Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Minimalist]

I'll let Doherty explain what he means:

From Page 81

One of the features of scriptural study in this period was the practice of taking individual passages and verses, bits and pieces from here and there, and weaving them into a larger whole. Such a sum was much greater than its parts. This is one of the key procedures of "midrash," a Jewish method of interpreting the sacred writings. This bringing together of widely separate scriptural references and derving meanings and scenarios from their combination was the secret to creating the early Christian message. Scripture did not contain any full-blown crucified Messiah, but it did contain all the necessary ingredients. Jewish midrash was the process by which the Christian recipe was put together and baked into the doctrine of the divine Son who had been sacrificed for salvation.

[Minimalist]

Later in the book, Ish, Doherty gives examples of how that was done. I'll see if I can scan a page and post it for you as it is just too long to type out.

[Ishtar]

Thanks Patti and Min.

Patti, I'd be very interested to see any midrashes that referred to Mystery teachings ... was it all oral, though?

Min, Doherty's explanation about the Gentiles misunderstanding midrash works for Literal Christianity, but not for Literal Judaism.

[pattylt]

I wondered if the Midrash would ever come into this discussion as I feel it is essential in understanding why the case for a non historical Jesus is very valid. It was during the time of Jesus' supposed appearance that there was alot of new interpretations of Midrash coming about. It was the big difference between the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were rejecting the Oral Law, the Pharisees insisting it was integral to Judaism. Much of this conflict is discussed in the NT.
Here is Josephus' description:

Now at this time there were three schools of thought among the Jews, which held different opinions concerning human affairs; the first being that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes. As for the Pharisees, they say that certain events are the work of Fate, but not all; as to other events, it depends upon ourselves whether they shall take place or not. The sect of Essenes, however, declares that Fate is mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree. But the Sadducees do away with Fate, holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our well being, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness. [JewishAntiquities 13.5.]

Much of what Paul wanted to reject of the Law, was the Halakah (legal) interpretation but IMHO not what I consider the Mystery portions.
The Jewish Encyclopedia says this in reference to the Haggadic (teaching or interpretation):

The haggadic Midrash, which confined itself originally to the exposition of Scripture text, was developed in its period of florescence into finished discourses. "The Haggadah, which is intended to bring heaven down to the congregation, and also to lift man up to heaven, appears in this office both as the glorification of God and as the comfort of Israel. Hence religious truths, moral maxims, discussions concerning divine retribution, the inculcation of the laws which attest Israel's nationality, descriptions of its past and future greatness, scenes and legends from Jewish history, comparisons between the divine and Jewish institutions, praises of the Holy Land, encouraging stories, and comforting reflections of all kinds form the most important subjects of these discourses"

Interesting stuff, huh?

[Ishtar]

I wondered if the Midrash would ever come into this discussion as I feel it is essential in understanding why the case for a non historical Jesus is very valid. It was during the time of Jesus' supposed appearance that there was alot of new interpretations of Midrash coming about. It was the big difference between the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were rejecting the Oral Law, the Pharisees insisting it was integral to Judaism. Much of this conflict is discussed in the NT.
Here is Josephus' description:

Now at this time there were three schools of thought among the Jews, which held different opinions concerning human affairs; the first being that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes. As for the Pharisees, they say that certain events are the work of Fate, but not all; as to other events, it depends upon ourselves whether they shall take place or not. The sect of Essenes, however, declares that Fate is mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree. But the Sadducees do away with Fate, holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our well being, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness. [JewishAntiquities 13.5.]

Much of what Paul wanted to reject of the Law, was the Halakah (legal) interpretation but IMHO not what I consider the Mystery portions.
The Jewish Encyclopedia says this in reference to the Haggadic (teaching or interpretation):

The haggadic Midrash, which confined itself originally to the exposition of Scripture text, was developed in its period of florescence into finished discourses. "The Haggadah, which is intended to bring heaven down to the congregation, and also to lift man up to heaven, appears in this office both as the glorification of God and as the comfort of Israel. Hence religious truths, moral maxims, discussions concerning divine retribution, the inculcation of the laws which attest Israel's nationality, descriptions of its past and future greatness, scenes and legends from Jewish history, comparisons between the divine and Jewish institutions, praises of the Holy Land, encouraging stories, and comforting reflections of all kinds form the most important subjects of these discourses"

Interesting stuff, huh?

Yes, thanks Patti. Very interesting. I'm wondering if the Gnostic-sounding elements come from the Greek influence, though, of the earlier Zugot period?

I've been reading through Midrash on Wikipedia and following links from there, and I found this, which ties in exactly with what you were saying. But not only that, it attests Gnostics to the first century (if it's true). It is talking about the Council of Jamnia where the OT books are thought to have been canonised. Also comiing out of that council were a number of changes to the law, including the curse of the Minim:

The inclusion of a curse on the "Minim" which probably included Jewish Christians (Birkat ha-Minim). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Min: "In passages referring to the Christian period, "minim" usually indicates the Judæo-Christians, the Gnostics, and the Nazarenes, who often conversed with the Rabbis on the unity of God, creation, resurrection, and similar subjects (comp. Sanh. 39b).

In some passages, indeed, it is used even for "Christian"; but it is possible that in such cases it is a substitution for the word "Noẓeri," which was the usual term for 'Christian'... On the invitation of Gamaliel II., Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan composed a prayer against the minim which was inserted in the "Eighteen Benedictions"; it is called "Birkat ha-Minim" and forms the twelfth benediction; but instead of the original "Noẓerim" ... the present text has "wela-malshinim" (="and to the informers"). The cause of this change in the text was probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

So this is attesting the Nazernes to the late first century, which is progress, because the first Literalist attestation is early 2nd century!

And interesting how once again, Nazarene and Christian are names for the same thing.

[pattylt]

Patti, I'd be very interested to see any midrashes that referred to Mystery teachings ... was it all oral, though?

No, it was written down eventually... I believe about the same time as the gospels?

To read the mystical interpretations of Midrash.... we are back to Philo! It is also where the Kabbalah interpretations come in. They took the hidden meanings and really ran with it.

I am out the door for work but I will see if I can find anything juicy for you later!

[seeker]

Seeker and Min

Normally, at this point, I would look up to find out about what midrashes are and why they're important. But maybe not everyone will do that .. so in order to take this story on, would one of you kindly explain what a midrash is and how it fits into this context?

Just to expand on what Pattyit and Min posted one of the uses of the midrash was for Jews to explore religious ideas, often by creating scenarios in which prophecies could be played out or theological problems could be explored. In a sense it was a kind of religious fiction in which the characters could play out their religious roles.

[seeker]

Pattyit - You are right about the Kabbalah, tradition has it being right about the time of the writing of the early NT gospels, somewhere between the 1st and 2nd century. Personally I think the tradition started because of the mystery religion notion of hidden meanings. This was the first time they actually had sacred texts to find hidden meanings in so they just started going wild.

[Minimalist]

Here's your scan, Ish.




If you hit Ctrl + it will zoom in to make it easier to read. You can do that several times depending on your eyesight.

[Ishtar]

So it's literally a cut and paste job!

Cut out a few well-known passages and then build your own story around them.

So then we have to ask - why that story?

Was it Gnostics trying to create a double allegory of the dying and resurrecting godman on one level, and an astrotheitical allegory on another?

Or was it Literalists making up a story about an Israelite/Good Samaritan who was persecuted by those from Judah?

[Minimalist]

So then we have to ask - why that story?

Why indeed? But I liked your earlier question about literalist Jews.

Oh, right. They DIDN'T fall for it. They stayed Jews.



Anyway, it may be impossible to know what was in the mind of the original author. Doherty seems to feel that there were many groups working under the general label "Christian" in the early days. If you stop to think about it that seems backwards. If there were a literal "Jesus" and the story had taken place a short time earlier one would think that the initial story would be compact and concise with the differentiations of the tale occurring later as it spread. Think of Islam which mutated into various sects as time went by.

Perhaps "Mark" was from a group which thought the story was "real" and wrote up his tale accordingly? We may never know.

[seeker]

Of course we can't really know why but I think that sometime in that period either late in the first century or early in the second there began to be a sizable enough group of people calling themselves Christians. This created a political force but as Gnostics they had disparate beliefs and no real need for centralization.

Creating a Literalist Church gave authorities a way to centralize and control much as the Maccabees had done in Judah when they codified Jewish beliefs.

[john]

So it's literally a cut and paste job!

Cut out a few well-known passages and then build your own story around them.

So then we have to ask - why that story?

Was it Gnostics trying to create a double allegory of the dying and resurrecting godman on one level, and an astrotheitical allegory on another?

Or was it Literalists making up a story about an Israelite/Good Samaritan who was persecuted by those from Judah?

Ishtar -

Try metempsychosis,

A decidedly shamanic viewpoint

Being translated - literally -

From an oral tradition of

Free trans-substantiation

Into the Commandments

Of religious/political control.

At the end of the day,

You see the remnants of metempsychosis

Reduced to the singularity of the Eucharist

Of the god man.

A sip of "consecrated" wine, a tasteless wafer,

Stuffed into your mouth when you're

Already on your knees.


Need I say more?


hoka hey


john

[Minimalist]

This created a political force but as Gnostics they had disparate beliefs and no real need for centralization.

I think that's a stretch, seeker. By the 4th century such a need was manifest but in the early second? There is no way in hell that Ignatius or even the much later Irenaeus could have foreseen the time when their church came to be a quasi-governmental apparatus which was bound closely to the state by imperial decree.

Perhaps it is as simple as having a more consistent doctrine they were able to out-compete the gnostics with their views? The gnostics, after all, weren't so different from the other cults of the time. Claiming a "real" god in recent history gave them "market share."

Frankly, had Maximian won the Battle of the Milvian Bridge instead of Constantine we most likely never would have heard of christianity...and what a better world this would be! The xtians backed the right horse and were duly rewarded.

[seeker]

By the fourth century they were pretty strong. I think early on its more about exploitation. They weren't thinking so much about a powerful quasi-governmental organization as they were looking at setting themselves at the head of a bunch of people who would support them in fine style.