Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-14-2012, 04:17 PM

So Justin the pagan settled into the new pagan colony of Neapolis built on the ruins of the Samaritan religious center of Shechem and made friends with his new neighbors, the dispossessed Samaritans by inviting them over for a backyard BBQ (though careful not to include pork on the grill).

This is so stupid. There were no 'Samarians' to claim fellowship with outside of the religious Samaritans. There were no other pagan colonies. If a pagan was going to address his fellows in the geographic region he would have addressed the 'Neopolitans.' 'My people, the residents of the geographical region of Samaria (but I am not a Samaritan)' only works if you ignore history which seems easy enough for some ...

stephan huller · 02-14-2012, 04:33 PM

I think I am finding this forum too stupid even for me. From the table of contents of Josephus Antiquities 18: http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html

Quote:

These are the things contained in the eighteenth [volume] of the histories of the Jewish antiquities by Josephus:

... Τα συμβαντα Ιουδαιοις εν Ρωμη κατα τουτον τον καιρον υπο των Σαμαρεων.
What happened to the Jews in Rome at this time under the Samaritans.

So Josephus is taking here about 'the people of the region of the Samaritans.' Oh Lord.

stephan huller · 02-14-2012, 04:34 PM

More from Josephus:

Quote:

5. [236] Κουμανὸς δὲ ἀναλαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς Καισαρείας μίαν ἴλην ἱππέων καλουμένην Σεβαστηνῶν ἐξεβοήθει τοῖς πορθουμένοις καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον πολλοὺς μὲν συνέλαβεν, πλείστους δ' ἀπέκτεινεν. [237] πρὸς δὲ τὸ λοιπὸν πλῆθος τῶν πολεμεῖν τοῖς Σαμαρεῦσιν ὡρμημένων οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἐκδραμόντες σάκκους ἀμπεχόμενοι καὶ τέφραν τῶν κεφαλῶν καταχέοντες ἱκέτευον ἀναχωρεῖν καὶ μὴ διὰ τὴν εἰς Σαμαρεῖς ἄμυναν ἐπὶ Ἱεροσόλυμα Ῥωμαίους παροξύνειν, ἐλεῆσαί τε τὴν πατρίδα καὶ τὸν ναὸν τέκνα τε καὶ γυναῖκας ἰδίας, ἃ πάντα κινδυνεύειν δι' ἑνὸς ἐκδικίαν Γαλιλαίου παραπολέσθαι. [238] τούτοις πεισθέντες Ἰουδαῖοι διελύθησαν. ἐτράποντο δὲ πολλοὶ πρὸς ληιστείαν διὰ τὴν ἄδειαν, καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν χώραν ἁρπαγαί τε ἦσαν καὶ τῶν θρασυτέρων ἐπαναστάσεις. [239] καὶ τῶν Σαμαρέων οἱ δυνατοὶ πρὸς Οὐμμίδιον Κουαδρᾶτον, ὃς ἦν ἡγεμὼν τῆς Συρίας, εἰς Τύρον παραγενόμενοι δίκην τινὰ παρὰ τῶν πορθησάντων τὴν χώραν ἠξίουν λαβεῖν. [240] παρόντες δὲ καὶ οἱ γνώριμοι τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς Ἰωνάθης υἱὸς Ἀνάνου κατάρξαι μὲν ἔλεγον τῆς ταραχῆς Σαμαρέας διὰ τὸν φόνον, αἴτιον δὲ τῶν ἀποβεβηκότων Κουμανὸν γεγονέναι μὴ θελήσαντα τοὺς αὐθέντας τοῦ σφαγέντος ἐπεξελθεῖν.
6. [241] Κουαδρᾶτος δὲ τότε μὲν ἑκατέρους ὑπερτίθεται φήσας, ἐπειδὰν εἰς τοὺς τόπους παραγένηται, διερευνήσειν ἕκαστα, αὖθις δὲ παρελθὼν εἰς Καισάρειαν τοὺς ὑπὸ Κουμανοῦ ζωγρηθέντας ἀνεσταύρωσεν πάντας. [242] ἐκεῖθεν εἰς Λύδδα παραγενόμενος πάλιν διήκουσεν τῶν Σαμαρέων, καὶ μεταπεμψάμενος ὀκτωκαίδεκα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, οὓς ἐπέπυστο μετεσχηκέναι τῆς μάχης, πελέκει διεχειρίσατο· [243] δύο δ' ἑτέρους τῶν δυνατωτάτων καὶ τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς Ἰωνάθην καὶ Ἀνανίαν τόν τε τούτου παῖδα Ἄνανον καί τινας ἄλλους Ἰουδαίων γνωρίμους ἀνέπεμψεν ἐπὶ Καίσαρα, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Σαμαρέων τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους. [244] παρήγγειλεν δὲ καὶ Κουμανῶι καὶ Κέλερι τῶι χιλιάρχωι πλεῖν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης δώσοντας Κλαυδίωι λόγον ὑπὲρ τῶν γεγενημένων. ταῦτα διαπραξάμενος ἀπὸ Λύδδων ἀνέβαινεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, καὶ καταλαβὼν τὸ πλῆθος ἄγον τὴν τῶν ἀζύμων ἑορτὴν ἀθορύβως εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν ἐπανήιει.

stephan huller · 02-14-2012, 04:40 PM

I wish the arguments that develop in this forum were more substantive than personal grudges. Kirkpatrick should settle this idiotic debate:

Quote:

Justin is the perfect candidate for one of those pagan interlopers who now dwell in the land of Samaria, not a Samaritan, but a Samarian. In fact he does identify himself as a Samareus towards the end of the Dialogue (120.6): ‘for having no concern on the part of my people, that is to say of the Samaritans, when corresponding with Caesar by letter I said that they erred by believing Simon the magician of their own people, whom they say is above all rule and authority and power.’

If we have already decided that Simon and his followers are pagan non-Samaritans, then there is no problem in grouping Justin with them too. However, this is stretching the reading. Justin sees himself as part of a distinctive genos, and if this means simply everybody living in Samaria who is not a Samaritan in the religious sense, this usage would be unparalleled (for example, we never hear of the genos of ‘the Ioudaioi’, that group of non-Jewish settlers who occupied Judaea following the Jewish revolts). The distinction is not appreciated, either, by Justin’s followers, some of whom certainly see Simon as a Samaritan in the religious sense (at least, if he is not a Jew). This is especially clear when Simon is paired with Dositheus, his putative pupil and another Samaritan; Dositheus is an important instigator of heresy also in the later Samaritan texts, and although it is sometimes suspected that he, too, is a Jew, it is not suggested that he is a Gentile.

In fact, the distinction between ‘Samaritan’, in a religious sense, and ‘Samarian’, as simply somebody who lives in Samaria and who may be a pagan, is not one that existed in the Roman period. The Greek words Σαμαρειτης and Σαμαρευς, which seem to correspond to Samaritan and Samarian in English, in fact overlap in meaning; neither has a more ‘religious’ sense. The lexicographers argued over which was the correct ethnic designation for Samaria, but no agreement was reached.

The earliest instance of an attempt to make this religious distinction comes from an Egyptian divorce contract of AD 586; the unhappily married pair are described as ‘Samaritans by religion’ (Σαμαρῖται τὴν θρησκίαν). By this time the Samaritan sect was clearly distinct from the earlier pagan culture of the Roman empire and more particularly from dominant Christianity, in opposition to which it had been able to define itself.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KgV...%BD%22&f=false

DCHindley · 02-14-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think I am finding this forum too stupid even for me. From the table of contents of Josephus Antiquities 18: http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html

Quote:

These are the things contained in the eighteenth [volume] of the histories of the Jewish antiquities by Josephus:

... Τα συμβαντα Ιουδαιοις εν Ρωμη κατα τουτον τον καιρον υπο των Σαμαρεων.
What happened to the Jews in Rome at this time under the Samaritans.

So Josephus is taking here about 'the people of the region of the Samaritans.' Oh Lord.

That would refer to 18:81 There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man:--he, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses.
82 He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and, when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her.
83 Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome;
84 at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island of Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. {d} Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.

What's your point? The man was a Jew who was in exile, apparently in Samaria, so yeah, the Roman Jews suffered from the actions of four men "from," Samaria.

DCH

stephan huller · 02-14-2012, 08:05 PM

is this the monty python argument clinic skit?

stephan huller · 02-14-2012, 11:24 PM

Unless you come up with something which goes against Kirkpatrick's argument that the two terms were synonymous (a point which is further strengthened by evidence from the rabbinic literature), this discussion is over.

tanya · 02-15-2012, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

...this discussion is over.

Sorry to intrude. Apology for failing to comprehend that the debate has concluded, with this pronouncement of termination. Must be a pathological trait, failure to follow directions.

According to Stephan, Josephus wrote Σαμαρεων

The question then is this: Did Josephus refer to the inhabitants of Samaria, which had been devastated by the Romans fighting with the Jews, in 70 CE, (a battle that left Shechem in ruins, with the original inhabitants dispersed, or killed) as a "pure" Jewish sect, untainted by the presence of Greeks, notwithstanding the conquest of Alexander?

Since there is genetic evidence that the original "Samaritans" came from Iraq, it seems reasonable, to me, that the term "Samaritan" has, AND HAD, been confused with those revisionist Jews, who believed (contrary to orthodox Judaism) that Mount Gerizim was sacred, and those people who lived near Mount Gerizim, irrespective of any religious beliefs.

stephan huller · 02-15-2012, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Since there is genetic evidence that the original "Samaritans" came from Iraq,

No evidence. Propaganda.

tanya · 02-15-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No evidence. Propaganda.

One hopes that this statement does not reflect your scholarly disposition in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Haplogroup J2 is widely believed to be associated with the spread of agriculture from Mesopotamia

Quote:

In human genetics, E1b1b1a (or E-V68), is the name of a major Y chromosome haplogroup found in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia and Europe. It is dominated by its longer-known sub-clade E1b1b1a1 (E-M78), formerly known as E3b1a

Quote:

The E1b1b1 haplogroup (formerly known as E3b1) has been observed in all Jewish groups worldwide. It is considered to be the second most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population outside of the J haplogroups. According to one non-peer reviewed paper[46] it has also been observed in moderate numbers among individuals from Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Samaritan communities having traditions of descending from the tribe of Levi, suggesting that the E1b1b1 men claiming to be Levites may have existed in Israel before the Diaspora of 70 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Global Jewish Agenda 2001

A new study by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem reveals: the Kurds are the people closest to the Jews genetically. Scientists who carried out the study, including Prof. Ariella Friedman [sic: Oppenheim] and Dr. Marina Fireman [sic: Faerman], say that according to the findings, the Jews and the Kurds share common ancient forefathers, who lived in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent (a part of contemporary Iraq and Syria).

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

02-14-2012, 04:17 PM	#31
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So Justin the pagan settled into the new pagan colony of Neapolis built on the ruins of the Samaritan religious center of Shechem and made friends with his new neighbors, the dispossessed Samaritans by inviting them over for a backyard BBQ (though careful not to include pork on the grill). This is so stupid. There were no 'Samarians' to claim fellowship with outside of the religious Samaritans. There were no other pagan colonies. If a pagan was going to address his fellows in the geographic region he would have addressed the 'Neopolitans.' 'My people, the residents of the geographical region of Samaria (but I am not a Samaritan)' only works if you ignore history which seems easy enough for some ...

02-14-2012, 08:05 PM	#36
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	is this the monty python argument clinic skit?

02-14-2012, 11:24 PM	#37
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Unless you come up with something which goes against Kirkpatrick's argument that the two terms were synonymous (a point which is further strengthened by evidence from the rabbinic literature), this discussion is over.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.