Jews in Burqas

Post Reply New Topic

Veiling is mandated by the Qur'an (24:31 and 33:59), and it is Sunnah on the basis of several ahadith from the two Sahihs.

However, last time I checked, the specific type of veiling is not described in full in the Qur'an or the Hadith, which may account for the great variability between Islamic countries in the veils used (from something which amounts to little more than a baseball cap to a Burqa).

The Ebionite sect was banned by the Council of Nicea. In short the Jewish Christian were banned by the gentile Christians. That completed the separation. Paul's program of de-judifying the movement started by the Jewish Joshuah bar Joseph was completed at that point. What was left was NOT Christianity. What was left was Paulianity. l

ruveyn

I suppose it comes down to what is meant by 'adornment'?

I shall use two English translations for each verse:

I know the matter is discussed, but only briefly, in Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews, by James Carroll. Carroll's take is that the the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans destroyed the power of both the Sadducees and the "Jewish Christians," allowing both Pauline Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism (the spiritual and probably literal descendents of the Pharisees) to triumph within each denomination.

But within Christianity echoes of "Jewish Christianity" may actually be found in the Epistle of James, which by some (pun intended) miracle did land within the Biblical canon. Martin Luther wanted to punt that particular book, given stuff like the admonition that "faith without works is useless," etc. But other than that, I think there's next to no documentary evidence of what exactly it was that the Jewish Christians believed, and even what their exact religious practices were. (As in, did they follow the same dietary restrictions of Orthodox Jews or not, what someone had to do to convert into their sect, etc.) But it was the then pagan Romans who took care of them, not other Christians. As a practical matter I'd say they were extinct by 150 CE.

FWIW, within Judaism, the sect of Karaites, while probably having no direct connection to the Sadducees did (and does) reject the Talmud in toto. I think there's about 20,000 of them left world-wide.

One caveat: I'm, oh 98% or so confident of my citation of Carroll. Unfortunately it was part of a whole lotta books I had to give up when the wife and I split. I just have no room for them in my present living situation.

As a matter of logic, how do you call someone a "Christian" who rejects the divinity of Jesus? Which the Ebionites in fact did, at least as I understand their beliefs. Moreover, as I understand it, their "scriptures" had an even more dubious provenance than what ultimately fell within the New Testament. The "Gospel of the Hebrews," etc.

And as a practical matter, they were a minuscule group that had no influence -- and next to no numbers -- either within Christianity or Judaism. Lumping them in with the Donatists, the Pelagians, etc., is misleading in the sense that both of those groups posed a credible threat to what has come down to us as Christianity. The Ebionites were at best a minor sideshow in comparison.

Um, aren't Orthodox Jewish women supposed to cover their hair with either a wig or hijab-like covering anyway? As for the Western vs. Eastern culture argument, it can be said that Christian women wore hijab and modest clothes in the Middle Ages, so it's sort of part of Western culture already. While burqa may be a bit much for most tastes it all depends on the degree of modesty and some people are really into it. Totally cool...

I have to think that not every Christian Jew belonged to the Ebionite sect. It simply makes sense that those who accepted Paul's writing on how there was no longer any difference between Jews and gentiles, Greeks and Barbarians, Romans and Scythians, men and women, slave and free, would have become absorbed by the rest of Christianity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Actually, Luther ended up making peace with James in regard to the line, "I will show you my faith through my works," which corresponds nicely with Luther's own observation, "by faith alone, but faith is never alone."
I concede, I have never read Constantine's Sword.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Luther initially detested James because James sounded Jewish (which he was. All the members of the Christ family were Jews, Jesus, James, Mary and Joseph). Luther was an honorary member of the N.S.D.A.P. along with Richard Wagner. Luther's last words on earth before expiring was to curse the Jews and wish them dead. Nice fellah, that Martin Luther. But I forgive him. If I had bad s**ts like he did, I too would be in a bad mood most of the time. His bowels ruled his life. It was so bad for him he even smeared 95 feces on the walls of the Wurtemberg Cathedral.

ruveyn

One old cranky man forgiving another old cranky man - proof that we can all get along, after all.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think that about wraps up this thread, in my opinion.

Also, this Yahweh should really stop the ventriloquism act, he's awful at getting the points across.

I did not know that, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. Though I suppose there's as like as not an element of translator bias? And perhaps unintentionally, my own? Being a lapsed Catholic and not having picked up any Christian creed since, I guess I naturally gravitated toward the Catholic translation of James Ch. 2, specifically Verse 20:



Which statement I candidly still cannot see my way to a Martin Luther accepting. Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, that may or may not be the best way to bring Koine Greek into English. Doubtless there's more than one way to skin a cat, and equally doubtless there's more than one way to translate a phrase that will advance one position (that of Catholics) and embarrass another (that of those who believe in salvation by faith). Especially since, as I think Nietzsche noted, "Why did God choose to communicate to man in bad Greek?"

Something I'll have to ponder.



Created quite a stir on its release, but I think it is the sort of book most Catholics in authority wish would now go away. The critiques I've read all amount to quibbling around the edges of what Carroll had to say, and very little in the way of substantive rebuttal. Interesting, if you find that sort of thing diverting. I suppose I remembered what I paraphrased because it was a rare instance in the book where Jews had NOT in fact been persecuted by the Catholic Church, but by somebody else. A rather depressing read, personally, given my own background.