Jesus, was Accusations instead of answers!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/1/99 10:16:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

fisher1 writes:

 

<< If the book was written in Rome, that makes it seem more

likely to me that it was written in Greek.

>>

Dear Dharma:

 

Just a quick excerpt above to reference the comments. I agree with your

viewpoint...certainly Jesus would have addressed crowds in either Greek or

even Latin, given the Roman requirements for public speech. They had strict

grammatical laws for "publicans" and public gatherings were regulated by the

Roman Constabulary...Centurions. They would necessarily have insisted that

any such public "rabble rousing" be in Greek or Roman, in order for it to be

understood by them.

 

As for the concept of who or whom were Gentiles, it depended, in great

measure on what area or locale Jesus was visiting. As far as all gospel

texts agree, he did not ever prohibit gentiles from attending his open

sermons or teaching sessions...so one would have to assume that many in fact

did attend. Your comment on the "loaves and fishes" does of course make

sense, but aside from the issue of whether or not the Gentiles shared other

meats, or did not, at the very least, fish was being shared, and even though

not considered a "Blood flesh meat" like ox or cattle, we should remember

that Lamb was both sacrificed and partaken of. Also, chickens and game bird,

pheasant, etc., were also eaten.

 

As the Disciples spread out of Palestine into Greece, Syria, Lebanon and

eventually Rome, more and more gentile customs must have been incorporated

into the previously "orthodox" Jewish customs. But this does not alter the

habits of Jews during the time of Christ, certainly, nor alter Jesus and his

dietary habits...which would have been primarily grain, vegetable and then a

bit of fish, poultry and the rare feast foods of lamb or kine (bovine: ox or

cattle). Most Jewish households at this time did not eat Ox, unless it was

absolutely all that was available, as Bullocks were too expensive and useful

as beasts of burden. It would be like eating your station wagon or SUV.

However, other forms of cattle were raised, and allowed as special feast day

meals...not for daily consumption. Lamb, however, was both a feast day meal

and a staple of the migrating and wandering shepherds and Hebrew peoples.

Wealth was often measured in heads of sheep, oxen, cattle and horses.

 

Of course, Jesus could very well have admonished very strict dietary

restrictions privately for himself and his disciples, as he seemed to favor a

bit of an ascetic approach. Fasting, purification, etc., are all well

documented. But, this too, would have been a personal choice, given whatever

holy days, rituals, holidays, etc. were on the calendar...and feasting (which

always included meat, by definition) would still have been observed according

to the Mosaic Laws.

 

Jesus would have been an interesting person to discuss diet with, since he

was a very healthy, strong and clear thinking person. Perhaps, one day, we

may have the "Jesus Cookbook."

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Hi Zenbob,

>I have read the Nag Hammadi and other sources in detail. I find nothing that

>contradicts my basic comments. That Jesus, as I mentioned earlier, was

>widely read, scholarly and drew upon wide philosophical teachings in order to

>move his audiences is no doubt true. I have not said otherwise, if you

>double check my Email. But, he was Kosher in his laws and diet, and this

>meant being able to slaughter and clean animals for sacrifice, supper and

>feast.

>

>Furthermore, just as a side note, whether Jesus was or wasn't "Orthodox" in

>his Hebrew/Jewish traditions does not in any way alter his dietary habits,

>per se. We have ample evidence of his diet, just from the Loaves and Fishes

>story.

 

Your comment has made me wonder about something. I used to live near

Jewish friends - a Rabbi and his wife - who kept a Kosher kitchen. They

could eat dinner at my house if I served fish and not meat. Apparently

fish is not classed as a meat and doesn't come under the same restrictions.

 

In Jesus' day, his country was part of the Roman Empire, and there were

many Roman soldiers and officials and other Gentiles there. And of course,

it was midway on the routes between Egypt and the countries to the East, so

there were people passing through from many countries. When a large crowd

gathered, it would almost certainly be partly Jewish and partly Gentile.

 

I've heard the suggestion that the miracle of the Loaves and Fishes was

that all the people who had food with them shared it with others. It seems

likely to me that in a large crowd, some would have had some meat with

them. So I wonder if the reason that the crowd was fed with bread and fish

was that people were asked specifically to share their fish but not meat?

I wonder if at that period also, Jews could share food with Gentiles if it

was fish and not meat?

 

BTW, I noticed earlier some discussion about the language of the New

Testament. The lingua franca of the Roman Empire was common (koine) Greek.

The Jews spoke Aramaic among themselves, but Greek with Gentiles. The many

Jews returning from other countries on business or pilgrimage, especially

at the Passover season, probably knew Hebrew, but I would think they didn't

all know Aramaic... so they too might have spoken in Greek. It seems to

me that what Jesus said to his group of disciples was probably spoken in

Aramaic, but when he spoke to the large crowds that sometimes gathered -

and we know that soldiers and other Gentiles from the Empire were

interested in his teachings - he would have spoken in Greek.

 

The book of Luke is the most literary of the Gospels. His name was

probably Greek or Roman, and he wrote his two books, the Gospel and _The

Acts of the Apostles_, for someone named Theophilus, who must have been in

some other part of the Empire. It certainly seems probable that he wrote

in Greek. Whether Matthew and Mark first wrote in Greek or in Aramaic, I

don't know. But we do know that there were sources - other written

accounts - that all three of them used. Whether those sources were in

Greek or Aramaic is anyone's guess. It's still possible that one of those

sources might be discovered... it will be interesting to see what language

it's written in. According to tradition, Mark was a young disciple of

Peter in Rome. If the book was written in Rome, that makes it seem more

likely to me that it was written in Greek.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Zenbob,

 

I think I'll throw some more grist into this mill. )

 

Robert Graves was known as a poet, but he was also an expert in symbol and

myth. He wrote _The White Goddess_ and two volumes on _Greek Mythology_.

 

He also wrote a book called _King Jesus_. It's written as a novel, but the

basic concepts are what he thought was most likely to be what really

happened. It's a highly unorthodox book... it may bother you, but I think

you would enjoy it.

 

Jesus was known to be a descendant of King David, but both Matthew and Luke

trace the geneology of _Joseph_ back to King David and beyond. When Jesus

was born, they were in Bethlehem because of a census that required a return

to the family town or city to register... and Bethlehem was "the city of

David," the place where the descendants of David registered. The society

was matrilinear... even today, a man is not considered a Jew unless his

mother is a Jew. It seems likely that they went to Bethlehem because Mary

was also a descendant of David.

 

The country was part of the Roman Empire, but there was a Jewish king,

approved by Rome and ruling under Rome... there was also a Roman governor.

Graves proposes that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was arranged because

of their geneology... and that Jesus was in fact the rightful, hereditary

king of Israel.

 

There are old traditions and legends that Jesus was lame. In Graves' books

of mythology, he discusses the custom in many places in the ancient world

of the ritual laming of the divine king. He says the hip was thrown out of

joint in such a way as to produce a permanent laming. The kings were said

to wear buskins or high-heeled boots... Graves says that was because they

couldn't put the heel all the way down. And in his novel Jesus is crowned

king in secret and is ritually lamed. The prophecy is interesting... "He

shall not bruise his heel."

 

The word Christ (Christos) means "the anointed one." We have in English

the word "chrism," from Latin from Greek chrisma, from chriein "to anoint."

It means "Consecrated oil used in baptism, confirmation, ordination, etc."

The word "anoint" comes from the Latin inungere, from in "on" and ungere,

unguere, "to anoint." Its meaning is "To pour oil upon, as a sacred rite,

esp. for consecration." [From Webster's Dictionary.]

 

When Jesus was taken before Pilate, the Roman governor, Pilate asked him,

"Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus' answer was, "You have said so." Or

"You said it." Pilate said he found no fault in him... and he tried very

hard to save him. Finally the crowd asked him to follow the usual Passover

custom and release one prisoner. He asked them, "Do you want me to release

for you the King of the Jews?" But, according to Mark, the chief priests

had primed the crowd to ask for another man instead. Then Pilate asked,

"Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?"

The crowd yelled, "Crucify him!" Pilate tried to avoid it but finally

released Jesus to the soldiers to be crucified.

 

Luke says there was an inscription over him on the cross: "This is the King

of the Jews." Some ancient authorities add that it was in Greek, Latin,

and Hebrew. Mark says "the inscription of the charge against him read,

'The King of the Jews.'" Matthew says that "over his head they put the

charge against him, which read, 'This is Jesus the King of the Jews.'"

 

Love,

Dharma