Scriptural literacy

[Greediguts]

OK, here's another one that has me re-thinking some of the criteria for deciding what the original Jesus said and did.

I think the criterion of dissimilarity may be hogwash.

There are a few times when Jesus said things like "it is what comes out of your mouth not what goes in that makes you unclean" or "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath".

Doesn't that sound suspiciously like what someone in a Pauline community would want him to say?

Yeah, it does. I don't think Jesus was actually concerned with the Gentiles or even making his message "appealing" to them. Paul had his own ideas.

In fact, to that point...

Here's something I've been kicking around - Did the Ebionites come from the Jerusalem church that James oversaw? It would make sense when you compare it with the arguments in Acts and Bart's description in Lost Christianities of their beliefs. The Ebionites were following Jewish laws, insisted on people becoming or staying Jewish, used Matthew (without the first 2 chapters), and used none of Paul's letters. Maybe the arguments between Paul and James are what caused the rift and over time James' sect became the Ebionites? It would also make sense why they didn't believe the whole "virgin" birth story. James knew they had the same set of parents. This would explain why the group thought of Jesus as flesh and blood but "adopted" by God to be his Son.

Reading James in the NT, you get "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead". That's pretty much a slap in the face to the Pauline community. Could it be that an Ebionite letter made it into the NT? Hmmm.....what if the Ebionites started out as the dominant branch of Christianity?

(O.k. looking around the web I see I am not the first to have this idea.
It's mentioned here.)

I think this is quite plausible. Also would explain how some passages of the Gospels treat Jesus' family as unimportant....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, it does. I don't think Jesus was actually concerned with the Gentiles or even making his message "appealing" to them. Paul had his own ideas.

In fact, to that point...

Here's something I've been kicking around - Did the Ebionites come from the Jerusalem church that James oversaw? It would make sense when you compare it with the arguments in Acts and Bart's description in Lost Christianities of their beliefs. The Ebionites were following Jewish laws, insisted on people becoming or staying Jewish, used Matthew (without the first 2 chapters), and used none of Paul's letters. Maybe the arguments between Paul and James are what caused the rift and over time James' sect became the Ebionites? It would also make sense why they didn't believe the whole "virgin" birth story. James knew they had the same set of parents. This would explain why the group thought of Jesus as flesh and blood but "adopted" by God to be his Son.

Reading James in the NT, you get "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead". That's pretty much a slap in the face to the Pauline community. Could it be that an Ebionite letter made it into the NT? Hmmm.....what if the Ebionites started out as the dominant branch of Christianity?

(O.k. looking around the web I see I am not the first to have this idea.
It's mentioned here.)

I think this is quite plausible. Also would explain how some passages of the Gospels treat Jesus' family as unimportant....

I think it not only plausible but the most likely possibility. If that community was largely restricted to Jerusalem and its environs, this would also explain their later poor presence (after the uprising and subsequent fall of the temple). They must have still been around in the 180's though since I thought I remembered Irenaeus mentioning them -- I got busy with other things and stopped reading him, so I'll have to go back and check.

Here's something I learned today, or put together today, or learned and put together today. I went to a Tanakh class this morning (it's a long story), and they were covering part of the beginning of 1 Samuel. It struck me that the circumstances and the basic theme of the death of Judas in Acts is a conflation of the death of Eli from Samuel and the death of Eglon at the hands of Ehud in Judges. Both Eglon and Eli are portrayed as fat men (the implication for Eli is that he has grown fat off the people's sacrifices as his sons are portrayed as stealing from the people, like Judas gets "fat" -- swells -- as a result of the blood money); Eglon dies while on the toilet (like Judas bursting); and the whole story of Eli's death is set against the ark of the covenant falling into the hands of the Philistines, as in the message, the power is going elsewhere (the arc of the story contains the idea that the people don't understand God and Eli doesn't understand what is going on -- he ends up blind, after all -- but the power is going to transfer to someone else: Samuel (God was with him)).

Was the character of Judas and his death cast to show the same themes as in Samuel? God's "blessing" was moving from the sacred center of Shiloh to Samuel's hands because Eli -- who was sort of the last of the Judges (even though Samuel was actually a judge too), meaning the last of the evil lot who had fallen away from God -- didn't understand God (God speaks not to Eli but to Samuel). The theme of Acts is that the Jews (Judas) rejects the message of God (Jesus, and for the book of Acts the Spirit), so the message moves on to the gentiles who accept it. So Judas is cast as Eli (with a little bit thrown in to remind us of Eglon), who falls to his death, fat on what doesn't matter, what God does not really want.

 

[Greediguts]

Here's something I learned today, or put together today, or learned and put together today. I went to a Tanakh class this morning (it's a long story), and they were covering part of the beginning of 1 Samuel. It struck me that the circumstances and the basic theme of the death of Judas in Acts is a conflation of the death of Eli from Samuel and the death of Eglon at the hands of Ehud in Judges. Both Eglon and Eli are portrayed as fat men (the implication for Eli is that he has grown fat off the people's sacrifices as his sons are portrayed as stealing from the people, like Judas gets "fat" -- swells -- as a result of the blood money); Eglon dies while on the toilet (like Judas bursting); and the whole story of Eli's death is set against the ark of the covenant falling into the hands of the Philistines, as in the message, the power is going elsewhere (the arc of the story contains the idea that the people don't understand God and Eli doesn't understand what is going on -- he ends up blind, after all -- but the power is going to transfer to someone else: Samuel (God was with him)).

Was the character of Judas and his death cast to show the same themes as in Samuel? God's "blessing" was moving from the sacred center of Shiloh to Samuel's hands because Eli -- who was sort of the last of the Judges (even though Samuel was actually a judge too), meaning the last of the evil lot who had fallen away from God -- didn't understand God (God speaks not to Eli but to Samuel). The theme of Acts is that the Jews (Judas) rejects the message of God (Jesus, and for the book of Acts the Spirit), so the message moves on to the gentiles who accept it. So Judas is cast as Eli (with a little bit thrown in to remind us of Eglon), who falls to his death, fat on what doesn't matter, what God does not really want.

Well, it's possible. I'm gonna have to read Samuel.

I did find this apologetics site that makes a similar claim to how Matthew describes Judas' death and how it is from Samuel as well (see #3).

I've found someone else saying Acts is taking a cue from the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from 2 Maccabees 9:5-12.

And just to throw something else into the mix, I came across this book. Apparently Acts was written as a legal defense for Paul's trial.

 

[Hokulele]

And just to throw something else into the mix, I came across this book. Apparently Acts was written as a legal defense for Paul's trial.

Neat. My father is an attorney as well as a Christian. It would be interesting to see his reaction to this. Hmm, how many months until Father's Day?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, it's possible. I'm gonna have to read Samuel.

I did find this apologetics site that makes a similar claim to how Matthew describes Judas' death and how it is from Samuel as well (see #3).

I've found someone else saying Acts is taking a cue from the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from 2 Maccabees 9:5-12.

And just to throw something else into the mix, I came across this book. Apparently Acts was written as a legal defense for Paul's trial.

Very interesting. I think I need that book. I'll check out Maccabees too.

ETA:

Yeah, I'd have to say that Antiochus' death contributes to the story too -- particularly the stench afterwards, very similar to Judas's field.

 

[Greediguts]

So speaking of disgusting deaths....

Josephus describes several symptoms that King Herod exhibited before his death in War Book I.

"After this, the distemper seized upon his whole body, and greatly disordered all its parts with various symptoms; for there was a gentle fever upon him, and an intolerable itching over all the surface of his body, and continual pains in his colon, and dropsical turnouts about his feet, and an inflammation of the abdomen, and a putrefaction of his privy member, that produced worms. Besides which he had a difficulty of breathing upon him, and could not breathe but when he sat upright, and had a convulsion of all his members, insomuch that the diviners said those diseases were a punishment upon him for what he had done to the Rabbins. Yet did he struggle with his numerous disorders, and still had a desire to live, and hoped for recovery, and considered of several methods of cure. Accordingly, he went over Jordan, and made use of those hot baths at Callirrhoe, which ran into the lake Asphaltitis, but are themselves sweet enough to be drunk. And here the physicians thought proper to bathe his whole body in warm oil, by letting it down into a large vessel full of oil; whereupon his eyes failed him, and he came and went as if he was dying; and as a tumult was then made by his servants, at their voice he revived again. Yet did he after this despair of recovery, and gave orders that each soldier should have fifty drachmae a-piece, and that his commanders and friends should have great sums of money given them. " (Jospehus War Book I 33:5)

I'm starting to see a pattern in how ancient authors described the deaths of people they probably didn't care for. I mean "putrefaction of his privy member, that produced worms"....EEEWWWW!!!


It is interesting to see the differences between Luke describing the death of Herod Agrippa (the grandson of Ol' King Herod) -

"Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon. So they came to him in a body; and after winning over Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for a reconciliation, because their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat on the platform, and delivered a public address to them. The people kept shouting, "The voice of a god, and not of a mortal!" And immediately, because he had not given the glory to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died."(Acts 12:20-23)

and Jospehus describing the same:

"Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; for he reigned four years under Caius Caesar, three of them were over Philip's tetrarchy only, and on the fourth he had that of Herod added to it; and he reigned, besides those, three years under the reign of Claudius Caesar; in which time he reigned over the forementioned countries, and also had Judea added to them, as well as Samaria and Cesarea." (Josephus Antiquities Book XIX Chapt. 8)

Herod Agrippa died in 44 CE. Luke mentions in Acts 11:28 that a great famine took place during the reign of Claudius (who appointed Herod Agrippa). Luke then describes Herod Agrippa's actions against the church, after the famine. Jospehus mentions a famine in Antiquities Book XX, in the year 47 CE. Luke has the famine happening before Herod Agrippa dies, not after. Hmmm......

 

[Hokulele]

Hmm, indeed.

Did you read the recent National Geographic article on Herod and his architectural works?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/12/herod/mueller-text.html

It was fun to read this after spending so much time on the New Testament.

 

[Greediguts]

Hmm, indeed.

Did you read the recent National Geographic article on Herod and his architectural works?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/12/herod/mueller-text.html

It was fun to read this after spending so much time on the New Testament.

I did read that article. I was suprised at how many building projects he undertook.

----

Something else that stands out between Paul's letters and Acts. Here is Paul talking about his conversion and what he did after:

"But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. (Galatians 1:15-17)

Acts has the conversion happening on the road to Damascus and no mention of going off into Arabia.

Also, I noticed the author of Acts uses "we" for a few verses (16:10-16), then stops, then starts using it again in Chapter 20, then stops. Hmmm....

Something else....was Paul really a Roman citizen? Wouldn't he have been expected to make sacrifices to their gods on occasion? Paul described himself as a very devout Jew, so how could he make sacrifices to other gods? Also, Erhman points out that citizenship was fairly restricted to the elite at this period in time. Yes, Paul was educated, but his background is strictly working-class. The whole "appealing to the Emperor" is probably the author's way of getting Paul to Rome...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Right and very good; I think the description of Paul in Acts is highly suspect; Acts as "history" is highly suspect.

I want to float another idea that occurred to me (I'm sure that it isn't original but it is new to me) while discussing the virgin birth in Matthew with cj in one of DOC's threads to see what you guys think.

There are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy -- Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheeba -- but only those four. As has been noted in the past, all four of these women are involved in some sort of sexual impropriety. One interpretation is that the mention of these women in the genealogy, therefore, casts aspersions at Mary.

But why would the author of Matthew or a redactor do so? I think it likely that this genealogy was added later, and it is certainly possible that some sly soul wanted to encode the idea that Mary was not so pure, so the "virgin" birth is not a reality.

But, what if there was another subtle idea being presented; one that essentially contradicts the basis of Matthew's gospel as presented? We don't know the precise origin of Tamar, but Judah's wife was specified as Canaanite, and I think it is implied in Genesis that Onan looked for a Canaanite wife -- Tamar. Rahab and Ruth are both gentile. So, that leaves Bathsheeba. Now, she was almost assuredly Jewish, at least the implication is there by mention of her father and implication of who her grandfather was (an advisor to David). But she is married to a Hittite, and she is the only woman whose name was not given directly in the genealogy -- rather she is identified as the wife of Uriah, the Hittite. What if a later redactor, who wanted to distance Jesus from Judaism, introduced the idea that Jesus didn't have any actual Jewish parentage? He is descended from Abraham through David to Joseph, but Joseph is not his father; and what if the implication is that Mary was foreign, like Tamar, Ruth, Rahab, (and the wife of the Hittite)? They couldn't claim outright that he wasn't Jewish by parentage because he is presented as the new Moses, but the message in Matthew as well as the rest of the gospels is still that the Jews messed it all up and the word is going to the gentiles.

I know it's pretty far out there, but what do you think?

 

[Greediguts]

Right and very good; I think the description of Paul in Acts is highly suspect; Acts as "history" is highly suspect.

I just keep finding more and more differences between how Acts presents Paul and how Paul presented himself.

I want to float another idea that occurred to me (I'm sure that it isn't original but it is new to me) while discussing the virgin birth in Matthew with cj in one of DOC's threads to see what you guys think.

There are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy -- Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheeba -- but only those four. As has been noted in the past, all four of these women are involved in some sort of sexual impropriety. One interpretation is that the mention of these women in the genealogy, therefore, casts aspersions at Mary.

But why would the author of Matthew or a redactor do so? I think it likely that this genealogy was added later, and it is certainly possible that some sly soul wanted to encode the idea that Mary was not so pure, so the "virgin" birth is not a reality.

But, what if there was another subtle idea being presented; one that essentially contradicts the basis of Matthew's gospel as presented? We don't know the precise origin of Tamar, but Judah's wife was specified as Canaanite, and I think it is implied in Genesis that Onan looked for a Canaanite wife -- Tamar. Rahab and Ruth are both gentile. So, that leaves Bathsheeba. Now, she was almost assuredly Jewish, at least the implication is there by mention of her father and implication of who her grandfather was (an advisor to David). But she is married to a Hittite, and she is the only woman whose name was not given directly in the genealogy -- rather she is identified as the wife of Uriah, the Hittite. What if a later redactor, who wanted to distance Jesus from Judaism, introduced the idea that Jesus didn't have any actual Jewish parentage? He is descended from Abraham through David to Joseph, but Joseph is not his father; and what if the implication is that Mary was foreign, like Tamar, Ruth, Rahab, (and the wife of the Hittite)? They couldn't claim outright that he wasn't Jewish by parentage because he is presented as the new Moses, but the message in Matthew as well as the rest of the gospels is still that the Jews messed it all up and the word is going to the gentiles.

I know it's pretty far out there, but what do you think?

Hmmm…. I’m getting something different from having those 4 mentioned. This may ramble a bit as I’ve been tearing through a whole lot of text…

Tamar appears in Genesis 38. She acts like a prostitute to get Onan (her dead husband’s brother) to sleep with her so she can have children. By him refusing to perform the act of the brother-in-law (which in levirate marriage was to sleep with the widow of his dead brother to perpetuate his [the dead brother’s] name/inheritance- see Deuteronomy 25:5-6) he endangers the Judah line. So she does what is necessary to continue the Judah (Davidic) bloodline. She acted on her own.

Rahab is a prostitute in Joshua 2 (also the only character with a name in that chapter). She conceals and saves 2 spies that Joshua had sent out into Canaan (There is no mention of sex). She gives them information and basically is the only reason they live and are able to complete the mission Joshua sent them on. So Joshua moves forth to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan. Rahab had complete faith in God’s power. She made it possible for Joshua to enter Canaan. So she had a hand in helping with the conquest of Canaan, which helped to continue the Davidic line and realize Israel’s inheritance that was promised by God. She acted on her own also.

Ruth appears in....Ruth! She was a childless widow. She was also a foreigner, a Moabite, but in Jewish tradition, she is remembered as a model convert (read Ruth 1:16-17). She approaches Boaz, she uncovers his feet (which I didn’t know until today that “foot/sandal” were euphemisms for male/female genitals in ancient Hebrew). She asks him to “spread his cloak” over her which implies marrying her, has children, and ends up being the great-grandmother of King David. She was helped by her mother-in-law Naomi, so she didn’t act on her own, but her actions continue the Davidic line.

Bathsheba is introduced as the wife of Uriah the Hittite in 2 Samuel 11. She becomes David’s wife and bears him 2 children. The first one is taken by God from David, as punishment for sleeping with Bathsheba and having her husband killed, the second is Solomon. It’s in 1 Kings where she works with Nathan the prophet to make sure Solomon is made king and not Adonijah, son of Haggith. So again, the Davidic line continues.

So basically I see that yes, the author broke with tradition by naming females, but the females mentioned acted (somewhat) independently, (some) put their complete faith in God, and (all) helped to continue the Davidic line which ultimately produced the Messiah. Sexual impropriety doesn't totally work. Tamar acted like a prostitute but it was to get the brother-in-law to follow the levirate laws of marriage. Rahab was a prostitute, but again, no sex is mentioned (but could be implied). Ruth was forward with Boaz but did so because of trying to follow the Torah law of "yibum" (see link from above) and Bathsheba was seen by David (unbeknownst to her) while she was bathing. Yes, she slept with the king ("It's good to be the king"), but the following chapter (2 Samuel 12) points out that God was angry with David, not her.

As Piggy pointed out awhile back (where is he anyway?), Matthew is the "most Jewish" of the NT texts. I wouldn't say that the message ends up being the Jews messed it up and the world is going to the Gentiles. Since I've read (and re-read and re-re-read) more text and more history, I think it helps to put the book in its proper context. The author isn't saying "all Jews" messed it up. If Matthew was written after the temple was destroyed, there would be serious in-fighting going on among the Jews. Which laws and traditions would continue? Who would interpret the law? Matthew's Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees on a regular basis (Chapter 23 of Matthew has Jesus really let loose about the Pharisees). Matthew's group of Jewish-Christians would have been involved in a fairly intense rivalry with the Pharisees (who played a central role in the formation of rabbinic Judaism- they helped Judaism survive after the temple was destroyed) in trying to provide leadership and guidance for the people. The Jews were divided and the Book of Matthew reflects the instability of the times in which it was written.

OK, I think I just wandered off a bit...but to answer you, yes, I think it's a bit out there.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I just keep finding more and more differences between how Acts presents Paul and how Paul presented himself.



Hmmm…. I’m getting something different from having those 4 mentioned. This may ramble a bit as I’ve been tearing through a whole lot of text…

Tamar appears in Genesis 38. She acts like a prostitute to get Onan (her dead husband’s brother) to sleep with her so she can have children. By him refusing to perform the act of the brother-in-law (which in levirate marriage was to sleep with the widow of his dead brother to perpetuate his [the dead brother’s] name/inheritance- see Deuteronomy 25:5-6) he endangers the Judah line. So she does what is necessary to continue the Judah (Davidic) bloodline. She acted on her own.

Rahab is a prostitute in Joshua 2 (also the only character with a name in that chapter). She conceals and saves 2 spies that Joshua had sent out into Canaan (There is no mention of sex). She gives them information and basically is the only reason they live and are able to complete the mission Joshua sent them on. So Joshua moves forth to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan. Rahab had complete faith in God’s power. She made it possible for Joshua to enter Canaan. So she had a hand in helping with the conquest of Canaan, which helped to continue the Davidic line and realize Israel’s inheritance that was promised by God. She acted on her own also.

Ruth appears in....Ruth! She was a childless widow. She was also a foreigner, a Moabite, but in Jewish tradition, she is remembered as a model convert (read Ruth 1:16-17). She approaches Boaz, she uncovers his feet (which I didn’t know until today that “foot/sandal” were euphemisms for male/female genitals in ancient Hebrew). She asks him to “spread his cloak” over her which implies marrying her, has children, and ends up being the great-grandmother of King David. She was helped by her mother-in-law Naomi, so she didn’t act on her own, but her actions continue the Davidic line.

Bathsheba is introduced as the wife of Uriah the Hittite in 2 Samuel 11. She becomes David’s wife and bears him 2 children. The first one is taken by God from David, as punishment for sleeping with Bathsheba and having her husband killed, the second is Solomon. It’s in 1 Kings where she works with Nathan the prophet to make sure Solomon is made king and not Adonijah, son of Haggith. So again, the Davidic line continues.

So basically I see that yes, the author broke with tradition by naming females, but the females mentioned acted (somewhat) independently, (some) put their complete faith in God, and (all) helped to continue the Davidic line which ultimately produced the Messiah. Sexual impropriety doesn't totally work. Tamar acted like a prostitute but it was to get the brother-in-law to follow the levirate laws of marriage. Rahab was a prostitute, but again, no sex is mentioned (but could be implied). Ruth was forward with Boaz but did so because of trying to follow the Torah law of "yibum" (see link from above) and Bathsheba was seen by David (unbeknownst to her) while she was bathing. Yes, she slept with the king ("It's good to be the king"), but the following chapter (2 Samuel 12) points out that God was angry with David, not her.

As Piggy pointed out awhile back (where is he anyway?), Matthew is the "most Jewish" of the NT texts. I wouldn't say that the message ends up being the Jews messed it up and the world is going to the Gentiles. Since I've read (and re-read and re-re-read) more text and more history, I think it helps to put the book in its proper context. The author isn't saying "all Jews" messed it up. If Matthew was written after the temple was destroyed, there would be serious in-fighting going on among the Jews. Which laws and traditions would continue? Who would interpret the law? Matthew's Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees on a regular basis (Chapter 23 of Matthew has Jesus really let loose about the Pharisees). Matthew's group of Jewish-Christians would have been involved in a fairly intense rivalry with the Pharisees (who played a central role in the formation of rabbinic Judaism- they helped Judaism survive after the temple was destroyed) in trying to provide leadership and guidance for the people. The Jews were divided and the Book of Matthew reflects the instability of the times in which it was written.

OK, I think I just wandered off a bit...but to answer you, yes, I think it's a bit out there.

But everyone in that Genealogy adds to the Davidic line. How did Bathsheeba give herself over to God, and how did Tamar? Tamar wanted a child because that was her duty as a woman. Bathsheeba committed adultery. Rahab is specifically identified as a prostitute, but she is considered a righteous gentile (not convert). Ruth is rewarded with marriage for her devotion to Naomi and is committed to God.

There are simply no other women mentioned in that account; so there must be some point in mentioning them. I don't see how "devotion to God" works for those four. I had already worked through that notion and the notion that all played some pivotal role in the Davidic line, but they aren't realy pivotal roles from their perspectives. Sure, Rahab plays an absolutely pivotal role, but the others?

Sexual impropriety actually does work, though. It clearly works for Bathsheeba and Rahab. As to Tamar, she clearly performs an improper action whatever the circumstances -- the implication being that Judah and his sons acted in a worse way. Ruth's actions were the least improper, but "feet" as you mentioned are used to refer to genitalia in the Tanakh; it is fairly clear from the text that what she is doing is not completely acceptable behavior, but it gets the job done.

What I was more interested in was the "foreign" connection.

I am well aware that Matthew is considered the "most Jewish" of the gospels and even that some version of it was used by the Nazoreans/Ebionites. What I am suggesting is that a later redactor may have added those women's names or even constructed the entire genealogy for some purpose. Also consider, Matthew, even as the most Jewish of the gospels still ultimately carries anti-Semitic tones (I did not mean to imply that "all Jews messed it up", but there is a clear indication that they should follow the new Moses and not the old). We already know that there were tensions between Jews and Christians and between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. What if this genealogy is part of that whole process? Sure, there is no way to prove it, but possibly?

 

[Greediguts]

But everyone in that Genealogy adds to the Davidic line. How did Bathsheeba give herself over to God, and how did Tamar? Tamar wanted a child because that was her duty as a woman. Bathsheeba committed adultery. Rahab is specifically identified as a prostitute, but she is considered a righteous gentile (not convert). Ruth is rewarded with marriage for her devotion to Naomi and is committed to God.

According to this, Rahab was a convert and a descendant of Ezekiel. [link]

There are simply no other women mentioned in that account; so there must be some point in mentioning them. I don't see how "devotion to God" works for those four. I had already worked through that notion and the notion that all played some pivotal role in the Davidic line, but they aren't realy pivotal roles from their perspectives. Sure, Rahab plays an absolutely pivotal role, but the others?

Well, they do give birth to future leaders. That's pivotal to the whole story....

Sexual impropriety actually does work, though. It clearly works for Bathsheeba and Rahab. As to Tamar, she clearly performs an improper action whatever the circumstances -- the implication being that Judah and his sons acted in a worse way. Ruth's actions were the least improper, but "feet" as you mentioned are used to refer to genitalia in the Tanakh; it is fairly clear from the text that what she is doing is not completely acceptable behavior, but it gets the job done.

With Bathsheba's husband gone, and the king comes calling, I get the feeling that David was going to have her even if she wasn't willing.

Even worse, in Rabbinical literature, Bathsheba is thought to have been about 8 years old when she gave birth. [link]

What I was more interested in was the "foreign" connection.

Sorry. I got sidetracked.

I am well aware that Matthew is considered the "most Jewish" of the gospels and even that some version of it was used by the Nazoreans/Ebionites.

Ichneumonwasp, if my posts ever come across as "talking down" to you, please know that is not my intention. As this is all fairly new to me, I often have to remind myself of what I've learned so far. It's more for my benefit as I'm formulating my answer. My apologies if it comes across in a different way. I enjoy all of your posts, respect your opinion, and value your participation.

What I am suggesting is that a later redactor may have added those women's names or even constructed the entire genealogy for some purpose. Also consider, Matthew, even as the most Jewish of the gospels still ultimately carries anti-Semitic tones (I did not mean to imply that "all Jews messed it up", but there is a clear indication that they should follow the new Moses and not the old). We already know that there were tensions between Jews and Christians and between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. What if this genealogy is part of that whole process? Sure, there is no way to prove it, but possibly?

It could be that the author of Matthew wanted to show that even women of varying degrees of purity still can give birth to future kings. Maybe other groups at the time had been making accusations towards Mary's supposed virginity? Maybe the author is stating how can you judge her? Look how past Jewish leaders/prophets emerged....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Dude, now I feel bad.

No, no you don't sound condescending. I don't want you to think that I was mad or thought you sounded that way at all. I was just trying to repeat what I put in the first post about this -- that Matthew has always been considered the most Jewish of the gospels, but could there be other messages in there? And I don't think I have to tell you how highly both Hokulele and I (I assume Hok feels that way) about your contributions to this thread. This is one of the very few threads I look forward to seeing a new post in.

Yes, I think there are several possibilities, but the one that I was really asking about was the foreign women bit. I thought I made clear that I didn't buy the idea of the fallen women ploy that other people have mentioned -- specifically, I find it hard to believe that the author of Matthew would encode that idea in his genealogy -- that there might be something sexually suspect about Mary.

You're right, though, it could be that he was trying to counter charges levelled against Mary -- that would fit with just about everything else we have seen in the other gospels. Much of the content does seem originate in some group trying to counter another group.

We also have to consider the trivial and obvious solution that those women are mentioned because they are more prominently mentioned in Jewish scripture and none of the others in the line are really. There are other prominent women, but I can't think of any others in the Davidic line.

Yeah, I agree that the foreign woman interpretation is pretty out-there, especially since Bathsheeba pretty clearly wasn't. It's an interesting thought, though, that Matthew might include the idea that Jesus is the true Jewish Messiah but without being truly Jewish.


ETA:

I didn't know there was a tradition that had Rahab as a convert. Interesting.

 

[Hokulele]

No, no you don't sound condescending. I don't want you to think that I was mad or thought you sounded that way at all. I was just trying to repeat what I put in the first post about this -- that Matthew has always been considered the most Jewish of the gospels, but could there be other messages in there? And I don't think I have to tell you how highly both Hokulele and I (I assume Hok feels that way) about your contributions to this thread. This is one of the very few threads I look forward to seeing a new post in.

I agree 100%.


I don't know what to think about Matthew's genealogy, as I really haven't put the effort into it that the two of you have been doing. I am still noodling around with some ideas concerning Luke and Paul.

 

[Greediguts]

Dude, now I feel bad.

Ack! Now I feel bad. Sorry. As I've stated before, I have moments of being very dense. I appreciate the kind words from you and Hokulele and look forward to everyone's input!

We also have to consider the trivial and obvious solution that those women are mentioned because they are more prominently mentioned in Jewish scripture and none of the others in the line are really. There are other prominent women, but I can't think of any others in the Davidic line.

Yeah, I can't think of any others as well. Trivial and obvious isn't as much fun though....

I don't know what to think about Matthew's genealogy, as I really haven't put the effort into it that the two of you have been doing. I am still noodling around with some ideas concerning Luke and Paul.

Hokulele, I keep re-reading Acts, then comparing it with Paul's letters, then scratching my head thinking they just don't add up. I'm going to go digging through some apologetics sites to see what explanations they have for the glaring differences in how Luke represents Paul, and how Paul represents himself. From what I've read, it seems pretty hard to reconcile the two...
---
One tiny thing I noticed in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Paul says that when Jesus rose from the dead he appeared first "to Cephas, and then to the twelve." Was Paul aware of Judas' death? Was Paul even aware of Judas? I don't think he ever mentions him....

---

I don't know if either of you had come across these passages in Lost Scriptures by Erhman, but I wanted to point this out. These verses are taken from the Letter of 1 Clement. This letter used to be canonical. It was quoted by proto-orthodox Christians, appeared in many manuscripts from that time, plus it was part of the New Testament in the 5th century Codex Alexandrius. The date it was written is put at around 95 CE, which means it could predate a few of the books of the NT. Anway, here are the verses:

"Let us consider the incredible sign that occurs in the eastern climes, that is, in the regions near Arabia. For there is a bird called the Phoenix. This unique creature lives five hundred years. And when at last it approaches its dissolution through death, it makes a tomb for itself out of frankincense, myrrh, and other spices. Then, when the time has been fulfilled, it enters into the tomb and dies. But when its flesh rots, a worm is born. And nourished by the secretions of the dead creature, it sprouts wings. Then when it becomes strong, it takes the tomb containing the bones of its predecessor and bears these from Arabia to Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. In the daytime, while all are watching, it flies onto the altar of the sun and deposits these things, and so hastens back. Then the priests examine the records of the times and discover that it has come after five hundred years have elapsed.

(Beginning of Chapter 26) Do we then think that it is so great and marvelous that the Creator of all things will raise everyone who has served him in a holy way with the confidence of good faith, when he shows us the magnificence of his promise even through a bird?"

(Letter 1 Clement Chapter 25 and verse 1 of Chapter 26-Erhman's translation from Lost Scriptures)

So isn't this early Christianity adopting mythology from the Egyptian pantheon? Anybody read this before or hear of Christianity using the Phoenix story?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, I'd never heard the phoenix story before, but I can see why it was used. Very interesting.

As to whether or not Paul knew about Judas, that is a very interesting question to which I think we can never know the answer. I think that it is unlikely that he did for the simple reason that I think Judas was a later creation and part of the whole Jewish Christian vs. gentile Christian controversy. There is no indication that Paul knew anything about Judas or any stories of a betrayal. The word in Corinthians that is often translated "betrayed" more properly (especially the way that Paul uses it in other places) means "delivered up", as in "on the night our Lord was delivered up to death", not betrayed.

Part of the reason I was interested in the question of Matthew's genealogy is because I saw that the women could imply that the author of Matthew was trying to communicate that Mary was possibly foreign. There are clear indications in Mark, I think, that there are already tensions between the Jewish authorities/Jewish-Christians and gentile Christians -- I mean, he has a Roman centurion realize that Jesus is the son of God once the curtain in the Temple is ripped and not one of the disciples, who are scattered. I think there is a reflection of these Jewish-Christian vs. gentile-Christian tension in that first gospel, which was carried over into Matthew and reaches fruition in Luke/Acts and John. The Judas story may have been a later invention to code the idea that the Jews or Jewish authorities are responsible for Jesus' death (IIRC the word for Judas and Judah/Jew are indistinguishable in Greek), so the word is going out to the rest of the world -- those jerks have rejected one more prophet as in the days of old. The structure of Mark, the basic message of Mark, and the death of Jesus is prefigured in Jeremiah (another rejected prophet).

 

[Hokulele]

I wouldn't read too much into the phoenix story. There are countless examples of what are mistakenly thought to be natural facts used as metaphor in Christianity. At one point in time, the existence of the phoenix, the dragon, and several other mythical beasts (Leviathan?) were not questioned. It then became a simple matter of incorporating those into parables about how God shows his love for mankind. An excellent example would be the use of the pelican in Christian symbology. Lovely imagery, completely untrue.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/symbols/pelican.htm

Back to Ichneumonwasp's latest post, I definitely see Jewish-Christian vs. gentile-Christian tension in Paul's letters. (And his whole obsession with discussing circumcision. Give it a rest, man!) It would make sense to me that the gospels would allude to this without wanting to state it outright. Does anyone know roughly when Christianity was seen as a religion separate from Judaism?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Does anyone know roughly when Christianity was seen as a religion separate from Judaism?

Really good question. In my ignorance, so this is probably wrong, I can see two immediate ways of adressing the issue -- sometime after the fall of the Temple, and I think in the late 80's or early 90's (I'll have to look it up) the Christian groups were ejected from the synagogues in Syria (I think it was Syria). So, that may be one way of seeing a direct split.

Another way of looking at it -- Suetonius refers to Claudius kicking the Jews out of Rome because of an uproar in the community occasioned by Chrestus. It isn't exactly clear what is going on, but Acts speaks of Pontus and Aquila who were ejected from Rome because Claudius had kicked out the Jews, and there is no mention of Christians being ejected specifically in Acts. I understand that some people have read this as meaning that there was no distinction between Jew and Christian at that time (around 49). The latter mention in Tacitus, from the turn of the century, seems to clearly distinguish a group of Christians, so they are probably distinct groups at that point.

So, maybe sometime after the fall of the Temple and beginning of the second century? No question by the middle of the second century, because by then we have Justin Martyr writing his dialogue with Trypho, with Justin as the righteous Christian and Trypho the Jew.

Clearly Paul thought they were distinct groups already in the 50's though. So, it probably depends on the region and the perspective of the person.

 

[Greediguts]

I wouldn't read too much into the phoenix story. There are countless examples of what are mistakenly thought to be natural facts used as metaphor in Christianity. At one point in time, the existence of the phoenix, the dragon, and several other mythical beasts (Leviathan?) were not questioned. It then became a simple matter of incorporating those into parables about how God shows his love for mankind. An excellent example would be the use of the pelican in Christian symbology. Lovely imagery, completely untrue.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/symbols/pelican.htm

Thanks for the link! I guess I was surprised how easily the early church adopted these ideas as "facts" and put a Christian spin on them. I'm not gonna go for the larger argument of “Christianity is based on Egyptian mythology”. I always assumed that there was some slight borrowing or adopting of other myths or even other writings (e.g. Bacchae); I had just never seen it so plainly done before.

Back to Ichneumonwasp's latest post, I definitely see Jewish-Christian vs. gentile-Christian tension in Paul's letters. (And his whole obsession with discussing circumcision. Give it a rest, man!) It would make sense to me that the gospels would allude to this without wanting to state it outright.

I see that tension as well, but I would say that Paul reserves his most intense rage for other early Christians. His letter to the Galatians is just seething with anger! He goes so far as to hope that those who attempt to circumcise them will end up castrating themselves! (Galatians 5:12)

Erhman made a point about these issues in Lost Christianities. He pointed out that Jesus and the Pharisees were not so far off in a lot of their interpretations. He feels they were closer in their understandings of Jewish law that apart. The emotional rhetoric used in the early Gospels points to this as we tend to argue more frequently and emotionally with those we are closest.

Jump forward to Paul and you have the same thing, but this time it’s early Christian in-fighting. Did Paul found one church that he didn’t have to seriously correct on some matter? When other Christian missionaries arrived, they would try and clarify Paul’s teachings. Some wanted members of these churches to become Jewish (to become Christians). Erhman pointed out that it’s important to see the missionaries not as Jewish but as Christian teachers in Paul’s churches. He feels people today tend to overlook this and the implications. The missionaries would see themselves continuing on in Paul's tradition, bringing out fuller interpretations of Jesus' teachings. Paul saw them as false teachers and people who couldn't leave a foreskin alone.

 

[Hokulele]

This may be getting a little too self-congratulatory (in general, not me specifically) but...

...I love this thread!

Ahem, OK, back to business.

Thanks for the link! I guess I was surprised how easily the early church adopted these ideas as "facts" and put a Christian spin on them. I'm not gonna go for the larger argument of “Christianity is based on Egyptian mythology”. I always assumed that there was some slight borrowing or adopting of other myths or even other writings (e.g. Bacchae); I had just never seen it so plainly done before.

A lot of this can be seen as early forays into Natural Philosophy, where understanding God can best be done by understanding nature. Although we consider creatures such as the phoenix as mythical these days, I am not so sure the people writing back then viewed it the same way. After all, which sounds more improbable, a giraffe or a phoenix? How about a platypus? I wouldn't call it borrowing myths, but rather trying to incorporate what was then known about the world into a theological perspective.

I see that tension as well, but I would say that Paul reserves his most intense rage for other early Christians. His letter to the Galatians is just seething with anger! He goes so far as to hope that those who attempt to circumcise them will end up castrating themselves! (Galatians 5:12)

Erhman made a point about these issues in Lost Christianities. He pointed out that Jesus and the Pharisees were not so far off in a lot of their interpretations. He feels they were closer in their understandings of Jewish law that apart. The emotional rhetoric used in the early Gospels points to this as we tend to argue more frequently and emotionally with those we are closest.

I still have yet to read that book. I have read a few others of Erhman's, but not that one. The reading list continues to grow and grow.

Jump forward to Paul and you have the same thing, but this time it’s early Christian in-fighting. Did Paul found one church that he didn’t have to seriously correct on some matter? When other Christian missionaries arrived, they would try and clarify Paul’s teachings. Some wanted members of these churches to become Jewish (to become Christians). Erhman pointed out that it’s important to see the missionaries not as Jewish but as Christian teachers in Paul’s churches. He feels people today tend to overlook this and the implications. The missionaries would see themselves continuing on in Paul's tradition, bringing out fuller interpretations of Jesus' teachings. Paul saw them as false teachers and people who couldn't leave a foreskin alone.

Paul had some serious issues. I have just finished Pagels' Reading the Book of Judas, and it is amazing at just how venomous the early Christians were towards each other. I thought people in the U.S. held atheists in low regard!