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.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bible study is certainly much more informative when, uh, the Bible is actually studied, and not just 'taught'.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Coughs* Samson, anyone? Can you think of anyone less worthy of being remembered through antiquity, much less being painted in a heroic light?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.*
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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
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. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? )
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
