Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-08-2008, 07:36 AM

In a war you will get different groups working together, but the point is the Pharisees to the Romans were the threat - because of their liberal views. They were anti slavery to start with!

The Zealots are typical royalist nationalists who would join in with people defending Judaism, even though theologically they thought the Pharisees were going to hell - the atheistic libruls, happy to give up on sacrifices and not go to the Temple and meet in hippy house synagogues!

I am surprised at the lack of understanding of nuance and collaboration that occurs in times of war. The Jewish Wars were an extremely significant problem for well
over a hundred years to the Romans - and there are very strong arguments that xianity may be a Roman invention to psychologically circumcise the Jews!

There are real problems - equivalent to deliberate propaganda - with the xian depiction of the Pharisees. complaints of persecution, and statements - oh I used to be a persecutor - are predictable propaganda techniques.

These writings are from a war zone - be very careful with them!

Clivedurdle · 06-08-2008, 07:49 AM

On this fetishisation of primary sources

Quote:

Early life.

Flavius Josephus was born of an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem. According to his own account, he was a precocious youth who by the age of 14 was consulted by high priests in matters of Jewish law. At age 16 he undertook a three-year sojourn in the wilderness with the hermit Bannus, a member of one of the ascetic Jewish sects that flourished in Judaea around the time of Christ.
Returning to Jerusalem, he joined the Pharisees—a fact of crucial importance in understanding his later collaboration with the Romans. The Pharisees, despite the unflattering portrayal of them in the New Testament, were for the most part intensely religious Jews and adhered to a strict though nonliteral observance of the Torah. Politically, however, the Pharisees had no sympathy with the intense Jewish nationalism of such sects as the military patriotic Zealots and were willing to submit to Roman rule if only the Jews could maintain their religious independence.
In ad 64 Josephus was sent on an embassy to Rome to secure the release of a number of Jewish priests of his acquaintance who were held prisoners in the capital. There, he was introduced to Poppaea Sabina, Emperor Nero’s second wife, whose generous favour enabled him to complete his mission successfully. During his visit, Josephus was deeply impressed with Rome’s culture and sophistication—and especially its military might.

Military career.

He returned to Jerusalem on the eve of a general revolt against Roman rule. In ad 66 the Jews of Judaea, urged on by the fanatical Zealots, ousted the Roman procurator and set up a revolutionary government in Jerusalem. Along with many others of the priestly class, Josephus counselled compromise but was drawn reluctantly into the rebellion. Despite his moderate stance, he was appointed military commander of Galilee, where

(if his own untrustworthy account may be believed)

he was obstructed in his efforts at conciliation by the enmity of the local partisans led by John of Giscala. Though realizing the futility of armed resistance, he nevertheless set about fortifying the towns of the north against the forthcoming Roman juggernaut.
The Romans, under the command of the future emperor Vespasian, arrived in Galilee in the spring of ad 67 and quickly broke the Jewish resistance in the north. Josephus managed to hold the fortress of Jotapata for 47 days, but after the fall of the city he took refuge with 40 diehards in a nearby cave. There, to Josephus’ consternation, the beleaguered party voted to perish rather than surrender. Josephus, arguing the immorality of suicide, proposed that each man, in turn, should dispatch his neighbour, the order to be determined by casting lots. Josephus contrived to draw the last lot, and, as one of the two surviving men in the cave, he prevailed upon his intended victim to surrender to the Romans.
Led in chains before Vespasian, Josephus assumed the role of a prophet and foretold that Vespasian would soon be emperor—a prediction that gained in credibility after the death of Nero in ad 68. The stratagem saved his life, and for the next two years he remained a prisoner in the Roman camp. Late in ad 69 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by his troops: Josephus’ prophecy had come true, and the agreeable Jewish prisoner was given his freedom. From that time on, Josephus attached himself to the Roman cause. He adopted the name Flavius (Vespasian’s family name), accompanied his patron to Alexandria, and there married for the third time. (Josephus’ first wife had been lost at the siege of Jotapata, and his second had deserted him in Judaea.) Josephus later joined the Roman forces under the command of Vespasian’s son and later successor, Titus, at the siege of Jerusalem in ad 70. He attempted to act as mediator between the Romans and the rebels, but, hated by the Jews for his apostasy and distrusted by the Romans as a Jew, he was able to accomplish little. Following the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, Josephus took up residence in Rome, where he devoted the remainder of his life to literary pursuits under imperial patronage.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...avius-Josephus

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-08-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

Let's have another go at this because it is critically important.

If we are going to have another go at it, shouldn't it be on the basis of the syntax and grammar of the Greek text of Phil 3:5-6 and 1st century Jewish perceptions of Torah "righteousness"?

Is there a reason you are not doing this, but are instead appealing to anachronisms from another culture to make your case?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-08-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

On this fetishisation of primary sources

Better --on the irony of appealing to a source that uses (and holds it a necessity to use) primary sources to make its point!

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 06-08-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

1st century Jewish perceptions of Torah "righteousness

Which Jewish group's perceptions of righteousness exactly? One's who thought suicide was OK for example?

There was not a homogenous view! Would you argue the views of the groups outlined by the Documentary Hypothesis agreed with each other? How does temple sacrifice fit with righteousness?

Josephus is someone who started priestly, went Pharisee, then took on Roman attitudes. A reasonably common trajectory if you lived!

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-08-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

1st century Jewish perceptions of Torah "righteousness

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Which Jewish group's perceptions of righteousness exactly?

Any of them, but those of 1st century Pharisees and their issue in particular, and not just of "righteousness" in general, but of "Torah righteousness". Or to put this another way, the views on Torah righteousness of the Jewish groups whose writings on this subject, let alone the scholarly studies of them, you've never read.

Come on, Clive. What, besides the EB the Wiki (and other online) entries on the Pharisees, informs your view and your claims about the Pharisaic perception of Torah Righteousness? Why should anyone take seriously, and more importantly, as in any way informed, let alone as authoritative and worthy of consideration, anything you say about 1st century Jewish/Pharisaic/Pauline views of what constituted δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ and what γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος ("being blameless") κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ entailed?

Jeffrey

Toto · 06-09-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is a bit of a digression. Can we tie it to the OP?

Clivedurdle is probably relying on the notion popularized by Hyam Maccoby, that Jesus's reported actions were closer to the actual Pharisees than the caricatures of Pharisees in the gospels. If this is the case, and if Paul were either a Pharisee or aspired to be a Pharisee, would he have been persecuting Christians?

We can accept that the Pharisees felt that they were upholding the Law (as they understood it.) Would the Law have required them to hunt down Christians and throw them into prison?

Where does Paul say that that's what he did?

And where did I say that Paul said this? :Cheeky:

Quote:

But as to the question of the Law requiring "persecution" of those who, while professing allegiance to the God of Israel, nevertheless follow policies that seem to endanger the holiness and distinctiveness and security of Israel, you might want to take into account the answer given not only Phineas, or by Sadoc the Pharisee and Judas of Gamala, or the Sicarrii or Elaizar ben Yair, or by Rabbi Akiva and Simon bar Khosiba and by others who were what Paul says he was -- i.e., full of "zeal" for the Law (on this see Martin Hengel, The Zealots, Hengel The Pre-Christian Paul (London SCM Press, 1991), Tory Seland "Saul of Tarsus and early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13-14 in light of Philo's writings," Biblica 83 (2002): 449-471; Establishment Violence in Philo & Luke: A Study of Non-Conformity to the Torah & Jewish Vigilante Reactions, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995); and Mark R. Fairchild. "Paul's Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-Examination of Gal 1:14 and Acts 22:3," NTS 45 (1999) 514-532) -- but also by the yeshiva student Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzak Rabin, all of whom answered that question in the affirmative.

Jeffrey

Most of those sources are unavailable to me. I did browse a bit in Seland's book on Google books; I noted that Seland seems to accept the stoning of Stephen as a historical event, which seems a bit credulous, to say the least. There is a review here which indicates that Seland's thesis of a Torah-based lynch law has been received skeptically.

But are you prepared to say that early Christians had policies that would "endanger the holiness and distinctiveness and security of Israel?" What supports this notion? What is Paul's motivation?

Californian · 06-10-2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But are you prepared to say that early Christians had policies that would "endanger the holiness and distinctiveness and security of Israel?" What supports this notion? What is Paul's motivation?

I was taught in Catholic school that Paul persecuted Christians for the Romans before getting knocked off his horse and seeing 'the light.'

Pure speculation:
Maybe he never stopped working for the Romans. CIA are far from the originators of undercover dirty tricks. Object? Tame Christianity into 'other-worldliness' so that the Empire could live with it. Also, blame the Jews for the obviously Roman execution of Jesus, negating sympathy and support for Jews under Roman occupation.

Amaleq13 · 06-10-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Californian

I was taught in Catholic school that Paul persecuted Christians for the Romans before getting knocked off his horse and seeing 'the light.'

Did they explain why the Romans would send Paul to persecute a group they apparently considered to be ignorant and superstitious peasants?

Californian · 06-10-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Californian

I was taught in Catholic school that Paul persecuted Christians for the Romans before getting knocked off his horse and seeing 'the light.'

Did they explain why the Romans would send Paul to persecute a group they apparently considered to be ignorant and superstitious peasants?

The original Christians were Jews. The Jews were continuously in overt or covert insurgency against Rome. An organization as close-knit as the Christians, worshiping their dead leader, were a perceived threat in a land where threats were everywhere.

Paul is solely responsible for extending Christianity to the Gentiles, and then in 49 AD breaking with James, Jesus' brother, at the Council of Jerusalem. That and James' murder were pretty much the end of Jewish Christianity.

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

06-08-2008, 07:36 AM	#31
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	In a war you will get different groups working together, but the point is the Pharisees to the Romans were the threat - because of their liberal views. They were anti slavery to start with! The Zealots are typical royalist nationalists who would join in with people defending Judaism, even though theologically they thought the Pharisees were going to hell - the atheistic libruls, happy to give up on sacrifices and not go to the Temple and meet in hippy house synagogues! I am surprised at the lack of understanding of nuance and collaboration that occurs in times of war. The Jewish Wars were an extremely significant problem for well over a hundred years to the Romans - and there are very strong arguments that xianity may be a Roman invention to psychologically circumcise the Jews! There are real problems - equivalent to deliberate propaganda - with the xian depiction of the Pharisees. complaints of persecution, and statements - oh I used to be a persecutor - are predictable propaganda techniques. These writings are from a war zone - be very careful with them!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.