stephan huller

Exactly. Whatever Judaism was it changed after 70 CE into something which was completely incompatible with the original righteousness of the community. The idea that the Therapeutae represent some 'aberration' from normative Judaism is laughable. Once the Sadducees lost their power to control what normative was it became anyone's game. The mob ruled and what we have left is a co-opting of traditional Jewish concepts by the rabble. That the Sadducees liked Greek things is not a point against them. Rather it is a point in favor of their sophistication. They were naturally attracted to rare, noble things and could do so without losing their essential Jewishness.

T -19

Clivedurdle

Isn't there some archaeology showing single males in cells?

spin

All this my faux Judaism is better than theirs routine is pretty damned sad.

Above Ein Gedi, excavated by Yizhar Hirschfeld. Good Jewish site with miqvah, which he believed was the Essene camp.

- 17.

stephan huller

I would love to hear mountainman explain what Judaism is. If he digs deep enough in rabbinic literature he will find an Imperial conspiracy (Antoninus and R. Yehudah) at the core of what has now been established as the 'normative' faith. I have never understood why mountainman doesn't follow that lead rather than his stale old nonsense. The Jews establish the 'closeness' between the redactor of the Mishnah and the Imperial household in their own literature. Of course Pete is only motivated by hatred for Christianity. But if he wants an Imperial conspiracy theory, the rabbinic literature lays out a strong case for a third century restart of their religion with Imperial 'help.' So too Samaritanism, Christianity etc - i.e. in the very same age.

I don't understand the hostility against first century Alexandrian Judaism. At least Philo and the previous generations of Jews politely resisted Caesar. The rabbinic tradition is a co-opting and reorganizing of traditional Judaism by Jewish men who 'metaphorically' stood close to the Emperor's bed and table. Talk about corrupt forms of Judaism. Oh but they 'won out' in history. I guess it helps to help powerful men into bed ...

T - 16

mountainman

The OP is being tangentiated.
You have yet to respond to post #937.
I cited your own blogsite.


I am content to rely on the opinions of Jewish and Hebrew people that I personally have known and those who's works I have read and respect, such as those of the ancient historian Arnaldo Momigliano.


What does AM mean? Was Philo then necessarily "Jewish"?





Emperor Julian thought Christianity was a disease.

Emperor Julian mentions therapeutae and contrasts them with the Galilaeans.[1]

[1] .... Emperor Julian legally changed the name of Christians to Galilaeans between 360-363 CE

mountainman

Emperor Julian's contrast between the Christians and the Therapeutae

He is the beginning and the ending of Letter 41 in which the Emperor Julian tells the Christians and the pagans to stop squabbling. In this letter he refers to the Christians as Galilaeans because he always did this. However in this letter he refers to the pagan religious observers as "therapeutae". He makes contrasts between the two groups.

The question is who are these therapeutae to Julian and why does he contrast them to the Christians.

This appears to be a direct political and religious contrast.

In order to answer this question the English translation of the Greek text needs to be modified
to bring in the term therapeutae from the greek. I have linked to the Greek text below.

The translator here is Emily Wilmer Cave Wright





The greek text is located here

Returning to the English translation below I have made an attempt to bring the term therapeutae itself into the English translation of Julian's greek, and I would appreciate any assistance from those who have the knowledge.

Is this amended trans OK? How is it to be improved?



I do not expect that Julian's therapeutae were a Jewish sect. But on this matter I expect that many again may appeal to the unquestionable authority of Philo the author of "Vita De Contemplativa" over the dubious academic authority of the Emperor Julian.


Julian is obviously contrasting the Christians (those who are of the diseased religion)
with the Jewish pagan therapeutae (those who are of the true [pagan] religion).

Any assistance with the Greek and/or comments about this would be welcomed.










You left out the key word ... the memory of the pagan therapeutae.

My first reaction is that therapeutae for Julian roughly appears to equate to the [remnants c.360 CE of the] pagan church.

Thus the Christian propaganda has been very successful in erasing the memory of the pagan church. [the therapeutae]

spin

Well, as you asked about the amended translation, no, it isn't ok.

The noun θεραπευτης indicates "a worshiper, someone who attends", so θεραπευται των θεων means "worshipers/attendants of the gods".

In Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.3.7, the noun is used to mean "servants", ie those who attend. (Load the English text on the right at Perseus.)

If we stick to "attendant" as the basic meaning of θεραπευτης we find such uses as:

1. attendants of people, ie "servants",
2. attendants of gods (or specific gods), ie "worshipers", and
3. attendants of bodies, ie "physicians".

These are all types of θεραπευτης.

More interestingly we find a verb θεραπεύουσι, "worship/attend" here in the same passage:

τοις ορθως και δικαιως τους θεους θεραπεύουσι
Those who duly and righteously worship/attend the gods

Julian makes clear in his language that he is not talking about a specific group, but describing actions in general. In both cases the word, be it verb or noun, is accompanied by the complement, "the gods", ie θεραπευτης is qualified by this phrase. In an effort to turn θεραπευτης into a name you have ignored "the gods" to do so and you have turned a verb into a noun in the confusion. The action of the verb is qualified as "duly and righteously": it is not people who are described as "due and righteous", but the action of worshiping/attending. It is wrong to omit "the gods" and that phrase shows that θεραπευται is not a specific group. You might think it's ok to turn "worshipers" into a specific group, but in fact Julian refers to "worshipers of the gods" and "those who worship the gods". The translation as is supplies the more accurate understanding, but let's include inline indications.

- 13.

mountainman

The Greek lesson is much appreciated spin. Many thanks. I have toyed with the idea of doing a Greek primer.


When Julian refers to "those of you who have strayed from the truth" he is referring to the Christians as a specific group even though he knows that they fight amongst themselves and are highly schismatic.

So when Julian refers to "worshipers of the gods" and "those who worship the gods" I think he's referring to the [remnants of the] "pagan church" as a group, even though he knows they are a milieu - a collegiate group - previously led (statistically) by "those who worship the god of Asclepius".

Julian painted quite a harsh contrast between the diseased Christian church and the therapeutic pagan church.

spin

As I pointed out, θεραπευται itself does not have any special indication. It's just a common noun, much like the word "woman" is in "his woman left him." The context tells you something about the implications of "woman", ie it refers to a female adult in a special, probably sexual, relationship with him, though this notion is not entailed in the noun "woman" at all. Those people who attend the gods duly and righteously are obviously acceptable to Julian, while the Galileans aren't. That in no way makes θεραπευται a special group. He uses the noun in an ordinary descriptive manner. You get the added meaning from the context. Julian refers to christians and "worshipers of the gods" as distinct notions--the latter acceptable, the former not. That acceptability is not a function of being θεραπευται, but because they act in a due and righteous manner, as he explains. One can be a θεραπευτης of the Jewish god.

When you start going overboard about a "pagan church", you are succumbing to crass lack of understanding of what you can meaningfully say. You go from possibly interested searcher for clarification to purveyor of inanities.

- 11.

Toto

Here's another of your misquotes. [In fact if you google your quote, there is one hit - your website.] The actual quote from Momigliano is "Philo is another historian who cannot be classified either as Greek or as Jew."

The meaning, in context, is clear. Philo was clearly a Jew, but as a historian, his methods were between Jewish and Greek methods.

You can check the googlebooks version of The Classical Foundations of Modern History By Arnaldo Momigliano.