The Hanufikkahtion of History

[Bubba_Switzler]

Hanukkah is upon us again and this seems an appropriate time to consider the perenial question: Is it kosher to sanitize history to create moral lessons?

The raw Bible is often much more interesting than the Sunday school stories we hear about it. If you read Macabbees, you will find that the lighting of the menorah, symolizing the rededication of the Temple, is a relatively small, if crucial, part of the story. Macabbees is full of human intrigue, great battles, and ultimatley, disappointment. More importantly, it set a pattern that was to be repeated to Israel’s destruction in the first and second centuries AD.

I was reminded of this by an editorial from the NYT:

It begins with the spread of Greek culture. Alexander’s Empire, and the smaller empires that succeeded it, brought modernizing ideas and institutions to the Middle East. At its best, Hellenistic culture emphasized the power of reason and the importance of individual conscience. It brought theaters, gymnasiums and debating societies to the cities. It raised living standards, especially in places like Jerusalem.

Many Jewish reformers embraced these improvements. The Greeks had one central idea: their aspirations to create an advanced universal culture. And the Jews had their own central idea: the idea of one true God. The reformers wanted to merge these two ideas.

nytimes.com/2009/12/11/opinion/11brooks.html?ref=global

The author was clearly sympathetic to the Jewish reformers who are not the heros of Macabees and Hanukkah.

The traditional view of Hanukkah is that it was faithful Jews vs. tyrannical Greeks and their Jewish collaborators and the traditional Jews won in a David and Golliath story.

But that is a sanitized version of history.

Most modern scholars argue that the [Seleucid ] king was intervening in a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the countryside and Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem.

Real history is much more interesting and the NYT author only tells part of it, but enough to make his point.

To see things clearly you have to look past the simplification that the traditional view of Hanukkah presents, faithful Jews vs. tyrannical Greeks and their Jewish collaborators. Instead, you have to recognize that the Jewish reformers might have represented a third point of view that was demolished in the confrontation between the Macabees and the Selucid Greeks.

History is filled with ironies and one of them is that the Sadducees were the descendants of the Macabees and they were the wealthy Jews in Jesus’ time who wanted to compromise and keep peace with the Romans.

And in addition to Jesus’ running antognists, the Pharisees, you had the relatively less religious diaspora Jews who were thoroughly helenized. Saul/Paul of Tarus was from this diaspora of Helenized Jews. And one of the most popular modern Jewish criticisms of Christianity is that it was a helenization of Judaism.

The question I want to pose here is to what extent do we rely on moral lessons that are fabricated from history (often before our very eyes). Is the moral lesson the thing, and history but a source of material, or should we treat history with greater respect accepting the gray nuances of our fallen condition?

And what are we to make of the Macabee period? The the Macabee success encourge the Jews to destroy themselves trying to repeat that success against Rome?

And what are we to make of the Jewish reformers of the Macabee period? Was Jesus a Jewish reformer? Is Christianity a similar reform of Judaism integrating the idea of a One God with Helenistic ideals of reason and universal culture? Is modern, democratic Israel a similar triumph of the marriage of Judaism and Greco-Roman ideals?

 

[jdobbins]

Hanukkah is upon us again and this seems an appropriate time to consider the perenial question: Is it kosher to sanitize history to create moral lessons?

The raw Bible is often much more interesting than the Sunday school stories we hear about it. If you read Macabbees, you will find that the lighting of the menorah, symolizing the rededication of the Temple, is a relatively small, if crucial, part of the story. Macabbees is full of human intrigue, great battles, and ultimatley, disappointment. More importantly, it set a pattern that was to be repeated to Israel’s destruction in the first and second centuries AD.

(some text clipped for space reasons)

I was reminded of this by an editorial from the NYT:
nytimes.com/2009/12/11/opinion/11brooks.html?ref=global The traditional view of Hanukkah is that it was faithful Jews vs. tyrannical Greeks and their Jewish collaborators and the traditional Jews won in a David and Golliath story.

But that is a sanitized version of history.

Real history is much more interesting and the NYT author only tells part of it, but enough to make his point.

And in addition to Jesus’ running antognists, the Pharisees, you had the relatively less religious diaspora Jews who were thoroughly helenized. Saul/Paul of Tarus was from this diaspora of Helenized Jews. And one of the most popular modern Jewish criticisms of Christianity is that it was a helenization of Judaism.

The question I want to pose here is to what extent do we rely on moral lessons that are fabricated from history (often before our very eyes). Is the moral lesson the thing, and history but a source of material, or should we treat history with greater respect accepting the gray nuances of our fallen condition?

And what are we to make of the Macabee period? The the Macabee success encourge the Jews to destroy themselves trying to repeat that success against Rome?

And what are we to make of the Jewish reformers of the Macabee period? Was Jesus a Jewish reformer? Is Christianity a similar reform of Judaism integrating the idea of a One God with Helenistic ideals of reason and universal culture? Is modern, democratic Israel a similar triumph of the marriage of Judaism and Greco-Roman ideals?

The question is a diversion from the real issue, and seeks to place all these relationships on a horizontal plane of “you and me” relationships. The real question has nothing to do with Macabees but rather is the central question of who Jesus is. Is Jesus the Incarnate Word of God? Is He the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity? This question moves the discussion out of the horizontal plane and into a horizontal-vertical dimension where it belongs. If Jesus is who He said He was, then the real issues have to do what He taught and how He brought the man-God relationship to a new level, where we all have a horizontal relationship with each other and a vertical relationship with God and the body of saints who have gone before us, all forming part of th Mystical Body of Christ. It is no longer just “you and me”, but “us and God”, and what responsibilities to each other, and to Him, that creates. This includes the historical development of salvation history, which goes well beyond mere relationships between people, and goes to the issues of how God has, over the centuries, called us into a relationship with Him, with the objective of giving all of us the opportunity to live with Him for eternity. It shows God intrducing Himself through Abram, and hm moving the relationship deeper through Moses until we see a spiritual betrothal in the time of David, especially exemplified in Psalm 139, and then, through Jesus, into a relationship of spiritual marriage through the institution of the Eucharist. This is as far as the relationship can go until we reach heaven. What happened with the Macabees is unimportant other than to see how it helped to lead us to where we are today. What is important is what the relationship has grown into for us today in terms of our recognition of Jesus and the reationship He calls all men to. He said that when He was lifted up, He would call all men to Himself. We have to listen to the call and respond. He also said no one can come to the Father except through Him. That puts Jesus, not Macabees, at the central position of the real question, and our response. I would not expect anyone at the NYT to recognize or acknowledge this. They may, but I would not expect it.
yorked.podomatic.com

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Ezekiel 36:

1: Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD:
2: Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession:
3: Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people:
4: Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about;
5: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.
6: Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because ye have borne the shame of the heathen:
7: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I have lifted up mine hand, Surely the heathen that are about you, they shall bear their shame.
8: But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come.
9: For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown:
10: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded:
11: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
12: Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men.
13: Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they say unto you, Thou land devourest up men, and hast bereaved thy nations;
14: Therefore thou shalt devour men no more, neither bereave thy nations any more, saith the Lord GOD.
15: Neither will I cause men to hear in thee the shame of the heathen any more, neither shalt thou bear the reproach of the people any more, neither shalt thou cause thy nations to fall any more, saith the Lord GOD.
16: Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
17: Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.
18: Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it:
19: And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them.
20: And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of the LORD, and are gone forth out of his land.
21: But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.
22: Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
23: And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
24: For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26: A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28: And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29: I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
30: And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.
31: Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

(Continued…)

 

[Angelo_Michael]

(…Continuation: )

Ezekiel 36:

32: Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.
33: Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.
34: And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by.
35: And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.
36: Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.
37: Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock.
38: As the holy flock, as the flock of Jerusalem in her solemn feasts; so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of men: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

Psalm 139:

1: O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2: Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3: Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4: For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5: Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6: Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7: Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8: If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9: If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10: Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11: If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12: Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13: For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14: I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15: My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16: Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17: How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18: If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
19: Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20: For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21: Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22: I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23: Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

 

[Hosh]

Jesus was probably an Essene not a Pharisees. We lost our freedom again because we never completely rid our self’s of Hellenistic culture and Epicurean influence (the Sadducees… some Rabbi’s view this a punishment from God). This was a serious divide in our belief system and we never had a stable ruler in that period before the Romans came.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The question is a diversion from the real issue, and seeks to place all these relationships on a horizontal plane of “you and me” relationships. The real question has nothing to do with Macabees but rather is the central question of who Jesus is. Is Jesus the Incarnate Word of God? Is He the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity? This question moves the discussion out of the horizontal plane and into a horizontal-vertical dimension where it belongs…

Assuming that you’re not just changing the subject and posing an entirely different set of questions, I presume that you are answering the original question in the affirmative: It is kosher to sanitize history to create moral lessons. If Macabees is one-sided history and if Hanukkah is an innacruate telling of Macabees, that is incidental and irrelevant. History but a source of material for the Church as for Hollywood.

But that attitude robs Catholic teaching of its basis in reality. Would you similarly argue, for example, that it doesn’t matter whether Jesus died and rose from the dead or, for that matter, whether there was a real human being named Jesus? All that matters is what the Catholic Church teaches about the second person of the trinity?

This question moves the discussion out of the horizontal plane and into a horizontal-vertical dimension where it belongs. If Jesus is who He said He was, then the real issues have to do what He taught and how He brought the man-God relationship to a new level, where we all have a horizontal relationship with each other and a vertical relationship with God and the body of saints who have gone before us, all forming part of th Mystical Body of Christ. It is no longer just “you and me”, but “us and God”, and what responsibilities to each other, and to Him, that creates. This includes the historical development of salvation history, which goes well beyond mere relationships between people…What happened with the Macabees is unimportant other than to see how it helped to lead us to where we are today.

It’s certainly true that Macabees is almost entirely about horizontal, i.e. inter-human, relatinships. But horizontal relationships are anything but irrelevant to the vertical relationship.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus was probably an Essene not a Pharisees.

Theories abound. Some say he was a disciple of John the Baptist.

We lost our freedom again because we never completely rid our self’s of Hellenistic culture and Epicurean influence (the Sadducees… some Rabbi’s view this a punishment from God). This was a serious divide in our belief system and we never had a stable ruler in that period before the Romans came.

This does not comport with history, however. According to the modernist view of Macabees, it was the internal civil war between traditionalists and reformists which led to the Selucid intervention. And it is generally acknowledged history that it was a similar internal conflict that led to the Roman intervention.

And it was the Sadducees who favored getting along with the Romans and who counseled against the revolt in 65AD.

And, as I noted in the OP, modern Israel is very much Helenized, so much so that an Israeli judge was recently denounced for suggesting that Jewish law should reflect Torah law. And modern secular Jews, generally, are probably the most Helenized of all peoples, more even than modern Greeks themselves.

If history is a guide, it was the Jewish efforts to rid themselves of Hellenism that led to Israel’s destruction. Modern Judaism prides itself on tolerance but tolerance was in short supply in those days.

 

[Hosh]

Theories abound. Some say he was a disciple of John the Baptist.

This does not comport with history, however. According to the modernist view of Macabees, it was the internal civil war between traditionalists and reformists which led to the Selucid intervention. And it is generally acknowledged history that it was a similar internal conflict that led to the Roman intervention.

And it was the Sadducees who favored getting along with the Romans and who counseled against the revolt in 65AD.

And, as I noted in the OP, modern Israel is very much Helenized, so much so that an Israeli judge was recently denounced for suggesting that Jewish law should reflect Torah law. And modern secular Jews, generally, are probably the most Helenized of all peoples, more even than modern Greeks themselves.

If history is a guide, it was the Jewish efforts to rid themselves of Hellenism that led to Israel’s destruction. Modern Judaism prides itself on tolerance but tolerance was in short supply in those days.

There’s a theory that a rumor was spread that Antiochus was killed in his attempt to conquest Egypt. So we started killing Hellenists, smashing Greek idol’s, and started the uprising. The truth was that he wasn’t dead, just defeated. After he heard about these things, he got stupid. Then of course old man Mattathias, and the 25 year revolt. It may be the good part but that’s how it started.

I was talking about after the end of the revolt, incase that was the confusion. We weren’t free before, we had rights, but we were still occupied.

I don’t paint Secular Jews as bad as Hellenists. Secular Jews can still retain there morals and ethics, rather than believe in “live and be merry today for it may be your last”, that’s a selfish doctrine.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There’s a theory that a rumor was spread that Antiochus was killed in his attempt to conquest Egypt. So we started killing Hellenists, Smashing Greek Idol’s, and started the uprising. The truth was that he wasn’t dead, just defeated, and after he heard about these things, he got very pissed off. And that’s how it started. I was talking about after the end of the revolt, incase that was the confusion. We weren’t free before, we had rights, but we were still occupied.

I am fascinated by history and I’ve never really spent a lot of time studying the Macabee rebellion. But as I noted in the OP, it seems much more interesting than the Sunday-school version.

I don’t paint Secular Jews as bad as Hellenists. Secular Jews can still retain there morals and ethics, rather than believe in “live and be merry today, for it may be your last”, its a selfish doctrine.

This, though, was the real issue I was trying to raise: to what extent was ancient Judaism in conflict with Helenism?

Obviously, the full version of Helenism included much bad with the good. For a start, ancient Hellenism was pagan. But I haven’t seen any claims that Jewish reformers were advocating the pagan elements.

There is the more subtle issue of conquered Jews tolerating pagan rituals. It was the Roman intrusions into the Temple cult that sparked the 65 rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem. And if we can trust Macabees, it was a similar gesture that initiated that rebellion.

But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Jewish reformers were, as the NYT author suggested, attempting to integrate the two without compromising Judaism. Was that possible? I think the answer has to be yes because eventually it was.

It seems to me that some union of the two was inevitable, and that the real lesson of history is that history never stand still. Judaism needed to accomodate Hellenism, and ultimately it did both in the form of Christianity and modern Judaism.

 

[Hosh]

I am fascinated by history and I’ve never really spent a lot of time studying the Macabee rebellion. But as I noted in the OP, it seems much more interesting than the Sunday-school version.

This, though, was the real issue I was trying to raise: to what extent was ancient Judaism in conflict with Helenism?

Obviously, the full version of Helenism included much bad with the good. For a start, ancient Hellenism was pagan. But I haven’t seen any claims that Jewish reformers were advocating the pagan elements.

There is the more subtle issue of conquered Jews tolerating pagan rituals. It was the Roman intrusions into the Temple cult that sparked the 65 rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem. And if we can trust Macabees, it was a similar gesture that initiated that rebellion.

But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Jewish reformers were, as the NYT author suggested, attempting to integrate the two without compromising Judaism. Was that possible? I think the answer has to be yes because eventually it was.

It seems to me that some union of the two was inevitable, and that the real lesson of history is that history never stand still. Judaism needed to accomodate Hellenism, and ultimately it did both in the form of Christianity and modern Judaism.

Judaism embraced Greek science but rejected its Morals and Ethics. Much of the division had to do with the acceptance of Oral Law and probably the validity of the prophets (the messiah, and life after death/resurrection of the dead). Naked Wrestling, open sexual expression and the general decadence of Greek culture didn’t appeal much to the Phrases either. Christianity probably originated from the beliefs of the Essenes who were isolated seperatists, but aligned themselves more with the Phrases. Jew’s had along history of occupation with there occupiers being pagans, but they always let Jews practice there religion and self govern (sometimes puppet rulers) so long as we paid tariffs. In Judaism your supposed to choose death over worshiping another god, and that’s always been taken seriously. Why do you think we call converts from the Inquisition Marranos (pig in spanish)?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Judaism embraced Greek science but rejected its Morals and Ethics.

Right, I think this is a start though it is imprecise. Modern Israel is a democracy, that was a Helenistic political idea (not science). Tracing the origins of human rights is more complicated but clearly that history winds through western civilization and, hence, Christianity.

Epicureanism, which you mentioned earlier, is also a mixed bag. On the one hand Helenism held physical aesthetics in very high regard, hence naked wrestling and other immodesties, and it indulged homosexuality and other immoral practices.

But on the other hand, modern Jews tend to have very urbane tastes and lifestyles and modern Israel doesn’t stone homosexuals even if a gay parade still creates controversy.

Then, too, there is the question of how much ancient Israel borrowed and learned from its neighbors. Helenism was but one among many influences.

Jew’s had along history of occupation with there occupiers being pagans, but they always let Jews practice there religion and self govern (sometimes puppet rulers) so long as we paid tariffs. In Judaism your supposed to choose death over worshiping another god, and that’s always been taken seriously.

But were the Jewish reformers proposing to worship pagan gods? That seems very unlikely. The conflicts seems rather about how much less central issues. For example, one of the incidents that led to the rebellion against Rome was the violation of the Temple. For the most part, the Romans did, as you say, let the Jews practice their religion but every so often they would cross the line.

According to Josephus, the revolt, which began at Caesarea in 66, was provoked by Greeks sacrificing birds in front of a local synagogue.[2] The Roman garrison did not intercede and the long-standing Greek and Jewish religious tensions took a downward spiral. In reaction, the son of Kohen Gadol (High priest) Eliezar ben Hanania ceased prayers and sacrifices for the Roman Emperor at the Temple.

 

[Hosh]

Now I’m confused. If the process of explicating a text like with Oral Law originates in Greek philosophy why did the Hellenists disregard it? Maimonides himself built much of his work of Aristotle. The reason we don’t stone our children is because even Orthodox Jews (other than the Haredi) believe there are deeper/metaphorical meanings in the Torah. The reason we can have wealth, fun, and happiness (a modern lifestyle) in Judaism comes from Maimonides. When he asked the question “what is evil” he found that it’s Immoderation. Why would god create Alcohol and have it make us feel good if he didn’t want us to drink it? But then why does it make us behave like animals when we drink too much?

They wern’t taking what was useful from hellenistic culture, only what was fun. That’s my idea anyways. I think they were holding on to Judaism only as centimental cultural remanent. Something which was old and stagnant rather than making it alive, by having the Torah breath new life. Keep in mind that at this time the first Yeshivas hadn’t been founded.

 

[Hosh]

Now I’m confused. If the process of explicating a text like with Oral Law originates in Greek philosophy why did the Hellenists disregard it? Maimonides himself built much of his work of Aristotle. The reason we don’t stone our children is because even Orthodox Jews (other than the Haredi) believe there are deeper/metaphorical meanings in the Torah. The reason we can have wealth, fun, and happiness (a modern lifestyle) in Judaism comes from Maimonides. When he asked the question “what is evil” he found that it’s Immoderation. Why would god create Alcohol and have it make us feel good if he didn’t want us to drink it? But then why does it make us behave like animals when we drink too much?

They wern’t taking what was useful from hellenistic culture, only what was fun. That’s my idea anyways. I think they were holding on to Judaism only as centimental cultural remanent. Something which was old and stagnant rather than making it alive, by having the Torah breath new life. Keep in mind that at this time the first Yeshivas hadn’t been founded.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Now I’m confused. If the process of explicating a text like with Oral Law originates in Greek philosophy why did the Hellenists disregard it?

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to here but perhaps to my comment that “there is the question of how much ancient Israel borrowed and learned from its neighbors. Helenism was but one among many influences.” What I’m referring to here is the borrowing from Sumerian, Egytian, and other pre-Helenistic cultures. If the Torah is not a gentile-free text then it seems like Jews who resisted Helenistic influence were out of step with Jewish history. Also, I’m not convinced that the Hellenistic Jews of the Macabean period were discarding the Torah. Rather, they were trying to integrate them.

Maimonides himself built much of his work of Aristotle.

Right, but that’s my point. Maimonides would probably have been branded a Helenist by the Macabeans and probably killed. But in the middle ages, he was a Jewish sage. If we are to judge by modern (or even middle ages) Judaism, the Macabean rebellion was, like the later rebellion against Rome, an act of debatable virtue.

The reason we don’t stone our children is because even Orthodox Jews (other than the Haredi) believe there are deeper/metaphorical meanings in the Torah. The reason we can have wealth, fun, and happiness (a modern lifestyle) in Judaism comes from Maimonides. When he asked the question “what is evil” he found that it’s Immoderation. Why would god create Alcohol and have it make us feel good if he didn’t want us to drink it? But then why does it make us behave like animals when we drink too much?

That’s all well and good. But the question I’m posing is whether this was being discovered by Jewish reformers in Hellenistic Israel? Perhaps not literally the exact conclusions that Maimonides drew but certainly thinking in that direction.

They wern’t taking what was useful from hellenistic culture, only what was fun. That’s my idea anyways. I think they were holding on to Judaism only as centimental cultural remanent. Something which was old and stagnant rather than making it alive, by having the Torah breath new life. Keep in mind that at this time the first Yeshivas hadn’t been founded.

But what is the evidence for this view? I’m not denying that there were young Jews who indulged in Hellenstic pleasures but that’s rather a different criticism than they were engaging in pagan worship.

 

[Hosh]

The point was that it seems confusing to me that the Hellenists (the Sadducees) rejected the Talmud which one could say Greek philosophy influenced the creation of. Maimonides wouldn’t necessarily be thrown off the wall during those times. For example his view on sexuality is completely opposite from modern day rabbinic thought (be fruitful and multiply). He felt that if one could devote himself completely to intellectual studies they should. Psychologically speaking: belief in an afterlife is the biggest difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, this plus (albeit different versions) messianic prophecies they had in common probably explains why the Essenes sided with the the latter.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The point was that it seems confusing to me that the Hellenists (the Sadducees) rejected the Talmud which one could say Greek philosophy influenced the creation of.

Aha, well, I’d never heard the argument that the Talmud was influenced by Greek philosophy though it’s certainly possible. In general, I would simply say (as I noted in the OP) that real history tends to be complex and messy. Rarely are there simply good guys in white hats and bad guys in black. The factionalism during the Jerusalem siege, for example, is a real mess that defies any generalization.

Unfortunately, we don’t really know much about the Sadducees because they didn’t survive the Jewish-Roman wars as a coherent school of thought. The Pharisees defeated the Sadducees and got to write the Mishnah (and the Talmud, for that matter). We can only guess how they proposed to borrow from Hellenism.

Maimonides wouldn’t necessarily be thrown off the wall during those times. For example his view on sexuality is completely opposite from modern day rabbinic thought (be fruitful and multiply). He felt that if one could devote himself completely to intellectual studies they should.

You’re assuming, though, that sexuality and procreation was the dominant issue in the rebellions against the Selucids and the Romans. But I don’t think that’s the case.

Psychologically speaking: belief in an afterlife is the biggest difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, this plus (albeit different versions) messianic prophecies they had in common probably explains why the Essenes sided with the the latter.

We might ask the question differently: what led the Sadducees to embrace (or at least find accomodation with) the Romans while the Pharisees (and Zealots) agitated against them?

 

[Hosh]

Aha, well, I’d never heard the argument that the Talmud was influenced by Greek philosophy though it’s certainly possible. In general, I would simply say (as I noted in the OP) that real history tends to be complex and messy. Rarely are there simply good guys in white hats and bad guys in black. The factionalism during the Jerusalem siege, for example, is a real mess that defies any generalization.

Well it seems to me that the Talmud is a direct product of the invention of Socratic methodology.

Unfortunately, we don’t really know much about the Sadducees because they didn’t survive the Jewish-Roman wars as a coherent school of thought. The Pharisees defeated the Sadducees and got to write the Mishnah (and the Talmud, for that matter). We can only guess how they proposed to borrow from Hellenism.

I think they took the Torah very literally, and that’s why they didn’t believe in life after death or Oral Law. They were probably stoning there children for being disobedient while the Pharisees were starting to ask themselves questions as to if god might have meant something else.

You’re assuming, though, that sexuality and procreation was the dominant issue in the rebellions against the Selucids and the Romans. But I don’t think that’s the case.

Really I was Just outlining how modern day Rabincal thought continues to change. Today Jews are known for there openess about sexuality, but also there great respect for Rambam

We might ask the question differently: what led the Sadducees to embrace (or at least find accomodation with) the Romans while the Pharisees (and Zealots) agitated against them?

Even Freud would have difficulty answering that. Social class probably had something to do with it. Why does poverty in the middle east breed religious fanatics and terrorism? The king wanted it, the king had the power, this may have been a drive for people to hellenise. Perhaps they expected better treatment/benifits, even if this was on the subconcious level. Keep in mind it took 25 years, who wants to fight for 25 years? were talking a tiny little state vs. 1/3rd of the Greek empire, that’s no easy task.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well it seems to me that the Talmud is a direct product of the invention of Socratic methodology.

It’s certainly plausible. Can you refer me to any scholarship on this? On the other hand, it’s often argued that Pharisee argumentation was distinct from Greek so that the writings could be distinguished.

I think they took the Torah very literally, and that’s why they didn’t believe in life after death or Oral Law. They were probably stoning there children for being disobedient while the Pharisees were starting to ask themselves questions as to if god might have meant something else.

I am very tempted to believe that this is an unfair criticism of the Sadducees. It’s hard for me to believe that the Sadducees were, at the same time, indulging in Hellenistic epicurianism and, at the same time, stoning their disobedient children. Josephus does describe the Sadducees as rejecting the Oral Torah and insisting on the written one but it doesn’t follow that the Sadducees were stricter than the Pharisees.

Really I was Just outlining how modern day Rabincal thought continues to change. Today Jews are known for there openess about sexuality, but also there great respect for Rambam

Ok.

Even Freud would have difficulty answering that. Social class probably had something to do with it. Why does poverty in the middle east breed religious fanatics and terrorism? The king wanted it, the king had the power, this may have been a drive for people to hellenise. Perhaps they expected better treatment/benifits, even if this was on the subconcious level. Keep in mind it took 25 years, who wants to fight for 25 years? were talking a tiny little state vs. 1/3rd of the Greek empire, that’s no easy task.

It’s possible that the Sadducees were, simply, those who were economically successful in the Roman-dominated world.

 

[Hosh]

I can’t Imagine that Greek philosophy didn’t influence the creation of the first Jewish philosophy. There influence roughly coincides with the first “sparks” of the talmudic era (according to Max Dimont). The Sadducees took the Torah literally, while the Pharisees believed in interpertation, as there are contradictions to deal with. The later would have said the there disobediant son “God would have me stone you, that’s how serious he defines this crime, but there are things for the living which can be just as terrible”. Though I can’t claim to have read the Babylonian Talmud (it’s written like it came from a bunch of different peoples memories, and it did…and its terrible!) to me it represents the beginning of a history scholarship and questioning of the text, which has defined Judaism ever since.

 

[pnewton]

I guess I do not get the point in worrying about how Scripture was written and what influences came to bear. The fact that it is the inspired Word of God written suffices.

You ask who Jesus was: reformer, Essene,… He is the divine incarnate word, only-begotten of the Father. That too suffices.