Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Taking the Holy City by Force

0 views
Skip to first unread message

dltjxx

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
>The military invasion of the Holy City still stands 32 years later. So
successful was the occupation that the zionist rulers of Israel
declared Jerusalem to be theirs - forever. There are few jewish voices
raised in protest.

Where were the voices of protest when Jordan illegally seized Jerusalem
in violation of UNR 181? Nowhere.

It would be better for all concerned if everyone live with the fact
that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Klal Yisrael.

Deborah


David Goldman

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
>Where were the voices of protest when Jordan illegally seized Jerusalem
>in violation of UNR 181? Nowhere.

The same place they were when the Zionists grabbed West Jerusalem in
violation of the partition arrangement that made Jerusalem an
international city. Alas, more folks on Zionism Intravenous.........

Albert Reingewirtz

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to
In article <7g2bv5$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, dltjxx
<dlt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >The military invasion of the Holy City still stands 32 years later. So
> successful was the occupation that the zionist rulers of Israel
> declared Jerusalem to be theirs - forever. There are few jewish voices
> raised in protest.
>

> Where were the voices of protest when Jordan illegally seized Jerusalem
> in violation of UNR 181? Nowhere.
>

> It would be better for all concerned if everyone live with the fact
> that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Klal Yisrael.
>
> Deborah

It isn't. It is the capital of Israel and for the first time ever all
religions can worship there.

dltjxx

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to
>> Where were the voices of protest when Jordan illegally seized
Jerusalem in violation of UNR 181? Nowhere.
>>It would be better for all concerned if everyone live with the fact
that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Klal Yisrael.

>It isn't. It is the capital of Israel and for the first time ever all
>religions can worship there.

They won't if the eastern sector of the one and only capital of ALL
ISRAEL becomes the captial of the State of Arafatahstan.

Deborah

Binyamin Dissen

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:13:27 GMT da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:

:>>Where were the voices of protest when Jordan illegally seized Jerusalem


:>>in violation of UNR 181? Nowhere.

:>The same place they were when the Zionists grabbed West Jerusalem in


:>violation of the partition arrangement that made Jerusalem an
:>international city. Alas, more folks on Zionism Intravenous.........

Well, when the moslems had control of Yerushalayim and made it Judenrien, you
had some excuse for not moving to Israel.

What is your excuse for failing in this Kiyum Assay?

What other Mitzvot do you find irrelevant?

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>

Shomer Et haTorah (Mesoret), MiChaved Et haDemocratia

dltjxx

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
>>It isn't. It is the capital of Israel and for the first time ever all
religions can worship there

>You need to learn some history pal. Freedom of religon came to
Jerusaelm way back in the 6th Century when Islam came to Jerusalem.

638CE is not the 6th century. Islam did not "come" to Jerusalem; they
invaded. They slaughtered the Byzantines at Marj al-Saffar (635),
seized Damascus and Edessa, slaughtered another Byzantine force at the
Yarmuk (636), overran Aleppo and Antioch, took Jerusalem and
slaugheterd the Jews of Hebron (638), then destroyed Caesarea Maritima
(640).

>That was when for the first time ever; Jew, Christian or Muslim could
pracice their respective religon freely.
>Falc

Well, Muslims could. The Jews and Christians were dead.

Deborah


Yojimbo

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
In article <7g7rpa$q...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,

dlt...@ix.netcom.com (dltjxx) wrote:
> >>It isn't. It is the capital of Israel and for the first time ever all
> religions can worship there
>
> >You need to learn some history pal. Freedom of religon came to
> Jerusaelm way back in the 6th Century when Islam came to Jerusalem.
>
> 638CE is not the 6th century. Islam did not "come" to Jerusalem; they
> invaded. They slaughtered the Byzantines at Marj al-Saffar (635),
> seized Damascus and Edessa, slaughtered another Byzantine force at the
> Yarmuk (636), overran Aleppo and Antioch, took Jerusalem and
> slaugheterd the Jews of Hebron (638), then destroyed Caesarea Maritima
> (640).

Well, to be fair to the Moslems, there wasn't exactly a general spirit of
ecumenicism at the time.

In 614 when the Persians took Jerusalem, the Jewish garrisons killed thousands
of Christians at the Mamilla quarry, and the Christians responded in kind two
or three years later when they kicked the Sassanids out.

However, this doesn't take away from your original point, After 638 the
Moslems were in charge. As they needed the Jews for commerce and the
Christians for administration, they let them back in eventually, but it took
a while for tolerance to settle in which again dissipated with the next wave
of fanaticism.

Best Regards,
Derek Copold

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

dltjxx

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
>>falc wrote...

>>>You need to learn some history pal. Freedom of religon came to
>>Jerusaelm way back in the 6th Century when Islam came to Jerusalem.

>>638CE is not the 6th century. Islam did not "come" to Jerusalem; they
>>invaded. They slaughtered the Byzantines at Marj al-Saffar (635),
>>seized Damascus and Edessa, slaughtered another Byzantine force at
the Yarmuk (636), overran Aleppo and Antioch, took Jerusalem and
slaugheterd the Jews of Hebron (638), then destroyed Caesarea Maritima

640).

>Well, to be fair to the Moslems, there wasn't exactly a general spirit
of ecumenicism at the time.

True. And except for some scholars, clergy, and regular people, there
isn't one now.

>In 614 when the Persians took Jerusalem, the Jewish garrisons killed
thousands of Christians at the Mamilla quarry, and the Christians
responded in kind two or three years later when they kicked the
Sassanids out.

That must have been during Heraclitus' wars with teh Sassanids. But 614
escapes me, and what's the Mamilla quarry slaughter -- by Jewish
garrisions??? They were barely tolerated by the Byzantines.

>However, this doesn't take away from your original point, After 638
the Moslems were in charge. As they needed the Jews for commerce and
the Christians for administration, they let them back in eventually,
but it took a while for tolerance to settle in which again dissipated
with the next wave of fanaticism.
>Best Regards,
>Derek Copold

The transition to Islamic domination was doubtless a relief; they
dropped the Byzantine proscription against Jews living in Jerusalem,
and granted the right to pray at the Wall -- along with the
responsibilty of keeping the Haram esh-Sharif clean. An improvement,
until, as you said, the next waves of fanaticism. Still not exactly the
same as Muslims/Arabs holding "OUR HOLY CITY for 1400 years in peace".
What nonsense. Jerusalem wound up as Islam's Third Holiest City as a
result of the Damascene khalifate's efforts to elevate their
territory's importance over that of rival khalifates. Hence the
building of the Dome of the Rock, and Jerusalem's identification with
the "furtherest place" in the Quran, where it isn't even mentioned by
name. A forced identification at best, but it seems to have stuck.

And Strabo wrote in the Geografica that Jerusalem was a place for which
no one would fight.

Deborah


Arsace

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to

Yojimbo a écrit dans le message <7g8ih2$el2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>
>
>In 614 when the Persians took Jerusalem, the Jewish garrisons killed
thousands
>of Christians at the Mamilla quarry, and the Christians responded in kind
two
>or three years later when they kicked the Sassanids out.
>
>............................In fact, to complete the picture, we must get
in mind.
the following

1/ Byzantine were at this time particulary oppressive toward Jews.
for exemple they forbid, during the reign of one of their emperors to jews
ever to live in the city. They were otherwise regular pogroms & killing
riots, specially during feasts period like Easter. Jews, as under Islam, had
no right to ride a horse, with one notable exception, the emperor doctor,
who was a jew.... Jews under Byzantines had to pay special taxes etc...
Byzantine record was very poor toward jews.

You are correct in saying that in 614 AD when the Persian Sassanian army of
Shahrvaraz, the general of king Khusro II, threatened to take Jerusalem, the
local jewish community open the doors of the city to them. There was also a
counter terror directed at Byzantine. As to the number I have no exact
figure, but the black layer on the ground of many archeological byzantine
site on Jerusalem dated from this very year. Some jewish volunteers formed
a special unit in the Persian army and were rewarded in beeing garrisoned in
Jerusalem.

When Byzantine had the upper hand again, a few years later, after the
counter offensive of Heraclius, they nearly wiped out ALL jewish comunity of
Jerusalem causing ten of thousands deaths.

To understan better the picture of that time you must note that they were a
clopse bound between Parthians, then Sassanian persians empire and Jews
during late Antiquity. This was in Sasanian mesopotamia that the Talmud was
written, in religious schools funded by the non-jewish Parthian & Sasanian
kings, and except one of two fanatical reigns, they were very friendly
toward jews.


Arsace.

Yojimbo

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
In article <7g8vga$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,

dlt...@ix.netcom.com (dltjxx) wrote:
> >>falc wrote...
> >>>You need to learn some history pal. Freedom of religon came to
> >>Jerusaelm way back in the 6th Century when Islam came to Jerusalem.
>
> >>638CE is not the 6th century. Islam did not "come" to Jerusalem; they
> >>invaded. They slaughtered the Byzantines at Marj al-Saffar (635),
> >>seized Damascus and Edessa, slaughtered another Byzantine force at
> the Yarmuk (636), overran Aleppo and Antioch, took Jerusalem and
> slaugheterd the Jews of Hebron (638), then destroyed Caesarea Maritima
> 640).
>
> >Well, to be fair to the Moslems, there wasn't exactly a general spirit
> of ecumenicism at the time.
>
> True. And except for some scholars, clergy, and regular people, there
> isn't one now.

The Problem's interminable.

> >In 614 when the Persians took Jerusalem, the Jewish garrisons killed
> thousands of Christians at the Mamilla quarry, and the Christians
> responded in kind two or three years later when they kicked the
> Sassanids out.
>

> That must have been during Heraclitus' wars with teh Sassanids. But 614
> escapes me, and what's the Mamilla quarry slaughter -- by Jewish
> garrisions??? They were barely tolerated by the Byzantines.

The garrisons were with the Sassanids. Here's a paper on it written by Elliot
Horowitz. Great Historical site too.

http://www.indiana.edu/~iupress/journals/jss4-2.html


> >However, this doesn't take away from your original point, After 638
> the Moslems were in charge. As they needed the Jews for commerce and
> the Christians for administration, they let them back in eventually,
> but it took a while for tolerance to settle in which again dissipated
> with the next wave of fanaticism.
> >Best Regards,
> >Derek Copold
>
> The transition to Islamic domination was doubtless a relief; they
> dropped the Byzantine proscription against Jews living in Jerusalem,
> and granted the right to pray at the Wall -- along with the
> responsibilty of keeping the Haram esh-Sharif clean. An improvement,
> until, as you said, the next waves of fanaticism.

I believe they had had the right (better description would be dispensation) to
pray at the wall, as it fit within contemporaneous Christian theology of
emphasizing the destruction of the Temple. After 614, for reasons described
above, they weren't allowed back in.

> Still not exactly the
> same as Muslims/Arabs holding "OUR HOLY CITY for 1400 years in peace".
> What nonsense. Jerusalem wound up as Islam's Third Holiest City as a
> result of the Damascene khalifate's efforts to elevate their
> territory's importance over that of rival khalifates. Hence the
> building of the Dome of the Rock, and Jerusalem's identification with
> the "furtherest place" in the Quran, where it isn't even mentioned by
> name. A forced identification at best, but it seems to have stuck.

Legendary introduction revolving around Mohammed's ascent to Heaven from the
rock. Us Christians have our own degree of transsignification of locations as
well. See Kosovo.

> And Strabo wrote in the Geografica that Jerusalem was a place for which
> no one would fight.

Strabo?

Yojimbo

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
In article <7g91up$kqk$1...@news1.skynet.be>,

"Arsace" <ars...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> Yojimbo a écrit dans le message <7g8ih2$el2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >
> >In 614 when the Persians took Jerusalem, the Jewish garrisons killed
> thousands
> >of Christians at the Mamilla quarry, and the Christians responded in kind
> two
> >or three years later when they kicked the Sassanids out.
> >
> >............................In fact, to complete the picture, we must get
> in mind.
> the following
>
> 1/ Byzantine were at this time particulary oppressive toward Jews.
> for exemple they forbid, during the reign of one of their emperors to jews
> ever to live in the city.

Actually, to open the gates up to the Persians, they had to be in the city.


> They were otherwise regular pogroms & killing
> riots, specially during feasts period like Easter.

Well, there were riots by everybody actually. A couple of Patriarchs were
lynched by Jews in Antioch and Jerusalem. Like I said, ecumnecism was not
the rule of the day. The more severe ones you're thinking of occured well
after the time in question though I believe.

> Jews, as under Islam, had
> no right to ride a horse, with one notable exception, the emperor doctor,
> who was a jew.... Jews under Byzantines had to pay special taxes etc...
> Byzantine record was very poor toward jews.

Actually, during a 600 year history, the Jews were exposed to particularly
poor treatment under 3 emperors over a period of 10 years. I wouldn't say
the Byzantines were ideal or perfect, but on the other hand, they weren't as
villainous as you're portraying them.

> You are correct in saying that in 614 AD when the Persian Sassanian army of
> Shahrvaraz, the general of king Khusro II, threatened to take Jerusalem, the
> local jewish community open the doors of the city to them. There was also a
> counter terror directed at Byzantine. As to the number I have no exact
> figure, but the black layer on the ground of many archeological byzantine
> site on Jerusalem dated from this very year.

Tens of thousands... That's about as good a guess as we'll ever get.

> Some jewish volunteers formed
> a special unit in the Persian army and were rewarded in beeing garrisoned in
> Jerusalem.

There were active garrisons with Persians before this time as well.

Here's a link describing it:

http://www.indiana.edu/~iupress/journals/jss4-2.html

> When Byzantine had the upper hand again, a few years later, after the
> counter offensive of Heraclius, they nearly wiped out ALL jewish comunity of
> Jerusalem causing ten of thousands deaths.

Yes, this is true as well.

> To understan better the picture of that time you must note that they were a
> clopse bound between Parthians, then Sassanian persians empire and Jews
> during late Antiquity. This was in Sasanian mesopotamia that the Talmud was
> written, in religious schools funded by the non-jewish Parthian & Sasanian
> kings, and except one of two fanatical reigns, they were very friendly
> toward jews.

The Sassanians were also solicitous of Nestorian and Coptics. Generally, it
fit within their strategic interest of destabilizing their rivals, the
Byzantines.

Best Regards,
Derek Copold

dltjxx

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
>The garrisons were with the Sassanids. Here's a paper on it written
by Elliot Horowitz. Great Historical site too.
>http://www.indiana.edu/~iupress/journals/jss4-2.html

Thanks for the pointer.

>>And Strabo wrote in the Geografica that Jerusalem was a place for
which no one would fight.

>Strabo?

Greek geographer. I didn't save his exact quote, just checked them. He
wrote ca. late/early 1stC BCE/CE that Jerusalem's site on the edge of a
desert had nothing to recommend it; its soil was poor, its climate
arid, its only value was the Gihon spring, therefore, no one would
fight for it. (-: (-: Poor Strabo, he went to the Elysium Fields
ca.24?? CE

Deborah


Arsace

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to

Yojimbo a écrit dans le message <7g9uvk$kj8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>> >
Arsace wrote:

>> >In fact, to complete the picture, we must get in mind the following


>>
>> 1/ Byzantine were at this time particulary oppressive toward Jews.
>> for exemple they forbid, during the reign of one of their emperors to
jews ever to live in the city.
>
>Actually, to open the gates up to the Persians, they had to be in the city.
>

>....................I didn't say that they were banned at that time. But
during the Byzantine rule they were indeed banned from Jerusalem.

>> They were otherwise regular pogroms & killing
>> riots, specially during feasts period like Easter.
>
>Well, there were riots by everybody actually. A couple of Patriarchs were
>lynched by Jews in Antioch and Jerusalem. Like I said, ecumnecism was not
>the rule of the day. The more severe ones you're thinking of occured well
>after the time in question though I believe.


......................You are right in saying that oecumenism what not the
the rule in that day, but Byzantium had still a very poor record concerning
Jews even before the 614 events. In 429 AD fanatical monch burned in a
special action many synagogues all over the eastern provinces of the Byz.
empire. some with jews there in. See also a lot of Anti-Jewish propaganda in
the works of Johannes Chrysostome, famous for his work "polemic against
Jews", or even in the legal aspect with the Codex Justinianus. We could add
also the work of Aurelius (Saint) augustine altough he was not entirely
Byzantine , with his "Tractatus adversus Judaeos".

This litterature was not only words, at that time they were enforced into
laws, particulary restricting in some aspects too long to be described. One
short & striking exemple: in Jerusalem the site of the Temple (mount) were
used as a dumping ground.

Jews were in a later date expelled from Byzantium and had to live in a
quarter oustide the walls of the city. As I said before, Benjamin of Tudela,
a Jewish early medieval traveler atested that Jews couldn't ride a horse,
exept for the emperor doctor, who was a jew... It will be to bad if the
emperor should die before he could reach the palace !

Persecutions, even if they were not systematical occured regulary.
I remember to have read a transcript letter froma Khazar king to a Byzantine
emperor concerning the mistreatment of jews. As warned by the Khazars not to
persecute jews unless he will avenge them by raids against northern Byzant.
Borders, the emperor over a clampdown against rioters.


>
>> Jews, as under Islam, had
>> no right to ride a horse, with one notable exception, the emperor doctor,
>> who was a jew.... Jews under Byzantines had to pay special taxes etc...
>> Byzantine record was very poor toward jews.
>
>Actually, during a 600 year history, the Jews were exposed to particularly
>poor treatment under 3 emperors over a period of 10 years. I wouldn't say
>the Byzantines were ideal or perfect, but on the other hand, they weren't
as
>villainous as you're portraying them.

.................I didn't say they were villainous, we can't judge history
with our modern concept, but one thing for sure there were many countries &
empires who were at the same time much more tolerant toward jews.

.................I know very well the question of the relations between
Pre-islamic Persians empires & Jews.

As this is my main historical subject of interest I could speak about it for
hours with full lenght quotations etc.. But I will cut short and
summarie some striking facts.

The link between Parthians & Sasanians goes far over the classical policies
you described about Nestorians & Coptic. The first reported interaction
between Parthians & Jews occured during the time of the Roman civil war tht
broke out after the death of ceasar. Parthians invaded Roman Orient and
directed by their prince, Bakur (Pacorus) & a roman transfuge, Labienus,
they intervene in the dispute between Herode & Mathatias Antigonos, the last
heir of the Machabees. Parthian troops entrered in jerusalem acclaimed as
liberator from the roman rule. But that situation was soon reversed.

Approx. One century later, when a new war brokeout between Romans &
Parthians, When Trajan tried to conquer Parthia
As early as the wars between Parthians & Rome, during the great
Jews elsewhere in the Roman world rebelled against the Romans at the
sollicitation of the Parthians & saved by this move their empire from a
great threat by diverting a part of the roman forces.

Parthians had long beforecreated a new autonomus status for Jews within
theuir empire. They were ruled by Jewish courts who were able to deliver all
sentences against their kindsmen except the death penalty who were a royal
privilege. A special leader, the Resh Galuta, represented the jexwish
comunity at the court. He had rank in the Parthian nobility & could even
hold a personal artmed guerd. During the reign of the Parthian king
Artabanus II (11-38 AD) a independant jewish barony where established in
Msopotamia. Under the same monarch, a parent ofthe King, the prince of
Adiabene (actual Kurdistan) converted to Judaism with his mother, Queen
Helena. They spent a lot of money in order to help the judean commuinities
hit at this tilme by a famine. Many jews enjoyed high place in the Parthian
administration.
By the begining of the III century Artaban IV, another Parthian king is
recorded in the Talmud as to had exchanged a correspondance with a
mesopotamian Rabbi a grant him funds to build religious Schools. Never
duringt the five hundred years of the Parthian rule Jews suffered the single
persecution. Another passage from the Talmud claim also that god supported
Parthia in her stand against Rome in order to save the Jewish people.

During the Sasanian times the situation was less enthusuistic but still
very good. Ardashir restricted at first the privileges that the Resh Galuta
had recieved from the parthians but that move were invluded into a broader
scheme, in order to quelll feodality who was the norm under Parthians. His
son Shapour I & his sucessor were generaly very tolerant toward Jews. Evven
Shapour II renowed by east Christian communties for his cruel persecutions
against them spare jews at his mother request. Jews were still introduced
at the court. in the Vth century another Sassanian King, Yazdgard Ist,
married a jewish lady, daughter from the Resh Galuta, known under the
Persian appelation of Shushandukt.

Her son was the famous Sasanian king Bahram Gor(venered still today as the
hero of the Persian world).

You can see by these cvery exemple that friendship & links between
pre-islamic Persian empire & Jewswas going far beyond the classical
political game.

Arsace

Yojimbo

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
In article <7ga6m1$or7$1...@news0.skynet.be>,
"Arsace" <ars...@skynet.be> wrote:
[...]

> >Actually, to open the gates up to the Persians, they had to be in the city.
> >
> >....................I didn't say that they were banned at that time. But
> during the Byzantine rule they were indeed banned from Jerusalem.

But I thought that the Byzantines had actually opened access to the Temple
grounds for the Jews to remind them of their status. I suppose I'm wrong in
this, it's not the first time :)

> >> They were otherwise regular pogroms & killing
> >> riots, specially during feasts period like Easter.
> >
> >Well, there were riots by everybody actually. A couple of Patriarchs were
> >lynched by Jews in Antioch and Jerusalem. Like I said, ecumnecism was not
> >the rule of the day. The more severe ones you're thinking of occured well
> >after the time in question though I believe.
>
> ......................You are right in saying that oecumenism what not the
> the rule in that day, but Byzantium had still a very poor record concerning
> Jews even before the 614 events. In 429 AD fanatical monch burned in a
> special action many synagogues all over the eastern provinces of the Byz.
> empire. some with jews there in.

I've read Ambrose's letter on this, it mentioned a few synagogues and pagan
temples. Theodosius I was going to have the Church pay for it, but Ambrose
protested the decision and pointed out that the Church hadn't been refunded
for Basilicas destroyed during the Julian reign by both Jews and pagans.

Incidentally, I disagree with Ambrose, the Church was receiving state funds
and the least it could do was take responsibility for the monks, whom
Theodosius did punish.

> See also a lot of Anti-Jewish propaganda in
> the works of Johannes Chrysostome, famous for his work "polemic against
> Jews",

Adverseus Judeas. Actually they were only eight speeches early in his career,
and they are quite shocking and inexcusable even for that time. However, it
should be noted that Chrysostom was violently opposed to the idea of coerced
baptism, and when he was sent into exile after confronting the Empress Eudoxia
he counted the Jews among his sympathizers.

Robert Wilken wrote a short monograph on them _John Chrysostom and the Jews_,
he's a little more apologetic than I am. As an Eastern Orthodox, I feel his
writings on free will are indispensable, but I believe the Church would do
well to condemn these specific homilies. (To be fair to them anti-Semitism is
a heresy along with racism-[phyletism], a word or two on these wouldn't hurt
though, and it's been done in other areas.)

> or even in the legal aspect with the Codex Justinianus.

Not unusual for the age, but not a shining chapter either. It was this
stupidity along with suppressing the non-Chalcedonians that cost the
Byzantines dearly when Islam came.

> We could add
> also the work of Aurelius (Saint) augustine altough he was not entirely
> Byzantine , with his "Tractatus adversus Judaeos".

Actually, he was nothing near to being Byzantine. His teachings are violently
rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially congenital Original Sin.
However, to be honest, I imagine his anti-Jewish works wouldn't have been
rejected or novel in the East either.

> This litterature was not only words, at that time they were enforced into
> laws, particulary restricting in some aspects too long to be described. One
> short & striking exemple: in Jerusalem the site of the Temple (mount) were
> used as a dumping ground.

Very despicable practice. I believe it was a reaction to the Julian attempt
to rebuild the temple in 360.

> Jews were in a later date expelled from Byzantium and had to live in a
> quarter oustide the walls of the city. As I said before, Benjamin of Tudela,
> a Jewish early medieval traveler atested that Jews couldn't ride a horse,
> exept for the emperor doctor, who was a jew... It will be to bad if the
> emperor should die before he could reach the palace !

When did ghettos come into play in Byzantium? I know that there were Jewish
sections of Antioch and Aleppo, but I was under the impression they were
somewhat voluntary segregations.

> Persecutions, even if they were not systematical occured regulary.
> I remember to have read a transcript letter froma Khazar king to a Byzantine
> emperor concerning the mistreatment of jews. As warned by the Khazars not to
> persecute jews unless he will avenge them by raids against northern Byzant.
> Borders, the emperor over a clampdown against rioters.

I think there were also negotiations for the Levant. Not that it was really
Byzantium's to give away after the 7th cent.

Strangely enough, I read that the Byzantines and the Jews of Spain
collaborated in the seventh century to undermine Visigothic rule there. If
true, strange times!

> >> Jews, as under Islam, had
> >> no right to ride a horse, with one notable exception, the emperor doctor,
> >> who was a jew.... Jews under Byzantines had to pay special taxes etc...
> >> Byzantine record was very poor toward jews.
> >
> >Actually, during a 600 year history, the Jews were exposed to particularly
> >poor treatment under 3 emperors over a period of 10 years. I wouldn't say
> >the Byzantines were ideal or perfect, but on the other hand, they weren't
> as
> >villainous as you're portraying them.
>
> .................I didn't say they were villainous, we can't judge history
> with our modern concept,

Sorry. I should be more careful.

> but one thing for sure there were many countries &
> empires who were at the same time much more tolerant toward jews.

Well, you've mentioned the Parthians, and as I've pointed out there was a
strategic relationship, even if not so great as I believe. Who else was there
who had such a past bilaterally violent relationship yet was less repressive?

[...]


were also solicitous of Nestorian and Coptics. Generally,
> it
> >fit within their strategic interest of destabilizing their rivals, the
> >Byzantines.
> >
>
> .................I know very well the question of the relations between
> Pre-islamic Persians empires & Jews.
>
> As this is my main historical subject of interest I could speak about it for
> hours with full lenght quotations etc.. But I will cut short and
> summarie some striking facts.

Probably a good idea. As you speak with authority, I see no need to doubt
you.

>
> The link between Parthians & Sasanians goes far over the classical policies
> you described about Nestorians & Coptic. The first reported interaction
> between Parthians & Jews occured during the time of the Roman civil war tht
> broke out after the death of ceasar. Parthians invaded Roman Orient and
> directed by their prince, Bakur (Pacorus) & a roman transfuge, Labienus,
> they intervene in the dispute between Herode & Mathatias Antigonos, the last
> heir of the Machabees. Parthian troops entrered in jerusalem acclaimed as
> liberator from the roman rule. But that situation was soon reversed.

There may have been some interplay during the first triumvirate as well when
Crassus decided to use the Parthians as personal fund raiser. Bad idea.

>
> Approx. One century later, when a new war brokeout between Romans &
> Parthians, When Trajan tried to conquer Parthia
> As early as the wars between Parthians & Rome, during the great
> Jews elsewhere in the Roman world rebelled against the Romans at the
> sollicitation of the Parthians & saved by this move their empire from a
> great threat by diverting a part of the roman forces.
>
> Parthians had long beforecreated a new autonomus status for Jews within
> theuir empire. They were ruled by Jewish courts who were able to deliver all
> sentences against their kindsmen except the death penalty who were a royal
> privilege. A special leader, the Resh Galuta, represented the jexwish
> comunity at the court. He had rank in the Parthian nobility & could even
> hold a personal artmed guerd. During the reign of the Parthian king
> Artabanus II (11-38 AD) a independant jewish barony where established in
> Msopotamia. Under the same monarch, a parent ofthe King, the prince of
> Adiabene (actual Kurdistan) converted to Judaism with his mother, Queen
> Helena. They spent a lot of money in order to help the judean commuinities
> hit at this tilme by a famine. Many jews enjoyed high place in the Parthian
> administration.
> By the begining of the III century Artaban IV, another Parthian king is
> recorded in the Talmud as to had exchanged a correspondance with a
> mesopotamian Rabbi a grant him funds to build religious Schools. Never
> duringt the five hundred years of the Parthian rule Jews suffered the single
> persecution. Another passage from the Talmud claim also that god supported
> Parthia in her stand against Rome in order to save the Jewish people.

Considering the monothiestic, though gnostic, nature of Zoroastrainism I'm
somewhat surprised that something of Judaicized faith didn't spring up there.

Or am I wrong here?

> During the Sasanian times the situation was less enthusuistic but still
> very good. Ardashir restricted at first the privileges that the Resh Galuta
> had recieved from the parthians but that move were invluded into a broader
> scheme, in order to quelll feodality who was the norm under Parthians. His
> son Shapour I & his sucessor were generaly very tolerant toward Jews. Evven
> Shapour II renowed by east Christian communties for his cruel persecutions
> against them spare jews at his mother request. Jews were still introduced
> at the court. in the Vth century another Sassanian King, Yazdgard Ist,
> married a jewish lady, daughter from the Resh Galuta, known under the
> Persian appelation of Shushandukt.
>
> Her son was the famous Sasanian king Bahram Gor(venered still today as the
> hero of the Persian world).
>
> You can see by these cvery exemple that friendship & links between
> pre-islamic Persian empire & Jewswas going far beyond the classical
> political game.

Enlightening summary. Thank you very much. It's a pity that the relationship
didn't survive the onslaught of Islam. Bernard Lewis' _The Jews under Islam_
suggested (I think, it's been awhile) that conditions deteriorated quite
rapidly after the Abbasids[?]

son...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
In article <7g7rpa$q...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
dlt...@ix.netcom.com (dltjxx) wrote:
> >>It isn't. It is the capital of Israel and for the first time ever all
> religions can worship there
>
> >You need to learn some history pal. Freedom of religon came to
> Jerusaelm way back in the 6th Century when Islam came to Jerusalem.
>
> 638CE is not the 6th century. Islam did not "come" to Jerusalem; they
> invaded. They slaughtered the Byzantines at Marj al-Saffar (635),
> seized Damascus and Edessa, slaughtered another Byzantine force at the
> Yarmuk (636), overran Aleppo and Antioch, took Jerusalem and
> slaugheterd the Jews of Hebron (638), then destroyed Caesarea Maritima
> (640).
>
> >That was when for the first time ever; Jew, Christian or Muslim could
> pracice their respective religon freely.
> >Falc
>
> Well, Muslims could. The Jews and Christians were dead.
>
> Deborah
>

Yep, and it becomes a sort of logistics problem to pray when
you be dead. :-D

-Rachelie
A Usenet tradition since the early '40s.

son...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
In article <7g8vga$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
dlt...@ix.netcom.com (dltjxx) wrote:

> The transition to Islamic domination was doubtless a relief; they
> dropped the Byzantine proscription against Jews living in Jerusalem,
> and granted the right to pray at the Wall -- along with the
> responsibilty of keeping the Haram esh-Sharif clean. An improvement,

> until, as you said, the next waves of fanaticism. Still not exactly the


> same as Muslims/Arabs holding "OUR HOLY CITY for 1400 years in peace".
> What nonsense. Jerusalem wound up as Islam's Third Holiest City as a
> result of the Damascene khalifate's efforts to elevate their
> territory's importance over that of rival khalifates. Hence the
> building of the Dome of the Rock, and Jerusalem's identification with
> the "furtherest place" in the Quran, where it isn't even mentioned by
> name. A forced identification at best, but it seems to have stuck.
>

> And Strabo wrote in the Geografica that Jerusalem was a place for which
> no one would fight.
>

> Deborah
>
Oy Deborah, where are you when I debate Jews of the Left Wing Persuasion?
:-)

Some of these posters need to read "From Time Immemorial." (I hope
I got the title right.) :-) The author started out with the
intention of trashing the Israelis, but ended up with SOLID FACTS
disproving most of the Arab claims. I admire their stick-to-itiveness
though. They just never seem to give up. LOL

-Rachelie
My opinions are my own, but for a small fee, they can be
yours too.

Arsace

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to

Yojimbo a écrit dans le message <7gb4bg$mm0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

......................You are right, condemning religious discriminations
from all sides is the best way to achieve a respectfull cohabitation
between all & to take the lesson of history.

.....................I check the sources in my personal library but it was
difficult to find out when it really begun. The jewish separate quarter of
Byzantium (Constantinopolis) was called Stanor. Villehardouin, the French
Crusader who described in the XI century the siege of Constantinople by the
Crusaders, describe this quarter. So, as Villehardouin spoke about it, the
legislation should had been enforced well before. I think maybe by the VII
or VIII century AD.

Concerning Antioch, that city had a long tradition of rivalry between Jews &
Greeks, an that well before the Byzantine period. Even during the Seleucid
dynasty (301-64 BC) Greek merchants oirganized riots with Jews & vice-versa.
The main ground was then not a question of faith but lmere of comercial
interests. Jews were concurrents for Greek lmerchants, specially for the
very lucrative trade with the east. You will find the same situation in
Alexandria in Egypt, moderated by the fact that Jews were there very
powerfull & numerous. See for exemple the contra Apionem in Flavius
Josephus, & some works by Greco-jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. To
come back on Byzantine times, Antioch was among the first city to applied
stern registration toward jews. But to be fair, i must add that economically
speaking, the condition of Byzantine Jews were not to bad. I cited before
Benjamin of Tudela, a jewish middle-age voyager, who described the wealth of
Byzantine jewery toegether with their poor political & religious rights.
They wezre also a few Byzantine emperor who were more just toward jews, as
Theodosius II & Mauricius.

I take this opportunity to say that I read with great interest some
Byzantine historians; as Anna Comnene, The Alexiade, (chronicle of the reign
of Alexis Comnene 1081-1118), Psellos, Chronographia, Cinnamus,
Constantinus Porpyrogenete, all in their integral french translations. These
books concerning the crusade period from the Byzantine side were very
interesting.


>
>> Persecutions, even if they were not systematical occured regulary.
>> I remember to have read a transcript letter froma Khazar king to a
Byzantine
>> emperor concerning the mistreatment of jews. As warned by the Khazars not
to
>> persecute jews unless he will avenge them by raids against northern
Byzant.
>> Borders, the emperor over a clampdown against rioters.
>
>I think there were also negotiations for the Levant. Not that it was
really
>Byzantium's to give away after the 7th cent.
>
>Strangely enough, I read that the Byzantines and the Jews of Spain
>collaborated in the seventh century to undermine Visigothic rule there. If
>true, strange times!
>

..........................I didn't hear of it but this seems quite possible
as Visigoth, after their conversion from Arianism into Catholicism became
the fiercest persecutor of Jews in Spain at that time.


>[...]


>
>
>There may have been some interplay during the first triumvirate as well
when
>Crassus decided to use the Parthians as personal fund raiser. Bad idea.

>..................


....................Well, you raise here a very interesting point. It is
true that Mazdeism (state religion of the Persian Achemenid & Parthian
empires) & in a lesser way Zoroastrism (A reformed part of the first
religion who were enforced as state cult under the Sasanids) were close to
monotheism. You can see for exemple the very morale attitude of early
Persian kings like Cyrus or Darius (Vi-V century BC)
toward all faiths . The fact, attested by Herodotus that Persians didn't
make image of Ahoura Mazda, their superior spirit. In fact some writers
describ their religion as dualism, as against Ahoura Mazda was his
anti-thesis, Ahriman. But as Ahriman wasn't worshipped so this idea seems
ridiculous. Ahriman was indeed the prefiguration of Satan like you will find
it in later Judaism & Christianity. Note that in early Judaism it was no
trace of the devil. this idea was developped at the contact of the Parthians
in Mesopoitamia during the Talmudic period of Judaism.

Mithriacism who was just a splinter cult from Mazdeism, considering Mithra,
who was considered as the messager of Mazdah, had also some influence of
Christianty. BTW not many people knows that the date of Christmas (25
december) was fixed by the fathers of the church in the V th century AD, in
order to recover the old Mithrian solstice festival celebrating the
allongment of the days & thus the victory of light against darkness.

From the sources I 've read from, I can said that Jews had no particular
religious confrontations with early Mazdeans. The situation was a little bit
more tense with the Zoroastrians as their more dogmatic believes disagree
with judaism on some very important points. As for exemple the burials of
the deads, prohibed by Zoroastrism,; or the use of lights for Shabat
festivals as Fire was considered as sacred & reserved to Zoroastrian
services only. BUt they were public debates, "controversies" like in Eur.
Medieval times, between the Mobeds (Priest) & Rabbis & a common ground was
generally founded about these issues.

......................You are right.This was due, in my opinion, to the
different approach between Islam and Zoroastrism. Islam very believes
present themselves as being the fulfillment of all previous revelations
(Judaism & Christianity). For early caliphs they were three types of
peoples, those who were Muslims or converted to Islam; those (Jews &
Christians) who are tolerated as Dhimmis. And the rest, the Kafirs,
unbelievers who are left without any legal protection & could be slaughtered
or enslaved at the discretion of the local prince.

At the opposite, Zoroastrism presented themselves as a more Persian
national cult-They didn't look for conversion from other peoples- and
respected all believes, specialy the monotheistic one, who were close to
their believes.

Best regards,

Arsace.


dltjxx

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
>Oy Deborah, where are you when I debate Jews of the Left Wing
Persuasion?

Probably I'm off preparing for shabbat. (-: Or argin with my son, who
has decied to postpone his bar mitzva until he is old (i.e., 20).

>Some of these posters need to read "From Time Immemorial." (I hope
>I got the title right.) :-) The author started out with the
>intention of trashing the Israelis, but ended up with SOLID FACTS
>disproving most of the Arab claims. I admire their stick-to-itiveness
>though. They just never seem to give up. LOL

I'm beginning to acquire an admiration for Arab stick-to-it-ness. They
really do stick to their shtuck drek. Haval for the rest of us.

Deborah

rach...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/1/99
to
In article <7gd1fv$2...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,

dlt...@ix.netcom.com (dltjxx) wrote:
> >Oy Deborah, where are you when I debate Jews of the Left Wing
> Persuasion?
>
> Probably I'm off preparing for shabbat. (-: Or argin with my son, who
> has decied to postpone his bar mitzva until he is old (i.e., 20).


Really? That's gotta be hard for you. :-(

>
> >Some of these posters need to read "From Time Immemorial." (I hope
> >I got the title right.) :-) The author started out with the
> >intention of trashing the Israelis, but ended up with SOLID FACTS
> >disproving most of the Arab claims. I admire their stick-to-itiveness
> >though. They just never seem to give up. LOL
>
> I'm beginning to acquire an admiration for Arab stick-to-it-ness. They
> really do stick to their shtuck drek. Haval for the rest of us.
>

B'emmet chaval.

Yojimbo

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
In article <7gce8a$mq6$1...@news0.skynet.be>,
"Arsace" <ars...@skynet.be> wrote:
[...]

I imagine so, I've never gotten deeper than Runciman's history.

[...]


> >Strangely enough, I read that the Byzantines and the Jews of Spain
> >collaborated in the seventh century to undermine Visigothic rule there. If
> >true, strange times!
> >
> ..........................I didn't hear of it but this seems quite possible
> as Visigoth, after their conversion from Arianism into Catholicism became
> the fiercest persecutor of Jews in Spain at that time.
[...]

> >Considering the monothiestic, though gnostic, nature of Zoroastrainism I'm
> >somewhat surprised that something of Judaicized faith didn't spring up
> there.
> >
> >Or am I wrong here?
>
> ....................Well, you raise here a very interesting point. It is
> true that Mazdeism (state religion of the Persian Achemenid & Parthian
> empires) & in a lesser way Zoroastrism (A reformed part of the first
> religion who were enforced as state cult under the Sasanids) were close to
> monotheism. You can see for exemple the very morale attitude of early
> Persian kings like Cyrus or Darius (Vi-V century BC)
> toward all faiths . The fact, attested by Herodotus that Persians didn't
> make image of Ahoura Mazda, their superior spirit. In fact some writers
> describ their religion as dualism, as against Ahoura Mazda was his
> anti-thesis, Ahriman. But as Ahriman wasn't worshipped so this idea seems
> ridiculous. Ahriman was indeed the prefiguration of Satan like you will find
> it in later Judaism & Christianity. Note that in early Judaism it was no
> trace of the devil. this idea was developped at the contact of the Parthians
> in Mesopoitamia during the Talmudic period of Judaism.
>
> Mithriacism who was just a splinter cult from Mazdeism, considering Mithra,
> who was considered as the messager of Mazdah, had also some influence of
> Christianty. BTW not many people knows that the date of Christmas (25
> december) was fixed by the fathers of the church in the V th century AD, in
> order to recover the old Mithrian solstice festival celebrating the
> allongment of the days & thus the victory of light against darkness.

Got to take you to task here. Actually, according to the calendars of the
5th century, the winter solstice fell on 25 December. The Romans, in
general, had a pagan festival where friends exchanged gifts. It was this
pagan festival that Christianity coopted. Mithra's birthday, was coincident
as his date of emergence from the rock was set by the Solstice as well.

> From the sources I 've read from, I can said that Jews had no particular
> religious confrontations with early Mazdeans. The situation was a little bit
> more tense with the Zoroastrians as their more dogmatic believes disagree
> with judaism on some very important points. As for exemple the burials of
> the deads, prohibed by Zoroastrism,; or the use of lights for Shabat
> festivals as Fire was considered as sacred & reserved to Zoroastrian
> services only. BUt they were public debates, "controversies" like in Eur.
> Medieval times, between the Mobeds (Priest) & Rabbis & a common ground was
> generally founded about these issues.
>

[...]


> >Enlightening summary. Thank you very much. It's a pity that the
> relationship
> >didn't survive the onslaught of Islam. Bernard Lewis' _The Jews under
> Islam_
> >suggested (I think, it's been awhile) that conditions deteriorated quite
> >rapidly after the Abbasids[?]
> >
>
> ......................You are right.This was due, in my opinion, to the
> different approach between Islam and Zoroastrism. Islam very believes
> present themselves as being the fulfillment of all previous revelations
> (Judaism & Christianity). For early caliphs they were three types of
> peoples, those who were Muslims or converted to Islam; those (Jews &
> Christians) who are tolerated as Dhimmis. And the rest, the Kafirs,
> unbelievers who are left without any legal protection & could be slaughtered
> or enslaved at the discretion of the local prince.
>
> At the opposite, Zoroastrism presented themselves as a more Persian
> national cult-They didn't look for conversion from other peoples- and
> respected all believes, specialy the monotheistic one, who were close to
> their believes.

Thanks for the information. It's quite interesting. Persia seems to get
shoved off to the side our perception, despite its obvious influence on our
thinking and religion.

Arsace

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to

Yojimbo a écrit dans le message <7gn3jm$c15$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>In article <7gce8a$mq6$1...@news0.skynet.be>,
> "Arsace" <ars...@skynet.be> wrote:
>[...]
BTW not many people knows that the date of Christmas (25
>> december) was fixed by the fathers of the church in the V th century AD,
in
>> order to recover the old Mithrian solstice festival celebrating the
>> allongment of the days & thus the victory of light against darkness.
>
>Got to take you to task here. Actually, according to the calendars of the
>5th century, the winter solstice fell on 25 December. The Romans, in
>general, had a pagan festival where friends exchanged gifts. It was this
>pagan festival that Christianity coopted. Mithra's birthday, was
coincident
>as his date of emergence from the rock was set by the Solstice as well.
>

......................By the II century AD, Mithriacism begin to take a
great importance in Rome self. The first to take this faith were soldiers
coming back from the eastern front. They brought in Rome this new religion
who becmes soon very popular in the upper classes. Claudius, Nero, Marcus
Aurelius were considererd as sympathetic & protected them. You will find
many mithraeums (cult edifice related to mithra) in various roman provinces,
from Italy to Britain and fron Germany to Portugal. By the Romans Mithra
became sol Invictus, the unvainquished Sun. The strenght of this philosophy
was so strong that early Christians leaders had to accomodate with them. So
I think we spoke here of the same thing.

The festival of Mithra was called by the Parthians the "Mirhagan," from Mihr
who means light. E. Renan, the well known French historian, reputed for his
history of Christianism wrotes concerning this point I quote "If the
christianism should have been stopped in his grow by a mortal disease,
probably the world should be now Mithriac.

see also Duschene-Guillemain, The western response to Zoroaster, Oxford
clarendon, 1958.

dltjxx

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
>>BTW not many people knows that the date of Christmas (25
december) was fixed by the fathers of the church in the V th century
AD, in order to recover the old Mithrian solstice festival celebrating
the allongment of the days & thus the victory of light against
darkness.

>Got to take you to task here. Actually, according to the calendars of
the 5th century, the winter solstice fell on 25 December. The Romans,
in general, had a pagan festival where friends exchanged gifts. It was
this pagan festival that Christianity coopted. Mithra's birthday, was
coincident as his date of emergence from the rock was set by the
Solstice as well.

On solar calendars, the date of the solstice varies. 25th Dec was a
Mithran festival celebrated by Romans; worship of Mithra was very
popular with Roman soldiers, merchants, slaves. 25th Dec was also the
official Roman holiday of Sol Invictus, the "invincible sun", which
began the 12 days (and nights) of Saturnalia, marked by partying,
boozing, orgies, and probably a lot of hangovers.

Deborah


D S Levene

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
dltjxx (dlt...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >>BTW not many people knows that the date of Christmas (25

: december) was fixed by the fathers of the church in the V th century
: AD, in order to recover the old Mithrian solstice festival celebrating
: the allongment of the days & thus the victory of light against
: darkness.

The date was fixed in the 4th century, not the 5th. The date is recorded
as 25 December in the Philocalian Calendar of 336 CE.

: On solar calendars, the date of the solstice varies. 25th Dec was a


: Mithran festival celebrated by Romans; worship of Mithra was very
: popular with Roman soldiers, merchants, slaves. 25th Dec was also the
: official Roman holiday of Sol Invictus, the "invincible sun", which
: began the 12 days (and nights) of Saturnalia, marked by partying,
: boozing, orgies, and probably a lot of hangovers.

You seem to have confused some things here, I'm afraid.

The Saturnalia was a Roman festival of considerable antiquity, dating
at least back to the 5th century BCE. It took place on the 17th December,
not the 25th, and the celebrations extended no more than a week, to the
23rd at the latest - and under the Empire was often reduced to only three
or five days. See H.H. Scullard, "Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman
Republic" (London, 1981), 205-7.

There was no connection between the Saturnalia and the festival of
Sol Invictus. The latter did indeed take place on 25 December, but it was
a very late introduction to Rome: the festival was only founded by the
Emperor Aurelian in 274 CE. Prior to that the date 25 December had no
religious significance at all in the Roman calendar (we have quite a
number of Roman religious calendars to prove this).

David Levene
Department of Classics
University of Durham

Arsace

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to

D S Levene a écrit dans le message <7gnk26$c43$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk>...
>dltjxx (dlt...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >>BTW not many people knows that the date of Christmas (25

>: december) was fixed by the fathers of the church in the V th century
>: AD, in order to recover the old Mithrian solstice festival celebrating
>: the allongment of the days & thus the victory of light against
>: darkness.
>
>The date was fixed in the 4th century, not the 5th. The date is recorded
>as 25 December in the Philocalian Calendar of 336 CE.

...................Of course, in my first posting i "lost" the "I" before
the V for IV th century as a typing error.

(...)


>
>Sol Invictus. The latter did indeed take place on 25 December, but it was
>a very late introduction to Rome: the festival was only founded by the
>Emperor Aurelian in 274 CE. Prior to that the date 25 December had no
>religious significance at all in the Roman calendar (we have quite a
>number of Roman religious calendars to prove this).
>

......................You spoke of official cult, (ie. managed by the state)
I spoke of personal worshipping. You will find many Mithraeums even in
Britain, who anti-dates the reign of Aurelian. And for sure I know you will
find many of them on the European mainlaind. (i.e. oneexemple out of many:
in Pompei were we have a terminus post quem 69 AD) My point was the
connection of the Mihragan & the set of 25th December as the date of
Christmas. And there are plenty of proofs who will support this theory
accepted usualy by the specialists.

BTW it seems quite normal that it was under the Severan & their sucessors
that this officialization took place as they were also from "oriental"
origin. Was Septimus Severus was from Leptis Magna, Julia Mamaea, the mother
of Caracalla was from Emesa, as Julia Domna and quite a lot of "roman"
princesses at that time.

Arsace.

meirm...@erols.com

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to
In soc.culture.jewish on 4 May 1999 18:38:27 GMT dlt...@ix.netcom.com
(dltjxx) posted:

>>>BTW not many people knows that the date of Christmas (25
>december) was fixed by the fathers of the church in the V th century
>AD, in order to recover the old Mithrian solstice festival celebrating
>the allongment of the days & thus the victory of light against
>darkness.

>>Got to take you to task here. Actually, according to the calendars of
>the 5th century, the winter solstice fell on 25 December. The Romans,
>in general, had a pagan festival where friends exchanged gifts. It was
>this pagan festival that Christianity coopted. Mithra's birthday, was
>coincident as his date of emergence from the rock was set by the
>Solstice as well.

>On solar calendars, the date of the solstice varies. 25th Dec was a

Huh. You mean it varied over time and then in a chunk when the
calendar was adjusted? Not that it varies back and forth from year to
year.

P&M

>Mithran festival celebrated by Romans; worship of Mithra was very
>popular with Roman soldiers, merchants, slaves. 25th Dec was also the
>official Roman holiday of Sol Invictus, the "invincible sun", which
>began the 12 days (and nights) of Saturnalia, marked by partying,
>boozing, orgies, and probably a lot of hangovers.

>Deborah

Meir meirm...@erols.com

Email working. Catching up on backlog.
Remove QQQ to write and I'll get back to you..


0 new messages