lost tribe

[The Revolting Man]

So, you mean @Joleneakamama is right about the connection between Edom and the Jews?


Oh, just remembered I'm supposed to be a responsible admin, keeping things calm, not the one poking a stick and shouting "Fight, Fight, Fight" just for amusement. I take it back.

Interesting info @PeteR, thanks.

I think I’m on the verge of putting the final nail in the Edomite’s coffin. Not entirely sure yet but looking at an interesting passage in Kong’s that @Joleneakamama provided me.

 

[IshChayil]

Classic example of a commentary trying to explain away a literal understanding.

I might agree with you if the book of Maccabees was actually in the bible ... but it's not so we most certainly do depend on scholarship.
Without the scholarship what document is being referred to in the snippet Sam shared?
Can someone look in Maccabees alone and tell me without the commentary?

 

[FollowingHim]

I might agree with you if the book of Maccabees was actually in the bible ... but it's not so we most certainly do depend on scholarship.
Without the scholarship what document is being referred to in the snippet Sam shared?
Can someone look in Maccabees alone and tell me without the commentary?

You can look in Maccabees yourself, here's a link to make it easy. Honestly, I'm surprised you went to a modern commentary before actually reading the original text. Maccabees mightn't be in the Jewish scriptures but is a key historical Jewish writing, well worth reading. The document referred to is a letter from the Spartans to the Jews, as the second commentary you quoted mentioned, and then speculated about and disparaged as 'propaganda' for unclear reasons. These reasons may be outlined elsewhere in the commentary.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You can look in Maccabees yourself, here's a link to make it easy. Honestly, I'm surprised you went to a modern commentary before actually reading the original text. Maccabees mightn't be in the Jewish scriptures but is a key historical Jewish writing, well worth reading. The document referred to is a letter from the Spartans to the Jews, as the second commentary you quoted mentioned, and then speculated about and disparaged as 'propaganda' for unclear reasons. These reasons may be outlined elsewhere in the commentary.

His broader point remains, Maccabees isn’t scripture. It was never accepted as such by the Jews who wrote it and even Christian scholars who liked it put it in a category other than scripture. Any conclusions made from it must be supported with additional evidence, or looked academically.

 

[FollowingHim]

Maccabees isn’t scripture

That's irrelevant. We're talking history. If reading about any other historical event, we don't say "That historical letter / account / whatever isn't scripture, so let's read a modern commentary instead of reading the words of the person who recorded it at or close to the time". It's basic logic to go to the actual original document.

By this argument, books that were historically so well regarded that people have debated whether or not they are scripture (some call them scripture, and some call them not) are disparaged as being "not scripture" and to be either not read at all or only read with extreme caution. While books that are historically less well regarded so have never been called scripture (such as the works of Josephus, or a modern commentary) do not receive the same criticism and so become elevated as more trustworthy to modern eyes. This argument turns accuracy on its head.

 

[Mojo]

Wait. Is the Sparta/Jewish kindred relationship (decendants of Abraham) necessarily a Jacob and Esau thing? Could the connection be a Jacob/Jacob thing? Did every single person of the 12 tribes stay in Canaan?

 

[IshChayil]

His broader point remains, Maccabees isn’t scripture. It was never accepted as such by the Jews who wrote it and even Christian scholars who liked it put it in a category other than scripture. Any conclusions made from it must be supported with additional evidence, or looked academically.

Exactly. Why are folks so touchy about that? I didn't even claim it's not true.

That's irrelevant. We're talking history. If reading about any other historical event, we don't say "That historical letter / account / whatever isn't scripture, so let's read a modern commentary instead of reading the words of the person who recorded it at or close to the time". It's basic logic to go to the actual original document.

By this argument, books that were historically so well regarded that people have debated whether or not they are scripture (some call them scripture, and some call them not) are disparaged as being "not scripture" and to be either not read at all or only read with extreme caution. While books that are historically less well regarded so have never been called scripture (such as the works of Josephus, or a modern commentary) do not receive the same criticism and so become elevated as more trustworthy to modern eyes. This argument turns accuracy on its head.

Yes, I've read Maccabbees a few times and that includes the verses you shared so I did not as you claim, "run to some modern commentary instead of reading the words." In point of fact I read them in the Greek.

I'm not sure really what your issue is with my response though. I posted 2 quotations from 2 different scholars with differing view points:
The 1, considered the letter referred to in Maccabees to be propaganda, the 2nd quotation was from a more open viewpoint from a famous scholar who was well versed in most Jewish literature, and even had positive speculation to what the exact letter referred to in Maccabees.
To think that reading Macabees without being well versed in other Jewish literature is the same as reading it with that knowledge ... that's not "running to modern commentary" that's just good sense..

Trying to nail down a historical note as the one referenced in Mac. is good history bro; it does not detract from your "find" in any way.
I even ended my post with a thought provoking question I thought you'd appreciate.
I wrote something like,
"if the connection is true imagine how spartans would read Paul's, "there is no difference between the Judean and the Greek."

Seems you're just a little too ready to rumble. Go back and re-read my post please, I'm not even pushing back on the Maccabee angle. I was pushing back on rock's pushback that we can't reference scholarship when dealing with a non-biblical book. I understand this opinion fro those who hold it with the bible but not 2nd temple literature. We should welcome more research on a thing, not disdain it.

I find the whole possible link with Sparta interesting; they sure fought like Judah, check out Israel today.
***THIS .... IS ... ISRAEL!!!!*** for those who didn't get my original "this is sparta!" (short youtube clip from 300)
Also worthwhile searching for some of the comedy ones out there like Simpsons 300...

 

[FollowingHim]

Thanks for the clarification @IshChayil. It appeared that you had not read Maccabees because you asked "Can someone look in Maccabees alone and tell me without the commentary?", as if you were not willing to do that yourself. This seemed a lot lazier than your usual level of scholarship on such matters, hence my criticism. Clearly I was mistaken.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That's irrelevant. We're talking history. If reading about any other historical event, we don't say "That historical letter / account / whatever isn't scripture, so let's read a modern commentary instead of reading the words of the person who recorded it at or close to the time". It's basic logic to go to the actual original document.

By this argument, books that were historically so well regarded that people have debated whether or not they are scripture (some call them scripture, and some call them not) are disparaged as being "not scripture" and to be either not read at all or only read with extreme caution. While books that are historically less well regarded so have never been called scripture (such as the works of Josephus, or a modern commentary) do not receive the same criticism and so become elevated as more trustworthy to modern eyes. This argument turns accuracy on its head.

It it’s history then it has to be looked at academically and through the lens of other sources.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Wait. Is the Sparta/Jewish kindred relationship (decendants of Abraham) necessarily a Jacob and Esau thing? Could the connection be a Jacob/Jacob thing? Did every single person of the 12 tribes stay in Canaan?

@AmbassadorforChrist has looked more at the origins of the Greeks and of course Spartans. He might have something of interest to share relating to this.

 

[Mojo]

Cool

@AmbassadorforChrist has looked more at the origins of the Greeks and of course Spartans. He might have something of interest to share relating to this.

cool. Interested in what he's got.

 

[rockfox]

You can look in Maccabees yourself, here's a link to make it easy. Honestly, I'm surprised you went to a modern commentary before actually reading the original text. Maccabees mightn't be in the Jewish scriptures but is a key historical Jewish writing, well worth reading. The document referred to is a letter from the Spartans to the Jews, as the second commentary you quoted mentioned, and then speculated about and disparaged as 'propaganda' for unclear reasons. These reasons may be outlined elsewhere in the commentary.

“Arius king of the Spartans to Onias the chief priest, greetings. 21 It has been found in writing, concerning the Spartans and the Jews, that they are kindred, and that they are of the descendants of Abraham.

Ya that sounds pretty literal to me.

 

[IshChayil]

Ya that sounds pretty literal to me.

right, "it has been found in writing" is what is "literally written" and it's also literlally super vague brother.
Hence my response with scholarship trying to find out "what was the writing that's referred to there?"
It's not a matter of literalness; it's a matter of vagueness. I'm also interested in a possible connection with the Spartans as you've seen if you're reading this thread; that'd be way cool and explain why Israel kicks so much a** OK that last part is Gd being true to his promises but still.
If you'd read what I wrote you'd have seen that the Jewish scholar I quoted provides a theory about "the writing" that's being referred to; and no it's not the extra-biblical book of Maccabees referring to itself.
As @The Revolting Man pointed out, Maccabees is not scripture so we don't have to just take things as 100% historical truth as if it were scripture; when a non-biblical book mentions some connection with Sparta being written somewhere else it's only natural to say, "hmm, where is that and is there more to this?" as the scholar I forwarded tries to do (2nd scholar).
There's really no reason to disparage looking to commentaries on non-biblical books; that's why when you did that it threw me and we're on the current back and forth here.