Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-22-2011, 10:58 PM

More from Hachlili's book which might be the most decisive here:

Quote:

Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (70 CE), the menorah assumed the profound significance of the Temple. It became a prevalent symbol of the Jewish people and Judaism during the third-fourth centuries (see Fine and Zuckerman 1985 for the notion of the menorah as a symbol for the Jewish minority), and was also used to differentiate them from the Christians, whose symbol was the cross (Hachlili 1988:255-256). The menorah has been found rendered in synagogues, public buildings, and homes throughout the Land of Israel, leaving no doubt as to which are Jewish structures. In the Ma'on (Nirim) synagogue mosaic (IS3.8), for example, the prominently displayed menorah sets apart the synagogue from the nearby Shellal church mosaic (Hachlili 1987:48, fig. 2; 1997:97, Pl. 13), to which it is surprisingly similar. The menorah is not only an identifying symbol but, when depicted in mosaic floors, also shows the synagogue array by its proximity to the Torah shrine area.

The place of origin of the menorah as a symbol is debated. The menorah was the most important and dominant symbol in Jewish art, both in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. It also has been suggested that the menorah was used as a symbol of revolt against Rome (Appelbaum 1957:155, 158). Some scholars (Avigad 1976:268- 269) suggest that as a symbol of the Jewish people it originated in the Diaspora, where it was more common. Even the menoroth appearing in the Beth She'arim necropolis are associated with Diaspora Jews buried there. Indeed, the menorah may have been first adopted as a Jewish symbol in the Diaspora, where Jews felt the need to stress their Jewish identity, a need that the Jews in the Land of Israel, living in their own country, might not have felt as strongly. In both the Diaspora and the Land of Israel the menorah also came to symbolize Judaism, when it was necessary to distinguish synagogues and Jewish tombs and catacombs from Christian or pagan structures. The prominent position of the menorah in Jewish art emphasizes its significance.

Whatever its origins, in the Land of Israel or in the Diaspora, during the second century CE in places such as Rome, Babylon, and North Africa the menorah no doubt came to symbolize the Jewish revolt against the Romans and the Jewish need for self-identity. [p. 208]

maryhelena · 03-22-2011, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

More from Hachlili's book which might be the most decisive here:

Quote:

Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (70 CE), the menorah assumed the profound significance of the Temple. It became a prevalent symbol of the Jewish people and Judaism during the third-fourth centuries (see Fine and Zuckerman 1985 for the notion of the menorah as a symbol for the Jewish minority), and was also used to differentiate them from the Christians, whose symbol was the cross (Hachlili 1988:255-256). The menorah has been found rendered in synagogues, public buildings, and homes throughout the Land of Israel, leaving no doubt as to which are Jewish structures. In the Ma'on (Nirim) synagogue mosaic (IS3.8), for example, the prominently displayed menorah sets apart the synagogue from the nearby Shellal church mosaic (Hachlili 1987:48, fig. 2; 1997:97, Pl. 13), to which it is surprisingly similar. The menorah is not only an identifying symbol but, when depicted in mosaic floors, also shows the synagogue array by its proximity to the Torah shrine area.

The place of origin of the menorah as a symbol is debated. The menorah was the most important and dominant symbol in Jewish art, both in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. It also has been suggested that the menorah was used as a symbol of revolt against Rome (Appelbaum 1957:155, 158). Some scholars (Avigad 1976:268- 269) suggest that as a symbol of the Jewish people it originated in the Diaspora, where it was more common. Even the menoroth appearing in the Beth She'arim necropolis are associated with Diaspora Jews buried there. Indeed, the menorah may have been first adopted as a Jewish symbol in the Diaspora, where Jews felt the need to stress their Jewish identity, a need that the Jews in the Land of Israel, living in their own country, might not have felt as strongly. In both the Diaspora and the Land of Israel the menorah also came to symbolize Judaism, when it was necessary to distinguish synagogues and Jewish tombs and catacombs from Christian or pagan structures. The prominent position of the menorah in Jewish art emphasizes its significance.

Whatever its origins, in the Land of Israel or in the Diaspora, during the second century CE in places such as Rome, Babylon, and North Africa the menorah no doubt came to symbolize the Jewish revolt against the Romans and the Jewish need for self-identity. [p. 208]

An alternative view:

Quote:

http://www.ancient-coins.com/resourcedetail.asp?rsc=7

In 37 B.C.E. the Hasmonean dynasty ended with the defeat of Mattathias Antigonus. In the months before the defeat of Antigonus, at the hands of Herod and his Roman allies, he minted a most unusual coin that appears to have broken prohibitions forbidding the representation of certain sacred temple objects. The coin in question (Figure 3) has a seven-branched menorah on the obverse and a showbread table on the reverse. The prohibition referred to above comes not from the Torah, but rather from the Talmud. “A man may not make a house after the design of the Temple, a courtyard after the design of the Temple court, a table after the design of the table (the showbread-table), or a candelabrum (menorah) after the design of the Candelabrum. He may, however, make one with five, six of eight, but with seven he may not make it even though it be of other metals” (Babylon Talmud, Avodah Zarah 43). The Talmud was compiled from 200-500 C.E., so we cannot accurately determine when this prohibition was issued. However, the fact that the coins of the First Jewish Revolt and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt shun these images argues for the fact that this prohibition was recognized long before the compilation of the Talmud. The use of the menorah and showbread table on Antigonus’s coinage must have been quite provocative.

And after the disastrous events of 37 bc, the Jerusalem temple, even after Herod the Great's rebuilding exercise, would surely, from a Hasmonean perspective (perhaps those in exile in Alexandria) not be acceptable as their spiritual sanctuary. And the fact that the menorah is not depicted on the coins of the First Jewish Revolt, or the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, could indicate that Herod's temple was viewed, in some quarters, as an abomination.

[T2]Matthew 21:12-13 (New International Version, ©2011)

Jesus at the Temple

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’
[/T2]
Robbed indeed - methinks the Hasmoneans would be in full agreement....

stephan huller · 03-23-2011, 12:42 AM

I don't mean to fight with you all the time but this is an utterly ridiculous conclusion. Arguing that some Jews found the temple to be an abomination is such a radical idea that it requires more than the citation of a passage from the gospel to support it.

To be certain there might well have been groups that didn't want to go beyond the desert tabernacle described in the Torah. The Dositheans have been argued to hold this very strict position. But I have never seen any evidence to connect a Jewish group to this conception.

Samaritan society was very different from its Jewish counterpart. The Samaritan temple was destroyed likely by John Hyrcanus and the Dosithean position might well have developed from sour grapes for all we know.

Another difficulty with your analysis is that you mix and match different beliefs and practices from different ages. The prohibition set by the Talmud may not necessarily have been shared by all the Jewish groups during the Second Commonwealth period. The Talmud is reflective of a Judaism from a later period. The Mishnah does not reflect this understanding. That doesn't necessarily mean that this understanding wasn't shared by some Jewish groups.

Here is the opinion in Avodah Zarah 43a:

Quote:

Abaye explained: The Torah only forbids the making of his attendants which can be reproduced in facsimile, according to the teaching: A man may not make a house after the design of the Temple, or a porch after the design of the Temple-porch, a courtyard after the design of the Temple-court, a table after the design of the table [in the Temple], or a candelabrum after the design of its candelabrum — He may, however, make one with five, six or eight [branches], but with seven he may not make it even though it be of other metals

The difficulty that stands out right at the start is that Abaye was an amora from Babylonia from the fourth century. The Christian equivalent would be Epiphanius in terms of proximity to the events in question.

It might be possible of course that Abaye is preserving some original opinion which dated back to the period in question. It might even be likely. But how universal was this opinion? It is difficult to say with any certainty. It might have been a Pharisaic opinion. But it doesn't seem to have been a Sadducean one. There are many stories in Josephus of the rebels destroying Agrippa's palace owing to its depiction of 'graven images.' Would this have extended to the depicition of menoroth? I don't know.

One argument against this notion however is the fact that as Hichlili notes the menorah became intimately associated with Jewish nationalism after the destruction of the temple. If there was a pre-existent and widespread ban on depicting the menorah why do we find it displayed at Dura Europos for instance? Why the presence of the image on lamps, graves and other places? It would seem to be more likely in my mind that the Roman government associated the symbol with Jewish nationalism and thus the Jews avoided using the image in the period immediately following the revolts to avoid rousing suspicion that the assembly was inclined to sedition.

stephan huller · 03-23-2011, 01:00 AM

I don't think many people realize just how much re-engineering went on in post-revolutionary Judaism in the late second century. The Jews don't even sacrifice at Passover. Why so? The Samaritans still do. There's nothing in the Torah which says you need a temple to conduct sacrifices. When you think about it you don't need to have a temple to engage in the sacrifices proscribed in the Torah. The ancient Israelites did everything with a tent. You could presumably have expected the Jews to do the same but they didn't.

The Jews have no list of their own high priests. Why not? The Samaritans tell of a deliberate persecution of their priestly families by the Roman government in an attempt to dilute their authority (the Romans were said to have installed new priests among the Samaritans in the Commodian period).

The Jews have stories about not knowing what to do when Passover fell on the Sabbath in this period. How could they not have known what to do in this situation? It must have happened many, many times over the course of history. The example tells us that lines of transmission were broken during the revolutionary period. A lot of the connection that Jews think their tradition has with Second Commonwealth religion is fictitious. Judaism was restarted in the Antonine period and the Imperial government likely encouraged the codification of the Mishnah in order to promote 'acceptable teachings' (interestingly 'R. Antoninus' is credited with halakhah and haggadoth; the stories of R. Judah ha Nasi getting into bed on Antoninus back is a reflection of coziness in the Imperial age).

The Jews at some point in their history 'gave up' calculating shemittah (sabbatical years) and Jubilees. The Samaritans never did. It is almost unimaginable to consider what forces of nature would have forced the Jews to 'forget' to determine which years were proscribed for resting. Why did this happen? Because the Imperial government must have noticed that revolutions coincided with Jubilee years (certainly true for the bar Kochba revolt).

The reluctance to depict the menorah in the revolutionary period has to be seen in this light.

maryhelena · 03-23-2011, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't mean to fight with you all the time but this is an utterly ridiculous conclusion. Arguing that some Jews found the temple to be an abomination is such a radical idea that it requires more than the citation of a passage from the gospel to support it.

Come off it Stephan - all this type of talk, from you, is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black! How about Agrippa II being a Jewish messiah figure - now that is "utterly ridiculous" to my mind. So, where does this type of talk get one? Nowhere at all except deeper into a slanging match...

And did you not read the word *could* and *in some quarters* in my above post?

"And the fact that the menorah is not depicted on the coins of the First Jewish Revolt, or the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, could indicate that Herod's temple was viewed, in some quarters, as an abomination."

And as with most things in life - different horses for different courses. It really is not material how many Jews would have found Herod's temple to be acceptable - the question is about those who might have had reason not to do so. And these people would primarily have been the Hasmoneans - perhaps in exile in Alexandria. It's never a general consensus that produces anything new - it's those who don't take things at face value - oh, great, look what Herod has done with rebuilding the temple - magnificent etc...And if you were an Hasmonean sitting there in Alexandria your blood might just be on boiling point.....

How the menorah became a symbol of Judaism after the destruction of the Herod's temple is interesting - and, perhaps, only after Herod's temple hit the dust would such a representation have real meaning...

The period of interest re this new discovery - if the 9 candle menorah, with it's incomplete drawing, is going to be relevant - is from 37 bc to 70 ce. A time of Herodian rule and a time when the last Herodian ruler (carrying that disgraceful Herodian bloodline - his small drop of Hasmonean blood would disqualify him from ever being considered a Jewish messiah figure - was expelled from Jerusalem). It's the Herodian years - viewed from a Hasmonean perspective - that are going to be relevant in interpreting whatever secret code is on these new discoveries.

All this of course being very speculative as the whole discovery might turn out to be a forgery anyway - so let's cut out the "utterly ridiculous conclusion" talk and try playing nicely..:wave:

stephan huller · 03-23-2011, 01:45 AM

We've had the discussion about Agrippa before and rabbinic tradition has always held that he was the messiah of Daniel 9:26. I don't understand what is so controversial about this evidence other than the fact that you can't read Hebrew. The opinion is very old (going back to 'the sages' according to Nachmanides). It's older than Rashi, older than the Ga'onim going back at least as far as the Sefer Olam which dates to the second century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_Olam_Rabbah). Origen cites material from a Jewish history which says much the same thing (which was probably the history of Agrippa's secretary Justus). Again all of this information is inaccessible to you so you ridicule its authority.

If you knew anything about the messianic traditions of the Jews you would realize that the Jews always interpreted Gen 49.10 with Agrippa in mind. How couldn't they? It's fucking plain as a prostitute with out makeup.

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes

The Jews always cited these words against the Christian claims that Jesus was the messiah and the Christians couldn't say anything (other than develop ridiculously convoluted arguments that the royal line ended with Herod the Great).

Let me break it down for you very simply like Dr. Seuss:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet = the royal line.

until Shiloh comes = the messiah (because Shiloh = 345 = Moses = the messiah)

Very simple. The messiah would appear at the end of the royal line, i.e. with the last king. I wonder who that was. I will give you hint - it wasn't Herod. In a scenario where the Jews KNEW that a messiah had to be a king, it is obvious that Agrippa was understood to be predestined to be the one like Moses - and his name was Mark (= 345) to boot.

maryhelena · 03-23-2011, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

We've had the discussion about Agrippa before and rabbinic tradition has always held that he was the messiah of Daniel 9:26. I don't understand what is so controversial about this evidence other than the fact that you can't read Hebrew. The opinion is very old (going back to 'the sages' according to Nachmanides). It's older than Rashi, older than the Ga'onim going back at least as far as the Sefer Olam which dates to the second century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_Olam_Rabbah). Origen cites material from a Jewish history which says much the same thing (which was probably the history of Agrippa's secretary Justus). Again all of this information is inaccessible to you so you ridicule its authority.

If you knew anything about the messianic traditions of the Jews you would realize that the Jews always interpreted Gen 49.10 with Agrippa in mind. How couldn't they? It's fucking plain as a prostitute with out makeup.

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes

The Jews always cited these words against the Christian claims that Jesus was the messiah and the Christians couldn't say anything (other than develop ridiculously convoluted arguments that the royal line ended with Herod the Great).

Let me break it down for you very simply like Dr. Seuss:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet = the royal line.

until Shiloh comes = the messiah (because Shiloh = 345 = Moses = the messiah)

Very simple. The messiah would appear at the end of the royal line, i.e. with the last king. I wonder who that was. I will give you hint - it wasn't Herod.

Try Agrippa I - the last king of Judaea. (Agrippa II never ruled Judaea...)

Agrippa I: the last king of Judaea By Daniel R. Schwartz

http://books.google.com/books?id=exB...page&q&f=false

stephan huller · 03-23-2011, 02:32 AM

Danny, whom I know personally does not say that the Agrippa of the rabbinic tradition is Agrippa I. He says that it is unclear which Agrippa is meant although he notes that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is implied in some narratives. It can't be Agrippa I for the reasons I just cited with respect to Genesis 49:10 (he wasn't the last). It can't be Agrippa I that is meant by the rabbinic interpretation of Daniel 9:26 (given the fact that according to Josephus Agrippa I died almost thirty years earlier). Agrippa I cannot be made to fit into Daniel's chronology any more than Herod the Great. The Yosippon also confirms that Agrippa II is meant but again it is available only in Hebrew.

I really think you should pick up at least one ancient language. It will help clarify and strengthen your research.

That you would even suggest that the reason that the reason Jewish coins don't have menorah images was because Jews might have thought the temple was abomination demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about. That's like saying that maybe the reason why Muslims don't depict Mohammed is because they secretly hate him.

maryhelena · 03-23-2011, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Danny, whom I know personally does not say that the Agrippa of the rabbinic tradition is Agrippa I. He says that it is unclear which Agrippa is meant although he notes that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is implied in some narratives. It can't be Agrippa I for the reasons I just cited with respect to Genesis 49:10 (he wasn't the last). It can't be Agrippa I that is meant by the rabbinic interpretation of Daniel 9:26 (given the fact that according to Josephus Agrippa I died almost thirty years earlier). Agrippa I cannot be made to fit into Daniel's chronology any more than Herod the Great. The Yosippon also confirms that Agrippa II is meant but again it is available only in Hebrew.

I really think you should pick up at least one ancient language. It will help clarify and strengthen your research.

That you would even suggest that the reason that the reason Jewish coins don't have menorah images was because Jews might have thought the temple was abomination demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about. That's like saying that maybe the reason why Muslims don't depict Mohammed is because they secretly hate him.

And I really do think that you should face the fact, the very harsh fact in regard to any Jewish messianic prophetic interpretations, that Agrippa II was not King of Judaea...

Quote:

Agrippa II
But in 66 the Jews expelled him and Berenice from the city......During the First Jewish-Roman War of 66–73, he sent 2,000 men, archers and cavalry, to support Vespasian, showing that, although a Jew in religion, he was entirely devoted to the Romans. He accompanied Titus on some campaigns,[1] and was wounded at the siege of Gamala. After the capture of Jerusalem, he went with his sister Berenice to Rome, where he was invested with the dignity of praetor and rewarded with additional territory.

My my, a Jewish messiah that fights against the Jewish people and gets expelled from Jerusalem....come on Stephan - this is not rocket science here...

And what a difference with Agrippa I - the people are in sackcloth for their mourning and lamentations at his impending death...

Quote:

Ant.19.ch.8

Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation.

And Stephan, if its Daniel ch.9 that floats your boat - try this:

Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes in 445 bc - to re-build the walls of Jerusalem. Now, 490 years from that date is 45 ce - the time given for the death of Agrippa I - and of course, Agrippa I also set about repairing the walls of Jerusalem...

Quote:

Ant book 19 ch.7

“As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, “.......

Anyway, this is way beyond going off topic - and you and I have been here before - so best thing to do is to agree to put the issue on the shelve...

stephan huller · 03-24-2011, 07:44 AM

My Samaritan friend Benyamim Tsedaka writes about the lead images:

"Interesting. Not Samaritan."

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

03-23-2011, 01:00 AM	#64
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't think many people realize just how much re-engineering went on in post-revolutionary Judaism in the late second century. The Jews don't even sacrifice at Passover. Why so? The Samaritans still do. There's nothing in the Torah which says you need a temple to conduct sacrifices. When you think about it you don't need to have a temple to engage in the sacrifices proscribed in the Torah. The ancient Israelites did everything with a tent. You could presumably have expected the Jews to do the same but they didn't. The Jews have no list of their own high priests. Why not? The Samaritans tell of a deliberate persecution of their priestly families by the Roman government in an attempt to dilute their authority (the Romans were said to have installed new priests among the Samaritans in the Commodian period). The Jews have stories about not knowing what to do when Passover fell on the Sabbath in this period. How could they not have known what to do in this situation? It must have happened many, many times over the course of history. The example tells us that lines of transmission were broken during the revolutionary period. A lot of the connection that Jews think their tradition has with Second Commonwealth religion is fictitious. Judaism was restarted in the Antonine period and the Imperial government likely encouraged the codification of the Mishnah in order to promote 'acceptable teachings' (interestingly 'R. Antoninus' is credited with halakhah and haggadoth; the stories of R. Judah ha Nasi getting into bed on Antoninus back is a reflection of coziness in the Imperial age). The Jews at some point in their history 'gave up' calculating shemittah (sabbatical years) and Jubilees. The Samaritans never did. It is almost unimaginable to consider what forces of nature would have forced the Jews to 'forget' to determine which years were proscribed for resting. Why did this happen? Because the Imperial government must have noticed that revolutions coincided with Jubilee years (certainly true for the bar Kochba revolt). The reluctance to depict the menorah in the revolutionary period has to be seen in this light.

03-23-2011, 01:45 AM	#66
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	We've had the discussion about Agrippa before and rabbinic tradition has always held that he was the messiah of Daniel 9:26. I don't understand what is so controversial about this evidence other than the fact that you can't read Hebrew. The opinion is very old (going back to 'the sages' according to Nachmanides). It's older than Rashi, older than the Ga'onim going back at least as far as the Sefer Olam which dates to the second century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_Olam_Rabbah). Origen cites material from a Jewish history which says much the same thing (which was probably the history of Agrippa's secretary Justus). Again all of this information is inaccessible to you so you ridicule its authority. If you knew anything about the messianic traditions of the Jews you would realize that the Jews always interpreted Gen 49.10 with Agrippa in mind. How couldn't they? It's fucking plain as a prostitute with out makeup. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes The Jews always cited these words against the Christian claims that Jesus was the messiah and the Christians couldn't say anything (other than develop ridiculously convoluted arguments that the royal line ended with Herod the Great). Let me break it down for you very simply like Dr. Seuss: The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet = the royal line. until Shiloh comes = the messiah (because Shiloh = 345 = Moses = the messiah) Very simple. The messiah would appear at the end of the royal line, i.e. with the last king. I wonder who that was. I will give you hint - it wasn't Herod. In a scenario where the Jews KNEW that a messiah had to be a king, it is obvious that Agrippa was understood to be predestined to be the one like Moses - and his name was Mark (= 345) to boot.

03-23-2011, 02:32 AM	#68
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Danny, whom I know personally does not say that the Agrippa of the rabbinic tradition is Agrippa I. He says that it is unclear which Agrippa is meant although he notes that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is implied in some narratives. It can't be Agrippa I for the reasons I just cited with respect to Genesis 49:10 (he wasn't the last). It can't be Agrippa I that is meant by the rabbinic interpretation of Daniel 9:26 (given the fact that according to Josephus Agrippa I died almost thirty years earlier). Agrippa I cannot be made to fit into Daniel's chronology any more than Herod the Great. The Yosippon also confirms that Agrippa II is meant but again it is available only in Hebrew. I really think you should pick up at least one ancient language. It will help clarify and strengthen your research. That you would even suggest that the reason that the reason Jewish coins don't have menorah images was because Jews might have thought the temple was abomination demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about. That's like saying that maybe the reason why Muslims don't depict Mohammed is because they secretly hate him.

03-24-2011, 07:44 AM	#70
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	My Samaritan friend Benyamim Tsedaka writes about the lead images: "Interesting. Not Samaritan."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.