|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 11/25/2002 : 15:19:14
|
It has been argued lately, with some success, that the gospels are primarily (if not entirely) derived from Greek and pagan mythology. In the following excerpt, John Shelby Spong makes the case that they are in fact derived from Hebrew midrash:
quote:
LIBERATING THE GOSPELS
THE GOSPELS ARE JEWISH BOOKS
Is it therefore possible that we have inappropriately imposed a Western understanding of time on a Jewish tradition? …perhaps we should inquire as to the way in which the gospel stories developed originally. Was it biographical, so that the memories created the Gospels? Or was there a quite different Jewish context that might be probed for hidden clues?
There are stories in the Gospels that are so deeply reminiscent of stories in the Old Testament that one might inquire as to the reason for their similarity. Was that accidental or coincidental? Or does it point to something we might have missed? The confusion of tongues at Babel (Gen. 1) is surely related in some way to the overcoming of that confusion of tongues at Pentecost (Acts 2). The story of Pharaoh seeking to kill the Jewish boy babies in Egypt (Exod. 1:22 ff.) is surely connected to the story of Herod seeking to kill the Jewish boy babies in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16-18). The story of Moses, after meeting God on the mountain, had his face shine so brightly that it had to be covered (Exod. 34:29 ff.) is surely related to the story of Jesus being transfigured so that shone with an unearthly radiance (Mark 9:2-8). The account of the Palm Sunday procession (Mark 11:2-10) is surely related to the story in Zechariah (9:9-11) where the. King came to Jerusalem, lowly and riding on a donkey. These and countles
As long as the Gospels were read and interpreted only by gentile people, however, either these ancient Hebrew connections were unknown or it was assumed that these were nothing but Old Testament foreshadowings of the life of Christ. To believe that these texts are actual anticipations of Jesus meant that Christians had to believe that these verses had been placed into the texts of antiquity by the holy God so that hundreds of years later people would see in Jesus' literal fulfillment of these expectations proof of his divine nature. If that was to be the way that God worked, we need to recognize that God has had to run some enormous literary risks, to have been constantly vigilant and significantly invasive, for such a scheme to work. Suppose there had been miscopying by scribes, or mistranslations by translators? Suppose that these sacred writings had, through the centuries, been inadequately protected from enemies and so had been destroyed. Would not God's plan have been thwarted? The Dead Sea Scrolls, ma
The same anti-Jewish mentality was also busily occupied in the task of the erosion of the Jewishness of these Gospels. By the early years of the second century, the Christian church had become an almost exclusively gentile church. This meant that from that day until this generation, only gentiles have read and only gentiles have interpreted the Christian scriptures. These gentile interpreters did not know-nor were they even aware that they did not know-the Jewish background. Ignorance joined hands with prejudice first to distort truth and understanding and then finally to lose the original meaning of the Gospels altogether.
Lastly, this ignorance imposed a non-Jewish literalness on the gospel texts that the Jewish authors, I am convinced, would never have understood or appreciated. Somewhere around the year 140 C.E., the status of the Gospels as Jewish books descended so low that a man named Marcion actually sought to remove the Hebrew God and the Hebrew scriptures from the Christian Bible. He failed officially. Far more than Christians recognized then or later; however, he succeeded unofficially. As a result of that unofficial success, the Gospels were for centuries covered with a blinding negativity to all things Jewish. This negativity is only now beginning to lift, and it is my thesis that, because it is lifting, a new way to approach the Gospels is finally emerging.
In a deep and significant way, we are now able to see that all of the Gospels are Jewish books, profoundly Jewish books. Recognizing this, we begin to face the realization that we will never understand the Gospels until we learn how to read them as Jewish books. They are written, to a greater or lesser degree, in the midrashic style of the Jewish sacred storyteller, a style that most of us do not begin even now to comprehend. This style is not concerned with historic accuracy. It is concerned with meaning and understanding. The Jewish writers of antiquity interpreted God's presence to be with Joshua after the death of Moses by repeating the parting of the waters story (Josh. 3). At the Red Sea that was the sign that God was with Moses (Exod. 14). Joshua was said to have parted the waters of the Jordan River, it was not recounted as a literal event of history; rather it was the midrashic attempt to relate Joshua to Moses and thus demonstrate the presence of God with his successor. The same pattern operated
We are not reading history when we read the Gospels. We are listening to the experience of Jewish people, processing in a Jewish way what they believed was a new experience with the God of Israel. Jews filtered every new experience through the corporate remembered history of their people, as that history had been recorded in the Hebrew scriptures of the past.
Comments welcome.
|
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
Blue Monk
New Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2002 : 15:37:13 [Permalink]
|
I certainly agree with this....
"Recognizing this, we begin to face the realization that we will never understand the Gospels until we learn how to read them as Jewish books."
But the rest of it puzzles me. I assumed the Jewish authorship of the gospels was pretty much accepted fact. The only book I know of that anyone has suggested was written by a Gentile was Luke. Some think this was authored by a Gentile physician that accompanied the apostle Paul of the same name.
Is there a large faction that believes the gospels are non-Jewish in origin or did I misunderstand the article?
|
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
|
Blue Monk
New Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2002 : 21:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Groan.
I just got here and already I've got homework, hehe.
Just kidding, I'll check it out. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 04:49:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
I assumed the Jewish authorship of the gospels was pretty much accepted fact. The only book I know of that anyone has suggested was written by a Gentile was Luke.
Not really ...
quote:
Was Mark a Jew by birth? In favor of this would be the correct use of numerous Aramaic (or Hebrew) words in the Gospel. On the other hand, Mark's mother tongue seems to be Greek, for the characteristics of the Markan language do not point to Semitic influence, but correspond to the style of Hellenistic folk literature and literary Koine. Since Mark demonstrably writes for a Gentile church, he can be described as a Greek-speaking Gentile Christian who also has a command of Aramaic, probably a native of Syria who grew to adulthood there. [see pg. 200 - RD]
< ... >
Whether Matthew was a Jewish or Gentile Christian is still a disputed point among scholars. [see pg. 220 - RD]
- The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings by Udo Schnelle
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 10:36:01 [Permalink]
|
Spong's logic seems, to me at least, to be somewhat flawed. Like so much bible scholarship mountains are made from molehills, and large assumptions are made.
There are stories in the Gospels that are so deeply reminiscent of stories in the Old Testament that one might inquire as to the reason for their similarity. Was that accidental or coincidental? Or does it point to something we might have missed? The confusion of tongues at Babel (Gen. 1) is surely related in some way to the overcoming of that confusion of tongues at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Only if you ignore the fact that the people at Babel spoke new languages while the Apostles spoke a gibberish that was a language straight from god. Gibberish that could only be interpreted by select members of the congregation.
Nowhere in the OT does god send messages that are in "tongues." However this was an everyday event at Delphi. Where the Pythoness would speak in tongues while the Priest would translate into cryptic Greek.
The story of Pharaoh seeking to kill the Jewish boy babies in Egypt (Exod. 1:22 ff.) is surely connected to the story of Herod seeking to kill the Jewish boy babies in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16-18).
This is a common myth through out Indo-European mythology, far older than the Moses story. "The Slaughter of the Innocents" is a basic story line in Vedic religions.
The story of Moses, after meeting God on the mountain, had his face shine so brightly that it had to be covered (Exod. 34:29 ff.) is surely related to the story of Jesus being transfigured so that shone with an unearthly radiance (Mark 9:2-8).
The halo that Jesus is always depicted with comes from Mithraic art. Mazda is represented as the Sun. The halo is the suns light beaming from Mazda's and Mithra's faces. In Bullfinches Mythology you'll find Zoroastrians listed as "fire worshipers" solely because of this light emanating from the face of their gods.
Sometimes you find art of them with rays coming out of their heads; this is the bases for Kings to wear golden crowns that come to points. It designates them as the "Sun King" Mazda. (In the first half of the 20th Century they even called light bulbs "Mazda's.")
The account of the Palm Sunday procession (Mark 11:2-10) is surely related to the story in Zechariah (9:9-11) where the. King came to Jerusalem, lowly and riding on a donkey.
The greeting of the god with cheers and palm fronds was the way of the Bacchanalia of Dionysos. The god astride a donkey was not odd in the rough terrain of the Greek isles.
The same anti-Jewish mentality was also busily occupied in the task of the erosion of the Jewishness of these Gospels.
The Gospels depict the Romans as stern but just and the Jews as hypocritical killers of god. There was no erosion of Jewishness; the book is anti-Semitic from the get go. Just what you would expect from a Roman book written after they destroyed Israel.
Jesus supercedes and over turns Jewish law. Even abandoning the Saturday Sabbath (which held the death penalty in the OT) in favor of the Mithric Sunday (see Mazda above) Sabbath.
Not only does the NT not come from the Midrash, it's basic premise contradicts it.
Here's a piece written by Dr J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire ( The Pentateuch and Haftorahs pp.196). In it he is explaining why Jews aren't Baptized. But it makes my point equally well.
quote:
Man was mortal from the first, and death did not enter the world through the transgression of Eve….There is no loss of God-likeness of man, nor of man's ability to do right in the eyes of God; and no such loss has been transmitted to his latest descendants.
Although a few Rabbis occasionally lament Eve's share in the poisoning of the human race by the Serpent, even they declare that the antidote to such poison has been Sinai; rightly holding that the Law of God is the bulwark against the devastations of animalism and godlessness. The Psalmist often speaks of sin and guilt; but never is there a reference…to what Christian theology calls "The Fall." One searches in vain the Prayer Book, of even the Days of Penitence, for the slightest echo of the doctrine of the Fall of man. "My God, the soul which Thou hast given me is pure," is the Jew's daily morning prayer. "Even as the soul is pure when entering upon its earthly career, so can man return it pure to his Maker" (Midrash)….
Mankind descending from Adam became hopelessly corrupt and was swept away by the Deluge. Noah alone was spared. But before many generations pass away, mankind once again becomes arrogant and impious, and moral darkness overspreads the earth. "And God said, Let Abraham be--and there was light," saying of the Midrash.
Not only does the Midrash not bolster the Jesus myth, it makes it superfluous.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Blue Monk
New Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 13:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
I assumed the Jewish authorship of the gospels was pretty much accepted fact. The only book I know of that anyone has suggested was written by a Gentile was Luke.
Not really ...
quote:
Was Mark a Jew by birth? In favor of this would be the correct use of numerous Aramaic (or Hebrew) words in the Gospel. On the other hand, Mark's mother tongue seems to be Greek, for the characteristics of the Markan language do not point to Semitic influence, but correspond to the style of Hellenistic folk literature and literary Koine. Since Mark demonstrably writes for a Gentile church, he can be described as a Greek-speaking Gentile Christian who also has a command of Aramaic, probably a native of Syria who grew to adulthood there. [see pg. 200 - RD]
< ... >
Whether Matthew was a Jewish or Gentile Christian is still a disputed point among scholars. [see pg. 220 - RD]
- The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings by Udo Schnelle
Oh I don't agree with that at all.
Greek was the dominant language in the area at the time. That is why we know Jesus by his Greek name and not his Hebrew name, Joshua.
The fact that the author was familiar with Greek is exactly what one would expect from a first century Hebrew. I would be willing to bet that there were a lot more Jews of that time period who could speak Greek but not Hebrew but there were probably few that spoke Hebrew that could not speak Greek.
By the time of Jesus the events of the Old Testament were ancient history and many misconceptions existed as to the original meaning of many of the passages and many of these were further confused thanks to Greek translation.
It was a long held tradition by that time that the messiah would be of the lineage of David and tradition had long held that the messiah would come from Bethlehem, as that town was associated with David.
As a result the gospels have conflicting accounts of Jesus' birth and conflicting and highly contrived tales of how the family came to be there for his birth. Jesus was from Nazareth but there appears to have been an attempt to make him fit the preconceived standards Jewish tradition had already set out for the Messiah.
Of all the gospels, Mark has the most decidedly Jewish viewpoint. That gospel gets all of the finer intricacies of first century Jewish political factions correct and demonizes the hostile Gentiles, especially the Roman soldiers.
The author of Luke, on the other hand, is rather vague on the details of Jewish life and tends speak of specific political factions in broad terms. In fact, that author replaces many political factions with simply the term, ‘the Jews.' The author of Luke also paints a much more sympathetic view of the Romans and their soldiers.
The gospel according to Luke, whether it was actually written by a gentile or not, was clearly slanted toward a gentile view.
But I think most views that would have a gentile source for any of the other gospels most likely arises from some wishful thinking on the part of some Christians who are not to thrilled to have such a solid Jewish connection. I don't think any serious researcher of these books would ever come to that conclusion based only on the facts.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 14:48:13 [Permalink]
|
The fact that the author was familiar with Greek is exactly what one would expect from a first century Hebrew.
It was exactly what you would have expected from any educated Roman. It does not suggest a Jew, except those who are referred to as Hellenized Jews
By the time of Jesus the events of the Old Testament were ancient history and many misconceptions existed as to the original meaning of many of the passages and many of these were further confused thanks to Greek translation.
You realize that you are making the argument that Jews didn't understand their own bible because they weren't reading it in their own language. What do you base this contention on?
It was a long held tradition by that time that the messiah…
Would free them from the Romans. Didn't happen.
As a result the gospels have conflicting accounts of Jesus' birth and conflicting and highly contrived tales of how the family came to be there for his birth.
It's the Magi-Zoroastrian priests--being there that are the problem. Following the star that in their religion foretells the second coming of Mithra.
The fact that the cave under the Church of the Nativity which is traditionally the birth place of Jesus is a temple to Mithra and not a stable doesn't help either.
Jesus was from Nazareth
As far as we can tell there is no Nazareth. It's a place like Camelot.
Of all the gospels, Mark has the most decidedly Jewish viewpoint.
Anti-Semitism is a strange view point for a Jew to hold. Have you actually read Mark? It's dreadful.
That gospel gets all of the finer intricacies of first century Jewish political factions correct and demonizes the hostile Gentiles, especially the Roman soldiers.
It has few details of the Jewish system. And it portrays the Romans as stern but just and the Jews as deceitful murders of the Christ.
But I think most views that would have a gentile source for any of the other gospels most likely arises from some wishful thinking on the part of some Christians who are not to thrilled to have such a solid Jewish connection.
That's nonsense. The source of the stories is Hellenism. Why would Christians prefer Pagans over Jews.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 15:25:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
Oh I don't agree with that at all.
That is certainly your right.
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
Greek was the dominant language in the area at the time ... I would be willing to bet that there were a lot more Jews of that time period who could speak Greek but not Hebrew but there were probably few that spoke Hebrew that could not speak Greek.
And I suspect that many spoke Aramaic. Also:quote:
It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.
- see Early Christian Writings: The Gospel of Matthew
If you and Papias are both correct, Matthew was wasting a good deal of time and effort with Hebrew.
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
It was a long held tradition by that time that the messiah would be of the lineage of David and tradition had long held that the messiah would come from Bethlehem, as that town was associated with David.
What is your source for asserting this long held tradition about Bethlehem? It is not the standard Judaic interpretation of Micah. See, for example, Bethlehem: The Messiah's Birthplace?
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
As a result the gospels have conflicting accounts of Jesus' birth and conflicting and highly contrived tales of how the family came to be there for his birth. Jesus was from Nazareth but there appears to have been an attempt to make him fit the preconceived standards Jewish tradition had already set out for the Messiah.
Actually, Mark found the Virgin Birth so underwhelming that he skipped the entire episode.quote:
Originally posted by Blue Monk
Of all the gospels, Mark has the most decidedly Jewish viewpoint.
Really?quote:
The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 11/26/2002 15:26:54 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
