Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote: You are not clear in the point you are trying to make.

I'm merely noting that Herod is being portrayed as less of a Hellenizer than you claim.

outhouse wrote: Either way it does not effect the status of first century Jerusalem and the temple cult as being Hellenized to a greater extent then the Aramaic Jewish sect known as Zealots associated with Galileans.

That's a bit of a Gish-gallop. And it's affect, not effect.

outhouse wrote: This all started with Bernard stating Jerusalem was not a Hellenistic city, and the Sadducees were not Hellenistic, as we were discussing the socioeconomic division between Hellenized Jews and Aramaic Galileans.

You're being black-and-white & misrepresnting many things, including Bernard

MrMacSon wrote: You're being black-and-white & misrepresnting many things, including Bernard

Do you want me to pull the exact quotes ?


"Next thing you will say Sadducees are Hellenist", is close to verbatim. Same for Jerusalem.

That's a bit of a Gish-gallop.

How so? It is the exact context to the fall of the temple.

What Hellenistic temple cult?

Gentile Passover crowds?

These are two of his exact questions as he fights academic historicity not in question.

Jerusalem was not a Hellenistic city.

Another of his quotes

to outhouse,

What Hellenistic temple cult?
Gentile Passover crowds?
These are two of his exact questions as he fights academic historicity not in question.

And you did not, as usual, answer my questions.
What was that Hellenistic temple cult?
What evidence do you have the so-called court of the Gentiles was crowded by Gentiles?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to outhouse,

What Hellenistic temple cult?
Gentile Passover crowds?
These are two of his exact questions as he fights academic historicity not in question.

And you did not, as usual, answer my questions.
What was that Hellenistic temple cult?
What evidence do you have the so-called court of the Gentiles was crowded by Gentiles?

Cordially, Bernard

Please do not ask stupid questions, that no one else is asking less people with no education. If you have a point make it.

MrMacSon wrote:I'm merely noting that Herod is being portrayed as less of a Hellenizer than you claim.

Really? Maybe you suffer from the same lack of comprehension as your buddies.


His exact quote below.

Herod accelerated Roman Hellenizing policies and thus systematically reshaped Judean politics, cultic institutions and
architecture.

Then it points out this.

In this thesis I will argue that while Hellenism, and resistance to it, was nothing new

Is what I have been saying all along, and the Stephen idiotically denies everything about said statement. Bernard to some extent as well.

to outhouse,

Jerusalem was not a Hellenistic city.

Definition of "Hellenistic":

of or relating to Greek history, language, and culture from the death of Alexander the Great to the defeat of Cleopatra and Mark Antony by Octavian in 31 BC. During this period Greek culture flourished, spreading through the Mediterranean and into the Near East and Asia and centering on Alexandria in Egypt and Pergamum in Turkey.

OK, that's not what I had in mind, and probably for you either, who is the first one who used this word on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2388&start=110#p53394
The word I should have used is "Hellenized".
Definition of "Hellenized":
Made Greek or Hellenistic in form or culture. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hellenize)
Made Greek in character. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hellenize)
Made Greek in character, culture, or civilization. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hellenized)

According to these definitions Jerusalem was not a Hellenized city into the 1st century.
And if we consider "Hellenistic" as meaning "Hellenized slightly", then I would accept that, is "slightly" means "very little".

Cordially, Bernard

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/purtell_ ... 208_ma.pdf


Romanization of the Royal Court

Another obligation of the client-king relationship was to encourage and promote
Romanization within his kingdom. This process was often a top-down phenomenon in
which rulers and their court voluntarily adopted Roman customs and habits, which slowly
disseminated throughout the realm. Herodian Judaea was no exception. Although some
degree of Hellenization had already occurred in Judaea during the Hasmonean period,
Herod accelerated the process. By the end of his reign, Judaea was fully within the
Roman sphere, and Roman influences could be seen everywhere from buildings to
bathing practices.

to outhouse,

Please do not ask stupid questions, that no one else is asking less people with no education. If you have a point make it

What kind of answer is that?
I have to conclude you cannot answer these questions.That's the point I am making now.
BTW, "no one else is asking less people with no education" shows the level of your education.

Romanization of the Royal Court

Another obligation of the client-king relationship was to encourage and promote
Romanization within his kingdom. This process was often a top-down phenomenon in
which rulers and their court voluntarily adopted Roman customs and habits, which slowly
disseminated throughout the realm. Herodian Judaea was no exception. Although some
degree of Hellenization had already occurred in Judaea during the Hasmonean period,
Herod accelerated the process. By the end of his reign, Judaea was fully within the
Roman sphere, and Roman influences could be seen everywhere from buildings to
bathing practices.

So Roman-looking buildings and bathing practices: is that what you call Hellenization?
Judea was under Roman sphere and influence: does that count for Hellenization?

Cordially, Bernard