Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 04-05-2013, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The first step is to recognize that there were of course a plurality of sects in the late Second Commonwealth period.

I think thats a understatement. I like "very wide almost open diversity" more then plurality. Multicultural also comes to mind.

Quote:

Something caused the revolt

Quote:

So we don't know why there was a Jewish revolt.

Is Roman oppression that much of a mystery?

Is the crooked Hellenistic Jewish governement who worked hand in hand with a smile with the Romans a mystery?

The Romans placed Caiaphas in power for a reason.

Quote:

But no one knows with any certainty how Jerusalem was governed in the period immediately following the revolt, how the religion was allowed to reorganize itself

I think its safe to say it fell back on Roman oppression, which was so lose it gave people like Bar Kochba the freedom to gather followers.

Organization would have been regional, and like always, Hellenistic.

Sepphoris who for the most part was Jewish, was left intact. I have always claimed this to be a very Hellenistic Judaism, but Judaism none the less.

If we use that as a example, Hellenistic Judaism which was the ruling class in places was not damaged like the different groups of Zealots.

If we follow the socioeconomics from someone like [Chancey], its not that much of a mystery.

Quote:

All that is clear from the earliest rabbinic sources is that Judaism seems to have gone 'underground' in some sense.

Certain sects yes. Many would not follow the puppet Hellenistic regime.

Quote:

If the sources are allowed to stand, it would appear that Christianity was already quite influential in the late first century.

I dont buy it. The movement was still small then, I would agree widespread, just low numbers.

They were still underground worshipping in houses. I think Bar Kochba had issues because they wouldnt fight against the Romans, more so then any threat.

It could be noted that these would be Christians were for the most part, Hellenist. This would mean they could be viewed as not only part of the problem, but combined with passiveness and playing to the Romans, unwanted in Judaisms eyes, no matter the size.

Quote:

Whatever the case may be, the only other sign that I get from the period is that a highly Hellenized form of Judaism seems to have been very influential in Palestine in the period between the destruction of the temple and the bar Kochba revolt.

I'll buy that, it matches up with "what works"

Again, only one aspect of Judaism though. It was still wide and diverse.

A rift existed between Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism, before the crap hit the fan.

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Certain sects yes. Many would not follow the puppet Hellenistic regime.

Agreed. But like all business in competition with other businesses, the question has to be asked - how did the Roman or Herodian regime manage the theological implication of the destruction? In today's world firms hire PR firms to take care of that. Who was managing the official spin to Jews and Jewish proselytes. Yes, the revolutionaries were paraded around the region and made sport of in games. But it is difficult to believe the Romans continued doing this for any prolonged period of time. There had to be an 'official policy' to deal with the 'Jewish problem' in the decades following the revolt. What was it? The answer is that we do not know or cannot know because - surprisingly - there is absolutely no evidence to help guide our understanding. This is odd.

We are told that Queen Berenice managed to get Titus to abolish the Jew tax (http://books.google.com/books?id=zqi...renice&f=false). What then? Did she also set a new policy for what was permissible within Judaism? What was that? All that we know for certain is that the both the Romans and the Herodians must have wanted to established order in some way. This is what regimes do. The question however can't be answered beyond that and perhaps that it is unlikely that the revolutionaries who were blamed for the destruction (regimes always shirk responsibility for regrettable events) could not have been rewarded for their actions. But who were the revolutionaries?

Duvduv · 04-05-2013, 12:28 PM

Stephan, do Samaritans believe they worshiped at Gerizim at any time after Shimon the Righteous (or Hyrcanus) or not? And if they believe they did, and it was terminated by the Constantinian regime, then it is suggestive that the little story in John 3 is a very late addition to the gospel.

outhouse · 04-05-2013, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But like all business in competition with other businesses, the question has to be asked - how did the Roman or Herodian regime manage the theological implication of the destruction?

The Romans ignored any theological implication. their goal was revenue for the Empire.

Herodians had their job and Sepphoris moved foward. It grew Hellenistically pagan afterwards.

Does this example fit all of Judaism. No I dont think it did exactly. But its not far off the mark.

Quote:

In today's world firms hire PR firms to take care of that. Who was managing the official spin to Jews and Jewish proselytes.

Between the fall of the temple and the revolt was a period of transition. The Hellenistic governement had somewhat fallen, and the ruling sect in Jerusalem gone. Saducees gone. Hellenistic Judaism was on its way out.

Quote:

There had to be an 'official policy' to deal with the 'Jewish problem' in the decades following the revolt. What was it?

The answer is that we do not know or cannot know because - surprisingly - there is absolutely no evidence to help guide our understanding. This is odd.

Judaism was taking a bad rap, and while widespread and still diverse, was scattered and keeping its head low.

Oppressed like always, just now even more so, but the corrupt government had fallen, but the Roman Empire still carried on as normal, and Israel was regretfully still part of this empire. Policy was Roman rule.

Quote:

We are told that Queen Berenice managed to get Titus to abolish the Jew tax. What then?

Keep paying the rest of the required taxes.

Quote:

Did she also set a new policy for what was permissible within Judaism?

I doubt it.

Judaism coming from a multicultural diversity was just starting to evolve back to Israelites. But they would have only known their world was turned upside down.

A new policy for whom? It took a while for Judaism to reinvent itself.

Quote:

All that we know for certain is that the both the Romans and the Herodians must have wanted to established order in some way.

The Romans had their order. The revolts were brutally crushed. Back to buisiness as normal within a empire.

Quote:

But who were the revolutionaries

Im running with the born and raised stock of Israel who opposed Roman oppression. I would also define them not as Hellensitic.

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Stephan, do Samaritans believe they worshiped at Gerizim at any time after Shimon the Righteous (or Hyrcanus) or not? And if they believe they did, and it was terminated by the Constantinian regime, then it is suggestive that the little story in John 3 is a very late addition to the gospel.

Very complicated question but the bottom line is that they think that Gerizim was the place of the sanctuary. This is the normative position in the tradition but as I mentioned there are clear indications that there was another interpretation for the location of Bethel (= the Balatah Meadow with the steep slope of the mountain just before Shechem). Here is where it gets complicated. Abu'l Fath's chronology is off. This is how my teacher Professor Boid of Monash University explains the reconstruction.

Quote:

All of the existing mss. of the Tulida have serious omissions of names of High Priests in the centuries between the wars of the Jews against the Romans and the coming of Muhammad. Look at the list in Abul-Fataḥ. His list is complete. Try adding up the length of years of each High Priest in the Tulida and this becomes obvious. If you add all the High Priests from the death of Alexander in 323 BC (just before the death of the High Priest Azqayya) till the surrender of Palestine to the Islamic forces in 625 AD the number of years listed in the Tulida is not enough.

If you add the years from the Jewish wars against Rome up to Muhammad, you see that is where names have been lost. Adding the years up from Alexander or Hadrian gives a date of about 450 AD for Muhammad! Someone has seen this, so they have counted backwards from Muhammad. This puts the start of the period of Baba Rabba in about 320 AD. If you keep counting backwards you see it puts Jesus in about 200 AD!

This confusion must have occurred very early. Although Abul-Fataḥ has a complete list of names, he still had to put events into two (sometimes three) sets of narrative. Dositheos appears twice [Actually thrice. Look carefully at the long section on Dositheos and notice how he is first mentioned as some unknown person fleeing from Judaea, then he is suddenly the son of the High Priest].

[This is irrelevant but it needs to be known. The name of the woman at whose house Dositheos stayed, Amanto, is Greek. The suffix [-o] is a femiminine diminutive suffix in Greek. The name is probably short for adamantia or adamantina meaning diamondlike, translating the Hebrew yahalom. This is irrelevant too. Has Benny noticed that his computer’s Hebrew spell-checker always changes the surname of Ingrid Hjelm from HYLM to YHLM meaning diamond?]

After Dositheos three times there are the categories of Dositheans, but with Jesus and Philo in between. So he goes forward from the sects of the Dositheans then Jesus, Philo of Alexandria etc. to Commodus and then briefly mentions Dositheos A FOURTH TIME and then the notable deed of Garmon. Then he stops his narrative and gives a list of High Priests up to that point. Then he goes back in time and starts again with Jesus etc. then various events up to Muhammad.

Approximate correct dates are these: (a) End of the time of Baba Rabba (or more exactly the start of his captivity) 180 AD. This was when the policies of Commodus took effect in Syria-Palestine. Adding years puts Garmon (Germanos) in about 202 AD. This must have been the same Germanos that was at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

There is no direct historical evidence for the date of Marqe. Tulida 9a, p. 90 in Florentin’s edition. “and the Priest with him was ‘Amram ban Sârad. This ‘Amram was T.ut.e the father of Marqe the originator [or creator] of wisdom, may his spirit be at rest, Amen”. The note in the Tulida is correct but in the wrong place. If Marqe and his son Ninna had lived in the time of Baba Rabba, then there would have been a lot of information about them. The fact is that all knowledge on this subject has been lost. My personal opinion is that the note is correct in saying T.ut.e was called ‘Amram. I think this is in fact ‘Amram Dare. [The reason for saying this is that the name Marqe is a substitute for Mushi. ‘ Amram for his father is conventional. Amram is Moses’s father. It is like the name of the author of the book on inheritance Abu Ish.âq Ibrahim. The epithet Dare would then mean elder in relation to Marqe]. But I see no evidence for putting them in the time of Baba Rabba. As said, the lists of High Priests in the Tulida is incomplete. Also, the Aramaic used by Marqe is very early. This is aside from the mistake of putting Baba 170 years too late. A date of Marqe in about 320 AD is just impossible. The Durran might perhaps be from the time of Baba. I say this because several of the hymns speak of repentance for the errors of the very recent past. [See H. G. Kippenberg, article Ein Gebetbuch für den samaritanischen Synagogengottesdienst aus dem 2. Jh. N. Chr.]. If Marqe and ‘Amram and Ninna are before this, then the latest possible date must be before 140 AD. An earlier date is possible.

I agree that Baba Rabba was held in custody by the Romans, but it was not in Constantinople. I know Constantinople is mentioned, but that is an adjustment of the name of the place to its later name. If I say the grave of Joseph is near Nablus (instead of Shechem), I don’t mean Joseph lived after the coming of Islam! As for the stupid stupid stupid stories about the tricks played by Baba on the forces of Constantinople, how he tricked them into thinking the dead were fighting for him, and all the rest, I agree with Abul-Fataḥ, who said he only mentioned them so no-one would think he did not know about them.

The dates in the Arabic book the Comprehensive History At-Târîkh ash-Shâmil by Finaas ban Yeṣaaq or Khaḍir bin Isḥâq are not tradition. They are modern new calculations. This book by Finaas is wonderful. It is indispensable. I use it constantly. BUT the author and his associates tried to do what could not be done with the information available at the time. As an eample, his list of names and periods of the Kings of the Time of Favour is mostly taken from the Jewish Book of Judges. His date for the birth of Samson (Shamshom) is a guess. In the same way, his list of High Priests follows the Tulida, without noticing that the text is incomplete. Thus his chronology is wrong. [Chronicle Adler, which is a short Hebrew version of the book by Finaas, has the same mistake]. Notice that Samaritans stopped using his chronology in about 1950.

Minimalist · 04-05-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The only thing I feel reasonably sure of is that there were groups of "Christians" who got together for mutual support, common meals, and singing hymns.

At some point they developed stories about why they did these things.

Or were they "Chrestians" who later morphed into something else?

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 01:20 PM

So to make clear there were TWO sanctuaries associated with Shechem in the period. At times there are indications that Gerizim was profane. There are other indications that some sort of heathen worship was associated with the altar on Gerizim up until the time of Hadrian. It is very unclear and we can't say with any certain what was going on in Samaritanism at this time any more than we can Judaism or Christianity for that matter.

Duvduv · 04-05-2013, 01:29 PM

All I was asking is whether Samaritans who are knowledgeable of their texts and traditions believe there were historical periods after the first destruction of Gerizim when they worshiped there, and that there was a hiatus because the Byzantine regime prohibited it. And then we might ask them what they make of GJohn 3 in context.

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 01:32 PM

I think you mean John 4. To answer your question, the average Samaritans like Jews, Catholics, Greek Orthodox etc. don't take much time to apply critical thought to their tradition. They have sources but they deal in generalities rather than striving for historical clarity. I will send my friend Benny an email or contact him by Facebook and ask him what he thinks. He is very learned. My guess is that he will say 'Samaritans have always worshiped on the mountain' unless restricted by repressive regimes.' Let's see if I am right.

Clivedurdle · 04-05-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

My argument against the assertions in that particular piece of mythology centre upon one question. Namely, "where is all the garbage?"

Now this might seem like a strange question to ask, until you speak to actual archaeologists and palaeontologists. Who will tell you that a fair amount of their time is spent sifting through the garbage left behind by various organisms in past ages, in order to learn about the activities thereof. Humans are particularly adept at producing garbage, and indeed,our hominid ancestors launched us onto this trajectory with their own propensity for leaving garbage behind them, in the form of various stone tools that were discarded, once better stones allowing better tools to be made turned up. Or, in some cases, stone tools that were simply lost or misplaced, never to be found again by their original owners, silently waiting until people like Richard Leakey alighted upon them several hundred thousand years later. As humans entered the Neolithic Age, they started to leave behind them other things, such as cave paintings and grave goods.

As humans developed such things as the first civilisations, and the first agricultural systems, our ability to generate garbage multiplied, because civilisations and agriculture allowed specialisation and division of labour to arise, along with the products thereof. So, archaeoloigcal digs unearthing relevant sites produce new forms of garbage left behind by the humans of that era - pottery shards, sometimes complete pots, clay tablets with writing upon them. We also start to see the first evidence of abandoned buildings, which means that human-produced garbage started to become substantial blots on the landscape, around the same time that our ancestors started building things such as ziggurats.

Then, our ancestors developed the means to forge and shape metal tools, and weapons, some examples of which were added to the garbage left behind by our ancestors. Coins joined the garbage piles at a fairly early stage in development too. Later on, as our capabilities expanded, so did our garbage. We started leaving ships on sea beds, we started leaving ruins of entire cities, and by the time our ancestors started to develop the first recognisable steps toward modern science, we started leaving behind ever greater quantities of garbage, and ever more exotic forms of garbage. More recently, we've left behind us entire ocean liners, battleships, and our own versions of the abandoned cities of the past, such as Pripyat in the Ukraine, abandoned along with the Chernobyl nuclear power station that forms perhaps one of our most hazardous pieces of garbage to date.

We're even starting to leave our garbage behind us in space. Dead satellites and other pieces of junk orbit Planet Earth, forming a sort of junk "ring system" that spaceflight planners have to take into account when planning new missions, which will eventually be joined by rather more substantial bits of hardware such as the Hubble Space Telescope, an 11 ton collection of metal parts that's almost as long as an articulated lorry. At least two now-dead space probes occupy the surface of Venus, sent there by the former Soviet Union. Mars now plays host to over a dozen dead spacecraft and their assorted ancillary cast-offs, and the recent Curiosity rover misssion will, in time, once its mission is complete and its fuel has run out, become yet another piece of garbage we've left on Mars. We've left a space probe on the surface of Titan, that will in time become more of our junk. We've left several tons of hardware on the Moon, along with human footprints that will still be there a million years or so into the future. The two Voyager spacecraft are now taking our garbage outside the Solar System - once they've shut down for the last time (if they haven't done so already), they too will become pieces of our garbage, now passing through the helioshock into interstellar space proper. And our most exotic form of garbage to date is in the electromagnetic spectrum - television and radio transmissions, whose signals were powerful enough to leave Earth, and radiate out into space, the earliest of which have now dissipated into very weak signals indeed, but which may still be detectable by any suitably equipped civilisation that happens to be residing 70 light years away.

Quite simply, archaeologists have known for some time that our garbage tells so much about what we got up to in the past. Indeed, archaeology is perhaps best described as the fine art of learning about what we did from our trash, and archaeologists have become singularly adept at discovering our past deeds in this manner. Of course, there's more to it than this, but I suspect that most archaeologists won't complain too bitterly about my summing up their profession in this manner, because it takes cconsiderable skill and expertise to learn from past garbage, and a whole battery of scientific tools are indispensible in this process.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ch...t11119-80.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-05-2013, 12:28 PM	#23
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Stephan, do Samaritans believe they worshiped at Gerizim at any time after Shimon the Righteous (or Hyrcanus) or not? And if they believe they did, and it was terminated by the Constantinian regime, then it is suggestive that the little story in John 3 is a very late addition to the gospel.

04-05-2013, 01:20 PM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So to make clear there were TWO sanctuaries associated with Shechem in the period. At times there are indications that Gerizim was profane. There are other indications that some sort of heathen worship was associated with the altar on Gerizim up until the time of Hadrian. It is very unclear and we can't say with any certain what was going on in Samaritanism at this time any more than we can Judaism or Christianity for that matter.

04-05-2013, 01:29 PM	#28
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	All I was asking is whether Samaritans who are knowledgeable of their texts and traditions believe there were historical periods after the first destruction of Gerizim when they worshiped there, and that there was a hiatus because the Byzantine regime prohibited it. And then we might ask them what they make of GJohn 3 in context.

04-05-2013, 01:32 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think you mean John 4. To answer your question, the average Samaritans like Jews, Catholics, Greek Orthodox etc. don't take much time to apply critical thought to their tradition. They have sources but they deal in generalities rather than striving for historical clarity. I will send my friend Benny an email or contact him by Facebook and ask him what he thinks. He is very learned. My guess is that he will say 'Samaritans have always worshiped on the mountain' unless restricted by repressive regimes.' Let's see if I am right.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.