Posted on 05/24/2020 3:08:34 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Archaeologists in Israel have discovered a rare coin minted about 1,900 years ago, when the Jewish people revolted against Roman occupation, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced (IAA) last week.
The bronze coin is so rare, that out of 22,000 coins found in archaeological excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, just four are from the revolt, known as the Bar Kokhba revolt, Donald Tzvi Ariel, head of the Coin Department at the IAA, said in a statement.
A cluster of grapes and the inscription, "Year Two of the Freedom of Israel," appear on one side of the coin, and on other is a palm tree with the word "Jerusalem," making it the only coin on record from the revolt to bear the name "Jerusalem," the IAA said...
"It is possible that a Roman soldier from the Tenth Legion found the coin during one of the battles across the country and brought it to their camp in Jerusalem as a souvenir," archaeologists at the IAA said in the statement.
These coins usually feature the facade of the Temple, (the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in A.D. 70), as well as symbols associated with the temple, such as trumpets, a lyre, palm branches and amphorae (clay jugs), according to the Jewish Virtual Library.
Coins minted during the first two years of the revolt typically carry inscriptions saying "Redemption of Israel" and "Freedom of Israel," but that changed to a message of hope with the inscription "For the Freedom of Jerusalem" during the third year, when the revolt became more of a defensive guerrilla action, according to the Jewish Virtual Library.
In what was likely an act of defiance, these coins were minted on Roman coins, the IAA said.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
..................
For a couple of years, that was fact. A couple of legions completely destroyed. Rebellions of Judaeans living on islands throughout the empire. If the Persians had decided to join forces with Bar Kochba, that would have been the end of Rome as an empire.
Interesting chart, although I’d quibble with it a bit.
I think my quibbles are mainly because it’s so hard to put these concepts into a chart, but there are some major errors.
It’s impossible to draw a direct line for some of these — for example, the Pharisees (which I guess are the House of Shammai) aren’t the only ancestors of Rabbinic Judaism, but rather the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, the second of which is arguably more important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_Hillel_and_Shammai
I suppose this is all arguable, in that what Gentiles call “Pharisees” is unclear to me.
One major error would be to call Samaritans the descendants of Sadducees. Their intellectual descendants are the Karaites. (Both reject the Talmud as authoritative.)
In fact, the Samaritans are “not Jewish” (under Jewish law — they are Jewish under Israeli secular law). The religion of Samaritans is Samaritanism, and hold the Mount Gerizim as the proper place for the Temple.
In fact, I believe Samaritans are the product of intermarriage between left-behind Jewish men (during the Babylonian captivity) and pagan women — and their religion reflects this mishmash.
“The Samaritans are not depicted as descending from Sadduccees. The green line goes behind the Sadduccees box not through it.”
Didn’t catch this. Ignore the end of my last post, then, except that Karaites would be the descendants of Sadducees, intellectually.
(Karaite sprang up of its own accord much later, but their thinking is very similar to Sadducees.)
1. the Pharisees while defined by the School of Shammai and Hillel seem to be far older. I’d guess they date back to the BAbylonian exile. Josephus states that they were a presence right in the days of John Hyrcanus.
2. Pharisees for gentiles are considered those who:
2.1. Stated that the Oral Torah had equal weightage as the Written Torah
2.2. stated that the purity laws were even more sacrosant (based on the oral Torah not the written Torah)
3. The green line for the Samaritans is from the 1st temple time
4. The Samaritans are not Jewish, true - but they are a sister religion to 2nd temple Judaism and an “aunt religion” to modern/CE Judaism and to Christianity.
5. Samaritans are a product of... - genetically it seems somewhat correct, but not enough to make a definite statement. The “pagan women” were local Semites like Canaanites or Edomites or Ammonites or Aramaens etc.
Regarding the Karaites and the Sadducees — they do have a point - the Talmud or rather the Babylonian Talmud is discussions over discussions and seem more about the argumentative process rather than the law.
This is of course (this being the Talmudic view) appropriate when you consider that the Torah says “keep the Sabbath holy” but then doesn’t proceed to tell you what exactly that is supposed to entail.
The Talmud and more specifically the Halasha tells you exactly what is to be done.
But I wonder - and here it’s pure speculation on my part - is that really valid? Should we have such detailed rules? It makes it easier, but doesn’t it open up to dancing on a pin?
“. the Pharisees while defined by the School of Shammai and Hillel seem to be far older. I’d guess they date back to the BAbylonian exile. Josephus states that they were a presence right in the days of John Hyrcanus.”
Eh, maybe. Or kind of.
There were two things going on, that bring in the priestly class into the mix.
1. First, the priestly class broke out into two groups — the Sadducees (who were considered heretics by most Jews, and still are). They were rich, corrupt, and protected by the various powers-that-be. They were technically Levites/Cohen, but really bought their position. If you look, most didn’t serve but a year, while during the First Temple, the priests serves for generally 50 or more years. Lots got dragged out sick, after being in the Holy of Holies. Again, as discussed by Jewbacca, their heresy was the rejecting of the Oral Law.
2. Their Levite counterpart were the Zadoks (probably the Essenes) who had the better lineage claim, were generally thought of as better people, did not share the heretical beliefs of the Sadduces, but had no money or power, and so lived in caves. (John the Baptist, BTW, is referred to as probable a member of this group in Jewish sources.)
3. The “Pharasees” references in the Nazarine books were the Beit Shammai, generally speaking. Members of the Beit Hillel were mentioned — but kindly.
For example (apparently) Gamaliel (Beit Hillel) is discussed as a member of the Sanhedrin who desired to leave the Nazarene and his apostles alone.
And, bluntly, the “Golden Rule” (famously originally done by Hillel while holding a burning stick and on one foot) and the bulk of the Sermon on the Mount is straight Beit Hillel teachings.
Anyway, long way of saying, lumping the two Houses together is a bad idea. Especially because, in the course of time, Beit Hillel’s teachings won out over Beit Shimmai in modern Rabbinical teaching.
“Pharisees for gentiles are considered those who:
2.1. Stated that the Oral Torah had equal weightage as the Written Torah; 2.2. stated that the purity laws were even more sacrosant (based on the oral Torah not the written Torah)”
If so, pharisees never existed, as no one (sane, anyway) teaches that the “Oral Torah had equal weighting as the written Torah.”
The Oral Law is imperfectly preserved. It conflicts. If it conflicts with the Written Torah, it’s wrong (or being interpreted wrong).
As you noted the Oral Law is the recordation of rulings and thoughts of people. Yes, generally inspired, intelligent, and G-dly people. But people. And all people have bad days and make mistake.
It’s important stuff, yes. And fills in critical blanks. And sometimes inspired by HaShem.
But no school of Jewish thought ever contemplated the Oral Law (as recorded in the Talmud) as superior to the the Written.
Where that comes from is the fact that the Oral Law was, indeed, given to Moses by HaShem. So that Oral Law was, indeed, perfect.
What we have today, however, does not pretend to be.
re: “the Sadducees were considered heretics by most Jews” — I’ve not read anything of that sort. The Hellenizers were considered heretics but not the Sadduccees as a whole. They were considered corrupt by some, but were the elite for the majority who just obeyed, prayed and paid.
regarding “their heresy was the rejecting of the Oral Law” — the Oral Law was innovation from the 5th century BC. There is little to no indication of it prior to that. The Sadduccee position was “this is innovation” — and as to what the majority of people thought - they didn’t think or know what to think either way, so neither the S nor the P were considered heretics by the majority of the populace and even they didn’t consider each other heretics so much as misguided (otherwise there would have been full on war)
On what basis do you say “the Zadoks (probably the Essenes) who had the better lineage claim”??
As per Josephus and others, they aren’t generally “thought of” as anything more than weirdos who lived in caves - by the majority of the population.
As to whether John the B was an Essene/Zadok, it’s probable, but he didn’t act like Essenes in his going out preaching and he wasn’t condemned or acclaimed by them.
J the B is considered a prophet and in fact THE prophet among the Mandaens, not sure if that is relevant
The Golden rule for Hillel differs from Jesus’ golden rule.
Hillels “ “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
Jesus: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
or
hillel: don’t hit your pal as you don’t want him to hit you
Jesus: do good and not bad to your pal as you’d like him to do to you.
you can argue a gradation, but that is not the same Beit Hillel teaching.
The Pharisees use the Oral Torah to define laws and rules. So yes it does how equal weightage in the P’s eyes.
As to “the recordation of rulings and thoughts of people” — yes, like the rest of the Talmud, discussions back and forth.
The next, the “Oral Law (as recorded in the Talmud)” is circular reasoning.
you are completely correct, Eleutheria
In 68 AD Nero died, there was civil war with Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and the Jews revolted, and destroyed legions.
The beast (imperial Rome) was nearly dead. It was a marvel that it survived.
Wow. I forgot this whole thread existed.
How are things in Israel now that the UAE and Bahrain have normalized relations? btw, I have friends in Syria and they say that the diatribes against Israel have stopped for a few weeks and this may signify that ties will be normalized. Here’s hoping that Syria signs a peace deal with Israel.
There are huge protests over the lockdown and Bibi’s alleged corruption. Bibi and Gantz are fighting about extending the lockdown, which isn’t working (surprise!). It’s as if none of these monumental changes are happening except on TV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.