Unboxing Strack-Billerbeck to unveil NT Jewish background in English.

[@ExpositTheWord]

You sold it to me! just ordered the set on Logos. Thanks David

[@Thinkagain21]

A great introduction - though the German is tricky to translate in some places! John Gill is also worth consulting, as he quotes many Jewish writers. But more has come to light of course since then.

[@chessmaster3225]

would love to have a set

[@nicoletacker8207]

Can you please make a video about your setup, it looks cool and comfortable.

[@DavidIBHardwick]

Yep, I found that a recliner is a really good foundation for working without getting back strain. I have two laptops - one for writing and one for data searches that might take some time, and a smallish 4K monitor which provides the equivalent of another 4 laptop screens. You need some kind of laptop tray - there are lots on sale, though mine is made from a short bolster attached to a carpet offcut. It's a very productive setup.

[@donj2222]

Wow!

[@listeningservantsministries.]

i'm 14. i am called to be a pastor. i absolutely love Bible translating. do you have any advice on where to start for beginners? GOD bless!

[@gingrichpianostudio4798]

This looks fascinating! Let me also take this moment to express deep gratitude to you for your work on Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage in its historical context. I have been studying this topic at length as I process what my Anabaptist heritage says about it. If you have time, I would be very grateful for your assessment of the following paragraphs I shared in a blog post. Do you think I (building on Meier) am presenting an accurate picture? Do we have solid reason to believe the view of the school of Shammai was current in Jesus' day? ------ Most modern writers say that two views on divorce were debated by Jews in Jesus’ day-the view of Rabbi Hillel, a “liberal” who said Deuteronomy 24 gives grounds for “any-cause” divorce (cf. Matt. 19:3) and the view of Rabbi Shammai, a “conservative” who said Deuteronomy permits divorce only on the grounds of adultery.[4] Wenham clarifies that “on the issue of divorce, it was the Hillelites who were upholding tradition, and the Shammaites who were challenging it.” In fact, “to limit the husband’s right to divorce whenever he chose and for any reason was for most Jews a shocking limitation on male freedom.”[5] Wenham’s clarification is crucial but may not go far enough. It’s possible that the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites had not even yet begun in Jesus’ day. Luck observes that “Josephus does not mention the distinction [between Hillel and Shammai], merely stating the position of Hillel as if it were the only position in vogue.”[6] Meier surveys Jewish intertestamental writings on divorce at length and concludes that “the mainline tradition begun in the OT and witnessed in Philo, Josephus, and the School of Hillel” allowed divorce for “practically any reason.”[7] The only known possible exception (besides Jesus) is the Essenes, a mystic Jewish sect, but this is disputed; Meier concludes that “their position on divorce remains a question mark.”[8] Given this evidence, some of the best-informed scholars warn against assuming Jesus was responding to the Hillel - Shammai divorce debate. Here, for example, is Meier (see footnote for more): Nowhere in pre-70 Judaism is there any clear attestation of a detailed discussion or debate on which grounds for divorce are deemed sufficient. Therefore, despite the almost universal tendency on the part of NT exegetes to explain Jesus’ prohibition of divorce against the “background” of the debate between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, this tendency may actually be a prime example of the anachronistic use of later texts to explain earlier ones. That is, a text written down for the first time at the beginning of the 3d century A.D. (the Mishna) is called upon to elucidate a teaching of Jesus reaching back to the early part of the 1st century A.D.

[@DavidIBHardwick]

Thanks - there is quite a lot to unpick here. Yes, there is good evidence and it is the consensus, that Shammaites were current in Jesus' day, and were not current after 70CE. That is, their followers did not survive the Destruction. The Shammaites did say that Deut.24.1 only addressed divorce for adultery. However, both Hillelites and Shammaites presumably believed that divorce was also allowed for the other biblical grounds in Exo.21.10-11. We conclude this from the fact that these grounds for divorce (lack of food, clothing, and love) are listed in all marriage contracts of the time, and because the Hillelites and Shammaites debated about how much neglect of food, clothing and love warranted a divorce - see www.rabbinictraditions.com/index.php?m.ket.5.1 and following. I don't know any evidence that divorce for any cause (the atomistic Hillelite interpretation of Deut.24.1) was known before Hillel's interpretation. It is only 'traditional' in that it became the dominant form of divorce, and supplanted the biblical grounds by making them unnecessary. So it is true to say that it is now traditional, but it wasn't before Hillel. Yes, Josephus and Philo only mention the Hillelite interpretation, which had already gained the ascendancy. Though the older interpretation was preserved in the wording of marriage contracts till the middle of the 2nd C. Meier is correct that the divorce dispute with the Shammaites was not recorded in writing till about 200 AD. But nor was any other rabbinic teaching recorded before then, because they didn't decide to record 'oral law' in a written form till this time. In the 1960s some scholars decided to date things only from when they were first written. This means the rabbis in Jesus' day had no additional teachings about the Sabbath, or handwashing or food laws - because they hadn't yet been written down. Neusner, who is often cited for this opinion, came to realise that the layers of teaching in Mishnah etc CAN be dated. He commended my www.T-R-E-N-T.com as showing the way to do this. Hope this helps

[@gingrichpianostudio4798]

@@DavidIBHardwick thank you. This is very helpful, including the links you offered! After reading your assessments and doing some more reading, here are some propositions I invite you to affirm or correct: 1) The Hillel-Shammai divorce debate does indeed date from the time of Jesus, so that Jesus' teachings should be considered in that context. 2) Meier and scholars who agree with him on the dating of Hillel vs. Shammai are basing their assessment on old, overturned approaches to dating the contents of the Mishnah. 3) Hillel's view on grounds for divorce was likely new when he introduced it, but it had become dominant by Jesus' day, so that Wenham is right to say "to limit the husband’s right to divorce whenever he chose and for any reason was for most Jews a shocking limitation on male freedom.” 4) Shammai's view on grounds for divorce was more in line with earlier readings of the Torah, but his attempt to restore that view never gained more than minority support and came to an end after AD 70. Perhaps it would help to explain that my pastoral reason for asking these questions (apart from my desire for truth) is that I want to emphasize to my readers that Jesus was addressing people with very different assumptions about divorce than what people in my conservative Anabaptist background hold. My church tradition has said remarriage is always wrong, and some say the same of divorce. Most [??] Jews in Jesus' day, however, believed something virtually no American Christian believes today: that a man has a right to divorce his wife for virtually any reason. If people in my church tradition imagine Jesus was speaking directly to us, without considering the beliefs of his audience, we will badly misunderstand his intent behind his words. In short, my main question is whether your assessment of the historical evidence leads you to agree with Wenham's statement: "to limit the husband’s right to divorce whenever he chose and for any reason was for most Jews a shocking limitation on male freedom.” Thanks again.

[@DavidIBHardwick]

@@gingrichpianostudio4798 Yes, the statements in your latest message are a good summary. And yes, most Jews in Jesus' day regarded the man as having a right to divorce his wife for 'any cause'.

[@gingrichpianostudio4798]

@@DavidIBHardwick thank you so much for taking time for this exchange. This is very helpful for my research and writing. God bless you and your wife in your service to the church!