The Anthropology of Western Religions by Murray J. Leaf

Author:Murray J. Leaf
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: undefined
Publisher: Lexington Books
Published: 2012-09-22T04:00:00+00:00

On the surface the connection between the two sets of ideas is only that the miraculous events and powers of the disciples serves as proof that God is with them and, therefore, that their claims are true while their opponents’ claims are false. But if we think about the implications of each set of ideas and the nature of the community that is being formed, there is more to it. On the legal side, the message is clear that the new community, unlike the old, is universal. The idea of a community created by a command of God and defined by acceptance of God is retained; the idea of descent from a specific individual is rejected. And if we ask what the implications of the description of talking in tongues are, they are the same. It is clear in Peter’s words and it becomes even clearer when we remember that biblical accounts (and evidently the common sense of the time) connect the idea of language with the idea of descent; people speak a common language because they have common ancestry. So an experience of common understanding that crosscuts all languages necessarily also crosscuts all descent lines.

That this community is a “church” first appears in the Gospels and continues to be developed in Acts. In the Gospels, however, it seems only to mean the universal body. In Acts it is used for both the universal body and the individual local community, and this usage continues thereafter.

Alan Watson, Professor of Law at the University of Georgia, has argued that Jesus was not really knowledgeable in Jewish law and that the Pharisees’ initial attitude at this was perplexity and an effort to correct him. This only turned to hostility when he proved unresponsive. On the surface this seems to flatly contradict my argument here, but the argument turns on what we mean by “law.”

As an example of the common view that Jesus was knowledgeable in Jewish law, Watson cited an argument by Geza Vermes (1996:2). Vermes argued that Jewish law covered much more than simply ritualistic matters and none of the Gospels indicated that Jesus rejected it in this larger sense. Watson’s response is that:

The issue is not whether Jesus followed the rules of morality that would be thought appropriate for all peoples but whether he observed the rules arising directly or indirectly from the covenant that made the Jews God’s chosen people. Very specifically, the focus should be precisely on those legal rules such as Sabbath observance and ritual purity, that have no obvious ethical content and would have no real significance apart from this covenant. The problem facing the Pharisees was much more serious than someone committing adultery. Their concern over Jesus related to the future of the Jews. The fundamental question for them concerned what marked out a Jew as a Jew. (1996: 2-3)

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.