[malakhi]

From Thread 149:

Angelo wants us to accept a form of interpretation that neither Jesus nor Paul utilized but belongs to the period of post-Temple Judaism. But Christians believe that Jesus represents a new departure, not merely another Jewish section, and radically different from traditional rabbinical Judaism. Soon after 70 A.D. Christianity and Judaism went in different directions only in part because of ethnic differences. IMHO, traditional rabbinicalism is no older than Christianity.

If you are going to assert that this form of interpretation was not in use until subsequent to the destruction of the Second Temple, then you will need to provide some evidence to back it up. Ditto to your claim that traditional Judaism is no older than Christianity. I would, BTW, date the final split between Judaism and Christianity at circa 90 C.E. rather than at 70 C.E. It was at that later time that Christians were barred from continued participation in the synagogue.

[RobbyS]

Christianity and rabbinical Judaism were both products of the Second Commonwealth period, with Christianity being a later development. I am not saying that the rabbinical mode of interpretation was not used but that it did not become dominant until after the destruction of the Temple. The men who wrote the Scriptures were not rabbis and in some cases not even Jews, and to think of the Gospels as midrash--although their might be some use of that--is to assume that Jesus's own message was not accurately conveyed in them. Given the significant differences between Jewish sects--Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees et al--it is reasonable to posit Jesus as an original.