Loading...As I pointed out in my previous post, the “purity” of Israel was seen as massively important to most of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, including the various sources that eventually came to make up the Pentateuch and the other books (Joshua – 2 Kings) that describe the history of ancient Israel. Nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in narratives about the children of Israel as they journey from Egypt to the Promised Land, after God delivered them from their slavery at the Exodus under their leader Moses.
Once Israel escapes (Exodus 1-15), Moses leads them to Mount Sinai, where he is given the Law — starting with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 all the way through Leviticus). Much of this law is about how Israel is to worship and live, now that they have been chosen by God to be his people. Once they receive the law, the Israelites journey to the promised land, but they sin en route, and God judges them by forcing them to remain in the wilderness for forty years, until the entire generation that had escaped from Egypt had died off. He will then give the next generation the Promised Land.
Their time in the wilderness is described in the book of Numbers. The book is called that in English Bibles because a census of the people is taken at the beginning of the book and at the end. A census in antiquity was normally taken to determine the number of soldier-aged men. You have to know what kind of army you have before you can plan a military operation; according to Numbers 1:46, at the time of the Exodus there were 630,550 military aged men. That would mean there were two or three million Israelites wandering around the wilderness for forty years. (To forestall the inevitable question: no, there is no archaeological or material reference to 2-3 million people spending decades in the Sinai – let alone escaping Egypt — and no reference to these events in any other source outside the Bible).
After the forty-year hiatus, the people are commanded to march to Palestine, to the west of the Arabah and Dead Sea; they will take over the land after crossing the Jordan River from the east. The book of Numbers describes the journey and initial battles in the Transjordan area and then in the land of Moab (on the Eastern side of the Dead Sea).
These battles prefigure the two problems that the children of Israel will face throughout their biblically-recounted history. The first is the most obvious: the Promised Land is already someone else’s land. There are
If you’re interested enough in reading this far, you should think about reading more. This is where it gets interesting. So why not join the blog? Click here for membership options
This obsession with purity is probably what I dislike most about the Abrahamic religions. It has caused so much hatred and bloodshed down through the centuries and it keeps on doing that. There’s a straight line from this to ISIS blowing up priceless archeology in the Middle East.
The line gets even stranger from there. I have a coworker absolutely convinced that a 3D printing of said Roman Arch is used by a certain political party as it was original intended…an altar of child sacrifice to Baal and so justified abhorrent treatment of members of such a secular party. Weird stuff.
Thank you for your thorough perspective in this post!
As one once said, “It is a saying in Jewish intellectual circles that the Talmudists become Freudians and the mystics become Jungians”
I have previously been challenged by two Jewish friends, and even by a Rabbi about the claimed lack of a dimensional interpretation of “their” stories. Well, for me, a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then.
As long as Jungian concepts seem to agree with my understanding of the religious symbology and even possible?? spiritual journeys of all kinds (dreams/meditations,,,,) I think it is easy to draw the understanding from such a high scientific psychological approach.
The story of “Exodus” is in the Jungian analyst Carlolyn Shoshana Fershtman’s book “The Mystical Exodus in Jungian Perspective” an interpretation of the exile as a disconnection from the divine self , with Moses as guardian of the spiritual fire. The journey back to the “promised” land, the land of origin, is placed in a spiritual context, rather in a literal context. I’m sure this would give had some resonance among all those (many contemporaries in Judaism) who claim that the “Exodus” story has a deeper and more spiritual meaning.
In reality, it is the biblical authors that are wrathful and they are placing their wrath on God, right?
Also, it seems since the biblical stories were written long after the events, and the events do not seemed to have actually happened, that the stories of destroying the people in the promised land is fabricated in order to show how mighty the Israelites were with God leading them?
I”m afraid we don’t know abou the emotional states of these authors. I wish we did!
But I think we can safely assume that the authors understood that fear is a powerful motivator, and they clearly seem to establishing grounds for fear of being caught not following “the law.” The message always seems to be “transgress and you will be punished ten-fold,” or something of that sort.
The Isrealites are ‘the Chosen,’ wherever found. Egypt is the world. Pharoah is the mind. Moses is the Master. The charioteer army is desires. The Red Sea is passions (of course). The Promised Land is liberation. Manna is the Word, gathered before dawn before it ‘melts’ at sunrise when meditation or “4th Watch” ends, as the walking on water parable has it later. Every detail is important. The burning Bush and pillar of fire associated with Moses are the ‘jyoti’ or divine fire not consumed, blocking ‘desire’ charioteers. Even the chariot wheels of desire stuck in the mud of the disciples’ meditation are significant.
All the ten plagues apply to the ills of man before his hard heart relents and Pharoah mind releases him.
This is mysticism. Not history, but found everywhere in the Bible. It is everywhere in the Bhagavad Gita, the Granth Sahib, the Taoist scriptures, all holy writings.
Unfortunately, the New Testament broke the mold – uniquely disinformation, a coverup of all the other traditions, and we can prove that now with the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls finds. Dr. Robert Eisenman nailed most of it in his pivotal work on James the Just.
“..clean sweep of the lands promised to their ancestor Abraham”
1. God promised the land in Gen. 15: 18.
2. God promised birth of Ishmael in Gen. 15:4-6, much earlier than the land. The seed will number like the stars. The Arabs, descendants of Ishmael, far exceed that of the children of Israel. That land was promised to Ishmael. Middle-East, dominated by Arabs, adopt the religion of Abraham – Submission of our will to the will of God. The promise Gen. 17: 7-8 “…. I will be their God” can only be applied to the Arabs which established the “great nation” promised to Abraham and Ishmael.
When God made promises to Abraham, Jewish race was non-existence. Abraham was never a Jew. When the Covenant of Circumcision took place Isaac was not even born. Ishmael was blessed by God and circumcised together with Abraham.
Gen 17: 15 -19, & 21 shows something is not right because it was inserted in between the Covenant. (Jeremiah 8: 8 “… when the scribes have twisted it by writing lies?”) Clear evidence is available.
As a respectable historian, please investigate and write on this matter?
I subscribe to the theory that Joshua was written, or mostly written, around the time of Josiah, who did start a purity movement, in part to make use of the disappearance of the (other) Canaanites. The idea was to stress, as you say here, that God had ordered the other peoples of the land driven out to keep his people pure. It is much more likely that the Israelites had gradually absorbed the other Canaanites over centuries of conquest and marriage.
The other thought I’d like to offer is that purity was also a concern to others in the region, particularly the Hittites, though never anything close to the degree the Yahwist cult insisted on. One of the more peculiar rules in the Hittite empire was that a priest who had lawful sex with his wife and then approached the temple without first cleansing himself was liable to capital punishment. However, their purity rules applied mostly to priests at their time of service. While there is no direct link from the Hittites to the Israelites, there is a similar concept in that the Israelites are called “a kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19.6).
One of the more peculiar rules in the Hittite empire was that a priest who had lawful sex with his wife and then approached the temple without first cleansing himself was liable to capital punishment.
Not that peculiar. Generally menstruating women were not allowed within the temenos of Greek temples. There are many purity rules in Roman religion, too. The Vestal Virgins, of course, but also look up the Flamen Dialis for a particularly stringent example.
Peculiar in the sense that the priest could be executed for it.
Interesting about the Flamen Dialis!
Fun fact: Actually Canada was the original Promised Land, but Yahweh, being slow of speech only got out Canaan when his words were recorded.
Well, that would certainly change the rhythm of the national anthem. Not to mention Joni Mitchell’s song. So I”m glad the scribe botched it.
Bart,
Your post above is correct. Unfortunately, for now, it is directed at what many view as the evil practices of a vengeful, wrathful God.
But, as you know, that is only one side of the coin.
Leviticus 19: 33-34
“When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien.
“The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” NRSV
Harper Collins Study Bible comment on verse 34: “The Summit of biblical ethics.”
The parable of the Good Samaritan and all of Christ’s teachings are not from a new kinder NT God but rather are from the same so called “wrathful” God of the OT.
Christ’s God and Father. John 20:17
(The Bible is not a history book it is a RELIGIOUS book.)
If you want to know what alien means, try to go & live in gulf Arabic countries.
When an alien, you have no rights like other “citizens”. You are not even considered as a permanent resident for example.
You are considered a visitor.
May be respected if wealthy & powerful or despised & pushed to serve in a repressed manner if poor.
Command to not to Oppress means not to punish him as hapless slave but still gives you full permission to be his master, just don’t humiliate him so much.
Notice that it states to consider him as a citizen not that he becomes a citizen because the whole concept resides on the basis that it is temporary & transient.
What you are invoking here is concept of lodging visitors which considered to be a great pious act in this region & the current Arabs are very well living example of this concept.
My view of this post ends with:
“These battles prefigure the two problems that the children of Israel will face throughout their biblically-recounted history. The first is the most obvious: the Promised Land is already someone else’s land. There are ”
It stops in mid-sentence 🙁
For all problems wiht the blog, be sure to write the support team. (WEll, it’s a team of one). Just click on Help.
I’m curious what you make of Richard Elliot Friedman’s argument that the Exodus was likely an actual historical event, but that it only involved the Levites, rather than all the Israelites.
It’s always struck me as a bit far-fetched. But I like very much his book Who Wrote the BIble?
For some reason this seems familiar…oh yeah, the “theosophy” that was prevalent in Germany during the 1930 – 40’s. Ironic, is it not?
Does not “purity” include “purity of language”?? Is it not odd that John the Elder, while being so concerned with purity, would write in a foreign language? And not any foreign language: is not Greek the language of the enemy? (Or perhaps Latin would be even worse?)
Perhaps this post is influenced by the current controversy among Catholics concerning the language of the Mass. Any comments on that?
IN religious circles “purity” involves ritual cleanliness, not linguistic skill. (IN any event, I’m not convinced that Greek was a foreign language to him. I think he just couldn’t write very well)
I know Marcion rejected the wrathful God of the OT. Was that a common view among early Christian thinkers, or did most accept the way God was portrayed in the OT?
Most accepted the biblical God as portrayed, so far as we can tell. At least that was teh view that won out big time.
Would I be mistaken in seeing a repeated pattern in the teachings of Jesus in the canonical gospels where he contrasted the physical signs of purity and ritual (diet, public prayers and almsgiving, oral laws governing sabbath activity, the temple itself, etc) and instead emphasized individual and inward ethical and spiritual purity and activity (private prayer, secret almsgiving, what comes from your mouth pollutes not what enters it, Lord of the sabbath rather than the other way round)?
This seems to translate to other aspects of his teaching: the Kingdom of God within, rather than a physical kingdom. God dwelling in the hearts of his followers, rather than in the temple made of stone.
Perhaps Jesus was attempting to reconfigure Judaism into a radically different form of itself? A thoroughly up-ended version that re-wrote the purpose of Israel and the will of God for his people?
I”d say it depends on what parts of the Gospels one reads. In Matthew, for example, JEsus says that his followers are to do *everything* Moses commanded. 19th and 20th century liberal Christian theologians did talk a good bit about how Jesus presented a spiritual side of faith in contrast to the more crass physcial side of Judaism. In time it became clear that it was very hard to do that without sounding anti-Jewish. It’s a big problem. BUt I absolutely don’t think Jesus taught a spiritual kingdom within. He believed in an actual kingdom, here on earth.
I understand Oscar Cullman (Christ and Time, 1951) was responding to Schweitzer (1903) who only recognised an apocalyptic Kingdom in the teachings of Jesus and Dodd (1936) who rejected any future apocalyptic kingdom, when he proposed a two-stage already/not yet scenario.
This configuration seems to align with several parables of Jesus in Mark, Q, M and L sources where he uses metaphors such as planting seeds or crops before they are later harvested, or a woman hiding yeast in flour before it later ferments.
And then we have this Q saying: “But on being asked when the kingdom of God is coming, he answered them and said: The kingdom of God is not coming visibly. Nor will one say: Look, here! or: There! For, look, the kingdom of God is within you!” (Q17:20-21)
This suggests to me that Jesus was planting the Kingdom in the hearts of his disciples before he believed an imminent apocalyptic event would occur where God would harvest the righteous into his Kingdom.
Do you side with Schweitzer in believing Jesus only saw a future apocalyptic Kingdom being established on earth? If so, how do you account for the various planting metaphors he used?
Yes, you may want to read myu book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium where I explain Schweitzer’s view and show why it has been the majority opinion of critical scholars since. Luke 17:20-21 (is within you) is not Q, it’s purely Luke. ANd it is very hotly debated as to meaning (since he is surely not assuring his enemies the Pharisees that they have the kingdom inside of them. He thinks — in Luke — absolutely not!) But it would be very hard indeed to defend it as an authentic saying of Jesus, given how much at odds it is with what he normally says about the kingdom. Many of the planting parables do indeed indicate an apocalyptic arrival of the kingdom. ANd that notion is found throughout the entire early tradition: Mark, Q, M, and L. I give details in my book, even though it is written at a lay person’s level.
Ah – I was relying on the International Q Project reconstruction (of which Kloppenborg is a member of the editorial board http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm) for the inclusion of Luke17:20-21 into Q. Maybe they erred?
On the planting scenario, Jesus seems to indicate that the Kingdom is being actively spread about in his time, presumably as a result of his teaching. Is that how you understand it? If so, does this not suggest the Kingdom is dwelling within his disciples?
Apologies, but it’s been a year or two since I last read Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, and I can’t recall what you said on the meaning of the planting stage.
Well, e.g., with the mustard seed, teh point is that the kingdom has a tiny beginning as Jesus’ followers implement the ideals of the kingdom, but it will explode into a massive bush once the end arrives. IMO
I wonder whether readers of the blog would be interested in having some posts from Richard Elliot Friedman regarding critical analysis of the Torah, when, how, and where the various parts originated, etc. This is not “early Christianity” specifically, but the issues involved in unpacking the Torah are related to those involved in studies of the Gospels. And of course “the law and the prophets” were of massive importance in Jesus’ teachings. Just a thought. I’ve read several of his books, and have learned much from them.
THanks!
Hi Bart,
I have copies of nearly all your books and have found them very helpful and revealing. Most historians believe that all we can really know about the Jesus of history is that he was baptised by John and crucified under Pilate.
Conversely, the synoptic Gospels construct a radical figure of a remarkable healer and teacher, one who confronted the Jewish priestly authorities, who spoke with authority and had a unique mission. His wisdom is perceived through his use of parables, aphorisms and sayings.
Accordingly, as a historian I guess you would say that the Parables cannot be attributed to Jesus with any certainty? Is there any evidence to suggest they were mainly literary inventions of the Gospel writers or perhaps they can be attributed to early Jewish sources, if not to Jesus himself?
I respect your opinions and anything you can tell me about the origins of the parables would be appreciated. I love reading commentaries about them.
Kind regards
Alan Ainsworth
I’d say that most historians think that we can know a lot more about Jesus than just that: there are significant amounts of historical material in the Gospels. BUt in any event, it is widely thought that he did indeed speak in parables, and I agree with that view. THe trick is knowing WHICH parables (and parts of parables) can reasonably be attributed to him. Some almost certainly yes, others almost certainly no, most probably debated.
So did God give them land, or did they have to take it … and kill everything that takes breath? :
Deut 20:16 ???
IN the narrative, he promised it to them, “gave” it to them, and then empowered them to take it (by wiping out the others already there…)
Without all that sinning and wrath going on, the Bible would be a very boring read for most people. Or was it also written for professionals, the Greeks sure liked it?
It’s weird to me that most people still find it boring. THey’re maybe reading the wrong parts. ANd not understanding what they’re reading….
Thankyou for this recap of key aspects, themes & some brutal facts from the Exodus. Could you please remind us who, we understand, wrote the Exodus account that we now have and how long after the events themselves? I do wonder if it is significant that lived memory of the Egyptian captivity and then miraculous escape was lost before the next epoch of possessing the Promised Land . . .
I also wonder similarly that a similar period elapsed after Jesus’s life before pen was put to papyrus to start any gospel? I recall Screwtape’s claim that the gospels were not written to make Christians but to edify Christians already made.
Ah, long stories. Exodus, like the other first four books of the Pentateuc, is made up of three sources scholars call J E and P, produced at different times, with different views, later edited together. All of them, and the final editor, are anonymous. THese sources are centuries after most of the events they narrate; th etime ap between Jesus and the earliest GOspels is, instead, decades.
Thanks. So what might account for the 35-ish year delay between the public ministry of Jesus & the earliest gospel account in the NT?
Maybe time for remaining potentially reliable eye-witnesses to have died & thus unable to challenge the written account, particularly the miraculous claims? – noting of course that info took a long time then to do the rounds & be discussed/debated/challenged. (I wonder similar in relation to Exodus?)
Might it have been the dawning on the faithful that perhaps the end-of-all-things & ushering in of the new triumphal Kingdom was not the way things were working out?
Overall can know / plausibly speculate just why Mark appeared when it did? And why it endured while other contemporaries did not?
THere may have been forerunners; it’s hard to say. But there’s a variety of reasons the earliest Xns didn’t write aobut JEsus life. Most of them couldn’t write. Few of them thought they were going to be around for long and so there was no one to write the accounts for. And early on there probably wasn’t much of a sense that there were different views floating around, and so less need to put one of them (that an author thought was “authoritative”) in writing….
Hi Dr Ehrman!!
If one assumes that there is no God, how- from a historical point of view- does one account for the birth of the Jewish people?
Thank you!
THere are different theories. Usually it is thought that Israel emerged either as a group of people indigenous to CAnaan who began worshiping one of the CAnaanite deities and starte developing ideas that he was to be worshiped alone and in certain distinctive ways, or that a group of people in CAnaan came to be influenced by outsiders who had come in with such ideas.
How interesting! Thank you!!
Dr. Ehrman, what do you think about the idea that the origins of Christianity can be explained by only two appearances– one to Peter and one to Paul?
The basic idea for Peter is that you need an inciting incident to kick off Christianity and begin the belief in a risen Jesus– Paul needs a pre-existing religion to persecute. Also, Peter met with Paul, and it’s implausible that they didn’t discuss their resurrection appearances.
The idea for Paul is that he is the only author of NT books that identifies himself by name, and also says he saw risen Jesus. Therefore Paul has the best evidence of anyone to have seen an appearance.
The argument for no other appearances needed is that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed could have easily been modified with embellishments (like the 500) or have been authored by people with no experience with the disciples (it talks about 12 instead of 11, Judas is dead and this is before an additional member is added to compensate)
That’s the argument as best as I can summarize it. What do you think of it? it seems to be quite popular among the non-mythicist YouTube atheists.
I think it’s possible. I do think there’s good reason, though, to think that Mary Magdalene also experienced something, ,and probably James the brother of Jesus. I’ts important to remember that Paul’s experience was three or four years later, so if it’s *just* Peter and Paul, then the whole thing depends on a single appearance, which would strike many people as too thin a basis. But it’s possible
I’d never heard the purity angle before on explaining gods wrath. It kind of explains why in a post-fascist world we sometimes find the deuteronomistic history so distasteful. I used to find these stories quite troubling when I first left the faith. It’s changed my feelings significantly since I learned that basically the whole of Hebrew history before David is entirely fictional, and was written centuries after the supposed events. These myths about preserving cultural and racial purity are revealed as much more worthy, when we remember they are written for a minority oppressed, or worse losing identity to assimilation.
Has anyone compared polytheistic religions to monotheistic religions specifically as to their rigid dogmatism? The idea is that in polytheistic religion you go to many gods to get help with life’s difficulties. But in monotheistic religion there is only one correct god and one correct way to worship that god. It seems to me that the latter is more compatible with religious fanaticism. Or is that too simplistic?
We do not know of any polytheistic religions that were exclusive in their claims (my God is right/true/real, yours and efveryone else’s are not); and for that reason we don’t find the same kinds of dogmatism, at least in ancient Greek and ROman religions, as we find in early Christianity.
We do not know of any polytheistic religions that were exclusive in their claims (my God is right/true/real, yours and efveryone else’s are not); and for that reason we don’t find the same kinds of dogmatism, at least in ancient Greek and ROman religions, as we find in early Christianity.
I’d be interested in Bart’s comments and those of any others who post in response to my question. I dont need to receive emails as I regularly log in to the blog
> And so he orders their destruction.
Have there been any explanations offered as to why Yahweh ordered the Israelites to commit the necessary genocides rather than doing them himself?
I”m sure there have been plenty: he wanted to test their obedience; he wanted to work through his people instead of do everything himself; he wanted to set up their ultimate failure so he could judge them for it; etc. etc. They are all speculation, of course, since it’s a question being asked of legendary accounts rather than about what actually happened (since historians cannot explain why God does or doesn’t do something)
Do you think Paul might have been a universalist who thought that, in the end, all will be reconciled to god, including the outsiders? (I’m thinking of stuff in Romans 5.) Or is it better to think Paul is saying that all will be reconciled to god only after all the wicked are destroyed, leaving only the reconciled left?
THose passages in Romans 5, as well as key ones in Phil 2:9-11 and 1 Cor 15 do make it appear that at least at times Paul thought all in the end would be saved. I talk about all this in a chapter in my book on Heaven and Hell.
Bart,
Why do you suppose Jesus said, “everyone who sees” in, “For this is the will of my Father; that everyone who sees the Son and believes I will give everlasting life, and raise up at the last day. ” – John 6:40 (RSV), if he knew he was to be the once *AND FOREVER* savior?
THe Greek word for “see” here is something like “observe”; it appears to mean that anyone who became aware of Jesus and believed in him would have eternal life.
It is theoron. In 6:36, just four verses earlier, he tells them they DID see and didnt believe. He then tells them that the Father’s will is that those who see and believe will be saved. It doesn’t matter what the exact word was that John used, they both mean ‘see.’ Jesus meant what he said. One has to see the Master IN THE FLESH. John 14:7 says he is the Way for those present, nothing about those hearing of him centuries later.
John 9:4-5 would never have been spoken if he was to be savior for all time: “As long as I am in the world,” is as clear as language gets — no universal savior (one savior for all). Jesus never said he was everyone’s savior. You show me.
Why do you always insist on this? All other non-Abrahamic traditions, including Gnostics, have mastership succession. I see you also insisting on an earthly kingdom at every opportunity in the face of clear statements exactly opposed: John 18:36. It’s not like he wrote this piece of garbage! He is being used by Gospel authors to their own ends (hiding James — a REAL Master). Is this not possible for you?
I’d say the Gospel writers are indeed using the stories of Jesus to promote their own views about him and the nature of humans and the nature of God/salvation/etc. But no, I do not at all see “hiding James” as an agenda of any of the early Xn writings.
I do not at all see “hiding James”
Well, then you need to read the case I made in Misreading Judas! I’ll email pdf it. Just for you…
Give it to a student for extra credit. I could use help finishing it with computer help. It’s hard to juggle all four Gospels’ Judas narrative as they parallel the Apocalypses of James. I did the best I could.
Don’t you know hiding James was a major theme in Eisenman’s book on him? Joseph Barsabbas JUSTUS? Judas’s death, falling “headlong” (Pseudoclementine Recognitions 1.70). “I know whom I have chosen”– about Judas, at just the time a successor should make his appearance. ‘When he had gone out’ — “Now is the Son of man glorified,” John 13:31, not about Jesus, but James, and Jesus praising his successor, same as John the B did for him, with the ‘not worthy’ bit about his sandals. Judas was invented to hide him. Read it as a who-dun-it.
I’ve seen this succession dynamic myself in real time, in India. Sometimes people get jealous. It happened in 1950 in the RSSB line of Masters. This is history, Bart. Look it up if you must: Maharaj Charan Singh.
Thanks Bart;
So how does a passage such as Leviticus 19:34 fit into this narrative?
“The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
You could easily find a dozen such passages throughout the Hebrew Bible; both requiring that God’s people should treat the ‘outsiders’ living among them with justice; or condemning them for their failure to do so.
Should we infer a change/development within the Hebrew biblical traditions from ‘destroy the outsider’ to ‘welcome the outsider’?
Or maybe there are two different sorts of ‘outsider’; one polluting and one non-polluting?
Or, maybe the injuctions to ‘destroy the outsider’ are discourses of a mythic past; where the injunctions to give ‘justice to the outsider’ are discourses of a material present?
One observation though; when Hebrew prophecy looks to the future ‘messianic’ fulfilment of God’s people; then the themes of ‘justice for the outsider’ appear to predominate. As in Ezekiel 47:22. But are these not rather the texts where we might look for Hebrew parallels to the Book of Revelation?
I’d say there is a wide range of views on most things in the Hebrew Bible, just as today, so there isn’t just one view that evolves into another.
Hi Bart,
Thanks for your reply, you say there are significant amounts of historical information in the Gospels. Would you please expand on this, not being a historian or scholar I haven’t the skills to identify the historical elements you refer to.
Also, is there not a more suitable thread in your blog for our correspondence?
Regards
Alan
I”m not sure what you’re asking in your question? As to your question about historical information: I”ve blogged on this a lot. Look up “criteria” and you’ll find a number of posts. If you’re really interested, I talk about the matter a lot in a number of my books, starting with Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (which is devoted almost entirely to the subject.)
Question: How do we know which are the later parables. Which seem ‘late,’ possibly written after Jesus’ death? “Good Samaritan” for example. Lastly, how about incident stories which seem, ‘too good to be true’, e.g. the “Woman caught in adultery” [pericope adulterae]?
For many we don’t know. We apply to the parables the same criteria we apply to every other historical tradition (about Jesus or anyone else) to see if it’s likely historical or not. THe Good Samaritan is tricky: it’s found in only *one* source (that’s a strike against it) but it coincides extremely well with other things Jesus almost certainly said (that’s in favor of it). On balance I think it’s authentic, but I’d sayit’s hard to prove. The woman in adultery is a differnet issue since it is missing from all the oldest and best manuscripts.
A new question (unrelated to this blogpost) : Is there a significant strand of the Gnosticism in the DNA of Christianity? I am thinking of the way that even today evangelical Christians will talk about how you cannot understand the Bible unless the Spirit shows you how, and they will try to respond to academic or historical challenges by talking about “man’s understanding” versus “God’s thoughts”, and how you cannot be expected to understand Scripture unless you are indwelt by the Spirit. Has that been a strand within devotional Christianity that can be traced back to the Gnostic era, or is it a more recent development that just coincidently sounds a bit gnostic?
I”d say there’s intriguing overlap at this point, yes. But it was in the Christian tradition before GNostics picked up on it…