Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-25-2012, 06:16 AM | #31 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
|
03-25-2012, 09:08 AM | #32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
What a tangle! Justinian introduced himself into the "long time dispute" about whether the scriptures should be read only in Hebrew, or read in both Hebrew and/or a translation comprehended by the listeners, siding with those who sought the latter. However, by adding the prohibition of interpretation of the read passages from a secondary source, it seems he hoped that it would force Jews to see what the "interpreters" are "hiding" from them, the obvious superiority of the Christian understanding of God's plan for the world (amen). DCH |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
03-25-2012, 09:16 AM | #33 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
But he wasn't promuigating a general law about Jews, he was only referring to the case at hand. And I understood that he was also trying to be helpful to Jews to eliminate internal Jewish heretics from Jewish communities. And the issues relating to the Greek language have nothing directly to do with what kind of commentaries or teachings there are in Jewish law that had never been interfered with in law since the time of Constantine.
That's why the whole thing sounds so confusing. i also read Andrew's link but still don't follow the point. What was ever changed by Justinian or any other emperor in the observance of the Jews based on the Torah and halacha? The Christians presumably always had these negative views about the halacha, but it didn't affect the observances of the Jews under law. There was never any law outlawing the observance of rabbinic Judaism. And in this case it is directed to one realm or community of Areobindus, but is presented as something brand new. |
03-25-2012, 09:41 AM | #34 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Depends on which Areobindus he was referring to. The first Areobindus to be named Consul was a Goth who became part of the political class of the Eastern Roman Empire, and was consul 434. His son Dagalaiphus was consul in 461. But his grandson Areobindus Dagalaiphus Areobindus held the consulate in 506. The Areobindas in the Novella was a Praetorian Prefect (Praetorian prefecture of the East) in 553 CE, so I don't think it was either the first or second ones noted above, although he may have had some kinship relationship. DCH |
|||
03-25-2012, 11:05 AM | #35 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
If it's confusing and even outright bunk, then why would historians waste time confusing people and presenting "proofs" for absolutely nothing as in this case??!
To sum up, this little case of Justinian is useless and means absolutely nothing except some kind of propaganda. After all, did Aerobindus call out the Empire's version of the Red Guards or KGB and destroy Jewish books here or anywhere else in the empire? Was this followed up with anything in Roman law? The answer is no. So what good is it?! Quote:
|
||
03-25-2012, 11:49 AM | #36 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
FWIW, I updated that earlier post.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
03-25-2012, 12:33 PM | #37 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Sorry, Dave. I wasn't getting upset. I just increasingly find myself not appreciating more cases of interpretations of professional historians when it is relevant to ancient Jewish matters. Similarly, a historian can present information without discussing the implications within a context, such as the idea that gentiles would be using phylacteries or mikvehs, thereby taking statements by ancient sources at face value.
|
03-26-2012, 12:54 AM | #38 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
This may be tangential to your previous mention of Justinian, however ....
Quote:
Quote:
Followed by a link to (Ancient Forgeries -- by lawful decree) Quote:
Here is clear evidence of ancient forgery and manufacturing of narratives for political (legal) purposes. That these people also forged and manufactured narratives for religious purposes is therefore to be expected. |
|||
03-26-2012, 03:30 AM | #39 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
In this case we are only talking about a letter which is not a law or decree, which is internally contradictory, and which actually makes no sense
So based on the idea of invented laws, we can say that it is all the moreso the case here. It also makes it worthwhile to examine laws themselves as forgeries. And perhaps the canons of ecumenical councils as well. As I mentioned earlier, some of those canons make no sense at all. And alleged complaints by john Chrysostom make even less sense. |
03-26-2012, 03:57 AM | #40 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
Bullneck's Christian forgery mill was commissioned and Justinian inherited it. Over the course of many centuries it was used to harmonize history. "We must not see the fact of usurpation; |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|