Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] on denying diversity

Expand Messages
  • aren
    NPL, I see no problem defining jews (or some aspects of early Judaism) according to the HB - it is clear from the HB that there were many currents in
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      NPL,
      I see no problem "defining jews" (or some aspects of early Judaism) according to the HB - it is clear from the HB that there were many currents in Israelite/Judahite religion, both during and after the Iron Age. Just as there were various currents throughout history (in fact to this very day...).

      Aren

      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Victor,
      >
      > are we in disagreement her? My point was that if people begin defining Jews following the HB only, they end up with a very monolithic and unhistorical image of Judaism.
      >
      > And the warning against judging the Elephantines using biblical standards is ok to me. After all, I was brought up with Barth's definition of ethnicity, that are the person you think you are and other people think you are.
      >
      > Niels Peter lemche
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor avigdor hurowitz
      > Sendt: den 4 januari 2010 18:47
      > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] on denying diversity
      >
      > Dear Niels,
      > Although I tyr to be an observant Jew, I have no delusions about Judaism
      > being
      > monolithic, and accept fully that it is diverse, and that it has been
      > diverse for quite a long time even though there are from time to time
      > centers of authority, orthodoxy, etc. which try to institute diversity by
      > making one view authoritative in contrast to others, and who
      > interpret Scripture and the past as if it has always been their way. But
      > lets face it,
      > even the Rabbinates would not say that Karaites were not Jews and
      > Pharisees would not say the Saducees were not Jews. And the prophets who
      > ranted against idolatry did not deny that the idolators and Baal
      > worshipers were not Judeans or Israelites or even members of some
      > covenant community. They were just law breakers, and were they not
      > affiliated as they were there would be nothing wrong with their doings. So
      > why should
      > I say that the people of Elephantine were not Jews? Just because their
      > observance was different than what ever may have been in Jerusalem? Or
      > because their temple flew in the face of Deuteronomy? Judaism was diverse,
      > and I accept that fully, and precisely because of that I have no problem
      > calling the Yahuist Judeans of Elephantine Jews. So what if they
      > intermarried? Nehemiah may not have liked them, but he probably
      > wouldn't like Ruth either, and why should that bother
      > you? If you want diverse Judaisms compare Daniel and Esther. Daniel is a
      > vegetarian and refuses the royal fare (why? the text doesn't say
      > explicitly but it makes no allusion to Torah), while Esther seems to have
      > no
      > qualms about receiving her daily food portions, and I doubt that Ahasuerus
      > kept sepearate dishes and holov Yisroel in his fridge. That the Rabbis
      > made her frum is their problem; the
      > author of the Megillah seems not to have been bothered by it. So why
      > should it bother you? Haman knows that the laws of the Jews are different
      > than those of the other peoples in the Empire, but that doesn't mean they
      > were living according to the Shulhan Arukh, nor does it mean that Esther
      > observed them, for had she observed them she'd have blown her cover and we
      > wouldn't ahve a megillah to begin with. So stop being an Orthodox
      > Rabbi and learn from the Bible itself-
      > call it literary or historical as you wish- that Judaism was not
      > Yiddishkeit, and now that you've heard my opinion stop reacting to me as
      > if I'm representing something else.
      > Victor Hurowitz
      > BGU
      >
      >
      >
      > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
      >
      > > Dear Victor,
      > >
      > > There have been such people who wanted to associate the shasu with Yahwist etc, and thus seeing them as the original "Jews."
      > >
      > > I suppose the problem is really that starting from the present Pentateuch people have a fixed idea about Judaism, forgetting that such a term is maybe just as misleading as "Christianity;" as if there ever was such a thing like Christian unity, one form of Christianity. And when speaking of temples, wasn't it so that a high priest in the days of the Maccabees who were thrown out of office went into exile in Egypt and there built his own temple? Maybe he had the same idea as many people later on: Jerusalem is in my heart, so where I am, you (I) have Jerusalem!
      > >
      > > It would be meaningless to demand that the Elephantine community was "Jewish" in any orthodox sense since orthodoxy in their days may be quite different from what a later Rabbinic Judaism saw as "orthodox."
      > >
      > > And it also boils down to the acceptance that every living society will always house a plurality of opinions, not least religious ones. So even if this Torah-based Judaism existed in the Persian Period, we have no reason to believe that it was the only version around.
      > >
      > > When dealing with the Elephantines, it would perhaps be more rewarding to discuss their relations with Judea in the Persian Period. The "heterodoxy" versus the address to Jerusalem in connection with the destroyed temple. Here might be a lot of interest for the study of the origins of Judaism, as it turned out to be much later. How did it in its many forms come from Alpha -- the "original expressions of Yahwism -- to Omega -- the Rabbinic orthodoxy (or wish to control what was allowed to be Judaism).
      > >
      > > As to puzzles, Tom, when he came to Denmark nearly twenty years ago, changed to lego-bloks. These you can put together nicely in many different ways. I suppose that historical studies is more like this kind of occupation, as historical puzzles nearly always are short of many bricks.
      > >
      > > Niels Peter Lemche
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      > > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor avigdor hurowitz
      > > Sendt: den 4 januari 2010 16:24
      > > Til: Thomas L. Thompson
      > > Cc: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > > Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] on denying diversity
      > >
      > > I won't deny posssibility, but would you really prefer associating the
      > > Yahuists of Yeb with the Shasu? And how do you explain a sudden
      > > appearance of Yahu names in Mesopotamia in post-Iron Age contexts? I
      > > prefer to go with what is most likely. I
      > > prefer putting puzzles together to taking them apart even when the pieces
      > > fit nicely.
      > > Victor
      > > BGU
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Thomas L. Thompson wrote:
      > >
      > > > Dear Victor,
      > > > Of course, the Yahu of the Shasw is somewhat uncertain. Nevertheless, there seems to have been a Yahu not only in Samaria but also in Teman and there was, I believe, a Yaubidi at Hamat. There are also a considerable number of Yahu names in Mesopotamia in post-Iron Age contexts. Arguments of convenience, of course, should have no trouble associating them with either Jews or Samaritans, but why deny possibilities of greater diversity?
      > > > Cheers, Thomas
      > > >
      > > > Thomas L. Thompson
      > > > Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > >
      > > > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com på vegne af victor avigdor hurowitz
      > > > Sendt: ma 04-01-2010 15:22
      > > > Til: featherrobert
      > > > Cc: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Origin of Judaism
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Dear Robert,
      > > > All this is beside the point. Do you know of any other group besides
      > > > people from Judah and Israel who worshipped YHW(H)? Who cares where the
      > > > original settlers came from, but some of them called themselves yhdy' and
      > > > I can hardly think of any other place more suited to these people's origin
      > > > than Judah. I don't know what "mainstream" Judaism was then, but you are
      > > > talking like an Orthodox Jew who thinks that anything but Torah True
      > > > Judaism as interpreted in the Art Scroll Siddur and Torah Tidbits is not
      > > > Judaism. It's amazing how truly orthodox critical scholars can be in
      > > > denying diversity. As I said, you should be focusing on what unites these
      > > > people
      > > > and not what divides them. As for Maclaurin's statement cited here, I must
      > > > confess that it is incomprehensible to me. And why do you say with
      > > > certainty that prior to 419BCE they appear not to have celebrated
      > > > Passover? Is the so-called Passover papyrus so well preserved and so well
      > > > understood that we can make such a definitive statement? You're demanding
      > > > too much of these people and reading too much into what we don't really
      > > > know.
      > > > Victor Hurowitz
      > > > BGU
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, featherrobert wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Dear Victor,
      > > > > I don't doubt the people on Yeb followed a form of Judaism and worshipped YHW, in association with other associates, rather reminiscent of the Kuntillet Ajrud phenomena. The real point is - can you use what we know of their experience to correlate experience in Canaan? I think only to a limited extent. To say they `maintain contacts with Jerusalem' is not strictly true. Both Reuven Yaron, of the Hebrew University, and G.W.Anderson, University of Edinburgh, conclude we just don't know when or how the original Aramaic speaking settlers came to Elephantine. When Cymbyses and the Persians marched into Egypt, c525 BCE, they found a long-established priestly colony that worshipped YHW and Astarte - the Egyptian version of Anathbethal. They also followed Egyptian legal, fiscal, and social precedents which conformed to Egyptian practice of many centuries earlier.
      > > > >
      > > > > Prior to 419 BCE they appear not to have celebrated Passover. How do you explain this?
      > > > >
      > > > > We have to be very cautious about using evidence of their practices as even sub-streams of mainstream Judaism. The common denominator between the streams of modern Judaism you mention is that they all believe in only one G-d. E. Maclaurin's extensive study of their form of worship concludes it `could not have existed in a Hebrew group which had been exposed to the influences of Sinai and Canaan after the settlement.'
      > > > >
      > > > > Robert Feather , London.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • victor avigdor hurowitz
      Dear Niels Peter, I don t know how much we are in disagreement, but I am certainly in disagreement with what you write here and quite astonished that you say
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 4, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Niels Peter,
        I don't know how much we are in disagreement, but I am certainly in
        disagreement with what you write here and quite astonished that you say
        it. Since when is HN monolithic? What has Biblical scholarship been about
        since Astruc if not its literary complexity and composite nature? It's
        complexity has been the bane of its readers from the "redactors" who tried
        to put divergent literary "stuff" into a coherent whole all the way down
        to
        today when harmonist readers looking for the unified word of God try to
        explain away all its contradictions. AS I said, we have a diverse sea
        which from time time "authorities" try to unify by introducing
        "orthodoxy". That's Judaism and it begins in the Bible! Personally, I live
        by the unifiers but do my scholarship by the diversifiers, and I don't
        think I"m the only one.
        Victor Hurowitz
        BGU





        On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

        > Dear Victor,
        >
        > are we in disagreement her? My point was that if people begin defining Jews following the HB only, they end up with a very monolithic and unhistorical image of Judaism.
        >
        > And the warning against judging the Elephantines using biblical standards is ok to me. After all, I was brought up with Barth's definition of ethnicity, that are the person you think you are and other people think you are.
        >
        > Niels Peter lemche
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
        > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor avigdor hurowitz
        > Sendt: den 4 januari 2010 18:47
        > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] on denying diversity
        >
        > Dear Niels,
        > Although I tyr to be an observant Jew, I have no delusions about Judaism
        > being
        > monolithic, and accept fully that it is diverse, and that it has been
        > diverse for quite a long time even though there are from time to time
        > centers of authority, orthodoxy, etc. which try to institute diversity by
        > making one view authoritative in contrast to others, and who
        > interpret Scripture and the past as if it has always been their way. But
        > lets face it,
        > even the Rabbinates would not say that Karaites were not Jews and
        > Pharisees would not say the Saducees were not Jews. And the prophets who
        > ranted against idolatry did not deny that the idolators and Baal
        > worshipers were not Judeans or Israelites or even members of some
        > covenant community. They were just law breakers, and were they not
        > affiliated as they were there would be nothing wrong with their doings. So
        > why should
        > I say that the people of Elephantine were not Jews? Just because their
        > observance was different than what ever may have been in Jerusalem? Or
        > because their temple flew in the face of Deuteronomy? Judaism was diverse,
        > and I accept that fully, and precisely because of that I have no problem
        > calling the Yahuist Judeans of Elephantine Jews. So what if they
        > intermarried? Nehemiah may not have liked them, but he probably
        > wouldn't like Ruth either, and why should that bother
        > you? If you want diverse Judaisms compare Daniel and Esther. Daniel is a
        > vegetarian and refuses the royal fare (why? the text doesn't say
        > explicitly but it makes no allusion to Torah), while Esther seems to have
        > no
        > qualms about receiving her daily food portions, and I doubt that Ahasuerus
        > kept sepearate dishes and holov Yisroel in his fridge. That the Rabbis
        > made her frum is their problem; the
        > author of the Megillah seems not to have been bothered by it. So why
        > should it bother you? Haman knows that the laws of the Jews are different
        > than those of the other peoples in the Empire, but that doesn't mean they
        > were living according to the Shulhan Arukh, nor does it mean that Esther
        > observed them, for had she observed them she'd have blown her cover and we
        > wouldn't ahve a megillah to begin with. So stop being an Orthodox
        > Rabbi and learn from the Bible itself-
        > call it literary or historical as you wish- that Judaism was not
        > Yiddishkeit, and now that you've heard my opinion stop reacting to me as
        > if I'm representing something else.
        > Victor Hurowitz
        > BGU
        >
        >
        >
        > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
        >
        > > Dear Victor,
        > >
        > > There have been such people who wanted to associate the shasu with Yahwist etc, and thus seeing them as the original "Jews."
        > >
        > > I suppose the problem is really that starting from the present Pentateuch people have a fixed idea about Judaism, forgetting that such a term is maybe just as misleading as "Christianity;" as if there ever was such a thing like Christian unity, one form of Christianity. And when speaking of temples, wasn't it so that a high priest in the days of the Maccabees who were thrown out of office went into exile in Egypt and there built his own temple? Maybe he had the same idea as many people later on: Jerusalem is in my heart, so where I am, you (I) have Jerusalem!
        > >
        > > It would be meaningless to demand that the Elephantine community was "Jewish" in any orthodox sense since orthodoxy in their days may be quite different from what a later Rabbinic Judaism saw as "orthodox."
        > >
        > > And it also boils down to the acceptance that every living society will always house a plurality of opinions, not least religious ones. So even if this Torah-based Judaism existed in the Persian Period, we have no reason to believe that it was the only version around.
        > >
        > > When dealing with the Elephantines, it would perhaps be more rewarding to discuss their relations with Judea in the Persian Period. The "heterodoxy" versus the address to Jerusalem in connection with the destroyed temple. Here might be a lot of interest for the study of the origins of Judaism, as it turned out to be much later. How did it in its many forms come from Alpha -- the "original expressions of Yahwism -- to Omega -- the Rabbinic orthodoxy (or wish to control what was allowed to be Judaism).
        > >
        > > As to puzzles, Tom, when he came to Denmark nearly twenty years ago, changed to lego-bloks. These you can put together nicely in many different ways. I suppose that historical studies is more like this kind of occupation, as historical puzzles nearly always are short of many bricks.
        > >
        > > Niels Peter Lemche
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
        > > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor avigdor hurowitz
        > > Sendt: den 4 januari 2010 16:24
        > > Til: Thomas L. Thompson
        > > Cc: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > > Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] on denying diversity
        > >
        > > I won't deny posssibility, but would you really prefer associating the
        > > Yahuists of Yeb with the Shasu? And how do you explain a sudden
        > > appearance of Yahu names in Mesopotamia in post-Iron Age contexts? I
        > > prefer to go with what is most likely. I
        > > prefer putting puzzles together to taking them apart even when the pieces
        > > fit nicely.
        > > Victor
        > > BGU
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Thomas L. Thompson wrote:
        > >
        > > > Dear Victor,
        > > > Of course, the Yahu of the Shasw is somewhat uncertain. Nevertheless, there seems to have been a Yahu not only in Samaria but also in Teman and there was, I believe, a Yaubidi at Hamat. There are also a considerable number of Yahu names in Mesopotamia in post-Iron Age contexts. Arguments of convenience, of course, should have no trouble associating them with either Jews or Samaritans, but why deny possibilities of greater diversity?
        > > > Cheers, Thomas
        > > >
        > > > Thomas L. Thompson
        > > > Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen
        > > >
        > > > ________________________________
        > > >
        > > > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com på vegne af victor avigdor hurowitz
        > > > Sendt: ma 04-01-2010 15:22
        > > > Til: featherrobert
        > > > Cc: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Origin of Judaism
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Dear Robert,
        > > > All this is beside the point. Do you know of any other group besides
        > > > people from Judah and Israel who worshipped YHW(H)? Who cares where the
        > > > original settlers came from, but some of them called themselves yhdy' and
        > > > I can hardly think of any other place more suited to these people's origin
        > > > than Judah. I don't know what "mainstream" Judaism was then, but you are
        > > > talking like an Orthodox Jew who thinks that anything but Torah True
        > > > Judaism as interpreted in the Art Scroll Siddur and Torah Tidbits is not
        > > > Judaism. It's amazing how truly orthodox critical scholars can be in
        > > > denying diversity. As I said, you should be focusing on what unites these
        > > > people
        > > > and not what divides them. As for Maclaurin's statement cited here, I must
        > > > confess that it is incomprehensible to me. And why do you say with
        > > > certainty that prior to 419BCE they appear not to have celebrated
        > > > Passover? Is the so-called Passover papyrus so well preserved and so well
        > > > understood that we can make such a definitive statement? You're demanding
        > > > too much of these people and reading too much into what we don't really
        > > > know.
        > > > Victor Hurowitz
        > > > BGU
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, featherrobert wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Dear Victor,
        > > > > I don't doubt the people on Yeb followed a form of Judaism and worshipped YHW, in association with other associates, rather reminiscent of the Kuntillet Ajrud phenomena. The real point is - can you use what we know of their experience to correlate experience in Canaan? I think only to a limited extent. To say they `maintain contacts with Jerusalem' is not strictly true. Both Reuven Yaron, of the Hebrew University, and G.W.Anderson, University of Edinburgh, conclude we just don't know when or how the original Aramaic speaking settlers came to Elephantine. When Cymbyses and the Persians marched into Egypt, c525 BCE, they found a long-established priestly colony that worshipped YHW and Astarte - the Egyptian version of Anathbethal. They also followed Egyptian legal, fiscal, and social precedents which conformed to Egyptian practice of many centuries earlier.
        > > > >
        > > > > Prior to 419 BCE they appear not to have celebrated Passover. How do you explain this?
        > > > >
        > > > > We have to be very cautious about using evidence of their practices as even sub-streams of mainstream Judaism. The common denominator between the streams of modern Judaism you mention is that they all believe in only one G-d. E. Maclaurin's extensive study of their form of worship concludes it `could not have existed in a Hebrew group which had been exposed to the influences of Sinai and Canaan after the settlement.'
        > > > >
        > > > > Robert Feather , London.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Brian Colless
        I am interested to see Robert Feather mentioning my Hebrew teacher E C B Maclaurin (Sydney University 1959, and I had Rabbi Israel Porush for Mishnaic Hebrew),
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I am interested to see Robert Feather mentioning my Hebrew teacher E C
          B Maclaurin (Sydney University 1959, and I had Rabbi Israel Porush for
          Mishnaic Hebrew), and also the Shasu (see below).

          Thomas Thompson says :"theYahu of the Shasw is somewhat uncertain"

          Well now, among the epigraphical materials that people are feeding to
          me these days are the graffiti from Har Karkom (the True Mount Horeb/
          Sinai):

          - at least two stones have proto-alphabetic YH (arm, jubilater) [ --
          < >-E ], Late Bronze Age
          - one rock has ' l ('alep lamed, ox crook) next to Sh S (sun, fish)
          "El of the Shasu"

          When I feel a bit more confident about this set, I will put them all
          on my cryptcracker site.

          One of them seems to be a sign for a dried up spring, and looking
          again at the Timnah inscription reported here around the 27th of
          August 2009, in two linked cartouches, it has just occurred to me:
          the Eye could represent `ayin 'spring' (as a rebus) as in three of
          the Sinai inscriptions;
          M M R could say "water of bitterness" (R a head, not the illusion of a
          seated man);
          L Dh K would be: " Not (L) pure (DhK)"

          The sun-serpent with sun disc says Sh or ShMSh 'sun'
          If the three lines could be the spinal column (the alternative Samek,
          which eventually displaced the fish), we have ShS (Shasu).

          http://www.stonewatch.de/Daten/Timna-1.jpg

          It's all guesswork, you know, even when we can recognize all the signs.

          It could be Dh L K (This is for you) K L Dh (All this)
          The signs = ( [ ] (Dh Hh) house with round courtyard, H.asir, suggest
          Hh M M R "This spring is hot and bitter" (feminine -t would be
          expected if these are adjectives).

          But I do cryptic and codecracker crossword puzzles to get my brain
          hopping around and primed up for these real-life puzzles.

          Brian Colless

          Massey University, NZ

          On 5/01/2010, at 4:24 AM, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:

          > I won't deny posssibility, but would you really prefer associating the
          > Yahuists of Yeb with the Shasu? And how do you explain a sudden
          > appearance of Yahu names in Mesopotamia in post-Iron Age contexts? I
          > prefer to go with what is most likely. I
          > prefer putting puzzles together to taking them apart even when the
          > pieces
          > fit nicely.
          > Victor
          > BGU
          >
          >
          >
          > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Thomas L. Thompson wrote:
          >
          >> Dear Victor,
          >> Of course, the Yahu of the Shasw is somewhat uncertain.
          >> Nevertheless, there seems to have been a Yahu not only in Samaria
          >> but also in Teman and there was, I believe, a Yaubidi at Hamat.
          >> There are also a considerable number of Yahu names in Mesopotamia
          >> in post-Iron Age contexts. Arguments of convenience, of course,
          >> should have no trouble associating them with either Jews or
          >> Samaritans, but why deny possibilities of greater diversity?
          >> Cheers, Thomas
          >>
          >> Thomas L. Thompson
          >> Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen
          >>
          >> ________________________________
          >>
          >> Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com på vegne af victor avigdor hurowitz
          >> Sendt: ma 04-01-2010 15:22
          >> Til: featherrobert
          >> Cc: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          >> Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Origin of Judaism
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> Dear Robert,
          >> All this is beside the point. Do you know of any other group besides
          >> people from Judah and Israel who worshipped YHW(H)? Who cares where
          >> the
          >> original settlers came from, but some of them called themselves
          >> yhdy' and
          >> I can hardly think of any other place more suited to these people's
          >> origin
          >> than Judah. I don't know what "mainstream" Judaism was then, but
          >> you are
          >> talking like an Orthodox Jew who thinks that anything but Torah True
          >> Judaism as interpreted in the Art Scroll Siddur and Torah Tidbits
          >> is not
          >> Judaism. It's amazing how truly orthodox critical scholars can be in
          >> denying diversity. As I said, you should be focusing on what unites
          >> these
          >> people
          >> and not what divides them. As for Maclaurin's statement cited here,
          >> I must
          >> confess that it is incomprehensible to me. And why do you say with
          >> certainty that prior to 419BCE they appear not to have celebrated
          >> Passover? Is the so-called Passover papyrus so well preserved and
          >> so well
          >> understood that we can make such a definitive statement? You're
          >> demanding
          >> too much of these people and reading too much into what we don't
          >> really
          >> know.
          >> Victor Hurowitz
          >> BGU
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, featherrobert wrote:
          >>
          >>> Dear Victor,
          >>> I don't doubt the people on Yeb followed a form of Judaism and
          >>> worshipped YHW, in association with other associates, rather
          >>> reminiscent of the Kuntillet Ajrud phenomena. The real point is -
          >>> can you use what we know of their experience to correlate
          >>> experience in Canaan? I think only to a limited extent. To say
          >>> they `maintain contacts with Jerusalem' is not strictly true. Both
          >>> Reuven Yaron, of the Hebrew University, and G.W.Anderson,
          >>> University of Edinburgh, conclude we just don't know when or how
          >>> the original Aramaic speaking settlers came to Elephantine. When
          >>> Cymbyses and the Persians marched into Egypt, c525 BCE, they found
          >>> a long-established priestly colony that worshipped YHW and Astarte
          >>> - the Egyptian version of Anathbethal. They also followed Egyptian
          >>> legal, fiscal, and social precedents which conformed to Egyptian
          >>> practice of many centuries earlier.
          >>>
          >>> Prior to 419 BCE they appear not to have celebrated Passover. How
          >>> do you explain this?
          >>>
          >>> We have to be very cautious about using evidence of their
          >>> practices as even sub-streams of mainstream Judaism. The common
          >>> denominator between the streams of modern Judaism you mention is
          >>> that they all believe in only one G-d. E. Maclaurin's extensive
          >>> study of their form of worship concludes it `could not have
          >>> existed in a Hebrew group which had been exposed to the influences
          >>> of Sinai and Canaan after the settlement.'
          >>>
          >>> Robert Feather , London.
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >>
          >>



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • MarcC
          ... That s one definition, and it s probably one that historical idealists would have liked. The problem for the historian is that it suggests that to know
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:

            > After all, I was brought up with Barth's definition of ethnicity, that are the person you think you are and other people think you are.
            >
            > Niels Peter lemche

            That's one definition, and it's probably one that historical idealists would have liked. The problem for the historian is that it suggests that to know someone's ethnicity we would have to rethink their thoughts. Since this conversation began with Hezekiah's ethnicity, it seems to me that this definition is inappropriate in the sense that we can't begin to reconstruct his ideology. Worse, it provides authority to others, in this case, Sennacherib or his publicists, to make the judgment. And that allows, in turn, Oppenheim's position, which you don't like!

            In the U.S., the Census Bureau equates ethnicity with country of origin and religion. Most scholars find this definition wanting, but most people faced with the question of their own ethnicity answer by stating their country of origin. Again, the common definition favors Oppenheim.

            Here are some other definitions which social scientists prefer:
            Clifford Geertz: "the longing not to belong to any other group."
            Max Weber: "groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent."

            Marc Cooper
            Missouri State
          • Niels Peter Lemche
            Dear Marc, OK to everything, only that the modern discussion about ethnicity really started with Barth s introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Oslo
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Marc,

              OK to everything, only that the modern discussion about ethnicity really started with Barth's introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Oslo 1969). I think -- from memory -- that Barth calls ethnicity a way of organizing cultural difference.

              The specialized discussion has mainly been between social anthropologists and sociologists.

              Niels Peter Lemche

              who was born in a country where everybody believes that he/she is a Dane, with a pedigree going back to -- well, King Skjold.



              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af MarcC
              Sendt: den 6 januari 2010 01:18
              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Emne: [ANE-2] Ethnicity in the ANE

              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:

              > After all, I was brought up with Barth's definition of ethnicity, that are the person you think you are and other people think you are.
              >
              > Niels Peter lemche

              That's one definition, and it's probably one that historical idealists would have liked. The problem for the historian is that it suggests that to know someone's ethnicity we would have to rethink their thoughts. Since this conversation began with Hezekiah's ethnicity, it seems to me that this definition is inappropriate in the sense that we can't begin to reconstruct his ideology. Worse, it provides authority to others, in this case, Sennacherib or his publicists, to make the judgment. And that allows, in turn, Oppenheim's position, which you don't like!

              In the U.S., the Census Bureau equates ethnicity with country of origin and religion. Most scholars find this definition wanting, but most people faced with the question of their own ethnicity answer by stating their country of origin. Again, the common definition favors Oppenheim.

              Here are some other definitions which social scientists prefer:
              Clifford Geertz: "the longing not to belong to any other group."
              Max Weber: "groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent."

              Marc Cooper
              Missouri State





              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Brian Colless
              And I have just redd that the people of Denmark are the happiest people on Earth, and that must be why. ... PS Nietzsche was born in 1844, the year that the
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                And I have just redd that the people of Denmark are the happiest
                people on Earth, and that must be why.

                On 6/01/2010, at 9:35 PM, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

                > Niels Peter Lemche
                >
                > who was born in a country where everybody believes that he/she is a
                > Dane, with a pedigree going back to -- well, King Skjold.


                PS
                Nietzsche was born in 1844, the year that the Christ was to return
                (known as the Great Disappointment, and I used to offer a course on
                Recent Religions in which I collected all the new religions that
                started in 1844 (Taiping in China, Bahai in Iran, etc), but I
                overlooked Nietzsche and his gospel of the death of God.

                At Sydney University, one of my venerable German teachers (a noble
                baron) had met Nietzsche, he told us, so I have a personal connection.

                Still, we have to keep asking the question: who or what makes the
                world (and the atoms) go round? The universe is alive and existent, a
                living being, and I want to have a personal relationship of love with
                it.

                Brian

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Miller, Robert
                I agree with Chris Weimer s point. The problem with many definitions of ethnicity is that they view the question socially. Even a piece like Nils Anfinset,
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree with Chris Weimer's point. The problem with many definitions of ethnicity is that they view the question socially. Even a piece like Nils Anfinset, "Passion for Cultural Difference: Archaeology and Ethnicity of the Southern Levant," Norwegian Archaeological Review 36 (2003) -- which I otherwise highly recommend -- treats ethnicity as a social phenomenon. Syro-Pal. archaeology has almost always done so.

                  William Sewell's "Concept(s) of Culture," in Beyond the Cultural Turn, ed. Victoria E. Bonnell and Lynn Hunt (1999) tried to move the discussion of ethnicity away from strictly social definitions towards cultural ideas, as well. The "archaeological correlates" of ethnicity have traditionally been homogeneity, whether of building style or pottery or whatever. Sewell says this may be misguided: shared "style" need not correlate with group identity (although it might). He writes, "It simply requires that if meaning is to exist at all, there must be systematic relations among signs and a group of people who recognize those relations."

                  Bob Miller
                  Catholic University of America



                  From: cweb255
                  Sent: Wed 06/01/2010 3:08 PM
                  To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Ethnicity in the ANE



                  I still think I'd rather have Siân Jones' definition:

                  "Ethnic groups are culturally ascribed identity groups, which are based on the expression of a real or assumed shared culture and common descent."

                  The "culturally ascribed" modifier assumes that the whole thing is discursive, which in my opinion negates Barth's definition inasmuch as it's not so much what a person thinks about themselves, but what a person thinks about themselves with respect to what others think about that person. That's why Macedonians (from FYRM) aren't Greeks - Greeks say they're not.

                  Now that I chimed in on my area of research, I'll go back and read the rest of the conversation.

                  Chris Weimer
                  SFSU


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • cweb255
                  I deleted that post because I misread someone s post of Barth. It didn t sound right as I was writing it, but I do know some others have said such a notion.
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I deleted that post because I misread someone's post of Barth. It didn't sound right as I was writing it, but I do know some others have said such a notion.

                    Chris Weimer

                    --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Miller, Robert" <millerb@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I agree with Chris Weimer's point. The problem with many definitions of ethnicity is that they view the question socially. Even a piece like Nils Anfinset, "Passion for Cultural Difference: Archaeology and Ethnicity of the Southern Levant," Norwegian Archaeological Review 36 (2003) -- which I otherwise highly recommend -- treats ethnicity as a social phenomenon. Syro-Pal. archaeology has almost always done so.
                    >
                    > William Sewell's "Concept(s) of Culture," in Beyond the Cultural Turn, ed. Victoria E. Bonnell and Lynn Hunt (1999) tried to move the discussion of ethnicity away from strictly social definitions towards cultural ideas, as well. The "archaeological correlates" of ethnicity have traditionally been homogeneity, whether of building style or pottery or whatever. Sewell says this may be misguided: shared "style" need not correlate with group identity (although it might). He writes, "It simply requires that if meaning is to exist at all, there must be systematic relations among signs and a group of people who recognize those relations."
                    >
                    > Bob Miller
                    > Catholic University of America
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > From: cweb255
                    > Sent: Wed 06/01/2010 3:08 PM
                    > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Ethnicity in the ANE
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > I still think I'd rather have Siân Jones' definition:
                    >
                    > "Ethnic groups are culturally ascribed identity groups, which are based on the expression of a real or assumed shared culture and common descent."
                    >
                    > The "culturally ascribed" modifier assumes that the whole thing is discursive, which in my opinion negates Barth's definition inasmuch as it's not so much what a person thinks about themselves, but what a person thinks about themselves with respect to what others think about that person. That's why Macedonians (from FYRM) aren't Greeks - Greeks say they're not.
                    >
                    > Now that I chimed in on my area of research, I'll go back and read the rest of the conversation.
                    >
                    > Chris Weimer
                    > SFSU
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.