Magdlyn

So people who came from lands far from the Temple, who had probably never been able to afford to make a pilgrimage, who may have had limited access even to a full set of Scriptures (therefore ignorant of them) were considered just as Judaean as someone who lived in Jerusalem and could sacrifice any old time.

Asherah and Tammuz?

Mary might've had an Asherah niche in the home she raised her son in. Or a Venus or Hestia. We don't know. Galilee of the Gentiles. How Jewish were they?

"Can anything good come of Nazareth?" "Galilee of the Gentiles." Were people surprised to see a devout Jew like Jesus come out of the north, b/c there were next to no devout Jews up there? Were they seen as tainted as the Samaritans were? Was there some chauvinism around how Judaeans viewed Jesus and his Galilean followers, b/c it was thought it was impossible for Jesus to be as good of a Jew as those further south?

Right. For the purpose of this discussion, I am treating Jesus as a literary character who exists as does David Copperfield or Wolverine. I'm writing a back story fan fic of his origins. Humor me.

I'll look that up. Thanks.

Some Yahwistic monotheists (who believed the temple on Zion, not on Mt Gerazim, was their god's home) lived in Galilee and were probably called Judaeans?

We are certainly not led to believe, by reading the gospels, that Samaria was YHWHtheistic. We are led to believe they were depraved Satan worshipers.

I am treating it as literature, looking for the roots of its protagonist. The canonical gospels have a certain bias. What are their assumptions? What do they assume their audience knows and takes for granted?

Mt Gerazim is only about 30 miles north of Jerusalem. And Galilee is north of Samaria. Why on earth would the Samaritan woman say this to Jesus?

Was he wearing a souvenir temple t-shirt or what? Surely he spoke Galilean accented Greek or Aramaic. I doubt there was anything about his rough peasant clothing that would've screamed "Judaean" to a Samaritan. This can't be historical.

I'd love to see a copy of that.

How odd, considering Israel ceased to exist as a country in 722. And prev to that, it was polytheistic. And prev to that, Israel's (Jacob's) god was El Shaddai!

Did people speak it, or just use it formally, when scribes wrote things down?

Because I think it obscures what was going on in the region religiously, what kind of milieu Jesus came from, and what the people he preached to believed in. I am trying to clarify and classify b/c the gospels tend to be so biased and ahistorical, with their "once upon a time" simple Jewish peasants theme.

angela2

Samaritans were the folks who were left out of the Babylonian exile. By the time the exiles returned, Samaritans seemed to the exiles to have altered Israelite beliefs beyond what they found acceptable. I think there may have been some merging of Canaanite beliefs. Canaanites were supposedly the original inhabitants of "the land."

Also, it just occurs to me that there may have been some class prejudice involved here. Accepted opinion is that the Babylonians took home the upper crust of society, scholars, skilled artisans, people who would have been useful to them.

Apikorus

It's a rather complicated issue. For a nuanced discussion, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Solitary Man

Steve Mason recently took on Shaye Cohen. I don't remember the name of the book at the moment.

Toto

Google knows all.

Was there such a thing as ancient “Judaism”?: Steve Mason’s recent article on “Judeans” (Ioudaioi) in antiquity blogged by Philip Harland

Solitary Man

that's the one.

J-D

Please tell me you're joking.

J-D

I don't know. I was trying to answer the question 'If the Galileans were referred to [by themselves or others] as Judaeans/Jews [in Hebrew it's the same word], what possible explanation could there be for this?' It seems to me that an explanation is possible.I don't know the answer to either of these questions. I don't see that it makes any difference.According to angela2's post: 'Accepted opinion is that the Babylonians took home the upper crust of society, scholars, skilled artisans, people who would have been useful to them.' I have seen the same asserted of the Assyrians. If so, the population of Galilee under Assyrian rule (and subsequently) could still have been substantially Hebrew/Israelite.

Incidentally, the settlers transferred by the Assyrians would not have been Assyrians, but people from other parts of their empire. In Hebrew the Samaritans were sometimes referred to as 'Cuthaeans', presumably referring to the origin or supposed origin of some of the Assyrian-transferred settlers.

Jewish/Judaean rejection of the Samaritans may have been partly or wholly based on a view that the Samaritans were descended from 'Cuthaeans' or other non-Israelite/Hebrew Assyrian-transferred settlers, but just because they took that view doesn't necessarily mean it was true.Again, I don't know the answer, but again I don't see how it makes any difference.I don't know in detail what Jewish religious practices (or Samaritan religious practices) at the relevant time were, but one thing I think we can assume is that Jews recognised the authority of the Jerusalem-based priestly hierarchy, while Samaritans recognised their own separate local priestly hierarchy. I would assume that when a Samaritan described a Galilean as a Jew/Judaean, it would mean, at least, 'you recognise the Jewish priestly hierarchy, not ours'.The Samaritans only accept the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua. I don't know whether their text of these is identical with the Jewish text. About the other questions I don't know, but I don't see how any of this makes any difference.I was just trying to give a possible explanation for the specific question about why the Galileans might have been regarded as Jews (it they were so regarded). The point I was trying to make unsuccessfully is that it's possible that the Galileans were regarded as Jews at the period we're discussing but not necessarily in earlier periods--so if they weren't regarded as Jews in earlier periods, that doesn't prove anything about how they were regarded in the period we're discussing.

As for why information should be so scanty: sorry, I have nothing useful to say about this.

spin

Not strange. Consider Philo of Alexandria or Justin's Trypho.

You mention them again. Why and on what evidence?... I've just realized you are not mentioning them again, but confusing me with your way of presenting previous discussion. You need to quote this way:

<quote=spin><quote=Magdlyn>rhubarb</quote>
more rhubarb</quote>

where "<" and ">" represent "[" and "]". You previously said "rhubarb" and I responded "more rhubarb". (The button with a text bubble will insert the quote marks for you around the selected text.)

If they existed (Jesus and Mary), they had names of Jewish origin.

We are certainly not led to believe, by reading the gospels, that Samaria was YHWHtheistic. We are led to believe they were depraved Satan worshipers.



Well, that's your problem to discover. I try to point out that we don't know enough of their background to be able to say, though many seem to think they know anyway.

Ask the writer.

As I have already said, Hebrew was a thriving language in Palestine. There were at least two active dialects used in the writing of the DSS for example (as well as the biblical Hebrew of the bible texts). You can't meaningfully make the assumptions you try to above.

Contact a Samaritan.

So why was the inner court of the temple called the court of the Israelites??

Would you sign a marriage contract you couldn't understand?

It's possible, but how would you know in this case? Is the usage any different from that of Josephus?


spin

Magdlyn

spin, sorry for the confusion. I know how to use the quotation system. It just gets very messy to respond to a multi quote post with more multi posts. Not your fault, it's just awkward.

Thanks for the ideas about Philo and Trypho. If you are real familiar with them, why don't you share what they have written about what it meant to be a Judaean not living in Judaea? That is what this thread is for.

I know thousands of small Asherim were found from many generations in layers of Israeli soil. I am not sure if it's been determined she was still being worshiped in 100 BCE or 50 CE, in Galilee. Perhaps she'd been conflated with Isis or Aphrodite by then...

Perhaps the Essenes, being devout ascetics, taught themselves the language of Judah pre-Babylonian exile. It was my understanding Hebrew had gone out and Aramaic, then Greek, were in.

I think I was just saying the Samaritan woman would not have been able to tell Jesus was a Judaean by him saying "Give me a drink." Whether he spoke Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Whether she did. One would think a Samaritan would be able to spot a Galilean accent. Unless "the Lord" could make his voice sound Judaean if he wanted to, just b/c he was god.

If anyone else has more to add, (besides "I don't know," "Ask the writer," "That's your problem to discover," "we don't know enough of their background to be able to say," "Contact a Samaritan") I'd be happy to hear it.