outhouse

Here are a few valuable points to be considered.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beli...Converts.shtml

The Second Temple Period

Between 323 B.C.E. and 70 C.E. (the year the Second Temple was destroyed), many individuals converted to Judaism. The vast majority of these proselytes made the decision to become Jewish on their own. Judaism's belief in one God was particularly appealing, as was the tenor of the Hebrew liturgy. Still other proselytes fell in love with Jewish partners and wished to be of the same faith.
We lack direct evidence of how Jews of the Second Temple era received their new co-religionists, but the high number of proselytes in this period suggests a welcoming attitude. The opposite was the case for the small number of Gentiles who were forcibly converted to Judaism (a measure that has traditionally been rejected in Judaism). The first example of forced conversion known to us was the High Priest John Hyrcanus's conversion of the Edomites in 125 B.C.E. During his reign, Hyrcanus conquered the Samaritans and the Edomites, and gave them the option of converting to Judaism or being exiled from Judea.



And what I was quoting from earlier post.


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...2391-proselyte


Nice little tidbit about Philo

Not only did Greek Judaism tolerate the reception of proselytes, but it even seems to have been active in its desire for the spread of Jewish monotheism (comp. Schürer, l.c.). Philo's references to proselytes make this sure (comp. Renan, "Le Judaïsme en Fait de Religion et de Race").


According to Josephus there prevailed in his day among the inhabitants of both Greek and barbarian cities ("Contra Ap." ii., § 39) a great zeal for the Jewish religion. This statement refers to Emperor Domitian's last years, two decades after Jerusalem's fall. It shows that throughout the Roman empire Judaism had made inroads upon the pagan religions. Latin writers furnish evidence corroborating this. It is true that Tacitus ("Hist." iv. 5) is anxious to convey the impression that only the most despicable elements of the population were found among these converts to Judaism; but this is amply refuted by other Roman historians, as Dio Cassius (67, 14, 68), Cicero ("Pro Flacco," § 28), Horace ("Satires," i. 9, 69; iv. 142), and Juvenal (xiv. 96).


Semi-Converts.

In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab").

Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7).

The application to half-converts of all the laws obligatory upon the sons of Jacob, including those that refer to the taking of interest, or to retaining their hire overnight, or to drinking wine made by non-Jews, seems to have led to discussion and dissension among the rabbinical authorities.

The more rigorous seem to have been inclined to insist upon such converts observing the entire Law, with the exception of the reservations and modifications explicitly made in their behalf.

The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry.

outhouse

I dont think one can take a piece compiled over centuries and redacted after the Babylonian exile, and then use that time period to define any other time peiod, using the term Jew, or Judaism.


Judaism was born of diversity of collapsed civilizations, Semetic people gathered in the highlands as a melting pot of Cannanites, Tribes, Mesopotamians amnd some Egyptians. Their real history then later perverted by redactors from strict Yahwist.

Whats a really hard question, is if Judaisn was more diverse in its origins, or when the temple fell.

Either way you had, wide diverse mixed views. even the Yahwist who took over were fighting the mixed views as evident in scripture they redacted.

stephan huller

Yes Samaritans and Jews received proselytes. One of the many reasons why Jews could rebuild their numbers so quickly in the Bar Kochba revolt (Kochba himself and Akiva were both proselytes). The religion was different before 135 CE. It was the Romans who forbade the circumcision of non-Israelites and then the Jews later acted as if it was all about keeping an exclusive club.

stephan huller

The question isn't whether it was more diverse but how much of the rabbinic tradition was engineered with the 'encouragement' of the Roman government. All signs point to a faux 'neo-conservative' movement which encouraged strict monotheism but which otherwise made little sense. Some important notes about how bizarre Judaism is since the Roman intervention:

1. why no sacrifices? the Pentateuch doesn't mention the need for a temple. no reference to the sanctity of Jerusalem (not even a mention of Jerusalem). a tabernacle could have been put up anywhere. Extremely odd. the Samaritans still sacrifice

2. the complete loss of knowledge of how to calculate sabbatical years and jubilees. the samaritans still know when a sabbatical year occurs. this loss of information is extremely difficult to explain. undoubtedly IMO the Roman government fearing rebellion in Jubilee years (= bar Kochba) banned the practice of counting sabbatical years. How else can this be explained.

3. the complete loss of knowledge of the names of high priests or any detailed historical information of the Second Commonwealth period. the samaritans have some idea. the rabbinic tradition nothing.

4. not knowing what to do when Passover falls on the Sabbath. WTF? How could the Jews not know what to do in this instance? That Hillel needed to settle this issue is implausible beyond belief but shows the complete break with the past in the post-rebellion period.

My suspicion is that there was a huge difference between the rabble and the learned Levitical leadership. After the wars the leadership was essentially wiped out and the new rabbis had little to do with the past. Their knowledge was suspect and basically they started a sub-moronic understanding of their religion based on half-truths and incomplete understanding of the past.

The parallels with Christianity (Irenaeus vs Clement of Alexandria) and Samaritanism (which speaks of Commodus systematically wiping out priestly families and replacing them with new priests not of Levitical rank) all point to a systematic corruption of the three monotheistic religions at the turn of the third century.

Sheshbazzar

A most perceptive post stephan.

Duvduv

Rabbi Akiva is said to have been the son of righteous converts, but I have seen no source indicating that Bar Kochba was a convert or son of convert. In fact, to be considered the messiah by Rabbi Akiva, he would have had to have been a descendant of the House of David on either his mother's side or his father's side.

Chili

Interesting. I am not OT by any strech of the imagination, but find this: "Joseph (= Samaria) not Judah (= Judea)" interesting with a promise to unfold.

semiopen

This is excellent circular reasoning. If a sage of R. Akiva's caliber thought Bar Kochba was the messiah, it is obvious that he was a descendant of David.

This is confirmed by the Jewish Virtual Library

Shimon Bar-Kokhba

Not a peep about where they got this.

Did a Davidic Messiah have to be a descendant of David?

Probably refutes this.

I'm a little curious about the mother's side descent comment. My name is listed as being a descendant of David but not acher ben acher which is son after son. With my usual humbleness I figured I couldn't be the Messiah but maybe there is hope.

Actually, I think there is some Rabbinic game that is played to determine Davidic descent, based on a scholar in one's family at some point. I was pleased to see that the Rebbe's messiah claim (Is the Lubavitcher Rebbe the Messiah?) based on his relationship to Judah_Loew_ben_Bezalel is considered dubious. No such asterisk appears after my name.

Duvi may be right about Bar Kokhba not being a convert, although googling Bar Kochba convert yields some interesting links.

Cheerful Charlie

The Jews were active proselytizers, and were so successful that this was proscribed more than once and inn a number of places in the Roman empire. We can be assured that there was a wide range of ideas about what constituted Judaism throughout the Empire. Pre and post revolt Judaism of course caused further changes.


Cheerful Charlie

spin

Your argumentation is still along the lines of "Moses wasn't human because Philo never says so." (Or as I stated it earlier: He also doesn't say a single word indicating that Moses, Miriam, or the prophets are in fact Jewish either.)

Your insertion displays the tenuousness of your position: "-exclusively-". He doesn't have to be exclusive. His audience need only generally be Jewish. The logic for the Jew will basically apply for the proselyte. This doesn't in any way change the fact that, if he were talking about a non-Jewish group, one would expect such a distinction to be made by the writer.

If I say I had a good conversation with Algernon yesterday, you'd expect that Algernon to be a human being, not a loquacious bonobo, though, if I told you beforehand that I was a bonobo sign language instructor, you might be in two minds and want to ask who Algernon was. I would probably make it clear in my exposition what I was talking about though and I'd expect Philo to have done the same. Instead, you, knowing that some people do in fact talk to bonobos, will assume that Algernon was a bonobo without the slightest evidence in the discourse to base your conclusion on. You'll inject the fact that you were watching a discovery channel documentary that persuaded you that bonobos are more interesting than humans.

Your views of Judaism are based on modern understandings, just as your Hebrew transliterations are. You don't show signs of dealing with the state of ancient Judaism in its plurality at the time of Philo. But you'll keep believing whatever your faith tells you to, Sheshbazzar. This is little different from aa5784's John Cleese approach.

[T2]"This isn't an argument"
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"It's just contradiction."
"No it isn't."
"It is."
"It is not."
"You just contradicted me."
"No I didn't."
"You did."
"No no no."
"You did just then"
"Nonsense."
"Oh, this is futile."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"I came here for a good argument."
"Ahh, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!"
"An argument isn't just contradiction."
"Well! it can be!"
"No it can't!"
"An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition."
"No, it isn't."
"Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction."
"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!"
"Yes but it isn't just saying no it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
"It is not."
"It is."
"Not at all."
"It is."[/T2]
Cleese's character was apparently motivated by money and perhaps by the idea of frustrating the client seeking an argument. You instead shape your world to your commitments. And aa5784 to his (ie the necessity of his literal-styled atheism).