from Jesus, Interrupted
by Bart Ehrman
Does any of this sound or at least feel familiar? It should. Especially the part that says, sometimes they had deeply rooted and significant disagreements. That sounds like us. More accurately, that sounds like the many and varied expressions of what we call "Messianic Judaism" or even "Christianity" (and I suppose all of the mainstream Judaisms, as well). We don't agree. Sometimes that means, we don't get along. But could the cause of our "issues" go back as far as the writers of the New Testament itself?
That's quite a shock. Like many people, I'm used to reading the Bible as a book that, on an ultimate level, is completely internally consistent. However, this isn't the first time I've heard that not all of the NT writers agreed with each other.
I read another Christian scholar (whose name escapes me, but which is enshrined in one of my numerous, previous blog posts), who said that Paul and James disagreed on the fundamental relationship between Gentile and Jewish disciples in the Messianic community (church). Paul tended to grant the Gentile converts greater affinity and identity (according to this scholar, anyway) with the Jewish people than did James and the Jerusalem Council.
I'm currently only on page 64 of Erhman's book, so I don't know where he stands on many issues in detail, but assuming for the moment that it's true that the NT writers did not agree with each other on many theological issues, it makes it difficult for any of us to make a point "because the Bible says so".
For instance, both Messianic Jewish/Bilateral Ecclesiology (MJ/BE) and One Law (OL) groups defend their positions based on various Biblical passages, largely taken from the letters of Paul (and did Paul actually write all of the letters attributed to him?). Discovering the possibility that the Bible contains internally inconsistent and contradictory theologies, how can we make declarations of our various positions based on the Bible with any degree of certainty?
The short answer is "because we have to". Expanding on that a bit, I'll say that people don't do well existing within an extended period of ambiguity. We tend to like "closure", particularly in existential ("who am I?", "what is my purpose in life?") matters. We need to "know" the answer to the meaning of our lives and who we are in God (assuming we believe in God).
Hence we make decisions about what the Bible means and develop theologies, canons, codes, labels, and worship communities (churches, synagogues, whatever) based on those understandings.
But while they're all based on the same essential document (the Bible), all of our beliefs are different...sometimes really different from each other.
One of the points Ehrman goes on to make is that the Bible cannot simply be read, it must be "interpreted". The Bible, according to this book's author, cannot be read and taken at face value. Ironically, Judaism says the same thing about the Torah.
At least from a Chabad point of view, you cannot understand the Torah without an understanding and continual study of the Talmud. Further, the Bible not only requires interpretation (as opposed to a straight reading of the text), but it must be read through the specific lens of tradition. That is, not only must the Torah be interpreted using the Talmud, but there is only one, right way to interpret the Torah/Talmud based on established Rabbinic tradition.
I suppose the correct tradition varies depending on the particular branch of Judaism involved, which is why we see such variability in Jewish religious practice.
Recent write ups in the Messianic blogosphere, such as After Three Days? Third Day? Yeshua and Passover by Derek Leman and Set Your Hope on Moses by Judah Gabriel Himango have contributed to the examination of these issues in our little corner of the web, but my own missives The Deity Problem and An Old Dog Looking for a New Book have added to this discussion as well.
What does it all mean? I don't know.
Did I say "truth"?
Wait a minute. Not long ago, I said that I believed (at least as it stands right now) that I see the Bible as God telling us the "truth" about Himself and His interactions with humanity, not the "facts" about Himself. There's a difference:
Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.Is the search for faith a search of facts, truth, or some combination of both?
-Professor Henry (Indiana) Jones Jr. (played by Harrison Ford)
from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. -John 14:6 (RSV)It would have been a little ridiculous for Jesus (Yeshua) to say "I am the way, the fact, and the life...", but I hope you take my meaning. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the facts for the sake of our faith, but I am suggesting that we consider that the Bible is not primarily a book written by and for historians, but a document to be read though a "spiritual lens" in addition to the lens of history and fact.
As I continue with my reading and the exploration of the basis of my faith, I'll post more on these topics, but for now, I just want to say that when you make a declaration about what you believe, and what the Bible tells you about who you are and who others are in relation to you (of particular interest to Jews and Gentiles in the Messianic world), you are making declarations of faith...not necessarily fact.
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. -Psalm 119:105
The road is long and often, we travel in the dark. But is the Word a light of fact or of truth?
22 comments:
Facts, like great miracles personally witnessed, can give much strength to one's faith, but they can't carry it all the way. Israel's journey out of Egypt is a great example of that. This is because faith is more than just belief in facts and miracle, it's is TRUSTING G-d to be there for you and to be good on his word. Facts can be confronted with newer, better facts and this can shake one's faith to its core.
I do not have to go far. Christianity has, as an example, for the last two thousands years, taught that Israel has been cast off and replaced, and that Torah itself is actually a insufferable curse that G-d has freed us from through Jesus. People have believed these to be incontrovertible facts. Gosh, they "read" in their Bibles. Once they learn otherwise, their faith in G-d can be shaken. After all, if Church is the representative of G-d on Earth and transmitted the NT to us and has all the facts, how can so many believers and great minds get all this stuff so very wrong? I have seen MANY lose their faith and leave Yeshua behind because their faith in certain "facts" has been shaken.
I'm alive!
Thanks, Gene. I thought I was invisible or something. ;-)
Fear not. I know that faith can't be based 100% (or even mainly) on the facts because, under most circumstances, human beings never have all of the relevant facts. That's why if you have 10 witnesses to the same event that happened just a few weeks ago, testify under oath in court, you'll get 10 different versions of those events.
No one is lying. Everyone is relating the "facts" exactly as they remember experiencing them.
Nevertheless, it behooves me to try and understand more about the Bible, including the "facts", if for no other reason, than to prevent me from being blindsided by such information in the future.
It's interesting because I'm reading a part of Ehrman's book that says Paul seemed to believe that a person could only be righteous based on their faith in Jesus, while Matthew believed that faith in Jesus plus scrupulous obedience to the Law were requirements for righteousness.
What Ehrman doesn't suggest is a "bilateral" solution whereby what Matthew said would be true for Jews (who were his primary audience), and what Paul said would be true for Gentiles (who were his primary audience).
Only made it to page 93 by the time lunch ended today, so I'll keep reading. More books waiting in the wings and God is always available through prayer.
Also comments from folks like you, Gene...thanks.
"I read another Christian scholar (whose name escapes me, but which is enshrined in one of my numerous, previous blog posts), who said that Paul and James disagreed on the fundamental relationship between Gentile and Jewish disciples in the Messianic community (church). Paul tended to grant the Gentile converts greater affinity and identity (according to this scholar, anyway) with the Jewish people than did James and the Jerusalem Council."
It recently dawned on me that the Catholic church considers Peter the founder of the Catholic church in Rome (being the first bishop and all). Isn't that funny? Peter, the same Peter who wouldn't eat at the same table as gentiles suddenly breaks off from Judaism and starts his own offshoot of Judaism known as the Catholic church, he then appoints himself bishop of Rome.
Anyways, I'm still searching for explanations by the biblical authors as to why gentiles shouldn't keep Torah. I don't see it. I see a lot of rhetoric aimed at gentiles who throw themselves into Judaism to become proselytes without circumcision of the heart, but I don't see why we shouldn't obey the law. Why would it be different for us than for converts to Judaism nowadays? Is it simply because we believe in Yeshua that we aren't seriously considered to be proper Torah observant peoples?
It recently dawned on me that the Catholic church considers Peter the founder of the Catholic church in Rome (being the first bishop and all). Isn't that funny? Peter, the same Peter who wouldn't eat at the same table as gentiles suddenly breaks off from Judaism and starts his own offshoot of Judaism known as the Catholic church, he then appoints himself bishop of Rome.
Guess that's where the phrase shoes of the fisherman comes from.
Actually, depending on what source I use, I can see a lot of different things in the Bible, some which don't quite jibe with one another. I often wonder how Biblical scholars (let alone people like me who read them) keep from becoming hopelessly confused by all of the different interpretations there are on the Bible and what it says.
How we read the Bible is largely a matter of interpretation, so the Bible can give a supersessionist message for those who interpret it that way, and it can give a "bilateral" message for those who interpret it that way. I used to think that there must be one objective message being transmitted by the Bible and that people were too biased to see it, but now I wonder. Maybe different parts of the Bible do say different things, depending on which audience was being addressed at the time. That's why you can have Matthew saying that the Law is required for righteousness, since he was writing to a Jewish audience, and have Paul saying the Law isn't required, since he was (largely) writing to Gentile converts.
True, it does create a two-tiered path to the world to come, if Jews only have to observe Torah and perhaps are saved just by virtue of being "Son's of Abraham" (although John the Baptist had something to say about that in Matthew 3:9), while Gentile converts to Christianity must believe and have faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
No, I don't see how a "good Jewish boy" like Peter would ever end up as the first Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic church.
"Is it simply because we believe in Yeshua that we aren't seriously considered to be proper Torah observant peoples?"
benicho, as has been discussed many times before, it's not that G-d's Torah is not applicable to all and does not need to be observed by Gentiles, but that not everything in His Torah is applicable to all or required of all.
Also, some things are specifically a sign between G-d and Israel.
Besides, I've I stated before, faithful, G-d-loving Christians in churches are already "Torah observant", without calling it that.
@Gene
You're right, it's been discussed many times before, and it will be discussed much more yet. I'm sure you're well aware of some of the laws that were only given to Israel (not referring to laws pertaining to the priests) such as marking the body which don't make sense to only pertain to the Jewish people. If G-d specifically tells Israel not to do certain laws because it's what the pagans do, then why should we?
Same applies for the dietary laws, why would pork be an abomination for Jews and not faithful gentiles? These answers seem to just be brushed off, because of this I'm finding it difficult to go along with the "well those laws were just for Israel". This is the same approach many churches take. "We keep the 10 commandments, the rest of the laws were for Israel". What about all the other laws that were specifically given to Israel that many gentiles wouldn't dare question?
By the way, I'm not trying to throw your views out the window, these are just questions that haven't really been specifically answered, instead they're lumped into large generic doctrines typically.
Same applies for the dietary laws, why would pork be an abomination for Jews and not faithful gentiles? These answers seem to just be brushed off, because of this I'm finding it difficult to go along with the "well those laws were just for Israel".
Actually, according to My Jewish Learning, for Jews, keeping kashrut "serves as a frequent reminder of their distinct identity as Jews." In other words, keeping kosher is a mark of distinction between a Jew and the nations.
Also, Daniel at Christian for Moses discusses the Talmud's take on Gentiles keeping the Shabbat and how to interpret "A non-Jew that keeps Shabbat is liable to the death penalty". There are some details available that modifies that rather bold declaration.
The Talmud is generally known as a body of documentation that you must study and not simply read and I'm seeing that the Bible is the same way. I keep asking myself how people don't completely confuse themselves with all the differences of educated opinion. In some sense, it may be "easier" (I say that provisionally) being a Jew since tradition defines so much of what is understood, and Christianity, although it has traditions, does not view said-traditions in the same, authoritative light.
For a Christian, it seems as if what you believe amounts to choosing a theology and a denomination and just deciding "that's what I'm going to believe."
Hopefully, it's not as shallow as that, but given the multitude of scholarly opinions floating around out there, I'm not sure how else it could be done.
Still looking.
That's what I was always taught, and am still being taught, James.
By both the Christian church and the Jewish community it's as if these laws are only for Israel, yet it's quite clear that they're an abomination. We can try to divide up the laws into all these different sections and doctrinally explain them away, but at the end of the day eating pork and shellfish are STILL an abomination.
From what I've heard by some Jewish Rabbis is that the law was simply *given* to Israel because the nations rejected it. If we understand it in this light, then it makes sense that perhaps the law was intended for all mankind, but just given to the Israelites after mankind rejected it.
I don't know. Just my thoughts.
When I bring up the case that it is considered an "abomination", which it is, I get no real solid answer. I'm open to solid biblically sound answers. And of course I'll even except extrabiblical explanation so long as it is biblically supported as well. I simply can't accept "it was given to the Jews only because that's just how I was taught". In my Strong's concordance it is synonymous (the word "abomination") with detestable and idolatrous. What does this mean? How do we as gentiles talk it away? In fact in my NIV study bible the word abomination is completely omitted from Leviticus 11.
Anywho, I'm not tied down to the idea but I'd sure love some input or thoughts.
There are no easy answers, benicho.
Why would eating pork be an abomination for a Jew in the eyes of God but not a Gentile? Maybe because God specifically told the Jews not to eat pork. Disobeying God if you're among the chosen nation, is an abomination.
God gave Adam and Eve only one "dietary law" (something to do with fruit from a tree) and they blew that one.
I don't think there's anything stopping a non-Jew from practically eating kosher. You'd have to keep in mind different levels, however, since it's not just a matter of what animals you choose to eat and not eat, but how your food animals are killed and that they pass an examination to show they were not damaged or diseased, usually certified by a Rabbi.
For that matter, a non-Jew can rest on the Shabbat, pray from a Siddur, know that God is One, honor the old and wise, pray to God, read the Shema morning and evening, and perform many, many other Torah mitzvot. It's not like anyone is going to come along and stop you.
As far as whether or not, as a non-Jewish disciple of the Jewish Messiah, you are actualy *commanded* by God to do all those things (and many more) and that there are penalties for not doing them, I can't say. Of course, many of the commandments I listed (knowing God is One, praying to God, honoring the old) aren't necessarily exclusive to Judaism.
"For that matter, a non-Jew can rest on the Shabbat, pray from a Siddur, know that God is One, honor the old and wise, pray to God, read the Shema morning and evening, and perform many, many other Torah mitzvot. It's not like anyone is going to come along and stop you."
Exactly. In fact, nobody is going to stop anyone doing anything. A Gentile can dress as a Litvak Hasid with fur shtreimel, black trench coat, and white socks up to his knees for all I care (and some have indeed tried just that in their effort to "out-Jew"). They may not get far with most Jews, but it's not like there's a Jewish police to round-up Gentiles who want to be frum.
Of course, I think benicho's question is not about external performances or what he can get away with, but whether or not G-d actually desires him to live exactly the same way as observant Jews do (i.e. be observant of full Torah in the same exact fashion as Jews). Well, if He did, one would think that there would be some biblical and traditional evidence outside of teachings of Tim Hegg and few others in his small circle. Instead, there's much evidence against such a requirement of Gentiles to observe full Torah as required of Jews, both in Torah, in NT, and in Halacha. This is partly because Torah is tightly tied to Israel's national constitution and the very essence of what it means to be a Jew, and really CANNOT be practiced outside of a Jewish community.
In my Yeshua in Context book I talk about having a "storied epistemology." I don't use those words exactly since epistemology isn't a word most readers are familiar with. It means "how we know" (you probably knew that, but I'm defining it for anyone who reads this comment).
Bart Ehrman accepts the fundamentalist epistemology (it either all lines up in a black and white world or it's all crap). He rejects faith as a fundamentalist would.
Do you have my Yeshua in Context book?
Derek
Thanks for the definition of "epistemology". I remember the word from graduate school but haven't had much opportunity to use it as part of my active vocabulary in the past 20 years or so.
Yes, I've come to the conclusion that Ehrman is very literal, pretty much to a fault. As you say, something is either absolutely correct or it is absolutely wrong.
In a comment on my "Old Dog" blog post, Judah posted a link to a debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Ehrman on whether or not the Bible provides an adequate explanation for why there is suffering. It's available as an mp3 and reveals a great deal about Erhman. There's something about hearing someone speak, the words they use, and so forth, that yields so much more than the printed page.
He seems to me to be a hurt person on a number of levels and while highly intelligent, he has much invested in making sure he does not believe in the God of the Bible.
No, I don't have a copy of "Yeshua in Context".
"Of course, I think benicho's question is not about external performances or what he can get away with, but whether or not G-d actually desires him to live exactly the same way as observant Jews do (i.e. be observant of full Torah in the same exact fashion as Jews)."
You're right, and I'm not seeking to observe the law for the sake of observing the law. I typically have to put myself in the shoes of the first century gentile Christians, or even before the Messiah came. What did they do? If you were a believer in the G-d of Israel what was the course of action? Certainly I wouldn't just say "well since I'm a gentile I don't have to do any of that", would I? I mean I don't know if that would've been acceptable to first century Jews, or even before. But once again, you're right, observance of the law for the sake of living out a Jewish lifestyle is of no good, as Paul rehashed so many times in Galatians. It's far beyond the circumcision of the heart, now it's a matter of whether or not G-d wants Goys to obey those commandments.
benicho, based on the lack of agreement between the various NT scholars on the meaning of the Gospels and Epistles (including in some cases, who wrote them), it may not be possible, in an absolute sense, to know what God wants the Gentile disciples to obey, vs. which of the mitzvot we are allowed to perform.
Paul seemed to believe that acts of Torah compliance for Gentiles were less important than an internal faith in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, but it's unclear based on some of the Gospels, plus statements such as James 2:18 that seem more "pro-law", whether the formerly-pagan disciples should, or at least were permitted to, take more on board than was outlined in the Acts 15 letter.
In other words, I don't think you're going to find a "smoking gun" on this issue.
In the end, you may have to arrive at your best conclusion of what you think the Bible is telling you to do, and then do it. I know that seems horribly imprecise, but the fact that larger Christianity, including the MJ movement, contains so many different opinions on man's obligation to his fellow and to God, seems to indicate that we're all in the same boat of "not knowing for sure".
I tried to address that in today's blog post which may not be ultimately satisfying but has the virtue of showing us what we all have in common as people of God.
"In the end, you may have to arrive at your best conclusion of what you think the Bible is telling you to do, and then do it."
Or, since you want to follow Torah as given to Jews you can (perhaps SHOULD) consult Jewish authorities on the matter - by which I mean the consensus of Jewish authorities (not some individual rabbi's opinion).
Or, since you want to follow Torah as given to Jews you can (perhaps SHOULD) consult Jewish authorities on the matter - by which I mean the consensus of Jewish authorities (not some individual rabbi's opinion).
I think you just told benicho to go study Talmud. ;-)
"I think you just told benicho to go study Talmud. ;-)"
He COULD do that, but then there are many more easily digestible materials available.
lol well if Gene were actually telling me to consult the Talmud he'd more or less be suggesting conversion to Judaism. the biggest problem there of course is the Yeshua issue, something I'm not willing to spar over for the rest of my life if I were to convert.
I was kidding about the Talmud (sort of).
As Gene says, you can consult some authoritative Jewish sources to get more information about the proper way to observe the mitzvot. One good place might be your local library. Mine has a small Jewish book section, but it includes some valuable texts and basic concepts and principles.
If you live in a city with a large enough Jewish population, there may be classes at a local synagogue you can take and some colleges and universities offer classes in Jewish topics including beginning Talmud. None of that would require that you convert. Because of my current affiliation, accessing synagogue classes isn't an option for me, and none of the local educational facilities have classes on Judaism. That leaves me with the library and the web.
I have no idea your level of understanding and don't want to insult your intelligence, but you could even start at someplace like My Jewish Learning. I apologize if this is too basic for you, but I'm shooting from the hip, here.
I've actually checked out My Jewish Leearning a lot. They have some good fundamental basic teachings, which is good, for issues like the one I've been bringing up it's certainly not a cut and dry issue. Furthermore the website is geared for Jews and answering basic questions for gentiles who just have a general curiosity on a subject.
I'll bump to your latest posting now though.
The way I view it - rather simplistically, but it has to be workable, right?- is basically adding another level below, as it were. See, the Torah gives the most stringent and specific instructions to the High Priest, then the regular priests, then the Levites, then the common Israelite, each level slightly more relaxed in its demands and inclusive in its membership. I understand another level between Children of Israel and outright heathens: children of Abraham. Wasn't he called the father of the faithful as well as the grandfather of the nation's namesake, chosen himself while he was a Gentile? For myself, that means perhaps a level of observance that is less involved than a born Jew, but not contradictory to it entirely. For example, maybe not requiring certified kosher but choosing only clean animals and draining the blood. Or maybe not so many particulars about keeping Shabbat but focusing on God and avoiding obvious work or our own thing; and on the same day so we can worship together. After all, we may not be the same as Jews, but we are grafted in to the same tree and imitate the Jewish Messiah, so shouldn't there be enough similarity in lifestyle, besides basic morality, to enable our "one body" and "one flock" to attend one congregation? Keeping different sabbaths and eating unclean meats has more than anything except persecution prevented any sort of effective intermingling of the two believing communities of disciples.
Shira
Actually Shira, from Judaism's point of view, righteous Gentiles would be considered "Sons of Noah" rather than "Sons of Abraham", since what Judaism sees as the Seven Noahide Laws were given to "the nations" in Genesis 9 after the flood subsided. This pre-dates Abraham a bit and certainly pre-dates Noah and the Sinai event by a long span of time.
After all, we may not be the same as Jews, but we are grafted in to the same tree and imitate the Jewish Messiah, so shouldn't there be enough similarity in lifestyle, besides basic morality, to enable our "one body" and "one flock" to attend one congregation?
I've been reading some of the writings of New Testament scholars and so far, they seem to agree that the interactions of Jews and Gentiles in "Messianic communities" was relatively brief historically. Gentile God-fearers and later Gentile "Messianics" would have shared a synagogue worship with their Jewish counterparts and some of the Jewish "markers" (Sabbath worship, possibly the dietary laws when sharing a common table with Jews), but in the Roman empire, only Jews were legally excempt from worshiping the Roman "gods". It would have been harder for Gentile believers to avoid legal penalties so as much as they might have tried, they would have experienced a more difficult time performing many of the Jewish observances within a Jewish setting.
The (Roman) legal barriers no longer exist, so the question now is, just how many Torah or mitzvot behaviors may a Gentile disciple of the Jewish Messiah accept upon himself or herself? The attempt to answer that question has been a significant struggle within the Messianic community for quite some time.
I personally don't see a problem with a non-Jewish believer taking on board a fair number of the mitzvot (kosher eating, for instance) as a matter of conscience or personal conviction. However, as far as I can see, there isn't a lot of support for non-Jews in the 1st Century C.E. being specifically obligated to the exact set of Torah commandments as Jews who had faith in Yeshua as the Messiah.
Post a Comment