Re: Judas again
- On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 22:49:34 -0400, LBR@... writes:
>If the tale Eusebius (2: 1.1; 2:23.4ff.) tells about the death of
>On 1 Sep 98, at 3:43, Jan Sammer wrote:
>>JAN: See my comments above. Perhaps somebody else in the Christian
>>movement was being groomed for the post, but as long as the Temple was
>>standing, and the Christians claimed to be the true Jews, logically the
>>Temple was rightfully theirs.
>I don't think that the notion that Christians were the "true Israel"
>rather than the Jews developed until well after the destruction of the
>Temple. Before that time, I would imagine that if there was any
>controversy, it would have been over whether they should be regarded as
>Jews or not, not whether they were "the true Jews".
James and quoting Josephpus (JA 20: 9,1) is right, then you're
The episode as a watershed in the development of both, should I
>JAN: See my comments above. Perhaps somebody else in the ChristianLEWIS: I don't think that the notion that Christians were the "true Israel"
>movement was being groomed for the post, but as long as the Temple was
>standing, and the Christians claimed to be the true Jews, logically the
>Temple was rightfully theirs.
rather than the Jews developed until well after the destruction of the
Temple. Before that time, I would imagine that if there was any
controversy, it would have been over whether they should be regarded as
Jews or not, not whether they were "the true Jews".
Lukes parable of the Wicked Tenants was certainly understood by the
Christians as an allegory of their being the rightful heirs to Abraham's
promise, to the exclusion of traditional Jews. Of course that cannot count
as evidence for my thesis as long as the date of Luke is not established.
Still, most commentators would not date Luke "well after the destruction of
the Temple" but rather not long after it. I would date proto-Luke to the
late fifties A.D. and frame no hypotheses as to when our gospel attained its
present form. We can be more confident of an early date (in the fifties) for
Galatians, where in 4:21-31 Paul represents "the present city of
Jerusalem" --i.e., the temple hierarchy and their followers, as "a slave
along with all its people. But the heavenly Jerusalem is free, and she is
our mother.".... "Now you, my brothers, are God's children as a result of
his promise, just as Isaac was. At that time the son who was born in the
usual way persecuted the one who was born because of God's spirit; and it is
the same now. But what does the scripture say? 'Throw out the slave woman
and her son; for the son of the slave woman will not share the father's
property with the son of the free woman.' So then, my brothers, we are not
the children of a slave woman, but of the free woman."
The battle lines are drawn. The fledgling Christian movement will "throw out
the slave woman and her son"--the Temple hierarchy and its lackeys--just as
soon as it finds the means to do so. As I mentioned before, the means was to
have been a ruling by the highest court in the land as to which brand of
Judaism was the authentic one. Had Paul's version of Judaism been declared
the official one, nothing would have stood in the way of the Christian
movement putting this threat into practice.