Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 02-15-2013, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The first commandment reinforces the importance of confessing God and every berakhah, blessing, begins with the traditional formula praising God as ruler of the universe. So it is not surprising that 'being Jewish' or a Jew is universally understood to start with the confession of the true God. It is also what distinguishes Jews from non-Jews.

Even when the non-Jewish gentiles recite the same blessing? And offer up their praises to The Holy One of Israel,
confessing; "....Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." (Jer 16:19)
Will the Elohim of Israel yet turn them away?

stephan huller · 02-15-2013, 12:23 AM

There seems to have been a distinction between those who said only the ten commandments were God-given and those who included the rest of the 603 man-made commandments of Moses and those who included the tradition of the elders as binding too. The Samaritans and Sadducees started the idea that God only gave the ten commandments, written by his finger with fire on the tablets. The Christians later 'abused' this understanding, so it was jettisoned by later Jews as 'heresy' even though it was original.

stephan huller · 02-15-2013, 12:28 AM

On the Samaritan attitude toward proselytes:

Quote:

This exclusiveness of the Samaritans was not based on nationalist or racialist prejudices, but even conceded the possibility of any person embracing their religion. Deut. xxxii, 43, is interpreted by the Tabbakh as meaning that, when the nations see the rewards of the Israelites on the 'Day of Judgment', they will envy them their lot. The latter half of the verse is interpreted in various ways, one of them being: "anyone who seeks their nearness by being a proselyte and is buried in their soil, will benefit". Although there is no historical evidence for any widespread missionary on the part of the Samaritans, nevertheless, if the occasion arose, they would in fact warmly welcome any convert to their religion. Again, although the biblical word ger is interpreted by them in several ways, such as 'stranger' or 'sojourner', it is frequently taken to mean 'proselyte.' Marqe's exposition of Deut. xxvii, 19. affirms that there are seven commandments regarding kind treatment of the sojourner. He says: "Notice how He puts the sojourner first and again mentions the orphan and the widow". It is inconceivable that a heathen sojourner should be given preferential treatment over the widow and the orphan from their own fold. In his later widow and the orphan from their own fold. In his later treatment of the sojourner he thus makes it quite clear that he is a proselyte, for in his further exposition of this question he says: "You shall not wrong (Lev. xix, 33, cf. Ex. xxii, 21) in speech or in action, lest the sojourner grieve for what he has left behind or abhor what he has come to." These sentiments about the proselyte are outlined more explicitly in later literature but the line of though is the same as that of Marqe.

Perhaps the reason that there is not much evidence for proselytes can be explained by the fact that, outwardly at any rate, the Samaritan religion looked austere and stern, and therefore was unattractive to potential adherents. Needless to say, the Samaritans themselves did not regard their religion as unduly austere, nor their obligations to God as impossible to fulfil. Marqe stoutly denies that God demands that one should do anything which is quite beyond one's capacity. He emphasizes that the doing of good and justice rewards the believer in two ways, namely that he reaps the fruit of his labour and that he concurrently becomes a righteous man. He concludes by saying: "You are not expected to do something that is not in your power to do, but God demands from you (only) what is in your ability (to do) and that you do not love evil. Were it beyond your power, God would not demand it from you. [S Lowy The Principles of Samaritan Exegesis p. 144 - 145]

stephan huller · 02-15-2013, 12:33 AM

My guess is that 'Jew' represented originally an inferior understanding of monotheistism - i.e. the mere 'praise' or confession of one God. There are many parallels with Clement's distinction between 'faith' and 'gnosis.' I am not even sure if Sadducees considered themselves specifically Jewish. If they were of priestly rank this would have been impossible. When you really think about it 'Jewish priest' must have been an oxymoron in antiquity. It would be interesting to see if anyone ever coined that term. I don't think so.

This is also explains why Philo never describes the Therapeutae as Jewish. They were Levites. Indeed the Levites were identified as 'therapeutai' and related terminologies in Philo's writings (so Taylor and so cited by me and others 20 x in the last thread). Levites aren't 'Jews.' They are of a separate tribe, hence Philo's failure to mention the term 'Jew' or 'Jewish' in relation to these 'contemplative' souls.

spin · 02-15-2013, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But that doesn't in any way change the fact that those therapeutae referred to by Philo in DVC were Jewish for the obvious reasons I've already stated--

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Philo indicates that they are in fact Jewish

Philo says not one single word about these 'theraputae' being 'Jewish'.

He also doesn't say a single word indicating that Moses, Miriam, or the prophets are in fact Jewish either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

...and accept very Jewish notions of Philo's god, the prophets, the escape from Egypt across the Red Sea, Moses and Miriam, singing "hymns of thanksgiving to God the Saviour, Moses the prophet leading the men, and Miriam the prophetess leading the women" (DVC 87), "being citizens of heaven and of the world, and very acceptable to the Father and Creator of the universe because of their virtue" (90).

My congregation also accepts, holds, and teaches all of these things;

When you stand on your head and look at the world, you will certainly see things differently. Let's stand you up straight and go back before your congregation or any such congregation existed in the Judeo-christian heritage, back to Philo's time, when there were no christians and no monks and no monasteries as we know them from christian tradition. We have to shake off all the later encrustations from our analysis in order to see what is there rather than see what we know from those encrustations.

This is one of the processes that we must do when analysing Paul, for Paul is processed through the warping vision of the christian tradition. To use another image, we don't understand a glacier merely by examining the moraine.

We go back to our Alexandrian Jewish writer and we know, when he talks about god, it is the god of his heritage, the god of Jacob. When he talks about the sabbath, it is the sabbath of god. Moses and Miriam were only significant within his cultural-religious tradition. The parting of the Red Sea means nothing to anyone but to the children of Abraham.

Your congregation has fuck all to do with the context in which Philo wrote. His presuppositions were those of a credent Jew in Alexandria. His audience was one which understood his Jewish religious references and allusions. When he describes these therapeutae as observing Jewish traditions to his Jewish audience, without indicating that they are not Jewish, it is exceptionally hard to conceive in such a context that he is not talking specifically about Jews.

Sheshbazzar · 02-15-2013, 12:42 AM

You avoid too much spin. What were the ger toshavim? ha'hassid umot ha-olam? Would not Philo have known?

When we of my congregation talk of THE Sabbath, we talk of no other day than that which is observed by all observant Jews. We do not advocate or keep the 'christian' traditions, but the LAWS and THE Sabbaths of the Jewish religion.
Most members in fact quite a bit more strictly than most who are actually born 'Jewish' do.

I do not believe in Paul, or in any Jezuz of Nazareth, (or by any other variation or pronunciation of that name) the virgin birth, the 'crucification of god', or just about any of the claims of the christian form of religion.

stephan huller · 02-15-2013, 12:54 AM

My previous post again as it put forwards a likely explanation to the absence of the specific term 'Jew' or 'Jewish':

Quote:

My guess is that 'Jew' represented originally an inferior understanding of monotheistism - i.e. the mere 'praise' or confession of one God. There are many parallels with Clement's distinction between 'faith' and 'gnosis.' I am not even sure if Sadducees considered themselves specifically Jewish. If they were of priestly rank this would have been impossible. When you really think about it 'Jewish priest' must have been an oxymoron in antiquity. It would be interesting to see if anyone ever coined that term. I don't think so.

This is also explains why Philo never describes the Therapeutae as Jewish. They were Levites. Indeed the Levites were identified as 'therapeutai' and related terminologies in Philo's writings (so Taylor and so cited by me and others 20 x in the last thread). Levites aren't 'Jews.' They are of a separate tribe, hence Philo's failure to mention the term 'Jew' or 'Jewish' in relation to these 'contemplative' souls.

Sheshbazzar · 02-15-2013, 01:02 AM

Question for stephan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The first commandment reinforces the importance of confessing God and every berakhah, blessing, begins with the traditional formula praising God as ruler of the universe. So it is not surprising that 'being Jewish' or a Jew is universally understood to start with the confession of the true God. It is also what distinguishes Jews from non-Jews.

Even when the non-Jewish gentiles recite the same blessing? And offer up their praises to The Holy One of Israel,
confessing; "....Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." (Jer 16:19)

Will the Elohim of Israel yet turn them away?

Sheshbazzar · 02-15-2013, 01:35 AM

Philo could have just wrote 'Jews' if that was what he really intended, but he goes to pains to write 'theraputae' which has connotations that extend beyond simple 'Jew' or 'Jewish'. It is open ended; 'worshiper'.
Of course the further context indicates these were SABBATH observant worshipers.
It doesn't say, or even suggest that Scripture believing, SABBATH observing Gentiles are excluded.

Sheshbazzar · 02-15-2013, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The parting of the Red Sea means nothing to anyone but to the children of Abraham.

And yet it was a mixed multitude that made that crossing.
Not just Jews, but those Gentiles that had joined themselves to the tribes of the children of Israel.

They weren't all 'Jews', that were delivered, else the multitude would not have been mixed.

(There was not even such thing as a 'Jew' at that time)

ערב 'mixed' in the sense of being 'interwoven', 'knitted' together

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

02-15-2013, 12:23 AM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There seems to have been a distinction between those who said only the ten commandments were God-given and those who included the rest of the 603 man-made commandments of Moses and those who included the tradition of the elders as binding too. The Samaritans and Sadducees started the idea that God only gave the ten commandments, written by his finger with fire on the tablets. The Christians later 'abused' this understanding, so it was jettisoned by later Jews as 'heresy' even though it was original.

02-15-2013, 12:33 AM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	My guess is that 'Jew' represented originally an inferior understanding of monotheistism - i.e. the mere 'praise' or confession of one God. There are many parallels with Clement's distinction between 'faith' and 'gnosis.' I am not even sure if Sadducees considered themselves specifically Jewish. If they were of priestly rank this would have been impossible. When you really think about it 'Jewish priest' must have been an oxymoron in antiquity. It would be interesting to see if anyone ever coined that term. I don't think so. This is also explains why Philo never describes the Therapeutae as Jewish. They were Levites. Indeed the Levites were identified as 'therapeutai' and related terminologies in Philo's writings (so Taylor and so cited by me and others 20 x in the last thread). Levites aren't 'Jews.' They are of a separate tribe, hence Philo's failure to mention the term 'Jew' or 'Jewish' in relation to these 'contemplative' souls.

02-15-2013, 12:42 AM	#16
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	You avoid too much spin. What were the ger toshavim? ha'hassid umot ha-olam? Would not Philo have known? When we of my congregation talk of THE Sabbath, we talk of no other day than that which is observed by all observant Jews. We do not advocate or keep the 'christian' traditions, but the LAWS and THE Sabbaths of the Jewish religion. Most members in fact quite a bit more strictly than most who are actually born 'Jewish' do. I do not believe in Paul, or in any Jezuz of Nazareth, (or by any other variation or pronunciation of that name) the virgin birth, the 'crucification of god', or just about any of the claims of the christian form of religion.

02-15-2013, 01:35 AM	#19
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Philo could have just wrote 'Jews' if that was what he really intended, but he goes to pains to write 'theraputae' which has connotations that extend beyond simple 'Jew' or 'Jewish'. It is open ended; 'worshiper'. Of course the further context indicates these were SABBATH observant worshipers. It doesn't say, or even suggest that Scripture believing, SABBATH observing Gentiles are excluded.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.