Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 05-12-2009, 06:25 PM

Herbert Danby's translation also has "heretical books," but a footnote (#5) says the passage is, literally, "external books."

I would dispute your statement that it relates to resurrection when the order of those who have no share in the world to come are:

1) He that says there is no resurrection of the dead [prescribes in the law]

2) [He that says] that the Law is not from heaven

3) [He that is] an Epicurean (not the Greek philosophic school but freethinkers in general)

4) R Akiba says: Also he that reads the heretical (literally, external) books

5) or [he that] utters charms over a wound ... [citing Exodus 15:26]

6) Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters

Only #1 seems to refer directly to the opening statement that "All Israelites have a share in the world to come [proof text of Isaiah 60:21 is then cited]. The citation under discussion is #4.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The saying attributed to Rabbi Akiva (Mishnah Sanhedrin chapter 10:1 refers to He who reads in heretical books (Neusner's translation) It is not clear exactly what books are meant, later Talmudic discussion gives various suggestions the books of the atheists and Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus but these may be later guesses.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 05-12-2009, 06:43 PM

The closest thing to prohibited books I can think of are the "books of the Minim."

R Travers Herford, in Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903), includes passages on:
Books of the Minim; Imma Shalom and a Christian Judge
How the Books of the Minim are to be treated
Books of the Law written by a Min
The Books of the Minim do not defile the hands (i.e., are not holy)
The Books of the Be Abidan, Be Nitzraphi

Pages 97 - 341 deal with passages related to the Min and Minim in general. While many such passages refer to Christian literature, others seem to relate to Jewish gnostics and freethinkers in general (the "Epicureans" mentioned elsewhere).

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Were the proscribed books apocalyptic?

I don't know. My point is that the passage doesn't make clear exactly what is wrong with the books or which books they are.

My suspicion, from the context, is that it is referring to books which deny the resurrection, but that is just a guess.

Andrew Criddle

Casper · 05-12-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Or what you later find out.

If you find a bunch more pots, well...

The later pots are dependent upon the earlier pot... not vice versa.

There is no later pot to base your evaluation of the earlier pot... try again.

You can't refine your conclusions as your knowledge base grows?

Besides, you said "a pot". You didn't specify first or last.

And how was it found? It may be the only pot, but it was in a shed. And perhaps you know the history of the property includes being owned by a retired archeologist.

Your notion of provenance is flawed. Backpedal all you want.

spin · 05-12-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

the Be Abidan, Be Nitzraphi

Have you got a citation for the original text? I've lost it. Thanks.

spin

mountainman · 05-12-2009, 10:41 PM

If the Essenes "never existed" who has the motive?
The mysterious Essenes appear to serve Eusebius.
Eusebius does present as an unbashful interpolator.
This is not evidence but suspicion of cupability.

Quote:

I don't think Eusebius had any time to invent the Essenes, or else he would have just simply removed the word Essenes and replaced it with christian.

Eusebius may have had the luxury of the years between 312 and 337 = 25 years.
The continuators of Eusebius - those ecclesiatical historians such as Jerome,
Thedoret, Cyril and a host of others into the fifth century also had centuries
to "fiddle with the finer details".

That is why the monumental and archaeological and C14 evidence
is so important in this specific case. We are talking about the
Vatican document factory taking over from Eusebius some time
around the year 339 CE. Damasius took things in hand in Rome.
The savage mafia boss Theophilus and his equally savage nephew
Cyril took care of the Alexandria business. With "christian emperors"
the Roman empire needed a new crew of elite thugs.

maryhelena · 05-12-2009, 11:34 PM

I don’t know why one would attempt to remove complicity re the Essenes from Josephus and to assume Eusebius to be ‘that’s the man....’. While the textual evidence does seem to indicate that Eusebius was involved with the interpolation in the TF, surely an interpolation does not compare with the many passages in Josephus regarding the Essenes. I’m beginning to think that all this concentrating on interpolations by Eusebius (which are interesting of themselves) may be missing a far more fundamental issue.

If, as seems very possible, after the interpolation are removed from Josephus, that a core element remains that does relate to the gospel storyline regarding Jesus - the James, the brother of Jesus element, for instance, and lets not forget John the Baptist - a Josephus intent needs to be addressed. Hence, whatever Eusebius was up to with his interpolations, it is possible that he was only furthering an intent that was already in the writing of Josephus. Hence the big question is not what was Eusebius doing - the big question is what was Josephus doing....

Consequently, the mythicist camp needs to come up with some answers, i.e. no historical Jesus of Nazareth - then what the heck was Josephus up to? Rachel Elior has opened up an opportunity for mythicists to re-examine Josephus.

The "Essenes Affair" (nicely put mountainman....

.)begins with Philo. A man, a philosopher and a writer, who lived, in Alexandria, during the time the gospel storyline places its happenings. A time of prophetic interest. From a mythicist position, at that time, no Jesus of Nazareth was walking around doing his miracles etc. This position taking the stand that the gospel storyline was written later and backdated. Philo is the man who actually put pen to paper around the relevant time period. What he did write about, the celibate Essenes in the land of Palestine, relates to a group of people who lived lives that were alien to Jewish culture - a group of people that no writer prior to Philo had mentioned. Hence the argument can be made that Philo’ Essenes are philosophical, an ideal society that he would like to see as being possible in Israel and Judaism - or that, because of Philo’s interest in number symbolism, that the Essenes are symbolic. Perhaps both, philosophical and symbolic.

How did Philo get away with placing his celibate Essenes in a Jewish culture - when historically, at the time when he lived, there is no evidence to support their existence? Perhaps his writing was read as being philosophical or symbolic and only later, with Josephus, was a historical dating system applied to them. Something along the lines of what has happened with the gospel story - originally a symbolic and theological idea, a story about a mythological Jesus that later assumed a historical veneer by being dated. If Josephus has been instrumental in giving a historical veneer to Philo’ celibate Essenes, by dating and backdating them - then would we not have here an example that could well be applied to the role of Josephus in supplying, or supporting, a similar historical veneer to the gospel storyline?

What was the intent of Philo with his celibate Essenes - his idealistic, philosophical, society of men living within a non-celibate Jewish culture? Would Josephus, writing later, have had any way of knowing what that intent was? Its possible.

The connection between Josephus and Philo runs through Agrippa 11. Agrippa 11 being the man who sanctioned the writing of Josephus (or whoever was writing under the name of Josephus...). Agrippa’ sister, Berenice, was married, from 41 CE to around 43/44 CE, to Marcus Julius Alexander, a son of Alexander the Alabarch, who was the brother of Philo. After 70 CE, Agrippa 11 went to live in Rome - and his sister Berenice was there on and off - her affair with Titus causing problems. Consequently, Josephus, in Rome, most probably had access to Berenice, who was at one time a member of the family of Philo. The relationship between her father, Agrippa 1 and Alexander the Alabarch, was a close one - and also a financial one. Josephus was well placed, with his close friendship with Agrippa 11, to have been able to discuss Philo’ Essenes with someone who could have been well informed as to the intention of Philo - his intention in regard to the placing of his celibate Essenes within the non-celibate Jewish culture in the land of Israel.

aa5874 · 05-13-2009, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don’t know why one would attempt to remove complicity re the Essenes from Josephus and to assume Eusebius to be ‘that’s the man....’. While the textual evidence does seem to indicate that Eusebius was involved with the interpolation in the TF, surely an interpolation does not compare with the many passages in Josephus regarding the Essenes. I’m beginning to think that all this concentrating on interpolations by Eusebius (which are interesting of themselves) may be missing a far more fundamental issue.

If, as seems very possible, after the interpolation are removed from Josephus, that a core element remains that does relate to the gospel storyline regarding Jesus - the James, the brother of Jesus element, for instance, and lets not forget John the Baptist - a Josephus intent needs to be addressed. Hence, whatever Eusebius was up to with his interpolations, it is possible that he was only furthering an intent that was already in the writing of Josephus. Hence the big question is not what was Eusebius doing - the big question is what was Josephus doing....

Consequently, the mythicist camp needs to come up with some answers, i.e. no historical Jesus of Nazareth - then what the heck was Josephus up to? Rachel Elior has opened up an opportunity for mythicists to re-examine Josephus.

The "Essenes Affair" (nicely put mountainman....

.)begins with Philo. A man, a philosopher and a writer, who lived, in Alexandria, during the time the gospel storyline places its happenings. A time of prophetic interest. From a mythicist position, at that time, no Jesus of Nazareth was walking around doing his miracles etc. This position taking the stand that the gospel storyline was written later and backdated. Philo is the man who actually put pen to paper around the relevant time period. What he did write about, the celibate Essenes in the land of Palestine, relates to a group of people who lived lives that were alien to Jewish culture - a group of people that no writer prior to Philo had mentioned. Hence the argument can be made that Philo’ Essenes are philosophical, an ideal society that he would like to see as being possible in Israel and Judaism - or that, because of Philo’s interest in number symbolism, that the Essenes are symbolic. Perhaps both, philosophical and symbolic.

How did Philo get away with placing his celibate Essenes in a Jewish culture - when historically, at the time when he lived, there is no evidence to support their existence? Perhaps his writing was read as being philosophical or symbolic and only later, with Josephus, was a historical dating system applied to them. Something along the lines of what has happened with the gospel story - originally a symbolic and theological idea, a story about a mythological Jesus that later assumed a historical veneer by being dated. If Josephus has been instrumental in giving a historical veneer to Philo’ celibate Essenes, by dating and backdating them - then would we not have here an example that could well be applied to the role of Josephus in supplying, or supporting, a similar historical veneer to the gospel storyline?

What was the intent of Philo with his celibate Essenes - his idealistic, philosophical, society of men living within a non-celibate Jewish culture? Would Josephus, writing later, have had any way of knowing what that intent was? Its possible.

The connection between Josephus and Philo runs through Agrippa 11. Agrippa 11 being the man who sanctioned the writing of Josephus (or whoever was writing under the name of Josephus...). Agrippa’ sister, Berenice, was married, from 41 CE to around 43/44 CE, to Marcus Julius Alexander, a son of Alexander the Alabarch, who was the brother of Philo. After 70 CE, Agrippa 11 went to live in Rome - and his sister Berenice was there on and off - her affair with Titus causing problems. Consequently, Josephus, in Rome, most probably had access to Berenice, who was at one time a member of the family of Philo. The relationship between her father, Agrippa 1 and Alexander the Alabarch, was a close one - and also a financial one. Josephus was well placed, with his close friendship with Agrippa 11, to have been able to discuss Philo’ Essenes with someone who could have been well informed as to the intention of Philo - his intention in regard to the placing of his celibate Essenes within the non-celibate Jewish culture in the land of Israel.

You have not presented one single peice of evidence or information where it can be deduced that Josephus invented the Essenes. You are only making speculative suggestions that can only lead to more and more speculations or baseless theories.

kcdad · 05-13-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

The later pots are dependent upon the earlier pot... not vice versa.

There is no later pot to base your evaluation of the earlier pot... try again.

You can't refine your conclusions as your knowledge base grows?

Besides, you said "a pot". You didn't specify first or last.

And how was it found? It may be the only pot, but it was in a shed. And perhaps you know the history of the property includes being owned by a retired archeologist.

Your notion of provenance is flawed. Backpedal all you want.

A pot. A singularity. And it was found in your yard... go back and read the original question. Who is the one back pedaling?

Again you are proving my point... if you "know the history" of the property... how? PRIOR knowledge. How did you get that knowledge? What presuppositions, prejudices and presumptions are you using to evaluate that single , lone pot found in the yard?

DCHindley · 05-13-2009, 10:22 AM

According to Herford, pg 161-162, the source is bab. Shabb. 116a (both terms), bab. Shabb. 152a & bab. A. Zar. 17b (Be Abidan), and bab. Erub. 79b-80a (Be Nitzraphi).

DCH (lunch time, boss ...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

the Be Abidan, Be Nitzraphi

Have you got a citation for the original text? I've lost it. Thanks.

spin

bacht · 05-13-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Consequently, the mythicist camp needs to come up with some answers, i.e. no historical Jesus of Nazareth - then what the heck was Josephus up to? Rachel Elior has opened up an opportunity for mythicists to re-examine Josephus...

What was the intent of Philo with his celibate Essenes - his idealistic, philosophical, society of men living within a non-celibate Jewish culture? Would Josephus, writing later, have had any way of knowing what that intent was? Its possible...

Two possibilities occur to me: either Philo and later Josephus wanted to present a pseudo-Hellenistic school of pure and decent Jewish "philosophers" to their readers, or it was an attempt to burnish the image of real people like the Qumran dissenters :huh:

05-12-2009, 11:34 PM	#186
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	I don’t know why one would attempt to remove complicity re the Essenes from Josephus and to assume Eusebius to be ‘that’s the man....’. While the textual evidence does seem to indicate that Eusebius was involved with the interpolation in the TF, surely an interpolation does not compare with the many passages in Josephus regarding the Essenes. I’m beginning to think that all this concentrating on interpolations by Eusebius (which are interesting of themselves) may be missing a far more fundamental issue. If, as seems very possible, after the interpolation are removed from Josephus, that a core element remains that does relate to the gospel storyline regarding Jesus - the James, the brother of Jesus element, for instance, and lets not forget John the Baptist - a Josephus intent needs to be addressed. Hence, whatever Eusebius was up to with his interpolations, it is possible that he was only furthering an intent that was already in the writing of Josephus. Hence the big question is not what was Eusebius doing - the big question is what was Josephus doing.... Consequently, the mythicist camp needs to come up with some answers, i.e. no historical Jesus of Nazareth - then what the heck was Josephus up to? Rachel Elior has opened up an opportunity for mythicists to re-examine Josephus. The "Essenes Affair" (nicely put mountainman.....)begins with Philo. A man, a philosopher and a writer, who lived, in Alexandria, during the time the gospel storyline places its happenings. A time of prophetic interest. From a mythicist position, at that time, no Jesus of Nazareth was walking around doing his miracles etc. This position taking the stand that the gospel storyline was written later and backdated. Philo is the man who actually put pen to paper around the relevant time period. What he did write about, the celibate Essenes in the land of Palestine, relates to a group of people who lived lives that were alien to Jewish culture - a group of people that no writer prior to Philo had mentioned. Hence the argument can be made that Philo’ Essenes are philosophical, an ideal society that he would like to see as being possible in Israel and Judaism - or that, because of Philo’s interest in number symbolism, that the Essenes are symbolic. Perhaps both, philosophical and symbolic. How did Philo get away with placing his celibate Essenes in a Jewish culture - when historically, at the time when he lived, there is no evidence to support their existence? Perhaps his writing was read as being philosophical or symbolic and only later, with Josephus, was a historical dating system applied to them. Something along the lines of what has happened with the gospel story - originally a symbolic and theological idea, a story about a mythological Jesus that later assumed a historical veneer by being dated. If Josephus has been instrumental in giving a historical veneer to Philo’ celibate Essenes, by dating and backdating them - then would we not have here an example that could well be applied to the role of Josephus in supplying, or supporting, a similar historical veneer to the gospel storyline? What was the intent of Philo with his celibate Essenes - his idealistic, philosophical, society of men living within a non-celibate Jewish culture? Would Josephus, writing later, have had any way of knowing what that intent was? Its possible. The connection between Josephus and Philo runs through Agrippa 11. Agrippa 11 being the man who sanctioned the writing of Josephus (or whoever was writing under the name of Josephus...). Agrippa’ sister, Berenice, was married, from 41 CE to around 43/44 CE, to Marcus Julius Alexander, a son of Alexander the Alabarch, who was the brother of Philo. After 70 CE, Agrippa 11 went to live in Rome - and his sister Berenice was there on and off - her affair with Titus causing problems. Consequently, Josephus, in Rome, most probably had access to Berenice, who was at one time a member of the family of Philo. The relationship between her father, Agrippa 1 and Alexander the Alabarch, was a close one - and also a financial one. Josephus was well placed, with his close friendship with Agrippa 11, to have been able to discuss Philo’ Essenes with someone who could have been well informed as to the intention of Philo - his intention in regard to the placing of his celibate Essenes within the non-celibate Jewish culture in the land of Israel.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.