I’ve read Ben’s posts and the comments, and I think some of the hang-up is the use of ‘rabbi’ pre-70 vs. post-70 (as noted above). I can agree to disagree with Ben (I don’t know his background, etc…) on the subject, as it depends on how compelling you find the evidence in Gamla and elsewhere as to how developed the rabbinic system was prior to 70 AD. It is possibly sloppy to call them rabbis rather than sages, but it is more of an artifact to prevent misunderstanding between their roles before and after the destruction of the temple.

Also, I think that his description of Mithraism as being late first century is very mistaken. There is a good deal of evidence throughout the Roman Empire from the first and second centuries B.C. There is also significant evidence that John is refuting the teachings of the Mithra cult in Revelation. Rather than Christians copying Mithraism, though, I think that it is the prophecy in Isaiah which demonstrates which originated first. I will have to take a look at Witherington’s bibliography, but I am still far more convinced by David Pryor, Ray VanderLaan, Brad Young and similar scholars (who are admittedly conservative in scholarship than a majority of the scholars in Jerusalem, but more liberal than traditionalist reformed scholars).

I’ll read more of Witherington this weekend…

I tend to get a good deal of my Jewish Roots information from the writers of Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research and Jerusalem Perspective, the late David Flusser (probably one of, if not the greatest Jewish-Christian researcher in our time) along with Ray VanderLaan, and others.

The Septuagint was translated prior to the birth of Christ, and would have been what was commonly studied, though the Essenes maintained the original Hebrew – rediscovered in Qumran in 1947. The only real disrepancies in the books included/excluded are Daniel and Esther (included) and Macabees and Wisdom of Ben Sira (excluded). The book of Esther is the only one not found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea scrolls. These are not in the Torah or the Prophets – they are part of ‘the writings’, which would have been the least-studied, anyway.

Where some Christian scholars have had a sticking point has been in acceptance of whether the teachings of Hillel and other pre-Christian Rabbis as dated in the Talmud, are properly attributed. There are liberal scholars who have used this for years to suggest that Jesus’ teachings really weren’t his, or that Jesus was a conglomeration of multiple rabbis wrapped in a myth. Or, like in the Jesus seminar, they use teachings attributed to Choni, Hillel, Shammai and others to suggest that words attributed to Jesus weren’t really his words. As a response, some conservative scholars have rejected these teachings of Hillel’s as being later inventions of Judiasm (which is just as ludicrous, when you understand how the Talmud was recorded and how oral histories are far more accurate and less prone to editing and error than written ones). There is all sorts of evidence in the scriptures, themselves, that suggest that Jesus was part of the culture – including his rabbinic nature – rather than someone who worked completely outside the culture.

Also, as a clarification (I don’t remember if Rob makes this point, but RVL always does), Rabbis as we know them today did not exist prior to the fall of the temple in AD 70. Prior to this, there are a large number of indications (Josepheus, Eusebius and others) that rabbis (or sages) existed as itinerate teachers, as described by RVL, Brad Young, Rob Bell, Ron Moseley and others. However, after the destruction of the Temple, the role of these Rabbis became what they are today, where they are much more analogous to ministers of the synagogue. So, technically, rabbis as we know them today didn’t develop until after AD 70. However, the ruins of the synagogue in Gamla (destroyed in AD 68 by Vespasian), confirm the existence of a rabbinic school and other details taught by Ray, Rob and others – Gamla was never rebuilt, so its synagogue and its practice are not “tainted” by post-70AD Judiasm.

As for Ken, it’s just depressing how trutly anti-Christian our modern-day heretic hunters can be. Standing up to the likes of him is the only just response I can consider. There’s enough evil being done against the church from without, it shouldn’t be happening from within…

I diagree with his take on “Dust” – which is in stark disagreement with a number of First Century scholars, and appears to be somewhat in the vein of the work in the church in the 400s-900s, which worked in deepening the schism between the Jewish and Christian faiths.

The Rabbinic heritage began with the diaspora Jews returning from Babylon in 170-50 BC, though they were referred to as hasidim (pious ones, or sages) prior to being called ‘rabbi’. Bell’s comments on rabbis and such came from Ray VanderLaan and the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research (among a couple other sources I’m familiar with), and the research and teaching of this information has been around for several decades – since the restoration of Israel in 1948.