Prof Hayes' thesis creates interesting possibilities for Paul's depiction of "Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles [that is, the Greeks]" - in that Jesus takes on the form of the divine logos (universal reason), yet as a Jewish rabbi, but at the same time contrary to the Jewish paradigm, is an "end of the law", its perfection. Embodied in Jesus, the dialectic of love has become a universal law. Divine.
Very interesting. Thank you. I always enjoy Prof. Hayes, even when I disagree with her. She is always worth listening to. Prof. Fredriksen is also worth hearing.
[31:16] Finally, according to the rabbis the divine law is not immutable. On the contrary, the Torah is susceptible to moral critique and modification and rather than being a sign of its imperfection, this flexibility is the very mark of its divinity. On many occasions, rabbis will state the divine law and then set it aside in favour of a better ruling - better in the sense of 'morally better'. We see this, for example, in a whole tractate of the Mishnah, tractate 18 ... [32:44] In short, for the rabbis, divine law does not always dictate the best and most desirable answer, and humans are an essential partner in critiquing the law and making it better.
[35:31] The idea of a morally evolving divine being whose law should be subjected to moral critique and modified if necessary, stands at a very great distance from Greco-Roman conceptions of divinity and the perfect, static, unchanging divine law. To modify divine law on the basis of practical reason, or considerations of equity, would have been nonsensical if not scandalous in a Greco-Roman context. It would be like saying "let's change the law of gravity so that I can drop something without it breaking."
[36:05] The divine law for the Greeks was a unified, inflexible unchanging order - it would simply make no sense to speak of its adjustment. In fact, the opposite is the case. Human-positive laws in the Greco-Roman tradition have to be adjusted to conform to the natural law. ... [36:34] In a paradoxical reversal, the rabbinic sources depict divine law as undergoing adjustment to conform to human experience and intuition. Moreover, for the rabbis, the ability of the divine law to change and evolve is a function of its perfection, not its imperfection. A rigid, unresponsive law would be imperfect. The divine law's perfection is not diminished in the eyes of the rabbis by the fact that it is particular, flexible, responsive to human needs and input, rather than universal, static, and uniform. [37:06] Its divinity and perfection are constituted by those features and humans are active participants in its ongoing evolution. [37:16]
Just listened to the first half by Hayes about the different conceptions of divine law among Greeks and Jews. Very interesting. (Maybe a bit long, but never boring.)
Now listened to the second half, too, by Fredriksen. Not giving as much new structure as Hayes' but still interesting about Christian movements competing with each other in 2. to 4. Century also through anti-Judaism, with Augustin saving the day in 399CE. . . . Fredriksen claims, like in other videos with her, that there was no true monotheism in antiquity: I would hold that Judaism in the Persian period had true monotheism in Deutero-Isaiah and the priestly source. But I would like to hear a debate between experts about it.
This woman is brilliant and anyone who criticizes her must be a very closed minded Christian. I have learned so much from her. She teaches a very unbiased explanation of the so called OLD TESTAMENT. Some people (including my own family and friends) are very comfortable with living the lies told by Christianity. I was a Christian for 64 yrs. always full of questions. never got a satisfactory answer from many Pastors. I decided to look into other religions and beliefs. So glad I did. Don't have a problem with ignorant people,but, I do with stupid people. Open your mind and your heart. Life will go much better for you.
marsha woods... I couldn’t agree more with you as I am currently facing a similar situation with an evangelical Christian family. God has an amazing way of revealing the truth to people.. that’s all I can say. I am a former Christian but currently consider myself a Noahide as I now believe solely that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God. This might be weird but feel free to reach out to me if you ever just need anyone to relate to. I know I would enjoy that as I pretty much can’t talk about my beliefs now to anyone in my family without enormous judgement and my friends aren’t really associated with any particular religion so they can’t really relate with what I am going through. Anyway, God bless you. Shalom!
Which woman do you mean with "brilliant", Hayes or Fredrickson? About criticism: nobody should beyond criticism, but the criticism should be fact-based and intelligent. I'm sure Hayes and her fellow professors of the Hebrew Bible disagree on some points and can intelligently talk about their disagreements.
Prof. Christine Hayes: (39:22) "In the medieval and modern periods the rabbinic conception of divine law would be overshadowed in the West. The Greco-Roman binary of natural divine law and positive human law would become controlling paradigms in the conception of divine law in the West, and their attendant discourses were embraced eventually by the three biblical religions, although in different ways, and to widely varying degrees. (39:47) We in the West are heirs to this tradition, and most people today, if you ask them what it means to say that a law is divine ... will say 'it would have to apply to everybody' (universal) and it would have to be something that made sense (rational) and it would be true ... and it would never change. People will give you the Greco-Roman definition of divine law. (40:25) ... We then map onto the Bible and to the Torah and to the Biblical conception of Law .. those characteristic features of Greco-Roman divine law."
Utterly brilliant exposition ,yes exactly the Divine law is under God however transrational supernatural and not bound by iether the natural sphere or😢 man's limited 16:00 rationale or reason ,thus it can appear as crazy or not rational ie Abraham go sacrifice your son , Jesus overturning the tables etc 34:00 It is not God saying Iam wrong it is as it were Gods conscending to Moses deeper growing understanding it is done retrospectively by God to encourage Moses to continue in this vien who was himself too righteous ie non comoassionate
@@journeylife7491 rubbish ,yes I do though but the Divine Law is imprinted on the soul ,the high God etc exactly ! You are confused mh friend a culturally specific law is just that .
if only we could get a copy of the handouts from these lectures!
Prof Hayes' thesis creates interesting possibilities for Paul's depiction of "Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles [that is, the Greeks]" - in that Jesus takes on the form of the divine logos (universal reason), yet as a Jewish rabbi, but at the same time contrary to the Jewish paradigm, is an "end of the law", its perfection. Embodied in Jesus, the dialectic of love has become a universal law. Divine.
Very interesting. Thank you. I always enjoy Prof. Hayes, even when I disagree with her. She is always worth listening to. Prof. Fredriksen is also worth hearing.
[31:16] Finally, according to the rabbis the divine law is not immutable. On the contrary, the Torah is susceptible to moral critique and modification and rather than being a sign of its imperfection, this flexibility is the very mark of its divinity. On many occasions, rabbis will state the divine law and then set it aside in favour of a better ruling - better in the sense of 'morally better'. We see this, for example, in a whole tractate of the Mishnah, tractate 18 ... [32:44] In short, for the rabbis, divine law does not always dictate the best and most desirable answer, and humans are an essential partner in critiquing the law and making it better.
[35:31] The idea of a morally evolving divine being whose law should be subjected to moral critique and modified if necessary, stands at a very great distance from Greco-Roman conceptions of divinity and the perfect, static, unchanging divine law. To modify divine law on the basis of practical reason, or considerations of equity, would have been nonsensical if not scandalous in a Greco-Roman context. It would be like saying "let's change the law of gravity so that I can drop something without it breaking."
[36:05] The divine law for the Greeks was a unified, inflexible unchanging order - it would simply make no sense to speak of its adjustment. In fact, the opposite is the case. Human-positive laws in the Greco-Roman tradition have to be adjusted to conform to the natural law. ... [36:34] In a paradoxical reversal, the rabbinic sources depict divine law as undergoing adjustment to conform to human experience and intuition. Moreover, for the rabbis, the ability of the divine law to change and evolve is a function of its perfection, not its imperfection. A rigid, unresponsive law would be imperfect. The divine law's perfection is not diminished in the eyes of the rabbis by the fact that it is particular, flexible, responsive to human needs and input, rather than universal, static, and uniform. [37:06] Its divinity and perfection are constituted by those features and humans are active participants in its ongoing evolution.
[37:16]
Just listened to the first half by Hayes about the different conceptions of divine law among Greeks and Jews. Very interesting.
(Maybe a bit long, but never boring.)
Now listened to the second half, too, by Fredriksen. Not giving as much new structure as Hayes' but still interesting about Christian movements competing with each other in 2. to 4. Century also through anti-Judaism, with Augustin saving the day in 399CE.
. . . Fredriksen claims, like in other videos with her, that there was no true monotheism in antiquity: I would hold that Judaism in the Persian period had true monotheism in Deutero-Isaiah and the priestly source. But I would like to hear a debate between experts about it.
This woman is brilliant and anyone who criticizes her must be a very closed minded Christian. I have learned so much from her. She teaches a very unbiased explanation of the so called OLD TESTAMENT. Some people (including my own family and friends) are very comfortable with living the lies told by Christianity. I was a Christian for 64 yrs. always full of questions. never got a satisfactory answer from many Pastors. I decided to look into other religions and beliefs. So glad I did. Don't have a problem with ignorant people,but, I do with stupid people. Open your mind and your heart. Life will go much better for you.
marsha woods... I couldn’t agree more with you as I am currently facing a similar situation with an evangelical Christian family. God has an amazing way of revealing the truth to people.. that’s all I can say. I am a former Christian but currently consider myself a Noahide as I now believe solely that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God. This might be weird but feel free to reach out to me if you ever just need anyone to relate to. I know I would enjoy that as I pretty much can’t talk about my beliefs now to anyone in my family without enormous judgement and my friends aren’t really associated with any particular religion so they can’t really relate with what I am going through. Anyway, God bless you. Shalom!
Which woman do you mean with "brilliant", Hayes or Fredrickson? About criticism: nobody should beyond criticism, but the criticism should be fact-based and intelligent. I'm sure Hayes and her fellow professors of the Hebrew Bible disagree on some points and can intelligently talk about their disagreements.
..."You sip so daintily from the Old Testament, that your lips are scarcely wet" - I love that phrase! 1:11:25 Thanks so much for posting!
Two giants
Prof. Christine Hayes: (39:22) "In the medieval and modern periods the rabbinic conception of divine law would be overshadowed in the West. The Greco-Roman binary of natural divine law and positive human law would become controlling paradigms in the conception of divine law in the West, and their attendant discourses were embraced eventually by the three biblical religions, although in different ways, and to widely varying degrees. (39:47) We in the West are heirs to this tradition, and most people today, if you ask them what it means to say that a law is divine ... will say 'it would have to apply to everybody' (universal) and it would have to be something that made sense (rational) and it would be true ... and it would never change. People will give you the Greco-Roman definition of divine law. (40:25) ... We then map onto the Bible and to the Torah and to the Biblical conception of Law .. those characteristic features of Greco-Roman divine law."
Utterly brilliant exposition ,yes exactly the Divine law is under God however transrational supernatural and not bound by iether the natural sphere or😢 man's limited 16:00 rationale or reason ,thus it can appear as crazy or not rational ie Abraham go sacrifice your son , Jesus overturning the tables etc 34:00 It is not God saying Iam wrong it is as it were Gods conscending to Moses deeper growing understanding it is done retrospectively by God to encourage Moses to continue in this vien who was himself too righteous ie non comoassionate
You did not understand a thing that was taught in the two lectures.
@@journeylife7491 rubbish ,yes I do though but the Divine Law is imprinted on the soul ,the high God etc exactly ! You are confused mh friend a culturally specific law is just that .
Paul got a bad wrap there.
Why do you think so?
I thought Philo got a worse rap.
It seems as though Hayes is projecting onto Sha'ul in this case.
how?
This is, unfortunately, why there will never be peace in the Middle East.