orion-list Josephus´lineage
Geoff wrote; Why does Josephus need to tell us who Matthias married? The reason could have been to show how important this ancester Matthias was? But was this marriage to a high priest's daughter recognised by Josephus' ancestors as the route to priesthood? The answer to the first question seems to me to be the existence at that time of a widely respected custom - calling for Cohanim, especially High priests - to marry daughters of the Cohanim, and not simply Jewish or Levite women. The very fact of a marriage to a bride of highpriestly descent became thus a proof of the priestly purity of the ancestors of the groom Undoubtedly Josephus had to fight numbers of critics after his treason. The fact that at least some of these critics doubted his claims is no proof whatsoever for him not being a priest, but a strong indication of the paramount importance of lineage at the time, shedding light on the similar obsession in Qumran. I have found absolutely no trace anywhere of lineages derived from the mother´s side, which only establishes the Jewishness of somebody, but never his levitical or priestly statute. There is no reason however to doubt the connection between Priests and the daughters of Rechabim, or viceversa. Interestingly there is a priestly tradition requiring the Cohanim to avoid drinking alcohol. This tradition preserved long after the distruction of the Temple may have been founded not only on the clear Halachic prohibition regarding the service in the Temple, but also on the rechabitic customs recorded by Jer.. Best regards, Peter Janku For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Onias and the Sons of Zadok
First things first.I want to express my unflinching solidarity with our Israeli colleagues, currently facing a difficult time. Ian wrote: 1. If anyone has any light to shed on the Onias/Jason problem I would be happy to read it. 2. The distinction between the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron doesn't seem to have been debated, but I would like to hear if there are any bibliographical indications. Any comments would be welcome. 3. Does it seem reasonable to list members to use the mention of the sons of Zadok for dating purposes? (Note, that I make a distinction between sons of Zadok and Sadducees, the rump of the priesthood which followed older religious traditions and did not adhere to the innovations of the Pharisees.) I don´t think there is any way to date anything (after Antiochus Epiphanes) on the basis of the mention of the Sons of Zadok . It seems certain that the Zadokites where the most powerful clan within the priesthood - i.e the Sons of Aaron - who were the only leading group after the exile and chances are that they remained a fairly influential clan even after (herodian)political circumstances determined the change of the system of highpriestly dinasties. Whether or not Hasmoneans were Zadokites or not remains a matter of debate, although the mention of the first Hasmonean Highpriest saying he will remain in function until a true profet(?) will arise (if I recall this correctly) seems to indicate that his lineage was not above controversy. Hence the probability that Shimon and his brothers weren´t regarded as Zadokites. Anyhow, the problems with the purity of lineage became certainly worse after Johanan´s Hyrcanus acces to power, as we know from Josephus, (a Priest-King who was accused by a Pharisee, Elazar, to usurpe the highpriestly function, since his mother was said to have been captive before he was born). This incident -and for that matter Josephus own interpretation of it - is interesting as it denotes how much attention and importance was attached to the question of lineage throughout the 2,nd Temple period. (Remember also the genealogies in Qumran). All this can explain the popping up of a sect of Sadduccees, which I think, is absolutely rightly connected etimologically, to the sons of Zadok, as a group claiming the power on religious grounds, after it had been ousted from it, (or clinging to it despite opposition). However, there is nothing, appart from their name to suggest the Sadduccees succeeded what no other group did, namely to avoid succesive defections and schisms. As for the obsessive repetition of the phrase Sons of Zadok in the Qumran manuscripts I think it is logical to assume that it served both an ideological and a political purpose, being used against a temple hierarchy dominated by High priests chosen arbitrarily, from a religious point of view, for economic or political aims. This points to a rather late date of the manuscripts. It may very well be, that the vicious polemic on this issue was ultimately the reason for some extremely controversial appointments such as that of Pinchas, the derided last High priest of the Temple, right before its destruction by the Romans a man who must certainly have been considered a Zadokite by the Zealots appointing him after the casting of lots. Remarcable as well are the polemics against the zadokites (Sadduccees) throughout the Talmud and Tosefta, which reminds us a) of Johanan ben Zakai´s problems with the Zealots not letting him get out of the besieged Jerusalem and b) the great importance attributed to fighting them even at a late date after the destruction of the Temple, when their practical significance as a highpriestly class had all but vanished and the return and rebuiding had become utterly hypothetical. As for Alcimus (AJ) not being of highpriestly stock, this is an extremely ambigious note, since it may mean anything, from Alcimus not being a Zadokite, to him not being the son of the previous Hight Priest as was the custom at that time, to him not being off aaronite descent. Best regards, Peter Janku For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Hyrc Tor
Dear Greg, I wish you success in Copenhagen. Yes, those were the main objections. There are others, apart from the problem of the Hasmoneans belonging to Iehoiarib (according to Josephus)a family which, as Ian put it, seems not to have been Zadokite. But I respect your wish to stop the discussion on this subject due to attacks against you on other lists, although I do not know anything about these attacks. I am not interested in getting into details). Fundamentally, I accept the idea that Hyrc may have been involved in the ideological dispute of Pharis. against Sadduccees ( a fight no High priest of the time could have possibly escaped) but I`d still like to stress that if so, it must have been of marginal interest to Hyrc. One of the main issues in all these matters is that we have to rely on Josephus. He is not particularly trustworthy in various fields, but his portrayal of Hyrc seems to me to be one of the most realistic and balanced in the entire Josephan corpus, as it doesn´t discard either his positive or negative components. Thus he seems to any unbiased reader of Josephus more like seeker after smooth things than what we are told in the DSS about the Tor. The same is true concerning Josephus` note that Matitiahu was of the family of Iehoiarib. I don´t see any reason why he should have misled anybody in the question of the doubts raised by the lineage of Hasmoneans starting at least with Johanan Hyrc. And considering the obsession of DSS with purity and origin, as strict preconditions of holiness, I think that the Tor`s origin must have been anything but doubtful. Ergo, he should have been the descendant of the Oniads. I also perfectly agree with Russel Gmirkin´s analysis on the Tor not possibly being a Pharisee. Best wishes, Peter Janku For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Hyrcanus II TOR?
Dear Greg, some times ago you wrote: In my analysis the Teacher in the world of texts never died at all--the Teacher is a role in the world of texts of an historical figure who became high priest in Jerusalem and left behind his role as high priest-in-exile when he came to power again in Jerusalem. As a snapshot of Hyrcanus II in exile 65-63 BCE as reflected in the world of texts written by supporters, the Teacher of Righteousness remains frozen in time. As a matter of fact there certainly is much to the theory of Hyrcanus being the TOR. However, it seems to me that this theory has at least 2 weak points revealed by intrnal data. For one, the text of CD suggests that the TOR must be a Zadokite priest. Hyrcanus is not. On the other hand, there is nothing of a legislator in the personality of Hyrcanus as described by Josephus. On the contrary, his benevolent attitude in the Sanhedrin in the matter of young Herod transgressing the law intimates that Hyrcanus tried to avoid clashes, being more an epicurean than a teacher of rightousness, with a penchant for martyrdom. If he was exiled, so were a lot of other High Priests or their descendants, starting long before Onias, the founder of the Leontopolis Temple.If he was tortured and killed by Herod, so were others. Peter Janku For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list For Rochelle I.A.(on stars and cites)
. All the best, Rochelle Dear Rochelle, Hoping that moving to your knew home won´t be to burdensome and will go smoothely I kept wondering for a while if I was that clumsy in trying to formulate my previous post. In confess that I keep wondering what made you assume that I wasn´t aware of the existence of more than one Judaism. Mentioning Jewish tradition in this respect I pointed of course to mainstream, orthodox Judaism. On the other hand I did neither say or want to suggest that Rashi´s quote was astrological , or that he used stars for divination, as you say.. I merely tried to point out a strange kind of Wahlverwandschaften, of elective affinities over times and epochs between various directions of Jewish thought. As to the oppositon of rabbis to astrology, it was only a rhetoric question: I still think that notwithstanding Deut, and its interpretation we are all pretty much aware of, this may have been a bit of antisectarian polemics. To put the record straight,. on the basis of Deut, the rabbis didn´t oppose anything but the practise of magic (not learning it).What astrology is concerned, they maintained, in sum, that astrology is valid only for non-Jews, basing their reasoning on the conviction that whereas there was a direct relationship between G´d and the Jewish people, all other nations were governed by angels. Best wishes, Peter. Rochelle wrote There were, and there are, multiple Judaisms. In _one_ Jewish tradition, a change of name against illness or bad fortune was, and still is, a practice. This was not, and is not, a practice followed by all Judaisms. The practices of one sub-set of a set cannot be used as evidence for the practices of the entire set. To answer your question (sectarian?), the rabbis in the 2nd CE were against astrology for Jews for reasons that are stated clearly in Deut 18:4: such practices are contrary to the Mosaic code. (Deut is a runaway best seller among the DSS -- and not only in number of Pentateuchal fragments. We do have to accept that people knew their Deuty.) A reference to stars does not make a statement astrological. The Rashi quote is not astrological; he does not use stars for divination. Aside from some positively Pavlovian reactions when anyone suggests that we are not dealing with a sect and that those are not sectarian documents, the case is not settled. One cannot use a contested assumption as a factual basis to support an argument. You are absolutely correct, though, that names are very, very important. G Now I have to get back to packing. All the best. Peter For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list stars and names
Victor´s translation is accurate. Rashi on Ex. 1:1 comments These are the names of the sons of Israel - even though He counted them by name when they were alive (Gen 46:8-27), He counted them again when they were dead so as to show how beloved they were, for they were compared to stars which He brings out by number and by name, as is said (Is. 40:26) Who brings their (stars?/heavens?) host out by number, calling all of them by name. According to Jewish tradition, nomen est omen, so much so that names are changed in order to bring about a change of luck (and/or health) for those gravely ill, for instance. Such changes are usually predicted by astrological means (even if the Rabbis are recorded in the Talmud discussing astrology as not being applicable to the Jewish people, maybe a polemic against sectarians). We know that astrology, on the other hand, played a significant role in Qumran. There´s no need to stretch imagination to suppose that people in love with Enoch and the sons of light thought of stars (luminaries) in terms comparable with those of Philo qualifying them as visible gods. Nor is it absurd to consider that Rashi, or the midrash Shmot Rabba on which Rashi based his commentary was alluding to resurrection, since the whole passage is introduced by the key words alive and dead: He counted them by name when they were alive...(and) again when they were dead so as to show how beloved they were. Who did it? The Lord of Hosts.Why? To express his love (meaning He surely won´t let them be dead) Finally, another useful connection is the Star-prophecy of Bileam, so important in the scrolls and their messianic orientation. Peter Janku This comment is based on Midrash Shemot Rabbah. At the risk of imaginatively sermonizing and eisegeting, I assume that the prophetic reference to taking out the stars is behind the explanation, thereby inserting a hint of the coming Exodus at the beginning of the account of the enslavement. Perhaps it's even a sort of astral omen, predicting the Exodus. God mentions the names of the Israelites as he mentions the names of the stars. Just as He mentions the stars' names in the process of taking them out, so He calls the Israelites by name in anticipation of taking them out of Egypt. By the way, an additional connection is the word host. Here, the prophecy alludes to Exodus 12:51. Victor For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list stars and names
dear Levia and Barbara, The thread (somehow colateral) was given by a previous post of George Brooks discussing the definition of Essenes. Here it is what George said, answering Greg Doudna: I'm glad you raised this point. The ONLY reason I noticed this belief as a possible marker is because of Prof. Wise's very important book, THE FIRST MESSIAH. While my memory fails me, he cites specific Qumran texts where a saintly individual is said to become a star. This was posted on January 8. The context included a certain type of belief in afterlife and resurrection as distinguishing the Essenes form other Jewish groups of the time (i.e Sadduccees and Pharisees). Rashi (if memory doesn´t fail me) discusses the reason why Exodus (Shmot, names) starts with the names of the Children of Israel going down to Egypt after it had already done so in Genesis. According to Rashi´s sources the reason is love expressed by repeating their names. I was trying to imply the importance of names (certainly of individuals, but maybe also of groups) in Jewish tradition. Not only in biblical times names seem to have had a status which is difficult to grasp for the modern, western thinking. I may also have had in mind Philo´s strange definition of stars as visible gods - which is an extremely perplexing statement for a Jew, seemingly explainable only through the Hellenistic, Platonic-Pythagorean background of the Alexandrian Philosopher. As to Rashi´s comparison of names and stars, I´ll be back with another post after checking the text. Peter (Levia wrote: I'm sorry that I can't find the thread which you are responding to here. Would you mind repeating it? The Rabbinical sources make the same comparison, about the star names, as whom? Also, I don't have access to Rashi's commentary - could you summarize it?) - Original Message - From: peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:56 PM For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Re: Definition of Essenes
Dear George, things seem to be extremely complicated concerning the distinction between the three groups (maybe four? maybe dozens, to speak with Johanan ben Zakai, who attributes the fall of Jerusalem to sectarian divisions). Communal life for instance is characteristic not only for the Essenes as described by Philo and Josephus, but also, in a sense, for the Haverim, belonging to the Pharisaic group. The Zadokites, against whom much of the polemic of the Rabbis and the NT is directed - are they only the resurrection- and/or- the- oral- Torah -denying group known through the Greek transliteration as the Sadducees or do they include Essenes as well? If the authors of the scrolls found in Qumran included Essenes, than this should be the case. The point is, I think, to reconstitute the puzzle and gain a dynamic image of the progressive divisions of the postexilic Jewish society, starting with the dispute of Esra-Nehemiah with intermarriage, priests that can´t prove their origin and the Samaritans and ending with the expansions of Christianity in theHellenistic world. What the definition of Essenes is concerned, my guess is that we have to go back to the time Josephus ( clearly an Essene sympathizers, if not a member of a group that, as we´are told included married people) says things started to go wrong with the highpriestly institution. This should take us back even to times long before the Hasmonean era, which brought about another dissidence of priests deriving their descendance from Zaddok. Understanding the priestly impact on the Judean society of the first postexilic times (and its political and ideological context) seems to me to be essential in explaining the various divisions taking place throughout the second temple period. Methodoligically, I agree with you that we should concentrate mnore on probabilities than on absolute - and as such inexistant -certanties. Peter Janku For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Re: orion V2001 #17
Thanks to Al Baumgarten, George Brooks, Herb Brasser, Russel Gmirkin, Dierk van den Berg , Ken Penner, Barbara Leger for the overwhelming reaction and comments on the question I raised. I am persuaded that Al Baumgarten`s concept of boundary marking as he called it touches the essence of the passage and also of the problem of second Temple Judaism: the very notion of pharisees/perushim/ (as separated) says a lot about this major tendency in the Judaism of the time. This trend seems to be due to a redefinition of the people of Israel during the first postexilic period, in the time of the confrontation with the samaritans on the rebuilding of the Temple. Lack of time prevents me to answer in full to all the questions and ideas produced by the discussion of this topic. There are some aspects though that I feel should be addressed immediately. To Russel: One message I think has been lost in cyberspace (which I send right after the first - but my computer, and me have enormous difficulties reading the list) was the problem of Josephus`s source. I pointed out that Roland Bergmeiers book on this - quoted several times by Dierk van den Berg as the best text on the matter - maintains that the relvant passage in Josephus bell. comes form the hellenistic Jewish source he is supposed to have used in common with Philo. If this were so, why didn`t Philo seem to be aware of the perception of Essenes as not being Jewish? He either wasn`t aware of the problem, or else, it popped up only later, when Josephus started writing his books. Anyhow, if ( a big if) they both shared a common source on Essenes (which is not necessary: the parallels are explainable against Bergmeier, by the similar Greek audience of the two Jewish-hellenistic writers) than it is probable that Josephus` need to point out that Essenes were Jewish by birth comes from his own pen and corresponds to the awareness of a problem which had appeared between the time of Philo and his own. Ergo, it is as natural to assert, that conversions da taken in the meantime such proportions, that Essenes could no longer be percieved automatically as Jewish. My personal opinion on the public Josephus had in mind is due to a somehow psychoanalytical approach. His overdimensioned, gonflated ego had certainly recieved a big blow after changing sides, So big, that he might subiacently have had in mind a hellenized Jewish, possibly Pharisaic, readership/audience: All his books are apologetic by nature, and some of the contents are certainly pleas pro domo.This could also explain why he called himself a Pharisee, whereas the bulk and the tendency of his discription of the 3, than 4 schools of thought is evidently biased in favor of Essenes, which makes him really, if anything, an Essene. To Dierk:due to the imprecision of the terms and names involved you can`t know for sure wether some essenes at least didn`t come under the lex sicarii et veneficis To George Brooks and David West: the Rechabite connection, raised also by Eisenmann is extremely interesting, as it raises desert associations very much present in the biblical traditions. It also raises arab and idumean associations - and the idumeans had been converted by force to Judaism. To Herb: associations are not only including, but as with the haverim/am haaretz relationship very much exlcusive as well.Hence the natural reaction of counterexclusions. See the anathemas of the Chassidim mentioned by Barbara, even against orthodox (but, say, sionist) Jews. Peter Janku dear Sir, Thanks for the comments on the question you raised. I am convinced that your arguments make sens. I also feel that boundary marking as you called it tpuches the essence of the problem of second Temple Judaism: the very notion of perushim To Al Baumgarten, George Brooks, Herb Brasser, Dierk, Ken, Barbara and the list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:02 AM Subject: orion V2001 #17 orionWednesday, July 4 2001Volume 2001 : Number 017 -- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:36:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Herbert Basser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orion-list RE: Are Essens Jewish George: There is reason-- it is true they are Jews by birth and not converts-- priests are also jews by birth and not converts-- josephus tells us that it would not be lawful for a priest to marry someone who was not from a noble family-- while pharisees accpeted converts readily, it may well be that saducees did not and that essenes did not all that i'm pointing out is that Jews by birth need not mean their were others who were not jewish. or even as it would today-- they converted out of the faith-- to say-- well abie is a jew by birth-- today could mean-- but he no longer iodentifies as one,-- bit I dount that is josephus' meaning at all either. What does Paul mean by born under the law-- i mean the most plausible
orion-list last message
Dear Sir, I recieved your message. Thanks for the opportunity given to me to post on the list. I hope to always remember to remove the last 4 lines. Peter For private reply, e-mail to Peter Janku [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
