The Didache

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
I agree on many points mentioned in one's post, I appreciate.
The equation/claim mentioned by our friend @IndigoChild5559 that is "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is ,therefore, absolutely incorrect historically as well as religiously, please, I understand.
Right?

Hi @Rival

1) Unfamiliarity of non-historians with early Judeo-Christian texts and terms.
I think that the Judeo-Christian Didache is a good example of early literature that is much like the vast genre of early Jewish Epigraphs.

For example, the almost 2000 pages of Jewish pseudoepigraphs (Charlesworth) often represent an early form of judaism that basically unknown to most Jews other than religious historians just as there is a tremendous amount of early Judeo-Christian (christian) literature that is basically unknown to most "everyday" christians who are not historically oriented.

While early religious literature is actually quite important to the religious historian in that it, as an entire genre, describes early "Judaism" and early "Christianity", it's popularity and usage is, (in the modern, western world at least), relatively unknown.


2) Unfamiliar books are often "suspicious" to non-historians who do not know what to make of them.
Just as the ancient proverb says that "Dogs bark at strangers", The fact that all current versions ancient scriptures that have come to us are anonymous in that no one can tell who wrote any of them is a problem for any ancient text that seeks to be included in one of the various modern personal "canons" individuals deem as authoritative (Though no one knows nor can anyone prove who wrote any of these ancient biblical and non-biblical texts).


2a A single occurrence of a doctrine versus multiple parallels in multiple documents separated by time and space
Another problem is that, as a single document, the didache is not as important as the entire genre of ancient documents it is a part of.

For example, if a single document describes a Jewish or a Christian belief, then that specific Jewish or Christian belief, or doctrine may only represent the opinion of the documents' author. However, IF a specific doctrine or belief appears in multiple ancient documents that are separated by vast amounts of time and over large geographical distance, then that belief has a much higher chance of being orthodox to the ancient religion those documents represent.


3) The problem of assuming one's religion/beliefs are unchanged from early Judeo-Christian religion
There are other problems however, since religions do not remain static but often evolve and change.

For example, Jewish Enoch is replete with descriptions of conditions in heaven before the creation of the earth, and it's reference to the Messiah. However, once Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism prohibited it's adherents from discussing, or reading about, or questions regarding this time period, then knowledge of this time period was lost to Rabbinic Judaism within a generation among those Jews who obeyed this prohibition.

In this way ancient orthodox Judaic texts both describe and speak of doctrines and beliefs that the later rabbinic Jews no longer have knowledge of. Christianity also evolved by virtue of it's own mechanisms of change. Thus, to the modern Jews (and Christians), ancient texts may seem disorienting and strange, yet represent a more pure, more correct form of ancient Judeo-Christianity in specific instances. This specific assumption seems to plague modern Rabbinic Jews and modern Christians alike.

These things are of import and studied by religious historians but go unnoticed by the majority of religionists.

Good journey to you rival.


Hi @paarsurrey : Yes, you are correct. While one can use "slang" any way one wants, in historical terms, the Ephraimite is NOT a Jew just as the Kingdom of Ephraim is NOT the same as the Kingdom of Judah.

Clear
δρσιειω

"Hi @paarsurrey : Yes, you are correct. While one can use "slang" any way one wants, in historical terms, the Ephraimite is NOT a Jew just as the Kingdom of Ephraim is NOT the same as the Kingdom of Judah.
Clear
δρσιειω"

Thanks for agreeing with me, I appreciate.

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Hi @paarsurrey : Yes, you are correct. While one can use "slang" any way one wants, in historical terms, the Ephraimite is NOT a Jew just as the Kingdom of Ephraim is NOT the same as the Kingdom of Judah.
Clear
δρσιειω"

Thanks for agreeing with me, I appreciate.

Regards

I never said that "ephraimite" refers to all jews. Ephraim, because it was the largest of the tribes of the northern Kingdom of Israel, refers to THAT Kingdom. I never even mentioned Ephraim, so I don't know why you have brought it up.

What I said, which the Tanakh teaches, is that Hebrew=Israelite=Jew

 

[Clear]

IndigoChild5559 said : "I never said that "ephraimite" refers to all jews. Ephraim, because it was the largest of the tribes of the northern Kingdom of Israel, refers to THAT Kingdom. I never even mentioned Ephraim, so I don't know why you have brought it up.
What I said, which the Tanakh teaches, is that Hebrew=Israelite=Jew"

Hi @IndigoChild5559 -
No one claimed that you said "ephraimite" referred to all Jews.

I simply used the fact that the kingdoms of the ephraimites, the benjaminites, Asherites, Manasseh, Naphathali, Reuben, etc were NOT the same historically as the "Kingdom of Judah" (which is where the name "Jew" originates).

An ephraimite, was, historically, a member of the kingdom of Ephraim (i.e. the ephraimites) and was not, historically a member of the kingdom of Judah (i.e. the Jews). Thus your statement that Hebrew=Israelites=Jew is, historically, incorrect.

While you may interpret the Old Testament (Tanakh) any way you want, your interpretation must remain in the world of personal dogma and it cannot survive in the religious historians world. You will simply have to accept that religious historians disagree with your theory.

Please do not take this personally, it is simply how religious historians view the tanakh.

For example : My wife describes how her language and history professors at the University of Jerusalem still teach that the word "Jew", historically referred to members of the kingdom/tribe/group/etc. of Judah (as your quote actually said, - the Kingdom of Judah = Jews).

In any case, you will have to simply allow the religious historians to have a different definition than your definition. It isn't the end of the world, and, as @Rival pointed out, whether you or the religious historians are correct, it still has nothing to do with the OP.

Still, I hope your own spiritual journey is life is wonderful and insightful IndigoChild5559.

Clear
φιφυφιω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I simply used the fact that the kingdoms of the ephraimites, the benjaminites, Asherites, Manasseh, Naphathali, Reuben, etc were NOT the same historically as the "Kingdom of Judah" (which is where the name "Jew" originates).

You apparently missed the part of my post where I informed that after the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel, that refugees fled south to the Kingdom of Judah. So from then on, you can say that the Kingdom of Judah included ALL of the tribes.

 

[paarsurrey]

IndigoChild5559 said : "I never said that "ephraimite" refers to all jews. Ephraim, because it was the largest of the tribes of the northern Kingdom of Israel, refers to THAT Kingdom. I never even mentioned Ephraim, so I don't know why you have brought it up.
What I said, which the Tanakh teaches, is that Hebrew=Israelite=Jew"

Hi @IndigoChild5559 -
No one claimed that you said "ephraimite" referred to all Jews.

I simply used the fact that the kingdoms of the ephraimites, the benjaminites, Asherites, Manasseh, Naphathali, Reuben, etc were NOT the same historically as the "Kingdom of Judah" (which is where the name "Jew" originates).

An ephraimite, was, historically, a member of the kingdom of Ephraim (i.e. the ephraimites) and was not, historically a member of the kingdom of Judah (i.e. the Jews). Thus your statement that Hebrew=Israelites=Jew is, historically, incorrect.

While you may interpret the Old Testament (Tanakh) any way you want, your interpretation must remain in the world of personal dogma and it cannot survive in the religious historians world. You will simply have to accept that religious historians disagree with your theory.

Please do not take this personally, it is simply how religious historians view the tanakh.

For example : My wife describes how her language and history professors at the University of Jerusalem still teach that the word "Jew", historically referred to members of the kingdom/tribe/group/etc. of Judah (as your quote actually said, - the Kingdom of Judah = Jews).

In any case, you will have to simply allow the religious historians to have a different definition than your definition. It isn't the end of the world, and, as @Rival pointed out, whether you or the religious historians are correct, it still has nothing to do with the OP.

Still, I hope your own spiritual journey is life is wonderful and insightful IndigoChild5559.

Clear
φιφυφιω

Further did Moses say that he was a Jew or he belonged to Judaism, please?
If not then the equation/claim given by our friend @IndigoChild5559 " Hebrew=Israelites=Jew " needs to be corrected.

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Further did Moses say that he was a Jew or he belonged to Judaism, please?
If not then the equation/claim given by our friend @IndigoChild5559 " Hebrew=Israelites=Jew " needs to be corrected.

Regards

The term Jew was not in existence at the time of Moses. But that point is utterly irrelevant, and does not make your case.

 

[Clear]

Hi @IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559 said : "You apparently missed the part of my post where I informed that after the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel, that refugees fled south to the Kingdom of Judah. So from then on, you can say that the Kingdom of Judah included ALL of the tribes." (post #44)

Your personal theory lacks logic and lacks supporting historical data.

1) Simply living among Judah (Jews) does not make one of Judah (a "Jew")
While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews". For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew). If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.

Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion.


2) The ten "lost" tribes of Israel were not part of the tribe/kingdom/etc. of Judah (the "Jews")
Also, there is the problem of the ten "lost" tribes.

Though these Israelites were and are certainly of Israel, they are still not of Judah and thus, not "Jews". Perhaps the majority of the descendents of these kingdoms/tribes/etc. of Israel are Christian or Muslim or some other religion and simply do not know they are of Israel. Without more data, one simply cannot know.


3) Re-defining historical words or creating new historical theories is difficult and requires supporting data.
I can't imagine religious historians or linguists will ever have any interest in your theory or your personal interpretation on this specific point.

Re-defining historical definitions is difficult and fraught with problems when the theory underlying your redefinition lacks logic and sufficient historical data to support it.

In any case IndigoChild5559, I hope your life is wonderful and progressively insightful. One insight I can think of is that, (as @Rival has pointed out) your theory has nothing to do with the O.P.

Good luck and Good life IndigoChild5559

Clear
φιακσεω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi @IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559 said : "You apparently missed the part of my post where I informed that after the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel, that refugees fled south to the Kingdom of Judah. So from then on, you can say that the Kingdom of Judah included ALL of the tribes." (post #44)

Your personal theory lacks logic and lacks supporting historical data.

1) Simply living among Judah (Jews) does not make one of Judah (a "Jew")

All those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, which were from ALL of the tribes, were referred to as Jews by the Babylonians.

2) The ten "lost" tribes of Israel were not part of the tribe/kingdom/etc. of Judah (the "Jews")

You are mistaken. The Kingdom of Judah had refugees from the northern Kingdom, thus it had citizens from ALL the tribes.

Your use of bold and underline made replying very irritating. I don't know how you managed the underline, as the software has not button for it, and as you can see, I was therefore not able to get rid of it.

Please, there is no need to be so fancy. It's just a forum.

 

[paarsurrey]

The term Jew was not in existence at the time of Moses. But that point is utterly irrelevant, and does not make your case.

Thus, the "Jews" distanced from the Covenant and its fruits attached with the Israelites, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thus, the "Jews" distanced from the Covenant and its fruits attached with the Israelites, right?

Regards

Huh?

 

[Clear]

Clear said : "
1) Simply living among Judah (Jews) does not make one of Judah (a "Jew")
While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews". For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew). If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.

Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion. (post #47)

IndigoChild5559 replied : " You are mistaken. The Kingdom of Judah had refugees from the northern Kingdom, thus it had citizens from ALL the tribes. (Post #48)

If you actually read my post #47, that was my point as well.

We have always agreed that the Kingdom of Judah did not simply have individuals from the tribe of Judah living among it's borders. It had greeks and pagans from many other cultures and other parts of the world.

The fact that None of these other people became "Jews" simply by living among "Jews" or being taken captive with the Jews was my point.



2) Mis-labeling or stereotyping does not create factual change of the nature of persons or things
IndigoChild5559 replied ; "All those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, which were from ALL of the tribes, were referred to as Jews by the Babylonians.' (post #48)

While generalizations or improper use of cultural and racial terms happens all the time such as referring to all individuals living in Russian as "Russians" or referring to all individuals with brown skin as "Mexicans", still, this does not make a German living in russia, a "russian" nor does it make a Guatemalan, a "Mexican" simply by calling him one. Even derogatory usage of terms such as calling a "cheap" person a "Jew" simply because they are careful with their money is still as incorrect as it is improper.

I can call my Cat a "Jew" or a "Goldfish", but it still doesn't make cat a "jew" or a "Goldfish" simply by using incorrect terms.



3) Your personal re-definitions on this point are not helpful to religious historians nor to those who want to learn discrete religious history
I am not sure why you are so interested in changing historical labels in favor of an incorrect stereotype as this would not increase accuracy nor clarity of historical data, but instead, your suggested stereotype and mis-labeling is less clear and confuses and conflates historical fact rather than clarifying history. Your personal interpretation simply isn't helpful in any way to a religious historian or those who want to learn religious history.

Still. I hope your life and spiritual journey is wonderful IndigoChild5559.

Clear
φυσεδρω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Clear said : "
1) Simply living among Judah (Jews) does not make one of Judah (a "Jew")
While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews". For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew). If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.

Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion. (post #47)

IndigoChild5559 replied : " You are mistaken. The Kingdom of Judah had refugees from the northern Kingdom, thus it had citizens from ALL the tribes. (Post #48)

If you actually read my post #47, that was my point as well.

We have always agreed that the Kingdom of Judah did not simply have individuals from the tribe of Judah living among it's borders. It had greeks and pagans from many other cultures and other parts of the world.

The fact that None of these other people became "Jews" simply by living among "Jews" or being taken captive with the Jews was my point.



2) Mis-labeling or stereotyping does not create factual change of the nature of persons or things
IndigoChild5559 replied ; "All those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, which were from ALL of the tribes, were referred to as Jews by the Babylonians.' (post #48)

While generalizations or improper use of cultural and racial terms happens all the time such as referring to all individuals living in Russian as "Russians" or referring to all individuals with brown skin as "Mexicans", still, this does not make a German living in russia, a "russian" nor does it make a Guatemalan, a "Mexican" simply by calling him one. Even derogatory usage of terms such as calling a "cheap" person a "Jew" simply because they are careful with their money is still as incorrect as it is improper.

I can call my Cat a "Jew" or a "Goldfish", but it still doesn't make cat a "jew" or a "Goldfish" simply by using incorrect terms.



3) Your personal re-definitions on this point are not helpful to religious historians nor to those who want to learn discrete religious history
I am not sure why you are so interested in changing historical labels in favor of an incorrect stereotype as this would not increase accuracy nor clarity of historical data, but instead, your suggested stereotype and mis-labeling is less clear and confuses and conflates historical fact rather than clarifying history. Your personal interpretation simply isn't helpful in any way to a religious historian or those who want to learn religious history.

Still. I hope your life and spiritual journey is wonderful IndigoChild5559.

Clear
φυσεδρω

Your posts are far too difficult to reply to for two reasons. 1. you make them too fancy with multiple colors, bold, and underline. 2. You do not use the quote feature. When you do not use the quote feature, the person you are addressing does not receive a notification that they have a reply. I wish you the best.

 

[Treks]

@Rival

Thanks for the tag. I haven't studied thIs topic in any depth, but one thing jumps out at me from reading the thread is that Methodists are encouraged to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. I was wondering where it came from. Now I want to check when the Didache was found and if Wesley might have had access to it.

 

[Rival]

@Rival

Thanks for the tag. I haven't studied thIs topic in any depth, but one thing jumps out at me from reading the thread is that Methodists are encouraged to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. I was wondering where it came from. Now I want to check when the Didache was found and if Wesley might have had access to it.

It's a very strong tradition, so it might just have been that, backed up by the Didache.

 

[Wandering Monk]

@Rival

Thanks for the tag. I haven't studied thIs topic in any depth, but one thing jumps out at me from reading the thread is that Methodists are encouraged to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. I was wondering where it came from. Now I want to check when the Didache was found and if Wesley might have had access to it.

This is a way for early Christians to make a distinction between themselves and Jews who fasted on Monday and Thursday.

 

[Kenny]

I would disagree with this reading of Paul New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia

In what way?

 

[Kenny]

Protestants are "Bible only." They don't really care about books that are not the bible, to their detriment, as they therefore know very little about how the early church worked or how their own doctrines like trinitarianism came to be mainstream. They also falsely imagine that the early church was like evangelical churches, when in fact the historical evidence indicates the early church was more of a proto catholic/orthodox variety that believed in Real Presence, infant baptism, salvific baptism, the authority of the bishops, and much much more.

that isn't quite how it goes. I've read other books not in the Bible... it is more like "since they don't line up with accepted books, we know that it is subject to error." We see historical value but not living value.

 

[Rival]

In what way?

Paul doesn't preach sola gratia or say works don't matter.

 

[Kenny]

Paul doesn't preach sola gratia or say works don't matter.

It depends on what we are talking about... IMV

His point was it wasn't works that got one into union with God but rather faith through grace and after making Jesus Lord, the outward evidence is works. Ephesians 2:8-9 is specifically talking about becoming one with God and works not being the method.

The treatise on righteousness in the book of Romans follows the same pattern.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Paul doesn't preach sola gratia or say works don't matter.

Funny how far from the OP this conversation has come.