the patriarch Abraham, from Ur of the Chaldees. Although Abraham may not have existed, the story points to an origin of Judaism that is not Egyptian.
Quoting Apollodorus
A tenuous conspiracy theory.
Quoting Apollodorus
The tenuous threads fray. The attempt to link Jesus to the Egyptians based on the universal concepts of truth, justice, and ethical conduct is nothing more than pulling shit out of your ass.
Quoting Apollodorus
What is clear is that the origins of Judaism are unknown. However murky those origins are, by the time of Jesus Judaism has distinguished itself from paganism.
Why you are hellbent on creating conspiracy theories intended to portray the Jews as the enemies of the light and truth also seems clear, even though you attempt to hide behind a thin and cracked veneer of scholarship. If it is not clear to anyone they need look no further than your touting the work of
Kerry Bolton
So, after all, in this case at least it is true that:
Quoting Apollodorus
Paul was not the philosopher Augustine was. The understanding of truth Paul worked with was for the purpose of translating between the Gentiles and the Jews. In the Letter to the Romans, the Creator is said to have 'etched the good into every heart'. The experience of conscience as an individual is still true with or without the crisis that the event of Christ has brought forward. But the acceptance of that 'good', which all can receive from the conditions of their birth, does not account for the 'shortness of days' that expects "this cosmos" to be replaced by another. This movement requires more than a universal good of a person to be recognized because that life is happening within a process where there is an interaction with the Creator who can change the cosmos and the creatures within it.
Paul depicts the experience of the Gentiles as providing only an isolated view of a single cosmos
Centuries later, Kierkegaard says that once one has left the cosmos of the world as being what it already is, it is a departure, whether one follows Paul or not. If the condition for experiencing truth is outside of one's innate package, then one cannot use that package as a testimony for it.
Quoting Fooloso4
As you have observed elsewhere, there is more than one 'Christian' answer or question regarding these matters. I am trying to see the matter through Paul's eyes even though I do not accept his testimony as my own.
Your question is worth its own discussion. On this topic of 'how Greek was Jesus', I just wanted to point out that as an 'article' of faith, Paul insists on the differences between Greek and Jewish legacies even as he unifies them in his particular vision of the Kingdom of Heaven. No matter how far one can or cannot get by studying the historical context, the proponents of a 'nothing but Greek' thesis has the author of much of what is commonly understood to be Christian standing in the way.
I have not looked into it, but on the one hand Paul seems to accept the possibility of obedience to the law at least for some, but on the other even here grace plays a role, that is, obedience is made possible by grace.
Quoting Paine
Is he saying that when we no longer accept the world as it is and as all that is, we have already made a departure from it, moved beyond it to other possibilities?
Quoting Paine
If I understand this correctly, I see two points. First, the truth is not accessible by our own efforts. Second, without experiencing truth anything we think or imagine it to be will not only fall short of it but will lead us astray.
Quoting Paine
One of those proponents here also includes the Egyptians in his efforts to bypass and exclude Judaism from our understanding of Jesus. In his case it is him more than anything else that stands in his way.
Our efforts are required but more is needed beyond those. The limits of self-sufficiency are not a cancellation of them.
Kierkegaard did not say that it leads one astray, necessarily. It is more of a kind of horizon where the past and present is related to what has been created can be seen as something given to us whereas a relationship to the future cannot be approached that way. One cannot propose that one is in need of a condition that one lacks if one already knows what that condition is.
Quoting Fooloso4
There is something weird and dark about the desire to rip out Judaism, root and branch. That program does not offset the need for testifying what one believes. Being 'Christian' is not a result of saying what it is not.
We should consider how this relates to:
Quoting Paine
It is an inherited prejudice. A deep seated hatred that continues to be perpetuated. There is no rebirth without death. Will the future bring death to this hatred or is it necessary for the death of this hatred to bring forth the future?
Before posting this I decided to look into Kierkegaard's attitude toward Judaism. Peter Tudvad's 2010 Stadier paa Antisemitisms Vej: Søren Kierkegaard og Jøderne (Stages on the Way of Antisemitism: Søren Kierkegaard and the Jews) shows Kierkegaard shared the prejudice against the Jews that we are dealing with here.
It is a dark stain across most of the Protestant denominations.
I think it can be traced back to a growing animosity that develops with the followers of Paul. A question of birthright.
It is generally accepted by scholars that, while Jesus was a historical figure, David and Solomon are legendary. And if David and Solomon are legendary, so must be their “kingdoms”.
Indeed, Finkelstein & Silberman write:
Elsewhere, Finkelstein describes David’s supposed kingdom as “500 people with sticks in their hands shouting and cursing and spitting – not the stuff of great armies of chariots described in the text” (R. Draper, “Kings of Controversy”, National Geographic, 2010).
The large structures excavated at Samaria, Jezreel, Megiddo, and Hazor, turned out to be not from the time of David and Solomon (1010 – 931 BC) at all, but from the time of King Omri (884 – 873 BC) and his successors, whose capital city was Samaria. Moreover, the architectural style was that of North Syria, which shows the extensive foreign influence on the Kingdom of Israel at the time.
If kingdoms ruled by people named “David” and “Solomon” did not exist in Israel at the suggested time, what of the “religion of Israel”?
It is clear from the archaeological and historical evidence that the Israelites did not initially have a unified political entity with a uniform religion. They were divided into many seminomadic tribes each with its own tribal leader and its own religious observances that followed the general Canaanite pattern. A temple may have existed at Jerusalem, but religion was not centralized and, even in the Temple, as stated in the OT, the God Yahweh was worshiped along with other deities.
The situation only changed after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and the conquest of its capital Samaria by Assyria in 720 BC. The southern kingdom of Judah, whose population had earlier amounted to barely a tenth of that of its northern rival, increased significantly with a large influx of refugees. Having escaped complete annihilation by paying tribute to Assyria, Jerusalem profited from Assyrian vassalage by integrating into the Assyrian Empire and transforming its economy from one based on the village and clan to cash-cropping and industrialization under state centralization. This enabled Judah to experience a period of unprecedented prosperity, to the point that King Hezekiah felt he could rise against his Assyrian masters. He was, of course, disastrously defeated.
The economic and social changes brought about by Judah’s integration into Assyria’s powerful empire, provided the conditions for the formation of a Jewish state centered on Jerusalem. With the development of a centralized administration and state bureaucracy also came increasing centralization and standardization of official state religion.
This doesn’t mean that the whole population immediately went over to Yahwist (or Yahweh-only) monotheism. This only happened after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in 587 BC and the construction of the Second Temple. But the trend toward state-imposed monotheism seems to have started in the late 700’s and early 600’s BC, especially with the sudden “discovery” of the book with the “laws of Moses” by high priest Hilkiah.
As pointed out by Finkelstein & Silberman, the sudden discovery of the “book of the laws of Moses” coincided with the equally sudden spread of literacy in Judah and, crucially, with Assyrian suzerainty or vassal treaties which outlined the rights and obligations of a vassal nation (like Judah) to its sovereign (the Assyrian king), and which may have served as a model for similar sections in the Book of Deuteronomy:
Indeed, the very concept of a monotheistic worship of Yahweh could have been inspired by Assyria’s national deity, the God Ashur, who like Yahweh in Malachi 4:1-3, was associated with a winged Sun Disk.
Significantly, the winged Sun Disk appears on the seals of the kings of Judah dating from the 700’s and 600’s BC, i.e. in the period the OT was composed:
Winged Sun – Wikipedia
The winged Sun Disk on Hezekiah’s royal seal, excavated at the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount, is of particular interest as the OT account specifically ascribes the “reintroduction” of Mosaic monotheism to Hezekiah’s reign.
What is certain is that Hezekiah was an ally of Egypt (Isaiah 30:2) and the winged Sun Disk and Egyptian ankh symbol on his seal indicate Egyptian influence.
However, as shown earlier, representations of a winged Sun Disk occur on the cult stand from Taanach near Megiddo and other artifacts from across the country attesting to the prevalence of a solar cult already at the suggested time of David and Solomon (11th-10th centuries BC).
Commenting on the origins of the new monotheistic religion, Finkelstein & Silberman write:
Since, admittedly, “we cannot be sure where the idea originated”, it could have originated in Egypt as suggested by a number of leading Egyptologists and other scholars. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the possibility should be considered, not suppressed.
In fact, it doesn’t make sense to say that monotheism was introduced to the Hebrews in Egypt by an Egyptian (or Hebrew raised as an Egyptian), and at the same time claim that it has nothing to do with Egypt.
The truth of the matter is that Egyptian culture was highly influential in the region. Egyptian art, architecture, technology, and religion were certainly influential on Canaan where Egypt maintained garrisons and administrative centers and built cities with houses, palaces, and temples. Canaanite elites who, during periods of Egyptian domination, were in close contact with their Egyptian overlords, would have been particularly exposed to Egyptian influence and in turn would have been in a position to influence organized state religion. It was customary for Canaanite rulers to send their sons to Egypt as hostages from where they would return, having received an Egyptian education, to become loyal vassals of Egypt.
As a seminomadic people, the Hebrews would certainly have looked to culturally more developed nations who already had the institutions that Hebrew culture lacked, such as monarchy and the centralized religion that came with it. In the same way they borrowed kingship and the concept of divine kings, they also borrowed religious concepts and practices from traditions that already had monotheistic or henotheistic tendencies, such as Assyria and Egypt, from which they evidently borrowed religious symbols like the winged Sun Disk.
It is clear to archaeologists, historians, and other scholars that the original religion of the Jews was a form of Canaanite polytheism that later underwent a long period of various stages of henotheism, monolatry, and monotheism, and that “Rabbinic Judaism” only emerged in the third century AD and became mainstream in the sixth century. Before this, the main form of Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism which, by definition, was Greek-influenced. This was the main form of Judaism at the time of Jesus. Additionally, various subforms of Hellenistic Judaism existed, as there was no official canon.
It follows that the basic fallacy committed by those who take the OT narrative at face value, aside from believing that all of it is true, is to assume that because key protagonists like Moses, David, and Solomon were “Jewish”, they must have been followers of Judaism. This is a fallacy (a) because there is no evidence that all of them were ethnic Jews (or even that they actually existed) and (b) because Judaism as we know it today simply did not exist at the time, as amply demonstrated by Finkelstein (winner of the Dan David Prize for outstanding contributions to the study of history) and other archaeologists, historians, biblical scholars, and Egyptologists.
In any case, given that like other religions, much of Judaism was transmitted orally, there is no logical reason why Jesus couldn’t have followed an oral tradition within Hellenistic Judaism that contained both Greek and Egyptian elements. Indeed, as noted by leading Bible scholars like Moshe Weinfeld, the Book of Deuteronomy shows similarities to early Greek literature, in expressions of ideology within programmatic speeches, in the genre of blessing and cursing, and in the ceremonies for the foundation of new settlements.
It was customary among Greek tribes to found a city or country on the territory they settled by consulting the deity’s will (the Greeks had prophets specialized in interpreting divine will and communicating it to men, hence prophetes, “one who speaks for God”); by building an altar to the tutelary or tribal deity (see the construction of an altar to Apollo by the Greek settlers of Sicily, mentioned by Thucydides); by entering into a formal contract or covenant with the deity, etc., exactly as the Hebrews did at Sinai and Shechem:
Moreover, it is a well-known fact that the Egyptian God Amun-Ra was worshiped by other nations outside Egypt, especially the Greeks, to whom he had been known for centuries as Amun-Zeus (Zeus-Amon or Ammon), while the Romans later adopted him as Jupiter Ammon. The otherwise obscure biblical reference to “Emmanuel/Immanuel” makes sense when interpreted as “Amun-El” (or “Amun is El”), all of which shows that a syncretistic tradition existed that equated the supreme God of Egypt with the supreme God of Greece and the supreme God of Israel.
Hyginus, who had been a pupil of the Greek historian and scholar Alexander of Miletus, clearly connects the Egyptian God Amun with a foundation narrative. Diodorus describes Amun (Ammon) as the universal spirit that creates all things in nature, and also relates an account according to which Amun begat a son named Bacchus by the virgin Amalthea, and that Bacchus founded the oracle of his father Amun. Amalthea (“Maiden-Goddess”) is not only reminiscent of the Bible’s amla (“virgin” as well as “hidden one”) but is also equated with the Goddess Adrasteia, the personification of Destiny (or divine power). Again, this unquestionably shows spiritual teachings coached in symbolic and mythic language as was common practice in antiquity.
Above all, in his aspect as Truth or Ultimate Reality that is “hidden” to ordinary men, Amun-Zeus (Ammon) was the God of the philosophers (mentioned by Plato) but not the God of fundamentalist temple priests and the philosophically untutored masses for whom God could be nothing more than an anthropomorphic being, with supernatural powers, but nevertheless similar to humans in many respects.
There is no doubt that all this is highly inconvenient to some, as can be seen here, but the notion that Jesus MUST have been “an ignorant peasant” who didn’t know what he was talking about, who should have kept his mouth shut, and who deserved to be executed for speaking the truth, is an anti-Christian stance that is totally untenable and unacceptable IMO.
Quoting Apollodorus
The irony of your attempt to discredit Judaism is that you inadvertently discredit a central theme of Christianity. If Jesus is descended from David and David is a legendary rather than real historical person then the claim that he could trace his messianic role to David must be rejected.
Your selective quotes from Finkelstein and Silberman is evidence that either you do not read and understand the material you quote from or that is it a deliberate misrepresentation. They say that David’s dynasty:
You go on and on with your "search and plaster", but to what end? The fact that Jesus was an historical figure tells us nothing about the historical accuracy of the gospels.
Quoting Apollodorus
We have no evidence that Mary was a virgin. If she was not a virgin what of the "religion of pagan Christians"? We have no evidence that Jesus was the messiah, and good evidence against it. If he was not the messiah, what of the religion of Christians? We have no evidence of Jesus' resurrection. If he was not resurrected, what of the religion of Christians?
I could go on. The gospels accounts are in many ways contradictory and historically suspect. The Jesus they depict is a legend, which is quite different than claiming he did not exist.
Quoting Apollodorus
And exactly what does that oral tradition say? There is no logical connection between the oral tradition and your conclusion that it contained both Greek and Egyptian elements or specifically what those elements were. Your assertion offers no support for the claim that the pagan ideas in the gospels can be found in the Judaism of Jesus' time.
Quoting Apollodorus
You have completely misunderstood what is at issue. What is at issue is whether Jesus was educated. There is no evidence that he was. But this is not the same as your hyperbolic attack on what no one here has said. One can be uneducated and know what they are talking about. According to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas the knowledge of the uneducated Jesus far exceeded that of what the rabbis could tell him.
Quoting Apollodorus
Again, no one here has said any such thing. No one has defended the actions of the Jewish authorities who called for him to be put to death. You are simply perpetuating the ugly accusation that "the Jews" killed Jesus.
That certainly must be the case. On the other hand, the experience of reading those texts directly after centuries of being told what it says may have had something to do with the strong emotions elicited. The scene had changed from when Paul was explaining why the narrative included Gentiles. Luther reacts as if he just watched the whole event on videotape and is beside himself with rage.
Pascal is an interesting counterpoint to that reaction. In the Pensées, he spends a lot of time on thinking about Judaism as different through the lens of Paul but goes further into texts outside of the Passion and ends up saying the differences did not place Judaism outside of the truth as Pascal understood it to be.
(To be clear, Pascal's role in the Reformation is much different from Protestants who broke from the Church altogether.)
Quoting Romans are to Blame
Quoting Who Killed Jesus?
Quoting Crucifiction of Jesus and the Jews
What gives?
[quote=Egyptian Intro, Rome Total War]So it was written, so shall it be.[/quote]
But “son of God” was also a title associated with royalty, especially in Egypt. As a tribal, nomadic or seminomadic society, the Hebrews originally had no kings. This is why, as the OT states, they asked for a king “like all other nations”:
Samuel, a prophet of the Hebrews, anointed Saul as king (1 Samuel 10:1) but there is no record of his coronation and under him the different tribes continued to rule themselves as before, Saul being their leader during military campaigns, only.
In contrast, David and Solomon were appointed kings by God himself (Psalm 2:6-7):
As the Hebrews admittedly had no kings, they also had no tradition of divine kings. They must have borrowed it from one of their neighboring nations, most likely from Egypt where the institution of divine kings had been established for many centuries and whose kings or pharaohs actually ruled Canaan.
But what about the kings themselves? Who were they and what was their religion?
Though the general consensus is that there is no extrabiblical evidence for David and Solomon, or for their kingdoms, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist at all. It only means that they didn’t exist as, when, and where, described in the OT.
There are many anomalies in the OT narrative. For example, why were David and Solomon the only Israelite kings referred to as “sons of God”? If the Israelites were nomadic people, why would their king build a palace? If Egyptian pharaohs never gave their daughters in marriage to foreign kings, not even to the kings of powerful states like Babylon, why would they make an exception for a Hebrew king? Why did Solomon have many wives from different nationalities, but not a Hebrew one to bear him a Hebrew heir? Similarly, Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite (Exodus 2:21), and apparently also a Cushite or Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1).
These are just a few of the many inconsistencies and odd claims made in the OT. Regarding Moses, various versions of the narrative were in circulation at the time of Jesus. For example, the Greek philosopher and historian Strabo (64 BC – 24 AD) wrote:
We don’t know what Strabo’s exact sources were, but he does not seem to have been familiar with the OT narrative and it is clear that many extrabiblical oral accounts existed, such as those recorded by Hecataeus, Manetho, Strabo, and others, going as far back as the fourth century BC, that agreed on Moses being an Egyptian, rather than a Hebrew.
Of particular interest are those versions of the narrative as recorded, for example, by Pompeius Trogus (Historiae Philippicae) and Apion (Aegyptiaca) that specifically refer to the cult instituted by Moses as “Egyptian”.
Apion’s (now lost) work is quoted by Josephus as stating:
Not unnaturally, Josephus and other Jewish writers disagree with Apion’s account. But an earlier Jewish historian, Artapanos of Alexandria, in his lost work On the Jews, describes Moses as a follower of Egyptian religion and he himself is regarded by some scholars as a polytheistic Jew.
Artapanus of Alexandria – Wikipedia
As stated earlier, the scholarly consensus is that the Old Testament scripture was “extremely fluid” until its canonization around AD 100. Given that many oral traditions existed that were at variance with the “official” OT text, their existence cannot be simply dismissed. On the contrary, it seems proper for truth-loving persons to see which of those traditions are the most plausible ones.
In any case, in view of the fact that it is generally accepted that the OT text underwent heavy editing centuries after Moses, we cannot exclude the possibility that the movement introduced by a religious leader called Moses (or some other name) was, in fact, a form of Egyptian religion.
Indeed, as according to the OT, Moses was born and raised in Egypt, particularly at the royal palace, it would have been entirely natural for him to have been initiated into the cult of the royal household.
Assuming that the religion he introduced was (a) new and (b) monotheistic, the closest Egyptian cult would have been that of Aten, introduced by Pharaoh Akhenaten in the second half of the fourteenth century BC (c. 1340 BC).
According to the Wikipedia article on Moses,
The rabbinical date would place Moses approximately within the lifetime of Akhenaten and raises the possibility that the historical Moses was Egyptian, which is consistent with the extrabiblical accounts mentioned above.
Interestingly, the order to construct a tomb for Akhenaten is inscribed on the cliffs demarcating the boundaries of Akhenaten’s capital Akhetaten, and reads:
It can be seen that this is consistent with the OT statement to the effect that Moses was buried by God:
Though the biblical Moses is said to have died “in Moab”, the statement “no one knows the place of his burial” may be interpreted as an attempt to cover up the true location. At the same time, however, Moab lies to the east of Judah, which is reminiscent of “the eastern mountain (of Akhetaten)”, and in both cases the burial place is outside the land of Israel.
Historians, Bible scholars, Egyptologists, mythologists, and psychologists, have long tried to solve this puzzle. Why was Moses, who had introduced the new religion and had led the new community for many years, not allowed to set foot in the promised land? And how is it possible that the Israelites, who remembered details of Moses’ birth and adult life, had no recollection of his place of burial? If “Moses” was an Egyptian who died and was buried in Egypt, this would solve the puzzle. As noted earlier, psychologists like Freud have suggested that he was murdered. In contrast, Egyptologists like Assmann believe that what the Israelites, who later composed the OT, buried was not Moses, but the memory of his true identity.
The case of King David seems a bit more complicated. The OT describes him as a shepherd who was appointed king. Therefore, he could have been the chieftain of a nomadic group. Yet he is described as “the son of God” which is an Egyptian royal title, and he is said to have built a large palace for himself. Certainly, as leader of a group of nomadic pastoralists, he would have been unlikely (a) to bear a traditional Egyptian royal title, and (b) to have built a palace when, as shown by the archaeological evidence, there was no Hebrew kingdom and therefore no need for such a building.
While it is possible that the story of an actual Hebrew chief was later embellished by the OT editors or redactors, it is equally possible to detect an Egyptian connection. Having seen that “Moses” was most likely an Egyptian, it isn’t out of place to see if any of the Egyptian kings would have been a more likely candidate for the role of “David”.
According to one OT account (Book of Joshua), the Israelites conquered Canaan in the thirteenth century BC in a swift military campaign led by Moses’ successor Joshua. According to another account (Judges), the conquest was gradual and involved many separate conflicts. After becoming “king of all Israel” in the eleventh century BC, David supposedly conquered the Jebusite stronghold of Jerusalem and defeated the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Amalekites, Ammonites and king Hadadezer of Aram-Zobah (a kingdom in southern Syria), establishing an unprecedented empire stretching from the Red Sea in the south to Syria in the north, so that his son Solomon came to rule “over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River from Tiphsah to Gaza" (I Kings 4:24).
This is contradicted by archaeological evidence which shows that in the twelfth century BC, the Hebrews were still a nomadic population living among the ruins of ancient cities (many of which had been destroyed by the Philistines) and other Canaanite nations, with the highlands of Judah at the supposed time of David consisting of only “about twenty small villages and a few thousand inhabitants, many of them wandering pastoralists” (Finkelstein & Silberman, pp. 135-6).
It was only in the mid-tenth and early ninth centuries BC that monumental structures, fortifications, and other signs of full statehood appear in the area under Assyrian influence, especially during the time of King Omri and his successors (c. 886-760 BC) who established a kingdom in the northern highland with the capital at Samaria. Having initially been no more than a typical highland hill village, Judah’s capital Jerusalem itself only began to expand in the eighth century and became a relatively large city in the seventh century BC.
To repeat, there is no extrabiblical evidence for David and even less for Solomon. There is a ninth-century BC stone slab (or stela) from Tel Dan in northern Israel with an inscription containing the word bytdwd that some have interpreted as “House of David” (Beit David) but as scholars have pointed out, could refer to a place, (-dwd as in Ashdod, for example) not necessarily to a person. In contrast, there is evidence for a “House of Omri”, for example, in the Obelisk of Shalmaneser III showing King Jehu of Israel bowing down to his Assyrian overlord in 841 BC.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III – Wikipedia
It follows that kings David and Solomon couldn’t have been the powerful monarchs reigning over a vast empire as claimed in the OT. In addition to the obviously wrong chronology, there is also the glaring anomaly of David and Solomon as “sons of God”. Neither their predecessor Saul, nor their successors Rehoboam and others, are referred to as “sons of God”. Therefore, we must look for two divine kings with a vast empire and sumptuous palaces and temples elsewhere. Following the clue of Solomon’s marriage to pharaoh’s daughter, we must look to Egypt for a possible solution.
Having seen that Akhenaten is largely consistent with “Moses”, we may note that Thutmose (Thutmosis) III is a good candidate for the role of King David. Though he lived before the time of David, Thutmose was known for conquering the northern city of Megiddo, for collecting tribute from vassal Canaanite kings, for his conquest of Syria, and for his monumental buildings. Thutmose also carried the image of God Amun-Ra as a battle standard at the head of his forces (in the same way the Israelites carried the Ark) and may have resided at Jerusalem where there was an Egyptian garrison, during his siege of Megiddo. All these were things attributed to “David” in the Bible.
How did Egyptian “Thutmose” become Hebrew “David”? Thut or twt referred to Thot, the Egyptian God of Wisdom, and ms simply meant “son of”. So, the pharaoh’s full name meant “Son of God Thot”. “David” (Hebrew dwd) may be a transliteration of Egyptian twt. But it also means “beloved”, an epithet commonly used in Egyptian royal titles: “Beloved of (God) Ra”, “Beloved of (God) Amun”, etc.
Similarly, in Arabic, David (Dawud) means “beloved” and in the Muslim tradition David/Dawud is associated not only with “beloved” or “favorite” (of God) but also with birds:
The Egyptian God Thot was not only the God of Wisdom, but he was also symbolized by the ibis bird. So, three key elements associated with Thutmose, namely “wisdom”, “beloved”, “bird”, are also associated with David in the Koran which, as we know, is a development of earlier Jewish traditions.
Additionally, Jewish tradition states that David’s original name, before he ascended to the throne, was Elhanan (“God gave”). For example, when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Aramaic, “Elhanan” was given as slayer of Goliath (2 Samuel 21:19). This is consistent with “David” being not a birthname but a royal title, comparable to “Thut(mose)”, which suggests that, as in the case of “Moses”, an effort was made by OT editors to conceal David’s true identity. This is why no trace of “David”, the Israelites’ most important king and hero, has ever been found in Israel but there is plenty of evidence for an identical figure in next-door Egypt, just as there is plenty of evidence for a religious founder there in the form of Akhenaten.
Similarly, while there is zero evidence for a Hebrew king and son-in-law of the pharaoh ruling over an empire stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates, there are such kings in next-door Egypt who were the overlords of Canaanite kingdoms and were naturally known to the population of Canaan, including the Hebrews. As pointed out by Egyptologists and other scholars (Assmann, Moses the Egyptian) if the histories of two nations overlap to some extent, it is entirely natural for their national memories to have elements in common. In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.
As mentioned earlier, an Egyptian king that would fit the picture of “Solomon” particularly well, is Amenhotep III whose name or, rather, royal title means “Amun is at Peace” which is consistent with “Solomon” being traditionally derived from the Hebrew word for peace, shalom (shlm), or Semitic salam (slm).
As with “David”, the OT states that Solomon’s name was “Jedidiah” (Yedid-Yah, “beloved of God”) given to him as instructed by God (2 Samuel 12:25). Again, this is consistent with Egyptian royal practice.
Moreover, not only did Amenhotep rule over a vast empire that included Canaan, but he was married to pharaoh Thutmose IV’s daughter Sitamun, and built monumental palaces and temples, including a shrine at Jerusalem.
And, while there is no evidence of letter exchanges between a “King Hiram of Tyre” (the Phoenician city-state) and Solomon whom the former supposedly supplied with building materials for the Jerusalem Temple, there is extensive correspondence between King Abimilki of Tyre and the Egyptian king. In fact, Egypt had strong relations with Tyre, which for centuries had been supplying Egypt with cedar wood for the construction of royal boats, tombs, and temples.
The fact is that Solomon either existed or he didn’t. If he did exist and, as the OT claims, he was married to the pharaoh’s daughter and to many “foreign women”, then (a) he must have been Egyptian and (b) he had a number of sons who could have qualified as rulers of a small Canaanite kingdom.
Indeed, in addition to being married to the pharaoh’s daughter Sitamun, Amenhotep was also married to Tiye and several other foreign princesses, and produced at least two sons and four daughters.
Of particular interest is Amenhotep’s religious orientation. As his royal title indicates, he was initially a worshiper of Amun. However, one of his sons was Amenhotep IV who, on becoming king, introduced the monotheistic cult of Aten and renamed himself Akhenaten. Amenhotep himself seems to have adopted the new cult later in life, as he named his youngest daughter Beketaten (“Handmaid of Aten”), and had himself, his wife, and his youngest daughter depicted as worshiping Aten.
Amenhotep III with Queen Tiye and Princess Beketaten. Amarna tomb of Huya - Wikipedia
As the OT relates, Solomon in his later years took to worshiping the Sun which apparently scandalized later generations of Temple priests. Similarly, Amehotep III seems to have taken to worshiping a monotheistic God (symbolized by the Sun Disk or Orb) which equally scandalized the priests of Egypt.
Moreover, while divine kings were unknown to the Ancient Hebrews, divine kingship was a centuries-old institution in Egypt. The Egyptian king was physically the son of his father and spiritually the son of God, which is why on ascending to the throne he acquired the title “son of God”. This tradition was carried on into Hellenistic times and was adopted by Alexander the Great and his successors.
If Alexander could call himself “son of Amun-Zeus”, then so could Jesus, especially if he was a descendant of Egyptian and Hebrew royalty as suggested by the Talmud where he is referred to as “son of Joseph Pandira”, i.e., as having a physical father or ancestor (Joseph) and a spiritual one (Pa-Ntr-Ra, “The-God-Ra”). Likewise, the NT references to Emmanuel (Amun-El), Truth, Light of the World, etc., in connection with Jesus, suggest a new revelation of age-old teachings.
So, there is no contradiction there. Jesus’ teachings are a fusion of the highest elements of Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish religion conveyed in the universal language of the time, which was Greek.
It is generally acknowledged that while the OT seems to have some historical facts right, others are clearly distorted, made up, or borrowed from other traditions and adapted to suit the editors’ agenda. In any case, the “official” OT narrative doesn’t have to be the only correct one. But if we choose to believe that Egypt and Greece never existed and never had any influence on anything, then it’s a different story ….
If I didn't know better I would think that this is a parody. And since you don't know better you are unaware of how ridiculous this is.
If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to identify them as Egyptian or to claim that the stories are true but the names have been changed.
Quoting Apollodorus
If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to say that it is an anomaly that they were were referred to as 'son of God'. They are in fact called son of God in the Hebrew Bible.
Further, if they did exist that does not mean that their stories are historical with a few changes to disguise the fact that they were Egyptian. You arbitrary choose what to take as historical and what to alter in order to make them Egyptians.
We might ask why you do this. The answer can be found here:
Quoting Apollodorus
This is all a long runaround to avoid facing the fact that the Jewish Jesus was not a man-god.
But you equivocate. If 'son of God' is, as you say, someone who has a physical father as well as a spiritual one, then when Jesus is called a 'son of God' it does not mean what it does for pagan Christians. It does not mean, as you previously claimed, that he is one and the same as God or that God was his actual father.
It has taken you almost a year to get to this point. It is nice to see that you are still learning. There is hope for you yet.
The way I see it, philosophy and rational thinking in general, should be based on facts. Unfortunately, people tend to be averse to anything that contradicts their preferred perception of reality. This is why they dismiss history, archaeology, and other disciplines that might bring to light inconvenient facts.
This is particularly the case when it comes to religion. If people have been brought up to believe certain things, they will tend to reject anything that challenges those beliefs.
For example, some believe that a great Hebrew king named “David” existed, who ruled over a vast empire stretching from Egypt to northern Syria in the eleventh-tenth century BC. As Finkelstein & Silberman have demonstrated, some among those who subscribe to this belief not only are unconcerned with the total lack of supporting evidence, but are attempting to use any archaeological finds as “evidence” for their belief.
It will be recalled that the Philistines or Peleset (originally from Crete in the Aegean Sea), having invaded Canaan in the 1100’s BC, settled in the southwestern part of the country (known as “Philistia” from which the name “Palestine”) after which they gradually spread east- and northward, conquering Canaanite cities on the way. These Philistine conquests were apparently reinterpreted by the OT authors, and some modern archaeologists blindly following them, as the conquests of “David”:
Similarly, when disciples of “Emperor Solomon” found no trace of his supposed empire at Jerusalem, they dug up northern cities like Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer described in the OT as having been “rebuilt by Solomon” (1 Kings 9:15). There they found indeed large public buildings with massive gates and stables, as well as large palaces apparently fitting the OT description of Solomon’s Jerusalem palace.
As the structures discovered showed clear influence of north Syrian architectural style, it was conjectured that this confirmed the OT account of “King Hiram of Tyre’s” involvement in Solomon’s construction projects.
Unfortunately, as Finkelstein & Silberman explain, closer analysis of the architectural styles and pottery forms from the sites in question indicates that they actually date to the early ninth century, i.e., long after the suggested date of Solomon, and this is supported by carbon 14 dating.
Moreover, the appearance in northern Israel of monumental structures in northern Syrian style, coincides with the development of that style in the rest of the Levant when the northern kingdom of Israel established by King Omri in the 800’s BC was under Syrian influence and soon became a vassal of Assyria. Additionally, Omri’s capital was at Samaria and it had nothing to do with Judah and its capital Jerusalem which was still in an undeveloped stage at the time.
Omri seems to have been a significant military campaigner who built Samaria as his capital and expanded the kingdom of Israel. However, there is hardly any information on him in the OT.
Finkelstein & Silberman explain:
A united “kingdom of Israel” may or may not have existed. However, there is no extrabiblical evidence for its existence and archaeological and historical data suggest that it didn’t exist. Another important fact to understand is that the central highland area where the Israelites were based is about 80km (49mi) in length and 20km (12mi) across, the remainder of the lowlands and the coast in the west being controlled by Philistines and other nationalities. By comparison, the Babylonian Empire was six to seven times larger and the Egyptian Empire many times larger than both.
Royal chroniclers are notorious for the exaggerated image of their masters that they are trying to portray. But the notion of a local king who ruled over an extensive empire and was married to pharaoh’s daughter is risible. It follows that the “memory of an extraordinary leader” promoted by the OT authors is either (a) completely made up or (b) the memory of a different leader. If (b), then the most likely model for the OT narrative is a king that actually ruled over such a large area, and such a king could only have been an Egyptian pharaoh.
We know that the OT authors suppressed information about the Omride dynasty. And we also know why. The OT was composed by priests associated with the smaller Israelite kingdom of Judah centered on Jerusalem, to which the larger kingdom of Israel was a long-time rival. In addition, all the kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Hoshea had been following the traditional polytheistic religion, which is why the OT authors saw them as “wicked”. As a result, the OT seeks to play down the importance of the northern kingdom and its rulers, and to exaggerate the importance of Judah and its rulers.
To be sure, as stated in the OT, most of the kings of Judah had also been “wicked”. In fact, the very first “King of Israel and Judah”, Saul himself, had been “wicked”, and even Samuel, who appointed Saul king, had been “wicked”:
“High place” (Hebrew bamah) is the OT term used for places of worship located in open areas or natural hilltops, where traditional religious rites were observed by Canaanites including Hebrews. In this particular case, the high place to which prophet Samuel is heading to attend the sacrificial feast, is inside the city. Interestingly, just the day before, Yahweh himself instructed Samuel, Israel’s “wicked” spiritual leader, to anoint Saul as king. This is duly done on the following morning, after Samuel blessed the sacrifice and participated in the meal with his guest Saul.
On his part, King Saul named his youngest son Eshbaal (“Fire of (God) Baal”) and is said to have turned against “the religion of the Lord”, for which he was slain by God (1 Chronicles 8:33, 10:13-14).
Significantly, he is also said to have killed the priests of Yahweh and to have fought David. Obviously, there was division and conflict among the Israelites – which is precisely why they split into two kingdoms – and the Judahites got to write the history of both kingdoms only because Israel was destroyed by Assyria, whereas Judah was saved from Babylon by Persia.
In any case, Jeroboam, Saul’s successor as King of Israel after David and Solomon, likewise “rejected the religion of the Lord” and as advised by his religious leaders, he “made golden calves” and “built shrines in high places”:
Scholars have long recognized a connection between Jeroboam’s construction of shrines to traditional deities and making of golden calves, and Aaron’s making a gold calf to celebrate the God that brought the Israelites out of Egypt. This and many other references to traditional religion, mean that the objective OT reader cannot but conclude that the original religion of the Hebrews was a form of Canaanite polytheism which had many elements in common with other religions in the region from Egypt to Greece.
What becomes clear is that “righteous” kings “David” and “Solomon” were inserted into the Israelites’ long series of “wicked” kings in order to justify Jerusalem’s claim to religious and political authority. And because most of Judah’s kings from Solomon’s son Rehoboam to Zedekiah had been “wicked”, this was used to explain the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the deportation of its population, as well as to justify the centralization of spiritual power in the hands of the Second Temple priests after the return from Babylon and the reconstruction of the Temple.
However, strict monotheism seems to have been enforced centuries later and, even though the use of cult statues was eventually discontinued, the OT God remained an anthropomorphic deity associated with the Sun as can be seen from later Hellenistic synagogues.
Outside Israel, a similar tension existed between traditional, popular religion and the religion of the elites. Yet, unlike in Israel, this tension did not lead to open conflict. The masses kept their traditional religion, which continued to be promoted by the state, whilst spiritually evolved men and women turned their minds to the divine in its highest form of Truth or Ultimate Reality itself.
This, too, is consistent with Egyptian tradition. As explained earlier, the Egyptians already worshiped their supreme deity under two aspects, a visible one represented by the rising and midday Sun (Ra), and an invisible one represented by the setting and midnight Sun (Amun), hence the dual deity Amun-Ra. The monotheistic religion introduced by Pharaoh Akhenaten was merely a development of established religion, in which the invisible deity, iconographically symbolized by the Sun Disk or Orb (Aten), was worshiped as the sole God.
This uniquely evolved or refined form of religion was, of course, a royal cult. It never became the religion of the masses. Moreover, Akhenaten was succeeded by his son Tutankhaten (“Living Image of Aten”) who initially upheld the official monotheistic cult introduced by his father. However, Atenism did not prove popular with either his subjects or the priestly class. In the fourth year of his reign, Tutankhaten reinstated the old polytheistic religion, and changed his name to Tutankhamun (“Living Image of Amun”). Yet while he publicly promoted the old Amun-Ra tradition, privately he seems to have remained loyal to the Aten cult. This is supported by artistic representations of the deity in the form of the Sun Disk Aten, as can be seen from the back panel of Tutankhamun’s golden throne.
Tutankhamun’s Throne – Ancient Egypt
This also appears to be reflected in the Jewish tradition of vocalizing the written divine name YHWH as “Adonai” (i.e., Adon or Aten), though it seems that the true meaning and reason for this has been forgotten.
As the OT itself admits, the true religion originated in Egypt where it was revealed to Moses who had been brought up in the Egyptian tradition. Jesus himself is associated with Egypt both in the NT and in the Talmud where he is said to have practiced magic (or worked miracles) in Egypt. Moreover, if God is Truth, then the authentic revelation of Truth is nothing but a manifestation, embodiment, or creation of Truth. Therefore, Jesus, who represents the Truth of God is the “Truth become flesh” or “Son of God”.
It follows that the true meaning of “son of David (Dwd)”, “son of Thot, the God of Wisdom”, or “son of Ra” (ben Pa-Ntr-Ra), is that Jesus is a teacher in the authentic spiritual tradition initiated by Egypt’s divine kings and continued by a long line of kings, prophets, and philosophers especially (among the Greeks) Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato who are said to have studied the sacred mysteries of Egypt:
Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras
As is well-known, Pythagoras was referred to as “son of God” in the Greek tradition, and according to Speusippus and others, so was Plato. As Strabo tells, Plato traveled to Heliopolis in Egypt where he spent thirteen years in the company of priests (Geography 17.1.29). Plato himself certainly refers to Egypt in his dialogues. Significantly, he demonstrates accurate knowledge of Egyptian sacred rites such as embalming and, in particular, of the special role of kings in Egyptian religion (Phaedo 80c; Stateman 290d-e).
Indeed, historical and archaeological evidence shows that the “Hidden God” Amun a.k.a. Ammon or Amen was not only known but actually worshiped among the Greeks (at Thebes, Sparta, and Aphytis) since at least the fifth century BC. The cult of Amun which is mentioned by Plato, was adopted by Alexander (who had been tutored by Plato’s pupil Aristotle) and other Greek kings in the Hellenistic period during which an influential and inspiring fusion of Egyptian and Greek spirituality emerged. Thus, while Jewish fundamentalists became increasingly embroiled in fruitless religious and political squabbles, this time it was the Greeks (and the more open-minded among Hellenistic Jews) who gave the timeless wisdom of Egypt to the world, not as a national cult but as a universal religion for the whole of humanity.
In this sense, Jesus a.k.a. “Emmanuel” (Amun-El) (or his teachings with which he is identical and from which he is forever inseparable) is the embodiment of Truth (Aletheia), Righteousness (Dikaiosyne), and Goodness or the Good (Agathon), which are attributes of the Ineffable One (to Hen), the Sun of the noetic realm, and therefore, the Light of the World (to Phos tou Kosmou) that enables those “who have eyes to see and ears to hear” to elevate themselves above the darkness of superstition and error, and perceive Ultimate Reality face to face in a life-transforming and ignorance-dispelling experience of eternal truth from which there is no return to untruth.
Which is abundantly clear from your posts.
Quoting Apollodorus
You have argued that Jesus is the messiah based in part on the alleged lineage from David to Jesus. There are two problems with this that you have refused to acknowledge. First, if David did not exist then there can be no lineage from David to Jesus. Second, if David did exist, there is no evidence of the geneology from David to Jesus.
Quoting Apollodorus
Once again you are confused about the difference between history and mythology. They did not "suppress information". They are telling a story not giving an historical account.
Quoting Apollodorus
You mean after the king you claim did not exist?
Quoting Apollodorus
Do you mean the conflict that you claim never actually happened? You go back and forth between the archeological theories of Finkelstein and Silberman and the stories in the Hebrew Bible, picking and choosing which way to go in order to put forth your own skewed account.
Quoting Apollodorus
"Admits"?! An odd choice of words.
According to Genesis Abraham was the progenitor of the Jews, not Moses. Moses's parents were descended from Abraham through Levi, a son of Jacob, who was Abraham's grandson. Once again you toggle back and forth, on the one hand denying Moses existed and on the other claiming "the true religion" originated in Egypt because Moses was raised by Egyptians.
You get the Biblical account wrong on another key point as well. Moses' upbringing has nothing to do with the Law given to him by the God who brought the people out of Egypt. The God who brought plagues upon the Egyptians and killed their first born sons.
To be clear, this is not an historical claim, it is theological. It marks a disjunction between Judaism and Egyptian beliefs and practices.
Quoting Apollodorus
That is your conjecture. In the Hebrew Bible "authentic revelation" is from God through his prophets. An act of God is not an act of "Truth".
Quoting Apollodorus
Still trying your best to distance Jesus from Judaism. Why?
Quoting Apollodorus
And what is that timeless wisdom? What evidence do you have of it? Where in this timeless wisdom do we find the Law and prophets that Jesus admonished his follows to adhere to? Where does the ancient wisdom refer to the Sabbath or the laws of kosher (which are quite specific)? Where does it refer to the prophets?
Quoting Apollodorus
As I have pointed out more than once, the Sermon on the Mount rejects the idea of a universal religion. Is your point that Jesus was a "Jewish fundamentalists"?
Quoting Apollodorus
Where does Jesus say anything about "the noetic realm"? When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord, this means obedience to the Law of God, not an ascent to an imagined noetic realm.
You begin by talking about facts but end with wild and careless conjecture that can only appear plausible when one ignores the facts. The facts in question are not those of archeology from centuries earlier but of theological claims, beliefs, and practices at the time of Jesus.
The talk of the 'timeless wisdom of Egypt' and mystery cults reminds me of Madame Blavatsky and the
Theosophical Society.
She, too, embraced Neo-Platonism and antisemitism. She did not, however, refer to Judaism as 'anti-Christian'. That has more of the tone of Marcion, as mentioned before.
I think Apollodorus suffers from the delusion of what Hegel called the Universal night where all cows are black. Under the guise of shedding light he casts shadows. He lumps together the Egyptians, the Greeks, and Jesus, as if they are all members of a continuous secret society. A society that excludes Judaism, but allows for:
Quoting Apollodorus
That is Jews who look and act and think like neoPlatonist Romans. What he calls:
Quoting Apollodorus
but is nothing more that a pretense to exclude everyone who does not accept his version of what he calls:
Quoting Apollodorus
What he hides behind is the fact that he knows nothing about "ultimate reality". It is nothing more than something he has read about and imagines to be. What is missing is the experience itself, without which it is all just empty words.
As shown by the archaeological and historical evidence, the Philistines invaded Canaan in the twelfth century BC, and settled in the south-west. Over the next few centuries they spread northward along the western coast and into the Judean hills where they came into conflict with the Hebrews. They were not conquered by the Hebrews. They fell under Assyrian domination along with the Hebrews and were finally destroyed as a power by Babylon in the 500’s BC. It follows that David and Solomon’s “empire” never existed and that the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value.
IMO there is nothing wrong with having religious beliefs. But I think those beliefs should (a) make sense and (b) be supported, or at least not contradicted, by the evidence.
Truth or Ultimate Reality either exists or it doesn’t. If it does, then it must manifest itself in some way in order to be known.
In religious terms, Truth or God manifests itself either directly, or indirectly, for example through a human being called the “son” of the deity.
There are several basic ways in which a person can be “the son of God”.
(1) As the product of physical or sexual union of God and a human being.
(2) As the product of a non-physical or non-sexual union of God and a human.
(3) As a human appointed as representative and spiritual offspring of God.
There are numerous instances from Greek and other religious traditions where the physical or sexual union between a divine being and a human results in the birth of a “son of God”, i.e., a semi-divine human, e.g., heroes such as Heracles, son of Zeus and princess Alcmene.
But “son of God” was also a royal title. Although some instances of this seem to occur in Phoenicia, e.g., Abibaal (“My Father is (God) Baal”) and Aram-Damascus, e.g., Ben Hadad (“Son of (God) Hadad”), this was not established practice anywhere (not even Assyria or Babylon) in the region except in Egypt where kings routinely bore the title “Son of (God) Ra” in official inscriptions.
So, referring to a king as “son of God” was definitely a very Egyptian practice that was later adopted by the Greeks and associated with the cult of Amun that was itself borrowed from Egypt.
The whole issue then revolves on where the new religion originated. And the evidence overwhelmingly points to Egypt.
The OT itself says that it was founded in Egypt by “Moses” who had been born in Egypt and brought up as an Egyptian, who did not speak Hebrew, and who, moreover, was unfamiliar with Hebrew religion. Moses’ religion, therefore, must have been Egyptian. However, as he had been raised at the palace, his religion was not the popular religion of the Egyptian masses, but a royal cult.
As rabbinical tradition dates Moses to about 1391–1271 BC, this is consistent with the time of Amenhotep III (1390–1352 BC) and his son Amenhotep IV a.k.a. Akhenaten (1352–1336 BC), when the Aten/Adon religion was officially introduced.
Though later OT accounts claim that the Ark was used only to house the Law tablets (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10), we are earlier told that when it was first built it was intended as the seat or throne of God (“mercy seat”) (Exodus 37:9), which is reminiscent of a portable shrine carrying the image of the deity in Egyptian tradition.
Moreover, we know that Egyptian kings used law books with instructions that they were obliged to follow, and that they had to listen to recitations from holy books in order to practice the fear of God:
The same idea is found in the OT where it is said:
Obviously, as a nomadic group of different and often rival tribes, the Hebrews had no comparable legal code and it makes sense for them to have adopted the legal system of their Egyptian overlords. Thus, Egyptian royal tradition was used as a model for the entire religion of Israel. Indeed, if “Moses” was an Egyptian (or adopted Hebrew) raised at the royal palace as claimed in the OT narrative, then he would have been familiar with the rules of ethical conduct as well as the religious ideas of the Egyptian royal house, which involved serving the main deity and adhering to strict ethical precepts.
To be sure, all established city-states, let alone empires, had similar laws. Suzerainty treaties and covenantal oaths were also common practice associated with the foundation of new cities or states throughout the region.
Among the Greeks, who had a long tradition of founding colonies, established practice involved the announcement of the will of God by a prophet or oracle, performing ceremonies accompanied by blessings and curses, erecting a stone inscribed with a covenantal oath before the deity, building an altar outside the city perimeter, etc. As related by Homer in the Odyssey (4.2 ff.), when King Nausithous settled on the island of Scheria, he surrounded the city with a wall, built temples to the Gods, and divided the land among the settlers, just as the Israelites are said to have done in the OT (Joshua 18:1 ff.).
Similarly, Plato writes:
The legend of Mose’s birth and adoption finds close parallels in the mythologies of other nations. A seventh-century text from Assyria relates how King Sargon of Akkad was conceived by a woman and an unknown father, placed in a basket of rushes made water-resistant with bitumen, set adrift on the river, after which he was found, adopted, and ruled as king.
However, though the story of “Moses” was embellished with elements from other traditions, it is clear that the core element is Egyptian.
When the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Assyria in 732 BC, some Israelites fled to Egypt (Isaiah 11:11). So, though attempts were made to dissociate Judaism from its Egyptian roots, close links to Egypt were nevertheless preserved. Indeed, it is possible that the story of David and Solomon was brought back to Israel on the exiles’ return from Egypt when the OT was being written down or edited, and it was incorporated into the general narrative by the authors along with other new elements.
In any case, by that time, Egyptian religion had also found followers among the Greeks where elements of it fused with philosophy, and were adopted by Alexander and his Hellenistic successors.
This explains why the teachings of Jesus, from “Light of the world” and “Son of God” to moral perfection, resurrection, and eternal life in paradise, contain elements found in Greek and Egyptian traditions.
It also shows why the claim that Jesus is the “Son of God”, though allegedly contradicting Jewish religion, is perfectly consistent with the Hellenistic tradition of the time. As shown by Christian leaders like Justin Martyr, Christians were fully aware of this and made no attempt to hide it. On the contrary, they used it to show the similarity between Christian teachings and the teachings of Hellenistic religion:
Though consistent with Hellenistic tradition, Jesus was nevertheless a special case, as he was not only conceived by the power of God as clearly stated in the NT, but also inherited the royal title “Son of God”, and was the embodiment of the Word of God (Logos) by following which man can have a direct vision of Truth or Ultimate reality which is identical with the philosophers’ Ineffable One.
Of course, self-realized philosophers already had a direct experience and knowledge of the One, but the teachings of Jesus were intended to bring about the moral elevation and spiritual liberation of the whole population of the Roman Empire, indeed, of the whole world, the majority of which, like most Jews, were preoccupied with animal sacrifices, rituals, and all kinds of erroneous beliefs, superstitions, and fairy tales.
This is precisely why many, Jews and non-Jews, were naturally reluctant to give up their old ways and found it easier to oppose the new faith. Thus a conflict arose between those who believed and those who didn’t.
For example, we know from Suetonius, who as secretary to Emperor Hadrian had access to the imperial archives, that there were riots in Rome in 49 AD in connection with one called Chrestus:
In reality, the riots were not “instigated by Chrestus (Christus or Christ)” but were caused by the conflict among the Jews in Rome between those who accepted Jesus’ teachings and those who opposed them. This in itself suggests that there were substantial numbers of Jews in the diaspora who actually believed in Jesus already at that time.
Indeed, it is obvious from the NT text itself that most of Jesus' followers were Jews, despite attempts by anti-Christian activists and trolls to deny this.
However, as history shows, in addition to open-minded Hellenistic Jews like Paul, there were rising numbers of non-Jews who accepted the new faith, and Christianity eventually became the world religion that Jesus had wanted it to be. This is the truth that anti-Christians can't handle. They imagine that Jesus was a criminal who was rightly executed for his "unorthodox" or "infidel" beliefs, known as "shirk" (??? ) or "riddah" (???,) among the Taliban and that Christianity is a criminal religion that should not have been allowed to exist.
In sum, I think it is clear that the “official” reading or interpretation of the Bible is based on the counterfactual hypothesis that Egypt and Greece never existed and never had any influence on anything. In contrast, authentic Christianity and fact-based biblical scholarship readily acknowledge the true roots of both Judaism and the Christian faith.
The general consensus among historians, archaeologists, Egyptologists, anthropologists, biblical scholars, and others, is that some key OT events cannot have happened as described in the “official” narrative. (It is essential to remember that as shown earlier, alternative narratives existed for centuries until the “canonization” of Hebrew scriptures.) To the extent that they are disproved by the evidence, such events belong to the category of false belief.
Obviously, we cannot prove or disprove that God appeared or spoke to any of the OT characters. This must remain a matter of faith, for now. However, we can prove or disprove, for example, the existence of a particular city or state at a particular time and at a particular geographical location.
The OT states:
By comparison, Egyptian inscriptions, copies of which have been found in Canaan, describe Pharaoh Amenhotep III as:
The resemblance is striking. But while we have ample evidence for an Egyptian empire ruled by Amenhotep whom Canaanite and other vassal kings address as “my Sun”, “son of the Sun”, and “my lord, my God, my Sun”, there is nothing to support the belief that an “empire of David and Solomon” stretching from Thapsacus (Hebrew Tipsah) on the Euphrates to Gaza existed in Canaan.
So, the choice is between (a) blindly believing what the OT text says, and (b) looking at the alternative narrative as supported by the evidence.
Very briefly, what the evidence indicates is that the Hebrews were a pastoralist seminomadic Canaanite group with Canaanite language, culture, and religion. The designations “Hebrew” and “Israelite” may be connected with Habiru/Apiru, a term originally applied to a social group in the region, and with the Jezreel Valley (Hebrew Yizre'el) in the north of the country.
As the lowlands or coastal plains of Canaan were controlled by other groups and, increasingly, by foreign powers, the Hebrews gradually settled in the central highlands, founding villages, cities and, eventually, kingdoms. As the emergence of Hebrew institutions such as monarchy and organized state religion took place when Canaan was under Egyptian domination, they were naturally influenced by long-established Egyptian traditions.
Indeed, there is plenty of biblical and extrabiblical evidence for Egyptian influence on Hebrew religion and culture.
For starters, according to the OT narrative, Moses:
1. Was born in Egypt.
2. Was adopted by an Egyptian princess.
3. Was brought up at the royal palace.
4. Could not speak Hebrew.
5. Was unfamiliar with Hebrew religion.
In light of this, I think it stands to reason that if “Moses” introduced a religion to a group of Hebrews or Canaanites, this religion would have been Egyptian. Indeed, there is no logical reason why it shouldn’t have been. Nor is it necessary for it to have been a complete religion. It would have been sufficient for “Moses” to introduce elements of the Egyptian royal cult that were relevant to the establishment of a new state. References to God could have been simply part of a suzerainty or vassal treaty in which the vassal group pledged allegiance to the Egyptian God. In fact, the pharaoh himself was regarded as “God” and addressed as “my Lord” and “my God”, especially in official documents and diplomatic correspondence.
If “Moses” was an Egyptian royal (adopted or not) he may have been in a position to offer protection to a Canaanite group inhabiting a small territory like the central highlands, in exchange for submission to his rule. In a world of small warrying tribes and city-states in need of protection by a bigger power, this was common practice.
Extrabiblical sources show that Canaanite religion, which was initially similar or identical to that of Syria, became increasingly Egyptianized. Hebrew kings adopted Egyptian religious symbols (winged sun disk, ankh cross), the Egyptian calendar of three seasons with numbered instead of named months (which was later exchanged for the Babylonian one), Egyptian numerals, etc. Even the Hebrew script is derived from earlier forms of Egyptian writing.
As described in the OT, the Canaanites, of course, were an unruly bunch. Their profession of subservience to Egypt must be read with caution. Lab’ayu, the same ruler of Shechem, above, who offered his wife to the pharaoh and wrote that he would put a bronze dagger into his own heart if the pharaoh so commanded (Letter EA 254), was also accused of being a collaborator of the Habiru. Rebellions, however geographically limited and short-lived, did occur. But the Canaanite use of the formula “my Sun” when addressing the Pharaoh, illustrates the importance of the Sun in both Egyptian and Canaanite culture, and cultural influence of Egypt on Canaan was certainly extensive. See also:
Egyptian culture influenced ancient Israel after Exodus, unearthed antiquities reveal – Jerusalem Post
This is entirely natural, given that Canaan was an Egyptian colony for several centuries, with Canaanite rulers pledging allegiance to Egypt by means of suzerainty treaties (which may have served as models for the Israelite’s covenant), and maintaining close commercial and cultural links with Egypt. After all, neighboring cultures do borrow from one another, and it is clear that ancient peoples had no problem whatsoever with accepting foreign influence in the spheres of culture, technology, and even religion.
While there is no doubt that the Egyptian Goddess Hathor was highly popular in Canaan, it is equally beyond doubt that archaeological evidence has brought to light solar symbols suggesting that a solar cult existed among Canaan’s royal elites. Indeed, Hathor herself was a solar deity, being none other than Sun-God Ra’s consort!
Hathor - Wikipedia
As shown by cult figurines from Ancient Canaanite temples, the Goddess Hathor was worshiped alongside a male deity. While the Goddess wears her hair styled in Egyptian fashion, the God wears a headdress or crown (Hedjet) associated with Egyptian deities and kings. Like Egyptian Gods (and pharaohs), the Canaanite God is depicted with a raised arm poised to smite his enemies, which later appears as a central feature of the OT God El/Yahweh or Yahweh-El. The God’s original name seems to have been El, his various forms or aspects being known as “El-Shaddai”, “El-Elyon”, “Yahweh-El” (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 10:12), etc., which are later replaced by the abbreviated epithet of “Yahweh” (which refers to his function of creator god). In any case, like his Egyptian and Canaanite counterparts, the Hebrew God El/Yahweh seems to have had a female consort referred to as Asherah both in the literature and in the OT:
The OT itself claims that “King Solomon” was married to Pharaoh’s daughter in addition to other women, and was persuaded by them to worship other Gods:
What seems clear from this is that:
1. Hebrew kings were not opposed to foreign influence.
2. Foreign, including Egyptian, influence was common.
3. If Solomon built a shrine or temple for his Egyptian wife, its deity may have been the Sun-God Amun-Ra, as corroborated by the OT statement to the effect that the kings of Judah had chariots and horses dedicated to the Sun:
So, it wasn’t just Solomon but all (or most) kings of Judah and Israel. As shown by Finkelstein (The Bible Unearthed), Smith (The Early History of God), Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun), and other leading scholars, this is corroborated by the archaeological, epigraphical, and other evidence. Horse figurines with a sun disk above their head (that may be miniaturized representations of the originals), have been discovered at Iron Age levels at Lachish, Hazor, and Jerusalem.
Incidentally, Finkelstein is one of Israel’s top archaeologists and winner of several academic and writing awards including the Dan David Prize for his revision of the history of Israel in the 10th and 9th centuries BC. He revolutionized not only Israel’s archaeology by introducing the most accurate methods and technologies, but also its history. This doesn’t mean he is infallible, but it does mean that he has far more specialized knowledge and experience than the average person. The same is true of Smith whose book is extremely well researched and sourced, and Taylor. Their opinion and, above all, the evidence they are presenting, cannot be ignored.
Moreover, OT verses specifically refer to the Hebrew God as the Sun of righteousness (Shemesh sadaqah) with healing in his wings, i.e., WINGED SUN (Malachi 4:1-3), as well as “covering himself with light as with a garment”, and “riding on the clouds as on a chariot” (Psalm 104:2-3), and generally employ solar language in connection with the deity, such as “dawn”, “rise”, and “light”.
The king himself is compared to the rising Sun exactly as in Egyptian tradition:
As noted by many scholars, all this suggests a royal Sun cult followed by Israelite kings. Smith writes:
However, solar Yahwism is consistent with “Moses’” religion being a form of royal Egyptian cult that he would have been familiar with from his time at the Egyptian palace, and later criticism may be an attempt to cover up the Egyptian origin of the royal cult as a result of nationalist, anti-Egyptian polemic.
Tensions may have first arisen between an educated elite concerned with centralized state authority appealing to a male deity on one hand, and the general population concerned with fertility, birth, health, and other every-day issues, and focusing on a female deity, on the other.
Growing centralization of power next led to tensions between the political elite adhering to a monarchic theology and the priestly class which sought to impose its own ideology on the Jewish state. Thanks to the backing of the authorities, El/Yahweh or Yahweh-El became the dominant and, eventually sole, deity whose original solar character was subsequently replaced with a purely anthropomorphic one.
So, basically, the OT narrative is built on a Canaanite background to which Egyptian and other elements were later added.
This is why the OT should be re-written in order to bring it more into line with historical truth, especially in light of the fact that its authors themselves re-wrote it time and again for many centuries, and that their primary concern – as observed by numerous scholars - seems to have been not religious and spiritual but political.
If not monotheism, but nationalism, was the motivational factor behind the OT narrative, this would support the view that the true origins of the biblical belief in one divine being are to be found in Egypt, not in Canaan. This is consistent with the Egyptian connections described by ancient authors like Hecataeus, Manetho, and Strabo, and alluded to in the OT, NT, and Talmud.
Indeed, though Ancient Egyptians had no single codified account of creation, there are numerous texts referring to a self-created deity who at the beginning of time created all things and beings, including the Gods, by proclaiming their name and thus bringing them into existence, i.e., by verbal fiat.
In about 2000 BC Egyptian texts mention a solar Creator-God who makes humans in his own image along with plants and animals to nourish them, who watches over them by day and by night, listens to their prayers, and punishes them for rebelling against him. The same Creator-God (named as Amun-Ra) is later referred to as “sole King among the Gods, without his equal, who made all things that exist”. By the time of Akhenaten, the deity is described as “sole God, with no other beside him”.
Clear parallels occur in the OT where the Hebrew God is first described as “without equal among the Gods” (Exodus 15:11-12), later as having “no other God beside him” (Isaiah 44:6) and, eventually, as being “one” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Thus we can see that, in spite of its apparent “polytheism”, Egyptian religion developed the concept of a supreme Creator-God long before Akhenaten introduced the cult of Aten, and many centuries before the Hebrews adopted monotheism proper. By the time of Moses, the religion found in the OT complete with covenant, ark, law tablets, and rules of conduct, was established Egyptian royal cult. Even the story of the Ten Plagues seems to be based on existing Egyptian tradition going back many centuries before Moses.
This doesn’t mean that there is no truth in the OT narrative. However, given that Israelite religion emerged in an Egyptianized environment, the truth can be discerned only when we are familiar with Egyptian history, culture, and religion, and we realize that political reasons led to historical fact being distorted and covered up by anti-Egyptian rhetoric.
Interestingly, the idea of an Egyptian origin also occurs among the Greeks. Herodotus states that the Egyptians introduced temples, processions, statues, ceremonies, even the names of the Gods, and that “the Greeks learned all that from them” (Histories 2.5, 2.58). While this may seem exaggerated, there is no doubt that the earliest forms of Greek religion entailed sacred groves, stones, caves, springs, and open-space altars. Cult statues and temple buildings made of wood and stone appeared later. Some Egyptian influence may be seen in temple architecture, and Egyptian concepts such as a supreme Creator-God who imposes order on the universe and is described as “Craftsman of the world” appear in Greek religion and philosophy.
After the decline of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, Persia became the dominant power in Canaan, followed by Greece. Due to Alexander’s empire that stretched from Macedonia and Egypt in the west to northwest India in the east, Greece became the main source of influence on language, culture, and religion throughout the region. This is precisely why Hellenistic Judaism (which is totally different from present-day Rabbinic Judaism) emerged in the 300’s BC and lasted into the 500’s AD.
Palestine at the time of Jesus was a Hellenized Roman province. King Herod I (72 BC – 4 BC) himself had been thoroughly Hellenized. He attended the Greek elementary school in Jerusalem, in which the sons of the Jewish aristocracy were instructed, and later pursued philosophical, rhetorical and historical studies under the direction of his friend and adviser, the Peripatetic philosopher Nicolaus of Damascus. Herod also had his sons and successors, including Herod Antipas (who sent Jesus to Pilate’s court) and Philip, brought up completely in the Greek style.
In addition to renovating and expanding the Jerusalem Temple, Herod also built large Pagan temples at Caesarea, Sebaste, and Omrit (or Caesarea Philippi, according to Josephus), as well as theaters and hippodromes, and introduced games and spectacles. He bore the Greek title of basileus and minted coins with Greek inscriptions and symbols including sunburst.
Under Herod, the high priests and the Sanhedrin lost much of their traditional power and influence, and even more so when Judea came under direct Roman rule in 6 AD, which is why they later resorted to inciting the crowds in order to get Pilate to execute Jesus. As the NT relates, Pilate offered to release Jesus from prison and execute a notorious prisoner of the name Barabbas instead. But the crowds, incited by the chief priests and members of the Sanhedrin, demanded that Barabbas be released and Jesus crucified (Matthew 27:20). It was not Jewish society in general, and even less the political rulers, that were hostile to Jesus and his teachings, but radical elements within the religious leadership.
At any rate, it is clear that Christianity emerged within the cosmopolitan, Hellenistic culture of first-century Roman Palestine, which is why it was a combination of various cultural and religious strands, including Jewish, Greek, and Egyptian, as is evident from the NT.
Though parallels may be found in other traditions, all the elements that are central to NT teachings will be instantly recognized as Hellenistic by the perceptive reader:
God as Truth, Light, Wisdom, Goodness, Justice.
God as Father.
God as Judge.
Divine Judgment.
Son of God.
Virgin birth.
Divine Family.
Resurrection (Anastasis).
Heaven (Paradeisos) and hell (Hades).
Eternal life in paradise a.k.a. Salvation (Soteria).
Cultivation of moral and spiritual perfection (Teleiotes) as a means to achieve eternal life in heaven, etc.
The fact is that Jesus is recorded as saying “I am the Way and the Truth” (Ego eimi he Odos kai he Aletheia) (John 14:6) and there is no evidence that his teachings are not the way to Truth. Of course, lower levels of truth may differ from person to person, and the above statement may have been understood differently, then and thereafter, by people of different religious persuasion, educational level, or intellectual/spiritual capacity. But there seems to be little doubt that at the highest level, Truth or Ultimate Reality is one and, therefore, identical with the Truth of the philosophers.
See also:
M. Smith, The Early History of God – Internet Archive
S. Smoot, Ancient Egyptian Monotheism
G. Rendsburg, “Moses the Magician” - Rutgers
Megiddo was an Ancient Canaanite city situated on a hill at the foot of the Samaria Highlands and overlooking the fertile Jezreel Valley of northern Israel.
Its location on a main trade route connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia made Megiddo a prosperous and strategically important city for many centuries. But it also attracted the attention of foreign powers like Egypt who sought to control the international routes that linked Egyptian economy to other key areas, and to acquire a share in the prosperity of city-states situated along those routes.
Archaeological excavations at the site have revealed many different strata of occupation which reflect Megiddo’s relations with regional powers. The following is a rough sketch:
Neolithic (Late Stone Age) period:
8300–5500 BC: the area is sparsely settled.
Early Bronze Age:
3300-2200 BC: the settlement gradually develops into a large Canaanite village (and later town) surrounded by a wall and with a temple complex.
2325-2275 BC: the region is invaded by Egypt (under Pharaoh Pepi I).
Intermediate Bronze Age:
2000 BC: Megiddo flourishes as a Canaanite city-state.
Late Bronze Age:
1479 BC to 1140: Egyptian domination (initiated by Thutmose III).
Iron Age I:
1100 BC: destruction by fire.
1000 - 926 BC: resettled and rebuilt as a Canaanite city.
926 BC: conquered by Egypt (under Pharaoh Sheshonk).
Iron Age II:
900 BC: destruction by fire (possibly caused by Israelites).
884 - 842 BC: occupied and rebuilt by Israelites (Omride dynasty).
842 – 800 BC: destroyed and occupied by Aram-Damascus.
800 BC to 747 BC: abandoned during this period.
Assyrian period:
732 – 610 BC: rebuilt by Assyria which makes it its provincial capital, followed by gradual decline and
Assyrian withdrawal.
610 – 600 BC: briefly held by Egypt.
Babylonian period:
600 – 539 BC: area under Babylonian control.
Persian period:
539 – 350 BC: Persian control and final abandonment.
Archaeology can identify different layers of truth or fact that can corroborate or contradict literary sources like the OT. This is how we know, for example, that the monumental structures found at Megiddo and elsewhere, belong not to the supposed time of “Solomon” (970-931 BC) but to the era of the Omride Dynasty who ruled over the northern highlands from their capital Samaria in the 800’s BC.
The critical analysis of biblical literature can be equally revealing. Biblical criticism has a long history. Already in the 1600’s scholars began to doubt the official account according to which the main OT books (Pentateuch) had been written by Moses. But it was only with the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiforms in the 1800’s, that scholars were able to compare the OT text with other texts of the Ancient Near East.
By the time of Freud’s Moses and Monotheism (1939), it had become clear that many of the OT’s key narratives could not be taken at face value. There was growing suspicion that Moses and his story may have had more to do with Egypt than officially acknowledged, so much so that some scholars suggested that Moses may have been an Egyptian. Indeed, archaeological evidence not only raised serious doubts about the supposed “kingdom (or empire) of David and Solomon”, but showed significant Egyptian influence on Canaanite, including Hebrew, religion.
On the available evidence, it seems increasingly clear that the original religion of the Hebrews was a form of Canaanite polytheism that was replaced with an Egyptian-influenced royal cult and developed from monolatry to monotheism over the course of many centuries.
The next great influence on Judean religion after Egypt, was Greece. Following Alexander’s conquest of the Near East, Greek kings actively promoted Greek language, culture, religion, and customs. In Palestine (as the Greeks called the area between Syria and Egypt), this gave rise to Hellenistic Judaism.
Though sometimes thought to have obtained mainly among the diaspora Jews, this form of Judaism that incorporated many Greek elements was highly influential in Greek, and later Roman, Palestine itself.
Indeed, a growing number of scholars believe that Greek influence extended not only to Judaism but also to Jewish scripture. It is generally acknowledged that some OT books like the book of Wisdom and Maccabees show strong Hellenistic influence. With the exception of Maccabees 1, which was written in Hebrew, they were written in Greek, and this tradition was later followed by the NT.
Some scholars point out that Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, and 4 were composed in the diaspora, mainly in Alexandria, Egypt, and therefore they are not representative of Palestinian Judaism. But the fact is that Alexandria was the cultural center not only of the Hellenistic world, but also of Hellenistic Judaism which under Greek and Roman rule was the dominant form of Judaism.
Alexandria was particularly important not only because it was the home of the largest Jewish community outside Palestine, but because it was the home of the Mouseion (Latin Musaeum), a large, Greek-language research center dedicated to the Muses, which also housed the Library of Alexandria, and where many renowned scholars carried out research for their works, including Zenodotus of Ephesus, Callimachus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus of Samothrace, Apollodorus of Athens, and many others.
Alexandria is also where the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek. The translation, named The Translation of the Seventy (H? Metáphrasis T?n Hebdom?konta) and later known as The Septuagint or LXX, was made between the third and second centuries BC, and became the central text of Hellenistic Judaism. However, the exact date of the Hebrew original is unclear as the earliest manuscripts (Dead Sea or Qumran Scrolls) only go back to about 250 BC, i.e., the Early Hellenistic period.
The absence of manuscripts preceding the Hellenistic period raises the question of when the OT was actually composed. It is generally accepted that the OT was written by several authors and produced over a period of centuries. It is also suggested that the first five books - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), i.e., after the return of exiled temple priests from Babylon.
However, there are a number of problems with this suggested dating. One of them is the apparent Greek influence. To begin with, there are some striking parallels between the world described in the OT and what we know from Greek history.
The core of the OT narrative is a founding story or myth that serves to explain the birth of the Israelites as an ethnic and religious group. Such myths were common in the ancient world, especially among the Greeks who had a long tradition of settling in new territories and founding colonies and city-states throughout the Mediterranean. Plato’s Republic deals in great detail with precisely the founding of such a city-state.
In Greek tradition, the founding process began with the announcement of the will of God by a prophet or oracle, followed by a journey to the “promised land”, and, on arrival, the performance of ceremonies accompanied by blessings and curses, erecting a stone inscribed with a covenantal oath, building an altar outside the city perimeter, building a city with temples to the Gods and surrounded by a wall, dividing the land among twelve groups of settlers, etc. All these elements are found in the OT narrative.
Moreover, like the Hebrews, Greek society was organized by kinship, i.e., divided into tribes, brotherhoods, clans, and households, and was governed by very similar laws.
Lists of ethical precepts, especially in the form of advice from father to son, were very common and formed part of the wisdom literature of the Ancient Near East, for example, The Instructions of Shurrupak, a collection of admonitory sayings addressed by the Sumerian king Shurrupak to his son Ziusudra, in which the latter is advised against committing theft, adultery, rape, slander, cursing, lying, etc.
In the Egyptian tradition, such precepts were specifically linked to a happy after life. To insure that one was not found guilty by the divine tribunal and barred from entering paradise, one had to be able to truthfully assert that he had not committed murder, theft, adultery, perjury, blasphemy, that he had not told lies or cursed, or used evil thoughts, words, or deeds. Here we have at least eight equivalents to the biblical ten commandments.
If Moses was indeed an Egyptian, or Hebrew raised at the Egyptian royal palace as claimed in the OT, then he would have had knowledge of the rules of ethical conduct that were current among Egypt’s educated ruling elites.
However, the Greeks, too, had a highly developed ethical and legal system, that had been transmitted orally for many centuries before being put into writing by the lawgiver Draco (7th century BC) and reformed by his successors Solon, Cleisthenes, and Pericles.
Greek city-states had laws against murder, theft, adultery, perjury, blasphemy, and slander, and maxims or gnomic statements including “Honor the Gods” and “Honor your Father and your Mother.” A collection of such maxims, known as The Commandments of the Seven Sages, was inscribed on a wall in the temple precinct at Delphi, lending them a degree of divine authority.
The observance of religious festivals was a civic duty and the establishment of religions that were contrary to the official religion of the city-state (polis) was an act of impiety punishable under treason laws, as reflected in Plato’s Laws:
Like the OT, Greek laws dealt with such matters as the constitution, citizenship, homicide, assault, theft, marriage, inheritance, sexual offenses, slavery, livestock, property, agriculture, commerce, military service, treason, religion, and ethics.
Some OT laws, for example, concerning polygamy, bride-prices, and dowries, are clearly remnants of local Canaanite or Near Eastern customs. Among the Greeks, bride-prices had been customary in the time of Homer. Dowries were still common in Classical Athens, but legislation against the practice had been introduced (though not implemented) by Solon, and leading philosophers like Plato were opposed to it (Laws 742c, 77c-d). Athenian law allowed a man to have only one wife. An exception was made in the 5th century BC when war had greatly reduced the male population and men were permitted to have legitimate children by a concubine in addition to the official wife. The “law of retribution” (lex talionis) invoked in the OT is another example of dependence on Near Eastern (Babylonian) law codes.
But the vast majority of OT laws have close parallels to Greek legal tradition. From Athenian citizenship laws which conferred citizenship exclusively on legitimate offspring of Athenian parentage on both sides, flowed prohibitions against marrying foreigners. From kinship laws flowed the obligation of the next of kin to avenge murder. The blood of those slain unlawfully was said to cry out for vengeance and to arouse the Furies, making it necessary to avenge the killing. Even in later times, when the punishment was taken over by the courts, the responsibility for prosecuting the murderer remained with the next of kin.
Further customs that are common to both biblical and Greek tradition include: execution by stoning; punishment of animals; the belief that the shedding of blood constitutes pollution (miasma) and requires ritual purification (katharmos), etc.
Though stoning as a form of execution is currently associated with the fundamentalist Islamic regimes of the Near East (who have inherited the practice from OT law), it was established custom among the Greeks and is expressly mentioned by Plato:
Plato’s Laws also provides the killing of animals found guilty of a human’s death:
In short, while some biblical laws have very little in common with Ancient Near Eastern law, they clearly have elements in common with Greek law. Among these, some, such as judicial proceedings against animals, seem to have examples only in biblical and Athenian law and, in particular, in Plato’s Laws.
Contact between Greek and biblical law was already noted in Greco-Roman antiquity by Jewish and Christian historians such as Josephus (Apion 2.151-286) and Eusebius (Preparation for the Gospel 12.35-47), and the topic has remained a subject of scholarly study and debate ever since. Attempts to explain away the many indisputable points of identity or correspondence as “Greek plagiarism of OT material” had to be abandoned when modern research showed that the emergence of OT laws was not prior but contemporaneous with similar developments in Archaic and Classical Greece.
Indeed, further research has identified significant biblical dependence not just on Greek law but, specifically, on Plato’s Republic and Laws. A major breakthrough came with Russell Gmirkin’s excellent study, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (2017), in which he writes:
Plato certainly regards his dialogues like Laws as divinely inspired or conducted “under divine inspiration” (epipnoia Theon) and the discussions described as proceeding along the path along which God leads the speakers (811c, 968b). Moreover, he calls the supreme Hellenic God, Zeus, “the Patron of the State” (Zeus Poliouchos) and he says:
It is clear that Plato envisages the City-State as a kind of enlightened theocracy or hierocracy modeled on established Greek tradition. Indeed, in addition to civil government officers from kings to judges, all of whom were democratically elected, Athens also had a number of religious officials such as priests, experts in sacred law, and prophets. According to Plato, these were to also perform civic duties.
Consequently, Plato proposes the establishment of a college of priests of Helios (the Sun-God) and Apollo, presided by a high priest (archiereus) and consisting of twelve examiners or judges (euthynoi) each responsible for examining a twelfth of all public offices, serving as members of the City-State’s supreme ruling council or divine synod (theios syllogos), and presiding over public ceremonies and functions (946c, 969b).
Thus, Athens not only had priestly families comparable to the OT’s Aaronites and Zadokites, and itinerant priests comparable to the Levites, but was to also have a ruling religious council presided over by a high priest, comparable to the Sanhedrin. As the exact date of the establishment of the Sanhedrin is not currently known, and the name itself is Greek (Synedrion), there is a strong possibility that it was formed in the early Hellenistic Era.
Gmirkin concludes:
Of course, contact between Greeks and Judeans goes back many centuries before. Greek pottery and tableware, among other products, were highly popular in 7th century BC Palestine and other parts of the Levant, and some elements of the Hebrew Bible must have originated during the Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Canaanite Eras.
But the fact remains that after Egyptian influence, Greek influence seems to have been significant, in any case, far more extensive than commonly assumed and that when Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17), he implicitly meant not only the law and prophets of Israel, but also the law and prophets of Greece, and - if Moses and his religion turn out to have been Egyptian - the law and prophets of Egypt.
This demonstrates that Jesus’ message is not only universal, but also philosophical and consistent with that of Plato and other great Greek thinkers.