Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,878 Year: 4,135/9,624 Month: 1,006/974 Week: 333/286 Day: 54/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who is Jesus Christ to you?
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6266 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 75 of 82 (45088)
07-04-2003 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John
07-04-2003 9:02 AM


Re: Ancient Jewish matrilineal descent
John wrote:
You are wrong, kinda. Whether one is born a Jew or not depends upon whether the mother is a Jew.
What is your evidence for such a matrilineal tradition before Ezra? So, for example, one site writes:
quote:
Who is a Jew?
  • Maternal (Jewishness passes from mother to child). This is the view prevalent among modern-day orthodox religious Jews of most varieties. Most allow for the possibility of conversion, but such instances are relatively rare, and the conversion is not always recognized by other religious sects or by the secular majority. Many historians think that this law started with Ezra in order to reduce the number of Jewish men (returnees from Babylon, the vast majority of whom were men) marrying Samaritan women. Prior to that, Jewish transmission was tribal and paternal. Some feel the practice was continued during the Diaspora in order to ensure that the blood line was not broken, as one could always be certain of a baby's mother, but not its father. In both cases, blood was the central consideration, not faith.
- see Who is a Jew
I also find it interesting that the Karaites apparently reject this tradition.
Finally, I found the following of worth:
quote:
Those interested in legal cultures and in the interaction between Roman law and local customs will find the discussion of the emergence of the so-called matrilineal principle fascinating. Clearly, and in spite of numerous strictures, marriage across the boundaries of faith did take place. What, then, was the status of the offspring? Here it is useful to remember that 'mixed' marriage in the ancient world was a varied and intricate concept. Like the Romans, the Jews had their own categories of acceptable and unacceptable spouses (Sivan, 'Why not marry a barbarian? In Mathisen and Eadem, Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, 1996). Disqualified partners became parents who engendered children with problematic status. Cohen detects the influence of Roman law on the formation of the matrilineal principle that made mothers, rather than fathers, the bearers of legitimate Jews. Yet, in Roman law a valid marriage between free born and equal citizens bequeathed the paternal rather than the maternal status to the children. I am certainly in agreement about the influence of Roman law on rabbinic legal culture and on the importance of examining the relations between Jewish and Roman law (Sivan, 'Revealing the Concealed: Roman and Rabbinic Opinions on the Crime of Adultery in Late Antiquity', ZSS.RA). But the adoption of the matrilineal principle may owe its naissance to rabbinic archaism or even antiquarianism rather than to classical Roman law.
- see Review of Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society 31
In either event, perhaps 'you are wrong, kinda'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John, posted 07-04-2003 9:02 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by John, posted 07-04-2003 7:36 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6266 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 77 of 82 (45116)
07-04-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John
07-04-2003 7:36 PM


Re: Ancient Jewish matrilineal descent
I don't really need to go further back for my statement to stand.
Your response dealt with the traditions of "ancient Jews".
At any rate, Lev. 24:10 hints at matrilineal descent ...
So, what is your evidence for matrilinear descent?
The Talmud derives the practice from Deut. 7:4, for what that is worth.
Derives or justifies?
I noticed that you chose not to address either of my references, relying instead on hints and 2nd century CE apologetics. Your choice ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John, posted 07-04-2003 7:36 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by John, posted 07-05-2003 1:21 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024