Differences Between the Jewish Bible & Christian OT? (Jehovah, gospel, punishment)

[Heavenese]

Originally Posted by theflipflop

That's what we Jews call shooting the arrow and then painting the arrow around it. I constantly hear Chrstians and their Pauline views that the "law" can't be kept, therefore it's null and void. Nonsense! If you get into the head of Paul, who created Chrstianity, you'll see he was a deeply angry and resentful man who had a grudge to settle with the Pharisee rabbi's who rejected him. He therefore abrogated the Torah and it's laws and replaced it with his Hellinistic/Gnostic myths, that eventually became Chrstianity.

Jesus, who was a Pharisee himself, would be turning over in his grave if he knew what was being said in his name. We Jews have no trouble whatsoever keeping the laws in the Torah that Hashem gave us. When you say it isn't possible to keep the law, speak for yourself. (And p.s., you're right, it is indeed very very hard for a Chrstian to keep the law. In fact, it's forbidden).

Would you say Israel kept the laws in the past?

[theflipflop]

Originally Posted by Heavenese

Would you say Israel kept the laws in the past?

Define "kept the laws?"

Do you mean 100% of the people? Do you mean 100% of the time? Do you think G-d requires the Jews to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time, or the deal's off? Do you think G-d just might be willing to offer us Yidden some mercy, simply for trying, without having to create a child-god dying on a cross in some kind of fantastic mythical manner to change mankind for all time? You really think He cancelled the deal with the Jews, and gave the mantle to their enemy (the anti-simetic Hellinist and Gnostics) because we have tried and failed at times?

I read most of your posts, and I find the Chrstian dogma to be fascinating, sort of in an Issac Assimov kind of way (in all fairness, we Jews have dogma just as far out). But the whole myth breaks down at "died for our sins." Says who? Paul? That guy was a snake oil salesman. Jesus never said any of the stuff paul dreamed he said. Jesus never WOULD have said that stuff. Jesus was a Yid. The regular kind.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Really enjoying your posts in this thread whoppers. I'm curious to know your thinking about Abraham's other sons and their status in that culture? Also what was the status of concubines compared to wives? And the status of the children of concubines in general?

Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. 3Jokshan fathered Sheba and Dedan. The sons of Dedan were Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. 4The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. 5Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. 6But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.

Genesis 25 ESV

Sorry for the late reply - it keeps getting erased when my computer decides to shut down to spite me.


Thanks, Jaymax.


The issue of multiple wives and concubines in the Patriarchal stories have mostly to do with what was then considered a common practice: increasing one's chances to bear children, and the Patriarchal notion that slaves were property (as well as wives, to some degree since many were bought). It also deals with the Rights of Primogeniture, or the Rights of the Firstborn and how the Biblical narrative turns this upside down. In addition to that, the passage you list is an important genealogical notice concerning the Southern Arabian tribes and their traditions. Abraham is seen as the Father of three faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Among Judaism Isaac is the ancestor, and among Islam Ishmael is the ancestor.


First, about the role of women in Patriarchal contexts. Claus Westermann sums it up by saying that "the life of a woman is an integral whole (just as a building or a city is something integral) only when she is a member of a family in which she presents her husband with children. In the patriarchal period there was no other way for a woman to be a member of society" (Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, trans. 1995, orig. 1981, p. 239). The Abraham cycle begins with a statement that his wife Sarai was barren. The reason for this barreness is given in Genesis 16 by Sarai herself:

Sarai said to Avram:
Now here, YHWH has obstructed me from bearing:
pray come in to my maid,
perhaps I may be built-up-with-sons through her!
Avram hearkened to Sarai's voice.
(Genesis 16:2)

In this passage the common notion of YHWH as the God of Life - usually named 'El Shaddai in fertility contexts (not uncommon in the ANE with other gods as well), who both opened and closed wombs, formed the individual in the womb, is used to show him as working at odds with the promise he made to Abraham. Sarai might have felt some "sisterhood" with Job, in the following example of God's role in how humans develop in the womb:

Is it good for you [God] to oppress,
To despise your own hands' labor,
While on the counsel of the wicked you beam?

...Your hands molded and made me,
And then turned to destroy me.
Remember, it was of mud you made me;
And back to dust will you return me?
Did you not pour me out as milk,
Curdle me like cheese,
Clothe me with skin and flesh,
Knit me with bones and sinews?
Life and love you granted me,
And your providence guarded my spirit.
(Job 10:3, 8-12 AB 15)

So it was only natural that God was also assumed to have been the one who decided who would bear children and who would not. This assumption had a lot to do with the very first blessing placed upon humans, according to Genesis:

God blessed them [humanity],
God said to them:
Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth
and subdue it!...
(Genesis 1:28 Fox)

This blessing would be revoked and reinstated at various times, finally culminating in God's focus on Abraham and his family. It is no wonder, then, that many would have seen Sarai's barreness as a type of condemnation from God. If it had been up to Job's "friends" to decide why Sarai was barren, they would immediately have sworn that she had sinned and was being punished for it. From a Patriarchal view this would have been correct; from the view of the pen of the author of Job, he rejected the notion of Retributive Justice and attacked it viciously in his work.


I would like to say that this barreness would have been a surprise to readers - that YHWH was actually causing Sarai's barreness - but I think it would have been otherwise and the readers would have already assumed that YHWH had been the one causing it. Such things were not seen as we see them today, scientifically. If something was wrong with you, the gods had something to do with it. If you failed to give birth in an Israelite context, it was because 'El Shaddai (or Yahweh) was witholding his blessing that was instituted in Genesis 1. A question for another time is: did the idea that God gave his blessing of fertility to humans a Priestly theological addition after he tried to wrestle with the problem that the Israelites had clearly worshipped a god named 'El Shaddai before their Yahweh-Alone days? He already had to spend some time explaining to his listeners why the new god Yahweh was actually the same as the old "God of the Fathers" in Exodus:

God spoke to Moshe,
he said to him:
I am YHWH.
I was seen by Avraham, by Yitzhak [Isaac], and by Yaakov [Jacob] as God Shaddai ['El Shaddai],
but by my name YHWH I was not known to them.
(Exodus 6:2-3 Fox)

Here the Priestly Author (P) gets rid of the problematic issue of the Israelites less-than monotheistic past, and probably also negatively comments on the Yahwistic Author (J) and his assertion that the name "Yahweh" had been known at least from the third generation of humans. It's hard to say for certain, but I do not believe (like some Source Critics) that P was an originally independent source with a completely seemless narrative; I feel that it was a supplementary document that may have had original traditions and stories and laws, etc. but was composed with the J Source in mind and also determined to be a sometimes negative commentary and corrective on the J Source. This is in opposition to many scholars, but to my mind it best explains many of the unique features of the P Source.


But back to the barreness of Sarai. The interesting part of the passage is that Sarai demands of her husband that she do this, and it specifically says that he "hearkened to her voice" - another way of saying that he listened and obeyed. It has been shown that in some Ancient Near Eastern cultures, a woman had a legal obligation to provide children for her husband - especially when she was barren (or the husband was impotent, as was the case in many instances no doubt). The curious Biblical narrative, in which Sarai gives her slave Hagar to her husband as a wife yet retains authority over her despite this, has cognates in other literature. The following example from the Mesopotamian city Nuzi will be illustrative of both points:

If Gilimninu bears children, Shennima shall not take another wife.
But if Gilimninu fails to bear children, Gilimninu shall get for Shennima a woman from the Lullu country as concubine (i.e., a slave girl) as concubine.
In that case, Gilimninu herself shall have authority over the offspring.
(translated by E. A. Speiser in Genesis: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary [Anchor Bible 1], New York: Doubleday, 1965, p. 120)

That this Hurrian document should have some bearing on the Patriarchal Story should be evident from the geographical location of Abraham's family when they started out - according to the narrative in Genesis. Mari has also provdided some parallels, as well as the Law of Hammurabi. The Law of Hammurabi was the only parallel document with some bearing before the Nuzi and Mari materials were discovered (though technically the Hammurabi document dealt with a specific class of wife - a naditum priestess - it still helps set the stage for the later Nuzi and Mari documents). In the document, it states that in such an instance as above, the wife cannot expel the slave woman. This is probably why Sarai in this particular narrative of Hagar (there are two separate stories of Hagar and her flight/explulsion, from two separate Sources) does not outright expel Hagar when she starts to have problems with her; she only torments her until she runs away.


Granted, the parallels that I've mentioned have come under some scholarly attack, but I think it is mainly because the Albright School tried to use these parallels to demonstrate the actual historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. If we remove that ideological program, and admit that such practices were not necessarily limited to the 2nd Millenium BCE period, then we still have some very helpful parallels of how barraness was treated in the ANE and how the writer of our story may have been thinking.

So what we have ended up with is a barren wife, legally obligated (or put another way, it was her right to have a concubine or wife provided for her husband - so that she would be "built-up", or more literally "son-ned up" - we don't have a word-equivalent to this Hebrew term) to provide a wife or concubine for her husband, the retaining of authority over the new wife and the resulting emotional distress and jealousy that follows.


So was Hagar a wife or a concubine?
This is where your question runs into some problems that we must work through, and not always successfully. The Hebrew word for "wife" is the same word as for "woman" and with a sub-meaning, possibly, of "concubine" (but the latter is debatable): 'iÅ¡Å¡ā - it is given a folkloristic etymology to connect it with the Hebrew word for "man" by Genesis, immediately after the Yahwistic Author's account of the man's slumber in the Creation Narrative:

The human [ādām] said:
This-time, she-is-it!
Bone from my bones,
flesh from my flesh!
She shall be called Woman / Isha ['iÅ¡Å¡ā],
for from Man / Ish [îš] she was taken!
(Gen. 2:23)

This is the entertaining Biblical explanation for where the word 'iÅ¡Å¡ā came from (a similar explanation is available from English, sort of: man and woman (womb-man), although we know it was simply a linguistic evolution from previous Semitic languages such as Akkadian's aÅ¡Å¡atum ("wife, woman) - notice how the feminine case-ending -atum in Akkadian is replaced by Hebrew's femine case-ending ā - and you can very easily see how this word was related with the basic root of 'Å¡Å¡. In Ugaritic, you can see a more likely linguistic intervention in the word aṯt - which also means "woman" or "wife", and has a similar sound with the "sh" sound. So whenever we come across the word 'iÅ¡Å¡ā in the Bible, we have to choose carefully how to understand it.


So we may now continue the translation of Genesis 16:

Sarai said to Avram:
Now here, YHWH has obstructed me from bearing:
pray come in to my maid,
perhaps I may be built-up-with-sons through her!
Avram hearkened to Sarai's voice.

Sarai, Avram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian-woman, her maid, at the end of ten years of Avram's being settled in the land of Canaan,
and gave her to her husband Avram as a wife for him.
(Genesis 16:2-3)

Some translations translate it differently:

Thus, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, his wife Sarai took her maid, Hagar the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram as concubine.
(Speiser AB 1)

So Sarai, Abram's wife, took her maid, Hagar the Egyptian - after Abram had dwelt in the land of Canaan ten years - and gave her to her husband Abram as concubine.
(NJPS)

Having multiple wives was not a problem in the ANE (usually a status symbol of wealth), so there's no real reason to translate 'iÅ¡Å¡ā as "concubine". The word for "concubine" does occur in the passage you quoted:

And to the sons of the concubines that Avraham had, Avraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Yitzhak his son while he was still alive, eastward, to the Eastland.
(Genesis 25:6 Fox)

The word for "concubine" here is a curious one: pilegeš. It is not a Semitic word originally, and is a loan-word from another language, possibly Philistine (Rabin - "The Origin of the Hebrew Word pilegeš", Journal of Jewish Studies 25 [1975], pp. 353-364) or even Indo-European (Beckley - Judging Judges: A Commentary on Judges 19, Thesis, 2009, p. 10). You can hear the non-Semitic nature of the word when pronounced aloud. According to Beckley, the word in Greek "refers to a woman who is unmarried, coming into the Hebrew vernacular, it clearly (according, at least, to our extant texts) refers to a 'second wife' of some sort and we must be wary when associating all our connotations of 'concubine' with pilegeš" (ibid). The word, therfore, has some problems when it comes to translation. Beckley has some interesting points to consider, so I will quote more fully from her. She mentioned that it is used "over a dozen times in the Old Testament" and in the Patriarchal narratives the following is noted:

In several of these references a difference is made even between a concubine and a second wife. Therfore, to translate 'second wife' for pilegeš is imprecise. These types of distinctions are not fully understood. Perhaps the difference was only in the letter of the law; it may be a concubine's family had less dowry to give, or she had less rights within the family. In many instances, they are well-respected members of the household and given a great deal of responsibility (see 2 Samuel 15:16 in particular). By definition, they are not virgins. For example, after Esther and the others within the harem spend the night with the king they are escorted to the harem of the concubines. Esther thus makes the transition from a virgin harem, to the concubine's harem, and finally to the wives of the king. In all the above cases, the man has at least one other wife besides his concubine.
(ibid)

But what was the status of a pilegeš? I will again turn to Beckley with a reference to Genesis and Abraham's "concubines":

A concubine's status in the family differs in the above accounts. The sons of the concubines of Esau were given an inheritance along with the sons of his primary wife whereas the sons of the concubines of Abraham did not receive an equal inheritance. This data, while appearing contradictory, actually is not at all. It indicates the status of a pilegeš was entirely dependent upon her husband. (ibid)

So we get the impression that whatever inheritance a pilegeš received for her sons was upon the whim of the Patriarchal husband and his whims. In the case of Abraham and his "concubines", the author of our passage decides to point out that Isaac's blessing - the son of the Promise - was in no way affected by either Ishmael, Keturah's sons, or the sons of the "concubines".


Source Division further complicates matters. Genesis 25 is a mishmash of sources, as has long been recognized. What has not been agreed upon is the exact division of sources present, if we can ever know such a thing for certain. Genesis 25:1-6 appears to be a separate portion - no matter the source - from the rest of the chapter and its genealogy. It definitely focuses on the bedouin tribes of the South and the Arabic tribes associated with them, but goes to great pains to demonstrate that Isaac was the one who inherited the lion's share of the blessing. (I mentioned briefly the 3-Faith tradition that stemmed from Abraham):

Now Avraham had taken another wife, her name was Ketura. (1)
She bore him Zimran and Yokshan, Medan and Midyan, Yishbak and Shuah. (2)

• Yokshan begot Sheva and Dedan,
  • Dedan's sons were the Ashurites, the Letu****es, and the Leummites. (3)
• Midyan's sons (were) Efa, Efer, Hanokh, Avida, and Eldaa.

All these (were) Ketura's sons. (4)

But Avraham gave over all that was his to Yitzhak. (5)
And to the sons of the concubines that Avraham had, Avraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Yitzhak his son while he was still alive, eastward, to the Eastland. (6)
(Genesis 25:1-6)

It appears - first off - that the "concubines" of v. 6 are not related at all to the previous verses. They are not named, even - nor their sons. It is possible that the editor who combined these separate sources was trying to make a connection between Ketura and Hagar as "the concubines", but this is conjectural. It's not entirely impossible, as the use of the word pilegeš might point to a later composition, one in which the editor was dissaproving of the idea of multiple "wives".


Richard E. Friedman, in his Commentary on the Torah: With a New English Translation and the Hebrew Text, points out that Keturah is

the most ignored significant person in the Torah. Rashi follows an old rabbinic idea that she is Hagar. But there is no basis for this in the text, and other traditional commentators reject it (Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Rashbam). Keturah is the mother of tribes located along the route of incense trade, and her name is related to the word for incense. Notably, the Midianites are among the children of Abraham and Keturah, and the influence of the Midianite priest Jethro on Moses, his son-in-law, is understood to be substantial. And the line of Levites who are descended from Moses thus - alone among the Israelites - derive from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah.
(ibid, San Fransisco: HarperSanFransisco, 2003, pp. 85-86)

Interesting connections going on there! He illustrates nicely the connection between the Arabian tribes, their important trade activities and their "origin" in Abraham. Thus the initial promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations and that they would find blessing through him, is again demonstrated more fully. Not only is he the father of the Israelites, but also the father of the Arabs - according to the Biblical Narrative.


Some have attributed v. 1a and v. 3 with P, with the rest of vv. 1-6 being J (Speiser, Genesis, AB 1, 1965), while others have attributed vv. 1-4 with E (the Elohistic Writer), with 5-6 to the redactor of J and E: RJE (Friedmann, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View Into The Five Books of Moses, 2003). J. Baden, however, has made a good case for seeing the entirety of vv. 1-6 as coming from J:

Friedman (Sources Revealed, 94) claims that the birth notice of Medan and Midian in Genesis 25:2 is from E, but his evidence for this claim is the use of the tribal names here in Genesis 37, thus creating a distinctly circular argument. Genesis 25:1-6 is most likely from J, as it narrates the second marriage of Abraham after the reference to the death of Sarah at the end of Genesis 24 (J).
(Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, Yale University: Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, 2012, p. 264, n. 26)

Both Friedman's and Baden's books are excellent reference works that illustrate the Source Divisions nicely, though it is helpful to use Baden's work as a supplemtary update to Friedman's in many cases. Friedman's work actually has the entire text of the Torah color-coded to illustrate the different source divisions - a very useful book (available from the following link free for your reading pleasure, or from most book-stores: https://www.box.com/s/h8ewosem508r8v4z171h). Baden's work will set you back a bit monetarily, but is well-worth it.


The following section in Genesis 25 is probably from P (the Priestly Source) and deals with first - the notice of Abraham's long life and death, Ishmael's descendants (with even more important genealogical and tribal notices), and then a focus on Isaacand his marriage to Rebekah in a traditional P-style Geneaological notice. It is of interest to note the following:
1) the E Source appears to have never heard of Ishmael anywhere in it's narrative, and
2) the P Source skips the birth of Jacob and Esau, and then resumes in the report of Esau's marriages in Genesis 26:34 and following.


Anyways - I hope some of that answered your questions, or at least demonstrated why a straight answer to them cannot be given. Much more could be said about the passage, and if you're interested in an indepth examination of it, I would reccomend Claus Westermann's Commentary on Genesis - in which he goes into the form and function of the chapter in much detail.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Heavenese

Even though we call them the "Ten Commandments", I think it's a natural thing to see them as the overall establishment of all the laws Moses gave to the people. So the Ten Categories or Ten Utterances wouldn't be foreign to us. With this understanding, it magnifies the picture of how it was placed under the Mercy Seat. That all of God's laws, all the laws Moses gave, were placed under it.

Originally Posted by Heavenese

Would you say Israel kept the laws in the past?

I haven't yet finished my reply to you, Heavensee (I'm working on it) - but I will comment real quickly on a few of your assumptions that you made, and here. Flipflop has already replied to one of them: the idea that the Torah was supposed to produce "perfection". Humans are humans, and liable to their nature. The purpose of the Torah was not to make them "perfect" in the sense of the English word and some Christian's understanding that Jesus was "perfect" and we must be like him, somehow - an impossible goal.

I would also disagree that the Ten Commandents (which version, and from which book - for there are several versions of the "ten" scattered through the different books of the Torah, with a different number of "commandments" and different details of what they entailed) were meant as a summation of the entire Torah. I think many people have adopted this view simply out of convenience and to avoid dealing with the entirety of the Torah - since, let's face it - it IS very large and unwieldy to the average person. An Israelite or Jew would not have been excused for breaking any of the Mitvah by appealing to the "Ten Commandments".

I suppose the importance of the "Ten" has to depend on which Source is dealing with it. Some state that Moses wrote them down on the tablets (or God) and some state that he wrote down Exodus 20:23- 23:30 on the tablets:

YHWH spoke to Moshe:
Say thus to the Children of Israel:
You yourselves have seen
that it was from the heavens that I spoke with you.
(Exodus 20:19)

Some regulations follow known as the Covenant Code, and then in 21:1 we get:

Now these are the regulations that you are to set before them:

with even more regulations following up until the end of chapter 23.

The "ten commandments" are from chapter 20:

God spoke all these words,
saying:
I am YHWH your God,
who brought you out
from the land of Egypt, from a house of serfs.
(Genesis 20:1-2)

And then follows some laws - one of the bases for the "ten commandments".

You are not to have
any other gods
before my presence.
You are not to make a carved-image
or any figure
that is in the heavens above, that is on the earth beneath, that is in the waters beneath the earth;
you are not to bow down to them,
you are not to serve them,
for I, YHWH your God,
am a zealous [or "jealous"] God,
calling-to-account the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, to the third and the fourth (generation)
of those that hate me,
but showing loyalty to the thousandth
of those that love me,
of those that keep my commandments. (3-6)

Remember
the Sabbath day, to hallow it.
For six days, you are to serve, and are to make all your work,
but the seventh day
is Sabbath for YHWH your God:
you are not to make any kind of work,
(not) you, nor your son, nor your daughter,
(not) your servant, nor your maid, nor your beast,
nor your sojourner that is within your gates.
For in six days
YHWH made
the heavens and the earth,
the sea and all that is in it,
and he rested on the seventh day;
therfore YHWH gave the Sabbath day his blessing, and he hallowed it. (8-11)

Honor
your father and your mother,
in order that your days may be prolonged
on the soil that YHWH your God is giving you. (12)

You are not to murder.

You are not to adulter.

You are not to steal.

You are not to testify
against your fellow as a false witness. (13)

You are not to desire
the house of your neighbor,
you are not to desire the wife of your neighbor,
or his servant, or his maid, or his ox, or his donkey,
or anything that is your neighbor's. (14)

Notice how detailed some of them get, especially to help illustrate their very specific nature. From our previous conversations - see especially the passage on having other gods "before God's presence" ("presence" is very important, as it implies that God was actually in a holy place and did not wish to have other deities physically before him - it is not figurative language) and on bearing "false witness" in a legal setting. The Decalog appears again in Deuteronomy 5, with the major difference that the reason for keeping the Sabbath is entirely different. At the end of the Deuteronomistic Decalog, it is stated that

These word YHWH spoke to your entire assembly at the mountain
from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the fog,
(with) a great voice, adding no more;
and he wrote them on the two tablets of stone
and gave them to me.
(Deut 5:19)

The provisio that nothing was added goes contrary to their expression in Exodus, but here it is for comparison:

I am YHWH your God
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of a house of serfs.
You are not to have other gods beside my presence.
You are not to make yourself a carved-image of any form
that is in the heavens above, that is on the earth beneath, that is in the waters beneath the earth.
You are not to prostrate yourselves to them, you are not to serve them,
for I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God,
calling-to-account the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and to the fourth (generation) of those that hate me,
but showing loyalty to thousands
for those that love me, of those that keep my commandments. (6-10)

You are not to take up the name of YHWH your God for emptiness,
for YHWH will not clear him that takes up his name for emptiness!
Keep the day of Sabbath, by hallowing it,
as YHWH your God has commanded you.
For six days you are to serve and to do all your work;
but the seventh day
(is) Sabbath for YHWH your God -
you are not to do any work:
(not) you, nor your son, nor your daughter.
nor your servant, nor your maid,
nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your animals,
nor your sojourner that is in your gates -
in order that your servant and your maid may rest as one-like-yourself.
You are not to bear-in-mind that serf were you in the land of Egypt,
but YHWH your God took you out from there with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm;
therfore YHWH your God commands you to observe the day of Sabbath. (11-15)

Honor your father and your mother,
as YHWH your God has commanded you,
in order that your days may be prolonged,
and in order that it may go-well with you on the soil that YHWH your God is giving you.
You are not to murder!
And you are not to adulter!
And you are not to steal!
And you are not to testify against your neighbor as a lying witness!
And you are not to desire the wife of your neighbor;
you are not to crave the house of your neighbor,
his field, or his servant, or his maid, his ox or his donkey,
or anything that belongs to your neighbor! (16-18)

These words YHWH spoke to your entire assembly at the mountain.....

Some differences are obvious. I already mentioned the Sabbath justification, but also notice the expansion of Exodus' bearing false witness in a legal testimony against another into Deuteronomy's "using YHWH's name for emptiness" and "bearing lying testimony" against a neighbor. The former became the justification for the later Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh's name - or even writing it for that matter - which I do not agree with personally, but understand that it is part of Jewish tradition now that eventually spilled over into the Greek translation and then into our English translations as "Lord". "Thous shalt not take the Lord they God's name in vain" is the famous expression, and it is usually understood as not cussing or the like - though I highly doubt that was the original intention. It seems more in the lines of not making lying oaths using the name of Yahweh as your witness, especially in a legal setting. I think there are examples in the Bible of people who do use Yahweh as a witness to an oath, but not in a lying sense.

So one has to be careful when speaking of the "Ten Commandments". Which ones? And nowhere does it state that they are the summation of the Torah - the main commandments, i.e. There are many mitzvah that do no fit under any of the above headings.

[JerZ]

This is fascinating. Thanks, you guys.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by theflipflop

Define "kept the laws?"

Do you mean 100% of the people? Do you mean 100% of the time? Do you think G-d requires the Jews to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time, or the deal's off? Do you think G-d just might be willing to offer us Yidden some mercy, simply for trying, without having to create a child-god dying on a cross in some kind of fantastic mythical manner to change mankind for all time? You really think He cancelled the deal with the Jews, and gave the mantle to their enemy (the anti-simetic Hellinist and Gnostics) because we have tried and failed at times?

I read most of your posts, and I find the Chrstian dogma to be fascinating, sort of in an Issac Assimov kind of way (in all fairness, we Jews have dogma just as far out). But the whole myth breaks down at "died for our sins." Says who? Paul? That guy was a snake oil salesman. Jesus never said any of the stuff paul dreamed he said. Jesus never WOULD have said that stuff. Jesus was a Yid. The regular kind.

This! (The bolded...Well, the whole thing.) Jesus was a devoutly practicing Jew. Even the arguments Christians use to show how Jesus "changed the law" are generally not true (I'm reading a book about that right now, FlipFlop, maybe you can confirm or correct this). For example, it shows how Jesus' disciples picking corn on the Sabbath wold not have been something the Pharisees would have condemned them for as the Pharisees firmly believed/followed that in case of emergency, laws could and should be broken on the Sabbath (hunger would have been a case of emergency). They, the Pharisees, would gladly have debated the circumstances, as was also tradition, but it was in no way an "Ah ha! See, Jesus changed the law" sort of thing. Quite the opposite.

That's an oversimplification but I find this sort of info fascinating.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by JerZ

This! (The bolded...Well, the whole thing.) Jesus was a devoutly practicing Jew. Even the arguments Christians use to show how Jesus "changed the law" are generally not true (I'm reading a book about that right now, FlipFlop, maybe you can confirm or correct this). For example, it shows how Jesus' disciples picking corn on the Sabbath wold not have been something the Pharisees would have condemned them for as the Pharisees firmly believed/followed that in case of emergency, laws could and should be broken on the Sabbath (hunger would have been a case of emergency). They, the Pharisees, would gladly have debated the circumstances, as was also tradition, but it was in no way an "Ah ha! See, Jesus changed the law" sort of thing. Quite the opposite.

That's an oversimplification but I find this sort of info fascinating.

You're correct about the Pharisees and their concern for the social wellbeing of the people and how they were willing to interpret the Torah as to be less harsh for them. This put them at odds with the Saducees, for instance, who were very strict in their observance of the Torah. In my response I was working on to Heavensee, I mentioned this (though I haven't finished it), and this was in response to the claim that Jesus was the first interpreter of Torah to really focus on grace and kindness. There had been others before him, but like Jesus - always with the Torah as the starting point.

What book are you reading, out of curiosity?

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by whoppers

You're correct about the Pharisees and their concern for the social wellbeing of the people and how they were willing to interpret the Torah as to be less harsh for them. This put them at odds with the Saducees, for instance, who were very strict in their observance of the Torah. In my response I was working on to Heavensee, I mentioned this (though I haven't finished it), and this was in response to the claim that Jesus was the first interpreter of Torah to really focus on grace and kindness. There had been others before him, but like Jesus - always with the Torah as the starting point.

What book are you reading, out of curiosity?

It's called The Mythmaker and it's really fascinating. The author is very obviously slanted against Christianity (as it's practiced today, and since Paul -- in fact, the "mythmaker" IS Paul) so I take some of his assertions with a grain of salt (I'm interested in real truth and historical relevance), but in many ways it really is an eye-opener.

I mean I'm personally slanted against the idea of Christian dogma too but I'm interested in digging down to the closest possible to the real truth whether it fits my own viewpoint or not. (Ugh, the grammar, sorry about that!)

[JB from NC]

Originally Posted by whoppers

You're correct about the Pharisees and their concern for the social wellbeing of the people and how they were willing to interpret the Torah as to be less harsh for them. This put them at odds with the Saducees, for instance, who were very strict in their observance of the Torah. In my response I was working on to Heavensee, I mentioned this (though I haven't finished it), and this was in response to the claim that Jesus was the first interpreter of Torah to really focus on grace and kindness. There had been others before him, but like Jesus - always with the Torah as the starting point.

What book are you reading, out of curiosity?

What gets me is that this should never even be an issue; the prophetic books found in the Tanakh go to great lengths to establish concern for the social welfare of Israel and all of its residents. Gemilut hasadim is a Jewish characteristic that is far, far older than Jesus.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Juliet Bravo

What gets me is that this should never even be an issue; the prophetic books found in the Tanakh go to great lengths to establish concern for the social welfare of Israel and all of its residents. Gemilut hasadim is a Jewish characteristic that is far, far older than Jesus.

Yep, that's one of the things this book points out. To non-Jews it all seems like a revelation and a departure from "the law", but apparently, it's far from it, and very old.