Below is an excerpt from an old R. Gmyrken post concerning the the anti-Samaritan tone of Enochian literature:
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1996b/msg00871.html "I've been studying these documents this fall, and I think I can advance David Suter's arguments a little. It seems to me that Testament of Levi doesn't merely argue against improper priestly marriages, but at several points very specifically marriages with gentiles, and even more specifically against marriages with Samaritans" [i.e., the mortal exemplars of my Watchers! George B.]. "The alleged rape of Dinah by Shemer figures prominently here as in Jubilees, underscoring the point. The historical context of these anti-Samaritan polemics is unclear, but in Josephus the Jewish high priest Manasseh was evicted from the Jerusalem priesthood for marrying the daughter of the Samaritan Sanballat (II) and subsequently served in the temple at Mount Gerizim, along with other Jewish priests. And later the Tobaids, who had Samaritan connections, intermarried with the Oniad high priestly clan.... "My point in discussing this is that the polemics in Watchers may not necessarily reflect criticism of one group of priests serving in the temple by another, but a criticism of ex-priests or evicted priests. I'm not sure how Jewish-Samaritan polemics bears on Ian's model, or whether MMT reflects the same polemics as Watchers. Apples and oranges?" [End of quotes] Considering how long ago this post was, I think it is eerily "on point" about my own suggestions about the anti-Samaritan tone of the Enochian literature. Thoughts? George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks <[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)
