20 replies to this topic

[Qa'im]

Here was a paper I wrote last year about the early Jewish Christian movement (Ebionites and Nazarenes) and their relationship with traditional gentile Christianity and Judaism.



The Jewish-Christian Anomaly: A History of Condemnation

A large portion of defining orthodoxies involves the responding to heresies. The second century was a vibrant period for early Christian scholarship, as many scholars therein codified the doctrines that later Christians would hold as the foundation of Christianity. Many of the most prominent Church Fathers, who were prevalent theologians and eminent teachers, were writing in the second century. These scholars were working to establish the fundamentals of Christian faith and proselytize them to a growing community of believers. Meanwhile, traditional Jews were also going through important religious and political struggles in this period. After the destruction of the Temple in circa 70 CE, a major epitome in traditional Judaism, authority in Judea fell “into the hands of the rabbis, the successor to the Pharisees”1. These rabbinical figures would later set the parameters of accepted Judaism and curse those whose beliefs are outside of the acknowledged fold. Although Gentile Christianity and traditional Judaism had parted into two distinct faiths by the early second century, the two opposed a common rivalling competitor: Jewish Christianity. This analysis will demonstrate that the Jewish Christians, particularly, the groups that adhered to both Jesus and the Mosaic Law, were simultaneously rejected both by their Gentile Christian and traditional Jewish counterparts as early as in the second century. This paper will first define Jewish Christianity as an umbrella group, and discuss its major sects and traits. It will then focus on the Church Fathers’ rejection of and disassociation from the Judaizing groups. Finally, the analysis will explore the traditional Jewish reaction to Jewish Christianity, and conclude that Jewish Christian groups and ideas were discarded and attacked by the two communities it was associated with.


The Jewish Christians, an enigmatic and often marginalized community, originated in the first or second century CE. Unravelling the history and identity of Jewish Christianity has been a popular pursuit for academics since the nineteenth century2. Many disputed the literal “Jewish Christian” label’s accuracy or lack thereof – Hort prefers the name “Judaistic Christianity”3 while others favour the term “Christian Jews”4. Furthermore, some, like Boyarin, have argued that “religion” itself is a fourth century innovation5, and that the “Jewish” label was simply a way to differentiate the opposing Jewish belief system from the Christian one, setting issues of ethnicity and culture aside6. It is correct to say that the Gentile Christian and Jewish Christian division was not an ethnic one, despite what one may perceive from these simplistic appellations. After all, the letters of Paul of Tarsus, who claimed to have been an Israelite and even a Pharisee7, laid the foundations of the Gentile Church. Rather, the two movements differed on the status of gentile converts to Christianity – were non-Jewish converts expected to adopt the Mosaic Law, and if so, were they to adhere fully or partially to the Law? While Paul believed the Law had been “swept aside” via Jesus’ sacrifice8, James the Just, the brother of Jesus9, maintained a “Christian Torah” and “has only positive things to say” about the Law 10. Paul derived his authority from his revelations of Jesus, while James was a “pillar” of the Jerusalem Church11.

This dispute set the stage for second century schisms between Gentile Christianity, which drew on Pauline works and much of what would later become the New Testament canon12, and the Torah-observant Christians. Some of the major ancient Jewish Christian sects in this era included the Ebionites (evyonim, “the poor ones”13, Eisenman even dates this group to the first century!14) and the Nazarenes (notzrim, from nazara, “to keep apart from” 15). Although the debate had centred on the status of the Mosaic Laws after Christ, by the second century, this division began to encompass theological and doctrinal differences as well. For example, according to Eusebius, the Ebionites denied the pre-existence of Jesus, and some had even rejected the miracle birth, alongside their Torah-observance and Sabbath-upholding traits16. Eusebius equated their name to the “poverty (sic) of their understanding”17. However, the early Nazarenes’ Christology was perhaps more similar to the Pauline doctrines than their Ebionite counterparts18. Still, these Jewish Christian groups also had their own texts: the Ebionites used the Gospel of the Ebionites19, while the Nazarenes used the Gospel of the Hebrews, which Irenaeus describes as a text written in Hebrew by Matthew20. But, besides a few fragments preserved in Gentile Christian works, these books have been lost. Other records of interest include the accessible Pseudo-Clementines and the absent Book of Elchasai, but these texts were probably written after the second century. Therefore, reliance on the Jewish Christians’ opponents may now be the only way to find reliable information on their beliefs and practices.

It is apparent, however, that the Gentile Christians rejected these Torah-observant Jewish Christians throughout the second century. Ignatius of Antioch, a patriarch and purportedly a student of John the Evangelist21, was one of the few Apostolic Church Fathers writing in the second century. Although his letters were not included in the New Testament, they remained as one of the earliest references for organizational matters in the early Church. Whilst being a professed Pauline Christian, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius dedicated a response to the Judaizing sects. He argued, “For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace22…It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity…”23 Here, Ignatius contends that practice of the Mosaic Law conflicts with the doctrine of divine grace – through this doctrine, the Pauline school claimed that the Law had been swept aside. Hence, Jewish practices, such as the observance of the Sabbath, were to be abandoned under the New Covenant24. Ignatius also claims that Judaism was to look to Christianity rather than vice versa.
Moreover, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, Ignatius dismisses those ethnic gentiles who preached Judaism. This is possibly a reference to gentile converts to a Torah-observant Christian sect, as a gentile’s adherence of the Noachide commandments does not necessitate circumcision. Although Boyarin claims that Judaism was not seen as a “religion” by the Jews themselves, it is clear from this letter and others like it that the Christians, at least, viewed Judaism as a system of beliefs and trends rather than just an ethnic community. Thus, Ignatius went against Jewish Christianity and perceived Torah-observance as incompatible with Christianity.

Similarly, Irenaeus made a case against Jewish Christian groups. Irenaeus, a second century Church Father, was “a hearer” of Apostolic Father Polycarp25 and a bishop. His criticism of Jewish Christians is more specific than Ignatius’, as he condemns the Ebionites in his famous second century work, Against Heresies, which is the “earliest major heresiological treatise of its kind”26. Therein, Eusebius discusses the Ebionite rejection of Paul, their adherence to the Law, and their adoration of Jerusalem27. Irenaeus later attacks the Ebionites for their denial of the virgin birth, and accuses them of “destroying… such a marvellous dispensation of God28”. It is clear that Irenaeus has called heresy on this group because of their theological differences in Christology, their scriptural rejection of Paul’s work and at least three of the four canonical Gospels, as well as their (at least partial) denunciation of the virgin birth, as allegedly prophesied in Isaiah. Irenaeus’ refutation of the Ebionites was compiled alongside his condemnation of other “heretics”, such as the Gnostics, hence, distancing his tradition from the Jewish Christians’. Therefore, Irenaeus is calling heresy on the Ebionites for their differences with the Gentile Christian orthodoxy.

The dismissal of the “too Jewish side”29 of Christianity takes its most extreme form under Marcionism in the early second century. Marcion of Sinope, who was a bishop in the early Church according to Tertullian, set to cleanse Christianity of all Jewish influences. While believing in the Pauline teachings, Marcion took a step further and hinted that the three apostolic pillars of Jerusalem were “false Apostles”30. As the Catholic Encyclopedia outlines, “He wanted a Christianity untrammelled and undefiled by association with Judaism… the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty”31. Consequently, Marcion was not only against Torah-observance, but even the referential use of the Old Testament, as he believed it was incompatible with the teachings of Christ. He even disassociated Jewish messianism from the figure of Christ, and went so far as to say that the god of the Old Testament was different from that of Christianity32. Although Marcion himself was later declared a heretic by Irenaeus33, Knox argues that Marcion’s assembly of a partial Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline letters was the earliest Christian canonization of texts34. Knox also purports that the mid-second century development of the traditional New Testament was composed mainly as a response to the Marcionian canon35. Thus, although Marcion was seen as a heretic in the second century, his Pauline leanings, his prominent anti-Semitic teachings, and his development of the first Christian canon may indirectly influenced traditional Gentile Christianity.

While the Jewish Christians were therefore cast aside by prominent second century Christians like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Marcion, and others, traditional Jews also alienated Torah-observant Christians in an alternate way. Some may date the origin of Jewish belligerence against the Jewish Christian movement to the death of James in 62 CE, when he was stoned to death on the order of the High Priest, Ananus36. However, some Jews did oppose this move in support of James, leading to Ananus’ replacement by Roman authorities37. The real turning point to Jewish-Jewish Christian relations was during the Bar Kochba revolt, which resulted in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 135 CE. Bar Kochba, who was another messianic claimant, instigated a popular Jewish uprising against Rome in the second century. The Jewish Christians, however, did not take part in the uprisings, which led to their political persecution by Bar Kochba’s Jewish supporters38. Instead, sometime between the destruction of the Temple (circa 66-70 CE) and the revolt, the Jewish Christians escaped to Pella in Transjordan39, causing the “forced abandonment of Jerusalem… meant that the most important centre of their activity was no longer available to them”40. The organized Church of Jerusalem, which Eusebius describes with a list of 15 successive bishops starting with James, is never heard from again after 135 CE, and is instead replaced by a Gentile Christian authority in Aelia Capitolina, a new city where Jews were banned41. Therefore, Torah-observant Christians were subject to political turmoil by Bar Kochba’s followers, and were eventually forced to leave their foundation in Jerusalem.

The contention between the two groups was not limited to political friction. Jewish Christians were also at the butt-end of theological attacks and curses instigated in rabbinical sources. Eisenman describes the rabbis as a pro-Roman body whose authority flourishes after the Jewish enemies of Rome were defeated in the second century42. Pritz argues that the Jewish exclusion of the Jewish Christians was nearly immediate, despite their shared social fabric and, in some cases, attendance of the same synagogues43. He writes, “At the end of the first century, the birkat ha-minim was formulated with the sect specifically named…by the middle of the second century, the rift was probably complete"44 Here, Pritz explains that prior to and during the endorsement of Bar Kochba, the Jews had condemned the Nazarenes (notzrim) in their curses on heretics, and the endorsement of Bar Kochba (a rivalling messiah to Jesus) by Rabbi Akiva finally broke the ties of the Nazarenes and Rabbinic Judaism45. The original birkat ha-minim even included the phrase “may all the nozrim perish in an instant”46, emphasizing a deep hatred for Jewish Christianity among the traditional Jewish authority. Meanwhile, the Nazarenes rejected “man-made” rabbinic interpretation (halakha)47, a central theme that would dominate Rabbinical Judaism for centuries. Although Judaism retains an ethnic identity first and foremost (“an Israelite, even if he sins, remains an Israelite”48), it is clear that traditional Jews were both politically and theologically at odds with what they saw as an apostatized group.

Therefore, the movement of Torah-abiding Christians was separately, but simultaneously, rejected both by the Gentile Christians and traditional Jews. While sects like the Ebionites and Nazarenes attempted to retain a Christian and Jewish identity in the second century, they, in turn, were condemned as heretics by the likes of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Marcion, the rabbis, and the followers of Bar Kochba. Although this two-sided rejection remained nonviolent (despite some separated incidents49), it could very well have been the cause of the eventual demise and disappearance of Jewish Christianity. Indeed, facing accusations of heresy by both communities they were involved with could have eventually broken the Jewish Christian resolve to remain relevant, while the Gentile Christian religion and the Rabbinical Jewish community continued to flourish in later centuries. With this progression of history, the mainstream Christian and Jewish need to respond to the Jewish Christian heresy was no longer mandatory.

Works Cited
Daniel Boyarin, Rethinking Jewish Christianity: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Winter 2009)
Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1997)
Matt A. Jackson-McCabe, Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press)
Joel Marcus, “Jewish Christianity”, The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine (Cambridge University Press: 2006)
Ray Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992)
Oskar Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (Hendrickson Publication: 2007)
Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: a Defining Struggle (University of South Carolina Press: 2006)
Cambridge Histories of Judaism: Volume 3, Jewish Christianity (Cambridge University Press: 2008)
Eusebius on the Heresy of Ebionites, http://ancienthistor...ebius_iii27.htm
Against Heresies, http://www.newadvent...ers/0103301.htm
Coptic Orthodox Church Network, The Martyrdom of Saint Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch, http://www.copticchu...ium/4_24.html#1
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, http://www.newadvent...athers/0105.htm ch. 8
Church History (Book 5), http://www.newadvent...hers/250105.htm ch. 5
Catholic Encyclopedia, Marcionites, http://www.newadvent...then/09645c.htm

Edited by Qa'im, 29 April 2012 - 03:03 AM.

[placid]

Hi Qa'im,

Very interesting research.

There is a new movement among the Jews in Israel and the followers are called 'Messianic Jews.'

I don't know much about them, I wonder if you have heard of them?

[Qa'im]

A little bit, I think the modern Messianic Jewish movement is simply a group of Jewish converts to evangelical Christianity. They're a result of twentieth century Protestant preaching: they read the same Bible that other Christians venerate, I believe most of them abandon the Old Testament laws but hold onto some ceremonial rituals. Basically, ethnic Jews who have become Christian.

The sects I discuss in the first post are different - they're Jews in Palestine who accepted Jesus , but differed in beliefs and practices from the traditional Christianity we are all familiar with. They attended synagogues on the Sabbath, read their own books, had their own bishop, upheld Jewish laws and customs, and in general gave Jesus a more human role rather than a divine one. They were viewed as heretics by most Christians and Jews, and their isolation led to their extinction.

Edited by Qa'im, 29 April 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Interesting essay, I just have some quick points to make. Also, there's a moment in the paragraph on Irenaeus, that you write "Eusebius" instead, might want to fix that typo if you have this posted on a blog of some kind or written on paper.

My quick points to make are:

1.) I personally think that though we know that groups like the Ebionites, Nazareans, Elchasaites, etc were mainly found among people of Hebrew descent, and maintained Mosaic Laws, we do know they contended with "Orthodox" or "proto-Orthodox" (as some might call them) Jews in Palestine and other areas. And it was common knowledge that Jesus himself was outspoken against the priests and Pharisees, so I think it would be safe to say that these groups saw themselves as more of a reformation movement against the innovations of Pharisaic Judiasm, as opposed to the Christianities that sprang up among Gentiles and gained more popularity with them, which tended, due to the influence of Pauline doctrine, to preach Christianity as a "New Covenant where Mosaic Law had been abrogated or, in the most extreme instances, revealed as a false teaching.

2.) You mention Marcion as an "Anti-Semite" and I think this is politically incorrect. It is not doubted at all that Marcion was anti-Jewish, but to say that went into the realm of Anti-Semitism is a bad move as Marcion included the works of Paul, who himself was a Hebrew. There's no real evidence to suggest that Marcion was an Anti-Semite, no more than most of the other Gentile Christian movements of his time. Really, he is simply the most "Anti-Jewish." His ambition is to prove his claim of the religion of Judaism as a product of the memories of or the adoration of a separate and inferior deity, but he never takes this so far as to say the Hebrews are a wholly cursed race or to deny the Israelite heritage of Paul or any of the apostles.

3.) I think you should have had at least a paragraph or two touching on the conflict between Christians on the position of Mosaic Law in regards to the Apostolic era. For example, from simply looking at the Bible in its current form, it is obvious that even among the Apostolic generation after Christ's departure that there was contention within the Christian community on the approach to Mosaic Law. The Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles record that ideological conflict between Paul of Tarsus and the esteemed apostles of the church such as Simon Peter, James the Just, and the rest of the Twelve over this subject, with Paul being the one who says it is no longer necessary and the world is under a very different covenant, as his "revelations" have revealed. I felt you made it seem like this conflict comes from later generations, while this conflict is traceable back to the very lives of the Apostles. What generations afterward argued among each other over was what was the result of this argument, with groups like the Ebionites, Elchaisites, Nazareans, and Cerinthians arguing that Paul was a deviant.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23, 29 April 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[Qa'im]

1. I think the Jewish Christian clash with proto-Orthodox (or pre-Rabbinical) Jews was inspired by several things identified by modern academics. Beyond the issue of Jesus' messiahship, the Ebionites rejected halacha (rabbinic and later Talmudic law) which therefore meant that they rejected the religious authority of the pharisees and rabbis. The Karaites (non-Christian Jews who also rejected halacha) were also considered heretics, so the issue was quite serious. There's also the issue of greater politics, Eisenman and others have suggested that many of the Jewish Christians were zealots while the Romans empowered the rabbinic Jews. While it's clear that Jesus in the New Testament was highly critical of the pharisees, I think part of this accounted for the authors' reactions to Jesus' society. The Jesus we know from the New Testament was a Jesus painted by gentile Greeks and Hellenized Jews; people that were already rejecting the Law, or at least its traditional interpretation, and hence it would be in the favour of the author to offer a Jesus who embraced tax collectors, prostitutes, giving Caesar what belongs to him, pacifistic reconciliation with Romans and hate for Jews, etc. While I'm sure some of these things are true to a certain extent, I think there was a deliberate attempt to push away the "too Jewish" side to Jesus and his message. The Ebionites on the other hand seemed to embrace it fully.

2. You are correct, thank you.

3. Absolutely, though my professor wanted me to focus on the 2nd century and onwards and did not want to deal with Apostolic schisms. So the essay in the original post was a bit more narrow in its scope, focusing on the heresiographies rather than the Paul-Peter-James issues.

Edited by Qa'im, 01 May 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Qa, on 01 May 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

While it's clear that Jesus in the New Testament was highly critical of the pharisees, I think part of this accounted for the authors' reactions to Jesus' society. The Jesus we know from the New Testament was a Jesus painted by gentile Greeks and Hellenized Jews; people that were already rejecting the Law, or at least its traditional interpretation, and hence it would be in the favour of the author to offer a Jesus who embraced tax collectors, prostitutes, giving Caesar what belongs to him, pacifistic reconciliation with Romans and hate for Jews, etc. While I'm sure some of these things are true to a certain extent, I think there was a deliberate attempt to push away the "too Jewish" side to Jesus and his message. The Ebionites on the other hand seemed to embrace it fully.

In some ways that is true, but the point I was trying to make was that in the eyes of groups like the Ebionites (and groups of their like) Jesus was seen as a figure of reform. The Gentiles started to lean in one direction while the Jewish Christian groups went in other directions. But I think just by looking at the rejection Jewish Christianity by two parties who were themselves in opposition to each other, it's rather obvious that the "Jesus movement," whether it's followers adhered to Mosaic regulations or not was seen as a movement against what we today regard as typical Jewish precepts and religion. In other words, in the eyes of the proto-Orthodox Jews, they were regarded as heretic and innovators almost as much as any other Jesus follower, regardless of whether they agreed circumcision or abstaining from pork eating was obligatory.

You say they "seem to embrace it (Jesus' Jewish idenity) fully." However, you must keep in mind that you are looking at these two schools of thought(Proto-Orthodox Christianity & Jewish Christianity) side by side, rather than looking at Orthodox Judaism and Jewish Christianity next to each other, and you are also judging the Ebionites' Jewishness and Jesus' Jewishness mostly by the standards of Jewish religion and culture today, which is a common mistake I don't think one can do.

Even within Palestine there was a diversity in religious thought at the time of Jesus. Both archaeological evidence and historical accounts attest to the fact that Jewish religion was not one at the time of Jesus, let alone centuries before. There were different scriptures for sure, different sects, and the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible canon was not anymore universally established than the New Testament was the first centuries after Jesus's departure. So most of the time when people try to paint a picture of Jesus as a Jew today, they do so by looking at Jewish ethnicity and religion as it is today, and the Jewish culture and religion we have today is not necessarily the same culture that Jesus was raised in. And if anything, most of what we know today as Jewish religion is what was passed down by the opponents of groups like the Ebionites and even Jesus himself, so to paint a Jesus using modern Jewish culture and religion as a template is faulty as not only do we know that Jesus was not a proto-Orthodox Jew, but every source we have ever discovered on his life (including the Gospel of Matthew, which portrays the 'most Jewish' Jesus of the New Testament) has portrayed him as a rebel against the rabbis and Pharisees and their interpretation of the words and wisdom of the prophets as well as their hypocrisy and rigid, unforgiving, and repressive rules. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that they (the Jewish Christians) may have embraced Jesus' ethnic identity as a Jew or Hebrew and racial identity as a Child of Israel , then again so did the proto-Orthodox Christians technically, but I think that the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian sects saw themselves as defenders of the purity of Mosaic Law and the religion of the prophets against the innovations preached by Pharisaic Judaism and proto-Orthodox Judaism and the disregard of it or abrogation of it by the proto-Orthodox Christians and Marcion-esque groups. I also contend that these Jewish Christians looked to Jesus not as a preacher of "Judaism," but simply as a preacher of God's religion and saw "Mosaic Law," in its pure form , as something universal rather than "something Jewish," as Proto-Orthodox Jewish and Christian doctrine portrays it. Simply put, I think the evidence shows they only identified themselves and Jesus as "Jews" in the ethnic sense of the word, not in the religious sense we know today because that branch of thought had not yet established itself so strongly and crushed its oppositions. And it's very likely they didn't even use the Old Testament we know today, perhaps using a different canon than what was later formed as the Masoretic canon or relying solely on Jesus' teachings for the most part.


Sorry for the long post.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23, 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Yoel]

placid, on 29 April 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

There is a new movement among the Jews in Israel and the followers are called 'Messianic Jews.'

I don't know much about them, I wonder if you have heard of them?

They tend to be very right-wing anti-Muslim Zionists who support American pro-Zionist Protestant groups. That's my personal impression, at least.

Historically. it's not the Jews who primarily rejected Jesus. Various Jewish groups originally considered Jesus a prophet, a great mystic, an embodiment of Divine light, an angel or even "son of God" in some esoteric non-literal sense. There is an interesting book about it called "The Jewish Gospels" by Daniel Boyarin.

But the early Christian Church in the 4th century condemned all such opinions as "heresy" and actually forced the Jews and Gnostics to either accept the standard Trinitarian views or the Church or not to talk about Jesus at all.

[iere]

Interesting piece.

I agree with some of the assessment here, although I disagree that Paul believed that the law was swept aside due to Jesus' sacrifice. It is a common understanding of the message in Paul's writings. Context is extremely critical in understanding this issue. Here is an alternate understanding within Christianity of Paul’s message, held by a minority (within Gentile Christianity).

The laws that Paul referred to as being nailed to the cross were the sacrificial/ceremonial laws (law of Moses). This entailed the laws for sacrifices and burnt offerings, which was a temporary system that typified the future coming of the Messiah and His ultimate sacrifice. To put it simply, within that particular system was the message that death is the result of sin, and either the sinner or a savior would suffer the ultimate consequences. The ceremonial system - including the feast days, new moons and sabbath days (which includes the high sabbaths, not the weekly seventh day sabbaths) – also pointed to the impending sacrifice of the Messiah. The ceremonies and sacrifices were literal lessons for the people regarding God’s plan of salvation. Christ became our Pesach (Passover lamb) when He paid the ultimate price for our sin (death).  At that very point in time, the sacrificial/ceremonial system became no longer necessary, because the foreshadowing became a reality. See 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. This is what Paul is referencing repeatedly, particularly in his reference to the handwriting of ordinances in Colossians. Jewish Christians has been accustomed to the feasts, new moon etc. but some felt is was mandatory for all (including Gentiles) even after type met antitype. Thus, even though they were free to continue, adherence was not a mandatory practice for any Christian. Paul was clarifying this matter in this writings. This is not to assert that the sacrificial/ceremonial system is not important even today. It certainly should be carefully studied, understood and recognized as part of God's ongoing message of salvation through history.

Paul in his writings upholds Ten Commandments, also referred to by some as the moral law (as well as the health laws). He never states that all of God's laws are done away with but rather provides clarification of the purpose of the commandments. Here, we find the true meaning of what it means to be “under the law” as opposed to “under grace.”

Romans 3:19 - 24
¹⁹ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
²⁰ Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
²¹ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
²² Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
²³ For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
²⁴ Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

The distinction is very clear in these verses. The purpose of the law is show us what is sin in the eyes of God.  It provides knowledge of sin but cannot justify.  Justification is solely through the grace of God through the “redemption  that is in  Christ Jesus. “ The problem back then was that many believed that adherence to the law is what saved them and were living “under the law.” Paul devotes much time into explaining that this should not be. No matter how precisely the individuals keep the laws, they are still in need of the grace of Jesus.

So naturally one would ask, why then should keep the laws if the laws have no other purpose than to inform us of what is sinful and cannot provide justification?  This is very simple and answered by the words of Christ.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

All over the New Testament (and Old), the keeping of God’s Ten commandments is evidence of our love and  belief in God. Christ emphasizes that you will know His people by their fruits (works). Matthew 7:16. The popular belief that Paul taught that all of the Old Testament law was abolished has taken a serious toll on the majority of Christianity, and it is certainly wrapped up in the whole Jew/Christian/Jewish Christian dialogue that continue today. The reality is that we should keep the laws of God out of love, honor and appreciation and understand that it is through grace of God that we are justified.

Edited by iere, 26 July 2012 - 11:20 PM.

[Yoel]

I was not talking about Paul. Probably he didn't mean to abolish the law, and wanted the Jews to remain more or less traditional in terms of Sabbath, forbidden foods etc., but without sacrifices and without being too strict and literal. Essenes were also against sacrifices and some antinomian ideas are also found in the Talmud, and even more in esoteric Jewish literature. Paul clearly believed that the Gentile Christians don't need to do particularly Jewish things, but that may apply only to Gentiles.

I was talking about the 4th century Church decisions that rendered "heretical" all non-Trinitarian and Gnostic versions of Christianity. Before that point, Jews were commonly marrying Gentile Christians, the boundary between these two communities was blurry and all kinds of theological views around Jesus were flowering. It was primarily the Church under Constantine's rule that created the division by violent oppression of all dissent.

[iere]

Yoel, on 27 July 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I was not talking about Paul. Probably he didn't mean to abolish the law, and wanted the Jews to remain more or less traditional in terms of Sabbath, forbidden foods etc., but without sacrifices and without being too strict and literal. Essenes were also against sacrifices and some antinomian ideas are also found in the Talmud, and even more in esoteric Jewish literature. Paul clearly believed that the Gentile Christians don't need to do particularly Jewish things, but that may apply only to Gentiles.

I was talking about the 4th century Church decisions that rendered "heretical" all non-Trinitarian and Gnostic versions of Christianity. Before that point, Jews were commonly marrying Gentile Christians, the boundary between these two communities was blurry and all kinds of theological views around Jesus were flowering. It was primarily the Church under Constantine's rule that created the division by violent oppression of all dissent.

I understand that you were not speaking about Paul but decided to address the interpretations of Paul's writings. There was no abolishing of the law in Paul's writing but rather misinterpretations, whether purposeful or not is debatable. Sorry to move the thread in a different direction. Carry on...

[Qa'im]

Peace,

Thank you for your reply iere. In a nutshell, I understood your post to mean: the purpose of the Mosaic Law was to point to the coming of the Messiah . With his coming and his alleged sacrifice, he therefore fulfilled the Law and the OT prophecies, making it no longer mandatory to follow them. Meaning, neither Jews nor Gentiles are bound by any Law. Am I understanding this correctly?

I can see how that line of reasoning, even if I disagree with it, can be used regarding some aspects of the Mosaic Law (i.e. sacrificial laws, maybe laws regarding the Temple), but how would it be applied to, say, God's dietary and hygiene laws? For example, shellfish is described as an abomination in the Tanakh. Is this because there is something rationally abhorrent about shellfish (unhealthy, unclean, not worth the catch)? Or does shellfish relate to messianism?

The Islamic opinion on these matters differ with both religions, though it was interesting to me that there'd be such sharp differences of opinion within the early Christian sects on these pivotal issues - from the upholding of laws to the very divinity of Jesus. We'd be more in line with the ancient Ebionites and other Jewish Christian sects, but even then, there are some differences.

Edited by Qa'im, 27 July 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[Yoel]

There are many views on dietary and hygiene laws in Judaism, but all Jewish scholars agree that they only applied to the Jews.

Rational thinkers like the Maimonides believe that the purpose of all Torah laws in to bring people closer to the union with the Active Intellect and to form a just society. In theory, it's possible to achieve intellectual perfection without these laws, like Plato and Aristotle. But in practice, the law is concrete set of instruments, specifically revealed to the Jews in order to boost their intellectual contemplation. I believe that Al-Farabi and other Islamic peripatetic philosophers of the same period held similar views about Islam.

Jewish mystics view the laws of Judaism either as theurgical, as tools that rectify the world and bring the universal redemption (I think Ismaili mystics have similar views on Islam) or psychological, as tools that help people to reveal Divine light within themselves, to perceive the entire world as Divine manifestation or revelation, and to become compassionate and altruistic.

A few Jewish mystics believed that non-Jews are not bound by any laws, expect the general belief in God and compassion, and that the law only applies to simple Jews and not to esoteric mystics who only have to follow the spirit of the law. Jews of this sort, who were often accused in heterodoxy, used to mingle historically with Bektashi and various "ghulat" Shia groups. Apparently, they understood each other well.

Not to confuse you, I must say that most Orthodox Jews simply view the law as commandments from God specifically for the Jews, which makes them uniquely bound in a covenant with God, while everyone else may be saved by keeping so-called Noahide laws revealed prophetically to Noah (Don't trust this Wikipedia article though; it's incomplete and contains a number of inaccuracies).  Many well-known authorities believed that Islam and Christianity comply with these rules and are generally good religions for non-Jews, without making theological statements about prophetic status of Jesus and Muhammad.

A few contemporary authorities further extend positive attitudes to Hinduism and Buddhism, because these religions have ethical teachings and believe in oneness of Being, thus not being really idolatry, based on the precedent of earlier authorities, who had positive views of pagan (neo)-Platonic philosophy.

Edited by Yoel, 30 July 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[Christianlady]

Qa, on 29 April 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

A little bit, I think the modern Messianic Jewish movement is simply a group of Jewish converts to evangelical Christianity. They're a result of twentieth century Protestant preaching: they read the same Bible that other Christians venerate, I believe most of them abandon the Old Testament laws but hold onto some ceremonial rituals. Basically, ethnic Jews who have become Christian.

The sects I discuss in the first post are different - they're Jews in Palestine who accepted Jesus , but differed in beliefs and practices from the traditional Christianity we are all familiar with. They attended synagogues on the Sabbath, read their own books, had their own bishop, upheld Jewish laws and customs, and in general gave Jesus a more human role rather than a divine one. They were viewed as heretics by most Christians and Jews, and their isolation led to their extinction.

Hello Qa'im,

It is an interesting article you wrote.

Below are some comments:

1. Jesus is Jewish, and the 12 apostles who Jesus chose, who walked and talked with Jesus, are Jewish. It is very important to note that, which is something I did not see stressed in your paper.

2. What Jesus' apostles taught after receiving the Holy Spirit, the Counselor/Advocate (who Jesus promised them accounted in John 14-16) is also extremely important, because they originally taught only their fellow Israelite brothers. (Please see Acts 1-2.)

3. How Peter, one of the apostles of Jesus, came to understand that the Gentiles can follow Jesus too is accounted in Acts 10, and then the requests of the apostles who walked and talked with Jesus to the Gentile believers in Jesus is accounted in Acts 15.

I very much agree with Yoel that Gentiles (I am one) are not required to follow all the commands God specifically gave to the children of Israel through Moses. One of my darling friends who is Jewish Orthodox told me about the 7 Laws of Noah, which I think is very cool. These are considered to be for everyone, whereas the children of Israel were set apart by God and are still set apart by God to this day. I have a friend who is a Messianic Jewish lady (if God wills my husband and I are going to her house this evening for a Bible study about the Passover) who continues to follow as much as possible of the Law that God gave to the Children of Israel. She is a Jewish Christian who observes Sabbath, the dietary laws, and other commands God gave through Moses. She does not expect Gentiles to do the same. She does not sacrifice animals, but she believes that Jesus is the Lamb of God who is the fulfillment of the commands of animal sacrifices that God gave to Moses for the Israelites.

It's all very interesting. So, I am curious if you have talked to Jewish Christians of today, including Messianic Jews?

Peace and God bless you

[Qa'im]

Hi ChristianLady, thanks for your reply.

Quote

1. Jesus is Jewish, and the 12 apostles who Jesus chose, who walked and talked with Jesus, are Jewish. It is very important to note that, which is something I did not see stressed in your paper.

As mentioned in post #5, this was a paper focused on the second century particularly.

Quote

3. How Peter, one of the apostles of Jesus, came to understand that the Gentiles can follow Jesus too is accounted in Acts 10, and then the requests of the apostles who walked and talked with Jesus to the Gentile believers in Jesus is accounted in Acts 15.

I very much agree with Yoel that Gentiles (I am one) are not required to follow all the commands God specifically gave to the children of Israel through Moses. One of my darling friends who is Jewish Orthodox told me about the 7 Laws of Noah, which I think is very cool. These are considered to be for everyone, whereas the children of Israel were set apart by God and are still set apart by God to this day.

As you know in Acts, Paul argued that the Gentiles are not bound by the Law, nor were they obligated to convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus . Some Gentiles did convert to the Jewish Christians sects as mentioned earlier, but they could not be expected to convert en mass, as much of Hellenized culture conflicted with Jewish practices. According to Acts, James and Peter originally vouched for the conversion of Gentiles, but then opted for Paul's understanding that the Mosaic Law was not binding on Gentiles (either it never was, or it was no longer the case after Jesus).

Though a good question is the following: it is understandable via Christian and Jewish theology that the Gentiles would not be required to adopt the Law, but why is Jewish law no longer binding for Jews? Iere in post #8 argued that the Law had fulfilled its messianic purpose by the time of Jesus' crucifixion, but I later raised some questions in post #11. Namely - does the entire Law have a messianic purpose, including the dietary and hygene laws? If not, then why must the Jewish obligation to follow these laws be abandoned, if they fulfilled a purpose that suited God's divine rationality?

As for a Noahide laws, I used to be a strong believer in their applicability as a pre-Muhammadan Law for Gentiles, then I came across some alternative arguments. It seems that the Noahide laws are more or less a Rabbinical invention - they aren't found in the Tanakh, and were probably a way to make Jewish proselytizing to non-Jewish audiences easier, centuries after Jesus. Are there any ancient communities of Noahides, preferably before the 1st century CE? We Muslims do believe Noah brought a Law for all people, but that this Law was abrogated by the Mosaic Law. Meaning, Moses' Torah does not rely on any previous texts, and his Law was unique to his message, even if the core of that monotheistic message can be found in the teachings of earlier prophets.

[Yoel]

Qa, on 30 July 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

As for a Noahide laws, I used to be a strong believer in their applicability as a pre-Muhammadan Law for Gentiles, then I came across some alternative arguments. It seems that the Noahide laws are more or less a Rabbinical invention - they aren't found in the Tanakh, and were probably a way to make Jewish proselytizing to non-Jewish audiences easier, centuries after Jesus.

As you probably know, normative Judaism considers the rabbinical tradition as authentic as the Tanakh, much in the way as Muslims consider ahadith an integral part of religion.

I am afraid that you use circular logic here, which can be used against any scripture or tradition. If we take the rabbinical tradition seriously, then it speaks for itself. If we don't, then we may ask why should we take seriously the Tanakh?

The Talmudic literature is highly complicated and may be interpreted in many ways. In fact, some Talmudic sages agreed with you view that the Noahide law has been abandoned after the Mosaic revelation. However, most medieval Jewish authorities rule like the other Talmudic sages, because they assumed that non-Jews can be saved without converting to Judaism. Otherwise Jewish ambivalence toward proselytism would seem unethical and missionary work should be a priority. Yet, some other Talmudic sages were of the opinion that it's enough for non-Jews to be monotheists without any particular system of law.

A few rabbis supported your view in more recent times, but gave it a new twist. According to them, while the Noahide law may have been abandoned, it's still recommended, and that all decent people will be saved by being ethical and/or believing in some sort of Divine unity.

There is enough evidence for ancient origins of the Noahide laws:

1. Book of Jubilees 7:20–28 (2nd century BC).

2. Acts 15: 19-21

3. A number of minority traditions regarding the Noahide laws are discussed in the Talmud (primarily in the tract Sanhedrin). Some varieties discussed correspond closely to the Jubilees and the Acts. This fact implies their pre-Talmudic origin.

Quote

Are there any ancient communities of Noahides, preferably before the 1st century CE?

We don't know much about Judaism before the 1st century, let alone about its popularity among the Gentiles. But Joseph Flavius wrote in the 1st century that Judaism was highly popular in Rome in two forms: as full converts and as Judaizing Gentiles. The latter were, presumably, a Noahide community of some sort. By the way, mass conversion to Judaism was quite popular in the Hellenic world and was exactly promoted by Hellenized Jews. It may have been some loose form of Judaism though, allowing non-literal allegorical readings of the Tanakh. Conversion to Judaism was also popular in Galatia, according the New Testament, and in Gallia, according to some contemporary French historians. That's why today's Jew are genetically 40% Semitic and 60% European, close to French and North Italians. Apparently, quite a few ancient Celts appreciated Judaism, as did many pre-Islamic Arabs in Himyarite Yemen.

Quote

We Muslims do believe Noah brought a Law for all people, but that this Law was abrogated by the Mosaic Law. Meaning, Moses' Torah does not rely on any previous texts, and his Law was unique to his message, even if the core of that monotheistic message can be found in the teachings of earlier prophets.

I personally believe that most, if not all, disagreements between great world religions can be solved by looking into minority opinions and by studying philosophical/theosophical/esoteric subcurrents, which exist in every mature spiritual tradition. The truth is to be found by gnostic quest in outskirts and shady corners of world traditions and not in the mainstream...

Edited by Yoel, 31 July 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[omar111]

Quote

. How Peter, one of the apostles of Jesus, came to understand that the Gentiles can follow Jesus too is accounted in Acts 10, and then the requests of the apostles who walked and talked with Jesus to the Gentile believers in Jesus is accounted in Acts 15.

Paul had a fan ,Luke and he corrupted stories in acts to justify conversion of gentiles. According to the author of Acts, Peter visits the household, evangelizes, and then baptizes Cornelius. On returning to Jerusalem, Peter is forced to justify his behavior by recounting the events that led to the conversion. On hearing his defense, his detractors conclude that, "....God has granted even Gentiles repentance....". (It is often noted that the Cornelius episode is replete with numerous literary features and legendary motifs that are unique only to the author of Acts. F. Watson in Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles dismisses the whole episode as a Lukan creation. Several of these catalogued traits areFirst there is Cornelius the centurion, one of several centurions populating Luke and Acts that serve to demonstrate the favorable attitude of the Roman authorities to the new Christian Law-free movement.(Second, the motif of divine guidance given through the agency of angels and visions is typically unique to Luke.(Finally, the de_script_ion of the descent of the Spirit on Cornelius and his household, and their subsequent gift of glossolia (speaking in tongues), is clearly a mirrored composition to the Pentecost episode in Acts. These considerations force us to suspect, along with the other conflicting information, that the Cornelius episode is a (Lukan) literary constru(Luke’s purpose is not to just note the extraordinary character of these events, but to signal the initiation of the Law-free Gentile mission per se. The Cornelius episode is presented by Luke, not as the exception to the Jerusalem Believers' current Law-observant faith-practice but as the first instance of a new Law-free policy on the part of the Jerusalem Believers, which is reported to have been ratified later by the Jerusalem Council. Such is the radical nature of this departure of the Cornelius story that it seems Incredible, especially in the light of the First Jerusalem Community*s constituency and faith-practice. With the conclusions concerning the Law-observant Jerusalem community we must assume that any change in policy that allowed the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles would have been unthinkable, particularly at this early stage in the development of a thoroughly Jewish movement.
(Through his subsequent narrative of the "Hellenist Story Cycle" Luke provides an alternative explanation of the origins of the Law-free mission to the Gentiles. He described how those who had been scattered following the death of Stephen carried the different teachings as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Syrian Antioch. In Antioch he tells us that the Hellenists initially focused on the Jewish community there, with their different teachings. Soon after though, certain men of the Hellenists began teaching to the Gentiles there as well. Luke’s implication being that this was the first time that this new Law-free message was taught to the Gentiles, which clearly contradicts the whole Cornelius “conversion” episode
(Wissemschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe)

[Qa'im]

Thanks for your reply Yoel. Most of your post was well and good, open and honest, and spoke for itself. Though I should address one thing:

Quote

As you probably know, normative Judaism considers the rabbinical tradition as authentic as the Tanakh, much in the way as Muslims consider ahadith an integral part of religion.

I am afraid that you use circular logic here, which can be used against any scripture or tradition. If we take the rabbinical tradition seriously, then it speaks for itself. If we don't, then we may ask why should we take seriously the Tanakh?

Taking the Talmud and the Rabbis as sources of authority alongside the Scripture is one of the main aspects of Jewish theology criticized by the Qur'an and the Prophet . It is fair to compare the Talmud to the hadith literature, because there are similarities and possibly collective influences. They're both oral traditions/reports that are then compiled into written compendiums. But where they differ is in sourcing. A hadith goes back through a chain of narrators (isnad) to the Prophet . He, as a Messenger of God, is the source of revelation and God's legatee. The Qur'an still supersedes the ahadith, and often times, doctrines are only established by narrations when passed through individuals deemed trustworthy; narrated in multiple authoritative chains. In the Talmud, though, there is no way to authenticate orally transmitted sources, as we often times don't know how the rulings went from the Rabbi's mouth (Hillel for example, 1st century BC) to the written form (2nd-3rd century CE). Moreover, although the rabbis were the heirs to the Message in some way, they are not prophets, they do not receive divine inspiration, and therefore any position they put forward will be based on their own ijtihad and conjecture rather than solid Mosaic tradition. The Karaites for example rejected the use of Rabbinic sources outside of the Tanakh (and were called heretics for this reason). This is not to say the Talmud's purpose was void; but it reformed Judaism upon the assumption that the Rabbis were legatees of the divine. Islamically, that is the job of the Messengers like Moses and Muhammad , and not in the hands of fallible men.

So in one word: taking the Tanakh "seriously" is different from taking the Talmud seriously. One was revealed directly to the Lawgiver by God Almighty, and the other developed through scholarly discourse many centuries later.

Edited by Qa'im, 01 August 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[Yoel]

Qa, on 01 August 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

Moreover, although the rabbis were the heirs to the Message in some way, they are not prophets, they do not receive divine inspiration, and therefore any position they put forward will be based on their own ijtihad and conjecture rather than solid Mosaic tradition.

Thanks for your interesting reply, Qa'im.

Mainstream Judaism believes that Talmudic sages knew how to apply special rules of Torah interpretation that were transmitted from Moses.  Many discussions in the Talmud are about the quality of transmission and correct application of interpretation rules, but the Torah itself tells the Jews to listen to their judges in every generation, thus giving the rabbis the authority of ijtihad (Heb. psak). The resulting rulings don't have to be perfectly transmitted, because the process of ijtihad itself is authorized by God.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews believe, in fact, that Talmudic sages were infallible, that their original transmission was correct and that even their disputes were directly divinely-guided or based on correctly applied divine interpretation rules. There is much discussion though about authenticity of some particular transmissions though, about errors in the current text of the Talmud, which of Talmudic traditions, how and why may be applicable today etc. But the fact is that even raising a question about the Talmudic sages' infallibility is considered outright heresy in many ultra-Orthodox Jewish circles. Basically, one may say that at least the most prominent sages like Rabbi Akiva, Hillel the Elder and Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai are viewed as "Jewish Imams", according to this view.

Esoteric Judaism believes that prophecy is a constant process and that Talmudic sages were Divinely guided, though not every ruling is applicable to the physical world or may apply only to a particular place, time period or particular type of souls. There are various degrees of prophecy. While Moses was the sole lawgiver for the Jews, the latter Jewish prophets had the authority to prophetically decree temporary changes in the law, and while Talmudic sages and latter mystics did not had this level of authority, they were inspired by the holy spirit or angels in their decisions and were able to receive non-legalistic prophecies. It's widely believed in mystical Jewish circles that even today a few righteous people have revelations. They may not establish new laws, but they may receive knowledge about esoteric inner side of law and reality.

Note that numerous Shia mystics had similar views about prophecy. Some of them definitely view the 12 Imams as prophets, but not in law-giving sense. As far as I understand, it's also a common Shia belief that even today some holy people may receive prophetic knowledge of some sort by seeing Mahdi in their dreams or by other esoteric means. You may say that it's typical for heterodox ghulat and batini sects, but after reading Henry Corbin and some Irfan texts in English translation, I got this impression that such esoteric beliefs are common enough among Shia in general.

As for Muhammad's and Quran's criticism of Judaism, we need first to establish what kind of Judaism is being criticized. Jews themselves keep criticizing each other for millennia. Muslims criticize each other too. Intense internal criticism in a proof of the religion's vitality, not of inauthenticity. Judaism comes in many shapes and forms. The Quran also claims that Jews worshiped Ezra as a son of God, but we don't know any Jewish sect that would harbored such belief. We do know that Arabian Peninsula was a center of Jewish sectarianism. Probably some people worshiped Ezra. Maybe some other Jews had even weirder beliefs and practices. It's not clear whether Muhammad criticized the Talmudic rabbis, contemporary rabbis or some local corrupt rabbinical authorities. I don't think it proves anything about Judaism in general.

Quote

The Karaites for example rejected the use of Rabbinic sources outside of the Tanakh (and were called heretics for this reason). This is not to say the Talmud's purpose was void; but it reformed Judaism upon the assumption that the Rabbis were legatees of the divine.

The Karaites themselves invented the whole bunch of law reforms and were unable to produce profound literature after the first 200 years of their history. Inability to produce serious philosophical, exegetical and esoteric texts is a sign of immaturity or inconsistency, IMHO.

Quote

Islamically, that is the job of the Messengers like Moses and Muhammad , and not in the hands of fallible men. So in one word: taking the Tanakh "seriously" is different from taking the Talmud seriously. One was revealed directly to the Lawgiver by God Almighty, and the other developed through scholarly discourse many centuries later.

I understand your view, but I think we came here back to the same circular logic. As I have said, many Orthodox Jews believe that at least some Talmudic sages were infallible transmitters of Mosaic law and view them as "Jewish Imams" in that sense. And there is no clear proof from the Quran that Muhammad criticized the Talmud per se and not Jewish rabbinical authorities of his time.

Now, the Shia believe that the Twelve Imams are infallible and those who transmitted the ahadith are good enough to rely on, in general. There is a great deal of contradiction and diversity between the ahadith though, which raises question about quality of transmission, about contextual applicability of the law etc. Sunni critique of the Shia (and vice versa, perhaps) seems to me very similar to what you say about the Talmud. It's about quality of transmission, infallibility of the Imams and ability of people who are not law-giving prophets to be still divinely-guided in their decisions.

I think these sorts of questions produce endless circular debates and are usually counter-productive, when people from one tradition apply them to a different one.

But you raised a very important question. Let's assume that the Talmudic sages were infallible. But this is a peculiar belief of Ultra-Orthodox Jews. It would be very arrogant to claim that non-Jews must follow something written in the Talmud, instead of their own traditions. I am not fond or Jewish groups who promote Noahide law without reconciling it first with Christianity or Islam.

The bottom line is that, based on the evidence of the apocryphic Book of Jubilees, the Acts, the Talmud and decrees of the early Church, it seems clear that something similar to the Noahide laws was widely believed to be authentic in pre-Talmudic times, but the particular Talmudic version of that laws may be merely a theoretical exercise in exegesis (a good one though and divinely inspired, from tradional or mystical Jewish perspective).

Edited by Yoel, 01 August 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[Qa'im]

With regards to the status of the Imams in Shi`i tradition, it is a complex topic and I will try to go over that first. As you know, there were many Shi`i sects in the past, most of which are now extinct and were absorbed into the major traditions. Some of the sects came out of differences of opinion with regards to succession of the Imams, and then due to socio-political conditions, these sects gained their doctrinal colourings. There were some offshoots deemed heretical from the beginning, ghulat ("extremists") whose beliefs regarding the Imams approached that of prophethood or even divinity. The twelver Shi`i hadith books draw mostly on Imami narrators, but many narrations to go through these other sects as well, including the ghulat. A reader who is not careful can incidentally read and accept ideas upheld by the ghulat but rejected by the scholars; which is why you find some exaggerated concepts in popular Shi`ism and the "masses" with regards to the Imams. The orthodox belief is that an Imam is the best of humanity during his Imamate: his role is to interpret and clarify the religion. He is ma`sum (infallible; or more precisely: protected from sin and harmful error), and his role is temporal (commander in chief of the Islamic state), legal (interprets the Sunna of the Prophet in his absence), referential (he is made to know the Qur'an and its interpretation fully), and spiritual (he guides us spiritually, in a way we cannot understand). An Imam's existence on the Earth causes God to refrain His direct punishment (as we see in the Torah).

While both a prophet and Imam are representatives of God and hold similar qualities; to mistake an Imam for a prophet is deemed kufr (disbelief). A Messenger of Allah is a Lawgiver, who brings a new Law to the people, which does not depend on any previous Law. There were prophets before Moses as you know, and (in our belief) celestial books before the Torah as well, but the Torah does not rely on those revelations. The five major Messengers in our belief were Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. We deem Messengers to have been for the entire world, and they carried all of the special qualities that Imams also have (as mentioned before). Messengers receive explicit revelations both awake and asleep. A prophet is more personalized for a community; his authority does not extend beyond the group he was sent to, and he and his message was subservient to the Messenger and his'. An example is Lot, who was charged with the guidance of his community, but was under the authority of Abraham. A prophet receives explicit revelation, but only when asleep - he has the ability to add to the existing Law but cannot abrogate anything; and he can come with a new command that had not existed prior. An Imam's scope of authority is much like a Messenger (since he is for all humanity), but he bears no new Law and no new additions to the existing shari`a. He does not receive explicit revelation and does not see them awake or asleep; rather, he receives implicit inspiration (ilham) from angels. This is the ability to be guided in the right direction and say what God has implicitly inspired; perhaps similar to the mother of Moses' guided decision to put him in a basket, while not having a prophetic status. It seems that the Holy Spirit can speak to anyone in Shi`a Islam in one way or another, however: only an infallible can, 1) identify what is being inspired exactly, 2) not get the inspiration confused with temptations or biases, 3) differentiate it from waswas (demonic whisperings), 4) be correct regarding all of the above at all times.

The Jews in 7th century Medina could very well have been an offshoot. We only know about them through what Islamic sources have said regarding them, which I can understand why you may find doubtful. This is an issue with a lot of back-and-forth debate, but with the amount of offshoot Jewish and Christian sects by the 7th and 8th centuries, it's not difficult for me to believe that some communities held this belief. Ibn Hazm documented that some Yemenite Jews exalted Ezra as the son of God, and some of the Arabian Jewish converts to Islam even deemed Ezra to be the Messiah. The exaggerated status of Ezra, which is mentioned in one verse of the Qur'an, did not seem to be a point of discourse in our records whatsoever. This is while some Jews, even allegedly some rabbis like Abdullah b. Salam and Ka`b al-Ahbar, were becoming Muslim. The Qur'an also criticizes the exaggerated position of Maryam, which may be a reference to the Marian offshoot sects, giving her a goddess-like status.

There is one general statement regarding the Rabbis mentioned in the Qur'an, which was discussed in many hadiths of the Imams. It's a vague criticism which leads me to believe that it is a reference to Rabbinical Judaism.

محمد بن يعقوب ، عن عدة من أصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد ، ( عن أبيه ) ، عن عبدالله بن يحيى ، عن ابن مسكان ، عن أبي بصير ـ يعني : المرادي ـ عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قلت له : ( اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبانهم أربابا من دون الله ) فقال : أما والله ما دعوهم إلى عبادة أنفسهم ، ولو دعوهم ما أجابوهم ، ولكن أحلوا لهم حراماً ، وحرموا عليهم حلالا ، فعبدوهم من حيث لا يشعرون .
ورواه أحمد بن محمد بن خالد في ( المحاسن ) مثله .

1 – Muhammad b. Ya`qub from a number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid [from his father – not in the masdar] from `Abdullah b. Yahya from Ibn Muskan from Abu Basir – meaning al-Muradi – from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: I said to him: “They took their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from Allah”. (9:31) So he said: Indeed by Allah, they did not call them to worship themselves, rather they allowed (i.e. made halal) for them (something) forbidden (haram) and forbade (i.e. made haram) upon them something allowed (halal).  So they worshiped them wherefrom they did not perceive.

The meaning of this is, the Rabbis were trusted over the Torah and God's representatives - forbidding things that were to be divinely interpreted as lawful, and allowing things to be divinely interpretted are forbidden. Taking the Rabbis' opinions as Law outside of Torah, giving them permission to add to the existing Law, giving them an infallible status, attributing revelations to them, would all fall under the critique that this ayah is giving. One can claim that Rabbis were simply "Jewish Imams" like you mentioned, but their descriptions do not fit those of the Imams (at least definitely not all of them), as there would only be one Imam at a time, and he would always be correct in any discourse (God would not make him wrong). The ayah may also be a bit of a pun, as "rabbi" means Lord, and "father" (as Christians call their priests) was a title reserved for God. I do believe the ultra-Orthodox view is a bit naive, to consider the Rabbis as perfect replicators of the Law and to deem the oral transmission to their written form to be authentic without question. I believe the Islamic chains of narrators may have been a direct response to the Talmud and its issues of unidentifiable traditions.

And while you say the judges represent God in their times, I don't believe this role extends to the law-created process. Though perhaps this discussion will get into a line of arguments that is beneficial for neither of us.

Edited by Qa'im, 01 August 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[iere]

Qa, on 27 July 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Peace,

Thank you for your reply iere. In a nutshell, I understood your post to mean: the purpose of the Mosaic Law was to point to the coming of the Messiah . With his coming and his alleged sacrifice, he therefore fulfilled the Law and the OT prophecies, making it no longer mandatory to follow them. Meaning, neither Jews nor Gentiles are bound by any Law. Am I understanding this correctly?

I can see how that line of reasoning, even if I disagree with it, can be used regarding some aspects of the Mosaic Law (i.e. sacrificial laws, maybe laws regarding the Temple), but how would it be applied to, say, God's dietary and hygiene laws? For example, shellfish is described as an abomination in the Tanakh. Is this because there is something rationally abhorrent about shellfish (unhealthy, unclean, not worth the catch)? Or does shellfish relate to messianism?

The Islamic opinion on these matters differ with both religions, though it was interesting to me that there'd be such sharp differences of opinion within the early Christian sects on these pivotal issues - from the upholding of laws to the very divinity of Jesus. We'd be more in line with the ancient Ebionites and other Jewish Christian sects, but even then, there are some differences.

No, that is not the thrust of my post. Actually, I am saying the exact opposite but will clarify when some free time arises.

Edited by iere, 01 August 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[Yoel]

Qa, on 01 August 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

With regards to the status of the Imams in Shi`i tradition, it is a complex topic and I will try to go over that first. As you know, there were many Shi`i sects in the past, most of which are now extinct and were absorbed into the major traditions. Some of the sects came out of differences of opinion with regards to succession of the Imams, and then due to socio-political conditions, these sects gained their doctrinal colourings. There were some offshoots deemed heretical from the beginning, ghulat ("extremists") whose beliefs regarding the Imams approached that of prophethood or even divinity.

How do you explain this quote by Ayatollah Khomeini, from the book "Islam and Revolution":

"Regardless of the mode and degree of our perception, reality remains what it is. And the reality is this: there is nothing other than God Almighty; whatever is, is He. The manifestation is not only His; it is also He. There is no exact image that can be evoked in this respect; the object that casts a shadow together with the shadow itself is imprecise and defective. A preferable image would be the ocean and its waves. The wave has no separate existence with respect to the ocean; it is the ocean, although one cannot say the converse, that the ocean is its waves. Waves come into existence
only through the motion of the ocean. When we consider the matter rationally, it appears to us that both the ocean and the waves exist, the latter being an accident with respect to the former. But the truth of the matter is that there is nothing but ocean; the wave is also the ocean. This world is also like a wave with respect to God."

If a regular Shia guy would say something like that, many people would deem it as kufr or ghulat? To me it looks like the boundaries between Shia orthodoxy, ghulat and/or Ibn Arabi's Sufism are not so clear after all. Ghulat or not, but the teachings of Suhrawardi, Haydar Amoli, Mulla Sadra and other respected Shia mystics seem to contain a lot of such stuff. Corbin quotes many respected Shia Urafa who did, indeed, believe that Imams are prophets in some sense.

Quote

The Jews in 7th century Medina could very well have been an offshoot. We only know about them through what Islamic sources have said regarding them, which I can understand why you may find doubtful. This is an issue with a lot of back-and-forth debate, but with the amount of offshoot Jewish and Christian sects by the 7th and 8th centuries, it's not difficult for me to believe that some communities held this belief. Ibn Hazm documented that some Yemenite Jews exalted Ezra as the son of God, and some of the Arabian Jewish converts to Islam even deemed Ezra to be the Messiah. The exaggerated status of Ezra, which is mentioned in one verse of the Qur'an, did not seem to be a point of discourse in our records whatsoever. This is while some Jews, even allegedly some rabbis like Abdullah b. Salam and Ka`b al-Ahbar, were becoming Muslim. The Qur'an also criticizes the exaggerated position of Maryam, which may be a reference to the Marian offshoot sects, giving her a goddess-like status.

Some Yemeni rabbis regarded Muhammad as a prophet, who didn't come to abrogate Judaism or Christianity, but to give the older religions a new boost and to establish a new religion for those who didn't have a religion. I tend to agree with this position.

Quote

There is one general statement regarding the Rabbis mentioned in the Qur'an, which was discussed in many hadiths of the Imams. It's a vague criticism which leads me to believe that it is a reference to Rabbinical Judaism.

Perhaps, but the Maimonides wrote something similar in his letters, claiming that the rabbinical authorities in Babylonia are stupid and corrupt. In fact, what he wrote is far sharper than this quote from the Quran. But he didn't critisize Judaism per se.

Or, to take a modern example, some well-known anti-Zionist rabbis say that all pro-Zionist forms of Judaism are downright heretical and not Jewish at all. Someone who goes to a synagogue decorated with an Israeli flag may find highly surprising that for some other Jews his synagogues is a house of heresy and idolatry. But these rabbis don't criticize neither Judaism, nor pre-Zionist rabbis.

Statements like that often have a historical context. Unfortunately, we don't know much about early Judaism that Imams encountered. It was probably a mixture of various sectarian offshoots.

Quote

One can claim that Rabbis were simply "Jewish Imams" like you mentioned, but their descriptions do not fit those of the Imams (at least definitely not all of them), as there would only be one Imam at a time, and he would always be correct in any discourse (God would not make him wrong).

Perhaps, the definition of Imams is not applicable here.

Paradoxically, the view you describe may actually support rational Maimonidian Judaism that views rabbis like mujtahideen who may not be perfect or infallible, while some are definitely corrupt, yet the rabbinical system sustains Judaism altogether in a reasonably intact form until the Messiah arrives and clears all matters out.

Quote

The ayah may also be a bit of a pun, as "rabbi" means Lord, and "father" (as Christians call their priests) was a title reserved for God. I do believe the ultra-Orthodox view is a bit naive, to consider the Rabbis as perfect replicators of the Law and to deem the oral transmission to their written form to be authentic without question. I believe the Islamic chains of narrators may have been a direct response to the Talmud and its issues of unidentifiable traditions.

I also agree that ultra-Orthodox view is a bit naive. But there is one more thing. The first systematic codices of Jewish law were written in the 11-12 century by great scholars who analyzed the Talmud and developed a complicated system of determining, which Talmudic opinions are authentic. During Muhammad and Imams' period Judaism looked quite messy. When Maimonides traveled from Spain to Middle East, he was shocked that Babylonian Jews were ruled by very ignorant rabbis who claimed to be heirs of king David and demanded total obedience.

I doubt Muhammad and the Imams would criticize the Talmud directly. Most likely they didn't know much of it. But they had, indeed, good reasons to criticize the 7th-9th century Talmudic Judaism.

Quote

And while you say the judges represent God in their times, I don't believe this role extends to the law-created process. Though perhaps this discussion will get into a line of arguments that is beneficial for neither of us.

Perhaps, but Ijtihad and fatwa issuing looks to me quite similar to the Halachic (law-defining) process in Judaism. The marja's may not represent God in their times, but the have nevertheless God's authority to interpret the law and they do it sometimes in a way that may seem very innovative. How is it different conceptually from Maimonidian rational Judaism I've mentioned before?

Edited by Yoel, 03 August 2012 - 12:08 PM.