In the study of religion, one of the most interesting things is the emergence of Christianity from Judaism. Even more interesting is the contemporary use of the term “Judeo-Christian.” In many ways, this is a “Christian” invention, possibly to justify its divergence from Judaism. To put this another way, the usage of the combined “Judeo-Christian” is more of a justification of the separation of Christianity from Judaism than its unity.
Within Christianity, it is too often assumed that the contemporary reading of the Hebrew Bible (or “Old Testament”) is how whatever text/quote/verse in question was originally interpreted. For instance, Geza Vermes notes in his Jesus the Jew that the references in Daniel to the “son of Man” were euphemisms for the speaker during the second century BC(E), which is when many scholars believe the book was either written or expanded. It was only later (during the end of the first century AD/CE) that this began to be reinterpreted as a “prophecy,” no doubt influenced by the Essene community at Qumran and the emerging group we know today as “Christians.” While both of these groups were relatively radical compared to the other main groups in Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots), the early “mainstream” adopters (Rabbi Akiba for example) was criticized for this view in the Mishnah (written during the second century).
“Judeo-Christian” is, in many ways, a subtle way of changing history–especially when used by Christians. It presumes a chain of transmission, if you will, of the interpretation of the Bible that validates the later views. It can be seen by those who argue that people in the Old Testament were “saved” if they believed in a future Messiah. This type of thinking is very much Christian in nature and it ignores the this-worldly nature of Judaism. Now, this isn’t wrong or even bad. In fact, it is somehow expected of any hermeneutical adventure. What makes it different, however, is when the interpretation’s origin is questioned. The changed interpretation becomes more than just a new interpretation; it emerges as tradition and (eventually) as the only tradition. By invoking the term “Judeo-Christianity,” one can easily push aside a variant reading based not on any kind of textual evidence but rather on tradition. Does the text allow such reinterpretations? Sure. This isn’t because the text had some hidden meaning, but rather that the interpretation of it can change because the context in which the text is read changes. This is what makes Judeo-Christianity remarkably different from the other major religion in the West (Islam): a changing context. Islam requires a context that makes reinterpretation very difficult. It isn’t that the Qur’an itself can be interpreted in different ways (compare the Shia interpretations from Qum with the radical interpretations of al Qaeda and bin Laden) but that Islam itself includes an oral tradition in the hadith that provide a stable context for interpreting the Qur’an. To reinterpret the Qur’an, one must first either reject or reinterpret the oral tradition around the written text. Christianity and Judaism, on the other hand, do not. Since the collapse of the second Temple, Judeo-Christianity has been constantly evolving–both in theology and in hermeneutics, even though the text from which one reads hasn’t changed much (especially after the fourth century).
It’s easier to see this history in Judaism because there are numerous texts which show this tradition of reinterpretation: the Mishnah, the Midrash, the Talmud, the Zophar, etc. Each of these texts reinterprets earlier ones as a long running commentary that is considered vital to one’s understanding of the Hebrew Bible. In other words, for the Jew, it isn’t sufficient to simply know the text; one should also know the history of interpretation for that text if one is to be a good student of the Bible. In Christianity, especially American Evangelicalism, this is much less the case because Luther’s cry for sola Scriptura became a slogan for personal interpretation. When Scottish Common Sense Realism entered the scene in the 18th century, it became the standard for interpretation: what the translated text meant to someone reading it was its original meaning. There was no need for an oral tradition, a history of interpretation, or even prior interpretations: if one could see the “literal” reading of the text, any kind of commentary was secondary. Using the term “Judeo-Christian,” it becomes possible to remove earlier interpretations in order to give more justification for a new interpretation.
Recent Comments
- Some Musings on Higher Education 6
Colin, Bryan, Thainamu, cchrisr, Jew [...] - Were Old Testament Saints Born Again? 8
Chris A, Jesse, TIMFRY, Chris Austere, Bryan [...] - Biblical Christian Giving Part III: Commentary on Philippians 4:10-20 2
Chris A, thainamu - Media and Police Incorrect: Nebraska Shooter did not use "Assault" Rifle 71
5.56, Bob, Kendra, w. Boucher, .45 kev [...] - Why I am not an Objectivist 29
Renaissance Guy, Jew, the rationalist, Jew, the rationalist [...] - The Next American Civil War 27
sid ceaser, Stan R, Chris A, bob, Jasen Tracy [...] - Merry Christmas! 1
Chris A - Book Review: Decision Making & the Will of God - Part 4 9
gortexgrrl, Amos Ortiz, Chris Austere, Jasen Tracy, Chris Austere [...]
I think this goes hand-in-hand in many ways with Bryan’s blog. The a-historical nature of modern Christianity may have something to do with traditions such as sola scriptura and a divergence from Judaism. There was even such radical desire for separation in the middle ages that widespread persecution of the Jews took place. In some ways, even the crusades can be partly interpreted with these considerations. A desire for separation articulating in the form of violence - a kind of collective mortification of the flesh.
You didn’t talk much about the use of the term Judeo-Christian. I’ve only ever heard it used to refer to morals common to both Judaism and Christianity, usually the Ten Commandments. I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say that using Judeo-Christian makes it “possible to remove earlier interpretations in order to give more justification for a new interpretation.” The term doesn’t relate to interpratations of Scripture at all. It’s used to contrast traditional Western values of morality with Eastern religions, paganism, and other modern philosophies. It’s not about biblical interpretation at all.
Jew is right; I’ve also never heard it used in reference to scriptural interpretations, but rather the difference betweeen Western values and non-Western values.
In one sense, it is used to refer to “Western values,” but even that is misleading. A Jew (especially today) does not have the same morals/values as a Christian, except at a superficial level. Just think of things like alcohol (many Evangelical groups don’t accept it, many contemporary Jewish groups do), premarital sex, etc. Jews and Christians don’t really share common values any more than non-Jewish/non-Christian Americans share with American Jews/Christians.
I don’t know if that’s completely true. Authentic practicing Jews have very similar values as I (an evangelical conservative Christian) do, beyond a few ones that were changed/updated/eliminated when Christ came. Meanwhile, there are many mainstream marginal Christians with whom I share very few values. Just as there are many Jews who don’t practice or believe anything resembling traditional Judaic beliefs, there are similarily numerous Christians who don’t follow many of the traditional Protestant Christian beliefs. Just because some denominations of Christians don’t believe in the use of alcohol doesn’t make that a traditional Christian belief. After all, are we not discussing church history here? Luther was all about the alcohol. For the most part, it wasn’t until the last 100 years or so that Christians really got upset by liquor, and primarily, only in this country. A great example of the commonality between traditional Christians and orthodox Jews is Dennis Prager. I agree with almost everything the man says and believes as it pertains to morality, except on some differences which stem from my belief in Christ as Savior and Prager’s rejection of Jesus.
Darius, you’ve only helped prove my point. If there isn’t really a common set of Christian values, how much less would there be a common set of values shared by both Christians and Jews? Sure, we can find instances here and there of commonality between specific groups, but an overarching, universal set?
I’ve always thought the term Judeo-Christian was more or less another way of saying “Biblical”–that is, “Judeo” is the OT part and “Christian” is the NT part.
As Jew said, it is most often coupled with the word “values,” but not always.
cchrisr, I agree that there is no “overarching, universal set” of values for both Christians and Jews. But there is much more commonality between those groups than there is, say, between Christians and Wiccans. Primarily, the main common theme to Judaic and Christian creeds is their belief in the same personal God, Yahweh. But like Thainamu said, primarily the term “Judeo-Christian” has been used to denote values that come from the Bible.
There may be some commonality between certain Jews and certain Christians, but then this also holds for Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists, etc. But, since it seems difficult (if not impossible) to define a set of beliefs or values that hold for most Jews or for most Christians, it is even more difficult to claim a set of beliefs or values that hold for most Christians and Jews, except at a very superficial level. We can mention that both believe in “God,” but it stops about there. Christians have a monistic view of God, while Jews reject the trinity. This doesn’t make Jews or Christians any different from Hare Krishnas and Muslims. There is much more commonality between Jews and Muslims than there is between Jews and Christians.
Also, what values “come from the Bible” that weren’t around elsewhere? Hindus have similar morals (sanctity of life, purity laws, dietary regulations, etc) and these most definitely do not stem from the Bible. There isn’t anything that can be defined as “Judeo-Christian” that both (1) represents the majority of mainstream Jews and Christians and (2) is unique to the “people of the Book.”
I have put my comments in the forum, because I hate this comment system. Link below.
http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?t=3670
To summarize, I found this article to be poorly structured (bad paragraph structure and disorganized writing) and poorly documented (it claims to discuss origins of terms, but provides no evidence for its claims). It also makes mostly ridiculous claims about the term “Judeo-Christian” being used in ways I have NEVER heard it used. “Judeo-Christian” basically means “following a moral code based on the Judaic Torah or the Christian Old Testament. I can’t think that I’ve ever heard the term used otherwise.
“We can mention that both believe in “God,” but it stops about there.”
No, it stops with the fact that both religions claim to be a proper continuation of the Old Testament Judaism, and that both religions fully accept the writings of the Old Testament as fully authoritative.
cchrisr, first off, I agree a bit with Atan here, in that you aren’t clear about the purpose of your blog post, and you do not follow any one idea to completion. Are you are discusssing the emergence of Christianity from Judaism? Or are you arguing that they have separated so much they are no longer similar? Are you attacking the foundation of Christianity, or merely its basis in prophecy? Are you saying that understanding of biblical revelation has changed through time, or that it is ultimately completely obscure? The first two are trivial points, in that we all agree they are different religions, and we all agree they are different to a degree that makes their similarities tough to distinguish. The second two are simply your usual flirting with the bleeding edge of heresy by recycling discredited ideas propounded anew by discreditable ideologues. The fifth is again a trivial point, and the last sounds like more postmodern worshiping Pilate’s despair of finding any truth at all.
I find it disturbing how willing you are to take the word of one scholar against the cumulative testimony of millennia of Christians. Even there, you refer to Akiba as someone who was roundly criticized for a view you disagree with, and in that you avoid mentioning that almost every Jew in the world today would point to Akiba as the father of modern rabbinical Judaism. Certainly you raise a valid point, in that yours is call to be aware of interpretation of of hermeneutics that are bound to a specific age, but you go too far in making the hermeneutic the point. The Truth is the point, and without it, nothing else matters.
You reject the idea that the text had a “hidden meaning” but in that rejection, you cast doubt on the assumption that there is any meaning at all. With Barth, you attach a supreme importance to the interpretation of a text, but there you both turn the essence of hermeneutics upside down and in doing so lose sight of its point. Ultimate truth must be our goal in discovering interpretation, otherwise it is all a ridiculous academic exercise, marginally useful in our own times, but not outside them. This is a theology of scholars, not of sinners, a faith which cannot move mountains because it doubts the existence of the mountain in the first place.
Atanamis, my point is this: The usage of “Judeo-Christian” to imply some unbroken continuation or commonality between Judaism and Christianity stems from a improper form of hermeneutics. As you point out, both religions claim to be a “proper continuation of Old Testament Judaism.” This is what makes the term useless. One must reject the other’s interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in order to justify one’s position. In other words, Jews must reject Christian interpretations of the Bible (for instance, Second Isaiah) in order to justify their own; and Christians vice versa. How can that differentiation be perceived in any way as a commonality? Because the actual books in question are the same? For that argument to work, one must look very superficially at both groups in order to give it sensible meaning.
Your quote of Crossan goes with that superficial reading by suggesting that modern Judaism and Christianity are “brothers” instead of “father and son” because the latter view requires an interpretation of the Hebrew Bible to not approve Christian interpretations of it. In other words, it would be to accept that Christians re-interpreted the Hebrew Bible, something which too many people see as “wrong.”
You also write tat you have yet to find any “serious Bible scholar” who claims that all prophecies were recognized as such when they were initially made. Two things here: I am not limiting my discussion to scholars. In fact, I’d suggest it is more often seminary-trained pastors who fall into that trap. Secondly, I am also not restricting my discussion to prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. I’m speaking of all of it. Christians see the book of Job (as an example) as an early theodicy–that is, an analysi sof the problem of evil. Most Christians will then conclude that the proper theodicy falls in line with being submissive to God (and, in some ways, siding with Job’s “comforters”). Jews, on the other hand, see it as part of wisdom literature (like Ecclesiastes) and not providing any kind of real solution. Further, the Jewish reading sees Job’s questioning of God throughout the text as an example to question God freely. In the end, Job is rewarded while his “comforters” are scorned.
Lastly, it seems to me that you feel that, ultimately, there is only one correct interpretation of a given text. Any given text is constantly re-interpreted throughout time. There is nothing “wrong” with this at all. You are correct that modern Judaism has re-interpreted the Bible (numerous times even!), but this is the accepted way of studying the Bible for Jews since the fall of the Second Temple. Rabbinic Judaism urged re-interpretations in order to transition Judaism from a centrally located religion to a diasporic religion. This change in interpretation does not imply any kind of (in)stability in the religion. It is just a matter of fact. My example of Islam as a more “static” religion can be seen as such: both the oral tradition and the Qur’an are together a static context and text for interpretation. Christianity and Judaism do not have such a static context, even though the text is. Oral tradition in Judaism and Christianity changes over time, while for Islam must always go back to the earlier traditions. A person like Falzur Rahman was one of the contemporary Muslims who wanted to reinterpret the Qur’an. He was exiled from Muslim lands because he was seen as worse than heretical. If a Christian were to reinterpret the Bible, it may be met with opposition, but it would be seen (generally) as a relatively acceptable way, even if it ignores historical interpretations (for example, premillenial dispensationalism in the mid-19th century). In Judaism, there is rarely a question about the acceptability of a new interpretation (with the exception being the Orthodox Jews, but that’s not always the case…for example, Chabad).
Chang, I’m not sure where you read these things into my posts and the subsequent discussion. If you don’t catch it in my reply to Atanamis, my point was that the usage of the term “Judeo-Christian” is bad hermeneutics and it is used by some Christians to justify their own interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, either ignoring or discrediting earlier interpretations. I still think you have no real understanding of postmodernism and continually equate it with the Emerging Church movement, something that I have repeatedly discredited.
I’m not sure how you read my example of re-interpreting a text (Rabbi Akiba) as a critique of Akiba. While the “Truth” is a nice point, it’s one that is always bound to one’s hermeneutics. One cannot escape one’s own context to find this Absolute Knowledge. The real point of Christianity (and especially Christian theology) shouldn’t be some Hegelian ideal, but rather Christ himself. Interpretation is “a ridiculous academic exercise” because salvation doesn’t come from some knowledge–gnosis–but rather from Christ and God. If one is more interested in developing a theology over finding Christ, then he should worship his damn theology (to paraphrase Hauerwas). Theology gets us nowhere when it comes to Christ. It’s a nice game to play, but it’s not the goal. God isn’t going to determine who “gets into heaven” by measuring the extent to which one’s theology is correct. That’s why Barth (and I) play with theology. Christianity isn’t theology (a never the twain shall meet?). There are many meanings to a text, but none of them are “hidden.” However, all meanings of a text are based in a context that is situated culturally, geographically, temporally, and academically. Who here on earth gets to decide which ones are correct? We all know (or should know) that whoever has that job is going to side with his (or her) own interpretation. That’s hardly a good measure of “correct interpretation” or even of orthodoxy.
“The usage of “Judeo-Christian” to imply some unbroken continuation or commonality between Judaism and Christianity stems from a improper form of hermeneutics.”
OK, I can agree with that statement. Where I disagree is that I’ve never heard Judeo-Christian used in that sense. To the general public it has a different meaning. Maybe it has a specific usage in theological circles, and I can accept that, but that’s distinct from its general meaning.
- There are many meanings to a text, but none of them are “hidden.”
I completely disagree with this. As RC Sproul said in his book, Knowing Scripture, there is but one meaning to each text, but many applications. And that meaning comes from what the author intended, not what the reader wants it to say. Just because there are many interpretations does NOT mean that they are all equally valid.
cchrisr, where I read these things into your post is pretty straightforward. You quote a scholar who purports to show that “son of man” did not in fact refer to anyone other than the speaker when the text was written. This seems pretty broadly to imply that Dan 7:13-14 and such passages were written about the author, i.e. Daniel, and not about Christ. If you are claiming that, then you are (or rather I thought you were, see below) rejecting the idea that it refers to Christ.
But the essential point of our difference I think comes in the passage Darius quoted and your elaboration on that point. What you reject is the idea that there is any one meaning to a given text, something that I (perhaps hopelessly bound to modernism) fairly consistently affirm. You have a strong emphasis on knowing Christ, and oppose that to knowing truth, but I think they are the same, and that the only way we can know Christ is through the revelation of the Scriptures. If that revelation is fluid, and can be re-interpreted through time, then by implication Christ is fluid and can be re-interpreted through time. I believe He transcends time, and so the real value in considering the variation of interpretation is to see how other epochs can address the errors of our time, hoping that, considering a long enough time course, we can trim away the erroneous considerations and arrive at a conclusion more nearly in line with an (perhaps Hegelian) ideal of Truth with each passing generation.
Salvation does not come from gnosis, true. But without some degree of gnosis, there can be no salvation. It is knowing the truth that sets of free.
As far as postmodernism goes, the limited sense in which I was using the word was that of its central rejection of the modern idea that an absolute, unifying principle can be found, or if it even exists. Postmodernism in that sense is comfortable with ambiguity to the point of accepting different conclusions without feeling a need to resolve them. If that’s a misunderstanding, then please enlighten me further. However, understand that I realize there are multiple layers of complexity to that particular philosophy, which is of course unsurprising since acceptance of complexity and contradiction forms its cornerstone.
I do not, however, equate postmodernism with the Emerging Church. The EC is definitely postmodern in its outlook, in its valuing relationships more than doctrinal truth, but it would be a mistake to say all of postmodernism is contained within that movement.
Chang, you summed up my thoughts perfectly. I am late to this debate, so I’m just trying to catch up with each person’s worldview and theological outlook.
Darius, so when Daniel 2 speaks of the “son of man” and the fact that during the time Daniel 2 was written, “son of man” was an Aramaic idiom (yes, the word in the Hebrew version of Daniel is in Aramaic) meaning the speaker, we can’t say it was a prophecy for a future Messiah? It seems to me that the meaning has changed over time and not just the application of it.
Chang, the author I quoted also says within the same paragraph that during the first century BC(E), that meaning began to change. A lot of the texts we Christians regard as “prophecies” about a Messiah were not interpreted as such until right around the time Jesus walked the earth. As I have said in two comments, that isn’t “wrong” at all; it’s a matter of reinterpretation as the context changes. That’s why the interpretations change: the contexts in which the Bible is read changes. It doesn’t make any one interpretation “better” than another, although some are closer to the early church’s interpretation, the “original” interpretation, etc. We humans can’t correctly evaluate an interpretation in an absolute scale (we’re not God) and we really can’t say “because the Bible says…” because our reading of the Bible is our interpretation. We don’t get some kind of ability to transcend our own context when reading the Bible. We don’t get “Jesus goggles” in the mail with which we can see clearly the meaning of the text.
Here’s another way of looking at my point: the Bible is a living document. It isn’t meant to have a static, transcendent meaning for all time. Even the early church fathers had disagreements (not including the heresies!) over how to interpret texts (e.g., Genesis) and they didn’t feel the need to settle on a single interpretation as long as it didn’t violate some agreed-upon sets of orthodoxy (e.g., Nicea-Constantinople creed). I could point out that Augustine thought
From Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19-20. And we can compare that to Basil: “And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day” (The Six Days Work 1:1–2).
I think the only way one can think of Jesus and truth as one and the same is if one conceives of truth as some kind of non-object. In other words, if truth is an object of thought or a goal of a process, it can’t also be Jesus. I am not agreeing with the Emerging Church’s idea of truth-as-relational because I don’t think that works either, but it is a way to conceive of truth that doesn’t reduce Jesus to some object of philosophical musings.
With postmodernism, that is exactly my point. Postmodernism doesn’t reject some kind of absolute, unifying principle. It rejects the idea of a human fully understanding such. It doesn’t accept “complexity and contradiction” as its cornerstone. The problem with this analysis is thinking of postmodernism in terms of Cartesian, Kantian, or Hegelian epistemology. Postmodern philosophy is first and foremost about language (and is very much in the same vein as later Wittgenstein, such as his Philosophical Investigations). It was originally a reaction against Saussure and other structuralists in the early 20th century (back when it was the “post-structuralist” movement). It can be seen as a rejection of ontotheology (from John Caputo, The Weakness of God, 39):
Further, I would say that the bulk of the EC is firmly not in postmodern philosophy anymore. It has returned to liberal theology and has sought to be the antithesis of modernity, something that postmodernism doesn’t do. The two may have similarities, but they are hardly of the same genus.
“Darius, so when Daniel 2 speaks of the “son of man” and the fact that during the time Daniel 2 was written, “son of man” was an Aramaic idiom (yes, the word in the Hebrew version of Daniel is in Aramaic) meaning the speaker, we can’t say it was a prophecy for a future Messiah? It seems to me that the meaning has changed over time and not just the application of it.”
I am not sure where in Daniel 2 that “son of man” is mentioned, but in 7:13, it is quite apparent that it is NOT referring to Daniel. There is but one meaning to each scriptural text, but many of those meanings were not revealed until Christ came. As Paul said, “this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this MYSTERY, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.” Prior to the mystery of Christ being revealed (both to humans and to angels and demons), much of the prophetic text was understood as prophesy, but very little was understood about the details (such as, Christ coming to earch as a man, dying for our sins, and rising again). Just because they didn’t know the full meaning at first doesn’t mean that
When Christ came, died, and rose again, He fulfilled and illuminated the details that had remained hidden by God for all time prior to His coming. Searching for new meaning to a text is fine, but most likely, your chances are quite slim of finding new CORRECT meaning considering how many scholars have searched each text for meaning for thousands of years. So if someone claims to have found a new meaning to some portion of Scripture, most likely he either has found something that someone long ago already pointed out and he was just ignorant of that or he’s interpreted the meaning incorrectly. But since there is a chance of finding a meaning where no one else has found it, the second step is to ask, “is this true?” as it relates to the rest of Scripture. For example, people are always claiming that when Jesus never specifically mentions homosexual behavior, it means that either it didn’t matter much to Him or that He condoned it. However, Jesus did say that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it; and one only needs to read a few other passages of the Bible (both NT and OT) to understand that God hates homosexuality as much as he hates stealing, lying, adultery, etc.
If someone finds a new meaning to Scripture, that necessarily means that the old meaning wasn’t correct, or at least not fully realized. God’s Word is not dependent on culture; it can not mean two completely different things if we give it enough time and varying contexts.
Sorry about the reference, Daniel 2 is another discussion elsewhere. But, here’s a question: are you suggesting that the intended meaning of the author wasn’t its “real” meaning? Also, I am not trying to find “new” meaning. I’m trying to delineate all of the “old” meanings.
This idea that Christ “illuminated the details that had remained hidden by God” is a very Christian thing. To me, that is dangerously close to the gnosticism of the second century AD/CE.
No, that’s what I am suggesting, whatever the author meant is what it means. So, to take Daniel 7:13 for example, it would appear that the author meant it to be a prophetic reference to a coming ruler/savior/what have you. But that’s not to say that everyone throughout history has understood that particular meaning. As for Christ “illuminating the details that had remained hidden by God” being dangerous, I guess I am not sure how. Paul repeatedly speaks of the mystery (musterion in the Greek) that was hidden until Christ came. The Jews (nor Satan for that matter) didn’t understand how God was going to redeem his people, as evidenced by the fact that most of the Jews of Jesus’ time expected a warrior King to overthrow the Romans. Obviously, there was an example of basing too much of one’s interpretation on their context and getting the wrong meaning from the text.
Forgive me, some of your prior forum discussion probably has already covered some of this ground.
Geza Vermes suggests (as do others) that Daniel 7 was originally not meant as a messianic prophecy at all (I wrote a paper for a class last year here).
Paul’s mystery is always about the love of God, not about a hidden knowledge. Christ revealed God’s love, not some extra knowledge. The Jewish people were expecting a warrior king because that was a fairly typical ideology in Jewish thought since David and was reinforced with the Maccabean revolt and the later Essene community at Qumran. To them, that is what the author(s) meant.
As I have mentioned before, this idea that “they got it wrong” and “this is the real meaning of the author” is an act of justification through the use of “Judeo-Christian.” Contrary to some belief, the Jews of the Hebrew Bible were much similar to the Jews after 70 AD/CE than to the Christians of the same time.
Paul’s “mystery” was the idea that God would die to save us and would sanctify and justify us through the blood of His Son. So yes, in the simplest form, the mystery was God’s love, but it was so much more than just that. No one understood how God was going to provide a way around the punishment we all deserve for sin, even Satan did not understand that, or he likely would tried hard to keep Jesus from being killed. Instead, Satan was a pawn in God’s plan. Just like in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, Aslan (Jesus) says that the Witch (Satan) did not know of a deeper Magic.
“Satan” is a Christian invention. If we are to think in terms of a first century Jew, a “Satan” figure was about as real as Santa Claus. So, I’m not sure if that’s what Paul meant at all.
How do you explain Job????????
It’s wisdom literature, firmly rooted in the Jewish notion of Torah study (which never has a final answer, as can be seen in the Mishnah, Midrash, and Talmud). It has its basis in Sumerian and Babylonian mythology (referred to collectively as “the Righteous Sufferer”), which may have been redacted by a Jewish author (oral tradition says it was Moses, we know it had to be done and in circulation by the time of Ezekiel, so that gives us a rough date of 11th century BC[E] - 7th century BC[E]). It wasn’t meant as a venture into theodicy (as it has become in Christianity), but as a “mockumentary” of that type of project (intellectual discovery mixed with certainty).
To all:
I am in search of the earliest recorded mention of any Jewish condemnation of the “Christian” belief that Jesus was “God” and/or of their eventual adoption of the Trinity doctrine.
Just in case you might be wondering, I consider myself a non-Trinitarian Christian.
Please forward any references (leads) to:
john1one at earthlink.net
Thanks in advance, Alan.