Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Current round of edits (Oct 2005) 2 my changes 3 two changes 4 Rule by proxy

Current round of edits (Oct 2005)

Reviewing SIRubensteins edits to my edits, I am thinking, not bad at all. Maybe this article editing idea is working out. I only have fixed a couple of small points:

1. I have reverted the section on messianic prophets to read that "the term messiah may not be used the way people [not just christians] do today". I have done that because the word is in common English use. Jews, Christians and people generally use the word, not just Christians.
2. The stand-alone comment about the destruction of the temple and monarchy has a lot more to do with priests and kinds, than prophets, and makes more sense in that section. I've moved it there without changing the wording.

Last, I think the section on Prophets is actually 2 components - prophets, and worship/texts - and would be better separated out as such. I don't think 'block reversion' of this section has worked. Logically these are two different subjects, and also many jews believed the texts were written by God himself too, not just by divine inspiration by prophets. For now, I have just split the paragraph into two paragraphs, one dealing with worship and sacred texts, the other dealing with the role of prophets, which is easier reading. Comments? FT2 18:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I too am glad we are making progress. I don't think I have any objection to your most recent edits -- you understand why I objected to "we" but I now understand your objection to "Christian" and I think your latest version makes sense. I want to think more about the reorganization of the Prophets material -- but don't take that the wrong way; I think I like it, I just want to mull it over some more. But on the whole -- good work, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Last, something I just spotted. Do we actually have an authority that the kohens in first temple times "are not considered jewish"? This sounds very odd, although I have left it untouched I would like a citation on this? (see edit 16:58, October 14, 2005 Slrubenstein) And maybe dig up some wikilink we can use for the word "redaction"? FT2 18:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, "Jewish" only came to apply to all of us during the Roman period. It comes from "Judah," the dominant tribe after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdon. Cohens are of the tribe of Levi. See? Judah and Levi are two different tribes. Today we call Levis and Cohens "Jews" but as I said this practice didn't begin until Roman times. To apply it before then is either a contradiction (if you are from the tribe of Levi you are by definition not of Judah) or anachronistic (at that time, no one used "Jewish" to refer to all the Children of Israel, just to members of the tribe of Judah). In any event, isn't it redundant? Why say "Jewish priests" at all? That section is about the Israelites, to say "Israelite priests" would be correct -- but just redundant. What is wrong with just saying "there were kings and priests?" Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle "redaction." I am not sure it needs its own article. It should be fully explained in "the documentary hypotheses" article though. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If redaction doesn't have its own article, it might warrant a brief (10 word) description 1st time it's mentioned,something like "compliation process" or whatever. Or maybe better, could you create a 2 line stub article with the definition, pointing to the documentary hypothesis for more details? And, I take your point, yes "kings and priests" works. But if "jews" isnt technically accurate... you are thinking that at some earlier stage, "hebrews" or "israelites" is the correct term, and only later "jews"? When do you put the transition datewise? * curious * FT2 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Beyond the name of the tribe (Levites) the more inclusive term in the Bible (as far as I know) is either "Children of Israel" of "Hebrews." According to the Biblical narrative, after Solomon the kingdom divided into two, "Judah" and "Israel" and Levites lived in both (although the Temple remained in Judah) -- but I do not believe that at that time priests living in judah would have called themselves "Jews" -- I actually just do nto know of any evidence one way or another. According to Shaye Cohen, who I think is generally recognized as the best historian for the Hellenistic period, the "ethnicization" of "Jew" began in Hasmonean times, the historical evidence being that the Idumeans were given a choice by the Hasmoneans, either to leave Judea or to become Jewish (meaning, at that stage "Jew" was being extended to people not descended from Judah, but it was linked to the territory in which one lived, so still not ethnic in the modern sense that one can be Jewish even if one does not live in Judea; Cohen believes that based on the evidence this happened sometime during Roman times but I would have to go back to his book to see what more precise date he gives, my memory is something like the second century CE but I could easily be wrong). About redaction, let me check some of my sources and I will see if I can come up with a reasonable stub, give me a few days. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

FT2, you have been adding some content that I have mixed feelings about. For example, "Passover, the festival at which Jesus was arrested, celebrates the Jewish escape from, and victory over, the cruel oppressive Egyptians, and parallels with the Roman occupation and popular expression of hopes for liberty would have been unavoidable" — well, this does make sense to me. However, how do you (how do I) know this? How can we say it would have been "unavoidable?' Do you have proof that all Jews felt this way (i.e., that not one Jew could avoid thinking this way)? Do you have any evidence at all that Jews felt this way? I want to repeat: this makes sense to me, and I think you are right. My problem is, it does not matter what editors think. We are not supposed to engage in original research. Is there a midrash that makes this point? Have you read a Second Temple period historian who has made this point? If so, fine, let's provide the source. Otherwise, isn't this just especulation? Second, "(in accordance with the idea that God's word was the possession of the whole people not just a privileged class)" — again, how do you know that this was the reason the Torah was read on market days? Does it say this in Ezra? Do you know of a historian who has argued this? Again, I want to be very clear: I think you are probably right. My problem is that what you or I think shouldn't go into the article. Isn't this violating our NOR policy? Of course, if you have a source, just put it in. Finally, "It was widely believed, the first and second Temples having been destroyed, only God himself could authorize the construction of a Third Temple" — well, here I happen to know that you are correct, but only now. Did Jews in the first century CE believe that only God himself could authorize the construction of the third Temple? Maybe. Maybe you are right. But how do we know? Does it say this in the Mishnah? I accept that Jews believe this, but is it possible that they did not believe this until the third or fourth or fifth or sixth century? I don't know. Do you have a source? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been four days since I asked these questions, and I have received no response. I am moving the passages in question into the talk section on the grounds that they violate NOR.

Passover, the festival at which Jesus was arrested, celebrates the Jewish escape from, and victory over, the cruel oppressive Egyptians, and parallels with the Roman occupation and popular expression of hopes for liberty would have been unavoidable.

(in accordance with the idea that God's word was the possession of the whole people not just a privileged class)

It was widely believed, the first and second Temples having been destroyed, only God himself could authorize the construction of a Third Temple.

As I made clear four days ago, if FT2 can respond adequately to my questions, I won't object to restoring these points to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Had stuff go on IRL here, I havent seen this page pop up on "watchlist changes" for some reason. Wikipedia does that. But I've noticed it is now. So lets have a go -- and thanks for the courtesy and detail to consider, too. It helps :)

1. Passover: I don't have a specific citation, I'm sure many exist, because the parallels are unmistakable and would have been unmistakable then. Passover above all was the season of freedom from oppressive overlords, and we know that the jews considered the romans very oppressive overlords because of many quotes that they were looking for messiahs and receptive to millenialism precisely because they thought it couldnt get worse, he had to come. And we also know that there was high crowd volatility at the passover week. I'm sure many authors have drawn that connection, it would be reasonable, not unusual. Do you want to dig or shall I?
2. Torah being read: Yes, I know thats the reason. I'd have to dig a lot to find it (I dont have a reference library here), but I know it's factual, I'm pretty sure its well documented. The Torah was given to the people, not just to a priestly class, and that is why the public reading was instituted.
3. Temple: Good point, I think you may well be right. For example, It may be that they couldnt rebuild for centuries due to roman then christian circumstances, and lack of statehood, until the myth grew up it would never be rebuilt until messiah came. I don't know when that belief arose, so you are correct to pick that one up I think. I'd be interested to know, actually!

Last, can you proofread the factual accuracy of the 1st temple history overview, I know its broadly right but fix anything thats wrong?

Back to you for who's going to research 1 and 2. And thanks again. Sorry for lack of response the last few days. FT2 23:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The detail you added on First Temple was good, except Saul did not found the Davidic dynasty. I corrected that and just did some redistribution, and added "According to the Hebrew Bible" as that is the main source.

Can you do the research for 1 &2? I think you should since you raised these issues, and I think you should because, if we can substantiate/source them, they are interesting and relevant points that would be nice to include in the article. Of course I will check my own sources, but I am just supposing that since you had these ideas, you may have an easier time finding the sources. I really did not like cutting them out of the article, but until we have verifiable sources, I don't see how we can put them back in ... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do. My life is a bit busy and books far away, if I dont get it done in a week can you nudge?

Found one of them. I'm sure there are many others, Max Dimont "God Jews and History", a well reputed book republished many times over the past 40 years, states:

The dramatic "peg" used by Josiah to introduce his version of Deuteronomy was also used in the year 444 B.C. by Ezra and Nehemiah to introduce the Pentateuch. Heralds were sent into every corner of the Persian Empire to spread the news that on the Jewish New Year's Day the Five Books of Moses, written by Moses, would be read aloud to all the people. On that eventful New Year's Day Jews from all over the empire thronged into Jerusalem. Because people had already begun to forget Hebrew, interpreters were on hand to explain in Aramaic all difficult passages. The Aramaic language, the Esperanto of the Middle Eastern melting pot of Semitic peoples, had become the everyday speech of the Jews as well as that of dozens of other Semitic nations.

The idea of having interpreters proved popular and became a permanent institution in Jewish life. Because it was decreed that no part of the Bible could remain obscure, a school known as Midrash (meaning "exposition") developed. These expositors of the Bible became highly respected members of every Jewish community and foreshadowed the academies, or yeshivas, to be founded by the Jews at the beginning of the Christian Era. So that the people would not forget the Law of Moses, Ezra and Nehemiah also decreed that the Pentateuch had to be read in every synagogue throughout each year on the Sabbath day and twice during the week. Right after every Jewish New Year, the reading was started over again with the first chapter of Genesis.

... We have given a secular explanation, to which many scholars subscribe, but not all. A considerable segment of people hold the view that the Pentateuch is divinely inspired and written by one person. In this book we have presented, and will continue to present, the secular viewpoint without claiming that this is the only interpretation, or that a religiously oriented answer is less accurate. The books in the New Testament, as we shall later see, were introduced much in the same manner by men who wanted them declared divine. The important thing is that irrespective of which explanation one accepts, the events took place, and these events shaped history.

FT2 22:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't share your high appraisal of Dimont, who is rather Whiggish and a popularizer -- but yes, his book certainly is legit. Nevertheless, while I appreciate your writing out all that you did, he is still not saying that scribes believed that the Torah belonged to all the people, and not just a privileged class. I agree that one could interpret Dimont's remarks that way, but it is still an interpretation. Let me suggest another, just to explain why I am sensitive about this. Let's suppose that the Scribes thought that they themselves were the privileged class. Perhaps their reading the Torah three times a week to everyone was a way of establishing their own authority and brainwashing people into accepting that authority. Now, personally, I prefer your interpretation over mine. But it seems to me that based on what Dimont wrote, both interpretations (which have diametrically opposed meanings) are plausible. That is why I would wait for a source that actually says that the Scribes or Pharisees believed that "God's word was the possession of the whole people not just a privileged class." This interpretation reflects an egalitarian ethos (involving communal possession, the lack of privilege) that just may not be true, and certainly is not proven by Dimont's text. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, and agree. The motive is what needs to be confirmed. BTW though I didn't say what my opinion of Dimont was. read carefully.... I said he wrote a well-reputed book. Which, of course, he did. I don't know its academic reputation, except I doubt it's academically trashed, but certainly it's well reputed in general. Read carefully......  :)

Yes, you are quite right and I am sure you'll forgive me for a minor mistake on my part! For what it is worth, I do not think it is highly regarded academically, though I doubt it is trashed either (but there are other general histories of the Jews, e.g. by Cecil Roth, or Marx and Margolis) that I think are more likely to be assigned to students in an "Introduction to Jewish History" class. Be that as it may, the book certainly has maintained a very high circulation over time and should not be rejected out of hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That said, we can incorporate different possible motives into the article. What seems certain is the core motive was that the people should learn and know the text, and it should not remain esoteric. That much seems certain. Many people could not read, or could not read Hebrew, and scrolls were very expensive.Initially the commandment was:

And Moses instructed them as follows: Every seventh year, the Jubilee, at Sukkot, when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God in the place that He will choose, you shall read this Teaching aloud in the presence of all Israel. Gather the people—men, women, children and the strangers in your communities—that they may hear and so learn to revere the Lord your God and to observe faithfully every word of this Teaching. (Deut. 31:10-12) [it is not clear if "this teaching" means deutoronomy, or the Torah as a whole)

The original readings by Ezra were around 450 BCE. "For Ezra had dedicated himself to study the Teaching of the Lord so as to observe it, and to teach laws and rules to Israel" (Ez. 7:10), he chose the command of haqhel as his model for teaching the Law to the general public. This event took place on the New Year, two months after his return (Neh. 8:1-12), "facing the square before the Water Gate". In Ezra's account, he describes how he brought the Teaching "before the congregation, men and women and all who could listen with understanding" (Neh. 8:2). Ezra was aware of the technical difficulties in reading the scroll aloud and having it be understood by the public. Hence, he stood "upon a wooden tower made for the purpose," so that all present could see him and hear him well. He raised the scroll up high before his reading, symbolically inviting the public to pay attention to the contents of the open book. To cope with the linguistic and educational variations, Ezra appointed a staff of instructors who translated and interpreted the text: "They read from the scroll of the Teaching of G-d, translating it and giving the sense; so they understood the reading" (v. 8). Ezra notes in conclusion that they succeeded in teaching the people the Torah.

While Ezra is credited with the practice of reading a short section on market days (Mondays and Thursdays), the first clear evidence of the practice of reading it weekly is the creation of the Greek Septuagint, written in the early 200s BCE, apparently to make the public reading in Hebrew understandable to a Jewish, Greek-speaking congregation (Encyclopedia Judaica 15:1246) It should also be noted that whilst the prophets may be read in any order, the Torah itself may not be read selectively. It must all be read, and in absolute sequence without selectivity. Mishnah Megillah 4:4 says: "It is permitted to read selectively from the prophets but it is not permitted to read selectively from the Torah."

The religious historian Ismar Elbogen states that it is quite likely that the origin of the synagogue is to be found in the requirement to regularly read the Torah publicly, and not the other way round. In other words, the synagogue was created as a place where the people could assemble to hear the Torah read and the reading of the Torah did not originate as a possible activity in an already existent proto-synagogue.

I think its clear the purpose in reading was to educate people as to the torah. Whether this was for the people's benefit and altruistic, or to impose priest written laws and a new social viewpoint, education or indoctrination, is a different question. Perhaps even, there is little difference. FT2 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't argue against the claim that the purpose of public readings was to educate the public about the contents, although honestly, I do not think we need to add this to the article, it is so banal. What you originally put in was not banal, it was interesting and made an important point — and my only reason for taking it out was to ensure compliance with NOR. I am glad we agree that we cannot ascribe this view with certainty to Dimont. But, as I said before, if you can find a scholar who makes this claim, we could put it back in and name the source. However (and again, I am very sensitive about being sure about this because my uninformed inclination is to agree with this interpretation, my bias favors it), I hope we can find a very well-regarded source. For example, Louis Finkelstein's study of the Pharisees was very highly regarded when it was first published, and to my knowledge most Second Temple or Hellenistic period historians today are very critical of it, that his interpretation of the Pharisees was ideologically motivated and leaped to conclusions with inadequate evidence.... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WRT rebuilding the Temple, didn't Julian order its rebuilding? That there were, apparently, Jews who supported this, would suggest that the belief that the Temple could not be rebuilt until the Messiah came was not yet fully developed in the 4th century. john k 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So you know, while looking through source material, I've come across a fair bit of background that for me, was extremely helpful. I have added it to the article, it mostly relatess to how rome goverened, and the dynamics of that. Ive also clarified a few places the wording was confused or mistaken, such as the comment that god told nathan that david was his son, whereas it was one of davids descendants that was actually the subject of the words. So quite a few additions, but I think good and balanced ones. I have also added a section on interpretation of sources, because this amongst all the judaism/christianity articles seems one where we examine things in a historic context and hence it becomes important to brief the reader on that, at least a bit. There was a nice quote from E.P. Sanders, I lifted it for the purpose. Please review carefully as ever. FT2 03:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see editing going on. One quick question just to see your opinion: The Allen quote which you moved to "prophets": Although it references prophets, ther core of it is dealing 100% with the institution of the priesthood, and how it was affected by the monarchy, and how power gradually moved from the one to the other. Can you think a little more, should it be under "priests and kings"? It seems the right place, to me... FT2 15:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

my changes

I am making a bunch of edits, almost all minor -- so far I thank FT2 for making numerous improvements. I did make one substantive cut I need to explain. I cut the characterization of the Hellenistic idealization of the body. I do not deny that this is how Greeks and many since saw themselves. The problem is that it is mentioned in a context that contrasts the Greek view to the Jewish view. What is important, undeniably, is that the Greeks looked down on circumcision. This does not, however, mean that Jews did not idealize the human body. Indeed, in contrast to later Christianity, Judaism is quite carnal and there is little evidence of a Jewish notion of shame towards the body at that time. To bring up the Greek view of the body would require us to talk about the Jewish view of the body and that just opens up a HUGE can of worms — for the discussion at that point to be NPOV and accurate, it would have to be quite lengthy. And I think it is just too tangential to the article. Easier to cut one line -- if people want to learn more about Greek or hellenic culture, they have the links. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference, though. I think it was clear in the line you cut, if not it could be made clearer. The critical aspect was, the greeks sanctified the body, and saw in its perfection a mirror of the perfection of the world,

Do you mean "all Greeks?" How do you know? Or is this a theory that some (or many, or all) art historians and historians have based on their reading of Greek texts and artefacts? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

the jews merely respected it.

Proof? According to whom? I would actually argue the opposite: God created people in His own image and Jews revere the human body (albeit in a different way than others). My point is two-fold: you are oversimplifying, and it appears to be your own opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That is why things like circumcision and nudity, although seemingly minor things to us, were so central and a source of tension.

You mean a minor thing to you. They are not minor things to me. But if you are suggesting that the article needs to explain why these things were so important to people back then, my reply is, it does not. To provide the cultural and historical background of Jesus, it is important to know that the Jews rebelled against the Greeks, and, following a civil war, were conquered by the Romans. Why Jews and Greeks cared so much about the body I just see as a tangential point. And, as I said, I believe strongly that to prove the claims you are making, and to provide the best scholarly sources and explain the nuances of different interpretations, would take up too much space. We do not nned to do it in this article, so why do it? You have added much that I have not changed or cut. I hope it is clear to you that I do not make these cuts lightly. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

They were symptomatic of an entire core world-view and theological viewpoint. We need to make that point clear - it wasnt just about circumcision. It was the visible part of an entire world view conflict, and the view on the human body was one place where that conflict was most visible.

Contrast as part of the same approach to philosophy and cosmology, the way for example that it was reasoned by the greeks that there are 5 perfect solids hence there must be 5 perfect bodies above and the spacings between them matching those. To the greeks, creation was a mirror of the human form, to the jews, the human form was a means of service to god. FT2 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the way to make it clear that it was not "just" about circumcision is to say "for example." And if you want actually to explain what the conflict really was about, I have two comments I am begging you to take seriously: first, most scholars today (at JTS, Oxford, Harvard) would probably tell you that given the historical and cultural distance, we can't completely, "really" know what the conflict was about, although different scholars have different theories, some of which are taken very seriously but none of which are universally accepted among major active scholars; second, the place to discuss these different theories for what the conflict was "really" about would be the article on the Maccabean revolt. Different articles have different focusses. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, a question for you. You added:

Josephus identifies this as a period of increasing rebellion, but a contrasting view is that rebellions broke out at the point where rulers changed, famine or other crisis struck, or new rules (especially those impacting on religion) were imposed.

What is the source for the second clause? My sense about this sentence is equal to my sense about some of the other things you added earlier that I removed: I am inclined to agree with you, but lacking a verifiable source this seems to me to be original research and thus in violation of our policy. Now, I really like what you wrote here and would be loathe to cut it so for now i won't. I am hoping that this is not an example of original research, and that you have a source you can add, so we can keep it, that is how much I like it. But if this is original research we have to cut it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And finally, a pain-in-the-ass request: can you use Harvard system for the Sanders quotes you added? Please see Wikipedia: Cite sources. I am not at all criticizing your adding the references to Sanders, only asking that you provide proper citations following our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Quick answers:

• Point taken on the greek v jewish cultural difference. End of subject if you feel okay as it is.
• Quote re "contrasting view to Josephus" and the comment that despite that the place could have been sparked to war relatively easily are both Sanders, "Historical figure of Jesus" P.28-29:

In the late twenties and early thirties Jewish Palestine was not tottering on the brink of revolt. Josephus tried to depict Roman misgovernment and Jewish restiveness as escalating steadily in the decades before revolt broke out in 66. He wrote with the benefit of hindsight, and he wanted the tempo of unrest and violence to increase as the war neared. Many scholars think that it was obvious at the time that full-scale war was coming closer with every passing year, and that crisis succeeded crisis at a quickening pace. If, however, one counts the uprisings and tumults that Josephus himself names, one does not see a steady increase. Rather, uprisings occurred when there were changes in leadership or governmental procedures. There were outbreaks of violence when Herod died, when Archelaus tried to assert himself as Herod's heir, and when Rome deposed Archelaus. Once Rome settled fully into control, things quieted down. The main protests near the lifetime of Jesus were largely non-violent ... The temper of the times can better be seen by noting a major potential cause of revolt a few years later. In about the year 40 the emperor Gaius (nicknamed Caligula) decided to have a statue of himself – or of Zeus, with Gaius' features – erected in the Temple in Jerusalem ... The situation was ultimately resolved to the satisfaction of all: Gaius was assassinated. Here, about a decade after Jesus' execution, we have a provocation that would certainly have led to substantial bloodshed had the threat to the Temple been carried out. But there is no indication that the populace was actually ready to go to war."

"This is not to say that Jews were happy with the situation in the twenties and thirties, nor that Rome – and, in their respective domains, Antipas and Caiaphas – did not have to exercise wary vigilence. There had been an armed uprising when Rome took direct control of Judaea in 6 CE and conducted a census for tax purposes, and in the fifties at least one group of Jewish enthusiasts would require the procurator to bring heavily armed troops into action (see just below). According to Josephus, Antipas executed John the Baptist because he feared that his preaching would lead to revolt. Thus the potential for war existed, both in Galilee and Judaea. In Judaea there might at any moment be some incident that would result in a Roman soldier drawing his sword, and if that happened other swords might be drawn. All the more reason for Caiaphas to keep control of Jerusalem, and to use his own guards to do so."

• I'll look up Harvard system, I'm not familiar with it. FT2 19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The Cite Sources article explains the system. Thank you for providing the source for that Josephus quote -- I went ahead and put in the citation for it. I think the article is looking really good now! Thanks for your work on, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Is, isn't it. I can see what you have been working to now, though I'm sure we have both learned a lot on the way. Its starting to actually be a description that one can learn from and use referentially. Thats very good. FT2 23:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

two changes

First, I put the Allen quote back where it belongs. It is not about struggles between priests and kings, it is about struggles between prophets and kings (it uses the word "seer-priest but this has no meaning in Judaism and may be of Allen's own invention; in any case he is using it to refer to people that Jews call "prophets" or "sons of prophets." Second, the "seventy" esoteric books comes from 2 Esdras, which is a second century CE source. There is no basis for claiming these books were written during the First Temple period; Ginzberg is speculating but has no concrete evidence and his speculation does not reflect any scholarly consensus. So I muved mention of esoteric traditions at the intro to the Second Temple period, making clear that most of our sources are post-Second Temple. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Allen devotes an entire chapter to the seer-priests, acknowledging there is no such title in this context but that this is the role of the priests and the role that other tribes priests had. he distinguishes very carefully that he uses the term to apply to temple priests and not prophets. Do you want the whole text of that section? Its a bit long but interesting and puts the quote in context. I'd put it on a temp page rather than fill this page up. Other edit - nice! FT2 19:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you do not have to provide the rest of the Allen quote in, I am satsified -- move it back to where you wanted to put it. I have no objection, but I do think two things: first, I do not think you need to quote it, I think you can paraphrase it and provide Harvard System citation (explained in the Cite Sources article). Second, I think your paraphrase has to include the information that prior to the establishment of a centralized kingdom, and then the construction of the Temple at Jerusalem, priests offered sacrifieces at established places throughout the twelve tribes. This is the missing piece of information that is needed for the Allen quote to make sense -- that the priesthood and sacrifice used to be decentralized. As I said, I think you can paraphrase all of this but if you want to use the quote I do not object, it is just that long quotes can be distracting and if you use the Harvard System, you do not need to provide long quotes to prove you are not violating NOR policy. As to my second edit -- thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try. It's W.H. Allen "The world history of the jewish people", Vol.3 ("Judges"), pub. 1971, ch.12, p.269-279. The chapter has an asterisk and "by H.M. Orlinsky" next to it, so perhaps it was written by someone else for this encyclopedia. Key points:

• Terms used (visionary "hoze", seer "ro'e", man of god "ish [ha]elohim", prophet "navi"). All four used for the diviner, but only the last used as a technical term for the classic prophet.
• Seer and prophet both shared ecstasy, key difference, priest used music, dance and group participation towards frenzy, the prophet did not.Thus some visionaries were members of davids "music guild" and "prophesied with lyres, harps and cymbal" (I chron.25), and in I sam.10 we hear of a band who were "led by harp tambourine flute and lyre as they were prophesying". Elisha asked for a music maker (m'naggen) so that the hand of the lord might descend upon him (II kings 3).
• The priest/seer was usually a member of a guild or group, and learned the art from a master, thus samuel was traind by eli, the priest of siloh, micah ordained one of his own sons (Jud.17) and Jehu "the seer" was the son of hani "the seer" (II chron.16)
• The prophet (navi) was more individual however. The priest made a living which the son fell into, whereas the prophet usually had a living already and was given (from outside seemingly) a calling as well. The seer/priest was paid, the prophet was usually not. The prophet was against devination whereas the priest/seer was also a diviner. The priest/seer was basically "a man of action" - divining, sacrifice, interpretation, prediction, and was sometimes in charge of a sanctuary and had apprentices. In short a craftsman. The classical prophet (navi) was against everything that smacked of the seer as craftsman, his recourse was words, or argument. He was not a service for the lay-folks. He was a man pulled from his existing life who had been charged with a message to tell.
• The terms priest and seer are confused. for example, eli is called a priest where samuel is called a seer, yet their functions are basically identical and both judged ("shafat") israel, and samuel is referred to as "na'ar" - the priests assistant. The difference was, samuel was a much more powerful seer-priest than eli. M.A. Cohen puts it this way: "Samuels importance derived not from his role as shofet or military leader, or from his role as prophet, but from his actual position as the shilonite seer-priest" (cohen: the role of the shilonite priesthood)

Quotes:

"It has scarecly been recognized that the diviner and the priest were one and the same in early Israel, as elsewhere in the near east. Thus (Jud.17-18) Micah of the hill country of ephraim owned a "house of god", ie a local sanctuary, along with appropriate equipment, and ordained his son as a priest... That it has become necessary for the modern scholar to prove that samuel, like eli and others, was a priest-seer, that is, a priest as well as a seer is due to the fact that the old institution of seer-priesthood ceased to be correctly comprehended after the priestly group acquired power in post-exhilic Judah...that the seer and the priest in ancient Israel were really one should occasion no surprise; it would be surprising if they were not. For in the ancient near east they were one, there too the priesthood was an organised guild of craftsmen and there too the temples and shrines played central roles in the economy, politics and structure of the country."

"It is now widely recognized that the term bnei hanavi'im ("sons of the prophet") means "members of the prophets guild or order". This term, just like visionary or seer, is never applied to any of the literary canonical prophets. And so, whenever a "group of prophets" is spoken of in the bible, it is the seer-priests of the pre-classical prophetic period who are meant."

"The seer-priest's monopoly in the field of religion gave him (especially if he was the head of a shrine and a guild) considerable political, economic and social authority. Like everyone else with a vested interest, the seer vigorously opposed any encroachment upon his domain."

"It is quite likely that already in the period of the judges, as elsewhere in the Near East at the time, scribal activity was associated with the seer-priesthood and the shrines. Some half-dozen seers are specifically credited with having written royal chronicles: samuel, nathan, iddo, gad, abijah and jeroboam (I and II chron). However, as the seer-priesthood became increasingly a function of the royal court after the monarchical institution in Israel was firmly established, so did the scribe become independent of the seer-priesthood and a distinct functionary in the royal service; but at the numerous sanctuaries (bamot) in the land, the local seer-priest continued scribal activity [FT2: and presumably implied, sacrifice, divining and other activities] for his clients round about."

-- can you summarize and fix the quote, and put in any extra stuff that is shown to be relevant by this material? Do as you feel best - I'm not 100% sure what you think, and its late here. But thats the summary of that chapter so you have the material and can work with it. FT2 22:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. It sounds like Orlinsky was the sole author (unless it says "by Allan and Orlinsky); Orlinsky is a good, credible source. Worth adding to the references section, and citing. Nevertheless Orlinsky is still speculating a good deal, which means in my opinion two things. First, we should use this source cautiously (as with the point I made about Greek bodies, think about how little we need to put in (in order to understand what meanings titles like "priests" and "prophets" and "kings" had, and the political as well as cultural context in which the meanings of these words changed), rather than how much we can put in. Two, be clear (as you were before, but when paraphrasing, extra-clear, which is where Harvard System is useful) about the source, that it is according to this particular scholar (I am not accusing you of anything, you are good about this, I am just making the point complete). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time now to summarize the quote. I don't mind if you keep working on it, but if you are getting tired of it I will turn to it tomorrow. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This one's for you, I need a days break from the artcile -- a lot of material, now you have it you'll know what to do with it more I guess. The chapter title is (surprise!) "the seer-priest" FT2 22:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A little more info though to go with it, from the notes to Allen:

• Navi core meaning seems to be "spokesperson" (precise meaning unknown). As in god told moses aaron would be his "navi" to pharoah. Ditto in the septaugint, it was translated to greek to mean "declarer, interpreter". This supports above, the priest was a diviner and foreteller, the prophet a spokesperson who was charged to deliver a message. Check I sam.9:9 quoted to be editorial comment "formerly in Israel when a person went to inquire of God, he said "let us go to the seer"; for he who is now called a prophet was formerly at that time called a seer" (these words are probably not connected with v.11 despite some thinking otherwise he comments)
• The hoze can be and is the hoze of a king. But the navi is only ever (except aaron for moses) a "navi" of god.

FT2 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rule by proxy

There is a lengthy paragraph on "rule by proxy" in the section on Roman rule. I do not know who wrote this, all I know is that FT2 recently relocated it. My issue is not with the location of the paragraph but rather the inclusion of the paragraph. For what it is worth, I happen to agree with everything in the paragraph. However, unless it is sourced it reads like original research, or editorializing, to me. Do most scholars share this view of Roman rule by proxy? If so, can we cite a few? Or are there scholars who are divided on how they understand rule by proxy? Whoever added the paragraph, I urge them to find out and add sources, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)