Second Isaiah as a point of inter-faith unity.

[Avi]

Surely, for non-Christians, Jesus' suffering is seen as a rather distasteful exercise in futility? The crucifixion is regarded by many as ugly and barbaric, all the moreso because it could have been avoided ... He died because, they hold, because He was deluded, and His death achieves nothing.

Thomas, as someone born and raised Jewish, I did not learn this and never thought of Jesus' suffering in this way. Where did you get this notion ?

Probably you are aware that in formal Jewish education, Jesus is not a topic of study. Only Jews who are willing to read outside of their tradition can form ideas and opinions about Jesus and other Christian ideas.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Avi —

Thomas, as someone born and raised Jewish, I did not learn this and never thought of Jesus' suffering in this way. Where did you get this notion?

Sorry, I should have been more precise, it's a Gentile notion, not a Jewish one. The dualist Gentile world regarded the whole 'incarnation' thing as something of a nonsense and, considering the Cross, a folly. Hence the gnostics tried to make Christ fit into their own system by nullifying his humanity.

Thomas

 

[Sancho]

Hi Avi, first let me say that by no means do I consider myself an authority on these matters. I have only been studying the history of the bible for a couple years. Some of the books I have read are ones that question the traditional interpretation of that history, such as the one I quoted from above. I've been unemployed since August and for some reason I tend to feel malcontent anywhere other than my local theology library, so I've been spending a lot of time there.
Part of what I have found interesting about the legendary history of Abraham is the movement away from the religion followed by the people surrounding him to his own relationship with the divine. A small anthology of the Talmud (translated and edited by H. Polano) says,

To feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to speak kindly to the unfortunate, to act justly towards all mankind, and to be ever grateful to the Eternal, formed the articles of the creed according to which Abraham fashioned his life.

Unfortunately all we know about Abraham's life is what the compilers and redactors of the bible who were at work after the Babylonian exile chose to tell us.

In "The origins of the bible, rethinking canon history" John W Miller gives a great deal of attention to the schisms between the Levite priests and Zadokite priests. Miller says that while Moses put the Levites in charge of passing on his teachings, Aaron, who was actually Moses' brother-in-law and so a Kenite priest who was grounded in the traditions of his people who worshiped a mountain god at Sinai passed on his teachings to priests who became known as Zadokites. Martin Buber in his book on Moses also says a fair bit about the differences between the practices of Moses and Aaron. So the Levites were passing on a monotheistic tradition, while the Zadokites were passing on a polytheistic tradition.
David, says Miller, united his kingdom through putting both the Levites and Zadokites in charge. Then when David died the Levite priest Abiathar opposed Solomon as David's successor. Solomon gave Abiathar the boot, exiling the Levites from the temple till a portion of the Levite history (believed to be a version of the book Deuteronomy) was found in the temple during Josiah's reign.

Miller sees the Zadokite priests as still following polytheistic practices right up to the Babylonian exile, that is, they worshiped strange gods other than Yahweh in the temple. This what pissed off the Levites so much. It is mostly the Levite interpretation of Judaic history that has been retained in the bible and most of it was actually recorded on scrolls after the exile. This was after Second Isaiah had written his verses which greatly influenced the bible's compilers. They reinterpreted their history according to the Levite view and Isaiah's view.
Another book, called "The community and message of Isaiah 56-66" by Elizabeth Achtemeier, also has a lot to say about the quarrels between Levites and Zadokites. She specifically relates the quarells to the prophets. There is an interesting movement within the book of Isaiah itself. Isaiah son of Amoz was a Zadokite priest in Jerusalem
but he developed views similar to the Levites. The famous vision in chapter 6 where a six-winged seraphim placed a burning coal in his mouth, purging his sin, shows evidence of a conception of the spiritual that includes beings other than Yahweh. Indeed, Christianity still retains these contradictions to the basic idea of monotheism. These seraphims can be seen as demoted deities of a wider pantheon.
With Deutero-Isaiah many influences were brought together. The great metropolis of Babylon must have had a wealth of ideas flowing through it. It was a time of crystalization for the Jews. I find it interesting to imagine what it would have been like. As many scrolls as could be salvaged were bundled up and brought along into exile. The different sects once in exile must have seen a fellow Jew as a fellow Jew rather than a rival. Deutro-Isaiah was borm in Babylon, possibly his parents were born there as well. He is believed to have been part of a group of disciples that followed in the traditions of Isaiah son of Amoz. Isaiah 8:16, "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples", gives evidence of this discipleship. Deutero-Isaiah is also very familiar with Judaic history, and he seems to have been familiar with Persian thought.
Elizabeth Achtemeier says that the community of prophets that continued the Isaiah discipleship after returning to Jerusalem were aligned with the Levites and very critical of the Zadokite priests who were attempting to take control of the second temple as it was being built.

I don't know if this really proves anything about the late emergence of monotheism. But it seems that from the earliest days of Judaism there were some Jews who believed in one God and only one, and others who liked to keep a diverse portfolio and and spread their praise throughout a pantheon of gods. And some of these latter were priests. It was not till after exile that Judaic history was reinterpreted as a monotheistic history, so I and the authors I've read believe.

The short answer of why I believe Deutero-Isaiah's verses were a pinnacle of expressing monotheism is that I see them as the most beautiful verses in the bible.

 

[Avi]

Hi Sancho,

Your post got me to pull out my Bible, the Jewish Study Bible, from the Jewish Publication Society. I do not know if you or Thomas knows this version, it is quite interesting. I will tell you more about it if you are interested. There is some very unique commentary.

Interestingly, v. 44.6-28 is given the bolded sub-title: “The persuasive power of monotheism and the folly of idolatry”. And in that sense I do see your point. The commentary goes on to say: “ This shorter speech focuses on the argument from prophecy and the ridiculous nature of idolatry. It gives particular emphasis to one of Deutro-Isaiah’s main themes: the insistence that no other gods in fact exist. As with all of the speeches in chs 40-66, the main point is that the one true G-d can and will redeem Israel. The speech climaxes with the identification of the person through whom G-d brings redemption,the Persian king Cyrus”.

So this short passage confirms your argument about monotheism. To be honest, I still feel that my earlier comment is valid. But given this discussion, I will go back to the scripture and examine it more closely.
Thanks.

 

[Avi]

Hi Avi —


Sorry, I should have been more precise, it's a Gentile notion, not a Jewish one. The dualist Gentile world regarded the whole 'incarnation' thing as something of a nonsense and, considering the Cross, a folly. Hence the gnostics tried to make Christ fit into their own system by nullifying his humanity.

Thomas

Hi Thomas, yes, that makes sense to me. Can you explain a little further the role of the dualist Gentile and the gnostics.

I have enjoyed reading your insights about this and other issues.

 

[Avi]

Speaking as one who endures suffering, 24 / 7 / 365, I just don't get it. I get absolutely nothing spiritual out of enduring suffering. I get no edifying message out of suffering as a concept or as a practice. Try as I might, and I have for many years I assure, I cannot grasp this "suffering servant" concept...it does not resonate spiritually or philosophically. Suffering is not all its cracked up to be.

Juantoo, your comments sound to me like you are a very sensitive person, I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

 

[Sancho]

Hi Avi. Yes please do let us know whatever you come across that may be of interest.

 

[Avi]

Sancho, as I read Deutero-Isaiah in more detail, I feel that the notion of the servant that you discussed earlier is really the more central one in Deutero-Isaiah. Let me quote again from the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) commentary:

“One of the most difficult and contested passages in the Bible, these fifteen vv. (52-13-53.12) have attracted an enormous amount of attention from ancient, medieval, and modern scholars. In particular the identity of the servant is vigorously debated. Many argue that the servant symbolizes the entire Jewish people. The passage, then, describes the nation’s unjust tribulations at the hands of the Babylonians (and later oppressors) as well as the nation’s salvific role for the world at large”.

This reference to salvation is interesting to me. Franz Rosenzweig discusses this in more detail and I will return to this later.

“Others maintain that the passage describes a pious minority within the Jewish people; this minority suffers as a result of the sins committed by the nation at large. (Bolstering these interpretations is the fact that the term “servant” in Deutero-Isaiah generally refers to the nation as a whole or an idealized representation of the nation”;

This brings the idea to my mind of the diffence in interpretation between Reform and traditional Judaism. This idea of a minority suffering because of the sins committed by the nation at large is very harsh, and I believe modern interpretation of this portion is less harsh.

“Other scholars argue that the servant in this passage is a specific individual. Targum and various midrashim identify the servant as the Messiah, but his suggestion is unlikely, since no where else does Deutero-Isaiah refer to the Messiah, and the absence of a belief in an individual Messiah is one of the hallmarks of Deutero-Isaiah’s outlook (in contrast to First Isaiah)”.

This is interesting to me because I thought the Messiah was a very important part of Isaiah, also the contrast to First Isaiah, with respect to the individual Messiah, is something I was not aware of.

“Because of marked similarity between the language describing the servant and Jeremiah’s description of himself, Saadian Gaon argued that the text refers to Jeremiah, while the Talmud records the opinion that it describes Moses. Both opinions have been echoed by modern scholars. On the other hand, equally impressive parallels between the servant and First Isaiah can be observed. Furthermore, many passages in Deutero-Isaiah view the prophet Jeremiah as a model for the as a whole without equating the nation and that prophet”.

This is interesting to me, because I have just been studying Saadia Gaon. It seems that he has some disagreement with Talmud. This issue may be interesting to study further.

Sancho, have you been studying Jeremiah as well ?

"Christians have argued that this passage in fact predicts the coming of Jesus. Medieval rabbinic commentators devoted considerable attention to refuting this interpretation. The passage is deeply allusive, drawing on the texts from Jeremiah and Isaiah noted above and others".

More discussion on G-d’s first speech, to come.

 

[Sancho]

Hi Avi, thanks for an interesting post.

The development of monotheism in ancient Judaism was a side issue and not a point a wish to press.

Part of the brilliance of the verses of Isaiah 40-55 is how intricately the various themes are woven together. The fifteen chapters together can be seen as one work of art, as intricately intertwined as a novel or a cathedral. Careful study, I'm finding, is very rewarding. I am grateful to anyone who choses to collaborate with me in this study. A single correct interpretation is not the end I seek. The journey itself is the reward.

A high achievement in any form of art is to create images that work on many levels, that are able to support many interpretations. This was accomplished with the suffering servant image, in my opinion. The interpretation that I find most powerful is as an ideal for all to strive towards. Whenever I read I seek to be changed by what I read. Particularly so with scripture. I do also enjoy the detective work of trying to figure out what was actually meant, and how it relates to similar writings, etc. So please do continue to fill us in any interpretations that strike you.

The book of Jeremiah is also of interest to me. I have read it a few times, and a bit about it, though not in as much depth as Isaiah. In some ways I find Deutero-Isaiah has more in common with Jeremiah than with Isaiah son of Amoz. Sheldon H. Blank's book, "Prophetic Faith in Isaiah", has a chapter on Deutero-Isaiah's debt to Jeremiah, and considers the possibility that the suffering servant was modled on Jeremiah.

 

[juantoo3]

Sorry, it is a confusing name that has been given to the prophet who wrote Isaiah 40-55. Scholars call the anonymous prophet who wrote these chapters of the book of Isaiah either Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah.

So, it is Isaiah 40-55 that I refer to when writing about Second Isaiah.

Thank you, I learned something. I understand some of the redaction scholarship in general terms, but I'm not up on most of the specifics.

I'll try to articulate what interests me in Isaiah 40-55.

It was a time when taking on suffering myself eased the suffering of another. I assure you there was nothing masochistic about this. ... I would have kept my mouth shout while enduring my sufferings and not asked for help from anyone other than God. This is part of what I have learned from the book of Isaiah since that time.

Another aspect of Isaiah that I find interesting is the blindness and deafness theme. This is another multi-layered theme that pops up in several places. I can't say that I really understand what was meant. Perhaps someone out there has some insight to share on this theme. What I have taken from it is to trust my relationship with God rather than what the world around me says is the way to go.

OK, I think I see a bit better what you are getting at, and in my opinion those are wise lessons to take away from the text.

What is the purpose of seeking wisdom? Here it is suggested that "speaking words in season to him that is weary" is the purpose of hearing as the learned.

OK, this reminds me of a passage in Proverbs I believe it is, to the effect of "a little wine for those who need to forget, and strong drink for those about to perish."

This brings up differences between types of sorrow, suffering, depression. There should be many more words for the emotions or states of mind that these words refer to. Some sorrow is self-inflicted, while some suffering brings about greater good. And there are many other shades of meaning.

As for walking in darkness, part of what this refers to, I believe, is to continue on with what feels right even when a positive outcome can't be seen. And this could mean continuing to suffer even when you can't see how it is bringing about a greater good.
Ultimately the importance of being guided by God rather than our own powers is stressed.

10Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God.
11Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not upon your own understanding...or words to that effect, I believe is how it is similarly stated in the NT (Gospels? it's been awhile...).

So I am inclined to think you are pointed in the correct general direction, but then my two cents won't even buy a cup of coffee.

 

[juantoo3]

l agree there needs to be more 'pointers' to interfaith unity, after all they [religions] all essentially, initially, propounded belief in this ideal, the unity of one, the unity of all, a fundamental principle of monotheism, forgotten under layers of other seemingly more important narratives and messages yet ironically repeated in every prayer every ritual probably every day.

I would be interested in seeing examples, particularly from antiquity.

l agree the suffering servant was probably appropriated from the old testament in the development of early christianity which needed to justify, verify its 'revelations' in relation to judaism and the messiah concept; and the son of man, a common idiom at the time, given a symbolic significance to the maddening crowd, post millenarian fever of slave societies hungry for salvation and deliverance in a world where roads were lined with common men nailed to a cross, becoming a potent symbol in societies of ancestor worship, never forgotten, always remembered with ceremonies and rituals.

I don't know that that assessment can be made with what we have at hand historically. There is the want on the part of Christianity to say that otherwise Jewish symbols have been "properly" translated into a new religious paradigm, but as I have seen repeatedly the Christian interpretation is so very often at odds with the Jewish interpretation, so much so as to seem like two completely different languages...which of course they are.

the common man becoming divine

Actually, this is a predominantly Pagan theme (Zeus, among others).

what does this signify but another pointer to humbleness of the human condition striving for perfection unattainable so ditch the suffering and embrace its shadow joy

easier said than done, with or without a 'personal' one that one worships above all else

An interesting interpretation, but I don't understand how it follows from the text?

 

[juantoo3]

Juantoo, your comments sound to me like you are a very sensitive person, I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

Thank you, Avi. Perhaps I am more sensitive than I prefer to admit. I like to think I am somewhat calloused out of necessity, but not so much so as to be completely unfeeling. When it hurts to feel, quite literally, then feeling must be toned down for survival sake. To this point not with the aid of pharmaceuticals, but that era may shortly end. I hesitate primarily because I do not want my mind to cloud.

 

[juantoo3]

The basic premise, of Jesus modelling himself on Scripture, suggests he is a fraud, that's all I'm saying.

I can see how a devout Jew would model himself on a Scriptural personage, but then he would teach and preach in that person's name, not his own ...

I dunno. Seems I have heard repeatedly from various Protestant sources how Jesus fulfilled this and that from the Old Testament (Psalms 22 leaps to mind)...and let us not lose sight that Jesus was in fact a Jew.

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Psalms 22:2 O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

Psalms 22:3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Psalms 22:4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

Psalms 22:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

Psalms 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

Psalms 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

Psalms 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Psalms 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

Psalms 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Psalms 22:11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

Psalms 22:12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

Psalms 22:13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

Psalms 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

Psalms 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Psalms 22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

Psalms 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Psalms 22:19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.

Psalms 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.

Psalms 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalms 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Psalms 22:23 Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

Psalms 22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

Psalms 22:25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

Psalms 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

Psalms 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

Psalms 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations.

Psalms 22:29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

Psalms 22:30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

Psalms 22:31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

Kinda difficult to model one's execution on scripture, no?

 

[Avi]

Thank you, Avi. Perhaps I am more sensitive than I prefer to admit. I like to think I am somewhat calloused out of necessity, but not so much so as to be completely unfeeling. When it hurts to feel, quite literally, then feeling must be toned down for survival sake. To this point not with the aid of pharmaceuticals, but that era may shortly end. I hesitate primarily because I do not want my mind to cloud.

Juantoo, I came to this website primarily because I have been participating in real world interfaith dialogue for the past 6 months and it has been a remarkably positive experience. So that is why I have been surprised to see the level of antagonism and aggressive behavior exhibited in this forum. It is sort of an antipathy to interfaith dialogue and I cannot understand it.

But it seems like there is a core of people here who understand the essence of interfaith dialogue and perhaps I will be lucky to converse with you and them

 

[Avi]

The book of Jeremiah is also of interest to me. I have read it a few times, and a bit about it, though not in as much depth as Isaiah. In some ways I find Deutero-Isaiah has more in common with Jeremiah than with Isaiah son of Amoz. Sheldon H. Blank's book, "Prophetic Faith in Isaiah", has a chapter on Deutero-Isaiah's debt to Jeremiah, and considers the possibility that the suffering servant was modled on Jeremiah.

Sancho, I have to travel a couple of days, but I will start thinking about Second Isaiah vis-a-vis Jeremiah and continue this interesting thread when I return.

By the way, I enjoy your interpretative views of this material. I believe you said you are an artist, and your perspective seems quite different than mine, which I view through an engineering lens.

 

[Sancho]

Here's a few selections from "Prophetic Faith in Isaiah" by Sheldon H. Blank. It is written in fine Talmudic style.

The book of Isaiah is a joyous book. But if this is so it is not because the prophet Isaiah was a joyous man. He was not. His book is joyous in spite of him. It is joyous because of the succession of "later Isaiahs" whose contribution all but hides the prophet who was. It was they who supplied the hope and faith which make the book joyous.
Isaiah himself was a prophet of challenge and stern command. He set high standards, conceived brave ideals, aimed at goals beyond the wider human reach. If you hear him you grow confused because he upsets your notions, if you go with him you run into trouble because you are pushing against the crowd, if you deny him you feel guilty because you know he is right. Ignorance of the prophet Isaiah is the safer way, and the prudent reader will skip the next few pages of this chapter --unless, of course, he has already made Isaiah's acquaintance, under which circumstance there is no more help for him.
Isaiah was a prophet of challenge. That something has often been said did not, as he thought, make it true; nor was the present a firm warrant for the future. It was not that simple, he said; it was not that certain.
[. . .]
Chapter 40 is the first of a series of connected chapters of surpassing comfort. For convenience we call these chapters "the Second Isaiah." The "Isaiah" part of this designation means only that they are found in the book of Isaiah; we do not know the name of the prophet who wrote them. As we have seen, he appears to have lived in Babylonia at the time of Cyrus. We know no more of him than that. The Second Isaiah was probably responsible for most of 40 to 55. It is true that chapters 49 to 55 differ in some respects from 40 to 48; it is true that the "servant songs" are in some respects at variance with their context; it is true that the fourth of the servant songs is in some respects unlike the other three; it is also true that chapters 34 and 35 and chapters 46-66 are in many respects quite similar to chapters 40-55 --but nevertheless there is reason enough to consider the sixteen chapters here together. Except for occasional brief passages these sixteen chapters have enough consistency of style and spirit to merit a name; therefore: the Second Isaiah.
The Second Isaiah is the architect among the later Isaiahs --architect and builder in one. There is a religion in his sixteen chapters and he constructed it. He did not create the materials but he designed and constructed the edifice.
A great deal of the thinking that is familiar to us as "Judaism" is contained in his pages and emerges as we study them. His creativity is impressive, his influence was tremendous.
[. . .]
When the Second Isaiah, personifying Israel as prophet, conceived the figure of the servant he thought, no doubt, of his many predecessors in the prophetic succession, men, who, as he, had spoken for Israel's God. They were, collectively, the prototype of his servant. But it seems as though Jeremiah in particular hovered before his eyes as he limned in the figure. It was this mental image of Jeremiah that made of his servant-prophet a servant who had known grief, experienced affliction. Or, better stated: the bitter experience of Israel, whom the Second Isaiah here personified as a servant-prophet, led him necessarily to Jeremiah for the features of his personification --to that prophet within his tradition who, more than any other, had, like Israel, endured reproach and suffering. Inevitably Jeremiah must sit as model for his portrait of God's servant-prophet.
This is not to say that the servant and Jeremiah are to be identified. The identification has, however, been suggested: in his commentary to Isa. 52:13 Abraham ibn Ezra quotes Saadia to this effect. Saadia, the Gaon of Sura, who died in 942, identiefied the servant with the prophet Jeremiah, and ibn Ezra expressed his approval: :The Gaon, Rav Saadia, his memory be blessed! interpreted the whole chapter as referring to Jeremiah, and well he interpreted."
[. . .]
Two parallels are particularly striking. Twice the Second Isaiah appears to be quoting the very words of Jeremiah. Once the words have to do with the prophets dedication:

[Jereimah:] The word of the Lord came to me to me, saying: Before I shaped you in the womb I knew you, I dedicated you before birth, appointed you a prophet to the nations.
[The servant:] God summoned me at birth, adopted me when I came from the womb.

The second parallel concerns the prophet's submissive behavior:

[Jeremiah:] I had been as a tamed sheep led to the slaughter, not aware that they were plotting against me.
[The Servant:] He was driven and was meek not opening his mouth --as a sheep led to the slaughter, as a ewe is dumb before her shearers --not opening his mouth.

These two contacts are very close as if the Second Isaiah, in fact, had borrowed Jeremiah's phrases.
[. . .]
In the enthusiastic fancy of the Second Isaiah the servant, Israel, was the people in whom Jeremiah's prediction of a "new covenant' had found its fulfillment; it is through him that God calls Israel the "people in whose heart is my teaching."

The theme of a new covenant is one I want to explore at a later time.

 

[nativeastral]

sorry juan l forgot about this post [was a bit tipsy at the time]

I would be interested in seeing examples, particularly from antiquity.

----> very generally l was emphasising the importance of individual [inner] rather than communal [outer] salvation at this point in history and the move towards monotheism tentatively begun 500 years before [cf the 'great reversal' joseph Campbell? 500BC]; the Roman servile wars [last one 73BC] helped the slaves/plebs in this respect and manumission also 'freed' the common man from absolute wretched servitude therefore, along with the ecumenical hellenization begun with Alexander the great, human consciousness was ready for the personal beyond the communal [Roman law/good justice was quite sophisticated at this time]. By 9AD Octavian, later Augustus, was happy to consolidate rather than expand -pax Romana; it was he who deified Caesar and so became himself Divi Filius - son of god - and it was he who re- inaugurated apotheosis [a waxen image of a previous ruler burnt on a pyre where a hidden cage with an eagle in it was released to signify the soul being released to the gods], a political act to legitimate the successor - the cultural miliex of individuation for both elite and not so.


I don't know that that assessment can be made with what we have at hand historically. There is the want on the part of Christianity to say that otherwise Jewish symbols have been "properly" translated into a new religious paradigm, but as I have seen repeatedly the Christian interpretation is so very often at odds with the Jewish interpretation, so much so as to seem like two completely different languages...which of course they are.

-----> the greek septuagint in koine, the universal language of the area, was fairly well known amongst the educated since 3rd century BC; it was imperative for early christianity to legitimize their beliefs according to the O.T. against the incredulity of the incarnation/resurrection. Logos for a while a necessary rhetoric term in apologetics gradually became superceded with father/son to distance from both pagan philosophy and gnosticism which also used it [stoic 'spermatic word' or divine force]. btw the home of stoicism was Tarsus, home of Paul [eg Antipater [jewish name?] of Tarsus 200-129BC successor of Diogenes of Babylon so long heritage there].

Actually, this is a predominantly Pagan theme (Zeus, among others).

------> 'evidence of some accomodation between thought patterns of Jewish/Hellenic world so that Christianity might be interpretated as the consummation of Greek philosophy as well as fulfillment of O.T. prophecy'
[a new history of Christianity V.Green]


An interesting interpretation, but I don't understand how it follows from the text?

-----> l was more concentrating on the historical miliex of the time of Jesus and could go on about the situation in Israel under Herods sons and the sects around, particularly the Essenes, whose manual of discipline talked about the teacher of righteousness and the wicked priest. In any case a land of suffering servants. Sorry l got off from the text track.

 

[juantoo3]

...that is why I have been surprised to see the level of antagonism and aggressive behavior exhibited in this forum. It is sort of an antipathy to interfaith dialogue and I cannot understand it.

But it seems like there is a core of people here who understand the essence of interfaith dialogue and perhaps I will be lucky to converse with you and them

Thank you for your kind words, Avi.

I too can be a bit antagonistic or aggressive when the mood strikes, it is a human foible I struggle with. I sense that in the "real" world people who take the time and trouble to participate in Interfaith dialogue are of a slightly different (better behaved?) calibur than many who find their way here. Since our doors are open pretty much to all, we try to accomodate within reason as long as the discussions are civil. I sense that the anonymity offered by the internet along with such human foibles as mischief and a certain argumentative need to be correct tinge a great deal of our discussions.

I suppose it comes down to what niche is being served...were our "customer" base solely those religiously indoctrinated and educated intellectuals, then I would expect our discussions to have a decidedly different flair and flavor...one that frankly would be a bit too rich for my daily consumption. Instead I think we have a happy medium (pardon the pun) that allows room for such lofty discussions, but also allows for lay discussions, "rubber meets the road" type discussions, that have a real impact on real lives.

Those of us who stick around here for any length of time become family...and just like family there are some rough edges and sore spots and warts and pimples and teenage angst...but we love each other anyway, in spite of our shortcomings. And we occasionally argue, as families will. Of course that anonymity afforded by the medium means our warts are out there for anybody to see.

The real world isn't like the imaginary speculative theological hypotheses handed down from the ivory towers...at best they *must* work from generalities. But my life isn't a generality to me, nor is anybody else here a generality to their own way of thinking / reasoning / understanding. We can argue all day of the implications of Trinitarian rationale outside of Orthodox Christianity...but what does that mean to me when I receive the news that I have cancer, for instance? (I don't, this is an example)

For some of us, this place is our fellowship, our outreach, our "church" in a loose sense of the word. As much as I admire the philosophical musings of intellectual discussions, I wouldn't trade that for the sense of community we share here.

I don't in any way wish to seem like I am proselytizing, but this is the only place I can think of where "joining us" means coming just as you are with no need whatsoever to change your stripes. And if you should choose not to join us, that's OK too. We won't hold it against you.

BTW, I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts so far, they are definitely of a bit higher calibur, and we all benefit in turn from the raise in the level of discussion.

 

[juantoo3]

sorry juan l forgot about this post [was a bit tipsy at the time]

Hmmm, there's something about Scots posting while tipsy...seems to be a rather common phenomena...

----> very generally l was emphasising the importance of individual [inner] rather than communal [outer] salvation at this point in history and the move towards monotheism tentatively begun 500 years before [cf the 'great reversal' joseph Campbell? 500BC]; the Roman servile wars [last one 73BC] helped the slaves/plebs in this respect and manumission also 'freed' the common man from absolute wretched servitude therefore, along with the ecumenical hellenization begun with Alexander the great, human consciousness was ready for the personal beyond the communal [Roman law/good justice was quite sophisticated at this time]. By 9AD Octavian, later Augustus, was happy to consolidate rather than expand -pax Romana; it was he who deified Caesar and so became himself Divi Filius - son of god - and it was he who re- inaugurated apotheosis [a waxen image of a previous ruler burnt on a pyre where a hidden cage with an eagle in it was released to signify the soul being released to the gods], a political act to legitimate the successor - the cultural miliex of individuation for both elite and not so.

Wow, OK I am seeing a whole lot of history being tossed into a salad...I mean Alexander was about 300 years before Octavian, and I thought Octavian became Augustus something like 25 years before "Jesus' birth." ("In January of 27 BC, the Senate gave Octavian the new titles of Augustus and Princeps.[112]," - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus ) I haven't read a lot of Joseph Campbell, but I am familiar a bit with his "hero in the myth" concept. So this idea of "great reversal" towards monotheism is foreign to me. Would you expand on this?

"On January 1, 42 BC, the Senate recognised Caesar as a divinity of the Roman state, Divus Iulius. Octavian was able to further his cause by emphasizing the fact that he was Divi filius, "Son of God".[60]" - Augustus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . I understand this in principle, John Dominic Crossan brought this to light in a recent lecture I was privileged to attend, as to how the term "Son of G-d" held a specific meaning referencing the Roman authority, and how *if* that term were indeed applied to Jesus during his lifetime it would certainly be cause for considerable disquiet on the part of the Roman governing authority. It would effectively be a challenge to the government, a call for revolution. Which would only expedite the execution of Jesus on political grounds.

-----> the greek septuagint in koine, the universal language of the area, was fairly well known amongst the educated since 3rd century BC; it was imperative for early christianity to legitimize their beliefs according to the O.T. against the incredulity of the incarnation/resurrection. Logos for a while a necessary rhetoric term in apologetics gradually became superceded with father/son to distance from both pagan philosophy and gnosticism which also used it [stoic 'spermatic word' or divine force]. btw the home of stoicism was Tarsus, home of Paul [eg Antipater [jewish name?] of Tarsus 200-129BC successor of Diogenes of Babylon so long heritage there].

Ah, yes! The Septuigint. My apologies, I forgot about it for the moment. Someone else brought the element of Stoicism into the conversation elsewhere when we got to the point of Pagan-Jewish mishmash. I invite you to take a look and contribute: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875.html

I realize any historical study cannot seriously limit itself without risking losing the gist of what is actually happening, which is why a study that focuses on a point in time as I attempted with the Rome in transition thread must of necessity begin some hundreds of years before and even continue a few hundred years after in order to come to any real semblence of what was actually taking place (rather than taking the establishment propaganda on faith).

------> 'evidence of some accomodation between thought patterns of Jewish/Hellenic world so that Christianity might be interpretated as the consummation of Greek philosophy as well as fulfillment of O.T. prophecy'
[a new history of Christianity V.Green]

Well, maybe, but there seems to me even more to the story.

That "accomodation" between Greek and Jewish thought is no mystery, as you pointed to the Septuigint as evidence. But Pagan accomodation into Judaism goes back even further...the Babylonian Talmud. In some degree I think this may have been a survival response as the Jewish ruling authority evaporated over time from Israel.

That there would have been residual influence over Christianity seems apparent. However, there are some lingering questions that are not as easily dismissed. On the surface it seems as though the things attributed to the Christian Messiah have Pagan counterparts...various miracles, Divine attributes, descending into the netherworld and returning alive...but there is one particular sticking point that is not so easily dismissed.

The entire Christian faith hinges upon the Ressurrection. All else may well be embellishment, with no detrimental effect. All the miracles and superhuman feats may be no more than parable and lessons. But without the Ressurrection, Jesus becomes "just" another wise teacher out to save the world. And the world of his time was full of soapbox standers and wise teachers out to save the world. Indeed, while Judea did not recognize Jesus as a Messiah, there were two or three others that were put forward as Messiahs within the following hundred years, most notably Bar Kochba.

The concern from my perspective is that while "raising from the dead" is not unique to Christianity and has Pagan counterpoints, without a physical reality of a physical resurrection of the Christian Messiah, the whole of Christianity becomes a hollow shell.

-----> l was more concentrating on the historical miliex of the time of Jesus and could go on about the situation in Israel under Herods sons and the sects around, particularly the Essenes, whose manual of discipline talked about the teacher of righteousness and the wicked priest. In any case a land of suffering servants. Sorry l got off from the text track.

I know a little of the Dead Sea Scrolls, its been awhile but I am familiar with the War scroll. I realize the Essenes were very strident ascetics, but I still don't see the connection with suffering. Are you suggesting that deliberate separation is somehow suffering? Because I don't get that read at all from that text.

Outline of The War Scroll
I. Battle of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness
A. Sons of Light
1. Levi
2. Judah
3. Benjamin
B. Sons of Darkness
1. Belial
2. "Kittim"
C. Six wars fought
1. Sons of Light win three
2. Sons of Darkness win three
3. God wins 7th battle for the Sons of Light

II. Rules for going to war
A. Ranking and duties of the Priests
1. High Priest
a. chief priests
b. twenty-six leaders of the priestly divisions
c. twelve chiefs of Levites
d. chiefs of the tribes and heads of the
families of the congregation
2. Priests choose the fighting-men and warriors
B. Trumpets of Summons and Alarm
1. thirteen in total
a. each one has an inscription
C. Banners
1. eight in total
a. each has the name of the commander and unit
2. divided into three groups
a. "When they march out to battle"
b. "When they approach for battle"
c. "When they return from battle"
3. measurements of banners
D. Rule of arming and deployment of divisions
1. one thousand men
a. they hold shields, spears, and swords
2. battle is described
3. no crippled or impure man shall fight
E. Priests sound trumpets
1. give signals to warriors
F. Towers
1. fighting units in square formation

III. Praise of God
A. the battle belongs to God, not to them
1. long prayer and poem included in the text

IV. What to do after Belial's defeat
A. sing Psalm of Return
1. bless the God of Israel

V. Repetition

Codex: The War Scroll (1QM)

Here is a link to an English translation of the text:

The War Scroll

 

[juantoo3]

I found the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary or Pesher, full text here:

1QpHab - Pesher Habakkuk | Dead Sea Scrolls | Ancient Revelations

---

the Essenes, whose manual of discipline talked about the teacher of righteousness and the wicked priest

I dunno...

Originally known as The Manual of Discipline, the Community Rule contains a set of regulations ordering the life of the members...

THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY: SCROLLS: Scrolls from the Dead Sea (Library of Congress Exhibition)

Translation here:

And according to his insight he shall admit him. In this way both his love and his hatred. No man shall argue or quarrel with the men of perdition. He shall keep his council in secrecy in the midst of the men of deceit and admonish with knowledge, truth and righteous commandment those of chosen conduct, each according to his spiritual quality and according to the norm of time. He shall guide them with knowledge and instruct them in the mysteries of wonder and truth in the midst of the members of the community, so that they shall behave decently with one another in all that has been revealed to them. That is the time for studying the Torah (lit. clearing the way) in the wilderness. He shall instruct them to do all that is required at that time, and to separate from all those who have not turned aside from all deceit.

These are the norms of conduct for the Master in those times with respect to his loving and to his everlasting hating of the men of perdition in a spirit of secrecy. He shall leave to them property and wealth and earnings like a slave to his lord, (showing) humility before the one who rules over him. He shall be zealous concerning the Law and be prepared for the Day of Revenge.

He shall perform the will [of God] in all his deeds and in all strength as He has commanded. He shall freely delight in all that befalls him, and shall desire nothing except God's will...

THE COMMUNITY RULE SCROLL: TRANSLATION: Scrolls from the Dead Sea (Library of Congress Exhibition)

I did not find the Wicked Priest mentioned in the *Community Rule or Manual of Discipline Scroll.* I still don't see the "suffering servant" concept either. Sorry to be a butthead about this, but I just don't see what you are talking about...care to clarify?