I had posted that literal reading of the Torah, eg the bizarre and now dated laws in Deuteronomy, was a matter long past in Judaism.
He had asked whether stoning of women was still going in in Jesus' time.
Overly literal reading of Torah is something your buddies the Christians invented. For about 2500 years, even Orthodox Jews have insisted that the Torah needs to be read with ALL the knowledge we have .. traditions, science included.Response (attributed to God on HA)
So were the Jews still stoning women for adultery 2000 years ago? There is a story in the New Testament about Jesus stopping some rather Orthodox Jews from stoning a woman accused of adultery
Richard,
You missed my point. I referred to the literal interpretation of Torah, not to what punishments were normal 2000 years ago.
A major part of the message of the Pharisees was that Torah had to be interpreted in the light of tradition and other sorts of knowledge. That concept led to the writing of the Talmud, an extraordinary effort to use rational thought to understand the Torah. Literalism, in the Christian sense, has never been a major part of Judaism except for one sect, the Karaites. BTW, that sect sought and was given protection by the Nazis!
As for whether woman were still being stoned for adultery during Jesus' time, I do not know. Blasphemers, however, were stoned to death and one piece of evidence that the Jesus story is a fiction intended to protect the Romans, is that the Sanhedrin could have had Jesus stoned to death if, as the Christian story claims, he had misused the name of God.
Finally, the historical (as opposed to Christian Bible) record makes it very unlikley that the Jesus of the Christian bible existed. There are no contemporary writings about a figure of his stature, the claim to a virgin birth (other than being heresy) would have led to others calling him a bastard, Roman records do not refer to him, and his supposedly revolutionary preachings were actually rather main stream among the Pharisees.
My own hunch is that the Pharisees created the first non violent resistance. This affected not only the Jews in occupied Israel, but the every large expatriate community across the Roman world as well as a large number of people looking for a form of resistance to the oppressive culture of the Romans.
Jesus, whether he existed as a real character or not, was metamorphed by Paul into a deity well within the traditions of most of the occupied people. Paul's Jesus is clearly a Greek deity figure, son of a virgin,dad was a deity who screwed a woman, miracles, descent into hell, ascent to the god hood, sitting in judgment over the gates of heaven and hell, etc. This, plus the Pharisaic ideas of passive resistance would have been broadly attractive to the people living under the rather barbaric rule of the Romans.
Back to the Jews, after the Romans destroyed the Temple, we morphed into something utterly different than Paul's vision. Adhesion to the Torah was strengthened and became the core of Judaism. The rabbis evolved, not as priests or clergy in the Christian sense, but as experts in understanding the Torah .. in the light of the real world. They, the Rabbis, evolved many of the ideas modern humanists take for granted .. including the primacy of science over other forms of revelation and the concept of human law.
Hope this helps!
Whoever wrote this in God's name, whether it was or was not God, I can not say. It does seem, however, quite reasonable,
3 comments:
This raises historical questions. What is the evidence relating to whether Jesus even existed? A different question than who Jesus was or what he did, assuming he existed. (The same question could be asked about Moses.)
For example, it is extremely clear that Joseph Smith existed. And I think the historical evidence strongly supports the proposition that Muhammed existed as well.
I have read some writing by Jewish scholars, which say that Jesus existed, but was a quite different figure than portrayed in the Christian Bible.
There is the Shroud of Turin, which perhaps has differing scientific analyses, at least some of which are consistent with being used to wrap the body of a crucifixion victim of 2000 years ago.
The Romans in about 300 A.D., after the Empire became officially Christian, claim to have found the cross used in the crucifixion of Jesus.
The distinction between stoning and crucifixion may be important. If the Jews could stone an adulterer to death, it would also be logical to have the ability as well to stone a blasphemer. I don't think the Jews used crucifixion.
It could be that Jesus was crucified for treason by the Romans, consistent with the Christian Bible. But you say for blasphemy, that the Jewish council body could have simply ordered him stoned to death, and therefore the Christian version of things is logically inconsistent?
Certainly there is quite a change in Judaism from the version portrayed in the Christian Bible 2000 years ago. Were there still animal sacrifices going on 2000 years ago, something apparently done at the Temple? Was that only done at the Temple, and did its destruction mean the practice ended?
What about worship services? Did the Jews gather for weekly or other regular worship services 2000 years ago, in local places? Or was it just at the Temple for special occasions?
Did Jesus exist?
ANS No one actually knows but if he did exist, he can't have made much of an impression or he would have been mentioned by contemporary writers. As late as 100 AD. Tacitus seems unaware that Jesus existed but T was aware of messianic movements.
Shroud of Turin.
ANS there is no evidence linking this to the first century, much less to Jesus.
The Romans found "the cross"
ANS. Not that I know of. After Constantine there was Roman industry at finding relics or creating them but what we know of this period is mostly that the first Roamn Christians were pretty fanciful
Blasphemy vs. Sedition
ANS The Roman Bible, written by Christians, obviously would not want to tell a story that Rome killed the true Roman God because that God preached sedition.
OTOH, no one I have read takes the Roman Christian story seriously that the Pharisees (practitioners of non violent accommodation to Rome) took a persopn preaching Pharsaic idea to Herod so Rome could kill Jesus.
Contrary to Christian tradition, the Jews (not the Romans) would have had the authority to kill Jesus for blasphemy if he made the claim to be the literal son of God.
Temple vs. Synagogue
About 2300 years ago the Hasmonean (Macabbes) estabolished themselves as theocracy. That theocracy was based in the Temple and made its living off of temple rituals. Under Rome, the Temple theocrats were sycophants with the Romans. The pharisees opposed them, not on the basis of doing away with the Temple, but of not subverting the Temple to Rome.
Afte 70, the Pharisees;s teachings .. what we now call the Synagogue, replaced the Temple as the center of Judaism. Pharisees also led the rebellion, Jewish war, against Rome. Look up Rabbi Akiba as a great hero.
The good thing in all this is, whoever Jesus was, rabbinic Judaism is the root of a lot of modern humanism, including much of what is admirable in Christianity. In a way, Christianity without Jesus=God, is pretty much a Jewish sect.
So, SJ, you still want to insist that God over at HA isn't your sock?
Post a Comment