Raksha said:
Chris was making a distinction between *Judea* and *Israel," the north kingdom, meaning his reference to "Israelites" was to be understood as referring to the people of that kingdom who intermarried with the Assyrians--and we know they did, because recent DNA tests prove it. The Samaritans show DNA evidence of Israelite fathers and Assyrian mothers.
perhaps a slight miscommunication. the samaritans spoken of at the time of "classical" sources of judaism", ie about 500 years later, would be the descendants of these "imported" assyrians, who did of course intermarry with the local israelites (those that weren't deported to assyria as part of the "ten lost tribes") - hence there would be an issue about whether they counted as jews or not for the technical purpose of marriage. moreover, if they subsequently *also* intermarried with the seleucids, this would further drive a wedge between them and those who remained traditionally-minded.
however, the bad blood between them and us was on account of their true loyalty to assyria, which caused them to side with our enemies against us and modify their beliefs away from those of the original israelites - their position on gerizim vs jerusalem was therefore a case in point; they modified the agreed position that jerusalem was the unified capital of all twelve tribes, as it was under david and solomon, in favour of moving the capital and the approved sacrificial location, thus perpetuating the tragic schism between the northern and southern kingdoms. this clearly appears to be a case of political convenience over religious principle, as otherwise they would have been perceived by the assyrians as siding with the southern kingdom of judah over that of their *real* compatriots, the assyrians. they chose a side - and the side they chose was *not* the jewish one. as we can see, it might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but where are the assyrians nowadays? it seems that you've actually provided exactly the historical evidence to bear out the jewish sources on this and for this i must thank you.
China Cat Sunflower said:
Contrary to popular mythology, Jews never resisted Greek culture.
again with the categorical statements. it is strange how you view historical documents (such as philo or josephus) that disagree with your point of view, to say nothing of discounting the clear objections found in the classical jewish sources. if hellenism was quite so uncontroversial as you state, it seems strange that a popular uprising should gain any support.
Jewish culture developed as an asiatic expression of hellenism. It embraced, and was itself transformed in its enthusiasm for hellenist humanism, universalism, and literary expression.
if by this you are saying that these hellenist outlooks enhanced jewish expressions of humanism, universalism and literary expression, then i suppose you have some case, philo again being a case in point. if, however, you are saying that jewish sources exhibited none of these prior to hellenist influence, i would have to strongly disagree. i'd also have to point at some very, very chauvinist and xenophobic positions in greek thought ("barbarians", anyone? how about the "aristoi"? women as "men with breasts"?) which were *not* reflected in jewish universalism, to say nothing of jewish personal morality.
Jewish centers of learning rivaled those of the Greeks themselves, and Jewish philosophy and discursive arts achieved a level of sophistication on a par with Greek traditions centered on Homer and Plato. This was no exclusivist, ethnocentric monotheism.
you seem to ignore the possibility of monotheism reaching this "level of sophistication" on its own as it does in the Tanakh and the classical rabbinic texts. in other words, the jews would have been a bunch of peasant thickies without the greeks. and this i cannot accept. jewish "centers of learning" already existed throughout the middle east and, to be honest, if you don't appreciate what was taught in them, you have no right to cast such aspersions. another thing you seem quite unaware of is the fact that at the time jews engaged in quite a bit of proselytisation, so it wasn't nearly as "ethnocentric" *or* as "exclusive" as you seem to think; that came centuries later. the issue of hellenisation could only have been exacerbated by the background of the converts, however.
The effect of the ideological propaganda created to fuel the Maccabean rebellion against the Seleucids, that of nationalistic particularism and ethnic identification through rejection of all things Greek, as caricaturized by the hated Antiochus, essentially created a Taliban-ized version of Judaism, now recast as a theocratic, ethnically particular, exclusivist monotheism.
one of the things you may not appreciate, chris, is that the sages actually rather disapproved of the maccabees, in rather similar terms to those you use. this is why the eventual festival of hanukkah emphasised the miracle of the oil rather than the military victories - it was transformed into a spiritual victory instead, in order to avoid glorifying what was essentially also a civil war between the non-hellenised jews and the hellenisers. certainly later on the classical sources have not a lot of nice things to say about the hasmonean dynasty, nor does josephus.
Raksha said:
It is NOT the "ethics of the playground" and I'm very offended that you trivialized my position that way. I was referring to what’s likely to be true, assuming that Deborah was an actual person living at that period.
perhaps i was rather too flippant, sorry. let me restate: what you appear to be saying is that deborah *necessarily* would have been happy with goddess worship, because she was a woman. i personally find that patronising, as if female solidarity were more important than principle. moreover, i fail to see why you are in a position to base this on "what's likely to be true", without giving any evidence. surely if deborah was in a position of power as a judge and prophet, it is unlikely that she gained and maintained it through being soft on the practices that the judges and prophets condemned.
Now either there is a valid and legitimate expression of the Sacred Feminine, by women and for women, within Judaism or there is not!
indeed there is and i am keen to make it so. what you should NOT do, however, is ASSUME that this "valid and legitimate" expression is therefore NECESSARILY the very idolatry of which it is so clear that all the prophets and sages disapproved so vehemently. it's like saying that because islam was run by men, the only way to get back to the historical wellsprings of it is to put the idols back in the ka'aba! that's turning the clock back, not discovering a legitimate expression. you and i may well differ on this, but there is absolutely no future in finding an expression of the Sacred Feminine that alienates the male half of the sketch. can i ask if you've investigated some of the gender-neutral and female expressions of the Divine Name, such as "Ha-MaQOM", "Ha-Ra
HaMaN" and "E-L ShaDaY"? have you investigated the "royal you" construction which is often used (in sephardic prayer at any rate) to address G!D and addresses the second person in the *female* gender? if you haven't, you should. defaulting back to the very behaviours and short-cuts that characterised the most objectionable tendencies of the biblical israelites is quite simply not a solution; it's the first stop on a very long journey.
Either women are just as much--not "almost" as much but just as much created in the image of God as men are or they are not.
well, "man" was created from mud, after all, whereas "woman" was created from something much more impressive, a proto-human. moreover, the Torah says "in the Divine Image [G!D] Created *them*", so that is beyond dispute.
I can't stand the apologetic line that goes something like this: "Oh yes, goddess worship and fertility rituals are natural and understandable enough, but you still shouldn't do those things because God said so. As a matter of fact, if you participate in such things you are an abomination and deserving of death. Because God said so."
look, linda, "goddess worship" per se cannot be compatible with judaism if it is not clearly seen to be an expression of *monotheism*. we cannot worship "god and mrs god", G!D forbid, because that is quite simply a denial of the Oneness of the Infinite Divine and, moreover, historically, it has always, always led to dualism, just as maintaining that G!D Is only "love", or "good", is a denial of the necessity of stern judgement or evil. it restricts the role of G!D and this cannot be acceptable. surely it would be better if, when G!D "acts", as it were, as Mother or Wife or Lover, to have a vocabulary for that, just as in the case of Father, King or Judge? and why should the latter two even be seen as "male" attributes? and why should men be restricted to the latter expressions and women only to the field of fertility or motherhood. as i often say, moving beyond the "Big Beard In The Sky" mindset requires avoiding replacing it with the "Big Tits In The Earth" - they're both just as simplistic and wrong.
you'll love THG, by the way! and, seeing as you're understandably sensitive on this part, i'd like to apologise in advance for any offence i may give.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Care to list a few for me? I know CR isn't going to last forever, so......I better find an alternative somewhere.
