Sheshbazzar

I composed this especially for you spin;

From memory;

'Monasteries' is the term that is used in our English translations of Philo's VC .

He describes them as plain, quickly constructed, one man 'houses' occupied by a single Theraputae engaging in study and in religious rigmarole
-in seclusion- from dawn till dusk six days a week. Not crossing the threshold, nor even so much as looking outside during the daylight hours.

Religious 'shrines' called the 'holy place' were located in every one of these very minimal human shelters known as 'monasteries'.

No food or drink was to be brought into, or consumed while in this 'house'/'monastery'.

These 'monasteries' were NOT public structures used for public religious gatherings.

[Basically a description of a 'Monks' cell", although with independent structures.]

The occupants were inclined to engage in extreme fasting, with an ideal of surviving an entire six days without taking either food or drink.
(likely there would have been the bare minimum of physical activity while so holed up so as to attain the longest possible fast)

Communal meals and community religious rituals were held in a separate community gathering place called the Temple.

There were a lot of food phobias, with the Theraputae restricted to consuming little more than bread, hyssop, and water.



From Philo's description, I believe it was an insanely sick religious cult. (If he's was not just making this bullshit up)

I believe I have covered the basics of what Philo described as being the Theraputae's 'monasteries'.

Any objections?


What here then is 'implicitly importing the christian notion' of the meaning of 'monastery' ?

'Philo' described what he described, I have repeated that description only in less dense flower language.
How is a my understanding a description of a 'christian' monastery ?


Do you have a better description of Philo's 'monasteries' that you would like to present us with?

Care to just make up some more shit?

Clivedurdle

Hermitage? And the other type are of course the stylites. Now when is this document dated again?

spin

But this is rubbish. Many splinter groups indeed. We have a cultural artefact that is as varied as there were believers. No axes to grind whatsoever. Remember with valleys dialects were different when you moved to the next valley. Cultural artefacts have the propensity to diverge. Judaism was not monolithic until it was almost destroyed by the Romans. What was left was filtered through a narrow doorway. You were either with the rabbis or you were minim. Before that being minim made no sense. This is why scholars of pre-christian Jewish religion talk of Judaisms. There was no main trunk from which groups splintered.

Jewish people held different books to be significant. The book of Jubilees. The Enochic Pentateuch. The Assumption of Moses. The Testament of Isaiah. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Jubilees and Enoch were big time in the pre-christian era. Qumran had numerous copies of them, so their popularity vied with the most famous currently canonical books. You are an adherent of the rabbinic tradition which affirms the constitution of the tanach. That doesn't help you understand pre-rabbinic Judaism at all.

aa5874

All claims that Philo's Therapeutae were Jews because they used Hebrew Scripture has been completely debunked.

Christians of the Jesus cult used Hebrew Scripture and were NON-JEWS.

We have the Pauline letters to the Churches of the Uncircumcised.

We have the writings of Justin Martyr.

The Uncircumcised did STUDY Hebrew Scripture.

First Apology In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin the Uncircumcised used Hebrew Scripture AGAINST a Jew. A Non-Jew is implying and arguing that he KNOWS Hebrew Scripture better than Trypho the Jew.

Dialogue with TryphoDialogue with Trypho

stephan huller

Just think of the Samaritans and then realize there were at least five different types of Samaritans, countless Jewish sects. Shesh is too involved with himself and his 'ideals.' This is an unproductive way to understand history.

Sheshbazzar

When do you believe the LXX translation of the Torah was produced spin ?
Just The Torah. (The 'Torah' are the first Five Books of the Hebrew Bible, -in case you don't remember.)

The Book of Jubilees, is based upon, and is a later produced expansion and elaboration upon the contents of The Torah.
Without the Torah there simply would have never been any 'Book of Jubilees'.

The various Enochic texts are all based on ideas and themes that first appeared in The Torah.
Most are little more than elevated midrashim on The Torah, and were produced hundreds of years latter in reaction and response to The Torah,
and to the Priesthood that supported The Torah.

The Assumption of Moses, 'The Testament of Isaiah', (I presume you are referring to the work commonly known as 'The Ascension of Isaiah') the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, were all composed hundreds of years latter than The Torah, and every single one of them are indebted to The Torah for their content.

They may have vied with The Torah, or in some sects even exceeded The Torah in their popularity.
But then we are not discussing a popularity contest, or how 'significant' some Jews thought these Johnny-come-lately texts were.

All of these text owe their very existence to the existence of The Torah that preceeded them.
They did not inspire The Torah, it was the content of The Torah that informed and inspired each and every one of them.



What you read about their 'calendars', or how these Jews reckoned time, or observed Festivals in these books, is only a record of their falling away, their errors and misunderstandings of The Torah.

I realise that you are not going to believe or accept this statement.

and that you will continue on your merry way 'investigating' the tales told in these old texts. But it must be stated in the here and now, while you are yet thus engaged, as a זכרון a 'memorial' aganst The Day when the true 'calandar' of The Torah will again be brought to the light, and every man on earth will see it and understand it, and what you are now putting your time, effort, and faith into will in that Day be revealed for the ignorance, and the massive fraud that it is.

The clock is running and every last second, minute, and hour is in its place, and is accounted for.
The builders line and the measuring reeds have set all of the boundries with perfect precision.
But be careful that you do not believe any of this.


ששבצר

שש בצר׃

Toto

All good things must end, and even more so, this train wreck must end and be cleared from the tracks.

Wrap it up before post 1000.

spin

I hope the explanation helped you to remember. The LXX torah was translated before the turn of the era. The tale found in the letter of Aristeas is historically non-viable (and some non-torah parts were being translated into the 2nd c. CE, but then some of it wasn't written until then either).

Utter rubbish. This is the sign of no knowledge of the work. It's convenient for believers to think that it is dependent on the torah, but it doesn't account for the text. Both Genesis and Jubilees refer back to the same traditions, as does Josephus's material, but there are times when Josephus sides with Jubilees against Genesis, Jubilees with Genesis against Josephus and Genesis with Josephus against Jubilees. Then of course there is the Genesis Apocryphon which parallels a section of Genesis and this adheres to the traditions but is an independent voice of them, featuring throughout an old method of referring to god, 'el `elyon.

This is more rehearsing credent views that assume their conclusion. We know for sure that parts of Enoch date back to the 3rd c. BCE, but we don't know how much earlier. What part of the torah can you securely date before then? Enoch supplies information sorely missing from Genesis re the sons of angels, information which due to its lack makes Genesis almost incomprehensible, like it has been omitted. Genesis holds a different, apparently more modern, logic for the loss of innocence in the world. Enoch blames it on the fallen angels, which links back to Zoroastrian ideas. Genesis comes up with blaming the first people: we done it to ourselves. Ya gotta blame someone.

Yes, I was going to write the Testament of Qahat, but changed my mind. That text has almost nothing to do with the torah at all, but is obscure. It is a sign that Judaism was nothing like what you think.

Your "composed hundreds of years later than the torah" is mere assertion.

You can continue to believe this outmoded stuff, but it is the stuff of belief. I think you are a closet believer in the stuff, because you consistently assert credent views. I'm happy to be wrong, but your views are not based on evidence.

Your addition to your post only makes me think more of your credence in this stuff:

Either you're babbling or rehearsing beliefs: I can't see another position for you here. It would seem to me that you have been pretending to be one thing but are really another. There is no argument in your addition, merely assertions and they seem to be based on faith: "and what you are now putting your time, effort, and faith into will in that Day be revealed for the ignorance, and the massive fraud that it is."

It would seem to me your presence has been based on fraudulent representation. You consistently speak with a sureness not in the evidence but in your own ontology. Your views have no epistemology behind them, no meaningful way of saying how you know what you know, which suggests you don't know it at all.

avi

Really?

900 odd posts on the subject of Therapeutae, with Pete and others having raised interesting issues, all of which point back to understanding Greek, and the Greek expert appears, and all he can write is crap about Sheshbazzar's supposed deficiency in writing ("no epistemology behind them")....

To quote one of Sheshbazzar's famous aphorisms, "What horseshit!"
here's what we need, spin, from you:

Clarify for the masses, the historical roots, several hundred years before Philo, of these Therapeutae; Give us your best impersonation of Lord Plato himself, and address the question of just who these people were, throughout the Roman empire, not just in Kos, as Clive illustrated, but everywhere, as you yourself know very well. Explore with us, not against us, the relationship of the Therapeutae to the Egyptian deities--> you know that Coptic literature as well as anyone on the forum, though, of course, Coptic wasn't the original language of the Therapeutae following Isis, was it!!!

We need your leadership here, spin, not your caustic comments about shesh....

spin

Is avi the same person as tanya or not? I am not prepared to play any name game nonsense.