Tanach parable or historical?
lee
Tanach parable or historical?
How much is parable & how much is historical?
all parable?
parable up to exodus?
parable to david & goliath?
up to Samson & Delilah?
Discovery of the lost scrolls?
Micha Berger
> How much is parable & how much is historical?
My own opinion, one O opinion among a wide variety:
All of it, from "In the beginning" is historical. Much of that history
may also be parable; G-d orchestrating an event to teach a lesson.
But.
The story of creation, as it actually occured, is incomprehensible (to
anyone less than G-d). The historical layer of the text is therefore
inaccessible to us. I can therefore take whatever I do glean from it
and treat it as though it were allegorical, because that's all of it
that I can understand.
To my mind this is entirely true for Genesis ch. 1, ch 2 (the Garden of
Eden and the forbidden fruit) is somewhat more comprehensible but still
too alien to our post-fruit experience to be entirely taken at face value.
And of course, the visions actually described by the prophets (including
but not limited to the Throne vision in Exodus, and the Chariot visions
of Ezekiel and Jeremiah) are historical descriptions of visions actually
seen, but the visions themselves are allegorical constructions.
(Whether G-d constructs the allegory, or the person's own intellect wraps
the alien into the usual matter of sensory experience, I leave open.)
I know many O Jews who would consider my view on Genesis 1 to be too
liberal, whether Young Earther omphalists or believers in a history
before this world. I also know a few on the left edge who would consider
everything up to Abraham as allegory.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
lee
So for you the events in the Tanach happened as described, & g-d
manipulated those historical events so as to teach us? & roughly that
is the O position?
Micha Berger
> So for you the events in the Tanach happened as described, & g-d
> manipulated those historical events so as to teach us? & roughly that
> is the O position?
Pretty much.
Technically, the only bit that definitionally O requires you to believe
is historical is the exodus; the events commemorated in the holidays
and we are commanded to remember daily; or the books of Exodus through
Deuteronomy -- and I'm not even sure every detail of those. But I never
encountered an O-affiliated Jew whose beliefs are anywhere close to that
level of minimalism.
As I wrote, questioning the flood and the tower of Babel already put you
on O's leftward edge.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
W. Baker
: Pretty much.
: -Micha
What of the reast of Tanach? the books following the Torah, itself?
Wendy Baker
Arthur Kamlet
>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: > So for you the events in the Tanach happened as described, & g-d
>: > manipulated those historical events so as to teach us? & roughly that
>: > is the O position?
>
>: Pretty much.
>
>: Technically, the only bit that definitionally O requires you to believe
>: is historical is the exodus; the events commemorated in the holidays
>: and we are commanded to remember daily; or the books of Exodus through
>: Deuteronomy -- and I'm not even sure every detail of those. But I never
>: encountered an O-affiliated Jew whose beliefs are anywhere close to that
>: level of minimalism.
>
>: As I wrote, questioning the flood and the tower of Babel already put you
>: on O's leftward edge.
>
Don't the sages themselves suggest that Job is all allegory?
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
Micha Berger
> What of the reast of Tanach? the books following the Torah, itself?
I think the only parts of Tanakh most O Jews would be willing to even
consider the question about are:
- Creation
- the content of prophetic visions (as I said last time, that is including
the Chariot visions of Yechezqeil and Yirmiyahu), although not the
event of getting the prophecy
and let me add one omission from last time:
- Job, which one opinion in the Talmud suggests was a parable written by
Moshe. That opinion gets a lot of contemporary traffic.
Then there are iffy bits, like M's belief that the three angels visiting
Abraham, Bilaam's donkey, and any other story in which an angel is seen
or heard, must be prophecy. (Angels aren't physical, so how can they
be seen or heard outside of prophecy?) Not that many O Jews know of his
opinion, but those that do can't consider its rejection *mandatory*.
I also think the only parts we *must* take literally as a definition of O
is the basic claims about the exodus, the revelation. But in practice,
the range of opinions is far narrower. Also, at some point such a
wide rejection of traditional interpretation itself raises questions
of orthodoxy.
Amitai Halevi
I looked in occasionally, but was not inclined to get involved in
any of the threads that I ran into. Art's query, however , is
something that I can comment on.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Arthur Kamlet wrote:
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Arthur Kamlet <kam...@panix.com>
> Reply-To: -T...@panix.com
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
The suggestion was made but it was promptly rejected (Bava Batra 15a).
The argument, which I personally do not find terribly convincing, runs
as follows:
Parables normally do not specify names and places (Cf. Nathan's parable
of the poor man's ewe lamb - 2nd Samuel, Ch. 12). The specification of
Job's name and place of residence are proof that he actually existed.
Regards to all,
Amitai
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So for you the events in the Tanach happened as described, & g-d
>> manipulated those historical events so as to teach us? & roughly that
>> is the O position?
>
> Pretty much.
>
> Technically, the only bit that definitionally O requires you to believe
> is historical is the exodus; the events commemorated in the holidays
> and we are commanded to remember daily; or the books of Exodus through
> Deuteronomy -- and I'm not even sure every detail of those. But I never
> encountered an O-affiliated Jew whose beliefs are anywhere close to that
> level of minimalism.
>
> As I wrote, questioning the flood and the tower of Babel already put you
> on O's leftward edge.
There's no problem with O and science:
That's why R. Yitzchak of Akko, a disciple of the Ramban, wrote 750
years ago that the world was created 15 BILLION years ago. (to be
exact: 15,340,500,000)
That's why the Midrash states that God created universes and destroyed
them.
That's why the gemara in Chagiga 13b states that there were 974
generations BEFORE Adam.
That's why there are many midrashim noting that the first week of
Creation lasted eons of time (see: Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer
Ikkarim 2:18; Breshit Rabba 9).
That's why the biblical day is 1000 Divine years which is equivalent
to 365,200 earth years, and the midrash indicates that the world is
42,000 Divine years old.
That's why the Midrash in Breshit Rabba 14 mentions in the name of
Rabbi Yehuda that man was born with a tail.
That's why the Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born
before the time of Noah had webbed fingers.
That's why Breshit Rabba 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces
of men became APE LIKE.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
We miss you on SCJM!!!!
Josh
Micha Berger
> The suggestion was made but it was promptly rejected (Bava Batra 15a).
> The argument, which I personally do not find terribly convincing, runs
> as follows:
> Parables normally do not specify names and places (Cf. Nathan's parable
> of the poor man's ewe lamb - 2nd Samuel, Ch. 12). The specification of
> Job's name and place of residence are proof that he actually existed.
Hello again!
Would you find it more convincing if the argument were about biblical
literary style in particular? Perhaps he was arguing that in Tanakh
in particular, such detail isn't given in a parable.
Amitai Halevi
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Micha Berger wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:34:31 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>
> Amitai Halevi <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> The suggestion was made but it was promptly rejected (Bava Batra 15a).
>> The argument, which I personally do not find terribly convincing, runs
>> as follows:
>> Parables normally do not specify names and places (Cf. Nathan's parable
>> of the poor man's ewe lamb - 2nd Samuel, Ch. 12). The specification of
>> Job's name and place of residence are proof that he actually existed.
>
> Hello again!
>
> Would you find it more convincing if the argument were about biblical
> literary style in particular? Perhaps he was arguing that in Tanakh
> in particular, such detail isn't given in a parable.
>
That is precisely how I understood the argument. I might be less
skeptical if I were convinced of the historical truth of all other
biblical stories (some of which I regard as myths) in which the
protagonists are named. Besides, with the possible exception of
Jonah - Job is the only Book that can be read in its entirety as
a parable, and is unique in that the story proper is preceded by
an introduction (Jonah 1:1-12).
Amitai
Arthur Kamlet
Amitai Halevi <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Micha Berger wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:34:31 +0000 (UTC)
>> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
>> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>>
>> Amitai Halevi <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>>> The suggestion was made but it was promptly rejected (Bava Batra 15a).
>>> The argument, which I personally do not find terribly convincing, runs
>>> as follows:
>>> Parables normally do not specify names and places (Cf. Nathan's parable
>>> of the poor man's ewe lamb - 2nd Samuel, Ch. 12). The specification of
>>> Job's name and place of residence are proof that he actually existed.
>>
>> Hello again!
>>
>> Would you find it more convincing if the argument were about biblical
>> literary style in particular? Perhaps he was arguing that in Tanakh
>> in particular, such detail isn't given in a parable.
>>
>That is precisely how I understood the argument. I might be less
>skeptical if I were convinced of the historical truth of all other
>biblical stories (some of which I regard as myths) in which the
>protagonists are named. Besides, with the possible exception of
>Jonah - Job is the only Book that can be read in its entirety as
>a parable, and is unique in that the story proper is preceded by
>an introduction (Jonah 1:1-12).
Which may very well have been inserted long after the Job story
itself was known.
--
Yisroel Markov
<chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
>As some of you may have noted, I have not been around for a while.
You can say that again!
>I looked in occasionally, but was not inclined to get involved in
>any of the threads that I ran into.
I'm glad that you decided to get involved. Hope that you are well! It
was good to see your name in my newsreader again.
[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Arthur Kamlet
Sure do! Welcome back even if for such short messages.
--
mm
wrote:
>
>So for you the events in the Tanach happened as described, & g-d
>manipulated those historical events so as to teach us? & roughly that
>is the O position?
Lee, in your posts you capitalize afai noticed every word that is
normally capitalized, like Tanach and a lot of others, except God or
G-d. You seem to pay honor to the word by replacing the o with a
hyphen, but then seem to dishonor it by not capitalizing it. I'm not
sure what you are trying to imply, but I'll bet my reaction isn't the
one you are looking for or expecting.
mm
Berger) wrote:
>Amitai Halevi <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> The suggestion was made but it was promptly rejected (Bava Batra 15a).
>> The argument, which I personally do not find terribly convincing, runs
>> as follows:
>> Parables normally do not specify names and places (Cf. Nathan's parable
>> of the poor man's ewe lamb - 2nd Samuel, Ch. 12). The specification of
>> Job's name and place of residence are proof that he actually existed.
>
>Hello again!
>
>Would you find it more convincing if the argument were about biblical
>literary style in particular? Perhaps he was arguing that in Tanakh
>in particular, such detail isn't given in a parable.
A 70% reliable source tells me that Iyov means something which might
weaken the notion that a person is named, but I'm embarrassed to say,
I can't remember what. He may have said that it meant something like
"victim" or "disfavored" or "oppressed", weaker than those words but
in that direction. Is he right? What does Iyov mean? Does the
meaning tend to imply it's an allegory?
>
>-Micha
lee
all
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality
& more controversially I suppose
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1208648191
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Hay, what a _great_ by line.
> As some of you may have noted, I have not been around for a while.
Now that's an understatement if I ever saw one.
> I looked in occasionally, but was not inclined to get involved in
> any of the threads that I ran into.
Can't really blame you. :-( It's good to know you're still looking.
Thanks and do come by more often! Be well.
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Joe Bruno
> Fax: (270) 514-1507
Archaeologists are discovering each day that there are historical
bases for much of the Tanach that was once thought to be pure parable.
They have discovered ancient remains of what might have been Sodom and
Gommorrah.The area is located in a region that had many destructive
earthquakes in ancient times. They think that Sodom and Gom were
destroyed not by God but by Mother Nature, The wreck of an ancient
vessel was found on a mountain in Turkey that might well have been the
Ark mentioned in the story of Noah.
The Garden of Eden has been tentatively located in Iraq where two
rivers meet.
The parting of the Red Sea mentioned in Exodus could have been in a
swampy area where the water level was much lower in ancient times than
it is now, thus allowing the Hebrews to cross it. The area is called
the "Sea of Reeds", not the Red Sea. It can be easily crossed at low
tide without drowning anyone.
Joshua's demolition of Jericho could also have been caused by an
earthquake.
lee
> I'm also looking at this stuff & trying to decide how I feel about it
Sorry on a 3rd or 4th readin of the Uri Avrnery article I dont think
its relevant to what I was asking, as its mainly based on this sort of
stuff http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html & Avnery's left
wing polemic, which I generally tend to agree with buts, it isn't
relevant to the Tanach. I'm more interested in the MFA article.
Amitai Halevi
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, mm wrote:
> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:19:33 +0000 (UTC)
> From: mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>
> Reply-To: mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>
It has been pointed out (I haven't found the primary source) that the
letters alef-yod-bet are the root of the nouns: "oyev" (enemy) and
"eivah" (enmity). The opinion that the name may be allegorical is
bolstered by the passage (Job 13:24): "Wherefore hidest though thy
face and holdeth me as an enemy (oyev)".
However, the name was apparently common in the ancient Middle East,
and remains widespread among Moslems (Arabs, Pakistanis, etc...) in
the form of Ayub, which in Hebrew is spelled exactly like Iyov (Job).
Therefore, I would not consider it as strong evidence for the book's
being an allegory (which IMO it is).
I hesitate to open a can of worms, but the names in the Book of Ruth
are more suspicious: The two sons of Naomi who became ill and died
are named Mahlon (cf. "mahala"=illness) and Chilyon (cf. "chilayon"=
annihilation), whereas the daughter-in-law who turned back is named
Orpah (cf. "oreph"=back of the neck, and "liphnot oreph"=turn one's
back.) Whether or not the above has any relevancy for the historicity
of the Book of Ruth is another matter. It might be argued that the
story is essentially true but at the time it was recorded the names
of those who died or remained in Moab had been forgotten, and were
then replaced fancifully.
Amitai
Micha Berger
> I hesitate to open a can of worms, but the names in the Book of Ruth
> are more suspicious: The two sons of Naomi who became ill and died
> are named Mahlon (cf. "mahala"=illness) and Chilyon (cf. "chilayon"=
> annihilation), whereas the daughter-in-law who turned back is named
> Orpah (cf. "oreph"=back of the neck, and "liphnot oreph"=turn one's
> back.) Whether or not the above has any relevancy for the historicity
> of the Book of Ruth is another matter. It might be argued that the
> story is essentially true but at the time it was recorded the names
> of those who died or remained in Moab had been forgotten, and were
> then replaced fancifully.
I think it's quite plausible that the names in Ruth are nicknames rather
than what their parents actually named them.
-Micha
mm
Yes, "enemy" was the word and iirc they claimed with certainty that
the name Job meant enemy here. That is, there was no word of
qualification, like "maybe" or "thought to be". It was a tv show,
Jeopardy, (which is very popular, asks more questions during a
half-hour than any other game show, and asks the hardest, most
"intellectual" questions, about** science, history, art, literature,
etc.) so it came and went in a few seconds and I didn't write it down.
**It also has questions, sometimes whole categories of 5 questions,
about things for sale, merchandise, new movies, which are obviously to
me are paid advertisements. In a way it's not so bad, since they
always asked questions about popular culture. Now they are just
getting paid to ask questions about specific parts of popular culture.
They also studiously avoid acknowledging that Einstein was a Jew.
This seems to be part of a trend in the US and maybe elsewhere, which
I have pointed out here already, that if you are famous and someone
else will be writing your obituary in the US, you'd better have some
notable role in Jewish community or they will omit your Jewishness.
If you are a Russian Jewish immigrant, you'll be described as a
Russian immigrant. I saw one like that just this week.
WRT Einstein, the first time I noticed, he was described in the clue
as German. They may have gotten complaints about that, because the
next time, 2 or 3 months later, he was described as being born in
Germany. He's the answer every two or three months and they don't
always include where he lived in the clue, but they've never called
him a Jew.
They seem to fancy themselves an "intellectual" show and they
certainly are compared to any other quiz show, yet they always used AD
and BC dates even on Bible topics, when afaik most Biblical
archaeologists use CE and BCE. Is my impression correct? What
about other archaeologists?
Plus they occasionally have questions involving Xian art or "history"
or even theology which the clues treat as fact. One can see this,
maybe, in the way tv news shows treat archae logical finds, religion
etc. where sometimes the newscaster will refer to the man as Jesus and
sometimes as "Christ". I don't know whether they don't know the
difference, or they can't imagine there is a difference, or they are
expressing their personal religious views.
Arthur Kamlet
And the author/editor was careful to avoid naming Ruth's reluctant
redeemer, perhaps to avoid bringing him shame for future generations
who heard the story.
Ken Bloom
> I hesitate to open a can of worms, but the names in the Book of Ruth are
> more suspicious: The two sons of Naomi who became ill and died are named
> Mahlon (cf. "mahala"=illness) and Chilyon (cf. "chilayon"=
> annihilation), whereas the daughter-in-law who turned back is named
> Orpah (cf. "oreph"=back of the neck, and "liphnot oreph"=turn one's
> back.) Whether or not the above has any relevancy for the historicity of
> the Book of Ruth is another matter. It might be argued that the story is
> essentially true but at the time it was recorded the names of those who
> died or remained in Moab had been forgotten, and were then replaced
> fancifully.
But then there's Ichabod ("there is no glory") in Shmuel I 4:21, and that
was what Eli HaKohen's daughter in law named her newborn child, when she
had just heard the Philistines had captured the Aron Kodesh, killed her
father-in-law and her husband, and she was about to die in child birth.
--Ken
--
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
Amitai
Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
three categories, only the third of which is
relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
1. A name given at birth, such as Ichabod. There many such: Adam, Eve,
Issac, Jacob,, Reuben, Joseph, Samuel, Solomon, etc ...
2. A foreign name that was given a Hebrew rationalization. The common
Egyptian name, Mose, was rationalized as derived from the Hebrew root
"mem.shin.heh" = to draw out from water.
3. Names of adults that refer to circumstances that could not have
been anticipated at thier birth, such as the three in Ruth that I
mentioned: Machlon, Chilyon and Orpah.
I exclude Nabal, whose name fits his character, because the
coincidence is spelled out in the text: I Samuel 25:35:
Amitai
Amitai Halevi
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Amitai wrote:
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:45:54 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>
> On Aug 2, 5:15 am, Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:38:59 +0000, Amitai Halevi wrote:
>>> I hesitate to open a can of worms, but the names in the Book of Ruth are
>>> more suspicious: The two sons of Naomi who became ill and died are named
>>> Mahlon (cf. "mahala"=illness) and Chilyon (cf. "chilayon"=
>>> annihilation), whereas the daughter-in-law who turned back is named
>>> Orpah (cf. "oreph"=back of the neck, and "liphnot oreph"=turn one's
>>> back.) Whether or not the above has any relevancy for the historicity of
>>> the Book of Ruth is another matter. It might be argued that the story is
>>> essentially true but at the time it was recorded the names of those who
>>> died or remained in Moab had been forgotten, and were then replaced
>>> fancifully.
>>
>> But then there's Ichabod ("there is no glory") in Shmuel I 4:21, and that
>> was what Eli HaKohen's daughter in law named her newborn child, when she
>> had just heard the Philistines had captured the Aron Kodesh, killed her
>> father-in-law and her husband, and she was about to die in child birth.
>>
>> --Ken
>>
>> --
>> Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
>> Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
>
> Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
> three categories, only the third of which is
> relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
> 1. A name given at birth, such as Ichabod. There many such: Adam, Eve,
in whose case the term "birth" is used rather loosely,
Micha Berger
> Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
> three categories, only the third of which is
> relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
And when our Sages say that so-and-so had 7 or three or 10 names, it's
also hard to believe they are all given, formal, names. The traditional
position also makes more sense if you assume the names were assigned to
enhance the narrative.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous
Amitai Halevi
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Micha Berger wrote:
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:11:11 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>
> Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
>> three categories, only the third of which is
>> relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
>
> And when our Sages say that so-and-so had 7 or three or 10 names, it's
> also hard to believe they are all given, formal, names. The traditional
> position also makes more sense if you assume the names were assigned to
> enhance the narrative.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
In my post I limited myself to names that appear in the text of
the Tanakh and are each assigned to a particular person. The
multiple names give by the Sages to the same biblical character
is another matter, similar to the midrashic reassignment of
identities, e.g. Shifra and Puah = Miriam and Yocheved.
Amitai
Arthur Kamlet
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> Before someone else catches me up on this slip:
>
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Amitai wrote:
>> Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
>> three categories, only the third of which is
>> relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
>> 1. A name given at birth, such as Ichabod. There many such: Adam, Eve,
>
> in whose case the term "birth" is used rather loosely,
I noticed that but was too polite to comment. :-)
Amitai
> In article <e6a2d2b8-b0df-4bd3-873a-7963c5ae1...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
named
in his infancy. Evidently, Absalom is not a character in a parable.
Amitai
> ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yisroel Markov
<chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
[snip]
>Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
>three categories, only the third of which is
>relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
>1. A name given at birth, such as Ichabod. There many such: Adam, Eve,
>Issac, Jacob,, Reuben, Joseph, Samuel, Solomon, etc ...
>2. A foreign name that was given a Hebrew rationalization. The common
>Egyptian name, Mose, was rationalized as derived from the Hebrew root
>"mem.shin.heh" = to draw out from water.
>3. Names of adults that refer to circumstances that could not have
>been anticipated at thier birth, such as the three in Ruth that I
>mentioned: Machlon, Chilyon and Orpah.
>I exclude Nabal, whose name fits his character, because the
>coincidence is spelled out in the text: I Samuel 25:35:
>Amitai
One has to wonder, however: what kind of parents would so name their
child? Something like Ben Oni, I can understand, but Nabal? Or did he
acquire it later?
lee
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:35:21 +0000 (UTC), lee <schotn...@gmail.com>
Sorry mm you may have also noticed my frequent typos too, I would
actually prefer to say Elohim or Yahweh, but am afraid people might
find it offensive or pretentious.
Arthur Kamlet
Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:45:54 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
><chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
>>three categories, only the third of which is
>>relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
>>1. A name given at birth, such as Ichabod. There many such: Adam, Eve,
>>Issac, Jacob,, Reuben, Joseph, Samuel, Solomon, etc ...
>>2. A foreign name that was given a Hebrew rationalization. The common
>>Egyptian name, Mose, was rationalized as derived from the Hebrew root
>>"mem.shin.heh" = to draw out from water.
>>3. Names of adults that refer to circumstances that could not have
>>been anticipated at thier birth, such as the three in Ruth that I
>>mentioned: Machlon, Chilyon and Orpah.
>>I exclude Nabal, whose name fits his character, because the
>>coincidence is spelled out in the text: I Samuel 25:35:
>>Amitai
>
>One has to wonder, however: what kind of parents would so name their
>child? Something like Ben Oni, I can understand, but Nabal? Or did he
>acquire it later?
Naval is the reverse spelling of Lavan, Jacob's uncle and father-in-law
and other father-in-law, who is seen as one of the real evil guys by
the rabbis.
--
Amitai Halevi
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 20:29:41 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com>
> Reply-To: ey.m...@iname.com
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:45:54 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
> <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Biblical names that have a specific meaning or reference, fall into
>> three categories, only the third of which is
>> relevant to :the question: "parable or historical".
>> 1. A name given at birth, such as Ichabod. There many such: Adam, Eve,
>> Issac, Jacob,, Reuben, Joseph, Samuel, Solomon, etc ...
>> 2. A foreign name that was given a Hebrew rationalization. The common
>> Egyptian name, Mose, was rationalized as derived from the Hebrew root
>> "mem.shin.heh" = to draw out from water.
>> 3. Names of adults that refer to circumstances that could not have
>> been anticipated at thier birth, such as the three in Ruth that I
>> mentioned: Machlon, Chilyon and Orpah.
>> I exclude Nabal, whose name fits his character, because the
>> coincidence is spelled out in the text: I Samuel 25:35:
>> Amitai
>
> One has to wonder, however: what kind of parents would so name their
> child? Something like Ben Oni, I can understand, but Nabal? Or did he
> acquire it later?
> --
My guess would be that the name is not of Hebrew origin but of some
cognate middle eastern language. The Arabic name Nabil is still in
common use. A footnote in the Ben Yehuda Thesaurus says that in Arabic
it has the the reverse meaning: generous, noble. Reminds me of
"segi nahor" and "barekh elokim vamut".
Amitai
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Interesting !!!
I wonder if there is something written on this.
Josh
Amitai Halevi
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:30:06 +0000 (UTC)
> From: bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>
I fiound to eferences, both to Mizmor Tehilim:
Mizmor tet, Ot yod zayin
Mizmor yod dalet, Ot gimel
If you have access to the Buber edition, you might be able to
find them. I had to scan a photocopy visualy and could find
nothing in Mizmor tet. In Mizmor yod dalet, Naval is compared
to Lavan, but the fact that their names have the same letters
is not mentioned.
Amitai
Amitai Halevi
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Amitai Halevi wrote:
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:58:10 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Amitai Halevi <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
> Subject: Re: Tanach parable or historical?
>
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
[deletia
>>>
>>> Naval is the reverse spelling of Lavan, Jacob's uncle and father-in-law
>>> and other father-in-law, who is seen as one of the real evil guys by
>>> the rabbis.
>>
>>
>> Interesting !!!
>>
>> I wonder if there is something written on this.
>>
>> Josh
>>
Sorry for the garbled text. Perusal of the photocopy (see below)
must have blinded me!
>>
> I found two references, both to Mizmor Tehilim:
> Mizmor tet, Ot yod zayin
> Mizmor yod dalet, Ot gimel
>
> If you have access to the Buber edition, you might be able to
> find them. I had to scan a photocopy visualy and could find
> nothing in Mizmor tet.> In Mizmor yod dalet, Naval is compared
> to Lavan, but the fact that their names have the same letters
> is not mentioned.
I might add that Lavan is considered to be the prototype of all
evildoers.
>
> Amitai
>
>
mm
wrote:
>On Jul 26, 4:17 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:35:21 +0000 (UTC), lee <schotn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >So for you the events in the Tanach happened as described, & g-d
>> >manipulated those historical events so as to teach us? & roughly that
>> >is the O position?
>>
>> Lee, in your posts you capitalize afai noticed every word that is
>> normally capitalized, like Tanach and a lot of others, except God or
>> G-d. You seem to pay honor to the word by replacing the o with a
>> hyphen, but then seem to dishonor it by not capitalizing it. I'm not
>> sure what you are trying to imply, but I'll bet my reaction isn't the
>> one you are looking for or expecting.
>
>Sorry mm you may have also noticed my frequent typos too,
No I don't think I have. Are you saying that not capitalizing G-d is
a typo?
I would
>actually prefer to say [E.or Y.], but am afraid people might
>find it offensive or pretentious.
Not those but I just found it disrepectful and improper.
Are you saying because you refrain from using them you don't
capitalize G-d?
lee
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:18:15 +0000 (UTC), lee <schotn...@gmail.com>
MM
Have you seriously not noticed my bad typing & spelling, & general
grammar. Often its cos i'm typing furtively at work. & its pure
laziness as I dont think I've properly put pen to paper since
University.
However that said sometimes I've capitalized it & sometimes not
through neglect without any disrespect intended.
& in any case to me its only a word for the ineffable & I thought
putting the hyphen was respectful enough
Another point, you only capitalise names & is that the correct name.
I can see why Y might be disrespectful but why E which I understand
not to be a name but the name of the concept of G-d
Having said all that if you & other poeple here find it offensive I
shall refrain & try & remember to capitalize
Lee