B
bogeydogg
Guest
Actually they do not include them because they were first written in Greek and so are considered beneath consideration for “The Writings”.
God Bless
- Status
God Bless
N
Nita
Guest
From the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry for Hanukkah (bold/underlining mine):
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7233-hanukkah
ḤANUKKAH:
The Feast of Dedication, also called “Feast of the Maccabees,” celebrated during eight days from the twenty-fifth day of Kislew (December), chiefly as a festival of lights. It was instituted by Judas Maccabeus, his brothers, and the elders of the congregation of Israel, in the year 165 B.C., to be celebrated annually with mirth and joy as a memorial of the dedication of the altar (I Macc. iv. 59) or of the purification of the sanctuary **(II Macc. i. 18). **Three years earlier, on the same day, Antiochus Epiphanes had caused a pagan altar to be set up at the altar of burnt offerings in the Temple at Jerusalem, and sacrifices to be offered to his idol (I Macc. i. 41-64; II Macc. vi. 2). The idol called “Zeus Olympius” was probably also called “Ba’al Shamayim,” of which seems to be a cacophemy (Dan. xi. 31, xii. 11; I Macc. i. 54; see Hoffmann, “Ueber Einige Phönizische Inschriften,” 1889, p. 29).
It shows also that the Jews consider the Maccabee books to be part of their historical records.
N
Nicea325
Guest
If you are referring to books such as Tobit,Judith,etc and written in Greek? I believe that is not correct according to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
N
Nicea325
Guest
From the latest information I read the council was not even a council dealing with canonization,but if I am correct it dealt with only two books. I believe one was Proverbs and cannot remember the other book.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Actually they are the same festival, which is clear from the biblical texts I cited earlier. (Compare the way the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover are combined festivals).
If it’s helpful, you can refer to this article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot
Here are the problems with assuming that John’s Encaenia (usually translated “Dedication”) is the same as Hanukkah:
- Why would Jesus travel to Jerusalem for this festival? It’s not a mandated pilgrimage festival (nor is it even mandated by God for that matter) and as far as I know we have no record of people gathering in Jerusalem for this festival. The “Big Three” of divinely-mandated Jewish pilgrimage festivals are Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost), and Sukkot. Why would John list Hannukah as being on par with these other three, especially since he’s not very enamored with the whole institution of the Second Temple to begin with?
- Josephus (John’s closest contemporary Jewish writer) refers to what we think of as “Hanukkah” as the festival of “Lights” (Antiquities 12.7.7.325): phota versus John’s Encaenia. (It’s also interesting that Josephus seems to know nothing about the oil/miracle story since he says that he thinks it’s called “Lights” because it is associated with hope.)
- The early church very clearly associated dedication/Encaenia with Sukkot as I already pointed out above, and which practice is consistent with Scripture.
N
Nita
Guest
The feast of Sukkah/Sukkot was in existence long before Solomon’s temple had been built. Scripture reference Lev. 23:33-36;** it was held on the 15th day of the 7th month (Tishri). Hanukkah is celebrated in the 9th month (Kislev)**
Again, from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14102-sukkah
Treatise in the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and both Talmudim, dealing chiefly with the regulations regarding the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 34-36; Num. xxix. 12 et seq.; Deut. xvi. 13-16). In most of the editions it is the sixth treatise in the mishnaic order Mo’ed. It is divided into five chapters, containing fifty-three paragraphs in all. The contents may be summarized as follows…
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Yes, I didn’t say that it wasn’t. But it was in the dedication of Solomon’s Temple that Sukkot becomes tied to this event and gains this additional dimension of significance. You can refer to the biblical texts or I cited earlier or the “history” section of the wikipedia article I cited above. Hanukkah commemorates the re-dedication of the Second Temple and, as you noted is celebrated at a different time of year.
P
patrick457
Guest
True, the Masoretic Text per se achieved its final form around the Middle Ages. The oldest extant manuscripts date from approximately the 9th century, and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the MT, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the 10th century, with the Leningrad Codex dating a few decades later, well into the early 11th century. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries.
Now the majority of Biblical fragments found in Qumran and Masada (60% of them) are close to the MT (in the sense that the consonants differ little; vowel points or niqqud were not invented yet at the time), suggesting that the MT’s ancestor was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC. For convenience, we’ll call this ancestor Proto-Masoretic.
However, a few other texts have also been which differ substantially: some fragments agree with the Septuagint (5%), others reflect the text of the Samaritan Torah (Proto-Samaritan; 15%), still others are apparently based on the Proto-Masoretic but have a few distinctive characteristics of its own (called by some Qumran style; 20%), yet others (10%) could not be clearly classified - since, for instance, they show no consistent alignment with any of the other text-types or diverge from all other known readings.
All this shows that all three texts - Masoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan - have ancestors of nearly-equal antiquity, that there was not always the scrupulous uniformity of text that was so stressed in later centuries, and that even within textual families there could be variation.
Source? AFAIK while Jerome was a champion of veritas Hebraica, the truth of the Hebrew text over the Septuagint and its deritative Old Latin translations, Augustine had a more conservative (for Christians at that time) view by championing the Septuagint.
P
patrick457
Guest
Starting from chapter 7 up to chapter 10:
After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. (…) [A]fter his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. The Jews were looking for him at the feast (…) About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. (…) On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out (…) [Omitting the *Pericope Adulterae] Again Jesus spoke to them (…) [T]hey picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. (…) At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.
There seems to be no indication from the text that Jesus even left Judaea after arriving during the feast of Booths (He only runs away from the Temple to escape a lynch mob at the end of chapter 8). There’s also no implication of Him being in the Temple other than that He usually preaches there, and is doing so again.
N
Nita
Guest
What the Jews call the Feast of the Dedication or Hanukkah came into existence at the time of the Maccabees (long after King Solomon). It does not refer to, or have any connection to the dedication of the temple that took place under King Solomon upon its completion. Please see my Post #28 from the Jewish Encyclopedia entry that explains Hanukkah. Solomon chose to dedicate the temple at the time of Sukkot/Feast of Booths, the dedication was never “mandated” to be a Jewish feast to be celebrated yearly.
Hanukah (Feast of Dedication) and Sukkot (Feast of Booths) are not connected; and they certainly aren’t the same thing as you stated in your Post #25 in response to Belloc Fan.
N
Nita
Guest
I did find a sort of connection between Hanukkah and Sukkot in 2 Maccabees. Apparently at one point the Maccabean Jews were unable to celebrate Sukkot at the proper time in the month of Tishri (see bolded sentence below) so it was delayed until the time when they regained the temple and were celebrating it’s purification (Hanukkah) in the month of Kislev.
2 Maccabees 1:18 Since on the twenty-fifth day of Chislev we shall celebrate the purification of the temple, we thought it necessary to notify you, in order that you also may celebrate the feast of booths and the feast of the fire given when Nehemiah, who built the temple and the altar, offered sacrifices.
2 Maccabees 10:5 It happened that on the same day on which the sanctuary had been profaned by the foreigners, the purification of the sanctuary took place, that is, on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which was Chislev. 10:6 And they celebrated it for eight days with rejoicing, in the manner of the feast of booths, remembering how not long before, during the feast of booths, they had been wandering in the mountains and caves like wild animals. 10:7 Therefore bearing ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Yes, the first Hanukkah was essentially sort of a “make up” Sukkot because the temple was in a state of impurity at the time it normally would have been celebrated.
If you’re interested in more details, here’s the best book I’ve found on the topic:
Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1995.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
] Again Jesus spoke to them (…) [T]hey picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. (…) At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.
There seems to be no indication from the text that Jesus even left Judaea after arriving during the feast of Booths (He only runs away from the Temple to escape a lynch mob at the end of chapter 8). There’s also no implication of Him being in the Temple other than that He usually preaches there, and is doing so again.
Interesting, so then maybe John is simply describing different “parts” of the same festival? Jesus is still in town?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Great response! However, if you ever get a chance, you really should take a close look at Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis if you haven’t done so. These are fascinating because you essentially get to follow Jerome’s thought process and translation notes as he tries to grapple with differences between the Greek and Hebrew text. Despite sort of advertising himself as the champion of veritas Hebraica (and leaving his less learned audience to think he’s translating directly from the Hebrew text) he often inexplicably chooses to follow the Septuagint when there’s a difference between the two–I think basically so as to not rock the boat too much. It’s an area that needs more research.
P
patrick457
Guest
We could argue for that, but the question then goes: why then does John call what is essentially the same feast with different names?
John in 7:2 says that the heortē tōn Ioudaiōn hē Skēnopēgia (“the Jewish feast of Booths”) is near, when Jesus’ brothers speak to Him. In 7:14, mention is made of Jesus going to the Temple and preaching “in the middle of the feast.” Then in 7:37, John speaks of “the last day, the great day of the feast.” If we omit the Pericope Adulterae (which has Jesus returning “early in the morning” the next day, thereby stretching the action into two days), the flow of the narrative - a long piece of dialogue between Jesus and the Judaeans - continues up to the end of chapter 8, when Jesus hides and runs away from the Temple area.
Chapter 9 them begins with Him “passing by,” with no specific indication of exactly when this occurred other than it was a Sabbath (cf. 9:14). He is apparently still somewhere in Jerusalem (Jesus is never said to have left Jerusalem or Judaea, and His command that the man wash in the Pool of Siloam implies that the event occurs not too far from it), but not at the Temple. It is not really clear whether the action described in this chapter and the first half of chapter 10 - the people seeing the blind man cured, the Pharisees summoning the man and then his parents, and Jesus meeting the man again after being cast out - occurs in the course of a single day or extends for a longer time period.
It is only then that we hear of ta Enkainia (“the Dedication”, lit. “the Dedications”) in 10:22, when Jesus is to be found inside the Temple area again.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
These could be component parts of the same complex of festivals. Think of the contemporary example of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, or how Passover is sometimes also referred to as the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
P
patrick457
Guest
Yes, Rosh Hashanah and Yom ha-Kippurim are the respective beginning and end of the Ten Days of Repentance. Originally, Passover and the Azymes (Unleavened Bread) seems to have been technically separate feasts - albeit mutually related. As time went on though, the connection between the two strengthened further to the point that “Passover” and “Unleavened Bread” became interchangeable terms for the festal season as a whole, as we can see from the Gospels.
Again, we could theoretically make a connection between “the last day, the great day of the feast” and “the Dedication.” Supposing that “the Dedication” is the last day of the feast of Booths, why then does John not choose to name it earlier?
P
patrick457
Guest
To quote from John, Jesus, and History, Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher (2009), under the section The Jewish Feasts and Questions of Historicity in John 5-12 by Brian D. Johnson (pp. 123-5):
3.2. DEDICATION
Turning to the Feast of Dedication mentioned in John 10:22, the connections between Jesus’ teaching and this feast have not been nearly as clear. Little has been written on this, especially when compared to the amount that has been written on the Passover and Tabernacles contexts. [Footnote 13: For example, this is the sparest part of http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=A7ixAAAACAAJ”]Yee 1988, which is otherwise a thorough treatment.] The connections between those feasts and the actions and teachings of Jesus cause one to wonder what potential points of contact there might be in this context of Dedication. James VanderKam (1990, 212) proposes a potential connection here. He argues that language parallels suggest that the Jewish accounts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Dan 7, 8 and 11 are to be brought to mind. He concludes, “It seems no accident that John dated Jesus’ assertion of his divinity to the festival of Hannukah when the blasphemies of Antiochus IV, the self-proclaimed god manifest, were remembered” (1990, 213). So, according to VanderKam, Jesus is portrayed as legitimately claiming for himself what Antiochus IV had illegitimately claimed. VanderKam’s argument is intriguing. He may be right in focusing attention upon the period of the Maccabean revolt, but the focus should rather be placed upon the Maccabean rulers themselves.
The good shepherd discourse of John 10:1-21 can thus be understood in connection with the Feast of Dedication. [Footnote 14: I have argued for this elsewhere: Johnson 2006, 96-97.] If this discourse is connected with Dedication, then Jesus’ claim to be a “good shepherd” (10:11) is in contrast to “all who came before” (10:8). This may be another example of Jesus’ being presented as a ruler for the people, but a different kind of ruler than was commonly understood (18:33-37). The Maccabees, who are remembered by the people at Dedication, ruled because of the political power and military force they could muster, while Jesus becomes the true shepherd of the people by laying down his life.
The image of those who came before as thieves and robbers may emphasize a rule brought about and characterized by violence, to be contrasted with the authentic leading of his people–like a shepherd caring for his flock. This is similar to VanderKam’s suggestion, in that it has Jesus arguing for legitimacy over against illegitimacy; in this case, however, it would seem to pose a contrast to the group remembered positively at the Feast of Dedication. [Footnote 15: See also http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=VuTYAAAAMAAJ”]Blomberg 2001, 162, who sees the connection with “the warrior-deliverers of the Maccabean family,” although he connects the earlier passage with Tabernacles rather than Dedication (158).]
Dedication is somewhat different from the Feasts of Tabernacles and Passover because it owes its origins to the events recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees, rather than the more established feasts stipulated in the Hebrew Bible. As noted above, VanderKam notes verbal parallels to the Maccabean accounts. It is also interesting and suggestive that the Maccabean account connects Dedication closely with Tabernacles (2 Macc 1:18), which is paralleled in the Gospel of John with the close connection between the Tabernacles and Dedication contexts. [Footnote 16: So close is the connection here that commentators often have difficulty deciding which pericope goes with which account.]
This suggests the possibility that the account in John 10 is drawing upon the language of the Second Temple literature, though it should be noticed that the word Dedication (ἐγκαίνια) can also be found in the context of Ezra’s dedication of the temple (Ezra 6:16-17 LXX). Brown (1966-70, 1:402) suggests parallels to the tabernacle (Num 7:10-11) and temple (1 Kgs 8:63) dedications as well.
For two reasons, the Feast of Dedication had a much smaller role in post-70 C.E. Jewish practice. First, because Dedication is so centered on temple practice and in fact is centered on the existence of the temple itself, it played a much smaller role after the temple’s destruction. Second, the connection with rebellion against the oppressive power became much less popular after 70 C.E. (Schauss 1975, 228-29). Even in Josephus’s writings, the practice of this festival seems somewhat unclear (Ant. 21.323). The casual mention of Dedication and the thematic connections here suggest a setting before 70 C.E. and therefore potentially set within Jesus’ own lifetime.
3.2. DEDICATION
Turning to the Feast of Dedication mentioned in John 10:22, the connections between Jesus’ teaching and this feast have not been nearly as clear. Little has been written on this, especially when compared to the amount that has been written on the Passover and Tabernacles contexts. [Footnote 13: For example, this is the sparest part of http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=A7ixAAAACAAJ”]Yee 1988, which is otherwise a thorough treatment.] The connections between those feasts and the actions and teachings of Jesus cause one to wonder what potential points of contact there might be in this context of Dedication. James VanderKam (1990, 212) proposes a potential connection here. He argues that language parallels suggest that the Jewish accounts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Dan 7, 8 and 11 are to be brought to mind. He concludes, “It seems no accident that John dated Jesus’ assertion of his divinity to the festival of Hannukah when the blasphemies of Antiochus IV, the self-proclaimed god manifest, were remembered” (1990, 213). So, according to VanderKam, Jesus is portrayed as legitimately claiming for himself what Antiochus IV had illegitimately claimed. VanderKam’s argument is intriguing. He may be right in focusing attention upon the period of the Maccabean revolt, but the focus should rather be placed upon the Maccabean rulers themselves.
The good shepherd discourse of John 10:1-21 can thus be understood in connection with the Feast of Dedication. [Footnote 14: I have argued for this elsewhere: Johnson 2006, 96-97.] If this discourse is connected with Dedication, then Jesus’ claim to be a “good shepherd” (10:11) is in contrast to “all who came before” (10:8). This may be another example of Jesus’ being presented as a ruler for the people, but a different kind of ruler than was commonly understood (18:33-37). The Maccabees, who are remembered by the people at Dedication, ruled because of the political power and military force they could muster, while Jesus becomes the true shepherd of the people by laying down his life.
The image of those who came before as thieves and robbers may emphasize a rule brought about and characterized by violence, to be contrasted with the authentic leading of his people–like a shepherd caring for his flock. This is similar to VanderKam’s suggestion, in that it has Jesus arguing for legitimacy over against illegitimacy; in this case, however, it would seem to pose a contrast to the group remembered positively at the Feast of Dedication. [Footnote 15: See also http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=VuTYAAAAMAAJ”]Blomberg 2001, 162, who sees the connection with “the warrior-deliverers of the Maccabean family,” although he connects the earlier passage with Tabernacles rather than Dedication (158).]
Dedication is somewhat different from the Feasts of Tabernacles and Passover because it owes its origins to the events recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees, rather than the more established feasts stipulated in the Hebrew Bible. As noted above, VanderKam notes verbal parallels to the Maccabean accounts. It is also interesting and suggestive that the Maccabean account connects Dedication closely with Tabernacles (2 Macc 1:18), which is paralleled in the Gospel of John with the close connection between the Tabernacles and Dedication contexts. [Footnote 16: So close is the connection here that commentators often have difficulty deciding which pericope goes with which account.]
This suggests the possibility that the account in John 10 is drawing upon the language of the Second Temple literature, though it should be noticed that the word Dedication (ἐγκαίνια) can also be found in the context of Ezra’s dedication of the temple (Ezra 6:16-17 LXX). Brown (1966-70, 1:402) suggests parallels to the tabernacle (Num 7:10-11) and temple (1 Kgs 8:63) dedications as well.
For two reasons, the Feast of Dedication had a much smaller role in post-70 C.E. Jewish practice. First, because Dedication is so centered on temple practice and in fact is centered on the existence of the temple itself, it played a much smaller role after the temple’s destruction. Second, the connection with rebellion against the oppressive power became much less popular after 70 C.E. (Schauss 1975, 228-29). Even in Josephus’s writings, the practice of this festival seems somewhat unclear (Ant. 21.323). The casual mention of Dedication and the thematic connections here suggest a setting before 70 C.E. and therefore potentially set within Jesus’ own lifetime.
- Status