Inspired by the Torah thread, I started thinking about all of the crap I've been taught until about 6th grade in school. We're talking about 5 books' span, we're talking about 6 years of nonsensial things we were taught, we're talking about the one-sided, closed-minded view of those teachers I had.
Rivka is the only reason I'm not screaming "fundamentalism" right now.
You probably heard of the stories that happened at the end of Genesis, and how Joseph was sent by Phareoh (correct my spelling, for I never bothered with the English names) to help the nation survive through the seven years of famine. Well, here's the case. For about eight years (pre-K till 6) I was taught how nice, smart and clever good old Bonehead Joseph was, not giving away the food reserves to the stupid Egyptians, but rather selling them all the stuff he gathered with such incredible toil for the previous seven years, valiantly doing what's best for the world, and not letting the Egyptians fall prey to their own lust.
I could understand that were we talking about jewellery, but FOOD? Excuse me, but let the people eat without selling their own damn selves to you. So, fine, you want to have some econo-political move using your own ideas - fine.
But please don't be responsible for eight years of this pathetic brain-washing babble of all my timely teachers telling me how evil the Egyptians were and how there was no reason for them to enslave us, that it was their "shameful, Atheist sense of paranoia", being afraid of the chosen people. Well, how about looking up Genesis and seeing all the wicked things that Joseph Hebrite did to them? Not that it was his initiative, but he was the one they saw, and the lads weren't happy.
Also, don't start talking about "evil Babylon" and "evil Rome". Take a damn quick glance at Jeremiah and realise that the Jews are all responsible for bringing the troubles onself; look and see how much Nebuchadnezzar was nicer than the past 200 years of Judea's and Israel's kings. As for Titus? Read Plavius, as controversial as he may be. The Jews brought the Romans to the land 6 BCE, betrayed their king bringing direct Roman control 6 CE, got rid of Agrippa's dynasty 44 CE, didn't listen to Agrippa II's warnings in 66 CE and teased Florus a little too much that same year. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Stop blaming Rome, ye teachers, and stop brainwashing me.
Of course those bunch of Judges had to rise, read Josua 13 (first paragraph) and you'll know EXACTLY why! The land of Israel wasn't all conquered with a bunch of spectacular miracles. There were some, fine, but remember what happened with Jericho and the failure with the `Ai. Stop forcing us to cry over the lack of the Temple's existence. Read the commentary on Jeremiah 7:22, THEN talk.
Also, stop acting like the Bible was not written by men, and that there ARE mistakes in our current editions, even if the original text is sacred entirely. And oh, one more thing - Hebrew is NOT a PERFECT language and words' meanings CHANGE!
That's just the Bible studies. Eight years of brainwash, and I still haven't recovered from this conservative religious oppression of me into believing the things we "must" "all" believe in order to be real, true, honest, good Jews. How about letting us have some other perspective? Throughout my entire primary school I've been loaded with this thick-skulled single point of view. I'm now unlearning it from the "unquestionable facts" segment of my mind.
Argh! I need to go to sleep. I'll delete this thead in the morning, I think.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Bible study is certainly much more informative when, uh, the Bible is actually studied, and not just 'taught'.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I rather think of it as "commanded".
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Having done A LOT of Bible Study recently, I can't help but remember the 'Sunday School' versions of the stories, that were much more simplistic. In my case, for the most part there weren't too many overly-simplified-to-the-point-of-flasehoods taught as I recall, but there were many elements left out that, years later doing my own study, allowed me to see the story in a completely new light.
I don't think I necessarily would've understood the additional details as a child, but I am glad I had the foundation for the story.
A good example is the story of Balaam. There's a great deal of important info about who Balaam was, where he was going and why, that are never discussed in the Sunday School Version of the story. We generally just got the angel and the Talking Donkey.
Of course, as a pre-teen, I probably wouldn't have understood, or really cared about, who Balaam actually was.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Um... wow.
Well, I agree with you about Joseph. I thought his whole enslavement of the Egyptians (on behalf of Pharaoh, not that that makes it any better) was absolutely horrendous.
But I think Joseph was sucky in any number of ways. He acted like a brat, and while getting killed or sold may have been a bit of an overreaction, he certainly deserved a big old slap upside the head.
And look at the difference between Joseph and Judah. Judah gets called on the carpet by his daughter-in-law, who is about to be killed as a whore, and despite his position, he says tzadka mimeni. She's right. More righteous than I am. He takes responsibility for his own actions.
Joseph on the other hand... I can't think of a single place where he takes any responsibility for his own actions. Instead, he whines about how he got thrown into a pit and sold and lo asiti me'uma. I didn't do anything! Wah!
Feh on Joseph.
That said, I'm not acting like the Torah wasn't written by men; I'm saying it wasn't. The rest of Tanakh was, of course, but not the Torah.
And words definitely do change. Which is why it's necessary to learn Biblical Hebrew, because reading Tanakh in Modern Hebrew doesn't convey the actual meaning of the text. You know that.
And of course we brought our troubles on ourselves. That doesn't excuse the Babylonians and Romans for their crimes.
What's up with you, Jonathan?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I never knew the end of the story of David until I was a grown up. They just don't teach that in Sunday School-- or at least, didn't when I was growing up.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I don't recall being taught the end of the story of David in Primary, but it was in the "Old Testmanent Stories" picture book my parents got for me.
A vastly simplified version of it, but it was there. Bathsheba, Uriah, Nathan, Solomon...the gist of it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was raised Presbyterian.
We talked about people getting married, but never any details.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Amnon and Tamar?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
One of things I learned about this semester was that there's more to the story of creation than just God spoke and stuff happened. Also, the possibility that Asherah could be the consort of El/Yahweh is something that I've never heard before.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Her focus is the First Temple era, and the associated Temple Worhsip, and she believes that through her studies she has found that Israel at that time wasn't as monotheistic as we may have thought is was, with a destinct separation between El Elyon, and his son Yahweh, with Asherah/Wisdom possibly originally a consort to El.
She also paints Josiah's reform in a completely different light than has been previously discussed, with part of the Reform including the definitive consolidation of Yahweh and El into One Being.
All the reviews and studies I've heard of her work have been avsolutely fascinating, and I have the book on the way to my place from Amazon.com right now.
She's a Methodist minister from England, but her work has been noticed from all areas of Biblical Study. LDS scholars, in particular, have been especially intrigued by her research.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I've never heard of her, but this semester I'm taking a course called Religions of Ancient Israel. It gets into a lot of the monotheism, or lack there of, of the early Israelites. My professor hasn't quite made a distinction between El Elyon and Yahweh though. He's made them more out to be of a similar deity rather than two very separate ones.
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
I hear ya, Jonathan.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't blame my Sunday School lessons for having less than stellar information. That isn't because they were great or complicated. Rather, it was because they were taught at all. Perhaps its because of my independant nature of learning, but I find it MY responsibility to learn things and not someone elses.
I am less worried about getting taught imperfectly and simplistically than I am lied to about information. We all learn line upon line, and my guess is that you wouldn't even understand what you were reading if it wasn't for the past.
In other words, assuming your words reflect accurately your feelings, I think extreme dissapointement is ruining the joy of discovery.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*Coughs* Samson, anyone? Can you think of anyone less worthy of being remembered through antiquity, much less being painted in a heroic light?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, I dunno, I've always kind of admired the fact that the heros were fundamentally flawed.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't think he was fundamentally flawed. I think he was completely flawed. The only reason we remember him is because after spending his whole life wasting and repudiating the gifts he was given he finally, through his own stupidity gets captured and forced to work. For once in his life. And to get back at his captors he calls to God to give him the strength to kill all of them. Doesn't really impress me.
I know what you mean, though. David is a much more powerful figure because of the sin he commited. Soloman as well. I always loved the book of Nehemiah because Nehemiah is so arrogant, and yet he still fulfilled the Lord's purpose.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
yep!
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: *Coughs* Samson, anyone? Can you think of anyone less worthy of being remembered through antiquity, much less being painted in a heroic light?
How about Solomon? For a start, it is not known that he was smart it states ish hacham ata, but nobody knows what hacham means. Today it means smart, but no-one knows that's what it meant back then; as far as I'm concerned, it can even mean a hot-headed aggressor. Not to mention all of his sins.
The Gemarrah states about him (Bavli, Sanhedrin 21b) that (paraphrased):
quote:R. Yitzchak said "for what reason did the reasons of the Torah be revealed? For two readings did get their resons revealed, the greatest in the word failed with them. Quote 'he shall not have many women' (Deuteronomy 17:17), Solomon said 'I will have many and not derail [from the path of righteousness]. And quote 'And so it was toward's Solomon's old age, his wived had moved his heart [away from God]' (1 Kings 11:4); and quote 'he shall not have many horses' (Deuteronomy 17:16), and Solomon said 'I will have many but not return' and quote 'and chariots came out of Egypt with six-hundred silver' etc. (1 Kings, 10:29)".
As for your belief, Liël, I believe that Moses wrote down the books, but their copies changed all the while, some parts were lost and re-written et cetera. God gave the actual word, and told Moses what to write. But except for the Ten Commandments, God didn't physically write anything. That's my belief, and I base it on language in Deuteronomy.
I have no problem with other beliefs, but at least, Dear Mr/s Teacher, let me LEARN about OTHER THINGS that you might NEVER have TAUGHT, though they are still COMMON BELIEFS that do NOT count as SACRILEGE. Just read the Gemarrah, who wrote the book of Job? I like to believe that the last of the fifteen opinions is correct - he never actually was. I doubt the book of Jonah is non-fiction. But most controversially of all, I follow the Rambam in believing that the beginning of Genesis is also just a story to learn from.
Quod erat demonstandum.
Sampson's story is only to show the miracle, IMO. The same with Kings (the second book) 4. Worse, though, is the story of David, as I was only revealed to a little fact about it last year. He commits a sin. He is then told a story by Nathan the prophet; but the symbolism in the story is not parallel to the real happenings said in the book. Please, Mr/s Teacher, why don't you let us know beforehand that those little "Meshalim" (however they're not translated into English) are not always congruent with the story? How about giving us a general warning so we don't take it all as a given?!
Good morning, everyone!
[ September 20, 2005, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Have you ever heard of Margaret Barker? Her work has been making quite a stir in some biblical history circles, especially her book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.
Her focus is the First Temple era, and the associated Temple Worhsip, and she believes that through her studies she has found that Israel at that time wasn't as monotheistic as we may have thought is was, with a destinct separation between El Elyon, and his son Yahweh, with Asherah/Wisdom possibly originally a consort to El.
Um... that's one of the silliest theories I've ever heard of before. It gives Eric von Danikken a run for his money.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've semi-seriously of the opinion that the praising the wisdom of Solomon was actually the work of someone subverting the idea of a monarchy. Solomon was a bad king. He lost land through his poor decisions. And the "cut the baby in half" demonstration of his wisdom, if it is meant literally, is so stupid that only having a king command that it be regarded as wise would it be regarded as wise.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: *Coughs* Samson, anyone? Can you think of anyone less worthy of being remembered through antiquity, much less being painted in a heroic light?
How about Solomon? For a start, it is not known that he was smart it states ish hacham ata, but nobody knows what hacham means.
<raising my hand wildly> Ooo! Ooo! I know! Call on me!
Yeah, see, hochmah means something different than the way it's used in modern Hebrew.
The words hochmah, binah and da'at all have different meanings, even though they could all be translated as "knowledge" of one form or another in English.
You wanna know?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Today it means smart, but no-one knows that's what it meant back then; as far as I'm concerned, it can even mean a hot-headed aggressor.
Just because you don't know, Jonathan, doesn't mean that no one knows. It only means that you don't know. The question, then, is whether you want to stay not knowing, or whether you want to know.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: As for your belief, Liël,
Um... cool diareses, Howard, but my name is Lisa. People don't generally call me by my last name without tacking Ms. on before it.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I believe that Moses wrote down the books, but their copies changed all the while, some parts were lost and re-written et cetera. God gave the actual word, and told Moses what to write. But except for the Ten Commandments, God didn't physically write anything. That's my belief, and I base it on language in Deuteronomy.
Such as?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I have no problem with other beliefs, but at least, Dear Mr/s Teacher, let me LEARN about OTHER THINGS that you might NEVER have TAUGHT, though they are still COMMON BELIEFS that do NOT count as SACRILEGE. Just read the Gemarrah, who wrote the book of Job?
Iyov lo hayah v'lo nivra.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I like to believe that the last of the fifteen opinions is correct - he never actually was.
That's my personal favorite as well. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that I know it to be the correct one.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I doubt the book of Jonah is non-fiction.
I doubt it.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: But most controversially of all, I follow the Rambam in believing that the beginning of Genesis is also just a story to learn from.
Quod erat demonstandum.
You've demonstrated nothing, Jonathan. You've asserted. Those aren't the same thing. Would you like to cite a source for what you're attributing to the Rambam? Obviously it's going to be in his Moreh Nevuchim, but would you mind actually citing it so that I don't have to waste my time searching? I suspect you've misinterpreted him.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Sampson's story is only to show the miracle, IMO. The same with Kings (the second book) 4. Worse, though, is the story of David, as I was only revealed to a little fact about it last year. He commits a sin. He is then told a story by Nathan the prophet; but the symbolism in the story is not parallel to the real happenings said in the book. Please, Mr/s Teacher, why don't you let us know beforehand that those little "Meshalim" (however they're not translated into English) are not always congruent with the story? How about giving us a general warning so we don't take it all as a given?!
Jonathan, I'd like to slap your teacher(s). You deserve better.
And it's not Mrs. Ms. will do, or you can just call me Lisa.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I thought your Hebrew name was Liël. Oh, whatever.
Citations I'll have to do when I return from school. I'll just summarising saying that according to resarch I've conducted in Mikraot Gedolot and in Da'at Mikra, they are several different meanings, but nothing quite certain about the word's true, original meaning. Language in Deuteronomy, which in some cases amost quotes exactly what was said in the other books, is usually a description my Moses of what happened. That's just my belief.
I didn't say that the last one is the correct one, and I still believe Jonah exists (as he's mentioned elsewhere), I will search the Rambam later and I refered by Mr/s to my teachers, all married - of course.
*Gone to school. Be back in ~7 hours.*
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I thought your Hebrew name was Liël. Oh, whatever.
Actually, I don't have a Hebrew first name. I have a Yiddish first name and a Hebrew middle name. Lifsha Bracha. And no, I do not know what Lifsha means. I've been told that it's cognate to Leibschein (sp?), and I've been told that it means "sycamore" (though I've never found anything to support that).
I tried "Libby" for a very short time, but it just wasn't me. So I stick with Lisa. That's what it says on my teudat zehut.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Citations I'll have to do when I return from school. I'll just summarising saying that according to resarch I've conducted in Mikraot Gedolot and in Da'at Mikra, they are several different meanings, but nothing quite certain about the word's true, original meaning.
Wrong sources. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Language in Deuteronomy, which in some cases amost quotes exactly what was said in the other books, is usually a description my Moses of what happened. That's just my belief.
It is and it isn't. But even according to what you're saying, it doesn't follow from that that it was changed after being written, right?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I didn't say that the last one is the correct one, and I still believe Jonah exists (as he's mentioned elsewhere),
In Kings. The dynasty of Jehu lasted four generations as Jonah ben Amitai said. I can't recall the verse.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I will search the Rambam later and I refered by Mr/s to my teachers, all married - of course.
<grin> Of course.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
No one has mentioned Onan yet? really? Or did it have a weird spelling? When I was in religious school we saw a movie about it.
I suppose next you're going to tell me that Joseph ran from Potiphar's wife because he was gay.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
We didn't study Onan. Nor the story of Shchem. And I won't even go into Rashi's "unanimous" belief about Rahav and her way of life in Joshua 2.
I still remember my teacher's look on her face when everyone giggled and she said that it means one who feeds, not a whore. Yeah, right. (4th grade.)
Joseph was asked by Potifar's wife to steal her from her husband (like Helen was "stolen"), and then she told her husband that Joseph initiated it.
As for the reference that on Yom Kippur one is forbidden from üse of the bed" - our teacher (6th grade) told us that it was a matter of trivial importanvce, and we should remember that's its the actual forbidding of things we need to refer to in the test.
We never studied Leviticus 15 or Deuteronomy 22 before 7th grade.
But, come on - talking about s**? Are you MAD? Primary religious school? Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahaha.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: No one has mentioned Onan yet? really? Or did it have a weird spelling? When I was in religious school we saw a movie about it.
I was taught that Onan's punishment wasn't for... er, onanism, but rather for refusing to do his duty towards his dead brother by having a levirite marriage.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I suppose next you're going to tell me that Joseph ran from Potiphar's wife because he was gay.
Well, as much as he fits a bunch of stereotypes, I'm not sure there's enough information to claim that. Okay, I'll give him points for not messing with the boss's wife.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: We didn't study Onan. Nor the story of Shchem. And I won't even go into Rashi's "unanimous" belief about Rahav and her way of life in Joshua 2.
You mean that she was an innkeeper, rather than a whore? I don't really find that so hard to believe, you know. I mean, if there are possible infiltrators in the city, where do you search first, an inn or a brothel? And the word really does have that application as well.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I still remember my teacher's look on her face when everyone giggled and she said that it means one who feeds, not a whore. Yeah, right. (4th grade.)
<shrug>
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Joseph was asked by Potifar's wife to steal her from her husband (like Helen was "stolen"), and then she told her husband that Joseph initiated it.
Right. And this is a problem... why?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: As for the reference that on Yom Kippur one is forbidden from üse of the bed" - our teacher (6th grade) told us that it was a matter of trivial importanvce, and we should remember that's its the actual forbidding of things we need to refer to in the test.
Well, don't you think talking about marital relations with 6th graders could be a little inappropriate?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: But, come on - talking about s**? Are you MAD? Primary religious school? Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahaha.
You think that's bad? When I was in high school, we used a Hebrew/English chumash with Rashi. It had Rashi translated into English as well. Except that it skipped every Rashi, or piece of Rashi, that had any sexual content whatsoever. A bowdlerized chumash. I wonder who thought that one up, and that was in high school.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
We analysed for two lessons the innkeeper/whore question, and the evidence point strongly in the direction of whore. How about an innkeeper-whore? That way she knows how to kep the customers away from competitors' motels.
The thing is that Potifar's wife only asked him to sleep with her, not take her away. As for sixth-graders, they know all about sex. The teachers know that the kids know too, all that needs to be said is that "two people are not permitted to sleep on such and such a night", full-stop.
I wonder how the Gemarrah (Avoda Zara, 17a) would be translated.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: [qb] Have you ever heard of Margaret Barker? Her work has been making quite a stir in some biblical history circles, especially her book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.
Her focus is the First Temple era, and the associated Temple Worhsip, and she believes that through her studies she has found that Israel at that time wasn't as monotheistic as we may have thought is was, with a destinct separation between El Elyon, and his son Yahweh, with Asherah/Wisdom possibly originally a consort to El.
Um... that's one of the silliest theories I've ever heard of before.
How so?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:echoes Taal:
Not that I believe Barker's work. . . but this terse denial's out of character for you, starLisa.
Here are some quotes from reviews at the Amazon site-- can you refute?
quote: Her hypothesis is that Elohim refers to the Most High God and that Jehovah (Yahweh) was one of his sons. There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel. After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others. The Angel of Yahweh is seen as a second God that would eventually lead to threatening a form of monotheism that was growing more and more exclusively strict. Another brand of Judism (Enochic Judaism)in contrast tried to preserve the ancient beliefs of the Davidic Temple Cult. It was this brand from which Essenes and Christians sprang. By the second Century CE the other Jews would put a label on this heresy as the TWO POWERS in Heaven.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Then again, the concept may be so silly to Jews, it may not be worth arguing. Like trying to say to a Mormon, "Joseph Smith got the gold plates from Elbheron, from the planetoid Go-booble!"
Just not worth pursuing. . .
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Except one of those theories has ancient texts that have allowed the theory to be plausibly formulated, and the other, well, doesn't (At least not that I'm familiar with! If there's a Go-Booblian Manuscript wandering around, why haven't I read it? )
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
One of the major points of this thread is discussing things we've learned that differ from the traditions we've been taught.
As one who has changed denominations/traditions partly based on new information that I had not previously been educated about, this is a topic I take seriously.
Just as I'm sure those from Jewish traditions will readily agree with, study of Biblical works asolutely requires context. A study of the Hebrew or Greek scriptures without some sort of knowledge of the historical context can lead one to making some very incorrect conclusions. There are thousands upon thousands of those conclusions flying rampant even now. I don't think anyone will deny this.
Many who wish to understand the Biblical works also completely reject or ignore contemporary text that help place this context, and understand the thoughts of practitioners of the faith during those periods.
Texts marked as Apocryphal and Pseudepigriphal, while not necessarily having to be considered Authoritative, can be extraordinarily important in understanding the thoughts of the times.
StarLisa, most likey, also believes the idea of the Divinity of Jeshua of Nazareth to be "a silly theory" (let alone the claims Mormonism makes).
And that's not a problem. In fact, it raises a question. If this was the same tradition that existed in the first century AD, would not all have found to this to be a Silly Theory, to be paid no mind?
There does appear to be a wide gap between statements given in the Hebrew Scriptures ending with Malachi, and elements taken easily as Truth by former devout Jews in the Gospel accounts in the Greek Scriptures.
For me, it's not ridiculously illogical to think that there had been traditions and teachings, and remnants of earlier texts that allowed the revelation of an incarnate Yahweh as a separate Son of El to make sense to those particular Jews.
For someone only familiar with the Standard Canonized Hebrew and Greek scriptures, a reading of 1 Enoch would be mindblowing - so many blatantly 'Christian' views, concepts, and prophecies being explored many years prior to the Christian era.
While I don't believe our existing copies of Enoch are nearly as ancient as they claim to be, I do believe that they contain many ancient traditions, teachings, and prophetic interpretation from much a much earlier era, exploring elements that we still have only just begun to understand the significance of.
With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient manuscripts coming to light as of late, it makes for a fascinating time for Biblical and Theological research.
Many 'missing links' are being found that make so many puzzle pieces begin to make a whole lot more sense.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: We analysed for two lessons the innkeeper/whore question, and the evidence point strongly in the direction of whore. How about an innkeeper-whore? That way she knows how to kep the customers away from competitors' motels.
Mebbe.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I wonder how the Gemarrah (Avoda Zara, 17a) would be translated.
Where on the page?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: :echoes Taal:
Not that I believe Barker's work. . . but this terse denial's out of character for you, starLisa.
I'm not sure I've been here long enough for you to think of something as "out of character" for me, but okay.
Look, some things are just dumb. If someone wants to claim that there isn't really a sun, and that it's just a reflection off the moon of some star out in the sky, spending time refuting it is kind of a waste of time.
I like reading the works of crackpots. Don't get me wrong. A crackpot theory is just one that doesn't fit the current paradigm. But within the category of crackpot theories, there are bibble-bibble ones that you can only laugh at.
That said, because you were kind enough to include some specific claims, I'll have a go. This could get lengthy, even for me.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Here are some quotes from reviews at the Amazon site-- can you refute?
quote: Her hypothesis is that Elohim refers to the Most High God and that Jehovah (Yahweh) was one of his sons.
Let's start here. In the first place, it's patently clear from about a thousand places in the Torah that Elokim and Hashem are two names for the same God.
[Observant Jews don't pronounce the name beginning with "E" except during prayers, for reasons of reverence. The same is true of the Tetragrammaton. Even in prayers, we pronounce that one "Ado-nai", and in common speech, we use "Hashem". Sorry if it gets confusing, but that's how I'm going to be using the names.]
There are even places where God is referred to as Hashem Elokim. Are there any places in Greek mythology, for example, where they talk about Zeus Hermes? No, because those are two different characters.
Also, you have to understand. We know what the intent is of the various names used for God. Her theorizing is like someone going up to a doctor and saying: "I think that the appendix is really supposed to extend outside of the body, because it sounds like 'appendage'".
True story. I was in college, at some Hillel House event. There were people from the St. Louis community there as well. This one guy started telling me that he thinks there's a connection between "holy" and "whole", and that since the Torah says we are supposed to be a "holy nation", it's really talking about Jewish unity.
So first I tried to explain to him that those two words have no connection in English. He refused to accept that. Heck, they sound similar, right?
Then I pointed out to him that the word "holy" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible.
(Shock value is a useful teaching tool.)
When he closed his mouth, I explained that the word he's thinking of is kadosh (qadhosh for those of you who like academic spellings). And that kadosh doesn't sound anything like shalem, which is the Hebrew word for "whole".
I pointed out to him that kadosh actually has a connotation of "separateness", and that if he wants a word that has connotations of wholeness, that would be shalom, or "peace", which actually is related to "whole".
He set his jaw and said, "I still think it means we're supposed to be unified." Go talk with someone like that.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel.
There's no source for any such thing. Look, the Amazon.com listing said that she gets a lot of her stuff from the Qumran scrolls. Those people were sectarians out in the desert and had nothing to do with the rest of the Jews. I don't know if even they had such an idea, but even if they did, which I doubt, it has nothing to do with Jews in general.
Remember, there were Jews who went astray after Baal and Asherah as well. We know that. It just isn't representative.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others.
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Angel of Yahweh is seen as a second God that would eventually lead to threatening a form of monotheism that was growing more and more exclusively strict.
There's no such thing as "the Angel of Hashem". Angels are not separate beings. They are merely tools of Hashem's will.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Another brand of Judism (Enochic Judaism)in contrast tried to preserve the ancient beliefs of the Davidic Temple Cult.
So she's getting into the mad mysticism of some of the books of the pseudepigrapha. That's cool. Hey, I wrote a "biblical book" myself when I was in college. You can see it here if you like. But it's fiction.
Jews never accepted those books. There's no evidence anywhere that the ideas in those books were ever a part of Jewish culture. Not even a fringe part.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It was this brand from which Essenes and Christians sprang. By the second Century CE the other Jews would put a label on this heresy as the TWO POWERS in Heaven.
What can I say? It's goofy.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Except one of those theories has ancient texts that have allowed the theory to be plausibly formulated,
Which one would that be? Certainly not that "two powers" thing.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Where on the page?
In the Vilna edition? Starting 9 rows from the wider ones (והתניא אמרו עליו). I thought that the story beginning at the end of page 4a (on that same Masechta, 4 lines from the end, "רב פפא רמי כתיב...") but spanning to the next one was the most obscene of them. But I was wrong. :S
If your Aramaic is good then you should read it directly, otherwise use Steinsaltz, or less preferably a Hebrew ArtScroll. At least with their abundance here...
quote: True story. I was in college, at some Hillel House event. There were people from the St. Louis community there as well. This one guy started telling me that he thinks there's a connection between "holy" and "whole", and that since the Torah says we are supposed to be a "holy nation", it's really talking about Jewish unity.
It's these kind of people I hate arguing religiously with. It's like one person who makes sure never to use "el" when referring to God (capitalised) out of prayer, but has no problem referring to "elohim acherim". Now, sometimes I slip by a more direct reference to God's explicit names, which he asks me not to do. I understand - he might feel uncomfortable, so I do my best to "hold my tongue" next to him.
But when he starts telling me all these ridiculous (IMO, that is, and he know I believe they are ridiculous) descriptions of what the evil spirits will do to me in Hell, then it drives me nuts. I disagree with him about almost everything, but that doesn't mean I don't respect his preference of keeping God's name discreet. He knows I respect and comply as well as I can. He drives me crazy, though, with these threats of me being a heathen - then he says: "You? I never called you an Apikorus!"
Heck, I don't mind being an Apikorous, but at least tell me you feel uncomfortable, don't try to reason why you believe what is superstition - whether true or false - when you know I, personally, couldn't care less.
One more thing this damn educational system caused.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: Where on the page?
In the Vilna edition? Starting 9 rows from the wider ones (והתניא אמרו עליו). I thought that the story beginning at the end of page 4a (on that same Masechta, 4 lines from the end, "רב פפא רמי כתיב...") but spanning to the next one was the most obscene of them. But I was wrong. :S
So... what's bad about this story? R' Dordiya seems to have been a pretty unsavory kind of guy. Such men exist. At the end of the story, he wants to do teshuva (repent, for the audience), and he dies of grief trying to repent.
Or is it the stuff with the hills and stars and so forth. You know none of that is literal, right?
That's obscene? Or is the fact that his repentance counted what you view as obscene? I'm honestly curious.
Page 4a... that's also aggadeta. The part about Bil'am and his donkey? Okay, that's pretty harsh, but "obscene"?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: If your Aramaic is good then you should read it directly, otherwise use Steinsaltz, or less preferably a Hebrew ArtScroll. At least with their abundance here...
I don't do Artscroll, generally. Sometimes I'll use Nasi Steinsalz's translation into Hebrew, but I can make do with the Vilna.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: True story. I was in college, at some Hillel House event. There were people from the St. Louis community there as well. This one guy started telling me that he thinks there's a connection between "holy" and "whole", and that since the Torah says we are supposed to be a "holy nation", it's really talking about Jewish unity.
It's these kind of people I hate arguing religiously with. It's like one person who makes sure never to use "el" when referring to God (capitalised) out of prayer, but has no problem referring to "elohim acherim".
Well... what's wrong with that? Honestly? In "elohim acherim", they aren't actually deities. There's no reverence pertaining. Also, if you're referring to "elohim" in the sense of a beit din, saying it isn't a problem.
Really, Jonathan, that's standard stuff. Is your objection to it that it's chauvinistic?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Now, sometimes I slip by a more direct reference to God's explicit names, which he asks me not to do. I understand - he might feel uncomfortable, so I do my best to "hold my tongue" next to him.
That's good manners.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: But when he starts telling me all these ridiculous (IMO, that is, and he know I believe they are ridiculous) descriptions of what the evil spirits will do to me in Hell,
Ignore him. That's crapola.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: then it drives me nuts. I disagree with him about almost everything, but that doesn't mean I don't respect his preference of keeping God's name discreet. He knows I respect and comply as well as I can. He drives me crazy, though, with these threats of me being a heathen - then he says: "You? I never called you an Apikorus!"
Why do you bother with someone who is haranguing you like that?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Heck, I don't mind being an Apikorous, but at least tell me you feel uncomfortable, don't try to reason why you believe what is superstition - whether true or false - when you know I, personally, couldn't care less.
When I was in high school, we got a new principal our senior year. It was awful. My cousin, who kept kosher (I was still Conservative, and didn't), actually went out and ate treyf intentionally. He told me, "If that guy is representative of Judaism, then the hell with Judaism!"
I get the feeling, but a jerk who is religious doesn't mean that religion is jerky. Jerks will be jerks.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I never said religion is jerky. I have my opinions, and I respect others', such as God's names' censorship. But don't start telling m about how your superstitions of terrifying happenings are supposed to change me. Don't you preach to me!
Unfortunately, that lad is far more intelligent than me and tends to hang around me too often.
As for Avodah Zara, I was referring to the comments about farting during sex as obscene. Nothing against it personally, but you should have seen the reaction when we were taught it.
Would I discuss with this forum the properties of my defecation? Would it seem appropriate? Wouldn't you twist your nose in discomfort when you read a post in which I talk about it? Similarly trying to prove (twice using ambiguous Hebrew roots) that if Balaam raped his Shedonkey it means that no-one can understand God's mind.
It's a "little" inappropriate. But the Gemarrah is full of it, and has no border-lines of what can be said and what can't. It seems to lack etiquette.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
In speaking of Biblical stories that leave a bad taste in your mouth, I've been profoundly disappointed in the story of Esther. Esther is revered as a great and courageous woman, a savior of her people. In studying the story of Esther (in college, in a Women's/Jewish studies class), I was greatly underwhelmed. I was disappointed that Esther is made queen through the political machinations of her uncle and by virtue of the fact that she was the only woman to sufficiently impress the King in bed enough for him to remember her name later. Now, I admire her willingness to intercede for her people, but sadened that she hid her identity up until that point. It almost seems to me that Vashti (we discussed the possibility that in commanding her to appear at his drunken revel, Ahashuerus was actually commanding her to appear in nothing but her crown) is more worthy of our admiration than Esther. One refused to give in to the whims of a drunken nymphomaniac, the other advocated on behalf of her people after hiding her identity and sleeping her way into power. ick Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I wasn't aware that the "audition" for queenhood had involved sex with the king. Makes sense, certainly not unthinkable, I just didn't realize it was the case.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I never said religion is jerky. I have my opinions, and I respect others', such as God's names' censorship. But don't start telling m about how your superstitions of terrifying happenings are supposed to change me. Don't you preach to me!
Have I done that? I didn't think I had.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Unfortunately, that lad is far more intelligent than me and tends to hang around me too often.
Sorry if he doesn't come across as overly bright from your description.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: As for Avodah Zara, I was referring to the comments about farting during sex as obscene.
Oh. Missed that.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Nothing against it personally, but you should have seen the reaction when we were taught it.
Would I discuss with this forum the properties of my defecation? Would it seem appropriate? Wouldn't you twist your nose in discomfort when you read a post in which I talk about it?
Probably. But if it was in a thread about bodily functions, I probably wouldn't be reading it if that kind of thing bothered me.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Similarly trying to prove (twice using ambiguous Hebrew roots) that if Balaam raped his Shedonkey it means that no-one can understand God's mind.
Dude, it's not literal. Really. You can't take aggadeta at face value.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: It's a "little" inappropriate. But the Gemarrah is full of it, and has no border-lines of what can be said and what can't. It seems to lack etiquette.
I once learned the sugya of petach patuach. It's in Ketubot, I think 9a. It's the launching pad for the entire field of chazaka, rov, safek and so on. Extremely basic and critical stuff. But the whole concept of the sugya is just so offensive to me.
And then I remind myself that I wasn't the audience it was written for. It wasn't aimed at my sensibilities. And it's really the content that matters, more than the cultural dissonance that I might find in it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ludosti: In speaking of Biblical stories that leave a bad taste in your mouth, I've been profoundly disappointed in the story of Esther. Esther is revered as a great and courageous woman, a savior of her people. In studying the story of Esther (in college, in a Women's/Jewish studies class), I was greatly underwhelmed. I was disappointed that Esther is made queen through the political machinations of her uncle and by virtue of the fact that she was the only woman to sufficiently impress the King in bed enough for him to remember her name later. Now, I admire her willingness to intercede for her people, but sadened that she hid her identity up until that point. It almost seems to me that Vashti (we discussed the possibility that in commanding her to appear at his drunken revel, Ahashuerus was actually commanding her to appear in nothing but her crown) is more worthy of our admiration than Esther. One refused to give in to the whims of a drunken nymphomaniac, the other advocated on behalf of her people after hiding her identity and sleeping her way into power. ick
I wouldn't criticize Esther too badly without considering the situation she was in. Would you criticize a Jew who hid his Jewishness during WWII in Germany?
The main idea of this book is the idea that all of the things that are described seemed, on the surface, to be merely realpolitik, but that it was really God behind the scenes.
It's why God's name isn't mentioned in the entire book.
It's basically the essential struggle between Israel and Amalek from time immemorial. Amalek looks at an obvious miracle and finds a way to explain it away as random chance. Israel looks at something that seems to be random chance, and finds the divine in it.
It's not a coincidence that Haman is an Amalekite.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
bev - Each woman was sent to the king for the evening and come back to the chamberlain who kept the king's "concubines" in the morning, where she stayed unless the king asked for her by name. Sounds to me like he was test driving them before choosing his queen.....
star - It is ironic that God, who is "behind the scenes", isn't mentioned at all. I understand that Jews weren't necessarily in the best of situations under Ahasuerus' rule, but I find it surprising that, if they were seriously subjugated, Mordechai was as highly placed in court as he was.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ah. It's been awhile since I've read Esther.
Again, not surprising at all, I just didn't realize it was eluded to in the passage.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Jon, I'm sorry that your religious education is so unsatisfactory. But, you can change that, too. Find religious education that doesn't so offend your sensibilities, no?
Me, I'm BT, and was raised in a non-observant home. My Jewish education was at our Conservative Synagogue, two evenings a week after school and Sunday morning. I hated and resented going. It seemed like such a waste of time. I learned next to nothing, and after going to public school all day, I didn't want more school in the evening. Even while I was still a kid doing the afterschool thing, I said that I wouldn't make any kids of mine go through it.
My kid is around your age (he's 14), and he is very happy with his religious education. He has been going to an Orthodox Yeshiva since kindergarten, and really loves and respects the Rabbis who are his teachers. Now he's in high school, and still adores his rabbis. The ones that he has had for teachers seem to have a genuine warmth and love of kids and teaching that makes the students respond with a love of learning.
Sometimes I disagree with a Rabbi's perspective, and I will try to expose the kid to another point of view. He will make his own decisions, though.
I wish that I had the quality of education and educators that my son has. My religious education is far from over, and I'm learning every day.
You sound like someone who would appreciate learning B'chevrusa over a shiur. Maybe you can add more of that and see if it adds to your satisfaction.
Good luck in the journey,
Tante Esther
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
And in all this talk about Esther, I keep thinking, "Who, me?" Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Heh. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ludosti: star - It is ironic that God, who is "behind the scenes", isn't mentioned at all. I understand that Jews weren't necessarily in the best of situations under Ahasuerus' rule, but I find it surprising that, if they were seriously subjugated, Mordechai was as highly placed in court as he was.
I don't know that he was highly placed. He was probably a pretty minor official.
And bear in mind that Esther was an orphan. That doesn't prove that her family was killed, but it's certainly a possibility.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: quote: Orignially posted by StarLisa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Scott R: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
How is this a bald claim? It seems to me as if you are arguing from a modern perspective. Because you belive the names of the Most High and Jehova are interchangable now, does not immediately mean that they have always been so, or at the very least, you have not provided sufficient support to your argument to show me why you believe it has always been the case. As far as the interchanability of god's nomenclature, Zues was never called anything else but Zues. You may believe that stories about Zues are not true, but your logic about him never being called Zues Hermes is flawed at best and still leaves questions unanswered: why would God introduce himself as one but not the other? Why would God call himself by two names in the first place. (Mind you, I have not studied the Hebrew scriptures. Jews would know better than I what questions to ask.) Also, names are said very different from place to place and time to time. Again, I have little knowledge of Jewish History, but the Scandanavians, for example determined your last name by your father's name (hence Johnson, Samuelson ect.) elsewhere by your occupation (thus Smith, Carpenter, Baker, ect.) and in other cultures, a family name came first (Japan, China and so forth) Instances of God appearing or speaking directly to his worshipers have been few and far between since the last ones recorded in Biblical texts, maybe one person every 500-1000 years reports any sort of vision with significant impact. I dunno, maybe times hae changed a little since then, God may not be "trendy" but he does tend to speak in a language that the vision-ee can understand.
As far as the Jews maybe having trouble reconciling the name of their God over those of Babylon, that makes sense to me. You have a God that you believe will protect you from nations that are wicked, and suddenly, one of those wicked nations storms in and destroys the center of the Jewish religion at that time. You can either say that you are wicked and God punishing you, or you aren't wicked and Marduk (Babylon's principle God as I recall) is superior to yours in some way. Either way, there's some reconciling to be done. There is some evidence of this sort of conflict after the destruction of the temple of Herod by the Romans. The Gospels which were written after it's destruction, show a varying degree of contempt for different aspects of Jewish society, and yet Christians obviously started as merely a cult of Judaism that seemed to get along fairly well to a separate religion that disliked and sometimes demonized the Pharisees or just Jews in general.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: In the first place, it's patently clear from about a thousand places in the Torah that Elokim and Hashem are two names for the same God.
It's also the theory that what currently exists as the Torah doesn't still exist as it was originally written, but many parts have been worked over by what are called Deuteronomic Editors, who emphasised the Oneness factor far more than it originally did. This is not a new 'crackpot theory', it is one that has existed for a good while, and many scholars do accept this as fact. True that others do not accept it, but smart, well-researched individuals do feel there is a basis for this.
quote: Also, you have to understand. We know what the intent is of the various names used for God. Her theorizing is like someone going up to a doctor and saying: "I think that the appendix is really supposed to extend outside of the body, because it sounds like 'appendage'".
When were the words put into writing that form the basis of how "You Know" what the "intent" was?
quote:
quote:There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel.
There's no source for any such thing. Look, the Amazon.com listing said that she gets a lot of her stuff from the Qumran scrolls.
Reviews on Amazon usually don't document the sources of the book. Dismissing claims because an Amazon reviewer didn't go into detail is, in itself, ridiculous. Barker does use many, many sources.
quote: Those people were sectarians out in the desert and had nothing to do with the rest of the Jews.
In many cases of their own volition. Who'se to say who was more correct?
quote:I don't know if even they had such an idea, but even if they did, which I doubt, it has nothing to do with Jews in general.
Never claimed it did with Modern Jewish thought, or even 1st Century AD Majority Jewish Thought.
quote:Remember, there were Jews who went astray after Baal and Asherah as well. We know that. It just isn't representative.
Well aware of this.
quote:
quote: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others.
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
Later on I'll provide some references.
As for your using the Torah as an example, it's akin to saying, "The Torah could never have been changed, because the Torah says it could never have been changed." - part of the theory contains the specific statement that the Torah has been edited.
quote:
quote:The Angel of Yahweh is seen as a second God that would eventually lead to threatening a form of monotheism that was growing more and more exclusively strict.
There's no such thing as "the Angel of Hashem". Angels are not separate beings. They are merely tools of Hashem's will.
What does the Hebrew call the being in Genesis 16:7-11? Or Genesis 22:11, 15? Exodus 3:2? Numbers 22:23, etc. I admittedly am not well versed in Hebrew, but do not these verses report of appearances of "the Angel of Yahweh?"
quote:
quote:Another brand of Judism (Enochic Judaism)in contrast tried to preserve the ancient beliefs of the Davidic Temple Cult.
So she's getting into the mad mysticism of some of the books of the pseudepigrapha. That's cool. Hey, I wrote a "biblical book" myself when I was in college. You can see it here if you like. But it's fiction.
And reading it is obvious of this fact. The time it is written, the 'point' behind it, and the realms of thought in your own mind (whether you subscribe to them or not) is also clear. Many today hold the same point of view as you described. It's not isolated to you alone, but to a broader idea of thought.
The same happens with the Pseudepigrapha. They are much, much older than your treatise of the Hersey of the followers of Jeshua. They accurately discuss thought and ideas that did exist and were believed at that time. Whether the majority believed them or not is besides the point. I don't think that you, as a Jew, are trying to say that "Majority Rules" when it comes to what one should believe is Truth.
quote:Jews never accepted those books. There's no evidence anywhere that the ideas in those books were ever a part of Jewish culture. Not even a fringe part.
Perhaps not where you've been looking.
Remember: this thread is about, "Just because I wasn't taught something, doesn't mean it wasn't there, or didn't have a different meaning than I was taught"
[ September 20, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote: In the first place, it's patently clear from about a thousand places in the Torah that Elokim and Hashem are two names for the same God.
It's also the theory that what currently exists as the Torah doesn't still exist as it was originally written, but many parts have been worked over by what are called Deuteronomic Editors, who emphasised the Oneness factor far more than it originally did.
I've been studying the documentary hypothesis for decades now, and it still astounds me that anyone takes it seriously.
The bottom line is that if you start from the assumption that Tanakh isn't what it purports to be, you have to find some way to account for it. The documentary hypothesis is the best they could do. Since the main premise has never been established, I don't really see the point.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: This is not a new 'crackpot theory', it is one that has existed for a good while, and many scholars do accept this as fact.
Oh, I never suggested that it was a new crackpot theory. It's a fairly old crackpot theory.
Honestly: it has no basis whatsoever. Check over in the Torah 101 thread. I talk there about the way language was used by the rabbis. How terseness and rigor of language was used to pack lots of information into few words. What reason is there to think that the rabbis came up with that out of nowhere? But the documentarists read the Bible like a child's board book, and find conflicts and contradictions where none exist.
Over on a newsgroup, we were having a discussion about the character of Balaam a couple of months ago. The documentarist types were all about how the story of Balaam is clear evidence of multiple authorship, since he's portrayed both as someone with pure faith in God and as a nasty guy who beats animals and who God gets angry at.
Any attempts to point out that the narrative is completely consistent when read in context got dismissed as "apologetics". <shrug> There's no arguing with someone who needs to deconstruct the text.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: True that others do not accept it, but smart, well-researched individuals do feel there is a basis for this.
Only because it's reached a point where opposing it gets you labeled as <gasp> religious.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Also, you have to understand. We know what the intent is of the various names used for God. Her theorizing is like someone going up to a doctor and saying: "I think that the appendix is really supposed to extend outside of the body, because it sounds like 'appendage'".
When were the words put into writing that form the basis of how "You Know" what the "intent" was?
In the case of the Torah, when God gave us the Torah and told us His intent. Again, see Torah 101.
Furthermore, we have a direct chain of transmission of all this material. And the transmitting was done by vast numbers of people, generation after generation. It's not like playing "telephone". Unless you play "telephone" with about a million people at each step, crosschecking with one another constantly, and without whispering.
It just isn't plausable.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:
quote:There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel.
There's no source for any such thing. Look, the Amazon.com listing said that she gets a lot of her stuff from the Qumran scrolls.
Reviews on Amazon usually don't document the sources of the book. Dismissing claims because an Amazon reviewer didn't go into detail is, in itself, ridiculous.
But again, there are no sources for what she's saying, with the possible exception of Qumran and pseudepigrapha. And that stuff can hardly be taken seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Barker does use many, many sources.
quote: Those people were sectarians out in the desert and had nothing to do with the rest of the Jews.
In many cases of their own volition. Who'se to say who was more correct?
Um... that'd be God. Thanks for asking.
Look, I can't prove to you that God gave the Torah on Sinai. I can, however, make a strong case for the fact that no one would ever have been able to convince several million stubborn as all get out Jews that not only was the Torah given at Sinai, but that they'd been taught as much by their parents, who'd been taught as much by their parents, and so on, and so on. There's just no way that you wouldn't have a record of the controversy.
If you don't get that, then you don't get Jews. Stiffnecked is no joke.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:I don't know if even they had such an idea, but even if they did, which I doubt, it has nothing to do with Jews in general.
Never claimed it did with Modern Jewish thought, or even 1st Century AD Majority Jewish Thought.
Nor any. There were sects. Christianity was a sect. Essenes were a sect. Today we have ones called Conservative and Reform. There are always people breaking off and away, and yet our core keeps right on going for all that.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Remember, there were Jews who went astray after Baal and Asherah as well. We know that. It just isn't representative.
Well aware of this.
quote:
quote: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others.
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
Later on I'll provide some references.
As for your using the Torah as an example, it's akin to saying, "The Torah could never have been changed, because the Torah says it could never have been changed." - part of the theory contains the specific statement that the Torah has been edited.
That, in and of itself, is pure invention. No one has ever found so much as a fragment of these mythical sources the Torah was supposedly patched together out of. Why is accepting a document that we have in front of us considered more an act of faith than believing in postulated documents that there is no record of anywhere?
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:
quote:The Angel of Yahweh is seen as a second God that would eventually lead to threatening a form of monotheism that was growing more and more exclusively strict.
There's no such thing as "the Angel of Hashem". Angels are not separate beings. They are merely tools of Hashem's will.
What does the Hebrew call the being in Genesis 16:7-11? Or Genesis 22:11, 15? Exodus 3:2? Numbers 22:23, etc. I admittedly am not well versed in Hebrew, but do not these verses report of appearances of "the Angel of Yahweh?"
Mal'ach means messenger. As, if I'm not mistaken, does the word "angel" in its original form.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:
quote:Another brand of Judism (Enochic Judaism)in contrast tried to preserve the ancient beliefs of the Davidic Temple Cult.
So she's getting into the mad mysticism of some of the books of the pseudepigrapha. That's cool. Hey, I wrote a "biblical book" myself when I was in college. You can see it here if you like. But it's fiction.
And reading it is obvious of this fact. The time it is written, the 'point' behind it, and the realms of thought in your own mind (whether you subscribe to them or not) is also clear. Many today hold the same point of view as you described. It's not isolated to you alone, but to a broader idea of thought.
The same happens with the Pseudepigrapha. They are much, much older than your treatise of the Hersey of the followers of Jeshua. They accurately discuss thought and ideas that did exist and were believed at that time.
Not mainstream. First of all, there's no evidence that we have any copies of most of the pseudepigrapha that weren't doctored by the early Christians, who were pretty mystic-minded. And apocalyptic.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Whether the majority believed them or not is besides the point. I don't think that you, as a Jew, are trying to say that "Majority Rules" when it comes to what one should believe is Truth.
Never. But look, our tradition is all of a piece. You can claim that it's all made up, but I defy you to come up with any reasonable way in which our entire people could have been conned into it. It is not plausable.
And you can't claim that some of it is an invention and not all of it, because it's all integrated together.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Jews never accepted those books. There's no evidence anywhere that the ideas in those books were ever a part of Jewish culture. Not even a fringe part.
Perhaps not where you've been looking.
Remember: this thread is about, "Just because I wasn't taught something, doesn't mean it wasn't there, or didn't have a different meaning than I was taught"
There might have been ancient astronauts, too. I just don't consider that a reasonable claim.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others.
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
How is this a bald claim? It seems to me as if you are arguing from a modern perspective.
A very ancient one, actually. A tradition that spans the millenia between right now, as I'm typing this, and the day the Israelites stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard the voice of God.
Man, if I had to count all of the weird theories that had been offered up over these centuries to find a way -- any way -- to eliminate the possibility of an actual divine revelation... well, it'd take a lot longer than I have here.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Because you belive the names of the Most High and Jehova are interchangable now, does not immediately mean that they have always been so, or at the very least, you have not provided sufficient support to your argument to show me why you believe it has always been the case.
The name she's translating as "Most High" is used in all of Tanakh maybe half a dozen times. The name Elokim is far more common, and she cheats by equating them.
Leave that aside. Words in Hebrew mean things. They aren't just noises. Elokim has a meaning, as does Hashem. And it is from their meanings and from the tradition originally given to us by the bearer of those appelations that we know this.
Anyone can sit around and come up with a story about where the Bible came from. It's cute. It's imaginative. But it doesn't mean anything.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: As far as the interchanability of god's nomenclature, Zues was never called anything else but Zues.
You're not making sense. According to this book, "Jehova" was never called anything else but that, either. The parallel is exact.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: You may believe that stories about Zues are not true, but your logic about him never being called Zues Hermes is flawed at best and still leaves questions unanswered: why would God introduce himself as one but not the other?
The name you render incorrectly as "Jehova" denotes Hashem's eternal nature. It derives from the Hebrew word for "to be", and is a combination of past, present and future tenses. That name means that Hashem is omnipresent and unconstrained by time.
The name Elokim derives from the Hebrew word meaning "potential". It relates to nature, and denotes Hashem's immediate and inextricable connection to the world. The source of nature. The fact that Hashem did not merely create the world way back when, but is continually holding everything in existence by an act of will, making creation a continuous and continual process.
Additionally, the J name tends to express a quality of mercy and compassion relative to the E name, which tends to express a quality of justice and causality.
Look, even the Torah 101 thread is just a little thing. You want a solid Jewish education while I stand on one leg? These aren't kindergarten concepts. They are part of a field of knowledge which builds on itself, just like any other. What you're asking is a little like someone who hasn't had high school physics asking for an in depth explanation of special relativity. I apologize if that sounds arrogant, but really and truly, these concepts are cumulative. All I can do on this level, and in English (which is a bad language for it, really) is to approximate things.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Why would God call himself by two names in the first place. (Mind you, I have not studied the Hebrew scriptures. Jews would know better than I what questions to ask.)
We'd know better the answers to give, also.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Also, names are said very different from place to place and time to time. Again, I have little knowledge of Jewish History, but the Scandanavians, for example determined your last name by your father's name (hence Johnson, Samuelson ect.) elsewhere by your occupation (thus Smith, Carpenter, Baker, ect.) and in other cultures, a family name came first (Japan, China and so forth) Instances of God appearing or speaking directly to his worshipers have been few and far between since the last ones recorded in Biblical texts, maybe one person every 500-1000 years reports any sort of vision with significant impact. I dunno, maybe times hae changed a little since then, God may not be "trendy" but he does tend to speak in a language that the vision-ee can understand.
True, but He booby-trapped the system. He told us that if any prophet comes and attributes anything to God that isn't in the Torah, we have to kill him. And that it was just a test.
That's a pretty final way to seal up a system, wouldn't you say? God Himself can't change the Torah. Which makes sense, actually, since when you're talking about God being unconstrained by time, change isn't an applicable concept. If God wanted, in 2005, to do things differently, He'd already have done so. It's all essentially simultaneous to Him.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: As far as the Jews maybe having trouble reconciling the name of their God over those of Babylon, that makes sense to me. You have a God that you believe will protect you from nations that are wicked, and suddenly, one of those wicked nations storms in and destroys the center of the Jewish religion at that time. You can either say that you are wicked and God punishing you,
But everyone knows that we did that. That we were screw-ups, and that we earned the destruction. And it wasn't as though it came as a shock. We'd been warned enough. At the time of Moses, at the time of Solomon, at the time of Hezekiah... it was bought and paid for. The Tanakh even refers to Nebuchadnezzar as God's servant, due to his carrying out our punishment.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: or you aren't wicked and Marduk (Babylon's principle God as I recall) is superior to yours in some way. Either way, there's some reconciling to be done.
Have you read Jeremiah? There's no reconciling to be done, when we were warned, told before during and after what was going to happen, what was happening, and what happened.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: There is some evidence of this sort of conflict after the destruction of the temple of Herod by the Romans. The Gospels which were written after it's destruction, show a varying degree of contempt for different aspects of Jewish society, and yet Christians obviously started as merely a cult of Judaism that seemed to get along fairly well to a separate religion that disliked and sometimes demonized the Pharisees or just Jews in general.
There's a lot of debate about what led to the final split. My view, and I realize that I can't prove it, is that there were two things that led to it, and both of them were the choice of the Christians.
At the time of the Bar Kochva revolt against Rome, Rabbi Akiva, the single most eminent Sage alive, publically announced that Bar Kochva was the messiah. Now understand that every generation has someone who can be the messiah. Bar Kochva seemed to fit the bill. More than JC, in any event. But in the end, he wasn't.
Still, I think the early Christians were able to live with the fact that we hadn't accepted JC's messiahship, because it could be viewed as a "not yet" kind of thing. But when the greatest Sage of the generation announced that someone else was the messiah... well, that had to have rankled.
And after the revolt, the Romans came down on us like a ton of bricks. Being able to claim that they weren't really the same as us probably saved a lot of Christian bacon. So to speak.
During WWII, Karaites told the Germans they weren't really Jewish in order to evade the anti-Jewish persecutions of the Nazis. The Samaritans have done the same with the Arabs.
So it's not as though I'm accusing the early Christians of some kind of perfidy. It was human nature. But I think that was when the true break finally came.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Have I done that? I didn't think I had.
No, you specifically didn't preach to me. I was talking generally to people like that kid. I'm sorry if my phrasing wasn't clear... :S
quote: There's no such thing as "the Angel of Hashem". Angels are not separate beings. They are merely tools of Hashem's will.
Just like Satan. God uses him, and Satan is a tool; that's almost entirely different from the meaning that's used in Catholicism (to the best of my knowledge).
Mal'ach does mean messenger, to the best of MY knowledge, but is a different entity from God, yet obeying His rules. Otherwise, why would both God and His messengers be revealed?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Furthermore, we have a direct chain of transmission of all this material. And the transmitting was done by vast numbers of people, generation after generation. It's not like playing "telephone". Unless you play "telephone" with about a million people at each step, crosschecking with one another constantly, and without whispering.
It just isn't plausable.
That's exactly what the Catholics claim, too
quote: Look, I can't prove to you that God gave the Torah on Sinai. I can, however, make a strong case for the fact that no one would ever have been able to convince several million stubborn as all get out Jews that not only was the Torah given at Sinai, but that they'd been taught as much by their parents, who'd been taught as much by their parents, and so on, and so on. There's just no way that you wouldn't have a record of the controversy.
If you don't get that, then you don't get Jews. Stiffnecked is no joke.
I never claimed that they didn't believe it wasn't given on Sinai, nor did I state that I didn't believe something similar.
What I AM stating is that I believe that what we currently have as the Torah is not 100% exactly what it was when it originally came from the pen of Moses.
the books of Kings and Chronicles both have accounts of Josiah's reform, in which the book of the Law (whether the Torah entire, or just Deuteronomy) was suddenly discovered, and Josiah was shocked as to what it contained.
He didn't know. His People didn't know.
Any further mass tradition would have been reinstated by at least this late point.
If Josiah's priests ahad taught the tradition to those who were forced to follow it (much akin to the Christian parallel of Constantine's Roman/Christian 'Reform'), and Josiah had ordered killed those who refused to go along with it and followed other traditions, than would not that be at least a plausible place for a point of departure for an alleged 'original truth'?
I'm not asking for you to say you believe this to be what happened. I'm asking you to aknowledge that there are, and have been, in the history of the Jewish people places where such departures and re-learning of the stories could have occured.
Once again - not asking you to say that they did occur. Just asking for you to recognize that, based on what has been recorded, this could have even a smidgen of probabilitiy.
quote:Never. But look, our tradition is all of a piece. You can claim that it's all made up, but I defy you to come up with any reasonable way in which our entire people could have been conned into it. It is not plausable.
I don't think your entire tradition is all made up. To the contrary. However, I do believe, firmly, that there are reasonable ways in which changes, and re-direction of the traditions could have occured - with not a few of them presented in the Tanakh itself!
quote:And you can't claim that some of it is an invention and not all of it, because it's all integrated together.
I disagree.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote: Furthermore, we have a direct chain of transmission of all this material. And the transmitting was done by vast numbers of people, generation after generation. It's not like playing "telephone". Unless you play "telephone" with about a million people at each step, crosschecking with one another constantly, and without whispering.
It just isn't plausable.
That's exactly what the Catholics claim, too
Oh, man. I promised myself that I would not argue against the validity of Christianity on this forum. And I'm going to stick with that. I will say, though, that it's pretty significant that the essential revelation in Judaism took place in front of about 3 million people, while that of Christianity took place in front of about a dozen. Islam, of course, was just one guy in a cave.
So yeah, I don't think your analogy, or what seems to have been an analogy, to Catholicism makes a lot of sense.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:There's just no way that you wouldn't have a record of the controversy.
If you don't get that, then you don't get Jews. Stiffnecked is no joke.
I never claimed that they didn't believe it wasn't given on Sinai, nor did I state that I didn't believe something similar.
What I AM stating is that I believe that what we currently have as the Torah is not 100% exactly what it was when it originally came from the pen of Moses.
And that dog just won't hunt. Wow, I've always wanted to use that expression. <grin>
It just won't fly, Taalcon. God as an incompetant? I mean, the Torah is replete with references to "this Torah" and "these laws" and "these words" and so on. If God was telling us that those very words were given by Him and that's not the case, then God is either a liar or a bumbler.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: the books of Kings and Chronicles both have accounts of Josiah's reform, in which the book of the Law (whether the Torah entire, or just Deuteronomy) was suddenly discovered, and Josiah was shocked as to what it contained.
Consider the 57 years prior to his accession. And the 18 up until the reform. What was going on in the US 75 years ago? It wsas 1930. The Great Depression had just begun.
Now picture that without mass media. And it wasn't necessarily a matter of being shocked at what the Torah said. Certainly the Torah hadn't been widely read during those 75 years, but if you come across the original copy, in Moses's own hand, and it just happens to be open to the passage threatening us with vile punishments should we mess up, and you realize that we've messed up badly for the last 75 years... that's going to freak anyone out.
There's no reasonable argument for that having been the first time those words had been seen. Some people just have a need to see new stuff in the time of Josiah, because Josiah was mentioned by name almost 400 years earlier, at the time of Jeroboam son of Nebat.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: He didn't know. His People didn't know.
Any further mass tradition would have been reinstated by at least this late point.
Again, there's no basis for assuming that the tradition needed reinstatement.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: If Josiah's priests ahad taught the tradition to those who were forced to follow it (much akin to the Christian parallel of Constantine's Roman/Christian 'Reform'), and Josiah had ordered killed those who refused to go along with it and followed other traditions, than would not that be at least a plausible place for a point of departure for an alleged 'original truth'?
And if short blue guys from the planet Oa had come down and offered him a green power ring and a lantern to charge it, that could have had a major effect as well.
But it's just a story. What evidence is there for it? I can tell stories, too.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: I'm not asking for you to say you believe this to be what happened. I'm asking you to aknowledge that there are, and have been, in the history of the Jewish people places where such departures and re-learning of the stories could have occured.
And I'm disagreeing.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Once again - not asking you to say that they did occur. Just asking for you to recognize that, based on what has been recorded, this could have even a smidgen of probabilitiy.
I don't think so. Think about it. If the tradition is that unreliable, how could you trust any of it. When I said that it's all integrated together, this is part of what I meant.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Never. But look, our tradition is all of a piece. You can claim that it's all made up, but I defy you to come up with any reasonable way in which our entire people could have been conned into it. It is not plausable.
I don't think your entire tradition is all made up. To the contrary. However, I do believe, firmly, that there are reasonable ways in which changes, and re-direction of the traditions could have occured - with not a few of them presented in the Tanakh itself!
Care to name one?
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:And you can't claim that some of it is an invention and not all of it, because it's all integrated together.
I disagree.
Clearly. <grin>
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: It just won't fly, Taalcon. God as an incompetant? I mean, the Torah is replete with references to "this Torah" and "these laws" and "these words" and so on. If God was telling us that those very words were given by Him and that's not the case, then God is either a liar or a bumbler.
OR, When God told us in the Torah that the words were given by him he was TELLING THE TRUTH, and men later CHANGED what was contained in the Torah.
Those words claiming Divine Authorship would NOT be applicable to what was added and changed AFTER the editing of the PURE original.
If I write a book and say, in the text, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", and then you later took a copy of the manuscript, inserted a few of your own paragraphs within it and published it, could you then still argue that, because the book contained the statement that, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", that the words which you knew for a fact you wrote were actually written by me? Afterall, the book has me saying that I wrote all the words of it...
quote:If the tradition is that unreliable, how could you trust any of it. When I said that it's all integrated together, this is part of what I meant.
Well, I do have a belief in modern and living prophets who do and have received revelation and direction from God concerning what is True *grin*
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
My turn for a long post
quote: A very ancient one, actually. A tradition that spans the millenia between right now, as I'm typing this, and the day the Israelites stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard the voice of God.
Man, if I had to count all of the weird theories that had been offered up over these centuries to find a way -- any way -- to eliminate the possibility of an actual divine revelation... well, it'd take a lot longer than I have here
You're missing my point. Judaism may be a very ancient perspective, but there is no way in hell that your perspective of it, from today's standpoint is the same as, say Moses' contemporaries. You have faith in what you are saying, that much is clear, but it is your faith now not then, and doesn't belong to anyone else.
Considering your second point, you seem to assume I don't believe in divine revelation, I was raised Mormon, and though I may not consider myself one anymore, I still believe in it (even though it isn't quite the same as your beliefs concerning it.)
quote: You're not making sense. According to this book, "Jehova" was never called anything else but that, either. The parallel is exact
I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that you were saying that the words Elokim (spelling?) and Yaweh were both names for the same God. If that is true, then how can you say he is never called anything else?
However I may be mistaken.
quote: eave that aside. Words in Hebrew mean things. They aren't just noises. Elokim has a meaning, as does Hashem. And it is from their meanings and from the tradition originally given to us by the bearer of those appelations that we know this
Ummm...considering that my first name is Samuel, and that I study about five languages actively you'd do well not to remind me that words actually mean something and aren't "just noises." I may not be well versed in Hebrew, but please don't adress me as if I'm completely stupid.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yikes JH... they actually teach little kids that stuff?? Talk about spin! Someone said that a half-truth is the worst kind of lie.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The resurrected Christ was seen by more than twelve people.
1 Corinthians 15:6: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
And if you're going by Mormon scripture, add another 2200-5000 to that number.
Just saying. Seems like we could ALL use a religious education. . .
At any rate, arguing numbers of witnesses to a particular religion's Apocalypse (in the original sense of the word) is inane. Truth is not dependent on observation-- alone, unobserved, and undiscovered, it is still Truth.
And in every case, from the Jews, to the Christians, after the epiphany comes the rejection of the teachings. All of the Judeo-Christian religions have their golden calfs, I believe. It may be the one thing our histories have in common.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:It just won't fly, Taalcon. God as an incompetant? I mean, the Torah is replete with references to "this Torah" and "these laws" and "these words" and so on. If God was telling us that those very words were given by Him and that's not the case, then God is either a liar or a bumbler.
OR, When God told us in the Torah that the words were given by him he was TELLING THE TRUTH, and men later CHANGED what was contained in the Torah.
Those words claiming Divine Authorship would NOT be applicable to what was added and changed AFTER the editing of the PURE original.
If I write a book and say, in the text, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", and then you later took a copy of the manuscript, inserted a few of your own paragraphs within it and published it, could you then still argue that, because the book contained the statement that, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", that the words which you knew for a fact you wrote were actually written by me? Afterall, the book has me saying that I wrote all the words of it...
No, Taalcon. Think it through. You're just a person. To an omnipotent and omnicient God, giving the Torah and knowing full well that it's going to be changed to be something else and still telling us that it's His words and not setting things up to prevent that from happening... it's still lying.
Like I said, our God is brighter than that. And He did set it up so that couldn't happen.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:If the tradition is that unreliable, how could you trust any of it. When I said that it's all integrated together, this is part of what I meant.
Well, I do have a belief in modern and living prophets who do and have received revelation and direction from God concerning what is True *grin*
<grin> I didn't realize. It's hard keeping track of who is what religion around here. In that case, you don't consider God to be unconstrained by time, either, right?
So we're talking about entirely different conception of deity. I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere, are you?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: My turn for a long post
quote: A very ancient one, actually. A tradition that spans the millenia between right now, as I'm typing this, and the day the Israelites stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard the voice of God.
Man, if I had to count all of the weird theories that had been offered up over these centuries to find a way -- any way -- to eliminate the possibility of an actual divine revelation... well, it'd take a lot longer than I have here
You're missing my point. Judaism may be a very ancient perspective, but there is no way in hell that your perspective of it, from today's standpoint is the same as, say Moses' contemporaries. You have faith in what you are saying, that much is clear, but it is your faith now not then, and doesn't belong to anyone else.
Maybe no way in hell, but then, we don't believe in hell.
Honestly, I get that it doesn't fit your view of things, but our perspective of it, from today's standpoint, is indeed the same as Moses's contemporaries.
Epictetus, the Jews exist for one reason, and one reason only. And that's the Torah. That's the whole shebang that God gave us at Sinai. It's not just a religion like most others. It's a national obsession. It's the work of our lives, and has been for over 33 centuries, since we stood at Sinai.
God promised us that we'd never lose it. Isaiah 59:21. That's got to mean something.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Considering your second point, you seem to assume I don't believe in divine revelation, I was raised Mormon, and though I may not consider myself one anymore, I still believe in it (even though it isn't quite the same as your beliefs concerning it.)
I don't think I expressed an opinion about your believe or not in revelation. If I did, I take it back.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote: You're not making sense. According to this book, "Jehova" was never called anything else but that, either. The parallel is exact
I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that you were saying that the words Elokim (spelling?) and Yaweh were both names for the same God.
I am. She's not.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: If that is true, then how can you say he is never called anything else?
However I may be mistaken.
<nod> I'm saying that. She's not. And it's her ideas that I'm arguing against.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote: eave that aside. Words in Hebrew mean things. They aren't just noises. Elokim has a meaning, as does Hashem. And it is from their meanings and from the tradition originally given to us by the bearer of those appelations that we know this
Ummm...considering that my first name is Samuel, and that I study about five languages actively you'd do well not to remind me that words actually mean something and aren't "just noises." I may not be well versed in Hebrew, but please don't adress me as if I'm completely stupid.
Sorry... I didn't intend that. In English, most names are just bibble-babble to the people who use them, even though they may know, intellectually, that they have original meanings.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know that you get much more bibble-babble than, when someone asks your name, you say, "I am who I am."
EDIT: Because sometimes, I go too far.
I wonder what God calls us? The name my parents gave me fits okay, but I feel that deeper than that there's a name like an itch. And perhaps God is the one to reveal this name to me. . . the name that will reveal everything about who I am, and in being able to speak that name, I'll know who He is.
Just a thought.
[ September 21, 2005, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To an omnipotent and omnicient God, giving the Torah and knowing full well that it's going to be changed to be something else and still telling us that it's His words and not setting things up to prevent that from happening... it's still lying.
Of course, it's also possible that the parts of the Torah which imply "this is the unaltered word of God" were in fact parts added by man, and God Himself -- although He may have given the rest of the Torah -- said no such thing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: To an omnipotent and omnicient God, giving the Torah and knowing full well that it's going to be changed to be something else and still telling us that it's His words and not setting things up to prevent that from happening... it's still lying.
Of course, it's also possible that the parts of the Torah which imply "this is the unaltered word of God" were in fact parts added by man, and God Himself -- although He may have given the rest of the Torah -- said no such thing.
Then what evidence could there possibly be for His having given any of it?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't know that you get much more bibble-babble than, when someone asks your name, you say, "I am who I am."
EDIT: Because sometimes, I go too far.
Darn. I like reading things that go to far. Can you give me a hint?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I wonder what God calls us? The name my parents gave me fits okay, but I feel that deeper than that there's a name like an itch. And perhaps God is the one to reveal this name to me. . . the name that will reveal everything about who I am, and in being able to speak that name, I'll know who He is.
Just a thought.
Interesting. Choosing ones own name can be very empowering. Some cultures do that. Sometimes I think it's a shame that ours doesn't.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Choosing ones own name can be very empowering.
Ultimately, humans CANNOT choose the name that identifies them. Because we're self-deceptive and imperfect, see? My true name is the thing that shows me who I am utterly-- there's no room for lies in my true name. That's why it takes God, a perfect being, to reveal it.
Oooh. . .
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I just exhausted, strained and probably damaged permanently half of my body. Neck, shoulders, waist, back, thighs, ankles and more are all either contracted, strained, exphausted, expired, broken or torn.
So I'll talk to you later, as I just toiled for about 5 hours straight.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
What happened?!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
He got in a tussle with a wolverine. Rowr, terrible beasts. . .
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: He got in a tussle with a wolverine. Rowr, terrible beasts. . .
A five-hour tussle? I'm impressed!
Hope you didn't get too many scratches and bites, Jonathan. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Don: Hey, Napoleon. What did you do last summer again? Napoleon Dynamite: I told you! I spent it with my uncle in Alaska hunting wolverines!
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Well, Monday I was practising my bowling (cricket, not the game with the "pins" you've got to knock down, in other words overarm bowling), and my muscle started to hurt (that is, my right hand - I'm left handed, meaning a left-handed batsman, but I throw and bowl better right-handed). So I let it rest, had a warm shower, and rested early.
The following morning (yesterday) it ached, but I reckoned that as long as I keep it moving slowly but not strained, my slightly contracted muscles would loosen-up and I'd be back to normal.
What I didn't know was that we were to run 2,000 metres that day in sports lesson. And I am no long-runner, just a sprinter. Give me up to 200 metres and I flash it, otherwise forgt it. So I ran 2,000, and had to use my arms (one thing I can do well is control hand-movement while running) more extensively than usual, to make the surprising 2,000 test we had (didn't even have time for a drink before it, still over 30 degrees outside).
Then there was our little act (just this week) of helping poor families by supplying them with three heavy boxes of food for the holidays; thank goodness they didn't need to be delivered!
But the problem is that you still have to move the boxes around and carry them to the cars, taxis, vans et cetera. So I didn't whinge, and I carried it all around. I got home at 17:30 after 90 minutes of hard toil, and played that evening (still yesterday) some sports in a Anglosaxon-mini-youth-club I went to. I came back home at 21:30 with pretty bad muscles; so I had a shower and went to bed early once more.
I woke up this morning almost unable to use my right arm. We had sports today, and had athletics (jumping, but whatever you call it in English that you try to get as far as possible) for around 60 minutes. I played Frisbee for awhile, and then had another three hours of the boxes' deal (16:00-19:00).
I now have my right arm falling apart, pains in my left shoulder (that spread to my neck), half my back, what feels like a broken waist, and a painful ankle.
"Lie down", said my mother. It only made the whole deal worse, of course. Tomorrow another three hours of boxes' dealing. Lovely, no?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Jonathan, take a hot bath. When you overuse your muscles, they get a buildup of lactic acid. That's what's causing the pains.
When you heat the areas, it increases the bloodflow and lets the lactic acid out.
Trust me; fill the tub as hot as you can take and soak in it for at least half an hour.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Yeah. I hate that biological feature of us, humans. That acid ("humtza piruvit" in Hebrew, I think) builds up, but we can't be Facultative (sp?) Unaerobic creatures. At our place we have a tiny bathtub, basically for sitting in. But thanks for the advice, I take it.
Haemoglobin ain't my second name. See you in a little while.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Stupid parents. You tell them you're going in to hve a bath, and they, ALL OF A ^@#*&%@#$% SUDDEN, decide that they're going in first. Those knaving, little, "weasly" off-pissers, though, say they are having a five-minute shower and lock up the wretched place for HALF A ^!#$%!@#&% HOUR!
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Thanks, "Dad"; thanks, "Mum". Now it's too late to have a friggin' bath because I've got to wake up tomorrow and spend almost TWELVE DAMN HOURS at school, with half my body crushed and working for three hours in the hot sun.
Paperwork, marking the register? Ha! As if I'd ever get that. It's going to be bone-shattering once more. THANK A DAMN MILLION.
When you've had an operation or are feeling remotely tired, I go out at the peak of the damn Israeli sun's heat, 40 degrees Celsius, and I spend half an hour in the wreched queue in the shop behing people who're discussing for ten minutes which type of cigarettes they should buy. But when I'm struggling to move from my bed to the bathroom, not to mention working at school, you go on making your sarcastic comments about how I'm a poor little bugger who can't even move.
Yes, "THANK" you, "Dad", ONE ****ING MILLION times for being such a lousy piece of a damn, useless parent. But when I'm in perpetual agony, you still don't pay one damn coin to an orthopedist. You still would'nt pay for a professional massage, claiming that I "won't die from the unpleasantness".
"Good" night.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Yeah. I hate that biological feature of us, humans. That acid ("humtza piruvit" in Hebrew, I think) builds up, but we can't be Facultative (sp?) Unaerobic creatures.
Do you know how much food we'd have to consume if we were facultative anaerobes?! Not to mention the fact that our bodies wouldn't deal too well with the alcohol it would produce.
Hmm. We could eat huge amounts of food, and we'd be perpetually buzzed. I know some people who would think this was a good plan . . . Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
But we'd only need to breathe unaerobically when there's no oxygen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Respire, not breathe. And almost all facultative anaerobes are obligate anaerobes.
As well as being bacteria.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Respire, right, but it's also breathng that's only conducted unaerobically when there's no oxygen.
We don't have to be prokaryotic (bacteris) to be facultative unaerobics. We can also be, say, yeast...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True 'nuff.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Aye.
I was told to watch my back in case someone might try to kill me. But I might kill myself by twisting my neck. What should I do?
*Off to school.*
Good night all ye Yanks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Use less torque.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Mirrors, Jonathan. It's all done with smoke and mirrors.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Still alive, and I dropped community service for today. We were asked to do one day for the week, I did two, and my back hurts as bad as it did yesterday.
I s'pose it justifies?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Back on topic, and because it's been discussed, I have been reading through Barker's book, and found it interesting, after Lisa asked were the evidence was, that, beginning with Chapter 2, the titles of the chapters of The Great Angel discuss where the evidence comes from. Each chapter is a discussion of the evidence pulled from those very generic categories.Here are the chapter titles:
Chapter Two: The Evidence of the Exile Chapter Three: The Evidence of the Old Testament Chapter Four: The Evidence of Wisdom Chapter Five: The Evidence of the Angels Chapter Six: The Evidence of the Name Chapter Seven: The Evidence of Philo Chapter Eight: The Evidence of the Jewish Writers Chapter Nine: The Evidence of the Gnostics Chapter Ten: The Evidence of the First Christians Chapter Eleven: The Evidence of the New Testament
--
Also, I don't disagree that the term translated as 'angel' means messenger - but in quite a few places, this actually adds to the confusion.
An example would be the being who spoke to Gideon. He is identified as an angel of YAHWEH, and then later, as he is speaking, it changes and says that it is YAHWEH who was doing the speaking.
Judges 6:12-16
12 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
13 And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
14 And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
15 And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.
16 And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.
Such cases present questions to which there are several possible answers:
a) It was only a messenger speaking the Words of Yahweh b) It was Yahweh alone, with 'angel of Yahweh' being a title c) There were two beings present - the messenger of Yahweh, and Yahweh Himself d) etc, etc.
What Barker does is try to strip away present preconcieved Traditional Interpretations, and try to discover, from cross referencing and exhaustive textual study, what the words actually say, and what they were originally thought to mean apart from how we may view them today.
It's actually quite fascinating, and worth a read and some ponderance before being completely shrugged off completely. While I don't agree with all of Barker's conclusions, a great deal of those made - with the presentation of the texts - are very, very convincing.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Rashi and Ralbag have an argument about this. I will quote in Hebrew and try to explain, but I cannot guaranee translation.
Rashi says about "And Yahweh faced him" ("looked upon him"? Pathetic translation) "הקב״ה בעצמו" (The Holy One, be He bleseed (that means "God") Himself). Ralbag says the following:
quote: ויפן אליו ה׳. הוא מלאך ה׳ שזכר והוא ע״ד ויאמר ה׳ לה שאמרו רבותינו שכבר היה זה על ידי שם. והנה אמר דבריו כאילו השם ידבר כי הנביא ידבר בשם שולחו׃
Metzudat David states "ה׳. ר״ל מלאך ה׳׃". Da'at Mikra is the most ambiguous, stating "[ויפן אליו] ה׳ – מלאך ה׳, שלוחו, כביכול, כמותו, וכיוצא בו׃ וירא אליו ה׳ (וכיצד נראה אליו?) ירא והנה שלשה אנשים (מלאכים שלוחי ה׳) נצבים עליו (בר׳ יח א–ב) ועוד הרבה".
I have no energy to translate or explain, I'm doing another five thoudand things right now. If someone else is willing to compare - have fun. All those are commentaries - by the best - on the first phrase of Verse 14.
Let's just say that some of the opinions state that "Yahweh" means Yahweh (practically) through His angel. Some say that it was God who sudden;ly took over and henceforth it was between Gideon and God. Note that this happens RIGHT AFTER Gideon questions God's power.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's actually very simple. Jewish Law has a concept that a person's shaliach (a messenger acting on their behalf -- note the similarity to malach, angel) is considered as if it were them in person.
We do this in non-Jewish-Law contexts as well. If someone mails you a gift, would you not possibly tell someone, "Look what my friend gave me!"? And yet, they did not give it to you -- the mailperson did. But s/he did so as an agent of your friend, so you see them as an extension of your friend.
Thus, an angel of God may be described literally as an angel, or figuratively as He whom he is representing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that the phrase "And Yahweh faced him," if indeed that's how it's meant to be read, is pretty darn silly if it refers to the messenger.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I stand by my assertion that it is using figurative language, and referring to the messenger as if he were the One represented.
Think proxy wedding.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I stand by my assertion that it is using figurative language, and referring to the messenger as if he were the One represented.
Think proxy wedding.
And that's a perfectly valid interpretation.
What I was pointing out was that, to Lisa, she seems to be saying that apart from her own Tradition's interpretation of what Torah says and originally meant, everything else is silly and not even worth thinking about.
My point is that, in a discussion of which interpretation may have been intended, that there certainly remains room for plausibility of other interpretations of Torah (and Torah origins) without them having to be 'crackpot', and considered to be Completely Refutable by All Good Thinking People Who Have Done Any Bit Of Research At All.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mm. I understood what you said. I happen to agree with Lisa on this one, though.
And I wonder if you might agree that your approach to this issue is colored by the fact that your religion considers as a pretty basic tenet the notion that the scriptures of other faiths are corrupted.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, I consider the Hebrew Scriptures part of the scriptures of our Faith as well. In fact, from experience, I'd say the LDS Church teaches from, suggests we study, and quotes the Hebrew Scriptures far more than many other Christian churches I've attended. I love the Hebrew Scriptures very much. I'm reading through Jeremiah again now, and continue to find it absolutely heartbreaking. It's powerful.
I grew up being taught and believing in Biblical Inerrency, and that what we have today is Unaltered and Pure.
Before I had joined the LDS Church, my research - and reading of the scriptures - had caused (and allowed) me to question that particular tenet without harming my belief and faith in God one bit.
I'm not new to questioning previously conceived ideas concerning scriptural interpretation - even ones held and firmly believed by me. In many cases, my conclusions have made my Faith stronger, in fact answering a lot more questions and making things 'click' more than they had before.
The fact that humans could have changed and revised scriptures, and the fact that we may not have them all in their purest form today, or completely know what they fully intened originally, does not, for a moment, make me think any less of God, or of his power and ability.
But does the fact that some of the claims and evidence being put forth by this author (who apart from her scholarship is also a Methodist Minister in England, who, when writing the volumes in question, had extremely limited knowledge - if anything substantial at all - concerning LDS doctrine) jive so well with some very specific tenets that my particular faith is in a minority of holding (and is often ridiculed for having) make me more eager to learn about what is being said, and indeed color my approach?
Absolutely. Just as much as the fact that anything less than Pure Transmission of the Torah and its significance and meaning being considered anathema to your particular religion would color your (and Lisa's) approach.
[ September 23, 2005, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
Jonathan, Your original post made me angry, then sad, but always sympathetic. I'm an Orthodox Jew and had a similar education growing up. I stayed with Orthodox Day schools through the end of high school and then spent a year in Israel in yeshiva. Currently, I attend a 'secular' college. Thank G-d, though, that I was fortunate to have found teachers and Rabbeim that humored me at the worst and dealt seriously with my concerns at best.
I still have siblings going through the Orthodox Day school system. Unfortunately, it has not been as honest with them as it was with me. I am often frustrated to find that they are being taught to not think critically about the interpretations that their teachers give of the Torah. For example, a teacher presented one of my sisters with only a Rashi to understand a verse. My sister related this to me and offered an alternate explanation. She replied that I had to be wrong with that because Rashi says this, and who am I to argue with Rashi (a medieval commentator). I then let her know that my explanation was originally proposed by Ramban.
There are two related problems I have with the Jewish Orthodox Day school education, at least where I grew up. First, at about 5th grade they start teaching the boys Gemara and deemphasize (read: stop teaching) Hebrew language. I entered 9th grade knowing Aramaic better than Hebrew. The girls were not better off. They knew Hebrew, but were not taught the skills neccessary for analyzing holy texts.
The second problem is quite appropriate for an OSC forum. Elementary school teachers, at least those teaching me Torah, seemed to think that teaching more than just a single sanitized story would confuse the student's and drive us away from G-d. We all know that children, even in 5th grade, are smarter than that. If we were taught from an earlier age that questioning and struggling with the Torah and Halacha (Torah laws) is ok, that novel understandings of the Torah are encouraged just so long as they don't affect Halacha, and that it is perfectly acceptable to argue with your teacher (respectfully, of course) then our devotion to G-d would be stronger. The teaching methods currently employed instill only a superficial connection to the Lord; a connection founded on obedience and memories of nice stories. If questions and debate were encouraged, I have full confidence that the excitement of discovering the Torah for oneself will promote a deeper more personal connection to Hashem and Halachah.
Unfortunately, I have found that some teachers genuinely believe the superficial, unquestioning Judaism that they impart to students. It is a sorry state we are in when the teachers are as ill-informed as the students. I pray that this is not the case in all Orthodox Day schools, and apologize if my comments generalize the problem inappropriately.
While in Yeshiva in Israel, I commented to my Rabbi during a Tanach shiur (Bible class) that the Akeidah (Sacrificing of Isaac) makes a lot more sense if we understand Abraham to have failed the test. My Rebbe took off his glasses, his face turned bright red, and he told me not to talk. If he had listened to my entire explanation he'd have realized that my understanding did not affect Halacha and took into account concerns raised by many of the commentators. We spoke after class about it. He let me know that he was glad to discuss it, but he was concerned with the other students hearing such a non-traditional interpretation. These other student were 17 and 18 years old, yet he still felt that even hearing this would somehow influence them away from being proper Torah Jews. We had a wonderful discussion about my proposal, but I cannot understand his reasoning for cutting me off.
Jonathan, you have your whole life ahead of you. That you care enough about these things for them to frustrate you as they do is great. Please G-d you'll continue to struggle with Judaism and its religious, spiritual, and cultural consequences. Those who stop caring, by either giving up Judaism entirely or even just accepting it and following their teachers blindly are missing out. It is through struggling, thinking, questioning, and discovering that one leads a full life, religious or otherwise.
(Well, that was longer than I anticipated...)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Just as much as the fact that anything less than Pure Transmission of the Torah and its significance and meaning being considered anathema to your particular religion would color your (and Lisa's) approach.
No question.
Although I would not go so far as to say that the MT is necessarily letter for letter what was given to Moshe (it has been pointed out that transmission that letter-perfect for 3500 years would require a miracle greater than all the miracles in Egypt combined), I absolutely believe that no changes of any substance have occurred. A letter here or there, perhaps. Even small words (like the two-letter es which has absolutely no equivalent in English but often precedes the article "the" in Hebrew).
But even those, only very rarely. Jewish scribes must count letters -- of each section, of each division -- very carefully to avoid precisely that sort of error creeping in.
Then again, the fact that I believe that it may not be precisely letter for letter what was dictated to Moshe makes me practically an apostate in some circles. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think I've seen you post before, Gansura (with only 4 posts, 2 on the other side, I may have missed them ). So welcome to Hatrack, and shalom aleichem!
May I ask where you attend college?
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't think I've seen you post before, Gansura (with only 4 posts, 2 on the other side, I may have missed them ). So welcome to Hatrack, and shalom aleichem!
Aleichem shalom! I had a different name about a year and a half ago that I lurked with and perhaps posted with once. I don't remember it now, though. I signed up again recently but the discussions here move so quickly that I am usually unable to catch up enough to respond intelligently. I'll keep trying, though
EDIT: Is there no way to send private messages on this board? Must I sign on to aim or even send an email to speak privately with someone?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
But can't one have the Pure Transmission view without viewing any other view as being conceptually ludicrous?
This is one of the major things I've been trying to accomplish as a writer - the ability to view and to understand and respect many points of view without necessarily agreeing with them.
There are many, many theories and scientific/archaeological/theological conclusions that have been made regarding the history of Christianity. There are many that I disagree with, yet still highly respect, understanding why the views are held by those who do.
I feel it is important to understand and to research other points of view. When incredible sounding claims are made, I may gawk initially, but then I'll usually look into them. Sometimes I leave the research still gawking. Others, I leave still unconvinced of its veracity, (and often convinced of it's falcity) but with a greater respect for those who have made and held the claims. And yes, other times my mind has been changed by the information I've read.
Saying, "That's a very interesting idea. I see how one could think this based on the information provided, yet I still would have to disagree." will, for the most part, gain a lot more respect from me than, "I haven't looked into it, but I think that its silly nonsense that I'm going to proceed to make fun of."
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Is there no way to send private messages on this board? Must I sign on to aim or even send an email to speak privately with someone?
I suppose so.
And welcome! I see from your profile that you, too, are from New Jersey (sometimes). Me too.
I'm from Exit 9. Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I'm from Exit 9.
Me too When not in school, that is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, so MA is school? Too many choices, so I won't try to guess which one.
Logged into AIM looking for you, but you seem not to be on. No email either. And yeah, UBB does not provide PM capability, sadly. (Of course, could be you were trying to talk to someone else. )
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: But can't one have the Pure Transmission view without viewing any other view as being conceptually ludicrous?
Of course not. I do happen to think the documentary hypothesis (and this seems to be based on that, neh?) is pretty clearly dependent on some assumptions I think are nonsense and on various translation issues.
quote:Saying, "That's a very interesting idea. I see how one could think this based on the information provided, yet I still would have to disagree." will, for the most part, gain a lot more respect from me than, "I haven't looked into it, but I think that its silly nonsense that I'm going to proceed to make fun of."
Interesting. Because I've seen you do both, on occasion. And I don't necessarily feel the need to spend large amounts of time and energy on things I consider to be pointless nonsense.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: But can't one have the Pure Transmission view without viewing any other view as being conceptually ludicrous?
Well... okay, you understand that I reject Christianity, right? That I think it failed any burden of proof and has no validity in terms of the religion it grew from.
But I don't see it as being conceptually ludicrous. It has a starting point that isn't totally off the wall.
This multiple deity thing, though, is conceptually ludicrous. Totally off the wall. So riddled with internal contradictions that it's as worth discussing as flat earth theories. Almost.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: This is one of the major things I've been trying to accomplish as a writer - the ability to view and to understand and respect many points of view without necessarily agreeing with them.
All points of view, or just many? If there are points of view that you view as complete non-starters, then you should understand how this could be as well.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: I feel it is important to understand and to research other points of view. When incredible sounding claims are made, I may gawk initially, but then I'll usually look into them.
But this is just like that guy I described earlier in this thread who was so intent on claiming that holy = whole, and that Jews were commanded to be holy, which meant unified. What made his argument so silly was that he lacked knowledge that would have prevented him from even getting started down that road. His premises were wrong, so his conclusions weren't even worth debating. All that could be done was to tell him that he's wrong, and hope that eventually, he'll pull his head out far enough to realize it.
Taalcon, I remember seeing a book that claimed JC was a woman. I've seen books that claim there are alien lizard people living among us in disguise. I've seen books that claim the pyramids are starships.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
That guy who drives me crazy telling me never to say "el" argues with me all the time. I disagree with him on almost everything, and argue with Him almost to the level of the Gemarrah arguments (I killed you, you were right, I realised that and ask you to come back to my Beit Midrash, and after I ressurect you, you agree only if I never kill you again - Baba Kama 117a).
But we acknowledge each other's opinions, and respect them. Even if we think they're ridiculous. And I don't preach to him, only try to show him why my opinion's better.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:
quote:But can't one have the Pure Transmission view without viewing any other view as being conceptually ludicrous?
Of course not. I do happen to think the documentary hypothesis (and this seems to be based on that, neh?) is pretty clearly dependent on some assumptions I think are nonsense and on various translation issues.
Actually, Margaret Barker isn't all that much a fan of the traditional Documentary Hypothesis herself, and doesn't like to hold any previously developed hypothesis up on any pedestals. She discusses that any conclusions and theories one can make, and had made, are just that: theories.
"John van Seters has challenged many of the fundamentals of Pentateuchal scholarship, and, even if he is not correct in all details, he has performed a valuable service in reminding scholars that there are no 'facts' in this field. The most popular hypotheses have, by frequent repetition, been transformed into facts, and this they are not. There is not proof, he says, that J and E, the great bases of the documentary hypothesis, ever existed, let alone that they were a reflection of national pride in the golden age of Solomon. One or two influential scholars, through their own writings and those of their pupils, have constructed hypotheses which, though interesting, are only hypotheses and dependent works seem to have lost sight of this."
Her work, while in some cases plays with and draws from some lines of thought that have been previously stated, she doesn't accept any wholesale, prefering to come to her own conclusions.
The book I'm reading is, actually, the third in a series of sorts. She claims in the introduction to The Great Angel that the previous two books, The Older Testament and The Great High Priest are, for all intents and purposes, an extremely extended introduction to this third work as she worked through the evidence she say, and came to conclusions based on her findings.
The main question she sets out to ask is where and how did the ideas that were so suddenly embraced by Christianity come from? Did they spring out of nothing, or was there previous traditions that helped them more easily accept such ideas?
"What has become clear to me time and time again is that even over so wide an area, the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use the word. The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre-Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels. There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel [that of the First Temple] in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah and Lord."
Some of the notes of distinction she notes and finds as clues that have launched other areas of her research are particularly interesting.
"All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between El Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel's second God can be recovered."
Statements such as these were indeed very inticing and fascinating to me. The Biblical references she has presented did, in fact, make me re-read passages in an entirely new light. And...to me, it makes perfect sense.
quote:
quote:Saying, "That's a very interesting idea. I see how one could think this based on the information provided, yet I still would have to disagree." will, for the most part, gain a lot more respect from me than, "I haven't looked into it, but I think that its silly nonsense that I'm going to proceed to make fun of."
Interesting. Because I've seen you do both, on occasion. And I don't necessarily feel the need to spend large amounts of time and energy on things I consider to be pointless nonsense.
If I have recently, then I apologize. As I said, I'm working on it.
I know for certain that about three years ago, I was on these boards arguing against the LDS Church, and making claims of how 'ludicrous' I found some of the statements. I almost wish some of those posts were still archived. Sure, they would be extremely embarassing, (and reminescent of many statements that people make that now personally make me groan), but it would be an interesting artifact for the History of Me, and my personal growth and development.
My point is that if I'd just kept the mindset I had previously, my life would be ridiculously different than it is right now. Attemping to take seriously something I personally originally believed was ludicrous has literally changed my life for the better in numerous ways.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Attemping to take seriously something I personally originally believed was ludicrous has literally changed my life for the better in numerous ways.
Does that mean they're not actually ludicrous and therefore of transformative value, or does the attempt itself have value?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Well... okay, you understand that I reject Christianity, right?
You don't say
quote: That I think it failed any burden of proof
Once again, there are many, many, many, many extremely intelligent individuals who will vehemently disagree with you on this point.
quote: and has no validity in terms of the religion it grew from.
Actually, part of this question was exactly the question Barker asked. To her, it didn't make sense how something with some ideas that appeared to depart so radically from what we knew of traditional Judaism at that point could have proved to be so influential over so many well learned Jews in the first century. She felt there must have been some sort of link, but she didn't know what it was. Her studies have brought her to discover plausible evidence as to what that link was, as I quoted from her above.
quote: But I don't see it as being conceptually ludicrous. It has a starting point that isn't totally off the wall.
This multiple deity thing, though, is conceptually ludicrous. Totally off the wall.
Actually, the multiple deity thing actually makes the emergence and acceptance of Christianity make quite a bit more sense.
quote: So riddled with internal contradictions that it's as worth discussing as flat earth theories. Almost.
I wasn't aware you'd read the actual theories enough to be able to see any of the contradictions. I was only aware that the extent of your knowledge was from what I've said, and a capsule review from Amazon.com
quote:
quote:I feel it is important to understand and to research other points of view. When incredible sounding claims are made, I may gawk initially, but then I'll usually look into them.
But this is just like that guy I described earlier in this thread who was so intent on claiming that holy = whole, and that Jews were commanded to be holy, which meant unified. What made his argument so silly was that he lacked knowledge that would have prevented him from even getting started down that road. His premises were wrong, so his conclusions weren't even worth debating. All that could be done was to tell him that he's wrong, and hope that eventually, he'll pull his head out far enough to realize it.
The point is that there had been a valid question asked to which no valid answer had been provided. Research was done to look for clues, clues were found, which went on to greatly expand the hypothesis into something which is not at all ludicrous.
I actually think that the very fact that you flat out reject Christianity and see no valid connections with your own theology is evidence in and of itself that something is missing that bridged the gap so easily for the 1st Century Palestinian Jews.
quote:Taalcon, I remember seeing a book that claimed JC was a woman.
I'd certanly be interested in seeing the evidence the author pulled up for that one, seeing as, as far as I know, the only texts we have that account for the Existence of Jeshua of Nazareth firmly state that he was, in fact, a fella.
quote:I've seen books that claim there are alien lizard people living among us in disguise.
Well, Slash the Berzerker is well known around these parts...
quote:I've seen books that claim the pyramids are starships.
And we've had a great many archaeologists explore and excavate the pyramids, and, as far as I know, no Hyperdrive Motivators have been found. Or Tang.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Attemping to take seriously something I personally originally believed was ludicrous has literally changed my life for the better in numerous ways.
Does that mean they're not actually ludicrous and therefore of transformative value, or does the attempt itself have value?
I don't think the two need be mutually exclusive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, true. "Both" is a perfectly acceptable answer to that question. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Taal, I would posit that precisely the same reasons that you find this book so easy to believe -- it meshes well with your current beliefs, and makes logical jumps that are parallel to those you make -- is precisely why Lisa and I have problems with it.
What you don't seem to see is that it makes your agreement with and acceptance of these claims every bit as biased and tilted as our refusal to see them as anything other than ludicrous. The fact that you have in the past accepted and investigated challenges to your beliefs is irrelevant; this book reinforces your beliefs.
I'm not accusing you of a lack of intellectual rigor, or of anything really -- except perfectly normal human bias.
Now that you have clarified what she said, it sounds familiar. I have heard claims of this sort previously. I consider them to be based primarily in the fact that most of these scholars are dealing in a language not their own (or with translations). I have yet to hear of a native Hebrew speaker who makes such claims, for instance.
In any case, I think we have an impasse, neh?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: The main question she sets out to ask is where and how did the ideas that were so suddenly embraced by Christianity come from? Did they spring out of nothing, or was there previous traditions that helped them more easily accept such ideas?
Sounds to me as though she's just trying to find some way to attribute the radically different beliefs embraced by Christianity to something -- anything -- having to do with Israel. Rather than accepting that most of the radically different stuff came from elsewhere, like mystery cults and Mithraism.
I understand such a desire, and I sympathize with her, if that's what she's trying to do.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: "What has become clear to me time and time again is that even over so wide an area, the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use the word. The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre-Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels. There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel [that of the First Temple] in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king.
Okay, here we are. The Samaritan tribes who were brought into Israelite lands by the Assyrians did indeed worship other deities along with Hashem. Says so in the Bible. And in the Jewish military colony at Elephantine, that practice had taken hold as well.
But there's nothing new in the fact that there were idolators among the Israelites. No one has ever doubted such a thing.
But there is no evidence anywhere of a god-king thing in Israel. Even under the worst of the kings.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah and Lord."
Even if JC existed, there's no evidence that he was ever viewed as a deity until Christianity had become throroughly Romanized. Certainly we had a ton of false messiahs around that time, but none of them ever claimed deity.
And again, the Tetragrammaton is never, in any Israelite source, referred to as the son of anyone.
In Mesopotamian sources, there's a trinity of deities on the high god council. There's Anu, god of the heavens, Enlil, god of the sky, and Ea, god of the water, also later called Enki, god of the land.
Both Anu and Enlil have been seen by Assyriologists as possible cognates to the name El. Enlil in particular matches up with the Hebrew elil, which is a word used for false gods in the Bible.
Ea, on the other hand, if it's indeed pronounced Ea and not Ae (a matter of debate), sounds very much like Y-ah.
Some myths suggest that Anu was the first of these three, and that Ea and possibly Enlil were his sons. That might be the source of the stuff she's talking about. But it has no Israelite source. She's merely getting Samaritans and Israelites mixed up.
That wouldn't be the first time in Christian history that this was done. In fact, the name the Samaritans used for themselves was "Israel", and they intended it as a means of claiming that they were descended from the northern tribes.
Even the Christian scriptures seem to have made this mistake. The story of the Good Samaritan... well, the division of Jews into Kohen-Priest, Levite, and Israelite is a very old one. And a common one. One that is recognized even today among Jews.
So when you read a story that has a Kohen being obnoxious and a Levite being obnoxious and then a mere Israelite being good, that makes a lot of sense in terms of the culture of the time.
And then when someone who isn't Jewish translates the text into Greek, or whatever, and maybe isn't aware of this element of Jewish culture, and knows that the Samaritans call themselves Israelites, maybe you translate "Israelite" in that case as "Samaritan".
It's just a theory that I recall reading an article about when I was in a masters program in Assyriology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Some of the notes of distinction she notes and finds as clues that have launched other areas of her research are particularly interesting.
"All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh.
Dude, there's one place in the entire Bible where such phrasing is used. Those sons aren't called divine; they are called mighty men and giants.
So when she says "All the texts in the Hebrew Bible", she's being at the very least a little disingenuous. I tend to think it's a bit deceptive as well. And I'll ask you: how can you trust the scholarship of someone who makes that kind of misstatement on such a basic point?
quote:Genesis 6:
And Man began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and daughters were born unto them. And the sons of God saw that the daughters of Man were good, and they took them as wives, according to their choice. And the Lord said: "My spirit will not judge Man forever, since he is only flesh, and his days will be 120 years."
The Nefilim were in the land in those days and afterwards, who the sons of God came unto the daughters of Man and bore them. They are the mighty men of old, men of renown.
That's the text she's talking about. So, no mention of these sons of God being divine. No mention anywhere of sons of the Lord. Ezekiel gets called Son of Man without any intimation that he's divine.
These Nefilim, or mighty men, seem to have been born from crossings between the line of Seth and the line of Cain. Bear in mind that the word "elohim" doesn't always refer to God. Sometimes it's plural, which you can tell by it taking plural verbs and adjectives. Sometimes it refers to judges.
I mean, God tells Moses that he'll be an elohim to Aaron. That doesn't mean Moses was ever considered divine.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon.
This is another issue that bugs me. Why Elyon? I mean, sure, in English, Elyon looks like it starts with El. I get that. But anyone even remotely conversant with the actual text, which is in Hebrew, knows that the only things they have in common are the "l" sound. El starts with the letter alef, which is pronounced as a glottal stop. Elyon starts with the letter `ayin, which is a gutteral sound that doesn't exist in English. They aren't even close.
This is the level of scholarship you find impressive?
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: [/i]A large number of texts continued to distinguish between El Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult.[/i]
Find some mentions of the name Elyon outside of the one mention in Genesis 14. Maybe there's one or two elsewhere. But "a large number of texts"? Pull the other one.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel's second God can be recovered."
Statements such as these were indeed very inticing and fascinating to me.
I imagine. And since you may not have a background in the field, that's understandable.
My father won't watch the show House. The title character is someone I would have bet my father would enjoy watching. There are so many things I'm sure he never says to his patients that he probably wishes he could, and I figured House would be a kind of wish fulfillment for him.
But he won't watch it. Why? Because he's a doctor, and knows more about it than I do, and he thinks it's utterly unrealistic. Fair enough. I have friends who've been in the service who can't stand watching military shows or movies, because the butchery of the material upsets them too much.
When I see Jews of any observance on TV, I cringe before they even get started, because I know they're going to mash and mangle things. Grace Polk's father on Joan of Arcadia. Ostensibly a rabbi. Ostensibly very strict about observance and always covers his head. Yet he refers to a synagogue as a "temple", and has his daughter reading from the Torah or haftara or what have you for her Bat Mitzvah.
Any Jew with any kind of knowledge of our tradition knows how lame that is. But it doesn't give other people any cause for notice at all.
So you're impressed. Okay. And based on my grad school experience and the fact that I've been studying the extrabiblical material on ancient Israel for decades now, I'm extremely unimpressed with the little you've cited from her.
Immanuel Velikovsky is a man who came up with a lot of cool questions. He got people thinking. He was demonstratably wrong about 97% of his answers. But the bad scholarship par excellance in his books is in Ages in Chaos, where he's dealing with the Amarna period.
He notes that the king of Jerusalem in the Amarna letters refers to problems he's having with Shuwardata. He notes that some scholars think Shuwardata was kind of Qiltu. He points out the obvious fact that Qiltu is cognate to Qelt, the name of a wadi, or seasonal river, in Israel, that is near the Dead Sea. And that the cities of Sodom and Gemorrah are believed to have been located near the Dead Sea.
Got all that? He uses that whole chain to make a case for Shuwardata having been king near the location of Sodom.
Then he points to the biblical account of King Jehoshaphat of Judah expelling the "sodomites" from the land. And this, he uses as support for his claim that the king of Jerusalem in the Amarna letters was Jehoshaphat.
Thousands of English speaking readers went past this argument without blinking. Tens of thousands. Probably more in the 65 years since the book came out.
The problem is, the word "sodomites" in the biblical text there is the Hebrew kedeishim, or sacred prostitutes. The word is in the masculine, so it's assumed they did homosexual acts. Hence "sodomites". But there's no geographical connection to the city of Sodom. That's just the term for homosexual prostitutes that was used by King James and Co.
Bad scholarship, but then, Velikovsky was using an English Bible when he wrote that. The conflation of El and Elyon in this book is really no different.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: But this is just like that guy I described earlier in this thread who was so intent on claiming that holy = whole, and that Jews were commanded to be holy, which meant unified. What made his argument so silly was that he lacked knowledge that would have prevented him from even getting started down that road. His premises were wrong, so his conclusions weren't even worth debating. All that could be done was to tell him that he's wrong, and hope that eventually, he'll pull his head out far enough to realize it.
The point is that there had been a valid question asked to which no valid answer had been provided. Research was done to look for clues, clues were found, which went on to greatly expand the hypothesis into something which is not at all ludicrous.
I actually think that the very fact that you flat out reject Christianity and see no valid connections with your own theology is evidence in and of itself that something is missing that bridged the gap so easily for the 1st Century Palestinian Jews.
I said that I've never seen any evidence that 1st Century Palestinian Jews ever believed in the idea of messiah = deity. And I've been looking for quite a while. That came later, after Christianity had become more Roman than Jewish.
And that, right there, is an explanation. The cross wasn't a Jewish symbol, but it was the symbol of the sun god Mithra. Saturday was the holy Sabbath day until Christianity adopted the sun's day as their new holy day.
I won't go into all of the connections there, but there are many. And they are far more plausable than deconstructing the biblical account so far that it has no weight whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Taalcon, I remember seeing a book that claimed JC was a woman.
I'd certanly be interested in seeing the evidence the author pulled up for that one, seeing as, as far as I know, the only texts we have that account for the Existence of Jeshua of Nazareth firmly state that he was, in fact, a fella.
Well, hey. How about that. And the only texts we have that account for Hashem say that Hashem and Elokim are two names for the same God.
quote:I've seen books that claim the pyramids are starships.
And we've had a great many archaeologists explore and excavate the pyramids, and, as far as I know, no Hyperdrive Motivators have been found. Or Tang.
A good point. I'll have to write to them and point that out.
[ September 23, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
cross = roman instrument of torture = what Jesus was crucified on.
What historian denies that Jesus was actually crucified even if they might dispute the death and resurection bit?
You could make a case for Astara and Easter, but wtf with the Sun-God baloney and the cross?!
AJ
clarification: I'm ok with considering a cross to be a stake. So if you are only disputing the shape of the symbolic figure, fine. Decoraitive swastikas were used in Hinduism, and synagouges long before the Nazis. If you are disputing that Jesus was crucified, then I have a problem.
AJ
[ September 23, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: cross = roman instrument of torture = what Jesus was crucified on.
The early Christians didn't use the cross as a symbol. Just the fish. The cross didn't come into use until Roman Christian times.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: What historian denies that Jesus was actually crucified even if they might dispute the death and resurection bit?
<raises hand> And others as well. There isn't any evidence, after all, that he even existed. I mean, we have records of a lot of messianic figures around that time. There was even one named Yeshua HaNotzri. But he lived about a hundred years before JC was supposedly born. And while some of his five disciples had names similar to the twelve in Christian scriptures... well, I think you get the point.
I don't object to your believing it, obviously. I'm just saying that you should realize that it's not as universally accepted as you think.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: You could make a case for Astara and Easter, but wtf with the Sun-God baloney and the cross?!
Check it out.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: True story. I was in college, at some Hillel House event. There were people from the St. Louis community there as well. This one guy started telling me that he thinks there's a connection between "holy" and "whole", and that since the Torah says we are supposed to be a "holy nation", it's really talking about Jewish unity.
So first I tried to explain to him that those two words have no connection in English. He refused to accept that. Heck, they sound similar, right?
Wrong. Try again. The English words are indeed related. The w in whole was mistakenly added later. This is where all those old manuscripts and letters after your name comes in handy.
Of course, just because those two words have a common origin in English doesn't mean that they're related in Hebrew. And anyway, holy was never used to mean "united" in English, at least not in the last twelve hundred years of recorded history.
So yes, his argument that the Jews should be a united nation is baseless. His etymology was spot-on, though.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm trying to figure out your historic credentials, compared to Josephus. I'm referring to Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1, not the more disputed passage.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: True story. I was in college, at some Hillel House event. There were people from the St. Louis community there as well. This one guy started telling me that he thinks there's a connection between "holy" and "whole", and that since the Torah says we are supposed to be a "holy nation", it's really talking about Jewish unity.
So first I tried to explain to him that those two words have no connection in English. He refused to accept that. Heck, they sound similar, right?
Wrong. Try again. The English words are indeed related. The w in whole was mistakenly added later. This is where all those old manuscripts and letters after your name comes in handy.
Or not. The Online Etymological Dictionary says that they may have once been related, long before English was a language, but even they aren't sure about it.
You just like to argue.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Or not. The Online Etymological Dictionary says that they may have once been related, long before English was a language, but even they aren't sure about it.
Nowhere in there does it say "before English was a language." And actually, all it says they aren't sure about is the exact original meaning of holy—that is, how exactly it split off from its cousins whole and hale. You're misreading that entry. They clearly say that it's "connected with O.E. hal." This word is also connected with the words hale, heal, and whole. I meant what I said about this being a place where an education in this sort of thing would be helpful.
quote:You just like to argue.
This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, I don't particularly believe Jesus was born on December 25th, which your link spends a lot more time on. I'm aware of the pagan ressurection myths. However given the amount of crucifying the Romans did and Josephus. I see no reason to think that he *wasn't* a historic figure, or that he *wasn't* crucified.
And, given that the name "Jesus" was actually a pretty darn common variant of Joshua, and considering how many other Jewish people were crucified by the Romans during the same time period, I'm betting someone named Jesus existed and was crucified by the Romans. Unless you think there isn't a John Smith in jail.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
There was a Yeshua who did a lot of the things attributed to JC about 130 years before he is supposed to have done them. Does that count?
And counting Josephus is a little credulous, don't you think?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
the passage which I referred to, is not normally disputed:
quote:Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Don't know. Wasn't Josephus an observant Jew?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The OED (I love the OED ) seems to back up the holy/whole claim...
Holy:
quote::- OTeut. type *hailag-oz, the sense of which is expressed in the Gothic of Ulfilas by weihs (but hailag, app. ‘consecrated, dedicated’, is read on a Runic inscription generally held to be Gothic). A deriv. of the adj. *hailo-, OE. hál, free from injury, whole, hale, or of the deriv. n. *hailoz-, *hailiz-, in OHG. heil, ON. heill health, happiness, good luck, in ON. also omen, auspice
It certainly seems likely!
ALSO: Being an atheist, I can easily see what of the story of Jesus and the new testament was borrowed from existing beliefs, myths and legends. However, based on my beliefs, I can also see just as easily how the creation and all that followed and is recorded in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions is also just as based on pre-existing, but of course much earlier, "pagan" (I hate that word, I use it only for the benefit of understanding) beliefs, myths and legends.
You mnust already know that The Akkadian (and "pagan") "Enuma Elish" (Link)records a creation that is reflected very strongly in the Biblical (or all the other "Book" words) tales.
Every tale of from chaos coming order exists as as something borrowed from a previous tale until we head back into the mists of time when our ancestors first conceived the concepts of time and chaos and order. These new creation stories can fit the existing framework and so new religions evolve and change.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Y'know I'm not trying to say that Jesus was the Messiah here. But I think someone by the name existed and was killed by the Romans. Even if Chrisianity is all a crock built on older myths, someone (probably many) there about that time had to have the name. The fact it was a relatively common name, would make the myth aspects more believable.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Don't know. Wasn't Josephus an observant Jew?
Definitely not.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok, I read his whole defense of Judaism section when I was pretty young, (<10)it gave me the impression he was orthodox, cause he seemed to be defending the rules and regulations.
AJ
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
You just like to argue.
I sense the pot calling the kettle black. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Ok, I read his whole defense of Judaism section when I was pretty young, (<10)it gave me the impression he was orthodox, cause he seemed to be defending the rules and regulations.
He probably was [addit: defending them]. The evidence points toward the likelihood that his parents (or possibly his grandparents) were religiously observant. However, it is fairly clear that (at least as an adult) he was not.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmm... would starLisa consider him a Jew?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can't see why she wouldn't, assuming his mother was.
Would she consider him Orthodox? Almost certainly not -- the category didn't even exist yet. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Good thing you guys don't believe in hell then. AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Whoops, I thought according to starLisa all Jews had been observant for thousands of years until the apostate Reformed movement happened.
AJ
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
You just like to argue.
I sense the pot calling the kettle black.
Actually, I really hate arguing like this. It makes me all nervous and shaky. But I hate it even more when people abuse the truth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Whoops, I thought according to starLisa all Jews had been observant for thousands of years until the apostate Reformed movement happened.
Oh, that much is essentially true. But in Josephus' time you were either observant, or you weren't. There was no "Orthodoxy."
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Dude, there's one place in the entire Bible where such phrasing is used. Those sons aren't called divine; they are called mighty men and giants.
So when she says "All the texts in the Hebrew Bible", she's being at the very least a little disingenuous. I tend to think it's a bit deceptive as well. And I'll ask you: how can you trust the scholarship of someone who makes that kind of misstatement on such a basic point?
"The second sons of God text is Deuteronomy 32.8, one on which a great deal has been written:
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God
The problem lies in the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek versions. The MT does not mention sons of God, but has sons of Israel instead. The Qumran Hebrew has sons of God (sons of 'el) and the Greek has angels of God. This text shows two things: that there was some reason for altering sons of God to sons of Israel, or vice versa (the Qumran suggests reading suggests that the earlier Hebrew had read 'sons of God'); and that the sons of God were the patron deities of the various nations. Elyon, the High God had allocated the nations to the various sons of God; oneof these sons was Yahweh to whom Israel had been allocated (Deut. 32.9). This fossil incorporated into Deuteronomy is thought to be one of its oldest components; how such a 'polytheistic' piece came to be included in Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on monotheism, is a question we cannot answer, although it is possible that to guess why the 'polytheism' was removed from the later Hebrew text, as we shall see. The angels of the nations are probably the same as the 'messengers' (it is the same word in Hebrew) of the nations who appear in Isa. 14:32 and who are warned that Yahweh's people are protected by Zion which he has founded. The angels of the nations appear in a later form in Daniel, where they are the princes of PErsia and Greece, attacking the unnamed angel who fights for Israel with the help of the archangel Michael (Dan. 10:13-14)."
I'm not going to quote the whole book, mainly for copyright reasons, but also because it's not practical for me to do so *grin*.
The next discussion she has is in Job, which the prologue features the sons of God (sons of the 'elohim), one of whom was the satan, coming to Yahweh to challenge him to test the loyalty of Job.
Sons of 'elim appear in Ps. 29.1, where they are told to acknowledge the glory and strength of Yahweh. There are quite a few references in the psalms, actually, including in Ps. 89.6, where none among the sons of 'elim is like Yahweh who is a god feared in the council of the Holy Ones.
Daniel 3.25's reference to 'one like a son of the gods' (a son of elahin) appears in Human form.
There are quite a few more. She devotes an entire chapter to discussing and comparing the concepts of Sons of El/Sons of Yahweh.
Etc, etc.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Oh, that much is essentially true. But in Josephus' time you were either observant, or you weren't. There was no "Orthodoxy."
And since Josephus apparently lived among Romans in a very Roman manner, he was not, am I right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Precisely.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Oh, that much is essentially true. But in Josephus' time you were either observant, or you weren't. There was no "Orthodoxy."
And since Josephus apparently lived among Romans in a very Roman manner, he was not, am I right?
Didn't Josephus spend a lot of time with each of the main sects of the day (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc) in order to study them, and decide which one appeared to be closest to the truth? I began reading Josephus' history, but got distracted ;O) - If I remember correctly, didn't he later become what was considered to be a 'hellenized Jew'?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Taal, yes and no. He does indeed claim to have attended schools of each of those groups -- and may even have done so. But even by his own report, he did so as a teenager. I wonder how much it was "trying to find the truth" and how much it was living different places and/or trying to find the school with the cheapest tuition.
And yes, he did become a mityaven -- a Hellenist.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Yeah, I just looked in my copy. Here's the relevent text:
Now, my father Matthias was not only eminent on account of is nobility, but had a higher commendation on account of his righteousness, and was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the greatest city we have.
I was myself brought up with my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father and mother; and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding.
Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.
And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three:—The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essens, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all.
Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years.
So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them.
It then goes on to discuss his journeys to Rome.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Whoops, I thought according to starLisa all Jews had been observant for thousands of years until the apostate Reformed movement happened.
All of the different clans, the Tzdokis, Prushis and Issiyis (sp?), the peasantry and aristocracy (not always Tzdokis and Prushis), and the different political organisations were not, by any means, making the classification of who's observant and who's not into a simple - or clear - matter.
Puh-lease!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Don't know. Wasn't Josephus an observant Jew?
Probably. For the most part. But he was also a vile traitor. Still and all, that little blurb that's been inserted in some versions of his work has very little validity. And there's nothing else. Nada.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:You just like to argue.
This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you.
Well, hell, Jon. I know I like to argue. That's not relevant to my claim about you.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
You just like to argue.
I sense the pot calling the kettle black.
P'raps. But the kettle might actually be black as well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Hmm... would starLisa consider him a Jew?
A Jew who sins is still a Jew. Had Cardinal Lustiger become Pope, there would have been a Jew sitting on the Vatican throne.
As the Eagles put it, "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Whoops, I thought according to starLisa all Jews had been observant for thousands of years until the apostate Reformed movement happened.
Well, first, they call themselves the Reform Movement. Reformed is something in Christianity.
Second, there've always been some individuals who go off the path (as we say). Benedict Spinoza. Benjamin D'Israeli. Torquemada. A whole slew of Jews converted under duress during the Inquisition. That didn't mean that Judaism embraced Catholicism; just that some Jews did, rather than be killed or expelled.
We've always had our apostates. We had Baal worshippers in biblical times. We've had Sadducess, Karaites, Sabbateans, Frankists, Essenes, Christians... but our core remains, and always will.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: But he was also a vile traitor.
He's arguably a traitor of the Jewish people. On the one hand, he did go with the Romans; on the other hand, who's to say you wouldn't if you were offered a good life after the Romans detected your hiding location? Who's to say that's what he really believed in and that he didn't do it "be`al corcho"?
I reckon that he's self-promoting, and trying to play the political game of being on both sides. I don't know if he believed that the rebellion will be successful before the fall of Yodfat, but one thing's for sure, and that is that he did prepare the Galilee for the Roman invasoion.
So he went and wrote books for the Romans. It happens! Maybe h thought that he'd be better off alive, and he should chos the winning side if he wanted to live. You might've done the same.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Dude, there's one place in the entire Bible where such phrasing is used. Those sons aren't called divine; they are called mighty men and giants.
So when she says "All the texts in the Hebrew Bible", she's being at the very least a little disingenuous. I tend to think it's a bit deceptive as well. And I'll ask you: how can you trust the scholarship of someone who makes that kind of misstatement on such a basic point?
"The second sons of God text is Deuteronomy 32.8, one on which a great deal has been written:
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God
The problem lies in the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek versions. The MT does not mention sons of God, but has sons of Israel instead. The Qumran Hebrew has sons of God (sons of 'el) and the Greek has angels of God.
There's a "synagogue" in Deerfield, Illinois, called Beth Or. They are part of what is called the Humanist Movement. This was founded by Reform rabbis who decided one day that since they really didn't believe in God, it was silly to continue using the word. So they created an explicitly atheist "Jewish" movement.
So one year, when I was at college, there was this guy on my floor whose family belonged to Beth Or. They sent him a care package just before Passover. Don't get me started on atheists celebrating Passover.
He showed me all the stuff they sent. Some of it was even kosher, though not kosher for Passover, of course. And there was a Haggada in the package.
Well, I had to look at that. What could an atheist Haggada possibly say. There was some tripe about Passover being a festival of freedom for everyone, and yadda, yadda, but then...
There's a passage in the Jewish prayer book that says: "Blessed is Hashem by day, blessed is Hashem by night. Blessed is Hashem when we rise up, and blessed is Hashem when we lay down."
This Haggada included that. Except that they replaced "Hashem" with "Man".
There was a photocopy of a piece of text from Jeremiah in this Haggadah. It begins "Thus says the Lord, a nation which has survived the sword has found grace in the desert." They'd photocopied this from a standard Hebrew/English Bible, and had used white-out to cover "the Lord" and wrote "a prophet" over it.
The quote she gives is much like that atheist Haggadah. The Bible says "the sons of Israel". Not "the sons of God".
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:The Bible says "the sons of Israel". Not "the sons of God".
The MT says sons of Israel. Who's to say that that text as we have of the MT today is the original, most accurate?
If anything, in accordance with your scenario, it seems like the MT may have been the one with the white out - two other versions (both significantly older than the MT manuscripts we have) match much more closely to each other than to the MT.
Can you definitively say the MT isn't the whited-out version? This is what it being claimed, that the Deuteronomists (or other reformers) didn't like the polythestic implications, so they 'tweaked' it for 'clarification', for the 'greater good'.
Much like your atheist Haggadah.
[ September 25, 2005, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:The Bible says "the sons of Israel". Not "the sons of God".
The MT says sons of Israel. Who's to say that that text as we have of the MT today is the original, most accurate?
If anything, in accordance with your scenario, it seems like the MT may have been the one with the white out - two other versions (both significantly older than the MT manuscripts we have) match much more closely to each other than to the MT.
Can you definitively say the MT isn't the whited-out version? This is what it being claimed, that the Deuteronomists (or other reformers) didn't like the polythestic implications, so they 'tweaked' it for 'clarification', for the 'greater good'.
Much like your atheist Haggadah.
That's nuts. According to the bizarre theory of Deuteronomy having been created in the days of Josiah, it's one thing that wasn't built out of earlier materials. This theory you're supporting isn't even internally consistent.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:That's nuts. According to the bizarre theory of Deuteronomy having been created in the days of Josiah, it's one thing that wasn't built out of earlier materials. This theory you're supporting isn't even internally consistent.
So you think there's only one theory concerning the tweaking of Deuteronomy in this era? Perhaps you should do a little more research before making another outright statement that simply isn't true.
You seem to be a very big fan of using straw men arguments, blasting away 'facts' and statements that I have never even proposed in this thread. You present a modern story of some people who whited out a copy of the scriptures, and use this as evidence that all non-MT version of the scriptures must be intentionally apostacy-inducingly false.
I can tell you're an intelligent person who is very well read.
But you're doing your education a misservice in the way you're handling this discussion.
There just seems to be an anger and a flippancy in your posts - and I don't mean just in this thread. Am I misreading that?
[ September 25, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: that text as we have of the MT today
Which one? For my latest paper I handed out to school in Machshevet Yisra'el I used the MT, but not th Vilna version, rather the version the Yemenites had, which is full of Rambam's annotations.
And damnit, if you could write down a book with such span in the way he wrote it - you'll be my new mortal deity.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Not to mention the fact that our bodies wouldn't deal too well with the alcohol it would produce.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Is there no way to send private messages on this board? Must I sign on to aim or even send an email to speak privately with someone?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)