Bernard Muller wrote:And if we consider "Hellenistic" as meaning "Hellenized slightly", then I would accept that, is "slightly" means "very little".
Cordially, Bernard
Well you are wrong. And I have showed this in and out, up and down.
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.
This study examines the reign of Herod the Great for evidence indicating that he was a major catalyst in Hellenizing Judea and that this process was one of the major reasons for the success of his reign.
These two documents give us a glimpse not just into a more conservative view of
political kingship, but also help scholars to see how Hellenized the Hasmoneans had
become and how much room was left for Herod to continue Hellenizing Judean politics.
Herod believed in Hellenism. His effect on the Hellenization of Judea was a major factor
in the success of kingship. He stood for a policy of melding the best of the West with the
East to the extent allowable and possible with the segment of his conservative religious
subjects.
THE HELLENIZATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD
In this section I will argue that Herod’s appointment of diaspora high priests was a major
game changer for the Temple Cult.
As I explained earlier, Herod’s initiative to depoliticize the Native Hasmonean priesthood
resulted in appointing Diaspora Jews to the office. [my text, that means Hellenistic Jews]
Nevertheless, Herod may also have
been using these appointments of non-Jerusalemite High Priests to further include the
Diaspora
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",
Yes you are misrepresenting me, I never wrote that. Not even close to anything I wrote on this thread.
Asking questions is not defending your position.
Who said I ask questions to defend my position? Since when asking questions is for defending position?
You simply do not want to answer my questions. Admit it.
As I explained earlier, Herod’s initiative to depoliticize the Native Hasmonean priesthood
resulted in appointing Diaspora Jews to the office. [my text, that means Hellenistic Jews]
Nevertheless, Herod may also have been using these appointments of non-Jerusalemite High Priests to further include the
Diaspora
Oh, is that what you called Hellenistic temple cult? Just because the high priests then were drawn from the Diaspora. The temple cult changed to a Hellenistic temple cult just because of that?
Anyway, that action by Herod was not to Hellenize the temple cult (I do not see how that would change it), but it was politically motivated:
a) weakening the power of the local chief priests.
b) getting some appreciation from Diaspora Jews.
As expounded in this article where you took your reference: https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/purtell_ ... 208_ma.pdf
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
I really don't have a dog in this fight although I am interested a bit.
A H M Jones, The Herods of Judaea:
“As he replaced the sacerdotal Sanhedrin by a secular council, so Herod built up to replace the old hereditary aristocracy a new aristocracy of service whose members should owe their rank and their wealth to him and to him alone. They were graded according to regular Hellenistic practice in progressive ranks of dignity, "the friends" being the lowest, then "the most honoured friends", then "the guards of the body", and finally "the kinsmen"; the last title, it may be noted, was like others purely honorific and implied no real relationship"
Josephus, Wars.., 1, 23, 5:
[[Herod:]] "Now do you keep those in their places whom Caesar hath joined, and their father hath appointed; and do not you pay undue or unequal respects to them, but to every one according to the prerogative of their births; for he that pays such respects unduly, will thereby not make him that is honored beyond what his age requires so joyful, as he will make him that is dishonored sorrowful. As for the kindred and friends that are to converse with them, I will appoint them to each of them, and will so constitute them, that they may be securities for their concord; as well knowing that the ill tempers of those with whom they converse will produce quarrels and
contentions among them; but that if these with whom they converse be of good tempers, they will preserve their natural affections for one another."
The more curious aspect occurs at the Interregnum between Herod and Archelaus:
Wars..., 2, 1, 2:
"They cried out that a punishment ought to be inflicted for these men upon those that were honored by Herod; and that, in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was..."
Now...WHO would be "Of greater Piety and Purity" that those outside of the City of Jerusalem are a-clamoring?:
"...And indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover, and used to he celebrated with a great number of sacrifices, an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship..."
It's indeed a Mystery here as Josephus just cannot seem to remember who lived in the country and took care of that Temple Cult thing. Remember, Herod's last speech is against the HASMONEANS, who, according to Herod, did not accomplish in 125 years what he did in a few decades.
I also have some tensions with outhouse on just how much Hellenization there was surrounding Jerusalem. Less every day, however. There are the Settlements in Galilee, both Greek and Hasmonean. Not up for discussion, they are there. As far as I know, the name was "Alexander Jannaeus". Herod was under the Political Control Officer named Nicholas of Damascus.
I also have some tensions with outhouse on just how much Hellenization there was surrounding Jerusalem.
Sounds Hellenistic to me.
CW
Which as criticism is fair enough since I have only been defending the simple statement they were Hellenistic. Due to Bernard not debating how much and just being in denial, we have not been able to address the extent of Hellenism in full.
Fact is, the temple was created by a very Hellenistic person to be a wonder of the world, for all the world. It was made from ego so he could be remembered as David, to bring people of all kinds to it.
There is no reason to discount the extent Hellenism permeated Judaism as it did in all Israel, less those who refused some aspects.
The foundation of this study lies in knowing Hengels work, it really is required in this debate.
Charles from the link you shared with me earlier this week. Which is at the heart on the Hellenistic divisions between the temple cult and Zealots and many of the Pharisees as listed below.
This is the division that started the debate with Bernard, as he denies this.
This led to conflict between the Hellenized Jews of the ruling class and the Pharisees, a religious sect which advocated strict adherence to the Torah and Mosaic Law. The Pharisees viewed the Hellenized Jews as traitors who flouted the Mosaic Law, translated the Old Testament out of its original language and brought in dangerous foreign influences, while the Hellenized Jews tended to view the Pharisees as dangerous religious fanatics
As the temple cult would have viewed the Zealots in the same negative light, or worse.
All these nutjobs are trying to deny this, because if they are forced to use the real context of first century Judaism and its political unrest, it ruins their inane and often retarded biblical hypothesis. As it provides a foundation where a person could be viewed as a heroic and martyred, generating mythology and theology that started the divorce of cultural Judaism as Herods temple increased the numbers of Diaspora Jews and Proselytes. And opened a new way for popular cults to spread and grow rapidly.
The temple has always been key to it all. And you cannot refute it.
You cherry pick one verse of many, refuse to read the link I supplied that had a chapter on the Hellenistic temple cult.
Sorry NOW it is your turn to play defense.
That chapter adds Herod copied Roman/Greek architecture around the temple building, and crowds of Diaspora Jews came to the temple for festivals. That's still not enough to transform the traditional Jewish temple cult into a Hellenistic temple cult.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Again I will remind outhouse that science never 'knows' things with the absolute certainty that he displays in this forum. An example from his last post:
All these nutjobs are trying to deny this, because if they are forced to use the real context of first century Judaism and its political unrest, it ruins their inane and often retarded biblical hypothesis
I wish he was capable of critical thought but I know that is impossible so I will direct this to the broader forum. Let's look at outhouse's assertion in detail again:
All these nutjobs are trying to deny this, because if they are forced to use the real context of first century Judaism and its political unrest, it ruins their inane and often retarded biblical hypothesis
It should be well known by now that outhouse has always had as his thesis that Christianity is nothing more than a religion of the Galilean revolutionaries in Josephus's histories. Again there is really only one source he is using to construct this hypothesis (= Josephus). Most academic scholars of course never agree with outhouse here. Most do not simply reduce Christianity into a Galilean revolutionary religion. Why is that?
Well let's start with the difficulty that Josephus was the only certain revolutionary in Galilee and he was from Judea. In his reports of course he makes it seem as if he was just acting as a 'friendly policeman' helping keep Galilee safe for the Emperor. He indirectly blames Agrippa for his inability to keep order, his dereliction of duty to the Emperor. But the first difficulty that outhouse never addresses is how much of the 'native Galilean revolutionary activity' he associates with Jesus was real? Was the 'Galilean revolt' a result of rich Judean landowners like Josephus simply stirring up trouble against Agrippa? How much of it was a grassroots revolt of Galilean peasants? I don't think the revolution derived its origins from native Galileans. Rather I think it was a long simmering revolt which resulted from tensions between rich and 'middle class' Jewish landowners and settlers and 'native Galileans' who were principally aligned with Agrippa and the Emperor.
As such the simple-minded equation with 'Galilean peasants revolutionaries' and Christianity is hopelessly misguided. The situation at the beginning of the Common Era more closely approximated the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Jewish settlers supported by rich landowners based in Jerusalem coming to blows with a native population which had little or no interest in Jerusalem as a religious center.
Yes Josephus says this or that about Galilean revolutionaries but he is completely dishonest about his own role as a revolutionary. He portrays himself as a policeman who got sucked into the conflict when this was certainly not true. The myth of a 'Galilean revolutionary movement' at the heart of the revolt is simply a lie. The revolt started elsewhere and was fueled by rich Jewish interests in Jerusalem. My guess is that they hoped that showing Agrippa to be an incompetent ruler that Rome would send someone else who might take up their interests. The plan went hopelessly wrong once Titus started dating Agrippa's sister. Agrippa was not deposed for his apparent short comings in protecting Roman interests. Instead the Flavians walked in lockstep with the Agrippas until the end of their dynasty.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote