Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-23-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...Take the Alexandrian Philo, for instance. Philo wrote about the Essenes - a philosophical ideal community that he envisaged in the land of Palestine....

But what you claiming is simple not true at all. Philo did NOT write about any philosophical community.

Philo claimed that the Essenes did DWELL in Judea during his time.

Hypothetica

Quote:

(11.1) But our lawgiver trained an innumerable body of his pupils to partake in those things, who are called Essenes, being, as I imagine, honoured with this appellation because of their exceeding holiness. And they dwell in many cities of Judaea, and in many villages, and in great and populous communities....

In your bid to undermine the writings of Josephus you are promoting propaganda about Philo. You seem to forget that Pliny the Elder did locate the geographical location of some Essenes and this information about the Essenes from Pliny the elder cannot be found in neither the writings of Philo nor Josephus.

Littlejohn · 07-23-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I know most people in this forum will probably be scratching their heads wondering where in the gospel is there any reference to women inheriting property like men but it actually comes from a much better source - Jewish eyewitness testimony from the late first century.

Mama (Imma) Salome, the wife of R. Eliezer and sister of Rab ban Gamaliel, had a philosopher as a neighbour, who had the reputation of taking no bribe. They wished to render him ridiculous. Mama accordingly brought him a golden candle-stick, presented herself before him and said: 'I should like to have a share in the property of my family.' The philosopher answered her: 'Then have thy share!' But Gamaliel said to him : 'We have the law: where there is a son, the daughter shall inherit nothing.' The philosopher said: 'Since the day when ye were driven out of your country, the Law of Moses is repealed and there is given the Gospel, in which it is said: Son and daughter shall inherit together.' [Bab. Shabbath 116 a]

This is of course merely scratching the surface. What I am wondering is whether there are others who have come across arguments that Christianity essentially wanted to 'restore' a lost Israelite tradition very much rooted in Egyptianism but (as I suspect) with a streamlined monotheistic sensibility.
.

From "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash" - by Robert Travers Herford:

Quote:

(One day), they wanted to laugh about him [the philosopher]
She [Imma Shalom] brought him a golden lamp.
And they [the siblings] went to him [the philosopher]
She said to him: "I want you to divide the estate of my [late] father".
The judge said: "Divide"
He [Rabban Gamliel] said to him: "It is written in the Torah that he
gave us: 'If there is a son, the daughter does not inherit' ".
He [the philosopher] said to them: "From the day when you were exiled
from your land, the Law of Moses has been taken away, and the Law of the
Evangelion (Gyleon, in Siriac, n.d.r.) has been given, and in it is written:
'A son ad a daughter shall inherit alike' ". The next day he [R. Gamliel] in
his turn sent to him a Lybian ass. He [the Judge] said them: "I have looked
further to the end of the book, and in it is written: 'I am not come to take
away from the Law of Moses ad I am not come to add to the Law of Moses',
and in it [the Law of Moses] is written: 'Where there is a son a daughter does
not inherit' ". She said to him: "Let your light shine as a lamp!"
R. Gamliel said to her: "The ass has come and trotted out the lamp".
.

The first time I read this anecdote, it was a version translated into Italian. In such a text the term 'Lybian' was translated as 'Lebanese'. Then, when I got to read (in its most important parts for me) the contents of the work of R. T. Herford, I read for the first time, and I was amazed, the term 'Libyan', as this does not mean 'Lebanese'. However, as it is written it does not even mean Libyan ... (ie from the Libya)

My question is whether it is possible to know which attribute is given in the Hebrew version of the Talmud, which is then the original one also.

Thank you in advance for the eventual response.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

stephan huller · 07-23-2010, 09:30 AM

Jannai (little John, Johnny)

re:

Quote:

the Hebrew version of the Talmud

The Talmud was written in Aramaic. The canonization of the Gemara must have happened in Palestine in the 300’s. Have a look at the English summary at the end of my friend, Ruairidh Boid's article “LÁntiquité des Racines du Karaïsme”, where he mentions the same phenomenon in Babylonia later on. The Karaites were not innovators, but rather a group of theologians that rejected the new heresy. There are clues which show why the Palestinian Talmud was finished before the Babylonian. The new dogma originated in Palestine and took time to take hold in Babylonia. Once the Gemara, whether Palestinian or Babylonian, was canonised and made the HIGHEST authority (higher than the Torah itself strangely enough), it only needed some final editing, but further work on it was by definition unnecessary or even undesirable. It was the turn of the Savora’im to tidy up and then the Ge’onim to expound the new sacred text and ultimate authority.

Littlejohn · 07-23-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Jannai (little John, Johnny)

re:

Quote:

the Hebrew version of the Talmud

The Talmud was written in Aramaic. The canonization of the Gemara must have happened in Palestine in the 300’s. Have a look at the English summary at the end of my friend, Ruairidh Boid's article “LÁntiquité des Racines du Karaïsme”, where he mentions the same phenomenon in Babylonia later on. The Karaites were not innovators, but rather a group of theologians that rejected the new heresy. There are clues which show why the Palestinian Talmud was finished before the Babylonian. The new dogma originated in Palestine and took time to take hold in Babylonia. Once the Gemara, whether Palestinian or Babylonian, was canonised and made the HIGHEST authority (higher than the Torah itself strangely enough), it only needed some final editing, but further work on it was by definition unnecessary or even undesirable. It was the turn of the Savora’im to tidy up and then the Ge’onim to expound the new sacred text and ultimate authority.
.

Littlejohn is English for 'Giannino', that is just my italian name. 'Little John' is the name of the bear by the cartoons relating to Robin Hood. It was therefore a joke by DanHopkins.

Thank you for your clarification, some of whom I already known. However, what I was interested to know is whether in the Hebrew version (ie untranslated) of the anecdote given in "Bab. Shabbath 116th," appears the term 'Libyan' (from the word 'Libya') or the word 'Lebanese' (from 'Lebanon'). Carryover under the sentence where the term appears:

"..The next day he [R. Gamliel] in his turn sent to him a Lybian ass.."

I'm incline to believe that the original term (ie that Hebrew present in this sentence) was 'Lebanese'. But I need confirmation ...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

stephan huller · 07-23-2010, 08:40 PM

Libya was famous for producing asses (sort of like Brazil today I guess). See Sabb 51b, Tosefta Kilayim 5:3, Genesis Rabba s 98 etc. Even if this wasn't so widely attested Libya is Luba or Liboi and Lebanon is Lbnon. It doesn't work I am afraid. Beside Lebanon has a metaphorical meaning = the temple or the king (Sifre Deut 6, Gitt 56b).

charles · 07-30-2010, 03:31 PM

What about maryhelena's question - where does Herod the Great fit into all of this?

maryhelena · 07-31-2010, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...Take the Alexandrian Philo, for instance. Philo wrote about the Essenes - a philosophical ideal community that he envisaged in the land of Palestine....

But what you claiming is simple not true at all. Philo did NOT write about any philosophical community.

Philo claimed that the Essenes did DWELL in Judea during his time.

Hypothetica

Quote:

(11.1) But our lawgiver trained an innumerable body of his pupils to partake in those things, who are called Essenes, being, as I imagine, honoured with this appellation because of their exceeding holiness. And they dwell in many cities of Judaea, and in many villages, and in great and populous communities....

In your bid to undermine the writings of Josephus you are promoting propaganda about Philo. You seem to forget that Pliny the Elder did locate the geographical location of some Essenes and this information about the Essenes from Pliny the elder cannot be found in neither the writings of Philo nor Josephus.

I seem to have missed this post....

OK - Rachel Elior's original postings to the blog of Jim West have been lost re his setting up a new blog - the original archives no longer available. However, I do have a Word document in which these postings are detailed.

Quote:

Rachel Elior

Rachel Elior Responds to Her Respondents (on the blog of Jim West)

March 17, 2009

Rachel writes

May I remind the participants what is the nature of the arguments, I would like to briefly sum up what is written about the Essnes and to compare it with what is known about the content of the scroll. I make no remarks about archeology only on texts that everybody can read:

The Essenes were first introduced by Philo (d. 50 CE), a first century Jewish scholar who lived in Alexandria. Philo was interested in the ideas of the Stoa and told his readers that there were more than 4,000 Essenes (Essaioi) living in villages throughout the Land of Israel. He maintained that these people had no monetary concerns, lived a very simple, modest life, did not have any earthly possessions, devoted much of their time to study, and observed the Sabbath according to all the strictest instructions. He further noted their love of God, their concerns with piety, honesty, morality, philanthropy, holiness, equality, freedom, and the importance of communal life. He added that the holy Essenes did not marry and lived a celibate life, and practiced communal residence, money, property, food and clothing. He said that they convened in synagogues every Sabbath and studied the law according to philosophical and allegorical interpretations. He maintained that these people cherished freedom, possessed no slaves, and resented the use of weapons or participation in commerce. Philo did not mention any name, place, date, or historical circumstances, or any background to the consolidation of this group.

However intriguing and interesting as these descriptions might be, we can not substantiate them on any historical or philological evidence: no Hebrew or Aramaic text before the Common Era or in the first century of the Common Era reveals any data about this perfect group that lived according to the highest ideals of freedom, equality, communality, modesty, chastity and liberty. No Hebrew or Aramaic text mentioned such a faultless group numbering thousands of people spread all over the country. No Jewish source written in Hebrew or Aramaic ever mentioned the existence of this celibate group that lived in opposition to the biblical commandment which demanded marriage and procreation from all members of Jewish society. No Hebrew source mentions a group that rejected slavery, denounced weapons, and resented commerce. No Hebrew or Aramaic source is familiar with the word Essenes or Essaioi.

The second witness, Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE), relates in some few lines that the Essenes do not marry, possess no money (like Philo), and existed for thousands of generations. Unlike Philo, who did not mention any particular geographical location of the Essenes other than the whole land of Israel, Pliny mentioned Ein Gedi, next to the Dead Sea, as their residence. However, there is no room next to Ein Gedi for thousands of people and there is no word in the Hebrew language that refers to any of the above. No noun, no verb, no adjective is associated with the term Essenes, no chronicle or recollection of the legendary Essaioi or Essenes is to be found in the language of the land where they allegedly resided for thousands generations.

Josephus, writing in the last third of the first century in Rome, is the third witness. He relates the same information mentioned above concerning piety, celibacy, the resentment of property and the denouncing of money, the belief in communality and commitment to a strict observance of the Sabbath. He further added that the Essenes ritually immersed in water every morning, ate together after prayer, devoted themselves to charity and benevolence, forbade the expression of anger, studied the books of the elders, preserved secrets, and were very mindful of the names of the angels kept in their sacred writings. He further wrote that their life expectancy achieved more than 100 years.

There exists no known Hebrew or Aramaic text before or after the Common Era which supports any of these exceptional traits and ideal society that presumably had existed for many generations and thousands of years. It seems to me that this is a description of an ideal society in Utopia that Philo had imagined, and not a real society in the land of Israel in the first century CE. Pliny and Josephus were fascinated with this ideal of a holy community that respects the elderly and frees the slaves, cherishes equality and freedom, and has contempt for the values of the mundane world.

The New Testament knows nothing about such accomplished holy communities in the first century CE and the Apocrypha also reveals no sign of such moral achievements in any Jewish community.

On the other hand we have 930 scrolls or remnants of scrolls written in Hebrew and Aramaic which were found in Qumran 60 years ago. The scrolls (all translated into English) are dated in general to the Second and First Centuries before the Common Era. No scroll has the word Essenes or Essaioi or any close word.

All the scrolls are Holy Scriptures: they are associated with the biblical books written during the first millennium BCE; they include the ineffable name of God written in four letters in Paleo-Hebrew; they include the biblical narrative and its expansion. They further include stories told by angels as well as numerous lines of priestly-angelic liturgy, psalms, priestly blessings, Temple worship, priestly watches, priestly dynasty, priestly calendar, and priestly history.

The writers identify themselves in the Manual of Discipline and in the Damascus Document, the Florilegium, and the Rule of Blessings, as The Priests the sons of Zadok according to the biblical tradition of the high priesthood (II Samuel 15:27-29; 19:12; I Kings 1:34; Ezekiel 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11; I Chronicles 9:11; Ezra 7:2; Nehemiah 11:11). They refer to themselves as the Seed of Aaron, holy of holies, as the children of Zadok and their covenanters [allies], and similar priestly names. They call their leader the Priest of Justice (Cohen Zedek) and they authored texts that were titled as The Temple Scroll, The Scroll of Priestly Watches, The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, The Scroll of Blessings — all pertaining directly to priestly service in the earthly Temple and the heavenly sanctuaries.

Scholars who studied the legal tradition reflected in the scrolls associated it with the Sadducee’s [=Zadokite priests] legal tradition. Scholars who studied the calendar attested in the scrolls associated it with the Sadducee’s tradition on the calendar mentioned controversially by the Sages. Scholars who studied the language of the scroll attached it to Biblical Hebrew and post-Biblical Hebrew with unique priestly vocabulary.

In light of the above facts there are a few questions that I wish to raise:

Why should we associate the priestly oriented scrolls with the Essenes, who are not connected to the priesthood in any of the above testimonies? Why should we connect a library of 930 holy scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic to a group unknown in the Hebrew language [but known as Essenes (Essaioi) in Greek], which group is not associated with sacred writing, priestly worship, a solar calendar or Temple ritual — all of which are central in the scrolls? Why not connect the scrolls to the explicitly asserted identity of the writers — the priests, the sons of Zadok and their allies?

Why should we accept Josephus’s evidence, which was based on Philo’s non-historic description of an ideal community of thousands of people and was written in the last two decades of the first century CE, 250 years after the events of 175 BCE, when the Zadokite Priests were deposed from the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes and took the scrolls from the defiled Temple in the middle of the second century BCE, in the Hasmonean period, and continued to write and copy them in the desert and elsewhere?

The priestly content of the scrolls — which demonstrates obvious concern with holy time (priestly calendar; priestly watches that kept the sevenfold divisions of 364 days calendar — cf. calendar of MMT; calendar in Scroll of priestly watches; calendar in Jubilees 4-6; I Enoch chapters 72-82; ritual calendar at the end of 11Q Psalm Scroll; calendar at the flood story 4Q252; calendar of festivals in the Temple Scroll; calendar of Sabbaths in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), with holy place (Temple on Mount Zion; Chariot vision; Holy of Holies — Jubilees; Enoch; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), and with holy ritual (priestly blessings, psalms sung by the Levites, priestly songs; sacrificial ritual — MMT; Damascus Document; Psalm Scroll, Temple Scroll, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) — does not allow connecting the scrolls to the Essenes, who are not known to fight for a solar calendar, for holy place, or to debate on Temple rituals, as is obvious in the scrolls. The struggle between the Priest of Justice and the Wicked Priest in Pesher Habakkuk and Pesher Tehilim and in other Pesharim points out again to a priestly context and priestly struggle in the wake of the Biblical era.

Why should we dismiss the obvious priestly concern of the scrolls and the priestly history of the second and first centuries BCE at the Hasmonean period (152-37 BCE), attested richly by the scrolls, and the numerous connections to the world of the Bible, and replace it with the non-historical legendary Essenes of the first century CE, which offers no historical context?

Why should we rely on the questionable testimony of Philo, Pliny and Josephus, written in Greek and Latin outside of the Land of Israel in the first century, about peaceful celibates who lived ideal lives in a Utopia where the expression of anger, lust, greed or desire, and luxury or comfort, were utterly forbidden, and entirely disregard the most valuable testimony of 930 scrolls written in Hebrew and Aramaic by struggling, desperate Zadokite priestly circles and their supporters, who lost the sacred sovereignty of the Temple and the divine worship, promised to them in Exodus and Leviticus, and written clearly in sacred prose and holy poetry, their disappearing Biblical world, in the Hasmonean period, when they were deposed and lost all earthly power and had to rely upon the angelic world and an apocalyptic future?

Rachel Elior

For those interested, and who may have missed the original discussion on this fourm - here is the link.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....77#post5846677

Clivedurdle · 07-31-2010, 12:58 AM

Quote:

In the Hasmonean and Herodian periods (first century BCE to first century CE) the Jewish settlement at Ein Gedi thrived, expanded and became a royal estate. At Tel Goren, a well-fortified citadel was built to protect the village and its agricultural products against raiding nomads. At this time Ein Gedi expanded and spread to the low, flat hill at the foot of Tel Goren. Ein Gedi was destroyed and abandoned during the First Jewish Rebellion against Rome (66-70 CE).

In renewed excavations, beginning in 1996, some 30 stone-built cells, clustered around a small spring, were found northwest of Tel Goren. The excavator suggests that this might have been a monastic site of the Essene sect, whose members lived in isolated communities in the desert near the Dead Sea during the Roman period.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Ea...playMode=print

maryhelena · 07-31-2010, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles

What about maryhelena's question - where does Herod the Great fit into all of this?

In the above post I quoted from Slavonic Josephus. Here is Josephus in Antiquities re the siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc. Note the keen interest of the Jews in prophetic interpretations at that time - 37 bc - the start of the rule of Herod the Great over Jerusalem; and the follow on in the gospel story re the birth of Jesus being connected to the slaughter of innocents. Indicating that the gospel writer also had a keen interest in the events of 37 bc and how they related to Daniel.ch.9. With this interpretation one is led right into the gospel time frame - and of course, adding 70 years from the 37 bc siege of Jerusalem one gets to 33 ce...indicating that the gospel writer was very aware of those 70 symbolic years of Daniel ch.9 - and sought to fit the mythological Jesus storyline within this prophetic template.

(one can take this a step further - 33 ce is the end of the 70 years. The 'cutting off' is in the middle of a week, of 7 years. Counting back from 33 ce is 26 ce and the start of the rule of Pontius Pilate. Luke's 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 ce being the middle of the week. Luke 'fixing' the gospel of John, which can be read as a 3 year ministry ending in some undefined year within the rule of Pilate, in order to fit his application of Daniel's 70 weeks.)

As I noted in that previous post

Quote:

One way this could have been calculated is simply to add 37 years to 483 years (69 weeks) and one gets to around 520 bc. About the 2nd year of Darius when the temple rebuilding got re-started after being stopped soon after the return from Babylon at the time of the degree of Cyrus.

Quote:

Antiquities book 14 ch 16

Now the Jews that were enclosed within the walls of the city fought against Herod with great alacrity and zeal (for the whole nation was gathered together); they also gave out many prophecies about the temple, and many things agreeable to the people, as if God would deliver them out of the dangers they were in..

The first that scaled the walls were twenty chosen men, the next were Sosius's centurions; for the first wall was taken in forty days, and the second in fifteen more, when some of the cloisters that were about the temple were burnt, which Herod gave out to have been burnt by Antigonus, in order to expose him to the hatred of the Jews. And when the outer court of the temple and the lower city were taken, the Jews fled into the inner court of the temple, and into the upper city; but now fearing lest the Romans should hinder them from offering their daily sacrifices to God, they sent an embassage, and desired that they would only permit them to bring in beasts for sacrifices, which Herod granted, hoping they were going to yield; but when he saw that they did nothing of what he supposed, but bitterly opposed him, in order to preserve the kingdom to Antigonus, he made an assault upon the city, and took it by storm; and now all parts were full of those that were slain, by the rage of the Romans at the long duration of the siege, and by the zeal of the Jews that were on Herod's side, who were not willing to leave one of their adversaries alive; so they were murdered continually in the narrow streets and in the houses by crowds, and as they were flying to the temple for shelter, and there was no pity taken of either infants or the aged, nor did they spare so much as the weaker sex; nay, although the king sent about, and besought them to spare the people, yet nobody restrained their hand from slaughter, but, as if they were a company of madmen, they fell upon persons of all ages,

maryhelena · 07-31-2010, 05:56 AM

Back to 37 bc.......

Antigonus II Mattathias

Quote:

Antigonus was handed over by Herod to the Romans for execution in 37 BC, after a short reign of three years during which he had led a fierce struggle of the people for independence against the Romans and Romanizers such as Herod.

Antigonus II Mattathias was the only anointed King of the Jews (messiah) historically recorded to have been scourged and crucified by the Romans. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a stake and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[2] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king"

Quote:

Antiquities book 14 ch 16

So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, and carried Antigonus with him in bonds to Antony; but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family.

my bolding

Herod the Great from a 'vulgar family', with 'no eminent extraction' - a man who led a siege against Jerusalem that led to the slaughter of innocent old men, women and innocent children and the Jews were prepared to accept a son of such a man - as a messiah figure????

After 37 bc whatever Hasmonean royalty survived and were looking to re-located - then Alexandria would surely be first stop - Rome out of the question. And with Herod re-building the Jerusalem temple - any Alexandrian Hasmoneans would have no interest. The outward temple, Herod's temple, was no longer their spiritual home. Thus, Alexandria could well have become the hot spot re a spiritual re-evaluation of Judaism. And is that not what we have with the NT storyline - a mythological Jesus figure and Paul's cosmic Christ and the Jerusalem above....

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

07-23-2010, 08:40 PM	#35
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Libya was famous for producing asses (sort of like Brazil today I guess). See Sabb 51b, Tosefta Kilayim 5:3, Genesis Rabba s 98 etc. Even if this wasn't so widely attested Libya is Luba or Liboi and Lebanon is Lbnon. It doesn't work I am afraid. Beside Lebanon has a metaphorical meaning = the temple or the king (Sifre Deut 6, Gitt 56b).

07-30-2010, 03:31 PM	#36
charles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Midwest Posts: 94	What about maryhelena's question - where does Herod the Great fit into all of this?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.