Josephus' AGAINST APION (c.94-100 AD) Questions: SOLVED

[rakovsky]

Josephus wrote Against Apion as an apologetic for the Jewish religion in response to the pagan writer Apion's negative portrayals of it.

You can read Loeb's translation here: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl01joseuoft/page/n5
Whiston's translation is here: www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm#aap

(Question 1: SOLVED) Why did some pagans falsely claim that Jews, and later Christians, worshiped the head of an ass, as opposed to that of another animal?

In Against Apion, Book II.7, Josephus refutes Apion's claim that the Jewish Temple had the head of an ass for worship:

Within this sanctuary Apion has the effrontery to assert that the Jews kept an ass's head, worshipping that animal and deeming it worthy of the deepest reverence ; the fact was disclosed, he maintains, on the occasion of the spoliation of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, when the head, made of gold and worth a high price, was discovered.
...
Throughout our history we have kept the same laws, to which we are eternally faithful. Yet, notwithstanding the various calamities which our city, like others, has undergone, when the temple was occupied by successive conquerors, [Antiochus] the Pious, Pompey the Great, Licinius Crassus, most recently Titus Caesar, they found there nothing of the kind, but the purest type of religion... We Jews attribute no honour or virtue to asses... With us, as with other sensible people, asses are beasts that carry loads on their backs, and if they invade our threshing-floors and eat the corn, or stop short on the road, they are soundly beaten, as humble ministers for labour and agriculture.

FOOTNOTE:
Diodorus (xxxiv. frag.) states that Ant. Epiphanes found in the temple a statue of a bearded man ( = Moses) seated on an ass. The charge of ass-worship was afterwards transferred to the Christians (Tertull. Apol. 16).

A famous example of this calumny was the "the Alexamenos graffito", which according to its Wikipedia entry,

is a piece of Roman graffiti scratched in plaster on the wall of a room near the Palatine Hill in Rome, which has now been removed and is in the Palatine Hill Museum... It is hard to date, but has been estimated to have been made c. 200.[4] The image seems to show a young man worshipping a crucified, donkey-headed figure. The Greek inscription approximately translates to "Alexamenos worships [his] God," indicating that the graffito was apparently meant to mock a Christian named Alexamenos.

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes a theory that it could represent Gnostic worship identifying Christ with the Egyptian God Seth:

The calumny of onolatry, or ass-worship, attributed by Tacitus and other writers to the Jews, was afterwards, by the hatred of the latter, transferred to the Christians (Tac., I, v, 3, 4; Tert., Apol., xvi; "Ad nationes", I, 14).
...
Wünsch, however, conjectures that the caricature may have been intended to represent the god of a Gnostic sect which identified Christ with the Egyptian ass-headed god Typhon-Seth (Bréhier, Les origines du crucifix, 15 sqq.). But the reasons advanced in favour of this hypothesis are not convincing.

The representations on a terra-cotta fragment discovered in 1881, at Naples, which dates probably from the first century, appear to belong to the same category as the caricature of the Palatine. A figure with the head of an ass and wearing the toga is seated in a chair with a roll in his hand, instructing a number of baboon-headed pupils. On an ancient gem the onocephalous teacher of two human pupils is dressed in the pallium, the form of cloak peculiar to sacred personages in early Christian art; and a Syrian terra-cotta fragment represents Our Lord, book in hand, with the ears of an ass. The ass as a symbol of heresy, or of Satan, is represented in a fresco of the catacomb of Prætextatus: Christ, the Good Shepherd, is protecting His flock from impurity and heresy symbolized as a pig and an ass. This representation dates from the beginning of the third century (Wilpert, Pitture delle Catacombe, Pl. 51, 1).

According to one theory, ancient Jews came from Canaanites who worshiped the god Seth, the ass being a major animal associated with Seth, and the Canaanite god Baal being associated with the Egyptian Seth.

An article in Haaretz, "Canaanites Imported Sacrificial Animals From Egypt, Archaeologists Find" talks about sacrifice and veneration of asses by the Canaanites in pre-Judaic times:

Analysis of a sacrificial donkey found in the foundations of a house in ancient Gath, and of other remains, show they were born and bred in the Nile... The specific animal, after being killed, had its head was tied to the body, and was then it was placed in a pit.

The origin of the donkey was ascertained by isotopic analysis of its teeth, which enables comparison of trace elements in bones without destroying them. The results clearly showed that the sacrificial ass had not been born and raised locally at Gath, but was imported and lived in the Canaanite city only briefly before its death.

While it is true that Israelites as such (who developed as a people somewhat later) did not sacrifice asses on the grounds that they were unclean, in pre-Judaic times, asses were very much led to the altar (Exodus 13:13).

In fact, asses were hailed and sacrificed to the gods throughout the Near East. In Middle Bronze Age Mari texts, donkeys are sacrificed as part of the signing of treaties. In Late Bronze Age Ugarit, 70 asses were dispatched as part of the god Baal's funeral.

In Egypt, the ass is one of the symbols of the god Seth, the god of Chaos. In the Old Testament, the son of the founding father of the city Shechem is named hamor, which means donkey in Hebrew (Gen. 33:18-43:31). Moreover, a donkey is given the power to talk by god in the story of Balaam (Num. 22). The donkey has fallen a long way since being an object of veneration all those thousands of years ago.

(Question 2: SOLVED) How does the /Law give commands about marriage that are not explicit in the Pentateuch? Perhaps Josephus would see them as implicit in the , or else he would see them as part of the "Oral "?
In Book II, Section 16, Josephus talked about the immutability of the Law:

Since then this is the case, the excellency of a legislator is seen in providing for the people's living after the best manner, and in prevailing with those that are to use the laws he ordains for them, to have a good opinion of them, and in obliging the multitude to persevere in them, and to make no changes in them, neither in prosperity nor adversity.

In FOOTNOTE 21 below, Whiston notes that some of Moses' laws that Josephus describes are not in the Pentateuch:

The following large accounts also of the laws of Moses, seem to me to show a regard to the higher interpretations and improvements of Moses's laws, derived from Jesus Christ, than to the bare letter of them in the Old Testament, whence alone Josephus took them when he wrote his Antiquities; nor, as I think, can some of these laws, though generally excellent in their kind, be properly now found either in the copies of the Jewish Pentateuch, or in Philo, or in Josephus himself, before he became a Nazarene or Ebionite Christian; nor even all of them among the laws of catholic Christianity themselves.

How does Whiston's comment about "improvements of Moses's laws" compare with Josephus' comment about the immutability of the law in Section 16?
Josephus presents the Jewish laws as coming from God and Moses, as when he writes:

But our legislator, who made his actions agree to his laws, did not only prevail with those that were his contemporaries to agree with these his notions, but so firmly imprinted this faith in God upon all their posterity, that it never could be removed. The reason why the constitution of this legislation was ever better directed to the utility of all than other legislations were, is this, that Moses did not make religion a part of virtue, but he saw and he ordained other virtues to be parts of religion...
But for our legislator, he very carefully joined these two methods of instruction together; for he neither left these practical exercises to go on without verbal instruction, nor did he permit the hearing of the law to proceed without the exercises for practice; but beginning immediately from the earliest infancy, and the appointment of every one's diet, he left nothing of the very smallest consequence to be done at the pleasure and disposal of the person himself.

When it comes to marriage, Josephus includes things in the Jewish Law that are not explicit in the written Biblical :

25. But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is its punishment. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to portion, nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully and knavishly; but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred; for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." (23)

Whiston's FOOTNOTE #23: This text is no where in our present copies of the Old Testament.

Loeb's Footnote: For the forbidden marriages of near of kin Lev. xviii. 6 ff.; the other injunctions in this sentence rest on tradition.

The issue reminds me of the complaint Jesus made that the pharisees made commandments of men and held them out to be commandments of God.(Matthew 15:9)

(Question 3: SOLVED) What does Josephus mean about the union of soul and body creating suffering? The concept sounds platonic, anti-material, or gnostic.
He writes about the Jewish Law:

Whiston's translation:
25. ...Moreover, the law enjoins, that after the man and wife have lain together in a regular way, they shall bathe themselves; for there is a defilement contracted thereby, both in soul and body, as if they had gone into another country; for indeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account the law requires this purification to be entirely performed.

Loeb's translation:
Even after the legitimate relations of husband and wife ablations are required. For the Law regards this act as involving a partition of the soul [part of it going] into another place(C); for it suffers both when being implanted in bodies,(D) and again when severed from them by death. That is why the Law has enjoined purificiations in all such cases.

Loeb's Footnotes:
C) "There is transference of part of the soul or life-principle from the father." I am indebted for this explanation of an obscure passage to Dr. T.E.Page.
D) An Essene (and Platonic) view; cf B ii. 154 f.

Wars of the Jews II.154, cited above, says about the Essenes:

"For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortak and imperishable.(A) Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled as it were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft.
FOOTNOTE A.: Cf. A xviii. 18.

Antiquities xviii. 18. (cited in Footnote A above) summarizes the beliefs of the Essenes, mentioning that they believe in the immortality of the soul.

[alon]

rakovsky, I'll get to this later when I am awake. Up at 3 AM with bad headache, so not in the best state to answer this right now.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Sorry to hear that, Dan. There is no hurry. When I get headaches, I like to drink peppermint & lemon ginger tea, get a shower, and take a nap. Aspirin is for when it gets really bad.

[rakovsky]

Regarding Question #3 ("the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death"), an Orthodox friend named Asteriktos suggested to me that it could refer to how at the Fall in the Garden of Eden, humans were clothed (both figuratively and literally) with "garments of skin" and became subject to physical suffering and death. A problem with this interpretation is that in Josephus' quote, death frees the soul from its sufferings, whereas in Genesis, physical death is a negative result of the Fall, and the Biblical belief is that death doesn't prevent the soul from suffering in the afterlife.

Asteriktos noted that 20th c. Orthodox writer Panayiotis Nellas compared the bodies of Adam and Eve before and after the fall:

The first man, according to the succinct expression of St Gregory the Theologian, was "naked by virtue of his simplicity." [102] This means, as St Maximos explains, that his body did not contain within it the mutually contradictory "qualities" which now pull it in different directions, scourge it with corruption and make it decay, but it possessed "another temperament which befitted it, a temperament maintained by simple qualities compatible with each other." It was "without flux or wastage," free from "constant change depending on which quality was predominant," and for this reason was not bereft "of immortality by grace." [103] If we understand the "nakedness" as transparency, we can say that the body of Adam was so simple that it was in reality transparent, open to the material creation without resisting it in any way, and without the world offering any resistance to the body--the world had been surrendered to it. The human body, while maintaining its own peculiar constitution and separate identity with regard to the world, was nevertheless not divided from it at all.
...
St. John Chrysostom writes: "When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and every form of corruption were alien to their soul." (On Virginity, 14)

This text is reminiscent, even verbally, of the one in which St. Gregory of Nyssa, as we have seen, defines "sexual union," "conception," "birth" and the like, as aspects of the "garments of skin." The teachings of the two Fathers coincides, and explains why in speaking about marriage just now I stressed the phrase "as we understand it today." In my opinion, the main emphasis in these passages falls in fact on the sexual intercourse, conception, pangs, childbirth and remaining forms of corruption which were added to man as "garments of skin" after the fall.

[102] St Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45, 8, PG 36, 632C

[103] St Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua, PG 91, 1353AB

-- Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, pp. 52-53; 72

[alon]

(Question 1) Why did some pagans falsely claim that Jews, and later Christians, worshiped the head of an ass, as opposed to that of another animal?

If you read the linked thread, you know my opinion of Josephus. Calling him a historian is like calling the Clinton’s honest, hard working Christian people. In a pigs rear end!

Tertulian (160 A.D.-220 A.D.) lived about the time the catholic (universal) church was gaining a sound foothold, although it was not yet coalesced into one religion. He was a rabid anti-Semite, who wrote in "Against the Jews", that as far as he was concerned, the whole Jewish race was responsible for the death of Jesus. SO I would hold as highly suspect anything he said about Jews or Judaism, including quotes from other anti-Semites. The same goes for graffiti, which tells only of the artists attitudes towards a subject and nothing about the subject itself.

As your own examples show, pagans sacrificed asses to their gods. To Jews however the ass is not a clean animal; not suitable for sacrifice. Moreover Jews do not even worship an image of their God, let alone other gods. And they would not have a statue or any other graven image on their person or in their home, much less the Temple itself! Only the Cherubim, specifically commanded by God were in the Temple. My guess is these pagans, without even having seen the Temple made these claims transfering their own practices to the Jews.

I would reiterate that any claims about believers, either pro or con were made about the Nazarene sect, which included Gentile proselytes to Nazarene Judaism. Christianity as such did not exist at the time, and the early church of the 1st through mid 4th centuries was thoroughly pagan. Their pagan practices still dominate Christianity today. The icons you speak of so casually are a good example. To most of Judaism (there were some notable exceptions about this time period) any statue or carving in a synagogue would be anathema. Simply having a statue of “The Blessed Virgin” would have shocked and disgusted any of the Apostles. And if you were a Nazarene, kneeling to such a statue would have gotten you killed on the spot!

To have the golden image (think of the calf) of an ass’s head placed in the Temple by Jews is ludicrous. But if you were a conquering army who wanted to add insult to the defeat of a foe which had killed so many friends and allies, this rumor would have been one good way to do it.

That later these lies would still persist, and that they may have been transferred to Christians is not surprising. While you are not obedient to , you still claim the name of the Most High God. The enemy, whether spiritual or corporeal does not like that! Welcome to our world!

[alon]

(Question 2) How does the /Law give commands about marriage that are not explicit in the Pentateuch?

Not sure what you mean. is the 1st 5 books, the so called “Law of Moses,” called the Pentateuch by most Christians. I suspect you know this, but the question is unclear given this fact.

Perhaps Josephus would see them as implicit in the , or else he would see them as part of the "Oral "?

Whitson is wrong. Yeshua only explained better, which is what the Jews expected the Messiah would do. He made no changes or additions to . In fact, and I’ve argued this with pastors who had Masters Degrees, there is nothing “new” in the so called “New Testament.” I used to say with the exception of Revelation, however discoveries at Qumran show that book to be quotes and reorganizations from several writings of the Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition. (And no, I am not against the Revelation to John, nor do I think it did not happen as given. Start another thread if you are interested. Meanwhile, to anyone whose faith might falter after reading such a statement, I'd ask "Where is your faith? In a book, or in the Author?")

“"A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." (23) Whiston's FOOTNOTE #23: This text is no where in our present copies of the Old Testament.”

Nor is it in Judaism anywhere. Judaism is the first, and really only religion to truly hold men and women as equal. It does place the man in charge since having no one in charge would lead to anarchy. But at the same time it enjoins the man to place his wife first. Judaism does acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally different and have different roles, yet they are fundamentally equal.

Christians, and oddly enough much of contemporary Judaism have a skewed idea of the “Oral Tradition.” According to Avraham Cohen, himself a Rabbinical Jew, the purpose of the Oral ‘Law’ was not to be absolutely obeyed, but to provide flexibility to . itself is immutable and unchanging; season to season, place to place, time to time, and person to person it remains the same. However God was smart enough to know what legislators and religious leaders tend to forget; that no law or set of instructions can cover every contingency. Enter the Oral Law (henceforth the OL).

At times even instructions in will clash as situations arise which, if you obey one the other will be transgressed. So there is a hierarchy to the mitzvoth (commandments), and that can change depending on circumstances. The OL helped give guidance in these situations. And as times, customs, and circumstances varried things came up that did not address. The example I like is the biblical day goes from sundown to sundown. However if someone living in the Arctic circle converts he might have exactly 1 sundown per year! How would he know when to observe Shabbat? So a ruling could be made which would be part of the OL that those people in the far north or south be given a calendar and a clock and their days be determined by means of observing those.

Something similar did occur when then Nasi Hillel oversaw the implementation of the calendar which bears his name, and which even today almost all Judaism follows. It was actually the work of astronomers and mathematicians working in response to the Jews living in the diaspora and not being allowed into Jerusalem to make the lunar observations necessary to establish the days.

Today many Jews think the Mishna, which is the OL codified, again due to fear it would be lost in the diaspora, is also immutable. And I don’t know how many times I’ve heard it from Christians “There are 613 commandments and you have to keep all of them perfectly now or you will go to HELL!” Right. Show me.

The fact is they don’t even know where those 613 are or where we get them, to what or to who they apply, or where they are enumerated. They are in fact extrapolated from actual commands in by the sages and by Rabbinical Judaism. One actual commandment could yield a half dozen spin-off commandments. They also include fences put around commandments. Not actual commandments, fences are there so you don’t violate a commandment. For example, I place a 1/2 hr fence on the time I start and end Shabbat. If I get busy and violate the fence, at least I am not likely to violate the actual beginning or end of Shabbat. And the 613 mitzvoth are enumerated in books and pamphlets, not in or, at least to my knowledge in Talmud or any Christian literature. Bottom line, it is difficult when people tell me that not to mumble something about their father and sister procreating and walking away. I just have to remember they are still blind, as I was once. And while I don't remember saying this, it does sound like something I might have once passed on as "wisdom." (Now I have to go and repent ...)

is God’s instructions for us on holy living. The OL is our instructions on how we walk out .

And one last thing you must understand about the OL: it can NEVER add to or change in any way what is written in . It can explain it, place fences on it, even tell you what is most important in it in any situation. But it cannot change it. As Yeshua put it:

Matthew 5:18 (KJV) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[alon]

(Question 3) What does Josephus mean about the union of soul and body creating suffering? The concept sounds platonic, anti-material, or gnostic.

Gnostic is where my mind immediately went. Josephus was a Hellenized Jew, so whatever he says about Judaism will be from that perspective. Understand that at the time there were several “Judaism’s;” not just sectarian differences (and there were plenty of those), but actual different political and religious movements within Judaism which were so diverse as to be actually called different Judaism’s.

You know about one such group, the Samaritans (John 4:4-42). To this day they worship on Mt. Gerissim, and follow a modified version of . Hellinized Jews, while not strictly a unified body were still a class of Jews who did not strictly follow nor all the tenets of Judaism.

He writes about the Jewish Law:
Whiston's translation:
25. ...Moreover, the law enjoins, that after the man and wife have lain together in a regular way, they shall bathe themselves; for there is a defilement contracted thereby, both in soul and body, as if they had gone into another country; for indeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account the law requires this purification to be entirely performed.

What he is talking about is tevilah, whole body immersion for ritualistic purposes. This was specified in that they bathe (just immerse) in a mikvah after a male had a discharge. However Whitson seems to interpret this from the Christian view that Jews viewed this as something filthy. It was not. It simply meant that a person was temporarily spiritually unavailable. And who knows how Josephus meant it.

Loeb's translation:
Even after the legitimate relations of husband and wife ablations are required. For the Law regards this act as involving a partition of the soul [part of it going] into another place(C); for it suffers both when being implanted in bodies,(D) and again when severed from them by death. That is why the Law has enjoined purificiations in all such cases.

Loeb's Footnotes:
C) "There is transference of part of the soul or life-principle from the father." I am indebted for this explanation of an obscure passage to Dr. T.E.Page.
D) An Essene (and Platonic) view; cf B ii. 154 f.

This all sounds Cabalistic. Cabala is proof that the tendency toward “Judaisms” as opposed to just Jewish sects is alive today.

Wars of the Jews II.154, cited above, says about the Essenes:
"For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortak and imperishable.(A) Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled as it were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft.
FOOTNOTE A.: Cf. A xviii. 18.

Antiquities xviii. 18. (cited in Footnote A above) summarizes the beliefs of the Essenes, mentioning that they believe in the immortality of the soul.

Regarding Question #3 ("the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death"), an Orthodox friend named Asteriktos suggested to me that it could refer to how at the Fall in the Garden of Eden, humans were clothed (both figuratively and literally) with "garments of skin" and became subject to physical suffering and death. A problem with this interpretation is that in Josephus' quote, death frees the soul from its sufferings, whereas in Genesis, physical death is a negative result of the Fall, and the Biblical belief is that death doesn't prevent the soul from suffering in the afterlife.

The Orthodox are the ones who study Cabbala like . Their whole thrust of religion is improvement of the soul. So it is not surprising he’d make the next statement:

Asteriktos noted that 20th c. Orthodox writer Panayiotis Nellas compared the bodies of Adam and Eve before and after the fall:
The first man, according to the succinct expression of St Gregory the Theologian, was "naked by virtue of his simplicity." [102] This means, as St Maximos explains, that his body did not contain within it the mutually contradictory "qualities" which now pull it in different directions, scourge it with corruption and make it decay, but it possessed "another temperament which befitted it, a temperament maintained by simple qualities compatible with each other." It was "without flux or wastage," free from "constant change depending on which quality was predominant," and for this reason was not bereft "of immortality by grace." [103] If we understand the "nakedness" as transparency, we can say that the body of Adam was so simple that it was in reality transparent, open to the material creation without resisting it in any way, and without the world offering any resistance to the body--the world had been surrendered to it. The human body, while maintaining its own peculiar constitution and separate identity with regard to the world, was nevertheless not divided from it at all.
...
St. John Chrysostom writes: "When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and every form of corruption were alien to their soul." (On Virginity, 14)

St. John Chrysostom, the “Golden Tongued,” a rabid anti-Semite and a proven liar:

John Chrysostom Jud 1.3.4 “Three days ago- believe me, I am not lying- I saw a certain free woman of good bearing, modest, and faithful, being forced by a certain brutal and unfeeling man who appeared to be Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do a certain thing a pure Christian) to enter the [shrine] of the Hebrews and to ofer there an oath about some matters being disputed with him. The woman, coming up, asked for help and demanded that I prevent this lawless act of violence- for it was not allowed to her, who had shared in the divine mysteries, to enter that place.”

This was a lie and shameless Jew-baiting. He was also an idiot. How would he know they had no desire for intercourse? Just like he could not know what went on in that synagogue unless he defiled himself by going in! And Jews never dragged anyone even from another sect in to answer charges, let alone a Christian!

He also had no idea how to interpret the Bible (nor did he wish to know). The term used in Gen 2:18 for help meet is actually a masculine term, ‘ezer.’ Strong’s, thoroughly immersed in Catholic tradition gets the translation wrong here as well. It is a military term meaning something like an adjutant. It literally means a person in opposition to him. No wonder the simple minded Chrys got confused and retreated to dogma!

But think about it: women’s intuition is no myth. They think differently, and everything is related to all else in their minds. They can make connections we men, who tend to open one box at a time and just think about that can never make! The man who does not listen to his wife is a fool! A military adjutant is the only junior officer that can come to his CO and say “That plan won’t work. You are about to get us all killed.” He can offer advice when not asked. Part of his job IS to offer opposition; becoming a sounding board of sorts before the CO makes a tragic mistake.

Christianity actually spawned the modern radical women’s movement by interpreting this as “someone to clean house, do the dishes, and bring me my beer.” (Except the Baptists want iced tea instead of beer). That is not what woman was intended for. She is supposed to tell him clean up his own mess and shift his butt and bring HER a drink! He’s setting a bad example for the kids.”

That he thinks they did not have sexual relations reflects the priestly branch of Christian thought that it was something dirty. Not all priests or pastors, I know. But a huge number of them, even today. Sexual relations are a type of our relation to God when viewed properly. Both partners try to please the other. Christians think Jews and Messianics try to keep the mitzvoth because we have to in order to be or stay saved. Not so. And grace is NOT just a New Testament thing, as most Christians assume. If that were the case, we never would have survived the fall as a race. We keep the mitzvoth because we love God and want to please Him, that’s what He said to do, and far back in third place here are blessings promised for keeping them and curses for disobedience. And yes, we do mess up. We sin. Then we ask forgiveness and help not doing it again (repentance), then rest in His grace.


Dan C

[rakovsky]

I really appreciate the time that you put into the answers.

For Question 2) ("How does the Law give commands about marriage that are not explicit in the Pentateuch?"), I meant to ask: How can Josephus say that the commands about marriage that he lists are part of the Law when most of those commands are not explicitly stated in the first five books of the TaNaKh?

[alon]

May 3, 2019 19:01:12 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

I really appreciate the time that you put into the answers.

For Question 2) ("How does the Law give commands about marriage that are not explicit in the Pentateuch?"), I meant to ask: How can Josephus say that the commands about marriage that he lists are part of the Law when most of those commands are not explicitly stated in the first five books of the TaNaKh?

25. But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife,

This is in .

... and that this be used only for the procreation of children.

Absolutely goes against the tenets of Judaism. Marriage is vitally important in Judaism, and is not just for the purpose of procreation. Love, intimacy, and companionship are the primary reasons for marriage.

But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is its punishment.

In .

It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to portion, nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully and knavishly;

Not sure what he means by "portion," but the others are in in principle if not outright commandments.

but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred;

A Jew did not "demand" marriage. He entered into negotiations for her with her family. Once started, he could not back out. She on the other hand could say no at any time. A contract was (and still is) drawn up, called a kethubah, and agreed on by all parties. But demands were never made.

for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." (23)

I have to be careful here because of my extreme dislike of Josephus. It would be too easy to cry "Nay" and declare him a fool. But the fact is "inferior" can have multiple meanings. It could refer to the fact the man is the head of the household, and I'd have to grudgingly give him that. I say grudgingly because she is still an equal partner, but someone has to be given final say. But any other interpretation of this and I'd say he is wrong once again. It might be interesting to see this in the original language, as interpretations lose something in translation.

Whiston's FOOTNOTE #23: This text is no where in our present copies of the Old Testament.

Loeb's Footnote: For the forbidden marriages of near of kin Lev. xviii. 6 ff.; the other injunctions in this sentence rest on tradition.

lists many prohibited relations, and marriages which break these proscriptions are never valid. A man cannot marry close blood relatives or ex-wives of close blood relatives, a woman not validly divorced, the daughter or granddaughter of his ex-wife or her sister while she is alive. Those are just a few.

I guess the answer would have to be I don't know, since some of what he says is in and the OL, and some is nowhere in Jewish tradition or faith. The only thing that is clear is Ole' Joe was once again not historically nor doctrinally accurate. 

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Good answer to number 1 by you about the ass in the Temple when you said,

To have the golden image (think of the calf) of an ass’s head placed in the Temple by Jews is ludicrous. But if you were a conquering army who wanted to add insult to the defeat of a foe which had killed so many friends and allies, this rumor would have been one good way to do it.

Antiochus Epiphanus had this as a major motive to make the calumny that Diodorus claims he made.

[rakovsky]

For Question 2 about the Law regarding marriage, I asked:

How does Whiston's comment about "improvements of Moses's laws" compare with Josephus' comment about the immutability of the law in Section 16?

I raised the issue because as I quoted Josephus, he praised how a lawmaker would oblige people not to change his laws. And this thesis gets to a real issue. Because I think that the is considered immutable in Judaism. But there is also the weird issue that the rabbis give additions and exceptions in their Oral Law to the Biblical . Jesus made alot of criticisms about hypocrisy in such decisionmaking in Matthew's gospel. Josephus' description about marriage rules reminded me of this issue and I wondered how this would compare with the claims of the Law's immutability.

I guess that the rabbis might say that they are not changing the Law but only applying it or showing how the Law, which has general principles, would apply to different issues.

But I think that they also claim that the Oral is a set of teachings that Moses had that he didn't write down but that was passed down orally for centuries. I am pretty skeptical about this claim though. For one reason, the Tanakh's books written after the Pentateuch don't ascribe specific laws to Moses that aren't in the Pentateuch, AFAIK.

[rakovsky]

In Question 2, Josephus' Scripture quote about women being inferior reminds me most of a NT passage, but the idea is in Gen. 3:16:
“And for your husband shall be your longing, and he shall rule over you.”

I suppose that Josephus would say that the marriage principles that he gave are implicit in the Pentateuch or Moses' laws.

It sounds like his explanation about Moses' Law, , and things that seem to be additions to what Moses directly put in the Pentateuch is the kind of thing you might hear from rabbis. It sounds very simplistic.

It sounds like a deeper philosophical issue going back to Isaiah's complaint about the commandments of men.

You asked me what I meant:

How does the /Law give commands about marriage that are not explicit in the Pentateuch?
Not sure what you mean. is the 1st 5 books, the so called “Law of Moses,” called the Pentateuch by most Christians. I suspect you know this, but the question is unclear given this fact.

I was referring to Josephus' claim that the Jews' Laws give commands about marriage, like when he wrote:

But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children.

Josephus' idea is that Moses is their "legislator" and he obliged them not to change his laws, like when he writes: "But our legislator, who made his actions agree to his laws, did not only prevail with those that were his contemporaries to agree with these his notions, but so firmly imprinted this faith in God upon all their posterity, that it never could be removed."

You made a good answer when you said

itself is immutable and unchanging; season to season, place to place, time to time, and person to person it remains the same. However God was smart enough to know what legislators and religious leaders tend to forget; that no law or set of instructions can cover every contingency. Enter the Oral Law (henceforth the OL).

So the oral law is covering contingencies. Ie. "Our laws" lay out things that "our legislator" didnt specify but which are implicit in his original basic form.

I think you solved Question #2.
You really hit one on key when you wrote:
"Not sure what he means by 'portion,' but the others are in in principle if not outright commandments."
The idea then is that they are implicit in Moses' .

[rakovsky]

For Question 3, the idea that man is earth in a suffering state could be found in Genesis 3:19 ("In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust.").
Josephus has the idea that the soul suffers when it is united to the body, and this could be seen indirectly in Gen. 3:19.

I had raised this issue in an earlier post in this thread and said:
"A problem with this interpretation is that in Josephus' quote, death frees the soul from its sufferings, whereas in Genesis, physical death is a negative result of the Fall, and the Biblical belief is that death doesn't prevent the soul from suffering in the afterlife."
I guess you could say that death frees the soul from its physical suffering,and that this is what Josephus meant, but that the soul could still suffer spiritually after death.

Josephus is presenting his idea about the soul's suffering in the flesh as agreeing with or being the reason for the Jewish Law regarding purification. At least his justification makes sense for why sex could be ritually unclean- the soul moves into flesh where it suffers.

But the way that it lines up with the Essene belief about the soul being in a prison makes it look that way. The idea is not necessarily Gnostic, since it's shared with Platonism. Josephus, with for example his comparison of the pharisees to the Stoics and the resurrection to the soul going into a new body after ages must be relating his ideas in a Greek style on this topic, and thus not a Gnostic one in particular. Basically since he treats resurrection, providence/fate, and the pharisees in a Greek way, it looks like he is doing that with the state of the soul in the body.

The concept of the soul suffering in earth shows up in II Clement ("For man is earth in a suffering state, for the formation of Adam was from the face of the earth."), where it apparently points to Gen. 3:16, but even if Josephus is thinking of the Biblical concept, it still looks like he is putting it in a Greek, Platonic way.


Can you please write what you mean when you say:

Whitson seems to interpret this from the Christian view that Jews viewed this as something filthy. It was not. It simply meant that a person was temporarily spiritually unavailable.

Also, let me clarify, when I said:

Regarding Question #3 ("the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death"), an Orthodox friend named Asteriktos suggested to me that it could refer to how at the Fall in the Garden of Eden, humans were clothed (both figuratively and literally) with "garments of skin" and became subject to physical suffering and death.

I meant Asteriktos was EO, rather than Orthodox Jewish.

But you are far from the first to not see what I meant there. My Reformed Jewish friend told me that Orthodox Christianity reminded him of Orthodox Judaism.

[rakovsky]

At this point, I am just stuck on Question 1- Why the critics picked an ass over other animals.
I can see that the Canaanites in preJudaic times worshipped the ass, but wasnt that in like 1000 BC? Or did their ass worship last until the 3rd century? Seth worship was associated with the Canaanites and asses, and there were 1st century Sethian Gnostics who probably venerated asses, but the Gnostics were a minor group clearly distinguishable from Judaism.

My guess is that it had to do with Canaanite Sethian ass worship because of the ethnic or geographic closeness of the Israelites to the Canaanites, but it still feels hazy.

One theory I read is that it was chosen as a calumny first by Egyptians because the Egyptians didnt venerate ashes like they did goats, cats, etc., so that the Egyptians looked down on asses and thus used it as a calumny. Also under this theory, the Egyptians looked down on it because of its association with Seth. But in that case, this links into Seth worship, which was in turn associated with Caananites.

[alon]

rakovsky said: Question 2 about the Law regarding marriage, I asked:
How does Whiston's comment about "improvements of Moses's laws" compare with Josephus' comment about the immutability of the law in Section 16?

I raised the issue because as I quoted Josephus, he praised how a lawmaker would oblige people not to change his laws. And this thesis gets to a real issue. Because I think that the is considered immutable in Judaism.

Absolutely!

rakovsky said: But there is also the weird issue that the rabbis give additions and exceptions in their Oral Law to the Biblical . Jesus made alot of criticisms about hypocrisy in such decisionmaking in Matthew's gospel. Josephus' description about marriage rules reminded me of this issue and I wondered how this would compare with the claims of the Law's immutability.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding all through Christianity concerning the “Oral Law.” While cannot be changed, it also cannot apply to every situation. No “law” can. There may be a conflict, a situation where if you keep one mitzvah you will violate another. So the Mishna gives a hierarchy of the mitzvoth. Yeshua gave the example of your ox stuck in a ditch on Shabbat. Leaving the ox there would be cruel, and possibly cause the animal to die which would effect your ability to provide for your family. The higher mitzvah is to get the ox out of the ditch. You break Shabbat doing it, and so have to ask forgiveness. You sinned, but you did not transgress.

rakovsky said: I guess that the rabbis might say that they are not changing the Law but only applying it or showing how the Law, which has general principles, would apply to different issues.


But I think that they also claim that the Oral is a set of teachings that Moses had that he didn't write down but that was passed down orally for centuries. I am pretty skeptical about this claim though. For one reason, the Tanakh's books written after the Pentateuch don't ascribe specific laws to Moses that aren't in the Pentateuch, AFAIK

It’s tradition. But the Oral is a useful tool, as it can change as long as it doesn’t violate . The good thing about it is it helps us to know what to do in situations where doesn’t adequately address the problem. Also it is set by either your rabbi or Beit Din. That way everyone isn’t just doing what they think best. These minor mitzvoth are set up by men who study as well as the entire Bible and base these ruligs on sound principles.

rakovsky said: In Question 2, Josephus' Scripture quote about women being inferior reminds me most of a NT passage, but the idea is in Gen. 3:16:
“And for your husband shall be your longing, and he shall rule over you.”

Women have always been equal in Judaism, but they have different roles.

rakovsky said: Josephus' idea is that Moses is their "legislator" and he obliged them not to change his laws, like when he writes: "But our legislator, who made his actions agree to his laws, did not only prevail with those that were his contemporaries to agree with these his notions, but so firmly imprinted this faith in God upon all their posterity, that it never could be removed.”

Josephus did not have the moral authority to lecture anyone on .

rakovsky said: For Question 3, the idea that man is earth in a suffering state could be found in Genesis 3:19 ("In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust.").
Josephus has the idea that the soul suffers when it is united to the body, and this could be seen indirectly in Gen. 3:19.

I had raised this issue in an earlier post in this thread and said:
"A problem with this interpretation is that in Josephus' quote, death frees the soul from its sufferings, whereas in Genesis, physical death is a negative result of the Fall, and the Biblical belief is that death doesn't prevent the soul from suffering in the afterlife."
I guess you could say that death frees the soul from its physical suffering,and that this is what Josephus meant, but that the soul could still suffer spiritually after death.

Josephus is presenting his idea about the soul's suffering in the flesh as agreeing with or being the reason for the Jewish Law regarding purification. At least his justification makes sense for why sex could be ritually unclean- the soul moves into flesh where it suffers.

Josephus was Hellenized, and this shows some gnostic influence on his thinking.

rakovsky said: …The idea is not necessarily Gnostic, since it's shared with Platonism.

Yes, it is. From Wikkipedia: Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Manicheism, Hellenistic Judaism and the Jewish Christian milieux in the first and second century AD.

rakovsky said: Josephus, with for example his comparison of the pharisees to the Stoics and the resurrection to the soul going into a new body after ages must be relating his ideas in a Greek style on this topic, and thus not a Gnostic one in particular. Basically since he treats resurrection, providence/fate, and the pharisees in a Greek way, it looks like he is doing that with the state of the soul in the body.

The concept of the soul suffering in earth shows up in II Clement ("For man is earth in a suffering state, for the formation of Adam was from the face of the earth."), where it apparently points to Gen. 3:16, but even if Josephus is thinking of the Biblical concept, it still looks like he is putting it in a Greek, Platonic way.

Gnosticism is mostly a Greek concept, with heavy Persian influence.

rakovsky said: Can you please write what you mean when you say:

Whitson seems to interpret this from the Christian view that Jews viewed this as something filthy. It was not. It simply meant that a person was temporarily spiritually unavailable.

In Jewish law, טומאה ṭumah and טהרה ṭaharah, usually poorly translated unclean and clean, are the state of being ritually impure or pure, respectively. Tumah is a state of ritual impurity. A person or object contracting ṭumah is ṭamé, ritually impure, and unsuited for kedushah, holy activities and/or uses. In order to be considered ṭaharah he/she/it must undergo tevilah and wait for a specified time-period. A woman having her menses is ṭamé. There is no sin, and she may have good hygiene. But she is ritually unavailable until the time has passed and she is immersed in a mikvah.

rakovsky said: At this point, I am just stuck on Question 1- Why the critics picked an ass over other animals.
I can see that the Canaanites in preJudaic times worshipped the ass, but wasnt that in like 1000 BC? Or did their ass worship last until the 3rd century? Manetho picked up the calumny that Jews worshiped the ass, but he was writing in the 3rd century BC. Seth worship was associated with the Canaanites and asses, and there were 1st century Sethian Gnostics who probably venerated asses, but the Gnostics were a minor group clearly distinguishable from Judaism.

Jews never worshiped the ass. Some Jews may have, but by far most did not. There were however quite a few Hellenized Jewish Gnostics; nowhere close to a majority, but a good few.