I often hear fellow Christians say that it's obvious that Paul and Jesus believed in a historical Adam. For a long time I bought into this idea until it occurred to me that people often think their concerns are what concerned 1st century Palestinian Judaism.
How was Adam considered in during the Second Temple period? Was he an angel? or a literary figure? or a historical figure? or all of them?
I’m wondering if there are any surviving commentary style writings from this period. Hoping to gain some insight as to how individuals from that time period viewed and interpreted Hebrew Scriptures.
Was it stored in the Temple itself? Was there a sort of "most-sacred" Torah that was kept there? Did scribes and priests have their own copies? Was the full Tanakh pretty rare for an individual or group to have? How illiterate was the region, and how did that impact the common person's understanding of scripture?
This sub frequently discusses the common usage of LXX as a quoted source, and I know that the actual Torah scrolls had a great deal of rules regarding special care for storage and access.
By the early first century CE, who would have had direct access to the original Hebrew text? Was access fairly widespread and easy to accomplish, or was the tradition around the original Hebrew kept limited access like the pre-Lutherian Catholic Church with Latin scriptures selectively read in public, and as such the Septuagint served as a direct access to the scriptures for many much like the post-Protestant reformation and establishment of direct relationship with scripture?
I'm not just asking in terms of translations (I was reading up on the Aramaic Targum), for which insight would still be welcome, but specifically access to the original.
For example, there's often criticism of Matthew's apparent reliance on the Septuagint for the virgin birth connecting back to Isaiah 7:14 vs the original Hebrew's 'almah' - but is it reasonable to expect him to even have had direct access to the Hebrew text in the first place?
I have heard some scholars assert there was still a cultural memory in the Second Temple period of a time when El and Yahweh used to be distinct deities and that this shows up in the dead sea scrolls, for example, where there are various intermediary figures spoken about like Melchizedek who is called an "Elohim" in 11Q13. Did this notion also survive into early Christianity and was the Father seen as El while Jesus was seen as Yahweh?
Thank you
According to this article, they included:
- Cleansing an Israeli Leper (the ritual was assigned but never performed in known Israeli history)
- Casting out a Deaf and Dumb Spirit (because Jewish exorcists could only cast out a spirit if they could get it to name itself. If the victim was mute, the attempt was moot)
- The Healing of Birth Defects (the Man Born Blind)
- Raising the Dead after three days (i.e. the fourth day)
>“…‘Messianic Miracles’ (known in Hebrew and Judaism as ‘nessim v’niflaot’) in the Second Temple Period (the era in Jewish history corresponding to the time of Yeshua and the early church) are largely derived from various passages in the book of Isaiah such as chapters 35, 51, and 53. The views of the rabbis during this time as referred or alluded to in the New Testament are not challenged by serious academic rabbis and scholars such as Ivy League Professor Rabbi Jacob Neusner or the late Rabbi David Flusser of Hebrew University. … Neusner states ‘The Gospels are the pivotal Second Temple Period Jewish literature between the inter-testamental apocryphal literature and the early Midrashim.’ The New Testament background concerning Messianic miracles comes from what in Judaism is known as ‘Torah B’al Pei’ or ‘The Oral Law’ which includes what is commonly referred to as ‘the tradition of the elders’. Such materials were not codified in any written form until the second century AD/CE by Rabbi Yehuda Ha Nassi in Galilee. Thus because it was unwritten, we can only document it from citations and commentaries on it from later written sources. The only source of contemporary authorship with it ironically is the New Testament as Neusner and other rabbinic scholars accept….We must keep in mind that such traditions were not directly from scripture but rather rabbinic interpretations of scriptures (mainly from Isaiah).”––– James Jacob Prasch, Moriel Ministries
https://www.moriel.org/component/k2/item/1594-three-messianic-miracles.html
For example, in the New Testament, Jesus had just finished the deliverance of a man from an unclean spirit that had caused deafness a
... keep reading on reddit ➡We know there was a sizable Jewish diaspora in Babylonia during the Second Temple. Did these Jews, at one point, abandon Hellenism and embrace Parthian culture? Did they remain Aramaic-speaking throughout the Hellenistic and Parthian periods?
Did they perceive magic as an illusion (the way we do) or was there something substantial happening?
I am aware that in the immediate context of the second temple period, the occupation by Romans provided a basis for the common belief that the messiah would be a political king or ruler. In addition, the Maccabean revolt and the Hasmonean dynasty of Kings, which made Judaea semi-autonomous, added to this belief (E. P Sanders, 1995.) In addition, the scriptural evidence found in Samuel 2 was interpreted to mean a davidic promise that the throne of David would once again have an heir. (2 Samuel 7:11-16; Cross with 1 Chronicles 17: 10-14.). This added to the expectation of a political messiah who was expected to overthrow tyrannical Roman rule.
With that said, Jews of the second temple period were all over the map, and different sects of Jews provided assorted interpretations of the Tanakh. Resultantly, this came with varied interpretations of the messiah. (Schiffman, Lawrence H. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism. Ktav Publishing House: Hoboken, NJ, 1991. 98-119.)
However, whether the messiah restored Israel via a spiritual revival or was a Political figure was varied, but second temple Jews were unified in their awaiting the coming of a figure who would restore Israel in some sense. (Grabbe, Lester L. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. Routledge: London & New York, 2000. 271.).
Is there any basis for Carrier’s hypothesis that second temple Jews interpreted the messiah as a figure who would suffer and die? Was this even an interpretation that existed in the second temple period? Of course, it existed after Jesus, but what about before? Does anybody have a serious refutation to Carriers hypothesis? Is there any historical merit to his hypothesis?
In this post I had previously asked about what calendar a first-century Jew living in Roman-occupied Judaea would have used.
I have a follow up question related to how knowledge of the date would have been expressed from person to person, using the hypothetical date of Jesus's crucifixion as being Friday, 14 April, 30 CE.
How would someone like the apostle Peter say, "Jesus was killed on (this date)"?
Arabic numerals obviously would not have been used. Would the particular day of the month of Nisan be expressed using a letter from the Hebrew or Aramaic alphabet to represent the "14" of our own calendar? And how would the year be expressed? In some form of numerical/alphabetical value, or in relation to a particular ruler's reign?
The other day, I was reading the story of Jesus meeting a Samaritan women at the well. Without saying specifically "I'm a Jew," "I'm a Samaritan" they both seem to know the other's group. But I assume that, ethnically, they looked very similar. So did they wear distinct clothes or something? Or is this just something the story does not explain?
I know that it’s the same name as Joshua , was there an expectation that the messiah would bear Joshua’s name ?
Antiquities in America
Throughout the entire length and breadth of the country – washed, as it is by the waters of two mighty oceans, and abounding in natural resources – enormous beyond what is impossible to conceive – we find much to admire in the aspect and beauty of nature; and whether we travel from the distant shores of Maine and New Brunswick to the golden sands of California, and the shores of the great Pacific, or from the bright crystal lakes of Minnesota to the orange groves of Florida, we behold throughout the immense extent, the features of nature, grand and beautiful in every form and aspect. The mineralogist, the geologist, the naturalist, the botanist, and even the antiquarian, have all a rich field here.
Strange as it may appear, America abounds in antiquities, so extensive, so beautiful and majestic, as to rival those of Thebes and Nineveh. Ruins of ancient cities, of immense extent; fortifications, mounds and pyramids; temples with walls built of hewn stown showing a refined taste in architecture – and adorned with human figures, beautifully executed; large altars ornamented with hieroglyphes, probably giving a record of those who reared them, but which no man has been able to decipher; remains of ancient palaces, with beautiful specimens of sculpture and painting, with many other marks of anceint greatness, prove to us that this is not a new world, but that a powerful empire existed at a very remote period of time, teeming with a population highly skilled in arts, and in a state of civilization far beyond anything we have ben led to conceive of the aborigines, previous to the discovery of the continent by Europeans.
The antiquities of America extent from the eastern shores of Maine and Massachusetts to the Pacific, and from the Great Lakes and British dominions, to Peru and La Plata in South America; in fact, throughout the extent of both continents. Immense forests grow over the ruins of large cities, and the gigantic size of the trees, with indications that other generations of trees sprung up and grew before them, proves that the ruins were in existence before the Christian era.
In every portion of the United States interesting ruins have been discovered. In the State of New York have been found sculptured figures of one hundred animals of different species, executed in a style far superior to anything exhibited by any of the existing tribes of Indians. The State of Ohio abounds in ruin
... keep reading on reddit ➡The high priest( Caiaphas), asks Jesus himself about what people have said about him but he does not answer. He then asks Jesus directly if he is the "...Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "'I am', said Jesus, 'and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'" (61-62) According to Matthew, Jesus answered "Yes, it is as you say"; according to Luke, he said "You are right in saying I am".The high priest tears at his clothes and declares that this statement is blasphemy.
Mark 14:62
>ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· Ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
>The passage in context:
>
>The high priest stood up [and came] forward and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" 61But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed [One]?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." 63Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? 64"You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers received Him with slaps [in the face]
Why was Caiphas so angry if Jesus' response has antecedence in Jewish writings? "Son of man", "son of Adam", or "like a man" are phrases used in the Hebrew Bible, various apocalyptic works of the intertestamental period, and in the Greek New Testament.
- I've heard by some people that this motif of 'coming on the clouds'/'riding on the clouds'/ 'having a throne on the clouds' is an attribute that was given to YHWH alone. So could it be that Jesus claims this for himself, thus identifying himself with YHWH?
Isaiah 19:1
LXX
>Ὅρασις Αἰγύπτου. Ἰδοὺ Κύριος κάθηται ἐπὶ νεφέλης ([nephelé: a cloud](http
... keep reading on reddit ➡The two books of Chronicles recap and edit much of what appears in the books of Kings. Is there any indication pertaining to which history was more widely used/cherished among Jews? Do New Testament writers tend to quote and allude to one over the other?
I am aware that in the immediate context of the second temple period, the occupation by Romans provided a basis for the common belief that the messiah would be a political king or ruler. In addition, the Maccabean revolt and the Hasmonean dynasty of Kings, which made Judaea semi-autonomous, added to this belief (E. P Sanders, 1995.) In addition, the scriptural evidence found in Samuel 2 was interpreted to mean a davidic promise that the throne of David would once again have an heir. (2 Samuel 7:11-16; Cross with 1 Chronicles 17: 10-14.). This added to the expectation of a political messiah who was expected to overthrow tyrannical Roman rule.
With that said, Jews of the second temple period were all over the map, and different sects of Jews provided assorted interpretations of the Tanakh. Resultantly, this came with varied interpretations of the messiah. (Schiffman, Lawrence H. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism. Ktav Publishing House: Hoboken, NJ, 1991. 98-119.)
However, whether the messiah restored Israel via a spiritual revival or was a Political figure was varied, but second temple Jews were unified in their awaiting the coming of a figure who would restore Israel in some sense. (Grabbe, Lester L. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. Routledge: London & New York, 2000. 271.).
Is there any basis for Carriers hypothesis that second temple Jews interpreted the messiah as a figure who would suffer and die? Was this even an interpretation that existed in the second temple period? Of course, it existed after Jesus, but what about before? Does anybody have a serious refutation to Carriers hypothesis? Is there any historical merit to his hypothesis?
