stephan huller

It's not my contention, it's a plainly acknowledged fact in the rabbinic literature once again. Not only are there explicit references to 'the altar at Alexandria' but there are also explicit rules about how the Alexandrian priesthood was to be incorporated back into 'mainstream Judaism.'

What's the problem then? The Europeans with their stupid Josephus 'history' books, which presents TWO different claims about the replica temple in Egypt.

No one disputes that there was a replica temple in Egypt (at least no one knowledgeable). The Europeans with their Josephus history written with the help of 'Greek assistants' (undoubtedly at a date later than Josephus's death) presents a LITERAL incorporation of Isa 19:18, whereas the Jewish tradition refers to chapter 19 Isaiah as a general reference to the prophets predicting the establishment of a replica temple in Egypt.

Indeed to make the rabbinic tradition 'fit' with the corrupt texts of Josephus scholars 'assume' that all the Jews who wrote about an 'altar of Alexandria' REALLY MEANT TO SAY 'altar of Egypt.'

And the uninformed go along with this because ...

... they are too stupid and too uninformed to know how scholarship 'smooths over' all the historical disagreements in our original sources.

But none of this is new to anyone studying 'alternative Hebrew religious paradigms.' The Samaritan tradition has to be ignored in order to make 'Judaism' appear 'true' and unchallenged.

Example 1 - no explicit reference to 'Jerusalem' in the Torah shared by Jews and Samaritans AND all the action seems centered around the Samaritan altar BUT Jerusalem is the holy city of the Mosaic tradition. Why? More Jews than Samaritans in the world.

The point is that if Jerusalem could impose its sacredness over more sensible holy places (like Gerizim) why not Alexandria?