Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Ornery U » Ornery U - History of Judaism (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Ornery U - History of Judaism
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope, that's the one I came up with as well, within half a minute of pondering. Some serious scholars seemed pretty impressed, and I was beyond the age to be humored like that [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"And there is next to no archaeological evidence for the Persian period in Israel."

Sorry, that's just not true at all. I happened to translate papers (Ed. to add: by tenured professors, not theses papers trying to get noticed. Accepted scholarship) on sites from the Persian era.

So presumably you're in contact with them. Go and ask them whether the Persian period in Israel isn't the most unusually sparse period in terms of remains. Don't ask them why they think that is; I'm aware that they'll have different reasons to account for it. But ask them; don't take my word for it.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Again - when did Shomron fall? Not 722 BCE as commonly accepted? When did Alex defeat Darius? Not 333? Because 10 years still leaves 156 to account for.

Samaria fell 132 years before Jerusalem. So if Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE, then Samaria fell in 719 BCE. But if Jerusalem fell in 421 BCE, Samaria fell in 553 BCE. If that's the case, then the Assyrian kings get downdated as well. It's all of a piece. As far as Alexander defeating Darius, that'd be in 317. There's a table of dates at the link I sent you before. Here it is again, if you want.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Nope, that's the one I came up with as well, within half a minute of pondering. Some serious scholars seemed pretty impressed, and I was beyond the age to be humored like that [Smile]

Heh. You should be frum. We can always use good thinkers.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"There are many differences between what we know about the Dead Sea folks and what we know about the Essenes."

Please elaborate.

Ricky said: "Understand: The Prophets and Scriptures parts of the old testament (everything after deuteronomy) cover a period of roughly 1,000 years. None of that documentation contains a shred of evidence to support any existence of a sacred oral law beyond the five books of moses. None."

Did you respond to this, Lisa?

Also, when Moses follows the recommendation of Jethro (a righteous goy, neh?) to set up an organization to administrate the law, rather than doing it by himself, does Tenach depict these as interpreters and executors of the law, or might they have had some regulatory responsibilities? In other words, how do we know that every law of Deuteronomy was of direct divine origin through Moses, rather than humans interpreting God's will, much as Rabbis interpret the law, except with Moses' supervision?

In other words, God clearly delegated certain powers to Moses, and presumably God was OK with Moses delegating some of his powers to subordinates as Jethro had advised. Which powers were delegable and which not delegable, and why, and on what basis?

Also, what were the role of prophets after Moses, and why did they stop appearing? Do you believe that the promised Messiah be a prophet? A lawgiver?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The counterpart of frum is frei, right? Does the word frei only apply to non-observant Jews or does it apply also to goyim?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"There are many differences between what we know about the Dead Sea folks and what we know about the Essenes."

Please elaborate.

Link
quote:
The principal defining differences to which Cansdale points are the following: (1) the peace-loving Essenes contrast with the warlike spirit evident in some of the scrolls, especially the War Scroll; (2) the Essenes were mostly celibate, whereas the scrolls include many laws concerning women, children and even sexual intercourse; (3) the Essenes abhorred slavery, while the scrolls legislate the practice; (4) the Essenes took no oaths except when entering the group, whereas the scrolls contain numerous regulations for the taking and voiding of oaths; (5) the Essenes owned no private property, whereas the scroll-writers did; and (6) there are significant differences between the Essenes and the relevant Dead Sea Scrolls regarding entry procedures for new members. Cansdale concludes that the scrolls probably issued from one of the many Jewish sects whose names are not recorded in the meager sources at our disposal, perhaps a sect related to the Sadducees.
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Ricky said: "Understand: The Prophets and Scriptures parts of the old testament (everything after deuteronomy) cover a period of roughly 1,000 years. None of that documentation contains a shred of evidence to support any existence of a sacred oral law beyond the five books of moses. None."

Did you respond to this, Lisa?

Other than to point out that there isn't much in the Bible about people going to the bathroom (something they presumably did anyway), not really. If I write a journal about my day's activities, I probably won't mention stopping at red lights and going at green ones, or determining what to do if a traffic light is out. There are rules, and I follow them. I pretty much take the rules of the road for granted. Same with most of Jewish law.

The mechanism by which disputes in the law are resolved is a good one. It's currently not in operation, and hasn't been for about 17 centuries, since the Romans broke it for us. In the last few centuries, it had rocky periods, where Sadducees threw sand into the gears. It's no coincidence that the first recorded disputes in Jewish law date to about that time.

When the courts are working properly, there's no need for the volumes and volumes of the Talmud. If you don't know what the law is in a specific situation, you go to your town's beit din (rabbinic court of 3) and ask. If they know the answer, they tell you. If they don't, they don't try and logic it out based on sources, like we do nowadays, a procedure which has led to a large number of different rulings by different authorities. Instead, all three members of the beit din, and the person who asked the question, get up and go to the nearest regional beit din (rabbinic court of 23) and ask them.

If they know the answer, they say it. And because it's apparently necessary, they send out messengers to every single court of 3 in its region letting them know what the answer is for such a situation. If they don't, the initial asker, the initial local beit din and the regional beit din pick up and go to Jerusalem, where they ask the question to a special beit din of 23 outside the Temple Mount. Lather, rinse, repeat. If they have the answer, they send the answer to every regional beit din. If not, they go to one last beit din of 23 further up the Temple Mount and do the dance again. Finally, if they don't have the answer, it goes to the Sanhedrin, the rabbinic court of 71, which meets on the Temple Mount, adjacent to the Temple.

Here, things work differently. This is is the last place to go. If they know the answer, they issue it to all of Israel. If not, they discuss and debate and use logic and precedent and similar cases and all that nifty legal stuff to arrive at an answer. In the end, they vote on it, and whatever a majority decides is what God says the answer is. And that answer is announced to all Israel, and everyone goes home happy.

With a system like that, how often do you think really novel situations came up? How long could legal disputes last? Not very long. The very first long-term disputes date to after the time of Alexander the Great, and it was one single dispute which lasted about 5 generations. It wasn't until about the first century CE that disputes started seriously multiplying, and the Sanhedrin wasn't under our control for most of that time.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, when Moses follows the recommendation of Jethro (a righteous goy, neh?) to set up an organization to administrate the law, rather than doing it by himself, does Tenach depict these as interpreters and executors of the law, or might they have had some regulatory responsibilities? In other words, how do we know that every law of Deuteronomy was of direct divine origin through Moses, rather than humans interpreting God's will, much as Rabbis interpret the law, except with Moses' supervision?

Does my explanation of how the court system is meant to work answer that? If not, let me know and I'll try and address it.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, what were the role of prophets after Moses, and why did they stop appearing? Do you believe that the promised Messiah be a prophet? A lawgiver?

The purpose of prophets... I don't think there's a cut and dried answer. There are a few different views, probably. I can give you the one I think is correct.

God gave the Torah in written and oral parts, because it wouldn't have been practical to do it all written or all oral. All oral, and there's no anchor. Things can get out of hand. All written, and interpretation can change with the context of the reader, and since God had an actual intent in the Torah, that wouldn't do, either.

But even with the written and oral parts of the Torah, and their interworkings, there was still a problem. That was nuance. The best and biggest example is probably sacrifices. The sacrifices were important. They were the primary ritual surrounding repentance, among other things. Sort of like circumcision and dipping in a ritual bath are necessary for conversion. But just as the essence of conversion is accepting the yoke of heaven, and not the rituals of circumcision and the ritual bath -- however non-negotiable those rituals are -- so too is the essence of repentence something other than the ritual. And the essence of worshipping God is in prayer, despite the necessary sacrifices.

But how do you explain that? You don't want to tell people that the sacrifices aren't important, because they are. But you don't want them to think that they're the whole story, because they aren't.

There really isn't any fair way to convey that in writing, or even orally. Have you ever played the Labyrinth game? It's a wooden box with two knobs on adjacent sides. There's a maze on the top, and there are 100 holes in the maze. You have a metal ball that you want to get through the maze without it falling into any of the holes, and you tilt the board this way and that with the nobs to accomplish this (here's a link). You can't just explain to someone how to do it. It takes constant feedback.

The prophets were a lot like that. They were there to guide us, especially through the early times, so that we'd not go off half-cocked thinking that it was all about the sacrifices. Or all about this or that other thing.

That was probably their primary purpose, socially speaking. But prophecy wasn't just about the social purposes. The division in the Torah isn't only between written and oral. It's between the "hidden" and "revealed" parts as well. The "hidden" is the more esoteric stuff. What you'd call mystical. Kabbalah. Not the flaky Madonna stuff. The best description I've heard about that was from Rabbi Adin Steinsalz. He noted that Madonna's Kabbalah cult bears roughly the same resemblance to the real Kabbalah that pornography does to love.

Initially, this esoteric material was taught to groups of students. It included a sort of spiritual cosmology, and meditative techniques by means of which students were able to see beyond our limited view of reality and perceive more of God than we are ordinarily able to. This was highly advanced study. Post-grad stuff to the grammar school business of Talmudic law. And most people didn't engage in it. Those who did achieved varying degrees of perception of the Divine. This was called prophecy.

Doing this could let you see future events at times. That was used as a test by the Sanhedrin to validate real prophets, as opposed to fakes. Prophets would perceive the truth about God's intent, and would relate that to others. Prophets, even real prophets, who let their personal views interfere with this process, and said things which they attributed to prophecy, but which were not what God's true intent was, were one category of false prophet. A false prophet wasn't just some dink who drank too much and started yelling "God hath spake to me!" More often, he was a real prophet who let his personal opinions get in the way.

Aside from the cosmology and meditative techniques, this body of knowledge included techniques by which the physical world could be altered. What you and I would probably call magic, of sorts. Or miracles. You know, making a pitcher pour oil endlessly. Making a metal axe head float. Bringing back a boy from the dead. Making a sodden pile of slaughtered oxen burst into flames. That kind of thing. Elijah and Elisha material.

There's a rationalist school in Judaism which says that such things were never possible, and were only visions. I don't hold by that school of thought.

Some of the people who learned these techniques found ways to use them wrongly. They got people to go after false gods and used such tricks to convince people that these gods were real. One of the reasons why idolatry was such a temptation during the First Temple period was that the tricks of the idolators actually worked, sometimes.

The rabbis say that the Men of the Great Assembly prayed to God that the temptation towards idolatry should be taken away from our people. And that God granted their request, but that in balance, prophecy was taken away as well. According to the view I've been explaining, this was a metaphorical explanation of the fact that the Great Assembly decreed that Kabbalah-esoteric material was no longer to be taught publically. That it was to be taught only one on one to the most apt pupils, who were of a certain age and knowledge base. This kept idolatry from re-erupting in the Second Temple period, but it also meant no prophecy.

As far as the Messiah is concerned, he will definitely not be a lawgiver (and all the more so not a lawtaker). Will he be a prophet? Maybe. He doesn't have to be, but it wouldn't surprise me a lot. My guess is that he won't be, though.

Sorry that was so long. It was a complicated question.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The counterpart of frum is frei, right? Does the word frei only apply to non-observant Jews or does it apply also to goyim?

I've never heard it used that way, but it's just a Yiddish word. It isn't technical jargon. It can be used however it'll be understood. I suppose that if I were to mention "frei goyim", it'd be understood that I was talking about non-religious non-Jews.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, so frei means nonreligious, and it's not Hebrew. Is frum Hebrew or also Yiddish?

I was under the misapprehension that frei meant speficially nonobservant of the 613. Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you for your thought out answer to my complex question. I'm more than a little astonished by what you said about prophesy; you make it sound like you don't even believe that a prophet is called by God, or that a prophet has a role or mantle that he might pass to another. To be sure, your explanation could fit some of the facts that we know about prophets, but does it fit all of the statements in the Tenach?

Do you really believe that the "temptation towards idolatry" was in fact taken away from your people? Or only some of the temptation? For example, are Christian women less attractive to your men than Jezebel was, or do you concede that they are less "idolatrous" than Jezebel was, if idolatry can be calculated by degrees? [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Ah, so frei means nonreligious, and it's not Hebrew. Is frum Hebrew or also Yiddish?

I was under the misapprehension that frei meant speficially nonobservant of the 613. Thank you for clarifying.

No problem. Yes, frum is also Yiddish.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for your thought out answer to my complex question. I'm more than a little astonished by what you said about prophesy; you make it sound like you don't even believe that a prophet is called by God, or that a prophet has a role or mantle that he might pass to another.

While the Hebrew word Navi, which we translate as "prophet" does actually mean "called", the normal verb that's used in Hebrew for "prophesy" is the causative-reflexive form, which would mean "to cause oneself to be called".

That doesn't mean that God didn't ever fling prophecy upon a person who didn't seek it. He did, particularly during the period of the Judges.

And certain leaders had an authority which they could transfer to a disciple, such as Elijah to Elisha. But it wasn't as if Elisha became a prophet by Elijah giving him his mantle.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
To be sure, your explanation could fit some of the facts that we know about prophets, but does it fit all of the statements in the Tenach?

I would imagine so. Why? Can you think of ones it does not fit?

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Do you really believe that the "temptation towards idolatry" was in fact taken away from your people? Or only some of the temptation?

I think it was. Look how prevalent it was during the First Temple period and how absent it was during the Second Temple period. The contrast is striking.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
For example, are Christian women less attractive to your men than Jezebel was, or do you concede that they are less "idolatrous" than Jezebel was, if idolatry can be calculated by degrees? [Big Grin]

Jezebel was only attractive to Ahab. She didn't foster idolatry by being some sort of sex kitten. She was a Phoenician princess and Queen of Israel, and she used her power to persecute Jews who followed the Torah and to foster the cult of Baal.

A Jewish guy attracted to a woman who is Christian isn't being pulled toward idolatry. He's being pulled towards what's in his pants. I'm not sure what the connection is.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Other than to point out that there isn't much in the Bible about people going to the bathroom (something they presumably did anyway), not really."

That's really, really not an unlimited get out of the corner card. How come the cessation of jubilee is not recorded in the bible? That's also trivial? Obvious? Or is it mentioned? I'm not one of those guys who knows the tanach by heart. It's nice that someone in the 2nd century or later says so, but where's the contemporary proof?

Why should we believe you that the beginning of disputes was the Sadducees pretending all of a sudden not to recognize what had been in effect forever, and not the beginning of serious rabinnical innovation? You believe it because your religion says so, and you're willing to assume all other evidence is flawed if it contradicts what you believe to be true. Why should we?

"She didn't foster idolatry by being some sort of sex kitten. She was a Phoenician princess and Queen of Israel, and she used her power to persecute Jews who followed the Torah and to foster the cult of Baal."

True. It's not like people said "oh that jezebel is so hot, I wanna be like her". She imposed it by force, because the damn Jews were weird enough to have a problem with her opening temples and sending out Baal priests [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way - just a technical point. You made an issue about the debts not being kept in the temple. They were kept in the temple compound. Next to the actual temple treasury. Under the explicit auspices of the temple. One of the first things the rebels did in CE 66 after taking control of the temple compound was burn the debt records.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When the courts are working properly, there's no need for the volumes and volumes of the Talmud. If you don't know what the law is in a specific situation, you go to your town's beit din (rabbinic court of 3) and ask. If they know the answer, they tell you. If they don't, they don't try and logic it out based on sources, like we do nowadays, a procedure which has led to a large number of different rulings by different authorities. Instead, all three members of the beit din, and the person who asked the question, get up and go to the nearest regional beit din (rabbinic court of 23) and ask them."

And the evidence for the existence of such a system in biblical times is...? This is also like going to the bathroom? Not worthy of mentioning anywhere?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"Other than to point out that there isn't much in the Bible about people going to the bathroom (something they presumably did anyway), not really."

That's really, really not an unlimited get out of the corner card.

Neither is "It's not in the text of the Bible, so it didn't happen".

What exactly do you think the Bible is, Ricky? Seriously. What do you think it even purports to be? A day by day record of events? A history book?

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
How come the cessation of jubilee is not recorded in the bible? That's also trivial?

I repeat my question. See, you apparently see the Bible as something it's not. Why would it be mentioned? What's recorded is recorded for a purpose. What would have been the purpose of recording that?

Let me illustrate this. In the annals of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, there are records referring to Ahab of Israel at the battle of Qarqar, and records of him receiving tribute from Jehu. Neither of those things appear in the Bible. Not even a hint. Do you think those events were insignificant? Ahab's contingent at Qarqar was the biggest one listed. Bigger than any of his Phoenician allies.

Just think about it. If Shalmaneser's annals had never been uncovered, and had rabbinic literature mentioned those events, you would have snorted and dismissed them in exactly the same way you're doing with everything else, and on the same grounds. But those grounds are faulty. Your estimation of what should and should not have appeared in the Bible doesn't necessarily have a lot of weight.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Obvious? Or is it mentioned? I'm not one of those guys who knows the tanach by heart. It's nice that someone in the 2nd century or later says so, but where's the contemporary proof?

<shrug> As I'm tying this, I'm listening to a YouTube video of Randall Munroe (the guy who does XKCD) at Google. You're just going to have to take my word for it. I can't even conceive of how I'd prove it to you. Fortunately, I don't feel the need to. You can dismiss what other people know by setting up your own rules of evidence, but Ricky, I think that in this case, you're deliberately setting up your rules of evidence for the purpose of excluding Judaism's claims about its own history. Because those claims make you feel uncomfortable.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Why should we believe you that the beginning of disputes was the Sadducees pretending all of a sudden not to recognize what had been in effect forever, and not the beginning of serious rabinnical innovation?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the conditions and results match what we've seen only in the last two centuries? And as a fan of William of Ockham, I find it hard to understand why you think things were so different 23 centuries ago.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
You believe it because your religion says so, and you're willing to assume all other evidence is flawed if it contradicts what you believe to be true. Why should we?

Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for your thought out answer to my complex question. I'm more than a little astonished by what you said about prophesy; you make it sound like you don't even believe that a prophet is called by God, or that a prophet has a role or mantle that he might pass to another.

While the Hebrew word Navi, which we translate as "prophet" does actually mean "called", the normal verb that's used in Hebrew for "prophesy" is the causative-reflexive form, which would mean "to cause oneself to be called".
Fascinating. Thank you.


quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
That doesn't mean that God didn't ever fling prophecy upon a person who didn't seek it. He did, particularly during the period of the Judges.

And certain leaders had an authority which they could transfer to a disciple, such as Elijah to Elisha. But it wasn't as if Elisha became a prophet by Elijah giving him his mantle.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
To be sure, your explanation could fit some of the facts that we know about prophets, but does it fit all of the statements in the Tenach?

I would imagine so. Why? Can you think of ones it does not fit?

Well, the time of Judges, like you just said.

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Do you really believe that the "temptation towards idolatry" was in fact taken away from your people? Or only some of the temptation?

I think it was. Look how prevalent it was during the First Temple period and how absent it was during the Second Temple period. The contrast is striking.
When did the Samaritans appear? Seems to me that the people just found a different way of dealing with idolators, or, perhaps, in the generations after slavery, through God's influence they learned to conduct themselves more like free people. Why would God spend so much time with them if they were incapable of learning?

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
For example, are Christian women less attractive to your men than Jezebel was, or do you concede that they are less "idolatrous" than Jezebel was, if idolatry can be calculated by degrees? [Big Grin]

Jezebel was only attractive to Ahab.[/qb]
That was enough, neh? Today, a shiksa only has to be attractive to one Jewish man for his fellows to start mourning the loss of his progeny. Do you need me to link you to a few discussions for examples? [Frown]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
When did the Samaritans appear? Seems to me that the people just found a different way of dealing with idolators, or, perhaps, in the generations after slavery, through God's influence they learned to conduct themselves more like free people. Why would God spend so much time with them if they were incapable of learning?

True, but the change was rather sudden. As far as the Samaritans are concerned, the Bible describes how the Assyrians brought them in and settled them in the cities of Israel after exiling the northern tribes. That was about 132 years before Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. But they weren't Jews. Their syncretisms weren't ours.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
For example, are Christian women less attractive to your men than Jezebel was, or do you concede that they are less "idolatrous" than Jezebel was, if idolatry can be calculated by degrees? [Big Grin]

Jezebel was only attractive to Ahab.
That was enough, neh? Today, a shiksa only has to be attractive to one Jewish man for his fellows to start mourning the loss of his progeny. Do you need me to link you to a few discussions for examples? [Frown] [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, a Jew who marries out has committed just about the worst crime against our people that he or she can. If the person who does it is a man, his children are non-Jews, and that branch of the Jewish family tree ends. Dies. That's something to mourn, don't you think? But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"you would have snorted and dismissed them in exactly the same way you're doing with everything else, and on the same grounds."

But it does, and the dating works, so the rabbis merely mentioning Ahab as a contemporary of Shalmenneser wouldn't bother me. Had they made him the contemporary of Cyrus, yes, I'd snort. I mean, the Talmud mixes up Hasmonean kings too.

The battle of Qarqar had zero impact on the people of Israel, taking place hundreds of miles away. The cessation of the jubilee is a huge deal, obviating as you say some fundamental economic rules.

"You can dismiss what other people know by setting up your own rules of evidence, but Ricky, I think that in this case, you're deliberately setting up your rules of evidence for the purpose of excluding Judaism's claims about its own history."

I understand why this seems so to you, but the opposite of you is not necessarily the direct opposite. The opposite of a line isn't a counter line. It's a circle - something with totally different rules [Smile] . These are not my rules, but the rules of scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not a conspiracy, and would exist whether or not your view existed. These are figures known to history. There are artifacts associated with them that have been scientifically dated.

"Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle."

Sorry, that's not true. I have accepted science on my side. I can't find a single source supporting any of your theories.

As for the Essenes and the Qumran scrolls - David Flusser, one of the foremost scholars of the subjects, flatly states that the authors of the scrolls were among the broad group known as Essenes.

AS for the peace-loving thing - the authors of the scrolls clearly underwent a process in which their martial ambitions were placed under tight reins of "someday". The War scroll is dated earlier than many others, which contain language about not jumping the gun and tolerating the evil regime.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
When did the Samaritans appear? Seems to me that the people just found a different way of dealing with idolators, or, perhaps, in the generations after slavery, through God's influence they learned to conduct themselves more like free people. Why would God spend so much time with them if they were incapable of learning?

True, but the change was rather sudden. As far as the Samaritans are concerned, the Bible describes how the Assyrians brought them in and settled them in the cities of Israel after exiling the northern tribes. That was about 132 years before Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. But they weren't Jews. Their syncretisms weren't ours.
Ah! You dispute that Samaritans were Jews that intermarried with pagans. Interesting.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
For example, are Christian women less attractive to your men than Jezebel was, or do you concede that they are less "idolatrous" than Jezebel was, if idolatry can be calculated by degrees? [Big Grin]

Jezebel was only attractive to Ahab.
That was enough, neh? Today, a shiksa only has to be attractive to one Jewish man for his fellows to start mourning the loss of his progeny. Do you need me to link you to a few discussions for examples? [Frown] [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, a Jew who marries out has committed just about the worst crime against our people that he or she can. If the person who does it is a man, his children are non-Jews [/QB][/QUOTE]

Hold on, Lisa. According to what you just said, they aren't even *his* children.

quote:
and that branch of the Jewish family tree ends. Dies. That's something to mourn, don't you think?
Not according to the value system that you laid out on this forum. If he's not observant, then wouldn't it be far worse to have him raise Jewish children who would (according to what you said above) be unable to live up to God's particular expectations for them?


quote:
But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.
Really? What if the non-Jew was Noachides?

Would it make a difference to the story of David whether Uriah the Hittite was a convert to Judaism or a Noachides?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Moderator
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, a Jew who marries out has committed just about the worst crime against our people that he or she can. If the person who does it is a man, his children are non-Jews, and that branch of the Jewish family tree ends. Dies. That's something to mourn, don't you think? But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.
Why is it? You said before that you didn't seek converts because (as I understood it) they gained nothing by converting and stood to possibly harm you and themsevles by so doing. Why is it more desireable to have people born into Judaism rather than to have people seek it for themselves?
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here, found this , which I'm surprised you didn't find first, M'lady, given your interest in the subject. Also I see that quite a few perfectly orthodox scholars acknowledge the gap and come up with nice theories to explain them that don't give up any belief in Judaism, AND don't require we just take one version's "word for it" OVER multiple cross-referenced sources and various methods of dating.

I think that about wraps up the subject of the missing years, and shows one need not believe that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed anywhere near 421 BCE in order to be a good Jew. I do, however, thank you, Lisa, for bringing this fascinating tidbit to my attention, and think we should all give scented offerings to Our Lady of the Internet, and to the blessed Wiki. Next...

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine, Pete - Lisa will probably just say "cause god said so", but Judaism, among many other things, is an experiment in controlled breeding. Bene Gesserit, like, just with a set of rules doing the selecting. [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, Pete - I don't know of research that considers the Samaritans idolatrous Jews. Definitely replacement population brought by the Assyrians (and also native idolatrous population, which never quite died out from the northern kingdom, what with patron queens and whatnot)
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, a Jew who marries out has committed just about the worst crime against our people that he or she can. If the person who does it is a man, his children are non-Jews, and that branch of the Jewish family tree ends. Dies. That's something to mourn, don't you think? But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.
Why is it? You said before that you didn't seek converts because (as I understood it) they gained nothing by converting and stood to possibly harm you and themsevles by so doing. Why is it more desireable to have people born into Judaism rather than to have people seek it for themselves?
Particularly when the people born to fathers of the sort that would intermarry would almost certainly will not be raised to as observant Orthodox Jews!

It's curious because with converts, you say, essentially better to have a good Gentile than a bad Jew, but with the intermarrying issue, you say that you'd rather have more bad Jews than more good Gentiles. Why does the principle change?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
BTW, Pete - I don't know of research that considers the Samaritans idolatrous Jews. Definitely replacement population brought by the Assyrians (and also native idolatrous population, which never quite died out from the northern kingdom, what with patron queens and whatnot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

quote:
The Samaritans (Hebrew: שומרונים‎ Shomronim), known in the Talmud as Kuthim (Hebrew: כותים‎), are an ethnic group of the Levant. Ethnically, they are descended from a group of Israelite inhabitants that have connections to ancient Samaria from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile up to the beginning of the Common Era.
quote:
The Samaritans have insisted that they are direct descendants of the Northern Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who survived the destruction of the Northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. The inscription of Sargon II records the deportation of a relatively small proportion of the Israelites (27,290, according to the annals), so it is quite possible that a sizable population remained that could identify themselves as Israelites, the term that the Samaritans prefer for themselves.
Samaritan historiography would place the basic schism from the remaining part of Israel after the twelve tribes conquered the land of Canaan, led by Joshua. After Joshua's death, Eli the priest left the tabernacle which Moses erected in the desert and established on Mount Gerizim, and built another one under his own rule in the hills of Shiloh (1 Sam 1:1-3; 2:12-17). Thus, he established both an illegitimate priesthood and an illegitimate place of worship

quote:
”

Abu'l Fath, who in the fourteenth century C.E. wrote the major work of Samaritan history, comments on Samaritan origins as follows:

“ A terrible civil war broke out between Eli son of Yafni, of the line of Ithamar, and the sons of Phineas, because Eli son of Yafni resolved to usurp the High Priesthood from the descendents of Phineas. He used to offer sacrifices on an altar of stones. He was 50 years old, endowed with wealth and in charge of the treasury of the children of Israel...
He offered a sacrifice on the altar, but without salt, as if he were inattentive. When the Great High Priest Ozzi learned of this, and found the sacrifice was not accepted, he thoroughly disowned him; and it is (even) said that he rebuked him.

Thereupon he and the group that sympathized with him, rose in revolt and at once he and his followers and his beasts set off for Shiloh. Thus Israel split in factions. He sent to their leaders saying to them, Anyone who would like to see wonderful things, let him come to me. Then he assembled a large group around him in Shiloh, and built a Temple for himself there; he constructed a place like the Temple (on Mount Gerizim). He built an altar, omitting no detail - it all corresponded to the original, piece by piece.

At this time the Children of Israel split into three factions. A loyal faction on Mount Gerizim; a heretical faction that followed false Gods; and the faction that followed Eli son of Yafni on Shiloh.[5]
”

Further, the Samaritan Chronicle Adler, or New Chronicle, believed to have been composed in the 18th century C.E. using earlier chronicles as sources states:

“ And the children of Israel in his days divided into three groups. One did according to the abominations of the Gentiles and served other Gods; another followed Eli the son of Yafni, although many of them turned away from him after he had revealed his intentions; and a third remained with the High Priest Uzzi ben Bukki, the chosen place, Mount Gerizim Bethel, in the holy city of Shechem.[6]

quote:
A Midrash (Genesis Rabbah Sect. 94) relates about an encounter between Rabbi Meir and a Samaritan. The story that developed includes the following dialogue:

R. Meir asks the Samaritan: What tribe are you from?
The Samaritan answers: From Joseph.
R. Meir : No!
The Samaritan: From which one then?
R. Meir : From Issachar.
The Samaritan: How do you know?
R. Meir: For it is written (Gen 46:13): The sons of Issachar: Tola, Puvah, Iob, and Shimron. These are the Samaritans (shamray).[10]
Zertal dates the Assyrian onslaught at 721 BC to 647 BC and discusses three waves of imported settlers. He shows that Mesopotamian pottery in Samarian territory cluster around the lands of Menasheh and that the type of pottery found was produced around 689 BC. Some date their split with the Jews to the time of Nehemiah, Ezra, and the rebuilding of the Second Temple in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. Returning exiles considered the Samaritans to be non-Jews and, thus, not fit for this religious work.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") summarizes both past and the present views on the Samaritans' origins. It says:

“ Until the middle of the 20th Century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722/1 BC). The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials.
According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new followers there. For the Samaritans, this was the 'schism' par excellence.("Samaritans" in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, op. cit., col. 727.)
”

Furthermore, even to this day the Samaritans still claim descent from the tribe of Joseph:

“ The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.(J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology And Literature, 1907, op. cit., p. 32.)

So if R. Meir is right in the Midrash, they are descended from Issechar, and thus fit Lisa's definition of Jewishness, which is of Israel.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Paladine, Pete - Lisa will probably just say "cause god said so"

And that's not a bad answer, since God arguably does say so in the Torah. My point is rather that the prohibition on prostelyting is not only a new innovation, but one that conflicts with principles of the Torah.

quote:
but Judaism, among many other things, is an experiment in controlled breeding. Bene Gesserit, like, just with a set of rules doing the selecting. [Smile]
That is true of all cultures, Ricky. The difference is that the Jewish rules-set seem to be one of the most successful survival strategies, while the Muslim strategy is also highly successful in its own way.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Here, found this , which I'm surprised you didn't find first, M'lady, given your interest in the subject.

First of all, it's Missing_years_(Hebrew calendar). The link you gave won't work. Second of all, that didn't matter, because that page has been on my watchlist at Wikipedia for a long time.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Also I see that quite a few perfectly orthodox scholars acknowledge the gap and come up with nice theories to explain them that don't give up any belief in Judaism, AND don't require we just take one version's "word for it" OVER multiple cross-referenced sources and various methods of dating.

You're mistaken. The only two they cite are Rabbi Schwab and the guys who wrote the "Y2K" article. Rabbi Schwab can't be used as support, because he wrote an article years ago addressing the question of "what if we were totally stuck with the Greek dates?" In that context, he hemmed and hawed and said, "Well, maybe we could say this." When he learned that there were people using that theoretical discussion as a source for the long chronology being acceptable from an Orthodox POV (as you did just now), he wrote another article retracting the idea with extreme prejudice.

As far as the Y2K thing is concerned, you should really read their paper. It's laughable. As much as you think the long chronology is correct, I think you'd still get quite a laugh out of their suggestions. I've been meaning to write a rebuttal paper for a while now. I just haven't gotten around to it.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
I think that about wraps up the subject of the missing years, and shows one need not believe that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed anywhere near 421 BCE in order to be a good Jew.

If that makes you feel good. You're still wrong. That extra 166 years snaps the chain of tradition right between Jeremiah's disciple Baruch and his disciple Ezra. Once you do that, what you have isn't Judaism any more. But you go right on thinking that it's been "wrapped up".
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Ah! You dispute that Samaritans were Jews that intermarried with pagans. Interesting.

Well, yeah. The Bible says so rather explicitly. Other than Samaritan claims to the contrary, which contradict the Bible on a lot more than that, I can't see any grounds for seeing them as Jews who intermarried with non-Jews.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
For example, are Christian women less attractive to your men than Jezebel was, or do you concede that they are less "idolatrous" than Jezebel was, if idolatry can be calculated by degrees? [Big Grin]

Jezebel was only attractive to Ahab.
That was enough, neh? Today, a shiksa only has to be attractive to one Jewish man for his fellows to start mourning the loss of his progeny. Do you need me to link you to a few discussions for examples? [Frown]
I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, a Jew who marries out has committed just about the worst crime against our people that he or she can. If the person who does it is a man, his children are non-Jews [/QB][/QUOTE]

Hold on, Lisa. According to what you just said, they aren't even *his* children.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Right. And that branch of the Jewish nation ends. It's as though a world has been destroyed.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
and that branch of the Jewish family tree ends. Dies. That's something to mourn, don't you think?
Not according to the value system that you laid out on this forum. If he's not observant, then wouldn't it be far worse to have him raise Jewish children who would (according to what you said above) be unable to live up to God's particular expectations for them?
What he should do is raise Jewish children who do live up to those expectations. It's hard for us to measure whether one bad thing (raising his children wrongly) is better or worse than another bad thing (marrying out). But in the former case, at least there's the chance that the child will return. My great-grandfather was anti-religious. Strongly so, from everything I've heard. It'd probably have ticked him off to no end to know that his great-granddaughter would become religious. But God works in mysterious ways.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.
Really? What if the non-Jew was Noachides?
It still wouldn't matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Would it make a difference to the story of David whether Uriah the Hittite was a convert to Judaism or a Noachides?

A Noachide, you mean. He was singular.

But Uriah was neither. When I lived in Israel, I worked with a guy who was French. That didn't mean that he was descended from Gauls. It meant that he lived in France. The same is true of Uriah. And Ittai.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, a Jew who marries out has committed just about the worst crime against our people that he or she can. If the person who does it is a man, his children are non-Jews, and that branch of the Jewish family tree ends. Dies. That's something to mourn, don't you think? But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.
Why is it? You said before that you didn't seek converts because (as I understood it) they gained nothing by converting and stood to possibly harm you and themsevles by so doing. Why is it more desireable to have people born into Judaism rather than to have people seek it for themselves?
Because it's the place of Jews to carry on what God has given us. "And you shall teach them diligently to your children" is a fundamental concept for us. Jews are obligated to procreate and continue the Jewish people.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Paladine, Pete - Lisa will probably just say "cause god said so"

And that's not a bad answer, since God arguably does say so in the Torah. My point is rather that the prohibition on prostelyting is not only a new innovation, but one that conflicts with principles of the Torah.
It doesn't, though. Proselytizing implies that God wants us all to be Jews. He doesn't, any more than He wants all Jews to be Kohanim. There's supposed to be Jews and non-Jews. But they're all supposed to acknowledge God and the Torah. Jews are supposed to be the teachers.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So if R. Meir is right in the Midrash, they are descended from Issechar, and thus fit Lisa's definition of Jewishness, which is of Israel.

Midrashim are not necessarily to be taken literally. Rabbi Meir was not seriously claiming that the Samaritan was from Issachar. He was mocking the guy. There are many midrashim where Rabbi Meir debates Romans or apostates, and he basically shows them that they're being foolish. In this case, he was simply saying that if the guy wanted to claim Israelite ancestry, he would have been better off using Issachar, because at least he could then make a case that Shomroni was derived from Shimron.

II Kings is explicit. Or do you also accept the possibility that Eli was a schismatic who wrongly stole the priesthood from a bunch of priests at Mount Gerizim?

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
quote:
[qb]Yes, a Jew who marries out has committed just about the worst crime against our people that he or she can. If the person who does it is a man, his children are non-Jews

Hold on, Lisa. According to what you just said, they aren't even *his* children.

Right. And that branch of the Jewish nation ends. It's as though a world has been destroyed.
But there are lots of Jewish men who never have children, by choice or by lack of opportunity. I don't see anyone mourning a lost world there. It kind of feels like sour grapes when the guy's only a lost world if he makes babies with a shiksa, as opposed to just not making babies.


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
quote:
and that branch of the Jewish family tree ends. Dies. That's something to mourn, don't you think?
Not according to the value system that you laid out on this forum. If he's not observant, then wouldn't it be far worse to have him raise Jewish children who would (according to what you said above) be unable to live up to God's particular expectations for them?
What he should do is raise Jewish children who do live up to those expectations. It's hard for us to measure whether one bad thing (raising his children wrongly) is better or worse than another bad thing (marrying out). But in the former case, at least there's the chance that the child will return. My great-grandfather was anti-religious. Strongly so, from everything I've heard. It'd probably have ticked him off to no end to know that his great-granddaughter would become religious. But God works in mysterious ways.
Yes, but he works with the goyim too, neh?

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
quote:

[qb] [QUOTE]But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.

Really? What if the non-Jew was Noachides?
It still wouldn't matter.
Even though the Noachide-Jewish match would be more likely to have kids that would convert ... you really value converts (and only technical converts in this case) less than you value another Jew's children?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So if R. Meir is right in the Midrash, they are descended from Issechar, and thus fit Lisa's definition of Jewishness, which is of Israel.

Midrashim are not necessarily to be taken literally. Rabbi Meir was not seriously claiming that the Samaritan was from Issachar. He was mocking the guy. There are many midrashim where Rabbi Meir debates Romans or apostates, and he basically shows them that they're being foolish. In this case, he was simply saying that if the guy wanted to claim Israelite ancestry, he would have been better off using Issachar, because at least he could then make a case that Shomroni was derived from Shimron.

II Kings is explicit. Or do you also accept the possibility that Eli was a schismatic who wrongly stole the priesthood from a bunch of priests at Mount Gerizim?

I don't know the story; I'd just been raised on the assumption that Samaritans were apostate intermarried descendants of Jews. I'm not familliar with the II kings reference you speak of. As for stealing the priesthood, I was about to say that's not possible, but then I remembered Jacob stealing the birthright so I dunno. [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to say that I'm relieved that you disclaim those rabbis, Lisa, and that they do not represent mainstream orthodox Jewish thinking. If one holds to those writers' presumption that everything that David did was justified because Solomon came through him, and through that son, the future messiah, then they'd also need to work out a justification for Lot's conception of Moab with his daughter, since that's part of David's genealogy as well.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
But there are lots of Jewish men who never have children, by choice or by lack of opportunity.

And they're in violation of God's commandments. Every Jewish man is obligated to procreate.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't see anyone mourning a lost world there. It kind of feels like sour grapes when the guy's only a lost world if he makes babies with a shiksa, as opposed to just not making babies.

You misunderstand. It's also a lost world if he doesn't have kids at all. In both cases, he's violating God's law. In the latter case, he's doing so in a way that spits in the face of Judaism and the Jewish people.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
But God works in mysterious ways.
Yes, but he works with the goyim too, neh?
Not like that. Not through violations of His Torah.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
quote:

[qb] [QUOTE]But it has nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan or secular.

Really? What if the non-Jew was Noachides?
It still wouldn't matter.
Even though the Noachide-Jewish match would be more likely to have kids that would convert ...
I disagree with that. Actually, I disagree with the premise and with the conclusion. A decent Noachide would never marry a Jew. Because a decent Noachide would understand and accept the necessity of following God's law, and wouldn't deliberately choose to participate in that sort of violation.

I disagree about the likelihood of the children converting, because having a parent and role model who clearly doesn't give half a damn about the Torah is unlikely to result in a child who wants to convert.

And thirdly, we don't seek converts. Why would we want those children to convert?

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
you really value converts (and only technical converts in this case) less than you value another Jew's children?

It isn't a matter of valuing converts less. It's a matter of the simple fact that Jews are obligated to have Jewish children, and we don't seek converts. The reason I gave for why we don't seek converts isn't the reason. It's a reason. Bottom line is that we just don't.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't know the story; I'd just been raised on the assumption that Samaritans were apostate intermarried descendants of Jews. I'm not familliar with the II kings reference you speak of.

II Kings 17:24-41:
quote:
And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof. And so it was, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not HaShem; therefore HaShem sent lions among them, which killed some of them. Wherefore they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying: 'The nations which thou hast carried away, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the G-d of the land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the G-d of the land.' Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying: 'Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the G-d of the land.' So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear HaShem. Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. So they feared HaShem, and made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. They feared HaShem, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away. Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not HaShem, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law or after the commandment which HaShem commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel; with whom HaShem had made a covenant, and charged them, saying: 'Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them; but HaShem, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, Him shall ye fear, and Him shall ye worship, and to Him shall ye sacrifice; and the statutes and the ordinances, and the law and the commandment, which He wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods; and the covenant that I have made with you ye shall not forget; neither shall ye fear other gods; but HaShem your G-d shall ye fear; and He will deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.' Howbeit they did not hearken, but they did after their former manner. So these nations feared HaShem, and served their graven images; their children likewise, and their children's children, as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.
In fact, the name by which the Samaritans were known in the Talmud is Cuthites.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Having had some connection with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi with 23 children, I can say some Orthodox Jews still take that commandment to be fruitful and multiply very seriously today.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Wikipedia account of the Samaritans does not really contradict the account in II Kings. The Assyrians certainly brought in settlers from other areas, as was their usual policy with regions they conquered, but they probably did not succeed in carrying off every single Jew resident there either. And quite a lot of Jews over the centuries since that account was written were less than fully observant; there was probably intermarriage. Even the interesting detail of the lions rather proves some contact; if the new settlers did not have contacts with Jews, how would they know which god they had offended?

[ February 28, 2008, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, need to fix the link
That should work. At least it does for me.


"First of all, it's Missing_years_(Hebrew calendar). The link you gave won't work. Second of all, that didn't matter, because that page has been on my watchlist at Wikipedia for a long time.

And you neglected to share it with us because....?

Second, in addition to Schwab and the Y2K business, they cite Rabbi Azariah Dei Rossi, Rabbit Nachman Krochmal, Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman an a guy named Lerner. All with explanations on what's up. All refraining from "fixing the history books" [Smile]

"That extra 166 years snaps the chain of tradition right between Jeremiah's disciple Baruch and his disciple Ezra. Once you do that, what you have isn't Judaism any more. "

Ahhhhhhh, so we can believe in the unbroken chain, but only if Baruch, who was already an active person at the destruction, was the direct teacher of Ezra, whose career was still in full swing a century later? This gets more and more bizarre. Where does it even sy that Ezra studied from Baruch? Does it in the text? Or only half a millenium later as received by the unbroken chain?

I, as I said, have gotten all I want or need out of this sidetrack. Obviously I can't and don't want to stop you from believing whatever flights of fancy you choose, but it seems beyond argument that other orthodox Jews have managed to accept the same dating the rest of the flawed world uses, and retain their faith nonetheless. If you want to go all Takfir on them, that's your business and has little to do with the definition of who is an orthodox Jew and what one such may or may not believe in.

For the purposes of this class, only gregorian dates will be used unless the Jewish date is material.

[ February 29, 2008, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete - of course you're right. Even I sometimes forget that those exiles could possibly have been complete and total. I should cut down on the amount I write here and go over what I write more carefully [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In fact, the name by which the Samaritans were known in the Talmud is Cuthites."

Yup, and their land was known diplomatically as "the suspending strip" (separating, as it did, the Galilee from Judah). Less diplomatically, it was known as "The Cuthites Washcloth". [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no reason to favor the Jewish story of the origin of the Samaritans over the Samaritan version of their own origin, other than belief that one and not the other was divinely inspired.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1