"And here is the key point for everyone: the upshot of this necessarily-brief discussion was how few "orthodox Gospels" (meaning, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc.) had come to light from the Second Century (the single example cited being a possible fragment of the Gospel of John from papyrus trash heaps in Egypt) but, on the other hand, how many heterodox. Did this mean that more people were reading "sectarian Gospels" at that time, not "orthodox" ones? The answer of the more conservative scholars on the Panel (Chair Michael Williams of the University of Washington, DeConick, Robinson, et. al) was, "Not really but that, in any case, the Gospel of Judas was less historical than they" -- a conclusion echoed by Ms. Acocella above.
"At that point, as there seemed to be no further questions, I gathered my courage, stood up, and asked, "What makes you think any are historical and not just retrospective and polemical literary endeavors of a kind familiar to the Hellenistic/Greco-Roman world at that time? Why consider one gospel superior to the another and not simply expressions of retrospective theological repartee of the Platonic kind expressed in a literary manner as in Greek tragedy? The Gospel of Judas was clearly a polemical, philosophical text but, probably, so too were most of these others. Why not consider all of them a kind of quasi-Neoplatonic, Mystery Religion-oriented literature that was still developing in the Second Century and beyond, as the Gospel of Judas clearly demonstrates?"
"A sort of hushed silence fell on the three hundred or so persons present in the audience, because there was a lot of interest in this Gospel at that time, as I continued: "Why think any of them historical or even representative of anything that really happened in Palestine in the First Century? Why not consider all Greco-Hellenistic romantic fiction or novelizing with an ax-to-grind, incorporating the Pax Romana of the earlier Great Roman Emperor Augustus, as other literature from this period had and, of course, the anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish legal attachments which were the outcome of the suppression of the Jewish War from 66-73 CE?"
""The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were masters of such man/god fiction and the creation of such characters as Osiris, Dionysus, Asclepius, Hercules, Orpheus, and the like as the works of Hesiod, Euripides, Virgil, Ovid, Petronius, Seneca, Apuleius, et. al. demonstrate. Why not consider all of this literature simply part of this man-God/ personification literature, in this instance incorporating the new Jewish concept of "Salvation" -- "Yeshu'a"?""
Original article too long to post here. Please see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eis...85093.html
"Why not consider all of them a kind of quasi-Neoplatonic, Mystery Religion-oriented literature that was still developing in the Second Century and beyond, as the Gospel of Judas clearly demonstrates?"
First of all, because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not quasi-Neoplatonic, Mystery Religion-oriented literature. Second, because they ring true with the rest of the Bible. Third, because they speak truth of the human experience. Fourth, because I take a willing-to-believe attitude, which is easy for God to work with, instead of a doubting attitude, which will not accept the truth under any conditions.
Hello Tina,
Those are certainly good questions and the answers may not be as simplistic as some would have you believe.
"What makes you think any are historical and not just retrospective and polemical literary endeavors of a kind familiar to the Hellenistic/Greco-Roman world at that time? Why consider one gospel superior to the another and not simply expressions of retrospective theological repartee of the Platonic kind expressed in a literary manner as in Greek tragedy?”
What might be helpful is an understanding of the Christian mind set. Its very nature, Christianity, is that of triumphalism, it believes itself to be the only path to G-d at the exclusion of all others, ironically enough, including Judaism. The historical accuracy of their claim is irrelevant. With them it is a matter of faith. “because I take a willing-to-believe attitude” a recent post makes this very point. That could also be said about Santa Claus, Sasquatch or the Tooth Ferry.
Coupled with the power of the State, Christianity grew out of brut force. The Crusades, inquisitions etc. are but two examples.
“Why not consider all of this literature simply part of this man-God/ personification literature, in this instance incorporating the new Jewish concept of "Salvation" -- "Yeshu'a"?""
There is another perspective that one could consider here. That is that the original texts were intended to be used simply as prayer books in their services. Read carefully it is easy to see that the Gospels, for the most part, follow all of the Jewish Holidays in order and it would make sense that they were for worship and not intended to be taken literally. You make one small error in your post. "the new Jewish concept of "Salvation" -- "Yeshu'a"?"" Salvation for Jews is a national event.
Best regards,
Avraham
Dear Thomas,
I'm confused by this:
"which is easy for God to work with,"
What then is difficult for G-d?
Can you see my difficulties’?
Best regards,
Avraham
"I'm confused by this:
"which is easy for God to work with,"
What then is difficult for G-d?
Can you see my difficulties’?"
Avraham, I was not referring to "easy for God" in terms of taxing His abilities less, but in terms of what God has to do and likes to do in response. If I have a willing-to-believe attitude, God simply communicates and it is a joy to Him, and thence, easier. If I take a doubting attitude, it wearies God, as He wishes I would be responsive to Him. Also, He must put me through some disciplinary measures, and that is not what He enjoys doing.
Examples:
Ezekiel 18:32 "For I do not desire the death of him who dies, says the Lord God: so turn away and live!"
Malachi 2:17 "You have wearied the Lord with your words, and you say, "How have we wearied [Him]?"-By your saying, "Every evildoer is good in the Lord's sight, and He desires them," or, "Where is the God of judgment?"
Dear Thomas,
“Avraham, I was not referring to "easy for God" in terms of taxing His abilities less, but in terms of what God has to do and likes to do in response. If I have a willing-to-believe attitude, God simply communicates and it is a joy to Him, and thence, easier. If I take a doubting attitude, it wearies God, as He wishes I would be responsive to Him. Also, He must put me through some disciplinary measures, and that is not what He enjoys doing.”
What I find troubling is the tendency to claim to know what G-d thinks and how he would respond. The Prophets, and you certainly have put your self in good company, were speaking figuratively. My impression is that you are speaking literally and that you also see the text in this manner. Is this a fair assessment?
Best regards,
Avraham
[quote=Avraham]
Dear Thomas,
What I find troubling is the tendency to claim to know what G-d thinks and how he would respond. The Prophets, and you certainly have put your self in good company, were speaking figuratively. My impression is that you are speaking literally and that you also see the text in this manner. Is this a fair assessment?
Best regards,
Avraham
[/quote Robert] Were not you the one who said; Eating and drinking blood?How could we do that? Yeshua spoke in allegories, and parables throughout the Gospels, and you say Thomas takes the scriptures literally? Is not that doubleminded? As far as talking to G-d; Have you lost your relationship? Best regards my friend , Robert
Dear Robert,
"Were not you the one who said; Eating and drinking blood?How could we do that? Yeshua spoke in allegories, and parables throughout the Gospels, and you say Thomas takes the scriptures literally?"
If you do not take it literally, and I assumed that you did, for some do, Catholics for one, then it is pointless.
Best regards,
Avraham
Tina
Indeed you can ask yourself all kind off questions around it.
First of all as a Jew, I don't have a problem with idea's that even Torah is written in a language that most Egyptian emigrants might understand. The Almighty had to ''talk'' in a language the people understood, but in the language was interwoven His Devine understanding.
So even in the period after the Temple disappeared, people wanted to believe in other ways of salvation, there was a need for a solution ''inbetween'' like maybe inbetween the first and secont Temple things where done differently.
So it's not that strange that Paul or later writers came up with ''solutions'' what to to without ''The Laws (what considers a lot of Rulings connected to the Temple or IN The Land itself)'', outside Israel some Laws don't have to be capt etc. And as in Talmud is written, non-Jews are allowed to have sometimes intermediators between God and men, so a God/Man for them is not even within the idea's of the disciples a strange concept.
But at the other hand, there are gospels in the original Aramaic translation. And Jesus doesn't quote from the New Testament, so within the Christian Testament are also a lot of old Jewish concepts, but explained in a Hellenistic world it becomes a mixture where you have to read carefully. Also the Talmud raises a lot of Hellenistic questions and tries to answer them.
For expample the Galatians where a Celtic nations in a Celtic ruled province of Small-Asia with specific Laws about the Celtic ways of rebirth etc. They where not specific Hellenistic and had other questions maybe about legal questions how to baptise or cercumsize etc. Why to keep the day of Passover on the 14th of Nisan... instead of on a certain Sunday etc. That's partly how Nisan is still a Turkish month, AND why Cetltic Churches till in the years of 800-something in ENGLAND still kept passover on the 14th of Nisan.
So off course cultures take certain parts of their legalistic or spiritual way of thinking with them into a new tradition. And off course in the Greek and Roman countries, Jesus started to look more towards their interpretation.
[quote=Avraham]
Dear Robert,
"Were not you the one who said; Eating and drinking blood?How could we do that? Yeshua spoke in allegories, and parables throughout the Gospels, and you say Thomas takes the scriptures literally?"
If you do not take it literally, and I assumed that you did, for some do, Catholics for one, then it is pointless.
Best regards,
Avraham
[/quote= Robert]We are finally agreeing!If you don't see the underlying word, you miss the whole text. I heard of a minister once that stood in his pulpit ,raising his hands and exuberatingly proclaimed; Lord we are but dust without you! His exuberance was cut short when a little girl looked at her mother and spoke loud enough the congregation could hear! She said; Mommy, What is butt dust?