Loading...The way I started my talk this past week at the University of Michigan on Jesus, the Law, and the New Covenant was by discussing the confusion a number of my students have about the Jewishness of Jesus. The first day of class, in my New Testament course, I give the students a pop quiz to see how much they know about the New Testament. The quiz deals with basic, factual information: How many books are in the NT? What language were they written in? Etc.
Well, I do throw in a couple of curve balls for good measure…. But mostly it’s just factual information. One of the questions asks the students to indicate which of the following persons was Jewish: John the Baptist, Alexander the Great, Jesus, Simon Peter, Tacitus, the Apostle Paul. As it turns out, most of the students get all these right. Including Jesus. I’m not sure that, when I started teaching over thirty years ago now, it was as widely recognized that Jesus was Jewish. But today, virtually everyone knows that he was.
But what does it mean? Sometimes I ask my students: does it mean that Jesus lived like a Jew?
“Yes, of course. “
“OK, does that mean he kept the Jewish law?”
Some students think: “Yes, he must have. He was Jewish!”
Other students think: “Well, he was accused by Pharisees of breaking the Sabbath, so maybe he didn’t keep the law.”
“OK, then, if he didn’t keep the law, in what sense was he Jewish?”
They aren’t really quite sure. And then
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, Come On! Join the Party!! It costs little, gives lots, and every dime goes to charity!!
Most people don’t realize that there are three versions of the Ten Commandments; Exodus 20, Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5. I personally have a problem with Commandment 10 in Exodus 34 , ” You should not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” – not real relevant in today’s world.
Ah, but it is why Jews who keep kosher cannot each a cheeseburger: it is mixing dairy and meat.
it is your understanding that the writer who wrote the 10 commandments clearly linked them to the 613 ?
thanks
I don’t think the writer probably knew there were exactly 613 commandments. Probably never counted them. But yes, they were all connected.
If I remember the Commandments correctly, the one about the Sabbath just says something like “Thou shall keep holy the Sabbath.” Am I right in thinking the actual “Commandment” doesn’t spell out *how* it was to be kept holy?
That’s right.
It’s almost as if politicians are mere demogogues who pay lip-service to religion in an attempt to pander to religious conservative voters. But, as we all know, politicians are the most ethical men and women in the country, so that can’t possibly be true.
That show was funny. That was a perfectly fair question for Westmoreland. He is going around saying the ten commandments are so important and he wants them posted everywhere and people need to learn them, but he doesn’t even know what they are; manages to come up with only 3. It’s not just hilarious; it illustrates quite well that the reverence for the ten commandments by politicians is often more about symbolism than substance.
I know it’s been interpreted this way but did “bearing false witness” really mean the same as lying in discussions of the Jewish Law? The former sounds more like perjury – in any event a lot less all-encompassing than lying. And if they don’t mean the same, then not prohibiting lying in general is a major oversight.
Similarly, in philosophical ethics, keeping promises is often used as a paradigmatic example of a moral rule. It strikes me as odd that it’s not included in the 10 Commandments, especially with the emphasis on covenants in the Hebrew Bible. But maybe it’s one of the other 603 commandments.
No, bearing false witness was not simply lying. It was providing false testimony in a judicial context.
I notice a lot of confusion surrounding the Ten Commandments, especially by Gentiles who are unfamiliar with the Hebrew. There is a subtext to the Ten Commandments that comes out from the surrounding context, and that can only be fully grasped within the Hebrew idiom. As a case in point, take the passage that has the “Neither shalt thou bear false witness against they neighbor” verse. In the Hebrew this isn’t actually a seperate verse but is rather the last part of one verse that contains the “not murder,” “not commit adultery,” and “not steal” commandments. In the English translation, simply out of the necessity for clarity, this verse is terribly verbose, creating a list of seemingly four distinct proscriptions, but in the original, much more terse Hebrew, they all flow together as one line. Phonetically, it sounds like this: lo thirtzach; lo thin’aph; lo thignov; lo tha’aneh bre’akha ‘ed shaqer (‘ed shawa in Deuteronomy). To better capture the flow and prosody of the Hebrew, we can translate it thus: “Murder not; fornicate not; steal not; answer not of your peer false testimony.” Now, the context of this whole line is of your “peer,” which in the original Hebrew is רֵעַ , which means something like how we might say “compatriot” — i.e. within this context your fellow Israelite. In other words, within the context of its time, this proscription has the implication of “your fellow Israelite”: “Murder not [your fellow Israelite]; steal not [from your fellow Israelite], etc. So the overall intention behind the passage is to order Jews to not harm other Jews: Do not kill other fellow Jews; do not fornicate against other fellow Jews; do not steal from other fellow Jews; and, finally, do not falsely accuse your fellow Jews [of an infraction]. That is, within the context of the passage it’s clearly making reference to perjury specifically, and not lying in general.
Brilliant post. So so typical.
Hey Bart,
Good luck with your debate with Dr. Price. I hope it would be constructive and he will turn out to be more knowledgeable than some of the lesser-known mythicists. (wink)
For those like me watching at home, will the debate be posted here or on youtube? I can’t wait to see it!
Thanks
It will be live-streamed and I assume available elsewhere, afterward, on the internet.
I found this very interesting. Back in the day when I identified myself as a Christian many Christians would say I was not a Christian and that was due to the fact that I strayed from orthodox beliefs and practices. Does this also apply to Jesus? He strayed from Jewish orthodox beliefs and practices. If you go by the logic many Christians apply to other Christians, using that same criteria, the answer would be no.
Judaism in Jesus’ day was not a doctrinal religion the way Christianity is today in some circles. Jesus never was accused of not being a Jew.
There were no “orthodox” Jewish beliefs and practices in Jesus’ day. Judaism was far more diverse back then, even than today’s. The orthodox Rabbinical Judaism of which we are familiar today was really a product of the Middle Ages (roughly around the same time as the origins of Islam, funny enough).
This is good!
Of course, there are also two different sets of Ten Commandments because, after God clearly stated that he was giving to Moses the same commandments God had previously given to Moses, God gave Moses a different set. So, which set goes on the building?
I saw the Colbert interview and I thought he was pretty rough on you and really did not give you much chance to say anything. I actually felt sorry for you for the way you were treated and misrepresented by him.
According to the scripture Jesus commands that you keep not only the details of the law but also justice and mercy ( everyOne loves justice and mercy ). NotIce Jesus says not to neglect the details of the law.
Matthew 23:23
“Woe to you.For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Most of Jesus’s teaching is general in nature while the Pharisees only taught details .
What does “tithe mint and dill and cumin” mean?
Sounds like an order for a hamburger
It means that you give 1/10 of your spices to the Lord.
It is nonsense to say that the Pharisees taught only details. Oh, and by the way, Jesus may have been a Pharisee.
It’s a bit of a stretch to think Jesus was a Pharisee. There are somethings that Jesus says that sound exactly like what a Pharisee would believe (e.g. that belief in the coming Mass Resurrection of the dead was necessary for entrance into the Kingdom of God). But there are also things that Jesus says that sound a lot like something an Essene Jew would believe (e.g. God will destroy the current, defiled Temple and erect a new, purified one in its place). But there are also things that Jesus says that sound a lot like precursors to what the Zealots would say only a few decades later (e.g. on the Day of Judgment God will separate the wicked from the righteous and destroy the wicked in a great conflagration like chaff separated from wheat). Jesus’ preaching — and likely very early Jewish Christian belief — was probably a hodge podge of ideas from these various Jewish groups.
Isn’t there an issue about which commandments exactly are the 10? I’m too lazy to look but I’m sure I’ve read that, as is not unusual, the commandments are listed in two locations and they are not the same. Then there are the Hebrew, Roman Catholic, and Protestant listings, aren’t there?
Ah, then look! Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 5.
Stephen Colbert is pretty funny and very smart too. I remember you called him ‘whip smart’ once.
The historical Jesus inconsistentin his teaching..
Publicly, he is a pacifist giving out wonderful moral teachings of love compassion and justice and mercy. Encouraging othersnot buy the material world.
Privately he is telling his disciples of a coming kingdom where The son of God will overthrow everything in place him in charge .
He tells the Pharisees to practice Thevlaw and then Calls them hypocrites because they do not practice the intent of the law of justice and mercy.
While on the other hand Jesus does not practice some aspects of the law claiming that he was above the law by doing the work of the father.
His works signs and miracles, if true, prove that he was the Messiah and God.
Again if Jesus was God why didn’t he bring about the kingdom that he predicted God would bring about? Why did he have to be crucified in order to bring about the predicted kingdom?
It’s a very convoluted, complex story Full of intellectual inconsistencies .
By selectively focusing on various scriptures and ignoring others, pastors can reach completely different conclusions concerning Jesus of Scripture .
I believe that the texts we describe as the gospels (especially the 4 cannical ones) are actually what we would now call historical fiction. They contain (probably) actual historical materials, but they have been arranged and retold as stories to make them more compelling.
Excellent Post!
The first commandment is rather strange and does not look like much of a command. It merely states that ” I am the LORD thy God who brought you out of the land of Egypt , from the house of bondage” . It merely establishes the relationship of God with man. I think the law is directly addressed to the reader and hence both “the land of Egypt” and “house of bondage” are allegoric. In a sense LORD thy God is the one who liberated humans from some bondage and made him free.
If you read Jesus teachings in the New Testament it is clear to see the freedom in the teachings of Christ. For eg. If you compare what Jews practiced vs how Jesus interpreted a law to be practiced , you can see that Jesus interpretation of law reflects this aspect of his understanding of Jewish law. If you read the tractate sabbath of Talmud it just is a detailed account of what you can and cant do on sabbath. On the contrary Jesus did not find it a violation of law when his disciples plucked corn when passing through cornfields. He truly understood sabbath means internal rest . Such a rigid adherence of law would in Jesus’ view continuing to live “in the house of bondage”
There are different ways of numbering the commandments; in Protestant traditions, as one example, what you cite is only the beginning of the first commandment. The rest is “You shall have no other gods before me” For those who do hold the shorter form, it is often noted that the ten commandments in the Hebrew are actually called the “ten words”
Is “I am Yahweh thy God who brought you out of the land of Egypt” the preamble to the 1st commandment or is it the preamble to the entire set of ten?
As it turns out, it depends whom you ask. In traditional Jewish reckoning it is actually the first commandment! (The Decalogue technically means teh “Ten Words” and this is understood to be the first); in (most of) Protestant listing it is the prologue to the enite list; in the Catholic and Lutheran listing it is part of the first.
On the command not cook a kid in its mother’s milk, which occurs three times in the Hebrew Scriptures, the ethical relevance of this precept is impressive. Our rabbis interpreted these commandments in different ways, for example, do not mix red meat with any milk’s animal, or not take economic advantage of that sale, etc. From a nutritional point of view (I am naturopath) the relevance is impressive because we know today that the mixture of milk with meat, especially red meat, is harmful to our digestive system. So the relevance is evident. However, most importantly, I think, it is the ethical derivation of this commandment in the sense that it is forbidden in Judaism embarrass the children before parents and by extension, embarrass someone in public. This action is prohibited. From where does the Rabbis get this teaching in Judaism? From the commandment not cook a kid in his mother’s milk! Clearly it is seen, that this particular commandment, like the rest of the commandments, are not only relevant, are critically important to the modern world where most of the great ethical values are disappearing from the earth.
Shalom.
Bibi
From what I understand, the earlier stories of Jesus involved him simply being a Torah Jew, admonishing other Jews to obey the law as well, even answering “the law” as an answer when asked what to do to obtain salvation. He also emphasizes works/Torah with most parables (if not all his parables about how to be saved) talking about those that do charity. It isn’t until john or Paul that Jesus becomes blatantly anti-Torah and turning himself into the center of attention and means of salvation. For example, in the Synoptics, you have “anti-Torah incidents” such as healing on the sabbath (which is not even considered forbidden in Judaism), while in John, you have Jesus blatantly not keeping Torah, such as by telling someone to carry a mattress around on Saturday presumably precisely because he wasn’t supposed to. This is why there are denominations that emphasize works, while others say works are not required, and even that works would be sinful because it means “Christ isn’t enough” etc. The reason is that both are taught. The NT teaches “you need works to be saved, and good works is what will get you saved”, and also teaches that you don’t need works and that the law was temporary/harmful. Marcion, and many others probably quickly stumbled upon the blatant contradiction between the OT saying the law was good and to be obeyed for ever as long as Jews existed and that anyone that taught otherwise was to be ignored even if they could perform great miracles, and the teaching that Jesus and especially Paul taught it was over. Easy solution for a pagan like Marcion that never believed the OT to begin with: the OT was wrong! Good luck getting people that had believed the OT prior to having Christianity preached to them (ie Jews, some Gentiles). Wait, that has a solution too, God blinded them because reasons, or they secretly DID know Jesus was (God? Messiah? Prophet?), but they simply hate God so much and love sin so much etc.
Dr. Ehrman, what is your view on the commandment not to kill/murder? Did this mean “thou shalt not kill *anyone*” or did it simply mean “thou shalt not kill *other Israelites*”? I ask, of course, because of the many stories in the OT in which Israelites are absolutely just butchering folks. Does the answer lie in the semantics of kill vs. murder, which somehow excuses these OT slaughterings?
Yes, I think it must have meant “Do not murder an Israelite.”
Oh man, I just went back and watched your appearance on Colbert… hilarious! I thought the exchange re: the pericope adulterae was pretty interesting. I’ve read a lot of scholars (Metzger included) who argue the story is historical because it is consistent with what is presumed about Jesus’ character and ministry, etc. What do you think of this argument? It’s always seemed a bit strange to me, because a person could also make-up a million other stories that are consistent with the character of Jesus, and all of those stories would still be false because you just made them up!
How Christians should react to the 10 commandments? If they should follow them, what should happen if they do not? If they don’t have to follow them, why Christian countries have them as a part of the bible they use?
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=16785 has listed some parts of the Bible that mention punishments, but does it go with Christians too?
If Christians do have to obey, but don’t get punished when not obeyed, what’s the point? Or if they do not have to obey them at all anyway, why is that?
It completely depends which Christians you talk to. Even in the early church there were some who said all the commandments of Scripture were to be followed assiduously, and others who said it was not important — except for the moral commands such as do not kill, commit adultery, bear false witness, etc. Those were always seen as binding on Christians. Some Christians claimed that no following these commands could lead to the loss of salvation.
“Do not kill” commandment in original language excludes killing in war, home intruder, due consequence for crime (in many places of OT people are killed for breaking the other commandments as a punishment.)
Thanks for answering, and sorry suddenly posting multiple questions.
Also
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
— Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV)
How about pictures and statues, icons etc of Jesus? Aren’t they breaking that rule? If yes, why they exist? If not, then what are they? Or isn’t this concern of Christians?
If Jesus said anyway, that they should obey law of Moses, this and the one above doesn’t make much sense to me.
Yes, that was sometimes a matter of debate in Christainity. Look up “iconoclasm.”
Are the set of commandments in Exodus 34 the real ten commandments rather than those in Exodus 20? Or perhaps better stated, were the set in Exodus 34 the original ten commandments until the book of Deuteronomy came along which claimed that the set in Exodus 20 was the “Ten Commandments”. Is the word “commandment” a poor translation of the Hebrew word “debar”?
It’s hard to say. Only the ones in Exod 34 are called the “ten commandments”