Gospels and Jewish law

[Duvduv]

As a Jew I have found reading parts of the gospels interesting in terms of how they express what Jewish law requires. I have also been watching a 3 hour dramatization of the Book of John. In most cases I can see that the authors of the gospels were at best only superficially familiar with Jewish law and misinterpreted it.
For instance, the blind man carries his mat on the sabbath within the confines of the Temple and is criticized by "the priests" for it. However, the prohibition of carrying on the Sabbath does not even apply to the confines of a closed location. Similarly the criticism of healing on the Sabbath is misinterpreted. Healing is a rabbinical injunction to prevent someone from performing certain actions on the Sabbath such as grinding, sewing, etc. which are Torah prohibitions. The supernatural healing of an individual does not meet this test since it involves no prohibited "labors." Surely whoever wrote the gospel would have known this had he been a Jew. It is clear that the author was a Roman in Rome or Constantinople who was very superficially acquainted with Jewish law who wanted to make a point about Jesus trying to display more compassion than the so-called rigid law.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In most cases I can see that the authors of the gospels were at best only superficially familiar with Jewish law and misinterpreted it.

Actually, they were more aware of it than probably anyone you've ever known or know today.
More later..... (if someone else doesn't address the concerns)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is clear that the author was a Roman in Rome or Constantinople who was very superficially acquainted with Jewish law who wanted to make a point about Jesus trying to display more compassion than the so-called rigid law.

...... After the first few centuries, things became , awkward.

The movies you see that you mention are not as accurate as the TORAH , PROPHETS, PSALMS, and NEW TESTAMENT. --- nor should you expect them to be.

Again, more later.....

 

[Duvduv]

Actually, they were more aware of it than probably anyone you've ever known or know today.
More later..... (if someone else doesn't address the concerns)

Unfortunately you apparently did not read my posting and the examples. What I presented was just the tip of the iceberg.....and was NOT based on the movie(s). It is in the four gospels. Of course we still have no idea WHO before Constantine even established a canon of four gospels since we know nothing of a Christian equivalent of a Sanhedrin, and have no evidence of such before Nicaea.

 

[Steve Petersen]

For instance, the blind man carries his mat on the sabbath within the confines of the Temple and is criticized by "the priests" for it. However, the prohibition of carrying on the Sabbath does not even apply to the confines of a closed location. Similarly the criticism of healing on the Sabbath is misinterpreted. Healing is a rabbinical injunction to prevent someone from performing certain actions on the Sabbath such as grinding, sewing, etc. which are Torah prohibitions. The supernatural healing of an individual does not meet this test since it involves no prohibited "labors." Surely whoever wrote the gospel would have known this had he been a Jew. It is clear that the author was a Roman in Rome or Constantinople who was very superficially acquainted with Jewish law who wanted to make a point about Jesus trying to display more compassion than the so-called rigid law.

The blind man was at the pool called Bethesda, not in the Temple. Was the pool in the eruv of Jerusalem? The text indicates it was near a city gate. If the pool was outside the city walls, it would be outside the eruv of Jerusalem, correct?

The healing is not in question, but the carrying of the mat could be a violation of the rules of carrying from one domain to another.

I can see how it might be considered scandalous for a man, supposed to be the messiah, to instruct someone to violate the halachic prohibition of carrying from one domain to another.

 

[Duvduv]

Halachically the question is how he got there with the mat in the first place. However within the confines of the pool area would not be a problem.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Gospels are set in the early first century. Modern Judaism is not the same as the Second Temple variety. Rabbinical Judaism underwent development, via the Talmud and Sanhedrin pronouncements that were compiled later and such. It is anachronistic to assume Rabbinical understanding of the exceptions and criteria of the laws is the same as that of the Second Temple period. The Gospels were written by Aramaic speaking Jews that likely were aware of such things - whether they were universal back then is doubtful, as the Second Temple was rife with sects and different understandings, before they were codified. There wasn't much consensus on much of the Oral Torah besides, hence Hasidim and Essenes and such separate themselves even more.

 

[Duvduv]

I think these are simply bland generalizations. The "Pharisees" were the Jews who followed people like Rabban Gamliel who is even mentioned in Acts and who was one of the rabbis mentioned in the Mishna. Many of the discussions in the New Testament are familiar to rabbinic Jews, bur the authors hsve misunderstood them.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I have also been watching a 3 hour dramatization of the Book of John. In most cases I can see that the authors of the gospels were at best only superficially familiar with Jewish law and misinterpreted it.

Perhaps this was already covered, but it doesn't hurt to clarify again.

The 3 hour drama you watched has nothing to do with TORAH, SCRIPTURE or TRUTH.
The Author of Scripture, Yahweh, knows Scripture Perfectly, no question.
When He Breathed Scripture, TORAH, PSALMS, PROPHETS and NT,
He did not make a mistake.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think these are simply bland generalizations. The "Pharisees" were the Jews who followed people like Rabban Gamliel who is even mentioned in Acts and who was one of the rabbis mentioned in the Mishna. Many of the discussions in the New Testament are familiar to rabbinic Jews, bur the authors hsve misunderstood them.

Well, if they were Galilean, this may explain it. From what I understand, a form of Pharisaic Judaism was practiced there that was much more informal and charismatic than that practiced in Judea. Honi the Circle Drawer seems to be an example of this difference.

 

[Duvduv]

Steve, with all due respect I think you are grasping at straws. The issues I have raised are very clear in the Gospel of Matthew. There are always criteria and principles for determining stringent and lenient positions, but eruv is not one of them in the Talmud.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Steve, with all due respect I think you are grasping at straws. The issues I have raised are very clear in the Gospel of Matthew. There are always criteria and principles for determining stringent and lenient positions, but eruv is not one of them in the Talmud.

mkay.

 

[Duvduv]

Then there is the matter of the "priests" in the gospels being Pharisees. Yet scarcely a few years later according to Acts "Paul" is in the employ of the Temple priests who are Saduccees!
In any event I should mention that the overriding impression of Jesus in all 4 gospels is that simply of a holy man who is a teacher, and as such in and of itself is not unrabbinic or unPharisaic. Remember the words of Jesus in Matthew, that the Pharisees sit up in heaven and they should be followed? The overlay of new non-Jewish theology is hardly that noticeable except in John, probably because its author was more heavily influenced by Platonic and other Greek ideas and was seeking to merge what he liked most about them and about Judaism.
Then there is the issue about "Paul" who doesn't even discuss the content of the stories of the gospels at all. It gives the overall impression that the gospels, epistles and Acts were not written by the same people at the same time. I guess we'd have to ask Eusebius for more information....[Eusebius = sounds like Josephus....hmmm....]

 

[dougangel]

I have also been watching a 3 hour dramatization of the Book of John. In most cases I can see that the authors of the gospels were at best only superficially familiar with Jewish law and misinterpreted it.

John 5

5One man there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lying there and realized that he had spent a long time in this condition, He asked him, “Do you want to get well?”

7“Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am on my way, someone else goes in before me.”

8Then Jesus told him, “Get up, pick up your mat, and walk.”

9Immediately the man was made well, and he picked up his mat and began to walk.

Now this happened on the Sabbath day, 10so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “This is the Sabbath! It is unlawful for you to carry your mat.”

11But he answered, “The man who made me well told me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’”

The gospels are only reporting what happened. It says the Jews said that with direct quotes. Your problem is with the Jews that said that, not the gospels.


The Father and the Son

16Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews began to persecute Him. 17But Jesus answered them, “To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working.”

18Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.


I have no problem with that. I think it is a true assessment of the situation. The gospels aren't error here. It is the Jews. I believe they were persecuting him for healing on the sabbath. You say they were wrong for doing that so it is they who are wrong not the gospels.

 

[Duvduv]

Dougangel, since the Book of John refers to the laws of the Pharisees, one would assume Jesus would correct them but he doesn't. The author of the gospel could have created an authentic scenario to make the same point. But he doesn't. It's obvious that he was not familiar with the rabbinic laws.

 

[dougangel]

Dougangel, since the Book of John refers to the laws of the Pharisees, one would assume Jesus would correct them but he doesn't. The author of the gospel could have created an authentic scenario to make the same point. But he doesn't. It's obvious that he was not familiar with the rabbijuc laws.

Ok. Well I think you have to Read John 5:1 -35 correctly. Jesus wasn't there when the Jews questioned the man. It says Jesus had slipped away. So he couldn't correct them.

But Jesus does answer it indirectly.

16Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews began to persecute Him. 17But Jesus answered them, “To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working.”
( so Jesus is saying you can do the work of God on the sabbath )

18Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Duvduv The whole thing is a man who for 38 years was a invalid got totally healed and could walk again.

 

[Duvduv]

Why would Jesus a religious Jew make a statement as in verse 17 that contradicts the book of Genesis which says that God rested on the seventh day?! On the one hand we have a layer of Jewishness even in the gospel of John, but then another layer asserting non-Jewish superiority by invoking a God who does not rest on the sabbath. So much confusion!

 

[Duvduv]

Anyway, a careful reading of the miracles of Jesus in the gospels sees that the authors were acquainted with stories of Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, and the prophetic books, albeit with misinterpretations. But one must recognize that the gospel stories (of all types and canonical or not) are creative but not extraordinary from a Jewish perspective.
And the attack on the money changers in the Temple is not logical. Jews came from many different countries and had to change money. There was nothing wrong with that at all. It was a misunderstanding of circumstances by the author.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Duvduv, post: 73526733, member: 408706"]Anyway, a careful reading of the miracles of Jesus in the gospels sees that the authors were acquainted with stories of Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, and the prophetic books, albeit with misinterpretations. But one must recognize that the gospel stories (of all types and canonical or not) are creative but not extraordinary from a Jewish perspective.[/QUOTE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHWEH WITH MEN ! DWELLING WITH MEN !

YAHWEH'S SON becoming flesh, made man, and dying for men !!!!!!!!!!!!!

e x t r a o r d i n a r y !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unbelievable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! apart from faith thru grace, even that a GIFT/ sheer GRACE from Yah !

 

[Duvduv]

How interesting it is in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew where Jesus warns the followers not to go to the gentiles or Samaritans, and to abide by the law. Hmmm. I guess Paul didn't know about the Sermon on the Mount. Or else the epistles were composed some time after the gospels, despite the fact that no epistles of Paul mention any of the gospels by name or subject.
What it looks like is three layers of religion meant to appeal to different publics. A layer identifying Jesus as a Jewish holy man; a layer identifying him as the transcendent Logos who wasn't really a Jew; and the layer found in the Epistles of a combination of the two.