Featured The Fall Of Man?

My thoughts... this book is considered outdated and anachronistic. I would recommend reading something else of more relevance. Try NT Wright's New Testament and the People of God.

 

I have the book, but it must be in a different edition because that quotation isn't on my page 590.
Alfred Edersheim was a converted Jew who became a Presbyterian minister. He has some very helpful insights on Jewish beliefs and customs and is very much worth reading even though his language tends to be a bit flowery. He also wrote a book on the Old Testament which can be very helpful in understanding the Pentateuch especially.

In the quotation, what I think he's saying is that only those who are conscious of their own sinful hearts can appreciate their need of a Saviour and truly understand the necessity for our Lord's humiliation and death.

 

These are the things that his views have been deemed outdated or anachronistic. It is hard to understand the complexity of Judaism before 70 CE. But Edersheim sees no complexity. That is because his understanding is based on post 70 rabbinic Judaism read back into the times of Jesus. But what recent research has uncovered is a quite complex and variegated structure and belief systems in Judaism pre 70. When the temple was destroyed, Judaism rallied around the group that had already abandoned the temple in the main -- Pharisaism.

 

Except the author is wrong. The issue is not that the Jews did not believe in their own corruption. They believed their salvation was tied up in being an descendant of Abraham.

 

Except the author is wrong. The issue is not that the Jews did not believe in their own corruption. They believed their salvation was tied up in being an descendant of Abraham.

 

Not sure the purpose of this thread? It seems the views of a fallen man are being cited to support the mistaken doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability, but without ever making that point.

We are all fallen, for by the disobedience of the one (Adam) the many were made sinners. But being in that condition we can still receive the revelation of God with joy.

 

One of my favorite 'extra-Biblical' sources. Reference him in this book often. He's wordy though. Takes ten thousand words to state what could be said in five. I know a few people like that though.... He became a recluse for seven years while writing this outstanding work.

Why don't you tell us where exactly Edersheim is wrong here instead of this knee jerk put down of such a great work by a great man of God. What does your man Wright have to say about this quote from Edersheim?

Wright. You NPP folks really like him don't you?
.

 

Edersheim QUOTES the rabbis of 'pre-70 AD' extensively in his work, just as Gill.

Please tell where you derive that statement. Quote your source.
.

 

I think I hinted at it already. It is not just one thing but the vast majority of it based on a faulty understanding of Judaism of that time. He bases much of his views of pre70 Judaism with post70... and that is a major problem considering what happened in 70 and its effects on Judaism.

This is not a knee jerk reaction either. This was just offering some perspective. It was not an attack to disparage "a great man", although you seem to feel it was. Thus you come at me with "your man Wright". Not all that altruistic of you.

And I really like Wright, but that is because he is an awesome scholar of the NT! His works on Jesus and the gospels are second to none. Read the first 3 volumes of his Christian Origins series. You'll see what I'm saying. Put aside his views on justification, and you can read great scholarship.

And I'm not a NPP proponent but take a middle view. However, I am currently preaching through Galatians right now, and I bet you would find no objections with what I have been preaching.

 

Thus you make the snooty statement, "this book is considered outdated and anachronistic", with no evidence or proof whatsoever (it's like we're supposed to take your word as good as gold on this), when it is actually a superb work on 'The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah'.

I heartily recommend it for all to read. It's a very valuable resource to have in your library.

 

The lamentations written before or after destruction of Jerusalem AD 70?

 

Here is something more "up to date":
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:1-3

 

NOT up to date! Modern day Israel is 50% atheist and 65% secular as polled.

 

Perhaps a review of Romans 11 is in order?
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election [of Jews] hath obtained it [Rom 11:5: the election of grace, (ie: Paul's Gospel)] and the rest [of Israel] were blinded
Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles [+ "the elect" Jews under Paul's Gospel of Grace]

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
...if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

blindness in part [some Jews are presently saved] is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in [the Dispensation of Paul's Gospel of GRACE is finished]

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer [Jesus], and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob (ie: Israel).
their sins.
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sin

God is able to graft them in again!

 

How is that snooty to say that in the scholarly community, the book you so highly recommend is considered outdated and anachronistic???

I think you are taking this as a personal attack. This is not a personal affront to Edersheim. It is just clarifying what the current academic community is saying.

Why should you believe me? Well I have the credentials to back it up. I have read much on this, both primary and secondary literature. And since the entire premise of the book is anachronistic, there isn't just one example I can turn to. And my proof is that I am simply agreeing with the guys who know better.

But here's one just skimming through. (I have a 2 volume edition, btw). In volume 1 ch. VI (p. 80 for me), Edersheim says of the book of Jubilees that it was written during the time of Jesus and that it was "Rabbinic in its cast rather than Apocalyptic." However, current research holds to Jubilees being written 100+ years before Jesus. But the main issue is what I have been raising all along. Rabbinical Judaism is post 70CE/post temple Judaism! It did not exist before the destruction of the temple. To use it as a way of thinking for pre 70 Judaism will not work b/c Judaism was not so unified, not in the slightest. And all we know about Rabbinical Judaism comes from post70 documents!!! The hard part is to figure out what, if any, of the traditions before the temple's destruction were carried over. But to assert that pre 70 and post 70 Judaism looked the same is flat wrong.

 

So once again, why don't you tell us where exactly Edersheim is wrong in the OP quote, instead of this broad brush criticism of his work.