rosends
Well-Known Member
@Clear
I don’t know, the pronouncement went into effect in 300bce. I guess that isn’t ancient enough.
So your point is that you can look at SPELLINGS of names and decide origin. Imagine that – a name reflecting a surrounding linguistic culture but still being of its own origin.
You mean you believe it is “correct” because it agrees with your understanding of the use of the label.
Or one could not know because names don’t always clearly indicate origin or belief and using them to decide is, as I said, rife with problems. Note the word "perhaps".
That is your belief about it, yes.
And Cohen’s statement would fly in the face of biblical text. You realize that matrilineality is actually biblical, right?
But I enjoyed that little quote which mentioned “ethnic identity” and not religion as coming through the father’s line.
Historians do try to distinguish between phases of a religion but that doesn’t contradict the idea that those phases are part of a living and developing system. No one has claimed that modern Judaism is identical with biblical Judaism, but that modern Judaism is the natural (and internally consistent) evolution of biblical Judaism, steeped in the same set of laws and understandings. Your claim that rabbis “innovate” and create a completely separate religion might make you feel better about things and make you feel comfy chatting with your historians, but then you are starting with a denial of the essential elements of Judaism and using extra-theological systems to create theological labels.
That is indeed your position. You insert concepts of choosing what to adopt etc. Judaism does not see its development like that.
I have not seen any situation in the contemporary biblical works in which any of this is true. Later historians, using other languages, applying labels they happen to think make sense to them can say what they want. The biblical terms have select uses and your insistence that later historians are right is not helpful. Once you move away in time and let your thinking be determined by historically revisionist thinking which is innovating term applications and choosing what to adopt and adhere to, you create a new type of history which is not at all connected to the prophetic, biblical era. These historians are your rabbis and you take their statements as, well, gospel.
Yes, not applying to people. But in the Roman world, where people couldn’t tell who was who, loose-language users used a word which might be inaccurate. You should chafe at the admission of such inaccuracy instead of assuming that it dictated reality.
And maybe I’m missing something but that picture of Grabe’s restatement of Cohen seems mathematically askew. Before 100bce a Greek word (so we are already distanced from the Hebrew) meant geography, not religion or political, with these latter meanings developing in the 2nd century bce, which would be the years BEFORE than 100 bce. So the latter meaning only developed a century before the time when the “only use” didn’t include those meanings. Help me out with the timing in this claim, please.
And not everyone agrees with Cohen’s hypothesis and conclusions, “For example, the certainty with which he declares “Judaean” to be the proper understanding of Ioudaios for any usage prior to the mid-second century BCE is excessive. He is inconsistent with that threshold as well, dogmatically translating Josephan (and later) occurrences of Ioudaios as “Judaean” without argument.” Review: Shaye Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness
I guess you can choose which historians you want to listen to as they innovate their ideas.
That’s untrue. A person can report and reflect on earlier ideas and present opinions and not endorse or criticize. If I show you that his statement reflects a particular commentator does that mean he agrees with that commentator or just is aware and is reporting its existence. But, again, I didn’t say he does or does not mean it, so asking me to prove some position I never asserted seems silly.
You want evidence that Emanuel of Rome did not believe what Cohen wrote? I’m pretty sure he is dead and was before Cohen wrote anything.
Great, so you can see where Cohen might have gotten his position from regarding the non-Jews in Persia in the 5th century bce. This then clarifies why he sees mityahadim as potentially something other than a full conversion in Persia in the 5th century bce. What this has to do with calling anyone a non-Jew in Israel "Yisraelite" escapes me. You are confusing the different elements of your claims.
You are asking me to provide whatever it was that a 16th century scholar used to come to his understanding? I can’t do more right now than provide exactly what he wrote and in it, you can see the logic and text he uses to establish his deduction
ורבים מעמי הארץ וגומר. אחשוב כי המתיהדים האלה היו מזרע עמלק ולכן היו מתפחדים מפני גזרת מרדכי. שאם היו משאר עמי הארץ מה להם לפחוד ממרדכי אף כי היה גדול אם לא פשעו כנגדו. ומה שנאמר מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק גזירת שעה היתה. וזרעו לא נמנע מלבוא בקהל. ואולי כי לא נודע הדבר כי אם אחרי שנים רבות. ועשו גם המה בערמה כאשר עשו הגבעונים כדי להחיות את נפשם
The Ohr Chadash (16th century) also connects it to Amalek but in a slightly different way and you can read his sources and logic
"ובכל מדינה ומדינה וגו' ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים וגו'" (פסוק יז). דבר זה לא נמצא בשאר גאולות, רק בכאן, שהוא נצוח עמלק. לפי שגורם עמלק לבטל אחדות השם יתברך, וכדכתיב (עובדיה א, כא) "ועלו מושיעים לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה וגו'". ולכך בכאן שהפילו עמלק, היו רבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, כאשר היה בטל כח המן
That’s a poor use of words. There is no biblical evidence that any non Jews in Israel were mityahadim because the word is not used beyond that single example in a story set in Persia in the 5th century bce. While non-Jews in Israel might have converted or quasi converted, biblically, there is a different word for that.
We are talking about Judea and babylon, etc. 2500 years ago. How many Jews in Judea named their children “alexander” in 600 b.c.?
I don’t know, the pronouncement went into effect in 300bce. I guess that isn’t ancient enough.
He points out in his book regarding other spellings which indicate Babylonian versions of the same name.
So your point is that you can look at SPELLINGS of names and decide origin. Imagine that – a name reflecting a surrounding linguistic culture but still being of its own origin.
In discussing the Ebabbar temple Marduk-Remanni archive he correctly uses the term “Judean family” in discussing the remnants of the archive. In using this term he cannot tell if the individuals are “Jews”, merely that they were “Judeans”. One could not tell what religion a Judean was.
You mean you believe it is “correct” because it agrees with your understanding of the use of the label.
He points out that one could often tell by the name where one was from but one could not tell what God they worshipped. Perhaps Ari (a Judean) worshipped Marduk and Ahu-Yama (a Judean name) worshipped Jehovah. One could not know BECAUSE “Judean” did not indicate a religion, but a place. (01)
Or one could not know because names don’t always clearly indicate origin or belief and using them to decide is, as I said, rife with problems. Note the word "perhaps".
Again you are referencing the Religion now called “rabbinic Judaism” or “rabbinate Judaism” and applying it’s innovations to ancient Jahwism.
That is your belief about it, yes.
If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.
And Cohen’s statement would fly in the face of biblical text. You realize that matrilineality is actually biblical, right?
But I enjoyed that little quote which mentioned “ethnic identity” and not religion as coming through the father’s line.
Modern Jews make the same mistake Christians make in assuming their modern religion is the same as the prophetic religions anciently. This is why historians distinguish the two in specific historical discussion.
Historians do try to distinguish between phases of a religion but that doesn’t contradict the idea that those phases are part of a living and developing system. No one has claimed that modern Judaism is identical with biblical Judaism, but that modern Judaism is the natural (and internally consistent) evolution of biblical Judaism, steeped in the same set of laws and understandings. Your claim that rabbis “innovate” and create a completely separate religion might make you feel better about things and make you feel comfy chatting with your historians, but then you are starting with a denial of the essential elements of Judaism and using extra-theological systems to create theological labels.
The emergence of rabbinic Judaism is full of innovations created by their leadership as they attempted to define what doctrines and practices they were going to adopt and adhere to. As Rabbinic Judaism emerged, so did their creation of rules and traditions created (often) by their interpretation of earlier prophetic religion.
That is indeed your position. You insert concepts of choosing what to adopt etc. Judaism does not see its development like that.
You say they were not called “Judeans”, the historians say they were and that the term “a Judean”, historically , simply meant “someone living in Judeah” regardless of religion just as “a Texan” simply means “someone from or living in Texas”.
I have not seen any situation in the contemporary biblical works in which any of this is true. Later historians, using other languages, applying labels they happen to think make sense to them can say what they want. The biblical terms have select uses and your insistence that later historians are right is not helpful. Once you move away in time and let your thinking be determined by historically revisionist thinking which is innovating term applications and choosing what to adopt and adhere to, you create a new type of history which is not at all connected to the prophetic, biblical era. These historians are your rabbis and you take their statements as, well, gospel.
It was a geographic term in early usage and still is today. We refer to "The Judean desert", "The judean texts", etc.
Yes, not applying to people. But in the Roman world, where people couldn’t tell who was who, loose-language users used a word which might be inaccurate. You should chafe at the admission of such inaccuracy instead of assuming that it dictated reality.
And maybe I’m missing something but that picture of Grabe’s restatement of Cohen seems mathematically askew. Before 100bce a Greek word (so we are already distanced from the Hebrew) meant geography, not religion or political, with these latter meanings developing in the 2nd century bce, which would be the years BEFORE than 100 bce. So the latter meaning only developed a century before the time when the “only use” didn’t include those meanings. Help me out with the timing in this claim, please.
And not everyone agrees with Cohen’s hypothesis and conclusions, “For example, the certainty with which he declares “Judaean” to be the proper understanding of Ioudaios for any usage prior to the mid-second century BCE is excessive. He is inconsistent with that threshold as well, dogmatically translating Josephan (and later) occurrences of Ioudaios as “Judaean” without argument.” Review: Shaye Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness
I guess you can choose which historians you want to listen to as they innovate their ideas.
What you think on this is irrelevant. Either Rabbi Cohen meant what he wrote or he did not.
That’s untrue. A person can report and reflect on earlier ideas and present opinions and not endorse or criticize. If I show you that his statement reflects a particular commentator does that mean he agrees with that commentator or just is aware and is reporting its existence. But, again, I didn’t say he does or does not mean it, so asking me to prove some position I never asserted seems silly.
If Cohen was quoting another historian, can you provide evidence that both the original commentator did not believe what Cohen quoted them as saying?
You want evidence that Emanuel of Rome did not believe what Cohen wrote? I’m pretty sure he is dead and was before Cohen wrote anything.
I agree with Emanuel that many attested to loving Jews out of fear of the Jews.
I agree with Emanuel that many did not convert. That is my claim as well.
I agree with Ohr Chadash that some people in Judea affiliated with Jews and did not convert.
Great, so you can see where Cohen might have gotten his position from regarding the non-Jews in Persia in the 5th century bce. This then clarifies why he sees mityahadim as potentially something other than a full conversion in Persia in the 5th century bce. What this has to do with calling anyone a non-Jew in Israel "Yisraelite" escapes me. You are confusing the different elements of your claims.
Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?
You are asking me to provide whatever it was that a 16th century scholar used to come to his understanding? I can’t do more right now than provide exactly what he wrote and in it, you can see the logic and text he uses to establish his deduction
ורבים מעמי הארץ וגומר. אחשוב כי המתיהדים האלה היו מזרע עמלק ולכן היו מתפחדים מפני גזרת מרדכי. שאם היו משאר עמי הארץ מה להם לפחוד ממרדכי אף כי היה גדול אם לא פשעו כנגדו. ומה שנאמר מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק גזירת שעה היתה. וזרעו לא נמנע מלבוא בקהל. ואולי כי לא נודע הדבר כי אם אחרי שנים רבות. ועשו גם המה בערמה כאשר עשו הגבעונים כדי להחיות את נפשם
The Ohr Chadash (16th century) also connects it to Amalek but in a slightly different way and you can read his sources and logic
"ובכל מדינה ומדינה וגו' ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים וגו'" (פסוק יז). דבר זה לא נמצא בשאר גאולות, רק בכאן, שהוא נצוח עמלק. לפי שגורם עמלק לבטל אחדות השם יתברך, וכדכתיב (עובדיה א, כא) "ועלו מושיעים לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה וגו'". ולכך בכאן שהפילו עמלק, היו רבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, כאשר היה בטל כח המן
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MITAYAHADIM (NON-JEWS WHO CONVERTED) AMONG ISRAEL.
That’s a poor use of words. There is no biblical evidence that any non Jews in Israel were mityahadim because the word is not used beyond that single example in a story set in Persia in the 5th century bce. While non-Jews in Israel might have converted or quasi converted, biblically, there is a different word for that.