İSA VE MUSA YASASI (Νόμος Μωϋσῆ) MESELESİ
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2018
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erciyes Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Musa Yasası (Νόμος Μωϋσῆ), Yahudi inancına göre Yahudiler için bağlayıcı nitelik taşıyan kurallar bütünüdür. Yasa’nın hükümleri, İsrail’in Tanrı’sı ile Yahudiler arasında yapılan anlaşmanın tezahürü olarak Yahudi kutsal metinlerinde yer almaktadır. Hıristiyanlık çerçevesinde Musa Yasası meselesi ise, İsa’nın ölümünden bir süre sonra, onun cemaatinde başlıca anlaşmazlık konusu ve bölünme sebebi olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu mesele, sonradan İsrail’in Tanrı’sına ve İsa’ya iman eden öteki uluslardan (gentiles) insanların Musa Yasası’nın kurallarına da riayet edip etmeyecekleri bağlamındaki tartışmalar şeklinde tanımlanabilir. Bunun sonucunda İsa cemaatinde iki ayrı ekol ortaya çıkmıştır ve Yasa karşıtı ekol geleneksel Hıristiyanlığın temelini oluşturmaktadır. Bu yüzden bizzat İsa’nın, havarilerin ve ilk Kudüs cemaatinin bu konudaki düşünceleri büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, İsa’nın Yasa konusundaki düşüncelerini nakleden İncil rivayetleri, geleneksel Hıristiyanlığın ve kilisenin Yasa’ya dair tarih boyunca savunduğu iddiaları tartışmalı hale getirmektedir. Çünkü İsa’nın Yasa konusunda iki yönlü bir tutum içinde bulunduğu anlaşılmaktadır: Birincisi, İsa Yasa’yı kesin bir dille onaylamaktadır; zira Yasa’yı Tanrı buyruğu olarak görmektedir. İkincisi, Yasa konusunda gelenekçi din bilginleriyle anlaşmazlık halindedir; zira Yasa’nın Yahudi kanaat önderlerince bilinçli şekilde yanlış yorumlandığını düşünmekte ve Yasa’yı bizzat Musa dönemindeki gibi orijinal bağlamında yorumlama iddiası taşımaktadır. Bununla beraber, hem Yeni Ahit’te yer alan bazı metinler hem de erken dönem Hıristiyanlık literatürü havarilerin ve ilk Kudüs cemaatinin de İsa sonrası dönemde Yasa’ya riayet halinde olduklarını kanıtlamaktadır. Bu olgulardan yola çıkılarak Yasa kavramının tarihsel çerçevesinin belirlenmesi, İsa’nın ve ilk Kudüs cemaatinin Yasa karşısındaki tutumunun değerlendirilmesi ve İsa’nın öğretisinin bu bağlamda yorumlanması önem taşımaktadır.
The Law of Moses (Νόμος Μωϋσῆ) is a body of laws which are binding on all Jews according to the Jewish belief. The precepts of the Law are found in the Jewish Holy Scriptures as an embodiment of the testament between the God of Israel and the Jews. Accordingly, Moses was given 613 laws (mitzwot) on Mount Sina by God. The Shabbat, allowed and forbidden matters, washing, all-body washing, cleaning specially prescribed regarding women’s menstrual terms and giving birth, the fast on the tenth day of the seventh month, the taxes to be paid, and many observances regarding rites are parts of it. The more well-known ten of these laws were recognized as “the ten commandments” even by the non-Jewish peoples and were respected as such. The Ten Commandments have even been interpreted as God’s eternal and unchangeable commands for all humanity. In the context of Christianity, the issue of the Law of Israel happens to be an important matter dominating the congregation after the demise of Jesus which caused much disturbance and led to separation. This issue may be defined as the question of whether believers of Jesus, who originated from non-Jewish peoples (the gentiles) ought to follow the Mosaic Law which also includes precepts on the rites. As a result of the disturbance two main schools of thought emerged. As acknowledged, the anti-Law group has been established as the foundation of what later came to be the traditional Christianity. The opinions of Jesus himself therefore and of the apostles and the first congregation at Jerusalem happen to be important. It is also clearly seen that both the biblicals citations quoting Jesus’ opinion concerning the Law and the Christian literature of this early period question the legitimacy of the claims defended by the Church throughout history regarding the Law. In this context, it appears that Jesus had a two-sided opinion regarding the Law. Firstly, Jesus acknowledges the Law unequivocally, as he takes the Law to be the commandment of God (τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ). For example, the text of the Gospel known as that of Matthew, the gospel writer quotes Jesus as saying, he never had the intention of abandoning the Mosaic Law or abolishing it. According to Jesus, the Law will continue existing after him, and in totality will exist without the slightest change until the end of days. Again, Jesus states that those who are against the Law for this or that reason, or those who accept some part of the Law but not another part of it, or those who would rather change a slight matter in it, or who want to abolish a small matter in it, will be the ones to be destroyed when the Kingdom of Heaven is established. Secondly, Jesus is at odds with the traditional scholars and scribes of the Law. He takes the contemporary interpretation of the Law to be distorted and actually benefitting the social position of the current leaders of the Jewish congregation and that is why Jesus purports to be an interpreter of the Law just as in its original context in the days of Moses himself. In other words, by means of defending the Law itself in its original conditions, Jesus is situated against the opinion leaders of the Jewish congregation who claim to be representing the Law. In some cases, Jesus is depicted as being contrary to the traditionalist views among the Jews and also delivering criticisms against the traditionalist interpreters. Because, according to Jesus, the Law is the Commandment of God, what the Jews are obeying, while claiming to obey the Law, is actually the customs of the ancestors (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων). Jesus therefore maintains that the sayings of Moses and the precepts of Law had subsequently been interpreted in a different fashion. He aims to interpret the Law in its context in the days of Moses or like Moses. Jesus’ stance regarding the Law was adopted by the nucleus of his followers and also by some Christian congregations of the later periods. Many testimonies that can be gathered from these early centuries may be shown that the claim made by the Church that the Law was superseded cannot be seen to be generally accepted by the congregations of Jesus in that early period. For example, the congregation at Jerusalem which existed under the leadership of Jesus’ brother, Jacob (d. 62?) , is definitely known to have continued with the observance of the Law for quite some time after Jesus. There are other examples which show that there were congregations made up of gentiles which maintained that the observance of Jesus’ teaching goes along with obedience to the Law. Some of the second- and third- century “Christian” congregations were believers of Jesus while at the same time strictly obeying the Mosaic Law. The Ebionites, Nazarenes, Elcesaites are a few of these groups. Additionally, it is to be understood that the Mosaic Law was observed not only by the Jewish-Christian groups, but also by some congregations made up of gentile individuals. For example, the text known as the Didache (Διδαχή) or “the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” present interesting testimony for this situation. The disputes in the early period of Christianity regarding the observance of the Law or its abandonment surfaced predominantly concerning the matter of the observance of the Shabbat—in addition to some other ritual matters. Apparently for these early Christian groups the Shabbat was still important enough to become a hotly-debated issue. For example, the ecclesiastical writer Epiphanius (d. 403) or the ecclesiastical historian Socrates (d. 439) reported that even in their time some Christian congregations held it important to observe the Shabbat. The claim, therefore, advanced by the Church, that the advent of the Messiah had abolished the validity of the Law, seems to have doubtful standing even in the fourth century. Based on these premises, it is important to define the Law in its historical development, interpret Jesus’ stance regarding the Law and his teaching about it. Analyses of this matter will serve as a starting point in determining whether Jesus can still be taken as the originator of today’s Christianity or the traditional Church.
The Law of Moses (Νόμος Μωϋσῆ) is a body of laws which are binding on all Jews according to the Jewish belief. The precepts of the Law are found in the Jewish Holy Scriptures as an embodiment of the testament between the God of Israel and the Jews. Accordingly, Moses was given 613 laws (mitzwot) on Mount Sina by God. The Shabbat, allowed and forbidden matters, washing, all-body washing, cleaning specially prescribed regarding women’s menstrual terms and giving birth, the fast on the tenth day of the seventh month, the taxes to be paid, and many observances regarding rites are parts of it. The more well-known ten of these laws were recognized as “the ten commandments” even by the non-Jewish peoples and were respected as such. The Ten Commandments have even been interpreted as God’s eternal and unchangeable commands for all humanity. In the context of Christianity, the issue of the Law of Israel happens to be an important matter dominating the congregation after the demise of Jesus which caused much disturbance and led to separation. This issue may be defined as the question of whether believers of Jesus, who originated from non-Jewish peoples (the gentiles) ought to follow the Mosaic Law which also includes precepts on the rites. As a result of the disturbance two main schools of thought emerged. As acknowledged, the anti-Law group has been established as the foundation of what later came to be the traditional Christianity. The opinions of Jesus himself therefore and of the apostles and the first congregation at Jerusalem happen to be important. It is also clearly seen that both the biblicals citations quoting Jesus’ opinion concerning the Law and the Christian literature of this early period question the legitimacy of the claims defended by the Church throughout history regarding the Law. In this context, it appears that Jesus had a two-sided opinion regarding the Law. Firstly, Jesus acknowledges the Law unequivocally, as he takes the Law to be the commandment of God (τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ). For example, the text of the Gospel known as that of Matthew, the gospel writer quotes Jesus as saying, he never had the intention of abandoning the Mosaic Law or abolishing it. According to Jesus, the Law will continue existing after him, and in totality will exist without the slightest change until the end of days. Again, Jesus states that those who are against the Law for this or that reason, or those who accept some part of the Law but not another part of it, or those who would rather change a slight matter in it, or who want to abolish a small matter in it, will be the ones to be destroyed when the Kingdom of Heaven is established. Secondly, Jesus is at odds with the traditional scholars and scribes of the Law. He takes the contemporary interpretation of the Law to be distorted and actually benefitting the social position of the current leaders of the Jewish congregation and that is why Jesus purports to be an interpreter of the Law just as in its original context in the days of Moses himself. In other words, by means of defending the Law itself in its original conditions, Jesus is situated against the opinion leaders of the Jewish congregation who claim to be representing the Law. In some cases, Jesus is depicted as being contrary to the traditionalist views among the Jews and also delivering criticisms against the traditionalist interpreters. Because, according to Jesus, the Law is the Commandment of God, what the Jews are obeying, while claiming to obey the Law, is actually the customs of the ancestors (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων). Jesus therefore maintains that the sayings of Moses and the precepts of Law had subsequently been interpreted in a different fashion. He aims to interpret the Law in its context in the days of Moses or like Moses. Jesus’ stance regarding the Law was adopted by the nucleus of his followers and also by some Christian congregations of the later periods. Many testimonies that can be gathered from these early centuries may be shown that the claim made by the Church that the Law was superseded cannot be seen to be generally accepted by the congregations of Jesus in that early period. For example, the congregation at Jerusalem which existed under the leadership of Jesus’ brother, Jacob (d. 62?) , is definitely known to have continued with the observance of the Law for quite some time after Jesus. There are other examples which show that there were congregations made up of gentiles which maintained that the observance of Jesus’ teaching goes along with obedience to the Law. Some of the second- and third- century “Christian” congregations were believers of Jesus while at the same time strictly obeying the Mosaic Law. The Ebionites, Nazarenes, Elcesaites are a few of these groups. Additionally, it is to be understood that the Mosaic Law was observed not only by the Jewish-Christian groups, but also by some congregations made up of gentile individuals. For example, the text known as the Didache (Διδαχή) or “the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” present interesting testimony for this situation. The disputes in the early period of Christianity regarding the observance of the Law or its abandonment surfaced predominantly concerning the matter of the observance of the Shabbat—in addition to some other ritual matters. Apparently for these early Christian groups the Shabbat was still important enough to become a hotly-debated issue. For example, the ecclesiastical writer Epiphanius (d. 403) or the ecclesiastical historian Socrates (d. 439) reported that even in their time some Christian congregations held it important to observe the Shabbat. The claim, therefore, advanced by the Church, that the advent of the Messiah had abolished the validity of the Law, seems to have doubtful standing even in the fourth century. Based on these premises, it is important to define the Law in its historical development, interpret Jesus’ stance regarding the Law and his teaching about it. Analyses of this matter will serve as a starting point in determining whether Jesus can still be taken as the originator of today’s Christianity or the traditional Church.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Dinler tarihi, İsa, Musa yasası, Erken Hıristiyanlık tarihi
Kaynak
Bilimname
WoS Q Değeri
N/A
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
0
Sayı
35
Künye
DUYGU Z (2018). İSA VE MUSA YASASI (Νόμος Μωϋσῆ) MESELESİ. Bilimname, 0(35), 283 - 304. Doi: 10.28949/bilimname.385902
