|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 2, 2019 22:54:59 GMT -8
I am not sure why you said the theory was gnostic above. Platonic thought is not necessarily Gnostic. The Gnostics were a sect that used platonic ideas.
Good explanation on purity by you.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 3, 2019 0:51:55 GMT -8
I am not sure why you said the theory was gnostic above. Platonic thought is not necessarily Gnostic. The Gnostics were a sect that used platonic ideas. The idea the soul with the earthly body is bad while after death is good is Gnostic. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 3, 2019 7:36:22 GMT -8
Sure, but it was also a feature of Platonic thought, which was not inherently Gnostic.
IOW both Gnostics and some nonGnostics like Platonists had this theory. I don't know if the Essenes were Gnostics, but he cites the Essenes having this kind of belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 3, 2019 14:11:24 GMT -8
Sure, but it was also a feature of Platonic thought, which was not inherently Gnostic. IOW both Gnostics and some nonGnostics like Platonists had this theory. I don't know if the Essenes were Gnostics, but he cites the Essenes having this kind of belief. I think some of your information must come from the church fathers. Epipheneus, for example wrote about the Essenes and other groups about 300 yrs after their extinction. Colored by emerging church doctrine, not surprisingly he got some things wrong. Far from being Gnostic, it is my understanding the Essenes believed we would get our souls back in the end times. So body and soul would be physically reunited in the end. That is not Gnosticism. I'd have to look this all up right now to be sure, and I'm far too busy to dig into my notes (super-organized as they are ...) so this'll have to do. But you might recheck your info. If it is from Josephus, he had SOME corroboration from other writers of the period. But everything he said was not corroborated. However because history, and therefore historians hate a vacuum, and because "Liein' Jo" has been elevated to the status of historian to fill said vacuum, and because of that status and that SOME of what he said about the Essenes and other sects was corroborated- well, scholars who should know better just accept everything he said. I DO NOT! So any discussion with me on any topic with Josephus involved will have that context. The Essenes were ascetics, but hey did not think this body or this incarnation was evil. Therefore they were not Gnostics. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 10, 2019 11:56:14 GMT -8
Regarding Question 1 (about the donkey worship calumny), the Jewish Encyclopedia references gnostic Christian Sethian donkey worship:
It also theorizes that the calumny was based on Greek ideas of Dionysus worship:
I feel like this information answers Question 1, that it ultimately derived from Seth worship among Levantine peoples.
Egyptians often depicted Seth as a human figure with the head of an ass, which recalls the ass head calumny and thePalatine graffiti of an assheaded man.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 10, 2019 13:25:44 GMT -8
The Lavant can refer to anything from Syria (sometimes) to the entire region from Greece to Egypt (most often) to the entire Mediteranian (a lot less often). You can find any and every kind of aberrant worship there. What you cannot do is say because it was done in the Lavant it was Jews doing it. And even if you found a few Jews doing it somewhere you absolutely cannot say it was condoned by or even that it had its origins in Judaism! Origen's ravings notwithstanding!
Asserting Jewish practices solely on the similarities of words from one language to another is about as foolish as asserting something happened a particular way just because Josephus said it did!
Dan (I really don't like Josephus) C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 10, 2019 16:24:17 GMT -8
To clarify, Josephus was debunking the pagans' calumny of donkey worship.
Apion and some others had been making a slander that Jews worshiped a donkey. My Question in 1 was where the slander came from in the first place. Based on what the Jewish Encyclopedua said, it came from the Egyptians' reports or claims that the Hyksos people of west Asia (I mean the ones who crossed the Sinai to conquer Egypt) worshiped Seth, associated with the donkey.
Josephus rejected Apion's attacks on Judaism in Josephus' work called Against Apion. Josephus fought back by saying that Egyptian pagans worshiped animals, and that Jews didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 12, 2019 11:43:39 GMT -8
Absolutely! 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. 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. What I hear you saying in general in answer to Question 2 is that the Oral Law gives both rules and applications that are both implicit in Moses' . So for example, all the laws of the Oral Law could be implicit in or applications of principles in Moses' like loving God and one's neighbor. In your latest messages here about this, you were not being as clear, saying that cannot apply to every situation and that Oral must not violate . It seems to me like in general though your idea, and what I was taking away from Josephus, was that in general applies to situations, particularly those that Josephus mentioned about the laws' commands on marriage, and that Oral Law is dedicated to explaining how the 's principles apply to those situations. So not only could the Oral Law change depending on the situation so long as it doesn't violate , it also is the application of Moses' to those situations. To give a comparison with US Law, one could say that the Founding Fathers gave us the Constitution. Looking at the US legal system and applying the pharisees' way of viewing their post- rules, one would say that US laws not stated directly in the Constitution are implicit in the Constitution, ie. US statues are manifestations of the Constitution's principes. In reality, US courts ensure that US statutes do not contradict principles implicit in the Constitution, but they don't declare that all US statues are implicit in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 12, 2019 12:30:41 GMT -8
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? Not sure what he means by "portion," but the others are in in principle if not outright commandments. 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. Dan, I take Josephus' idea against marrying for portion to mean that one must not marry based on the material reward that one would receive for marrying someone. So for example, Psalm 16 and Isaiah 53 uses the word "portion" like this, respectively: "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot." (Psalm 16) "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;" (Isaiah 53) In ancient times it was common for a bridegroom to marry and receive a dowry from the bride's family. Josephus is saying that the Law or Jewish laws oppose marrying someone for the dowry that he would receive. You asked about the original translation when Josephus wrote in Book II, Sections 24-25 (per Whiston's translation): <<for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things.">> Loeb's translation is generally better and is side by side by the Greek and runs: "It commands us, in taking a wife, not to be influenced by dowry, not to carry off a woman by force, nor yet to win her by guile and deceit, but to sue from him who is not ineligible on account of nearness of kin. The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man." You can read the Greek translation on page 372 here: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl01joseuoft/page/372I found a Russian translation that runs: "Жена, говорит закон, во всем хуже, чем муж. " ie. "The wife, says the law, is in everything worse, than the husband." So it looks like this is not said specifically to be in scripture explicitly by Josephus, but rather he could see it there implicitly, in principle. Whiston misread him as if he meant this explicitly when Whiston put quotation marks around Josephus' words. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 12, 2019 12:46:39 GMT -8
(Question 3) 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: Carefulness in translation is helpful for Question 3 also. This is in Book II, Section 24. In Loeb's translation, which is generally better and is side by side with the Greek, it says that the soul suffers when implanted AND when freed from bodies by death. In Whiston's translation, it's only when it's implanted that it suffers. The Russian translation by A.V. Vdovichenko runs:
Ведь душа, пребывающая в теле, страдает, и с приходом смерти снова тотчас отделяется от него[135].
[135] Разработанное Платоном в диалоге «Федон» представление о теле как темнице души. Тж. Bel. lud. II. 8, 7; VII. 8, 7.For the soul, staying in the body, suffers, and with the arrival of death is again at that time separated from it. FOOTNOTE 135: The conception worked out by Platon in the dialogue "Phaedon" about the body as the prison of the soul. Also Wars of the Jews II. 8, 7; VII. 8,7. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 13, 2019 8:32:16 GMT -8
Absolutely! 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. 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. What I hear you saying in general in answer to Question 2 is that the Oral Law gives both rules and applications that are both implicit in Moses' . So for example, all the laws of the Oral Law could be implicit in or applications of principles in Moses' like loving God and one's neighbor. All of the Oral Laws are based from interpretations of , so yes they would be implicit in .In your latest messages here about this, you were not being as clear, saying that cannot apply to every situation and that Oral must not violate . The Oral Law cannot change , but it does make more adaptable to different situations, times, and places. We have the same thing in our own legal system, because no law can account for every circumstance. For example, most places have laws against driving on the sidewalk. But you could get a permit to close off a section of sidewalk to drive a crane up on it and do some work on a building. Moreover, if you are driving along, there is oncoming traffic, and a child darts from the sidewalk into your path. Your only course of action is to turn your steering wheel sharply right as you brake and you drive up onto the sidewalk. You are not in violation because there is a legal principle that in an emergency if you act as any rational person would to avoid injuring or killing someone you are within the law. In this case, the higher law is "Thou shalt not run down children with thine automobile."
The Oral Law does the same thing. It's summer in 1st cen Israel and your heating fire goes out on Erev Shabbat. says not to start a fire, so you don't. You may be uncomfortable, but no one is going to die. But now you are a convert to MJ living in Alaska above the Arctic Circle, it's January and your heating fire goes out, again on Shabbat! Your and everyone else's life depends on that fire! You know says not to make a fire on Shabbat, however you also know it is against to let your children die. The Oral explains that the higher mitzvah is the preservation of life. You light the fire! And like the driver who swerved onto the sidewalk to avoid killing a child, you are not found guilty of a crime.
Any law that went into that much detail, describing every circumstance imaginable where you could drive up on the sidewalk or light a fire on Shabbat would be way too long and unwieldy, and would still fall short. When most of those laws were written there were no trucks, with or without cranes, and Moses and the Hebrews, though they wandered 40 yrs never ventured above the Arctic Circle! But our legal principle of what a rational person would do and God's Oral makes the "Law" adaptable to different times, places, situations; all the different circumstances the Law does not specifically cover.
Now note the law does not allow you to drive on the sidewalk forcing children into the street, nor does the Oral allow you to negligently allow your fire to go out and continually relight it. God and even the court may be merciful, but they aren't stupid. And neither will allow you to carelessly endanger lives, especially violating laws in the process! It seems to me like in general though your idea, and what I was taking away from Josephus, was that in general applies to situations, particularly those that Josephus mentioned about the laws' commands on marriage, and that Oral Law is dedicated to explaining how the 's principles apply to those situations. is pretty specific on marriage. However there was a problem interpreting the laws on divorce. Even Rabbi Hillel was too liberal in His interpretations on this topic. Rabbi Yeshua corrected him, this being one of the few times He contradicted His Rabbi. So not only could the Oral Law change depending on the situation so long as it doesn't violate , it also is the application of Moses' to those situations. Yes. However it was changed by a Beit Din comprised of very learned, very studious, and very righteous men. They knew forwards, backwards, and sideways. They also knew how to operate from principles. And they had been given their smicha, what you would call an ordination. So these rulings were not just made on a whim, and you couldn't just say you wanted to do something so you'd just amend the Oral Law yourself. This was a serious matter.To give a comparison with US Law, one could say that the Founding Fathers gave us the Constitution. Looking at the US legal system and applying the pharisees' way of viewing their post- rules, one would say that US laws not stated directly in the Constitution are implicit in the Constitution, ie. US statues are manifestations of the Constitution's principes. In reality, US courts ensure that US statutes do not contradict principles implicit in the Constitution, but they don't declare that all US statues are implicit in the Constitution. All laws not stated in the Constitution devolve to the individual states. However to use your example, each state in making their own laws must consider whether or not they violate the Constitution. And their laws can be challenged on Constitutional grounds. In this case, we have a sort of a Beit Din, called the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 13, 2019 13:14:49 GMT -8
Good explanation by you. To me it looks like a difference with US legislative theory. Josephus says Moses is their legislator. The idea from Josephus and you that I get is that the Oral and other laws are explanations, applications, pronouncements of the that Moses gave, such that some of what the rabbis lay out are principles implicit in Moses' Written , whereas the remainder are actual statements explicit in Moses' . |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 14, 2019 15:25:59 GMT -8
Good explanation by you. To me it looks like a difference with US legislative theory. Josephus says Moses is their legislator. The idea from Josephus and you that I get is that the Oral and other laws are explanations, applications, pronouncements of the that Moses gave, such that some of what the rabbis lay out are principles implicit in Moses' Written , whereas the remainder are actual statements explicit in Moses' . One thing I need to remind you of: Christianity calls "The Law." It is drummed into Christians so much they can scarce see it as anything else. Some of it is law. If God said "thou shalt," then thou doggone well should shalt! But most of it is instruction. How much moreso then was the Mishna, the Oral Tradition instructions. Not until the 3rd cen CE when it was written down did it begin to be viewed by SOME Jewish sects as law itself; unchangeable and immutable as, and in some cases equal to or greater than . But it was never meant to be that at all. It was writings explaining by some of the most learned men ever. It was debates between these men. And mostly it was instructions on how we walk with God; halacha, what to do when didn't seem all that clear. The Oral tradition made workable for all men in all times and places and in all circumstances. "The Law" is a purely Christian, and later Rabbinical interpretation. But it was the Christians who got themselves a "New Greek Legal Document," a "New Testament" instead of a Renewed Covenant. This is part of the problem; Christians are just as legalistic as they think the Jews are. So it is through that lense you tend to view others. MJ's work hard to overcome this tendency, and to change that perception in others. So properly when we discuss either or the Oral Tradition, they are "instructions," not "laws." |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 14, 2019 15:30:33 GMT -8
Dan, I take Josephus' idea against marrying for portion to mean that one must not marry based on the material reward that one would receive for marrying someone. I know how it is used biblically. But remember, Josephus was Hellenized. He may have used the term somewhat differently. Or not. I just never know about Jo. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Oct 14, 2019 15:44:58 GMT -8
Loeb's translation is "dowry", rather than "portion", and Loeb's is side by side with the Greek and generally a better translation.
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
