The last two books of George Jossa leave me quite unhappy about many points on which I would like, but unfortunately I do not have the time. I allow myself just a few comments from a statement that Joss is a step in his Jesus Story of a Man, where is the alleged "freedom" that Jesus is taken against the Mosaic law, and in this case the rules purity.
A page. 94 reads: "Jesus has shown little attention to these rules. Already sitting at table with publicans and sinners because these are probably impure, must inevitably pose problems of purity. " This reasoning, unfortunately, is completely vitiated by a fundamental confusion.
Jonathan Klawans ( Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism , 2000) has shown very well as a number of works and intertestamental Bible (Leviticus, Numbers, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Temple Scroll, Damascus Document , Book of Jubilees) are clearly distinguishable, and remain as such, two different types of impurities: a ritual impurity legata agli ambiti naturali della sessualità, della nascita e della morte; e una impurità morale causata da “abomini” come l’idolatria, l’omicidio e peccati sessuali.
Nel primo caso si tratta di una impurità non-peccaminosa, bensì inevitabile e perfino doverosa, che si propaga per contatto, ma in modo non-permanente e facilmente removibile, e che ha come effetto l’esclusione temporanea dal santuario o, in certi casi, dalla comunità. Nel secondo caso, si tratta di un’impurità peccaminosa, non trasmettibile e per nulla incompatibile con l’accesso al tempio (ma capace di contaminarlo moralmente – e non ritualmente - Even at a distance, as well as the land of Israel in general, to determine the exile), and not removable by washing, but only with the punishment (which may be the death) and the Atonement.
A merger of these two distinct forms of impurity, seems to be typical only of the Qumran community, which was considered a sin because of ritual impurity and, conversely, the ritual impurity sinful. In contrast to the Qumran, the next masters Tannaitic further developed the distinction in what biblical Klawans calls "compartmentalization" of the two impurities.
Returning to Joss, the problem in his statement is the failure to realize that, by itself, to attend a sinner in no way compromise the ritual purity. Generally speaking, Jesus would not have had to make any practice of purification for the fact of being in contact with a thief or a tax collector, as well as with a pagan (the concerns that many have written to the Gentiles as a source of concern because impurities the moral: their idolatry, their sexual perversions). And let alone Jesus, coming into contact with them, would have compromised his moral purity, since this was a really individual and non-transferable, and furthermore he was bound to them not to approve certain actions, but to correct them so as to restore those "lost sheep" in Israel-in-the-way restoration.
Nor can we assume that the free "sinners", for the mere fact of being such, were automatically disrespectful of the basic rules of ritual purity. What prevents you from thinking that a sinner like Zacchaeus he cared not to dive after having sex? Or why you should hire a sinner who does not care about kashrut and the banquet at the basis of pig and rabbit? And in any event, even if these people were sinners che se ne fregava completamente della purità rituale (o che, nel caso del prostitute, non potessero farci niente), per riguadagnare la purità perduta nell’accostarsi a loro, Gesù non avrebbe dovuto perdere che pochissimo tempo e fatica (il fatto che i vangeli non ci dipingano un Gesù nell’atto di immergersi è perfettamente spiegabile con l’assoluta banalità e non-memorabilità di tale pratica).
In conclusione: i contatti che Gesù ebbe con i “peccatori” - avessero o meno conseguenze per la sua purità rituale (ma non certo per il loro essere “peccatori”) - non costituiscono in alcun modo un argomento per stabilire quale opinion and attitude he had in relation to biblical standards of purity. Speaking on this subject of "taken for freedom" is completely misplaced, since the Torah does not require all impurities not to contract, but only how to purify once contracted. Not that he is a sinner in association with ritual uncleanness, and even though it had happened (and is likely), he would have easily been able to regain the state of purity, so that all that he could only conclude that concern for ritual purity was not such an obsession for him to prevent him from trying to convert a sinner. That is a very small thing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment