Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 08-02-2010, 06:20 AM

Quote:

The Jewish state comes to an end in 70 AD, when the Romans begin to actively drive Jews from the home they had lived in for over a millennium. But the Jewish Diaspora ("diaspora" ="dispersion, scattering") had begun long before the Romans had even dreamed of Judaea. When the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722, the Hebrew inhabitants were scattered all over the Middle East; these early victims of the dispersion disappeared utterly from the pages of history. However, when Nebuchadnezzar deported the Judaeans in 597 and 586 BC, he allowed them to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Another group of Judaeans fled to Egypt, where they settled in the Nile delta.

So from 597 onwards, there were three distinct groups of Hebrews: a group in Babylon and other parts of the Middle East, a group in Judaea, and another group in Egypt. Thus, 597 is considered the beginning date of the Jewish Diaspora. While Cyrus the Persian allowed the Judaeans to return to their homeland in 538 BC, most chose to remain in Babylon. A large number of Jews in Egypt became mercenaries in Upper Egypt on an island called the Elephantine. All of these Jews retained their religion, identity, and social customs; both under the Persians and the Greeks, they were allowed to run their lives under their own laws. Some converted to other religions; still others combined the Yahweh cult with local cults; but the majority clung to the Hebraic religion and its new-found core document, the Torah.

In 63 BC, Judaea became a protectorate of Rome. Coming under the administration of a governor, Judaea was allowed a king; the governor's business was to regulate trade and maximize tax revenue. While the Jews despised the Greeks, the Romans were a nightmare. Governorships were bought at high prices; the governors would attempt to squeeze as much revenue as possible from their regions and pocket as much as they could. Even with a Jewish king, the Judaeans revolted in 70 AD, a desperate revolt that ended tragically. In 73 AD, the last of the revolutionaries were holed up in a mountain fort called Masada; the Romans had besieged the fort for two years, and the 1,000 men, women, and children inside were beginning to starve. In desperation, the Jewish revolutionaries killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans. The Romans then destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../Diaspora.html

The above underplays Hannukah, and the real tensions between a modern non circumcised Greek Judaism complete with gymnasium and moving away from sacrifice - as were the elites of the"pagan" world, and the classic sacrificing circumcising Judaism.

Fascinatingly, the Gospels portray a confused Jesus. Not one jot not one title, condemning the Pharisees who were the spirit of the law group, yet breaking the Sabbath. Are the Gospels an attempt to reconcile various factions?

charles · 08-02-2010, 10:40 AM

I don't think Hannukha was celebrated in Alexandria. I don't know where I read this but I think its significant

maryhelena · 08-02-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russellonius

Thanks, maryhelena, for posting the piece by Rachel Elior. That's good.

Quote:

The Jews would never have accepted the gospel crucified Jesus as a messiah figure.

True, conservative Jews would not have accepted such a thing easily. We agree that it was not conservative ones who designated Jesus Christ that way. Therefore my question about following a group I consider to be conservative to Alexandria. I can't picture a Zadokite or non-Zadokite priestly class, removed from power, envisioning anything other than return to power so they can do it right. They very likely did devalue what happened in the Jerusalem Temple due to Herod's hand-picking priests from Babylonia (and Alexandria if I'm not mistaken) to replace the incumbents when he took power. To lessen priestly power in Judea was why he did that. Does their disenchantment logically lead to an apostate version of Judaism? Seems like they would be pushing the other way.

I'm quite sure that the Zadokite priesthood would prefer to have their old ways back rather than tread new spiritual paths. But the Hasmonean King/Priests are a different kettle of fish.....There was no way - with Rome so strong a political force - that they had any chance of getting back their old ways. The only way for them was fast forward....Perhaps "disenchantment" with Judaism is too strong a way of looking at things. We do have the NT with its prophetic interpretations, ie an interest in the OT. It's more likely a development than a rejection of past ways. Old ways are 'fulfilled' (however interpreted) not negated. Apostasy to some but simply new insights to those treading the new pathways. It's all interpretation....

Quote:

The 'Christian' Jewish messiah was an upside-down 'Jewish' messiah, first/last, least/greatest, etc. Jews who did not adhere to custom would be looking for a messiah that blessed their non-adherence, which is exactly what they got in Jesus Christ, their Lord. I'm seeing the Herodians, not the Hasmoneans (or even Philo), as champions of such non-adherence to custom.

The 'Christian' Jewish messiah' was never any kind of historical messiah. The gospel crucified Jesus figure cannot be used as any sort of basis upon which to develop a historical analysis of what were the early christian origins. The Jesus story is the package that sells - it's the market analysis that allows the package to sell that is relevant.

Quote:

Anthropologists identify eschatological beliefs as originating among peoples who realize that social progress has made the traditional ways impossible to retrieve or maintain. There's definitely that going on in the NT & DSS. It seems to me 'Christians' piggy-backed on that 'last days' motif and it did not originate with them (due to their high comfort level/low tension with the wider society) but rather with a group with whom they were in conflict. Thus the upside-down messiah did not come to restore the Law/Temple/Nation, but rather to provide the progressives a way forward (fulfillment of Law) that they needed to ground deeply in scripture for other 'Jews' to be even slightly interested in getting on board.

And the "upside-down messiah" is who? A real flesh and blood historical figure? No way such a figure can be established historically. Trying to fathom the early historical origins of christianity cannot be done while still holding on to some faint hope that the gospel crucified Jesus figure is historical. All that does is cloud the issues at hand. Talk re the gospel 'Jesus' has no relevance for a historical inquiry into early christian origins.

Quote:

So the question is what made those proto-christian Jews decide that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and that the way forward was for a spirituality without a literal temple.

Without a literal temple and with the option of legal non-adherence. Jewish history is salvation history and salvation through Christ is not through legal observance, unlike before. The majority of Jews at the time were Diasporan and would have made a ready market for an antidote to Judean claims of monopoly on the faith. Especially if conservatives like Peter were on a mission to make Antiochans & Ephesians, for example, toe the line legally.

I'm trying on the idea of Alexandria as the 'hot seat', but I still lean to Asia Minor/Aegean Sea areas as the place where it got started. The Pauline version anyway. I think the original idea occurred in Herodian households, beginning with the reaction to John the Baptist's legal criticism of their behavior. Data-driven analysis. That was where the Christian story started in the texts. (Though of course things had been trending in that direction for centuries due to Hellenistic cultural encroachment.)

I think Alexandria is where the intellectual focus was. Philo's ideas etc. But ideas need to be grounded in reality in order to have some relevance. So, for the grounding in reality - Caesarea Philippi....

Quote:

I'm interested, maryhelena, in why you passed on from the Herodians being the originators of the apostate faith. They seem to me to have stronger motives.

Stephan raises an objection that I second. I thought Herod had wiped out the dynastic line of Hasmoneans by murders within his family. (But then there would still have existed their social circle and their descendants.)

Herod the Great was made king in Rome in 40 BC. The writing was on the wall for the Hasmonean King/Priests. To think that there would be no contingency plans on the back-burner - nice try but no cigar.....

Stronger motive on the side of the Herodians. Hardly. Even Herod the Great, a man with 'no eminent extraction' was keen to feather his own nest with some Hasmonean blood. An intention not lost on his Hasmonean wartime bride Mariamne:

Quote:

Antiquities book 15 ch.7

Mariamne supposing that the king's love to her was but hypocritical, and rather pretended (as advantageous to himself) than real,

Anyone wanting to give roots to the gospel Jesus storyline is not going to find those roots among the Herodians - not even those with a drop of Hasmonean blood. Herod wanted that bloodline mixed up with his own - how much more so a new spiritual development would want there to be roots, ancient roots, clean roots, going as far back as when....Herodians are the Cuckoo in the nest....You know that old saying 'follow the money' - in this case 'follow the Hasmoneans"....

John the Baptist - same mold as the gospel crucified Jesus. Non-historical. Josephus is not *just* a historian - he wears many hats....priest, interpreter of dreams, dreams of his own, prophetic interpretations, prophet - all mingled up together...

Peter ? - just another character in the gospel storyline.

Clivedurdle · 08-02-2010, 02:10 PM

It was not only the Saducees and Herodians. There were also Pharisees, Samaritans and a group I don't think are really mentioned in the NT - Greek orientated modern Jews. I think there were also Essenes.

And does anyone know anything about Alexandria and Hannukah?

Clivedurdle · 08-02-2010, 02:21 PM

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...230&topic=4190

I'm posting this in full from facebook in case it gets lost.

It is clearly showing, although from a believing Jew's perspective, the fault line between the two Greek empires and therefore as Hannukah is a response to one of the empires, it was probably irrelevant to Jews in the other, who had probably evolved very differently.

Quote:

Talia Hogan Christianity embraces the philosophical (i.e. not literal) way of reading Scripture - which has led to periods of tremendous moral decline among those who say that they follow the Messiah. We also saw in Part One (www.bereansonline.org) the Jewish people, after they returned from their exile in Babylon began to take the Word of G-d seriously, and literally.

Something needed to be done - the Enemy could not have G-d's people actually reading and studying G-d's instruction, literally. So, he went back to his tried and true method from the Garden.

Cue the organ music. The Enemy's rejoinder to G-d's people's renewed emphasis on G-d's very words taken literally, began around 345 BCE.

In the temple of the Nymphs at Mieza around 345 BCE, King Philip II of Macedonia hired a philosoper named Aristotle to tutor his young son. Aristotle had been the star pupil of Plato, who was a pupil of Socrates. Aristotle tutored the young prince for five years and when Philip II died, that young prince became the King of Macedonia. His name was Alexander, and the next few years he would conquer the know world, and would be called Alexandra the Great. Alexander brought to the world the Greek language, the Greek religion, and Greek science; but most of all he brought the world Greek philosophy. When Alexander died suddenly in 323 BCE his empire was eventually divided into four parts, by his four Hellenist generals. The age of universal Hellenism was upon us.
Hellenism was the influence and culture of Alexander's Greek Empire. It permeated all the known world for at least four hundred years, and as we have seen - it is still present with us today.

Two of the empires that emerged from Alexander's one-world empire, was Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Asia. These two Greek empires were in constant competition until the rise of the Roman Empire around 60 BCE. Between Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt was the little land of Israel. Israel rest on the land bridge between Asia, Europe and Africa. For the history of the back-and-forth influence that the Ptolemaic Dynasty and the Seleucid Dynasty had on Israel and her people, one must only read the prophetic accounts from11th chapter of Daniel - written two hundred years before htey occurred. The 'king of the north' and the 'king of the south' areeasily identified when looking at the history of the Greek empires of Ptolemy and Seleucus.

So the Enemy's plan of attack against G-d's Word was to spread the philosophy and religion of Greece throughout the world. Specific to his plan was the tiny land of Israel. It was there he focused his energy - because his goal was not just to deceive the world, but to destroy G-d's people.

Hellenism began to catch on in the land of Israel in the Second Century before the birth of Messiah. The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, in of all places Egypt. Greek became the popular language of the people of Israel that had moved to societies like Alexandria, Egypt. Along with the language and culture, came the philosophy and logic. G-d's literal instructions were allegorized by such notable Jewish philosophers as Egypt's Philo. A 'kinder, gentler' judaism, that fit better with the other cultures around them, began to emerge in Jewish communities in Egypt. No more literal sacrifices - and 'beliefs' replaced actual deeds.

All of the machinations of the Enemy were not lost upon a small group of G-d's people in the land of Israel. They were dedicated to the literal words of G-d - and they did not ask the question, "Has G-d indeed said?" or "What did G-d really mean?" The battle over G-d's Word would have not occurred if it had not been for these few. Instead, G-d's people would have quietly disappeared into the melee of Hellenism. These few stood up against the attack of the enemy seen in Hellenism and philosophy. They later became known as 'teh Maccabees'.

Around 175 BCE, a king rose to power in Seleucid Syria. His name was Antiochus IV. He later named himself 'Epiphanes' - and claimed to be divine. He is the one Daniel prophesied about in Daniel 8:9. He is called the 'little horn'. This Antiochus IV is one of the most often alluded despots of Scripture. That is because he took the culture war to new levels of aggression against the very Person of g-d. Daniedl 8:11-14 tell us about it,

"He (little horn) even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifieces were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. he did all this and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, 'How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot? And he said to me, 'For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.'"

Just as Daniel had prophesied, in 167 BCE, Antiochus IV cast truth to the ground by issuing the following decress to Israel (1Macc 1:44-48)
- They could no longer follow the Torah of g-d
- They could no longer observe the Sabbath or the Festival days
- they could not circumcise their sons
- they must eat meat that was unclean

Then on the 25th of the month of Kislev (corresponds to December), Antiochus marched into his province of Judea and went into the Temple of G-d in Jerusalem and descrated it by erecting a statue of Zeus in the Temple and sacrificing a pig on the Brazen Altar. He forbade the daily sacrifices in the Temple.

The historicial book of 1 Maccabees 1:49-50 tell us, "To the end they might forget the Torah, and change all the ordinances. And whosoever would not do according to the commandment of the king (Antoichus), he said, should die."

For more go to : www.bereansonline.org

And the Septaguint should therefore be understood as a product of one specific form of Judaism.

charles · 08-02-2010, 03:51 PM

Aren'y Bereans Christians? I mentioned before that I had read somewhere that Hanukkha only comes to Egypt at a very late date. It turns out this is in the introduction to Maccabees

"1:1-10a Letter of 124 BCE The Jewish people in Palestine are writing to their coreligionists in Egypt, primarily about the observance of the feast of the rededication of the temple (Hanukkah)."

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Jewish community in Alexandria celebrated Hannukha?

Russellonius · 08-02-2010, 09:15 PM

Quote:

From the end of the Jewish War to the Trajanic revolt in Egypt there was probably a functioning altar and priesthood in Alexandria according to those sources. -Stephan

Quote:

According to Josephus, the temple of Leontopolis existed for 343 years,[10] though the general opinion is that this number must be changed to 243. He relates that the Roman emperor Vespasian feared that through this temple Egypt might become a new center for Jewish rebellion and therefore ordered the governor of Egypt, Lupus, to demolish it.[11] Lupus died in the process of carrying out the order; and the task of stripping the temple of its treasures, barring access to it, and removing all traces of divine worship at the site was completed by his successor, Paulinus,[12] which dates the event to c. March - August 73 -from wikipedia Land of Onias

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia but, if true, this would seem to set a terminal date for Jewish animal sacrifice in a Temple setting. (But it's Josephus again.)

Quote:

The justification of the end of sacrifices at the Jerusalem altar was established through the prophesies of Daniel. Yet these same prophesies theoretically at least do not preclude the possibility that sacrifices could be carried out somewhere else.

The writing may also reflect the fact of the end of sacrifices under Antiochus, which was a pretty big deal to some people (hasidim) of that time. Jewish writing is marvelous at explaining political events in terms of salvation history, as if their defeats had nothing to do with the military superiority of the enemy but rather the failure of the people to worship G-d correctly.

Quote:

I think you [Stephan] are suggesting that there might have been a stage where it [Christianity] was still semi-Jewish.

I would suggest that this stage lasted centuries! To suggest anything else is supportive of the Christian theological doctrine of supersessionism: Jews rejected the heavenly emissary and non-Jews received salvation through YHWH instead. The seeds of supersessionist 'replacement theology' are found in Paul's writing, but it did not develop fully until later, eleventh century Rhine Valley. Now it's on the wane among religious Christians because the Nazi Holocaust was not really that good of an idea if we take some time to think about it. Mainline denominations had done so by the mid-sixties and this recent change to the eternal truth is still filtering through all the channels it must travel through. So be on the lookout for it all you atheists.

Don't believe the wiki page on Gentiles. First they tell you what 'gentile' meant in the first century: "clan" or "family", then in a classic case of exceptionalism, they tell you that in Early Christianity it meant in the first century what it only came to mean only in the fourth century in all cases other than early Christianity. That's why it's nearly always capitalized. It's a theological construct.

if there's one thing I want free-thinkers and rationalists to learn from me it is: DO NOT apply theological doctrines to your analysis.

The origin of Christianity was a schism within Judaism. Non-Jews were involved because non-Law biding Jews were marrying non-Jews and having babies. And they were living and working alongside them in the Diaspora. Their children played together. Religion spreads like wildfire by marriage and by having babies. It spreads like molasses based on doctrinal appeal (including texts). It spreads like water among close social attachments. Don't worry. It dries off.

If you have not already read The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Rodney Stark please do so now.

Also see: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none etymonline

I can hardly believe I'm talking to TWO people here who are aware that Christianity started solely due to social, political and economic forces within Jewish society! I think we may have set a record.

Quote:

Trying to fathom the early historical origins of christianity cannot be done while still holding on to some faint hope that the gospel crucified Jesus figure is historical. All that does is cloud the issues at hand. Talk re the gospel 'Jesus' has no relevance for a historical inquiry into early christian origins.

We can talk about whether Captain Ahab was seeking revenge or whether he had simply gone mad. We can claim that Moby Dick represented multiple aspects of the human condition. Maybe all! But we can't explain the origin of Christianity without at least a literary explanation for the function of the cross and its Occupant. Crucifixions are recorded to have occurred by the thousands so it seems you could allow this one if we could just untangle what literary function it served. What if Christians were not on the side of the Crucified One? Christian claims could be a reaction against conservative legalistic claims. And it seems obvious that they are. (It could have been their guy who got crucified, not ours.)

Quote:

We do have the NT with its prophetic interpretations, ie an interest in the OT. It's more likely a development than a rejection of past ways. Old ways are 'fulfilled' (however interpreted) not negated. Apostasy to some but simply new insights to those treading the new pathways.

I agree that it's a development of tradition- a major one. But the development includes a rejection of past ways. Paul on Law, for example and the drinking of the blood which is forbidden, not only to Jews under the Mosaic Covenant, but also to 'the nations' under the Noahide Covenant.

Quote:

Anyone wanting to give roots to the gospel Jesus storyline is not going to find those roots among the Herodians

But in the beginning of the story we have Herodias and Salome's reputations tarnished by a Legalist, and at the end we have a resolution to that problem: Herodians Agrippa, Berenice and Drusilla being offered salvation through Christ!!! He who abolished the Law. (By fulfilling it, of course! See scripture-mining exercise attached.)

I didn't know we couldn't use the New Testament to trace the roots of Christianity. It seems like the quest will be seriously hampered as a result of this restriction.

In Egypt (moseying toward topic) we have an individualized 'gnosis' product, teachers who got Jesus to say whatever they wanted him to say as long as it sounded philosophical - not necessarily OT-based or decidedly not (demiurgos), and lack of organizational structure. In the Agean/Anatolia we have organizational structure, relatively firm canon and apparently imperial ties. Paul sent greetings to the 'household of Caesar' and 'Herodion'. Paul's associate, Menaen in Antioch, had been raised as foster-brother of Herod Antipas in Rome. To whom could Ignatius have been writing ahead on his martyrdom journey to Rome if not to the Herodian associates of Caesar there? Did some other group have more influence than them in the imperial court?

Christianities started in Egypt, but not the one that has survived until now.

aa5874 · 08-02-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russellonius

.... Paul sent greetings to the 'household of Caesar' and 'Herodion'. Paul's associate, Menaen in Antioch, had been raised as foster-brother of Herod Antipas in Rome....

You cannot assume the PAULINE writer is truthful. All the claims about the Jesus the Messiah in the Pauline writings appears to be false.

You simply cannot use an assumption as a source of evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russellonius

...To whom could Ignatius have been writing ahead on his martyrdom journey to Rome if not to the Herodian associates of Caesar there? Did some other group have more influence than them in the imperial court?...

The Ignatius story appears to be false. It cannot be that Ignatius was charged with a crime punishable with DEATH and carried out the very same crime while in custody.

Who supplied Ignatius with the equipment needed to carry out his crime while in custody?

There is simply no external corroborative source for Ignatius or "Paul" so it is of very little use trying to use these questionable characters to make a determination on the beginning of belief in the Jesus stories.

stephan huller · 08-02-2010, 10:57 PM

I would ignore aa5873 whenever he ends a sentence with "appears to be false." I have been debating him for a month and I still don't think he understands what he means. He can't conceive of a world where parts of the Pauline writings are authentic but became overlaid with later additions or at least he pretends that he doesn't understand ...

Transient · 08-03-2010, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I would ignore aa5873 whenever he ends a sentence with "appears to be false." I have been debating him for a month and I still don't think he understands what he means. He can't conceive of a world where parts of the Pauline writings are authentic but became overlaid with later additions or at least he pretends that he doesn't understand ...

and I don't see that your arguments are better than his at all.
Your arguments are very convoluted and depend to a large extent on your presumptions.

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

08-02-2010, 10:40 AM	#52
charles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Midwest Posts: 94	I don't think Hannukha was celebrated in Alexandria. I don't know where I read this but I think its significant

08-02-2010, 02:10 PM	#54
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	It was not only the Saducees and Herodians. There were also Pharisees, Samaritans and a group I don't think are really mentioned in the NT - Greek orientated modern Jews. I think there were also Essenes. And does anyone know anything about Alexandria and Hannukah?

08-02-2010, 03:51 PM	#56
charles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Midwest Posts: 94	Aren'y Bereans Christians? I mentioned before that I had read somewhere that Hanukkha only comes to Egypt at a very late date. It turns out this is in the introduction to Maccabees "1:1-10a Letter of 124 BCE The Jewish people in Palestine are writing to their coreligionists in Egypt, primarily about the observance of the feast of the rededication of the temple (Hanukkah)." Is there any evidence to suggest that the Jewish community in Alexandria celebrated Hannukha?

08-02-2010, 10:57 PM	#59
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I would ignore aa5873 whenever he ends a sentence with "appears to be false." I have been debating him for a month and I still don't think he understands what he means. He can't conceive of a world where parts of the Pauline writings are authentic but became overlaid with later additions or at least he pretends that he doesn't understand ...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.