There is another clue in the book of Ester that hints the מתיהדים were not גרי- צדק --righteous proselytes (which is also a late term),but were people that wanted to attach themselves socially to the people of Israel, without taking the yoke of the Torah. In the description of determining the days of Purim for all generations it is written:
קימו וקבלו היהודים עליהם ועל זרעם ועל כל הנלוים עליהם
" the Jews established and made a custom for themselves, and for their descendants, and for those who ALLIED themselves with them..." (Ester 9:27 NASB)
Who were those "Allies?" Could they be the מתיהדים who were now ATTACHED (Isaiah 14:1)? JOINED (Isaiah 56:3)? If they were all גרי אמת-true Gerim, they would have been Jews already and there was no need to designate them as "Allies."
BTW, the same goes with the term "Proselyte" in the New Testament (Matt. 23:5, Acts 2:5-10; 13:43; 16:3;), why call them proselytes if they were already Jews?
The phenomenon of JOINED, ATTACHED, Etc. is not something new. Note the "mixed multitude" in EX. 12:38. According to the Sages these Multitudes-ערב רב - were the cause of the sin of the golden calf, and other sins in the desert years. (one can always rely on what the Sages teach, right?....) Also see Num. 11:4 the term RABBLE--אספסוף .
More examples for "useful attachment" can be found back in the days of Kings David, and Solomon: " So David gave orders to gather the foreigners who were in the land of Israel, and he set stonecutters to hew out stones to build the house of God." (1 Chron.. 22:2)
"And Solomon numbered all the aliens who were in the land of Israel, following the census which his father David had taken, and 153,600 were found. And he appointed 70,000 of them to carry loads, and 80,000 to quarry stones in the mountains, and 3,600 supervisors to make the people work." (2 Chron. 2:17-18).
Note, both words "foreigners," and "aliens" are designated in the Hebrew by the term GER.
The title that was attached to Mordechai's name also raises some difficulties for the commentators:
" Now, there was a JEW in Susa the capital whose name was Mordechai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a BENJAMITE." (Ester 2:5 NASB).
The term JEW which is so spread in our days is found in the Tanach in only a few books, later period books (2 Kings; Zechariah; Nehemiah; Ester; Chronicles). In preexilic times the term was attached only to sons of the tribe of Judah, only later, after the exile it was understood to mean for all Israel. But we still don't know if Mordechai was a JEW or a BENJAMITE....Rashi is inclined after the PESHAT, explaining that the term JEW was attached to Mordechai even before he was exiled with the tribe of Judah, but right after, Rashi adds: "and our Rabbis interpret the way they interpret..." This comment points that the writings of the Sages sometimes deviates from the PESHAT of Scriptures. Some sages took the easy way: "his father was from Benjamin, and his mother from Judah..." ( Megilla 12:72).
The term יהודים appears in the book of Ester forty-four times, six times the word is written with two Yods-יהודיים . What is the meaning of this phenomenon? In their interpretation the Sages do not give a clear picture. Some dismiss this occurrence as just some typo, other give it more credence saying that these are the people who attached themselves to Israel.
And today, the question of "who is a Jew" still is not settled and causes great controversy.
Great stuff, and right on the money!
ReplyDeleteDan, the point is that conversion to Judaism is an established fact, well before the coming of Messiah (since even he himself alludes to Pharisees making converts, only making a judgment on what KIND of converts they are making).
ReplyDeleteWere these converts called "Jews?" at the time of Yeshua. Well, no - I think they were still distinguished from Jews in that they continued to be referred to as "proselytes." Yet, they attained most, but not all privileges of born Jews, and they were certainly obligated to all of Torah. However, a case can be made, in keeping even with the current standards of Judaism, that children of these converts (example being R. Akiva) were considered full fledged Jews in every way and no longer referred to as "proselytes."
Gene,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this is that there is no mention of conversion in the Tanach. Not even one time. The term "proselyte" is a late Greek term as I was showing before. It is amusing that you are streching to justify conversion, but never once have you responded to the evidence I brought forth. It tells the whole story Gene, you guys are still not able to justify a ritual of conversion from the Tanach.
I think I got this from the McKee article that Judah posted (sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, Dan since I get the impression you don't like his paper) and got the distinct impression (if I recall correctly) that the Children of Israel and the "Mixed Multitude" post-Sinai maintained their distinctiveness, that is, the Mixed Multitude didn't convert to Judaism, but nevertheless had attached themselves to Israel and agreed to be bound to the same laws and regulations as Israel...kind of like Ruth.
ReplyDeleteI'm not multi-lingual like the rest of you (I have a bad brain for languages), but I don't read anything in the Tanakh rendition of the Exodus that absolutely pre-supposes conversion of the Mixed Multitude.
James,
ReplyDeleteThere was no conversion ritual for the mixed multitudes, just as there was no conversion ritual for Ruth.
"The problem with this is that there is no mention of conversion in the Tanach. Not even one time."
ReplyDeleteDan, why is that a problem? There's no mention of a wedding or any marriage ceremony/celebration in the Tanach either, but that too has long become a standard thing in Judaism. How did one get married in the Bible in post-Moshe times - by simply sleeping with that person? I don't think so. Unmarried folks slept with each other, without marriage (as they do today). There had to be some official process to sign of on the marriage contract (even thought it was not mentioned, it's obvious) - otherwise, how was one suppose to get a "get" (divorce certificate)? Same for conversions - a long established fact in Judaism that started with a simple circumcision long ago for those who wanted to join Israel!
"There was no conversion ritual for the mixed multitudes, just as there was no conversion ritual for Ruth."
ReplyDeleteMixed multitude didn't convert - they remained foreigners living as aliens among Israelites, most of them or all of them didn't get into the Covenant. That's why G-d had to give laws specifically for aliens living in Israel.
Ruth didn't go through a conversion procedure as we know it today, probably because there was no specific conversion procedure for women at that time - a verbal confirmation and indication of sincere intent was apparently enough.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteDon't hurt yourself stretching, I worry for you....
Thanks though for making my initial point that there is no mention of a ritual of conversion in the Tanch. Now, from there is just downhill for you to understand what מתיהדים means, right?
"Thanks though for making my initial point that there is no mention of a ritual of conversion in the Tanch."
ReplyDeleteJohn the Baptist - his baptizing of the Jews [called "Baptism of John"]. Where in the Tanach can I find authorization for that specific ritual [and on what commandment in the Torah did Yeshua based his own baptizing later]?
Did Rabbi John (yes, he's called a rabbi in John 3:26) invent and was practicing a biblically unauthorized ritual to signify spiritual purification?
Not so fast Gene,
ReplyDeleteUnless of course you can show us where did John say that his baptism makes one Jewish? There were all Jews...What John baptism meant was the remission of since and to fulfill all righteousness (Matt.3:15), not to enter into Judaism. Try again.....
Sorry,
ReplyDelete"remission of sins" of course.....
"What John baptism meant was the remission of since and to fulfill all righteousness (Matt.3:15), not to enter into Judaism."
ReplyDeleteDan, good first attempt at wiggling out of explaining WHERE in the Torah did John get the commandment to do what he was doing?
Your main point is that conversion is a post biblical invention, thus invalid. This is why I brought up baptisms of John. And no, one doesn't become Jewish, but the principal is the same for the purposes of our discussion - post biblical ritual. So, answer me this, Dan: was John's baptism from G-d or was it an invention of men and thus just as invalid as you consider conversions to Judaism to be invalid?
Besides trying to force a red herring into the discussion (the subject is מתיהדים ), thank you again for affirming my claim that there is no hint in the Tanch for a ritual of conversion.
ReplyDeleteDan, do you have ANYTHING to say regarding where in the Tanakh can I find that John was explicitly authorized to conduct the baptismal rituals for remissions of sins, or are you going to avoid this?
ReplyDeleteGene,
ReplyDeleteYou are not discovering America here, I am pointing this fact for years on all the blog, so no cigar here...
But what does it have to do with the מתיהדים ? Please try to stay on topic, will you?
Can it be said that, like usage of "proselyte" in the Apostolic Scriptures, use of "מתיהדים" is simply speaking of a social norm without casting judgment on its veracity?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, how does one "become" or "make" oneself into a Jew? The fact that there is even a question "Who is a Jew?" is funny when you consider the question "Who is a Swede?"