The Prohibition of Oaths and Contra-scriptural Halakhot: A Response to John P. Meier

in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

The following response to John Meier's article begins by raising initial questions concerning the relationship between oaths and vows, and the criterion of double dissimilarity. The focus then turns to the complicated relationship between the Pentateuch and Jewish legal sources of the Second Temple and Rabbinic periods. It will be suggested that demonstrating Jesus' legal disagreement with either the plain meaning of scripture or other first-century Jewish legal sources does not yield sufficient evidence to claim that Jesus clearly and unambiguously abrogated a matter of Jewish Law. It will also be argued that, in the case of oaths, it is particularly difficult to demonstrate either a contradiction with the Pentateuch or a complete disagreement with the preponderance of contemporary legal sources. Therefore, while Jesus may indeed have prohibited all oaths, this ought not be taken as clear evidence of an abrogation of a matter of Jewish Law.

The Prohibition of Oaths and Contra-scriptural Halakhot: A Response to John P. Meier

in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Sections

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 16 16 2
Full Text Views 40 40 22
PDF Downloads 5 5 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0