The Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism
Robert Kaiser
Moshe Shulman writes:
>It's a bit (or even more) disgenuous to call Pharisaic Judaism "the
>forerunners of Rabbinic" Judaism. Quite the contrary,
>Rabbinic Judaism _rejected_ the Pharisees.
This must be a slip! You probably meant to say that that
_Sadduccee_ or _Essenic_ Judaism were not forefunners of Rabbinic
Judaism. Pharisaic Judaism, on the other hand, not only is the
forerunner of rabbinic Judaism, in many ways it _is_ Rabbinic Judaism.
Who were the Pharisees?
The Pharisees, like the Sadduccees and Essenes, recognized the
laws of Moses - The Torah. However the Pharsisees also claimed that
there was a great body of oral tradition which was of at least equal
authority with the written Law - and many claimed that the Tradition
was of greater authority. Pharisees undertook to explain and elaborate
upon the Law.
Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in Volume 1 of The Pharisees, the
Sociological Background of their Faith says, "Pharisaism became
Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism
became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name,
inevitable adaption of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of
the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered."
According to The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII,
(1942) p.474 : "The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent,
without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their
leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous
extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud
is the largest and most important single member of that literature."
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser kai...@biosys.net
Robert Kaiser
For an excellent article discussing Pharisees, Saducees, please see:
http://www.aristotle.net/~bhuie/pharsadd.htm
Robert Kaiser
Jacob Love
In article <34a98...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
> Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in Volume 1 of The Pharisees, the
>Sociological Background of their Faith says, "Pharisaism became
>Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism
>became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name,
>inevitable adaption of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of
>the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered."
Unfortunately, Robert, this book is of little usefulness because Prof.
Finkelstein was known for using very little analytical methodology in
his studies. I recommend Neusner's "Traditions of the Pharisees Before
70"--not necessarily for Neusner's own theories, but because he does
a superb literature review.
Thanks for the tip on the JPS sale.
--Jack
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Robert Kaiser
jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) says:
>> Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in Volume 1 of The Pharisees, the
>> Sociological Background of their Faith says,
>Unfortunately, Robert, this book is of little usefulness because Prof.
>Finkelstein was known for using very little analytical methodology in
>his studies. I recommend Neusner's "Traditions of the Pharisees Before
>70"--not necessarily for Neusner's own theories, but because he does
>a superb literature review.
Thanks for pointing out this book. My very limited reading
of Neusner has led me to believe that he is quite good, although he
can also be mind-numbingly analytical on occasion.
>Thanks for the tip on the JPS sale.
I just ordered the five volume JPS Torah commentary set. Its
my own Chanukah gift to myself. And I suppose to my kids, when I have
some. Though Lord knows that they won't appreciate them, because by
then they'll have the CD-ROM/DVD/Hypertext/Virtual reality version...
Shalom,
Robert
R.Y.Z.B.D.
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net.REMOVE> wrote in article
<34a99...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
Appreciate the link to a good article, but it would also help to note
the philosophy and/or political position of the web site author(s).
It sometimes helps one understand what might be fact and what might
be 'spin'. As it turns out, I believe this is a Christian writing on
a web site called 'Here a Little There a Little', which might be
missionary in purpose. I can't tell from the few minutes I spent
there. But the article on Pharisees & Saducees seemed interesting
enough for me to give it a more detailed and analytical read at a
later time. We must be careful to remember that just because it is
in writing, doesn't make it accurate. It helps to know what 'spin'
to look for, i.e., in this case, Christian. This doesn't mean it
isn't an objective article, just that any reader, and certainly the
Jewish reader, should be careful what he/she takes from it as truth,
just as you would with an article written by or for any person or
organization with a particular philosophy or political position.
Micha Berger
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net.REMOVE> wrote in article
<34a99...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
> For an excellent article discussing Pharisees, Saducees, please see:
> http://www.aristotle.net/~bhuie/pharsadd.htm
I am currently reading said article. One obvious mistake right off:
First, let's look at the derivation of each party's name. It is
commonly believed that "Pharisee" is derived from the Hebrew perusim,
which means "separated ones." However, recently it has been suggested
that "Pharisee" may instead come from the Hebrew parosim, meaning
"specifier," since they sought to specify the correct meaning of
God's law to the people.
Well, the tannaim refer to themselves as Perushim. So, their alternate suggestion,
while clever, is off the mark. I have a feeling "it has been suggested" was by
the author.
Their next etymology is equally bad:
The Sadducees are widely assumed to have been named after Zadok,
a priest in the time of King David and King Solomon, although a less
accepted theory alleges that they took their name from a later Zadok
who lived in the second century B.C. Alternately, some scholars have
theorized that the name "Sadducee" comes from the Hebrew saddiq,
meaning "the righteous."
I've never heard their first or third theories. Tannaim who lived in the same
days as the Saducees, refer to them as "students of Tzadok and Baisus". Seems
pretty clear where their contemporaries thought the name came from.
To give an idea of the shoddiness of the scholarship, here's from another
page on the same site:
Elohim is a plural derivative of Eloah, while Elohenu, the term found in
Deuteronomy 6:4, is a singular variation of Eloah.
He's kidding, right? It's pretty elementary grammar: E-loheinu is first person
plural posessive of a plural. As many non-countables are given in plural, you
can't say much about the plurality of G-d implied by either word. However,
it isn't singular. Of course the quoted Deut 6:4 (the Shema) lets you know that
the plurality is NOT meant, IOW "our G-d".
He then goes on and on proving that E-loheinu is a singular construction. (Using
mostly New Testement texts.) The religion promoted by the site is altogether
odd. For example, "2. God has sons. ... 3. One of God's sons is Jesus Christ."
Some kind of non-trinitarian Christianity, that not only places Jesus on some
demigodic pedistal, but also claims he was not unique.
NOT a great source.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 4010 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 31-Dec-97)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Robert Kaiser
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
> Their next etymology is equally bad:
> The Sadducees are widely assumed to have been named after Zadok,
> a priest in the time of King David and King Solomon, although a less
> accepted theory alleges that they took their name from a later Zadok
> who lived in the second century B.C. Alternately, some scholars have
> theorized that the name "Sadducee" comes from the Hebrew saddiq,
> meaning "the righteous."
>I've never heard their first or third theories. Tannaim who lived in the same
>days as the Saducees, refer to them as "students of Tzadok and Baisus". Seems
>pretty clear where their contemporaries thought the name came from.
I've heard all three in various places. They all seem more or
less likely to me, but of course, only one is right. Ah, but which one...
>To give an idea of the shoddiness of the scholarship, here's from another
>page on the same site:
> Elohim is a plural derivative of Eloah, while Elohenu, the term found in
> Deuteronomy 6:4, is a singular variation of Eloah.
>He's kidding, right? It's pretty elementary grammar: E-loheinu is first person
>plural posessive of a plural. As many non-countables are given in plural, you
>can't say much about the plurality of G-d implied by either word.
Perhaps the real problem is that Hebrew simply has concepts that
cannot be easily translated into English. In Hebrew, people have
"chaim", life. But that is in the plural - yet people aren't a trinity
or anything like that.
>He then goes on and on proving that E-loheinu is a singular construction. (Using
>mostly New Testement texts.) The religion promoted by the site is altogether
>odd. For example, "2. God has sons. ... 3. One of God's sons is Jesus Christ."
>Some kind of non-trinitarian Christianity, that not only places Jesus on some
>demigodic pedistal, but also claims he was not unique.
Yes, that is all nonsense. I only wanted people to note the
books and quotes from known scholars, such as Schiffman and Finklestein,
and I was remiss in not stating this. I did try to find a Jewish site
that went into detail on this subject, but I have not found one yet.
The guy who put up the web site is pretty unique; He calls
himself a Christian, but rejects the Trinity and believes that Jesus
is not God. Then again, this is what Jehova's Witnesses preach, and
most people think of them as Christians.
Shalom,
Robert
Micha Berger
I wrote:
> I've never heard their first or third theories. Tannaim who lived in the same
> days as the Saducees, refer to them as "students of Tzadok and Baisus". Seems
> pretty clear where their contemporaries thought the name came from.
On 31 Dec 97 22:39:32 GMT, Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net.REMOVE> wrote:
: I've heard all three in various places. They all seem more or
: less likely to me, but of course, only one is right. Ah, but which one...
No matter what your position on the halachic authority of a tanna, they were
contemporaries of the Saducees. Therefor, using the mishnah as a text for
historical purposes, we can conclude that the Saducees thought they were
named after their founder, a man named Tzadok.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 4012 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 2-Jan-98)
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> kai...@biosys.net.REMOVE (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) says:
>>his studies. I recommend Neusner's "Traditions of the Pharisees Before
>>70"--not necessarily for Neusner's own theories, but because he does
>>a superb literature review.
> Thanks for pointing out this book. My very limited reading
>of Neusner has led me to believe that he is quite good, although he
>can also be mind-numbingly analytical on occasion.
That's Neusner's forte. He certainly doesn't seem to have much
ability to work with other people (from one of his former graduate
students, whom I met on a tiyul in Israel), but he is mind-numbingly
analytical on texts. For an explanation of his method, you might
find "Form-Analysis and Exegesis." His other forte is berating
other scholars for an overly-credulous reading of Rabbinic texts.
("Just because the text says Rabbi Meir said this, doesn't mean that
Rabbi Meir said it," that sort of thing.)
>>Thanks for the tip on the JPS sale.
> I just ordered the five volume JPS Torah commentary set. Its
>my own Chanukah gift to myself. And I suppose to my kids, when I have
Thanks to your note, my mother ordered the Bamidbar & Devarim volumes
for herself. She gives a parshat hashavua shiur in her summer (C)
synagogue, and wants to keep up with what some of the non-O are saying.
She already has Plaut. Unfortunately Sarna doesn't seem to have gone
beyond Exploring Exodus.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Herman Rubin
In article <68j5ar$itm$2...@news1.deshaw.com>,
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>I wrote:
>> I've never heard their first or third theories. Tannaim who lived in the same
>> days as the Saducees, refer to them as "students of Tzadok and Baisus". Seems
>> pretty clear where their contemporaries thought the name came from.
>On 31 Dec 97 22:39:32 GMT, Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>: I've heard all three in various places. They all seem more or
>: less likely to me, but of course, only one is right. Ah, but which one...
>No matter what your position on the halachic authority of a tanna, they were
>contemporaries of the Saducees. Therefor, using the mishnah as a text for
>historical purposes, we can conclude that the Saducees thought they were
>named after their founder, a man named Tzadok.
This does not follow. During the Bar Kochba rebellion, there were many
who made derogatory comments about his real name, although the ones who
originated the stories knew the truth. It is only recently that we have
found out what it was, form a communication in Greek during the revolt.
It is quite possible that they chose the name for themselves from the
word for righteousness, and that the rest was invented. It was not
that uncommon for those wishing to denigrate a group to produce as
unworthy an origin for it as they could.
It is also the case that the words of the Tannaim are claimed not to
be written down until roughly 200 CE. How many errors crept into the
oral transmission?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Halevalaw
>hru...@mean.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
>Date: Fri, Jan 2, 1998 17:03 EST
>It is also the case that the words of the Tannaim are claimed not to
>be written down until roughly 200 CE. How many errors crept into the
>oral transmission?
Not really. The Mishnah was not published, i.e. disseminated to the general
public, until 180 - 210 C.E. However written records existed in the archives
of the Academies as far back as anyone can remember. This is the Ge'onic
position, as found in various ge'onic Responsa, as well the Epistle of Sherira
Ga'on. For an in depth analysis of this subject see, Hazzan, R. Israel Moses,
"Iyye Hayyam", Elie Benamozegh & Co. (Leghorn, Italy 1867), responsum #187.
Thus the faulty transmission theory based on an inferior communications channel
seems to fail.
A. Haleva
Jacob Love
In article <68jikn$9...@panix2.panix.com>,
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>That's Neusner's forte. He certainly doesn't seem to have much
>ability to work with other people (from one of his former graduate
>students, whom I met on a tiyul in Israel), but he is mind-numbingly
>analytical on texts. For an explanation of his method, you might
>find "Form-Analysis and Exegesis." His other forte is berating
>other scholars for an overly-credulous reading of Rabbinic texts.
>("Just because the text says Rabbi Meir said this, doesn't mean that
>Rabbi Meir said it," that sort of thing.)
Jonathan, I think you should rely on more than this before publically
posting negative remarks about someone. I was taught by one of
Neusner's students (Barukh Bokser, `alav haShalom) and have
considerable personal knowledge. There is much to say about Neusner,
but I think you'll find that most of his students are deeply
grateful to him.
As for the second part of your statement, you are correct that Neusner
is famous for berating other scholars, and indeed you are also correct
in stating that he feels that many scholars are overly credulous. But
you are exactly wrong in your example. Neusner was the first (as far
as I know) scholar to actually attempt to test whether rabbinic
attribution in the Tanaitic and Amoraic literature is consistent,
indicating that the attributions are likely accurate, or inconsistent
which might show the opposite. As I read his work, he found a generally
high level of consistency.
Now, he also showed that the printed versions are often unreliable
so that it might read R. M" and someone later expanded that to
"Me`ir" when the manuscripts show someone else. Particularly
exasperating to some authorities is that such errors could actually
lead to halakhic decisions going one way or another. But that's a
different mater.
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) writes:
>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>That's Neusner's forte. He certainly doesn't seem to have much
>>ability to work with other people (from one of his former graduate
>>students, whom I met on a tiyul in Israel), but he is mind-numbingly
>Jonathan, I think you should rely on more than this before publically
>posting negative remarks about someone. I was taught by one of
>Neusner's students (Barukh Bokser, `alav haShalom) and have
>considerable personal knowledge. There is much to say about Neusner,
>but I think you'll find that most of his students are deeply
>grateful to him.
He may have changed over time. When did Bokser study with him, in the
60s? I was talking with someone who had studied with him in the mid-80s.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jacob Love
In article <19980102234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Halevalaw <hale...@aol.com> wrote:
>Not really. The Mishnah was not published, i.e. disseminated to the general
>public, until 180 - 210 C.E.
Most scholars use the range 212-250. This is based on the lifespan
of R. Yehuda HaNasi whom most regard as the editor of the Mishna.
The attribution cannot be correct for the entire corpus as some of
the opinions contained in it are from the period after R. Yehuda.
>However written records existed in the archives
>of the Academies as far back as anyone can remember.
Evidence? I didn't think so.
>This is the Ge'onic
>position, as found in various ge'onic Responsa, as well the Epistle of Sherira
>Ga'on. For an in depth analysis of this subject see, Hazzan, R. Israel Moses,
>"Iyye Hayyam", Elie Benamozegh & Co. (Leghorn, Italy 1867), responsum #187.
Of course this is their positon. They were engaged in a bitter struggle
against the Kara'ites who complained (accurately) that rabbinic
positions were constructed post-facto to change the Torah. The only
defense that the rabbanites could make against this within their world
view was a defense of continuity--although they had to manufacture that
continuity.
>Thus the faulty transmission theory based on an inferior communications channel
>seems to fail.
Actually, what fails is your logic. You provide not a shred of evidence
to support a ludicrous theory and then proclaim victory. The
"transmission theory" as you describe it is not merely "inferior", it
is non-existant. If it existed, you could produce the chain of
tradition. Since you can't, you can't. Have a nice day.
David Goldman
> They were engaged in a bitter struggle
>against the Kara'ites who complained (accurately) that rabbinic
>positions were constructed post-facto to change the Torah. The only
>defense that the rabbanites could make against this within their world
>view was a defense of continuity--although they had to manufacture that
>continuity.
And of course, where are the Karaites now? Booming, huh, just like
Sadducees, Essenes, Sabbatians, Reformists (real ones), Frankists,
etc. etc. etc.
Mordechai Housman
David,
> And of course, where are the Karaites now? Booming, huh, just like
> Sadducees, Essenes, Sabbatians, Reformists (real ones), Frankists,
> etc. etc. etc.
term), so I am responding to you.
I agree with your point above, though I doubt it will make much headway with the
original poster. I just wanted to add that whoever s/he was, s/he does not know the
history of the Karaites. I don't have my reference materials here at the office, so I
have to work from memory.
The Karaites were started by a man (I think his name was Anan) who wanted to be
appointed Chief Rabbi (I think the title was Reish Galusa). He was in no way qualified
for the post, so he was passed over for his younger brother. He got angry, and declared
that everything the Rabbis taught was false. He began to campaign against the
appointee, demanding that he be instated instead of his brother.
Since the position in question was also a government position, that meant he was
campaigning against the government. The government arrested and jailed him. While in
jail, another inmate suggested that if he wanted to be acquited he should claim that he
was starting a new religion, and was not contesting for the position of Resh Galusa.
He was acquited, and he continued his new movement.
The rest of the post that you quoted alos displays ignorance of Jewish Orthodox
continuity, and there doesn't seem much point in my addressing that, since I am sure he
has already made up his mind irrevocably.
Mordechai Housman
Jacob Love
In article <68qsvv$a...@panix2.panix.com>,
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>He may have changed over time. When did Bokser study with him, in the
>60s? I was talking with someone who had studied with him in the mid-80s.
He received his Ph.D. about 1973. I know several other students of
Neusner who were in the program at Brown up to Neusner's retirement.
The point is not that there were not tensions, of course there were. I
only met the man once, but the hearsay evidence is that he is one of
those academic characters who produced a great deal of emotion in
multiple directions. But he is also a scholar who succeeded in placing
more students in good jobs than just about anyone in this century. Part
of the reason for that was all the heat generated, but it would be a
huge mistake not to acknowledge that both Neusner himself and that
rich complement of students stirred up a huge number of new ideas
and research techniques.
Joe Slater
jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) wrote:
>The point is not that there were not tensions, of course there were. I
>only met the man once, but the hearsay evidence is that he is one of
>those academic characters who produced a great deal of emotion in
>multiple directions. But he is also a scholar who succeeded in placing
>more students in good jobs than just about anyone in this century. Part
>of the reason for that was all the heat generated, but it would be a
>huge mistake not to acknowledge that both Neusner himself and that
>rich complement of students stirred up a huge number of new ideas
>and research techniques.
My principal irritation with Neusner is the immense number of volumes
he has published. It's hard to keep track of what's where and the same
issue seems to be dealt with in several places. One local library's
catalog lists about 130 titles - and I bet the total is much higher
than that.
jds
Jonathan J. Baker
>>He may have changed over time. When did Bokser study with him, in the
>>60s? I was talking with someone who had studied with him in the mid-80s.
>He received his Ph.D. about 1973. I know several other students of
>Neusner who were in the program at Brown up to Neusner's retirement.
>The point is not that there were not tensions, of course there were.
> ... but it would be a
>huge mistake not to acknowledge that both Neusner himself and that
>rich complement of students stirred up a huge number of new ideas
>and research techniques.
Of course. I was not trying to confuse stupidity with personality
difficulties. Neusner is both a genius and a curmudgeon. He seems
to have had two big original ideas, that it is worth while to separate
the different historical layers in the tannaitic sources, and to
separate translations into logical units. He has built his entire
career on them: the mishnah commentaries, the midrash translations,
the Yerushalmi translation, etc. As an outgrowth of this, he has
become quite critical of all the other scholars who came before
him who do not read the Tannaitic and Amoraic texts with his critical
eye.
It seems almost to have become a cliche in a number of recent works
in Jewish studies to show how Neusner was wrong in one way or another.
But Neusner is the jumping-off point nowadays, as Maimonides was the
jumping-off point for medieval Jewish philosophy.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) writes:
>My principal irritation with Neusner is the immense number of volumes
>he has published. It's hard to keep track of what's where and the same
>issue seems to be dealt with in several places. One local library's
>catalog lists about 130 titles - and I bet the total is much higher
>than that.
He does a lot of rehashing. After the big efforts of translating the
Mishnah and separating out the historical layers, and translating the
Midrashim and the Yerushalmi, he rehashes a lot of the translations
in big chunks in his later books. To some extent, the later books
are summaries and popularizations of the earlier material, or introductions
to various genres based on the translations. Others are collections
of articles in various journals, or in popular magazines, or some
volumes on general Jewish history.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>Not really. The Mishnah was not published, i.e. disseminated to the general
>>public, until 180 - 210 C.E.
>
> Most scholars use the range 212-250. This is based on the lifespan
> of R. Yehuda HaNasi whom most regard as the editor of the Mishna.
> The attribution cannot be correct for the entire corpus as some of
> the opinions contained in it are from the period after R. Yehuda.
>
>>However written records existed in the archives
>>of the Academies as far back as anyone can remember.
>
> Evidence? I didn't think so.
>
>>This is the Ge'onic
>>position, as found in various ge'onic Responsa, as well the Epistle of Sherira
>>Ga'on. For an in depth analysis of this subject see, Hazzan, R. Israel Moses,
>>"Iyye Hayyam", Elie Benamozegh & Co. (Leghorn, Italy 1867), responsum #187.
>
> Of course this is their positon. They were engaged in a bitter struggle
> against the Kara'ites who complained (accurately) that rabbinic
> positions were constructed post-facto to change the Torah.
Jack, I'm disappointed. You've often claimed that you're not a Kara'ite
and here you give complete legitimacy to their claims.
> The only defense that the rabbanites could make against this within
> their world view was a defense of continuity--although they had to
> manufacture that continuity.
>
>>Thus the faulty transmission theory based on an inferior
>>communications channel seems to fail.
>
> Actually, what fails is your logic. You provide not a shred of evidence
> to support a ludicrous theory and then proclaim victory. The
> "transmission theory" as you describe it is not merely "inferior", it
> is non-existant. If it existed, you could produce the chain of
> tradition. Since you can't, you can't. Have a nice day.
Try the first chapter in Avot or the Introduction of Rambam to his
Mishna Torah for the "chain" you're claiming doesn't exist. Reasoning
by declaration is not persuasive.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
Jacob Love
In article <1998Jan1...@mm.huji.ac.il>, <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>Jack, I'm disappointed. You've often claimed that you're not a Kara'ite
>and here you give complete legitimacy to their claims.
I don't think so, Moshe. The Karaites argued that humans had no right
to reinterpret the law and condemned the rabbis for doing so. I agree
that the rabbis *do* have that right, but simply suggest that they
concede that that is what they are doing. It's not your theology,
but it's certainly not Karaism either.
>Try the first chapter in Avot or the Introduction of Rambam to his
>Mishna Torah for the "chain" you're claiming doesn't exist. Reasoning
>by declaration is not persuasive.
Moshe, it's not "reasoning by declaration". We've been through this
argument a hundred times. There is no chain, and this was recognized by
rabbis and sages throughout medieval Jewish history. The problem is
that as soon as you get back before the period of the Hasmoneans, you
lose the ability to name the people whom you claim received the
tradition. This was one of the major "features" of the Karaite
objection to rabbinism, and in spite of works by Saadia and Sefer
HaQabbalah, it was never refuted.
By the way, it's important theologically, but not historically. Even if
you somehow gained the ability to name the "men of the Great Assembly",
no historian would agree that on that basis of naming them you are
necessarily transmitting either their authority or their knowledge. But
as it stands, you have neither theology nor history on your side.
Albert Reingewirtz
> jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) writes:
> > Halevalaw <hale...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>Not really. The Mishnah was not published, i.e. disseminated to the general
> >>public, until 180 - 210 C.E.
> >
> > Most scholars use the range 212-250. This is based on the lifespan
> > of R. Yehuda HaNasi whom most regard as the editor of the Mishna.
> > The attribution cannot be correct for the entire corpus as some of
> > the opinions contained in it are from the period after R. Yehuda.
> >
> >>However written records existed in the archives
> >>of the Academies as far back as anyone can remember.
> >
> > Evidence? I didn't think so.
> >
> >>This is the Ge'onic
> >>position, as found in various ge'onic Responsa, as well the Epistle of
Sherira
> >>Ga'on. For an in depth analysis of this subject see, Hazzan, R. Israel
Moses,
> >>"Iyye Hayyam", Elie Benamozegh & Co. (Leghorn, Italy 1867), responsum
#187.
> >
> > Of course this is their positon. They were engaged in a bitter struggle
> > against the Kara'ites who complained (accurately) that rabbinic
> > positions were constructed post-facto to change the Torah.
>
> Jack, I'm disappointed. You've often claimed that you're not a Kara'ite
> and here you give complete legitimacy to their claims.
>
> > The only defense that the rabbanites could make against this within
> > their world view was a defense of continuity--although they had to
> > manufacture that continuity.
> >
> >>Thus the faulty transmission theory based on an inferior
> >>communications channel seems to fail.
> >
> > Actually, what fails is your logic. You provide not a shred of evidence
> > to support a ludicrous theory and then proclaim victory. The
> > "transmission theory" as you describe it is not merely "inferior", it
> > is non-existant. If it existed, you could produce the chain of
> > tradition. Since you can't, you can't. Have a nice day.
>
> Try the first chapter in Avot or the Introduction of Rambam to his
> Mishna Torah for the "chain" you're claiming doesn't exist. Reasoning
> by declaration is not persuasive.
>
Why do you regard Rambam as an authority on this "chain" while Ramabam
lived many centuries after the fact. Would a Rambam testimony hold in a
court of law about events that took place centuries prior to his birth?
Indeed "Reasoning by declaration is not persuasive." Nor is appeal to
authority.
--
God can't be dead, it never existed
Jacob Love
In article <69fvj5$j...@panix2.panix.com>,
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>Of course. I was not trying to confuse stupidity with personality
>difficulties. Neusner is both a genius and a curmudgeon. He seems
>to have had two big original ideas, that it is worth while to separate
>the different historical layers in the tannaitic sources, and to
>separate translations into logical units.
It's kind of funny, but I find neither of these as compelling as his
usefulness for understanding the scholarly points of view of those he
opposes. I'm not disagreeing with you, I think it is just a matter
of perspective. For me, the "curmudgeon" aspect of his work is more
telling than his "genius."
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) writes:
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
[snip]
>>Try the first chapter in Avot or the Introduction of Rambam to his
>>Mishna Torah for the "chain" you're claiming doesn't exist. Reasoning
>>by declaration is not persuasive.
>
> Moshe, it's not "reasoning by declaration". We've been through this
> argument a hundred times. There is no chain, and this was recognized by
> rabbis and sages throughout medieval Jewish history. The problem is
> that as soon as you get back before the period of the Hasmoneans, you
> lose the ability to name the people whom you claim received the
> tradition. This was one of the major "features" of the Karaite
> objection to rabbinism, and in spite of works by Saadia and Sefer
> HaQabbalah, it was never refuted.
You succeeded in confusing me. It's been a while since I looked. IIRC
the Rambam list _40_ links in the chain from Moshe Rabbenu until Rav
Ashi. Am I mistaken? I'm very nervous about incipient senility. Is it
really close at hand?
Worried.
Jacob Love
In article <1998Feb...@mm.huji.ac.il>, <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>You succeeded in confusing me. It's been a while since I looked. IIRC
>the Rambam list _40_ links in the chain from Moshe Rabbenu until Rav
>Ashi. Am I mistaken? I'm very nervous about incipient senility. Is it
>really close at hand?
Hi Moshe, it looks like it's your server that's to blame for these
delays--mine seems to be working fairly well, and you cc'd me on this
long ago.
The issue here is not that our rabbis have not created a "chain" but
rather that they are not able to populate the chain with named
masters. Resorting to expressions such as the "Men of the Great
Assembly" simply indicates that they cannot pass a tradition from one
named master to another as the concept of the chain clearly requires.
Instead, we are being asked to trust that *unnamed* links are
sufficiently reliable. Or to put it another way, you are asking us to
believe that a vast amount of tradition has been reliably transferred
when you cannot even recall the names of the people who transmitted
it.
This was one of the bases for the medieval controversy between the
rabbanites and the Kara'ites in the 9th-11th centuries, and the famous
first paragraph of 'Avot is probably a response to an earlier challenge
to the reliability of rabbinic tradition, perhaps Christian, perhaps
some other Jewish or non-Jewish sect.
Note that modern historians cannot give much credence even to a named
chain. While it would be impressive to recite, we would still ask what
*exactly* did Joshua "receive" from Moshe?
rafael
Moshe wrote:
> >You succeeded in confusing me. It's been a while since I looked. IIRC
> >the Rambam list _40_ links in the chain from Moshe Rabbenu until Rav
> >Ashi. Am I mistaken? I'm very nervous about incipient senility. Is it
> >really close at hand?
Jacob wrote:
> The issue here is not that our rabbis have not created a "chain" but
> rather that they are not able to populate the chain with named
> masters. Resorting to expressions such as the "Men of the Great
> Assembly" simply indicates that they cannot pass a tradition from one
> named master to another as the concept of the chain clearly requires.
<deletia>
Jacob has confused me here as well. I'm looking at Rambam's list of 40
links (in his intro to Mishnah Torah) and it is poplutated only with
named masters. Nowhere does the general term "Men of the Great Assembly"
appear on this list. Perhaps he's thinking of some other rabbi.
Rafael Malfatto
Jacob Love
In article <34E642...@nyct.net>, rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>Jacob has confused me here as well. I'm looking at Rambam's list of 40
>links (in his intro to Mishnah Torah) and it is poplutated only with
>named masters. Nowhere does the general term "Men of the Great Assembly"
>appear on this list. Perhaps he's thinking of some other rabbi.
Who are the "named masters" for the period between Ezra and Antigonus?
There's about 300 years to cover, so I expect approximately 10 to 15
names would occupy that time.
But go ahead, do us all a favor and list, starting with Moses at
approximately 1400 BCE how your 40 "named masters" get us to whatever
period you choose to complete your chain. I'd appreciate the start and
end year for each of your masters while your at it. Keep in mind that
it's a little absurd to claim that the begin year and end year for a
"master" should be the year of their birth and death. For example, the
TaNa"Kh sometimes tells us the year that a prophet began his career,
and it's not usually at birth.
Rafael
Jacob Love wrote:
> The issue here is not that our rabbis have not created a "chain" but
> rather that they are not able to populate the chain with named
> masters. Resorting to expressions such as the "Men of the Great
> Assembly" simply indicates that they cannot pass a tradition from one
> named master to another as the concept of the chain clearly requires.
There were 48 prophets (see Rashi, Megillah 14a & glosses ad loc. and
Seder Olam Rabbah, Ch. 20), spanning 1,000 years (avg. of 20.8 yrs.
each, with actual service ranging between 1-40 yrs.) Rambam listed 22 of
these prophets in his Mesorah chain (Intro to Mishneh Torah). The last
prophet was Malachi/Ezra (for a table of names & dates, see Art Scroll
Tanakh or R. Zechariah Frankel's "Charting the Mesorah," Hashkofeh
Publications).
(I will elaborate more on this next era, as Jacob sees a problem with
it. Keep in mind that Jewish leadership in those days was a lifetime
position.)
Following Rambam's chain, Ezra died in 312 BCE, passing the mantle to
Shimon HaTzaddik, who died in 273 BCE (39 yrs. later). With Shimon,
ended the Great Assembly. During the transition period between the Great
Assembly and the Zugot (Pairs), Antigonos of Socho headed the Sanhedrin
(presumably between 273 and 220 BCE, 63 yrs.) The names and dates of the
Zugot are like so:
Name Years in Office Term Length
Yose ben Yoezer
& Yose ben Yochanon 210-138 BCE 52 yrs.
Yehoshua ben Prachya
& Nitai HaArbeli 138-83 BCE 55 yrs.
Shimon ben Shetach
& Yehudah ben Tabai 83-58 BCE 25 yrs.
Shemaya & Avtalyon 58-35 BCE 23 yrs.
Hillel & Shammai 32 BCE-1 CE 32 yrs.
For the Mishnaic & Talmudic eras, there are 11 links from Hillel &
Shammai to Rav Ashi, the end of Rambam's chain, covering 450 yrs. (avg.
40 yrs./leadership term each). (See Aryeh Carmell's timeline in "Aiding
Talmud Study, Feldheim, for a specifics).
Rafael Malfatto
Rafael
Rafael wrote:
> Assembly and the Zugot (Pairs), Antigonos of Socho headed the
> Sanhedrin (presumably between 273 and 220 BCE, 63 yrs.)
***
Oops! Typo. I meant 210 BCE.
Rafael Malfatto
Rafael
That didn't work (at least on my browser). I meant "between 273 and 210
BCE, 63 yrs."
Rafael Malfatto
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>Jacob has confused me here as well. I'm looking at Rambam's list of 40
>>links (in his intro to Mishnah Torah) and it is poplutated only with
>>named masters. Nowhere does the general term "Men of the Great Assembly"
>>appear on this list. Perhaps he's thinking of some other rabbi.
>
> Who are the "named masters" for the period between Ezra and Antigonus?
> There's about 300 years to cover, so I expect approximately 10 to 15
> names would occupy that time.
I don't have a Rambam in front of me. From the gist of your remarks i
take it that a. there are 300 years from Ezra to Antigounous and b.
there are much fewer than 10 names.
For a. my question would be From Ezra's birth or Ezra's passing? IIRC
Ezra lived for a very long time.
For b. You must remember that the masters listed had schools and
acadamies. I would not be surprised if the Rambam named a master who
learned in the previous masters academy and became proficient there.
He would not need to have been a leader of the Jewish people in his
youth, just a student at the academy of his predecessor. In that way
5 or 6 could cover the time you're looking for.
I am reminded of a story about Artur Rubinstein, the pianist. When he
was in his 70's he heard a recital of an up and coming young pianist.
When he finished playing, Rubinstein kissed him on the forehead. Then
he axplained. "In my youth I was kissed by the leading pianist of my
time. He was an old man then. He said 'You will be the leading
pianist in your time. Before you die, pass on this kiss'. That",
explained Rubinstein, "is what I just did".
Rafael
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> I don't have a Rambam in front of me. From the gist of your remarks i
> take it that a. there are 300 years from Ezra to Antigounous and b.
> there are much fewer than 10 names.
Moshe, your server seems to have come down with something. Here's an
excerpt from what I posted a week and a half ago:
<begin excerpt>
Following Rambam's chain, Ezra died in 312 BCE, passing the mantle to
Shimon HaTzaddik, who died in 273 BCE (39 yrs. later). With Shimon,
ended the Great Assembly. During the transition period between the Great
Assembly and the Zugot (Pairs), Antigonos of Socho headed the Sanhedrin
(presumably between 273 and 210 BCE, 63 yrs., as the first Zugot began
in 210 BCE.)
<end excerpt>
This is a duration of 102 years (from Ezra's death to Antigonos' death)
with one name in between. Sounds plausible to me.
Rafael Malfatto
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> writes:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in answer to Jack Love:
>
>> I don't have a Rambam in front of me. From the gist of your remarks
>> b. there are much fewer than 10 names.
>
> Moshe, your server seems to have come down with something. Here's an
> excerpt from what I posted a week and a half ago:
Don't rub it in. I'm always complaining about my server. Like Mark
Twain (or is it Will Rogers?) and the weather.
> <begin excerpt>
> Following Rambam's chain, Ezra died in 312 BCE, passing the mantle to
> Shimon HaTzaddik, who died in 273 BCE (39 yrs. later). With Shimon,
> ended the Great Assembly. During the transition period between the Great
> Assembly and the Zugot (Pairs), Antigonos of Socho headed the Sanhedrin
> (presumably between 273 and 210 BCE, 63 yrs., as the first Zugot began
> in 210 BCE.)
> <end excerpt>
>
> This is a duration of 102 years (from Ezra's death to Antigonos' death)
> with one name in between. Sounds plausible to me.
>
Sounds plausable to me too, Shimon haTZaddik for 39 years and Antigonos
for 63. Where did Jack get _300_ years?
Jacob Love
In article <34E9658B...@nyct.net>, Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
[Responding to me]
>
>There were 48 prophets (see Rashi, Megillah 14a & glosses ad loc. and
>Seder Olam Rabbah, Ch. 20), spanning 1,000 years (avg. of 20.8 yrs.
>each, with actual service ranging between 1-40 yrs.) Rambam listed 22 of
>these prophets in his Mesorah chain (Intro to Mishneh Torah). The last
>prophet was Malachi/Ezra (for a table of names & dates, see Art Scroll
>Tanakh or R. Zechariah Frankel's "Charting the Mesorah," Hashkofeh
>Publications).
Rafael, if you want to immerse yourself into Seder `Olam, I wish you
all success. You will soon discover that some of the chronological
problems make the toughest sugyot in the G'mara look like child's play.
Suffice it to say that modern scholars know that there are enormous
problems with the chronologies. Just for starters, Ezra's period is
thought by most to end around 450 BCE, not 312 as you have it, although
there is an alternate chronology which would delay Ezra to about 390 as
I recall. 312 is impossible as that would place him 20 years after the
conquest of Alexander the Great.
Have fun, and we'll see you in a few years.
Rafael
Jacob Love wrote:
> Rafael, if you want to immerse yourself into Seder `Olam, I wish you
> all success. You will soon discover that some of the chronological
> problems make the toughest sugyot in the G'mara look like child's play.
> Suffice it to say that modern scholars know that there are enormous
> problems with the chronologies. Just for starters, Ezra's period is
> thought by most to end around 450 BCE, not 312 as you have it, although
> there is an alternate chronology which would delay Ezra to about 390 as
> I recall. 312 is impossible as that would place him 20 years after the
> conquest of Alexander the Great.
>
> Have fun, and we'll see you in a few years.
The dating system you are using is erroneous. See Megadim Vol.14 or
Jewish Action Summer '91 which feature articles on Dr. Chaim S.
Heitetz's work on the subject.
To summarize, your dating system is based on the works of Greek
historians who got their facts primarily by visiting the lands about
which they were writing and recording the folk traditions of the
inhabitants. These historians often disagreed with one another and were
considered unreliable by their Roman colleagues. They even condemned one
another as liars and frauds.
As a result, there is a 166 year difference between when modern secular
scholars say the First Temple was destroyed and when traditional Jewish
sources say it was destroyed. The crux of the problem is in the Persian
period. As Alexander the Great destroyed the bulk of Persian records,
the choice is between Greek stories and Jewish tradition. While the
Greek stories about Persian society are vividly detailed, the Greeks had
no grasp of the actual history of the region.
Rafael Malfatto
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>There were 48 prophets (see Rashi, Megillah 14a & glosses ad loc. and
>Seder Olam Rabbah, Ch. 20), spanning 1,000 years (avg. of 20.8 yrs.
>each, with actual service ranging between 1-40 yrs.) Rambam listed 22 of
>these prophets in his Mesorah chain (Intro to Mishneh Torah). The last
>prophet was Malachi/Ezra (for a table of names & dates, see Art Scroll
>Tanakh or R. Zechariah Frankel's "Charting the Mesorah," Hashkofeh
>Publications).
Mitchell First "Jewish History in Conflict : A Study of the Major
Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology"
Published by Jason Aronson, Inc.
There is a major discrepancy between a chronological view of the
Rabbis of the Talmud and chronological view by historians. The Rabbis
of the Talmud base their chronology on the ancient midrash known as
Seder Olam, which was authored by Rabbi Yose, 2nd century CE. According
to this work, the period from the defeat of the Babylonians by the
Medeo-Persians until the beginning of Greek rule in Israel, lasted only
52 years, spanning the reigns of 3 Persian Kings. However, historical
records show that this period of Persian rule over the land of Israel
encompassed 207 years, from 539 BCE (in the time of Cyrus) to 332 BCE
(the time of Alexander the Great). During this time period more than
ten Persian kings reigned. This discrepancy is illustrated below:
Comparison of the Seder Olam (Rabbinic) chronology with the
conventional (archaeological and historical) chronology.
Event Seder Olam Conventional chronology
------------------------------------------------------------------
King David captures 867 BCE 1000 BCE (+ or - 5 years)
Jerusalem and makes
it his capitol
Building of the 831 BCE 965 BCE
First Temple
Josiah repairs 458 BCE 622 BCE
First Temple
First Temple 421 BCE 586 BCE
destroyed
Beginning of Persian 368 BCE 539 BCE
rule in Israel
Reign of King 366 to 352 BCE 486-465 BCE
Ahasverosh (in the (King Xerxes)
book of Ester)
Commencement of 351 BCE 520 BCE
rebuilding of the
Second Temple
End of Persian rule. 317 BCE 332 BCE
Beginning of Greek
rule over Israel
Destruction of the 70 CE 70 CE
Second Temple
All dates after this point are identical in both systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The discrepancy between the Seder Olam (Rabbinic) dating system
and the historical record results in a large discrepancy between the
two systems for all periods before the Persian period.
Among more right wing Orthodox, it is believed that Jews must use
the Seder Olam chronology, and that all historical and archaeological
records must either be wrong, or grossly misinterpreted. However, this
is not so; the fact is that there is no consensus in Orthodoxy today as
to which chronology to adopt. Many Artscroll books and other right wing
works follow the Seder Olam chronology. However, there are many other
Orthodox works which accept and use the conventional system, such as:
The Soncino edition of the Bible, the J. H. Hertz Pentateuch, the
Da'at Mikra edition of the Bible (published by Mossad ha Rav Kook in
Jerusalem), and Adin Steinsaltz's edition of the Talmud.
How did this discrepancy come about? Mitchell First writes:
"..the chronology of the Sages can be completely explained. What
happened is that the Sages saw [what they thought was] a prediction
in the book of Daniel [9:24-27) that a certain time period would span
490 years. The beginning and end points of the 490 year period
referred to are ambiguous. For various reasons, the Sages interpreted
the beginning and endpoints to be the destruction of the First Temple
and the Destruction of the Second Temple. Once they adopted this
interpretation...and believed that the prediction must have come true,
they were constrained by other data known to them regarding the length
of period from the destruction to the rebuilding (70 years), and the
total length of the Greek, Hasmonean and Roman periods (386 years).
This forced them to state a length for the period from the rebuilding
under Darius until the beginning of Greek rule that was shorter than
they otherwise should have.."
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Jacob Love
In article <34FAC321...@nyct.net>, Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>The dating system you are using is erroneous. See Megadim Vol.14 or
>Jewish Action Summer '91 which feature articles on Dr. Chaim S.
>Heitetz's work on the subject.
You know, Rafael, throughout much of your appearance here you have come
across as simply arrogant and rude. It now begins to appear that you
are also nuts, to use a more polite form of expression than is perhaps
warranted. As I indicated, historians and archaeologists are divided
between two dating schemes which could vary the time of Ezra over about
50 years from the mid-fifth to the beginning of the fourth century.
Alexander began his conquest in 333 BCE and was dead in 323 BCE. The
books of Ezra and Nehemiah know nothing of Alexander, and Ezra and
Nehemiah clearly state that they derived their authority from decrees
by the Persian king Cyrus.
>To summarize, your dating system is based on the works of Greek
>historians who got their facts primarily by visiting the lands about
>which they were writing and recording the folk traditions of the
>inhabitants. These historians often disagreed with one another and were
>considered unreliable by their Roman colleagues. They even condemned one
>another as liars and frauds.
And of course all of our Jewish chronologies agree perfectly with one
another, and none of them ever used any of these Roman and Greek works
themselves. The next thing you'll be telling me is that Sefer Yosippon
was not stolen from Josephus. Look, if you want to spout this nonsense,
it's fine with me. In the eyes of anyone here that I care about, and
that includes a number of Orthodox friends, you turn yourself into a
laughing stock.
David Goldman
>Among more right wing Orthodox, it is believed that Jews must use
>the Seder Olam chronology, and that all historical and archaeological
>records must either be wrong, or grossly misinterpreted. However, this
>is not so; the fact is that there is no consensus in Orthodoxy today as
>to which chronology to adopt. Many Artscroll books and other right wing
>works follow the Seder Olam
Interestingly, the Seder Olam chronology has big implications for
assessing the times and authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I argue that
the Damascus document and others were the works of Jews in Herodian
times, who couched their language in code known only to intiates and
insiders to protect themselves. Have you ever thought about all those
unknown references: Teacher of Righteousness, Liar, Scoffer, Kittim,
etc. etc. Indeed the Targum translates Deut. 24:24 of KITTIM as
ROMAYI.
I have a hard time bringing this issue up with the DSS establishment,
but you never know.
rafael
Jacob Love wrote:
>
> In article <34FAC321...@nyct.net>, Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> >The dating system you are using is erroneous. See Megadim Vol.14 or
> >Jewish Action Summer '91 which feature articles on Dr. Chaim S.
> >Heitetz's work on the subject.
<delete>
> warranted. As I indicated, historians and archaeologists are divided
> between two dating schemes which could vary the time of Ezra over about
> 50 years from the mid-fifth to the beginning of the fourth century.
> Alexander began his conquest in 333 BCE and was dead in 323 BCE. The
> books of Ezra and Nehemiah know nothing of Alexander, and Ezra and
> Nehemiah clearly state that they derived their authority from decrees
> by the Persian king Cyrus.
According to Jewish sources, Alexander died anywhere between 318 and 313
BCE. The year I gave for Ezra's death (312 BCE) was from a chart which
apparently rounded up his career to match the tradition that the era of
prophecy lasted 1000 years. The same source, however, lists his actual
death as 318 BCE (my apology).
According to non-Jewish sources, Alexander's death occurred a year or
two after his visit to Jerusalem, which would have placed his visit
during the tenure of Shimon Hatzaddik. The Talmud (Yoma 69a, Tamid 32b)
reports that Shimon Hatzaddik had appeared to Alexander in his dreams,
predicting Greek victory before each battle. Out of consideration,
Alexander spared Jerusalem and Judah from heavy-handed conquest. The
name Alexander (or Sender, Sandor) is still today on the list of
"Jewish" names.
<delete>
Rafael Malfatto
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>To summarize, your dating system is based on the works of Greek
>>historians who got their facts primarily by visiting the lands about
>>which they were writing and recording the folk traditions of the
>>inhabitants. These historians often disagreed with one another and were
>>considered unreliable by their Roman colleagues. They even condemned one
>>another as liars and frauds.
This is a combination of ignorance, hatered of Greeks, hatred
of non-Orthodox Jews, and outright lies. For the truth, I would like
to quote a post that was printed here last year, posted by Prof.
David S. Leven.
*******************************************
This is, I'm afraid, almost total nonsense. We do not get the
standard Persian chronology from "Greek stories": it is the one
overwhelmingly supported by *all* sources - Persian, Babylonian and
Greek alike. The rabbinic chronology, by contrast, is attested only
centuries later, and is utterly unsustainable against the Babylonian
and Persian documentation.
(1) Let's start by setting out the basic picture from the king-lists.
The most comprehensive one is the so-called Royal Canon, which gives
astronomically tabulated dates for all the Persian kings. The fullest
version of this that we have is very late; but it derives from earlier
material, and its dates are confirmed by cuneiform lists of earlier
periods. See, for example, the so-called Saros Tablet (in ZA 7
(1892)), which lists the whole period by eighteen-year intervals.
Lists like these enable us to construct our basic chronology for
the period, as follows (all dates B.C.E.; for the sake of familiarity
I use the Greek names of all these kings):
Nabonidus 556-539 (he was the last king of Babylon before
the Persian conquest)
Cyrus 539-530 (he had reigned in Persia for 20 years
before capturing Babylon)
Cambyses 530-522
Bardiya 522
Darius I 522-486
Xerxes (Ahasuerus) 486-465
Artaxerxes I 465-424 (*) See note below
Darius II 424-404
Artaxerxes II 404-359
Artaxerxes III 359-338
Arses 338-336
Darius III 336-331
In 331 Alexander the Great captured Babylon and overthrew the Persian
empire.
_____
(*) Note: There were a few months of conflict following the death of
Artaxerxes I; two of his sons, Xerxes II and Sogdianos, briefly tried
to seize the throne before being killed, and a third son, Darius II,
took over. This had an interesting consequence which I discuss below.
_____
(2) That is the basic picture: can we confirm it? Indeed we can,
comprehensively and overwhelmingly: there is a mass of supporting
documentation. Astronomical data is especially important. We have a
large number of Babylonian astronomical records for the Persian
period. For example, we have a record of virtually every lunar
eclipse in the period, dated by the king's reign; we have dated
records of solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions and observations;
we even have "astronomical diaries" - dated diaries in which
astronomers recorded their day-by-day observations. The dates of
these can be checked astronomically - and comprehensively confirm the
total correctness of the standard chronology. There are numerous
Babylonian astronomical records, for example - I'll just mention a few
briefly:
Astronomical texts for the period are assembled and
described in T.G. Pinches & J.N. Strassmaier, "Late Babylonian
Astronomical and Related Texts" (Providence, 1955).
BM 36910+36998+37036 records by date lunar eclipses from Darius I to
Artaxerxes II.
The so-called Saros Canon (in ZA 10 (1895)) lists every year from
Artaxerxes II onwards, recording every lunar eclipse in the period.
BM 36754 records solar eclipses in the reigns of Artaxerxes III and
Darius III.
LBAT 1411-1412 records conjunctions of Saturn and Mars with the Moon
for the reign of Darius II and the start of the reign of ArtaxerxesII.
LBAT 1387-1388 records observations of Venus for the reigns of
Artaxerxes I and Darius II.
BM 36823 records observations of Jupiter for the reign of Darius I.
LBAT 1394-1395 records observations of Jupiter for the reigns of
Artaxerxes II and Artaxerxes III.
Strassmaier, "Cambyses" No. 400 is a record of various astronomical
data for the last year of Cambyses' reign.
The dates of all these can be checked astronomically (and there are
many other such documents also). They all demonstrate the absolute
correctness of the standard chronology.
(3) Moreover, a large number of other contemporary Babylonian and
Persian documents together confirm this chronology (mostly various
sorts of business records). Once again, I give just a very few
examples here (many hundreds more could be adduced).
Cyrus' capture of Babylon from Nabonidus is confirmed by the Cyrus
Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle.
The Behistun Inscription confirms the Cyrus-Cambyses-Bardiya-Darius I
sequence of kings.
A text of Darius II (in JAOS 72 (1952)) confirms the Darius
I-Xerxes-Artaxerxes I-Darius II sequence.
The length of reign of Darius I is confirmed by VAS V 110, dating
itself to the 36th year of Darius' reign.
The length of reign of Xerxes is confirmed by one of the Persepolis
Treasury texts (in JNES 24 (1965)), dating itself to the 20th year of
his reign.
The length of the reign of Artaxerxes I is confirmed by BM 33342; also
BE X 4. These documents, unusually, are double-dated by both the 41st
year of Artaxerxes I and the accession year of Darius II, a result of
the uncertainty surrounding the opening of Darius II's reign (see
above).
The length of reign of Artaxerxes II is confirmed by VAS VI 186,
dating itself to the 46th year of his reign.
[By the way, I should just point out in passing that all these kings
are attested in Babylonian sources as kings *in Babylon*, thus
reconfirming that their reigns post-dated the Persian conquest of
Babylon.]
Even more data:
(i) There are documents from Persian kings, describing their own
relationships to their predecessors. Thus in the so-called Cyrus
Cylinder, Cyrus describes his capture of Babylon from Nabonidus (we
also have an independent description of the same events in the
Nabonidus Chronicle). The Behistun Inscription of Darius I recounts
how Darius seized the throne from Bardiya, who illegitimately (or so
Darius claims!) took it from Cambyses, who inherited it from his
father Cyrus. A letter of Darius II (first published in "Journal of
the American Oriental Society" 72 (1952)) describes Darius'
inheritance of the throne from his father Artaxerxes I, who inherited
it from his father Xerxes, who inherited it from his father Darius I.
(ii) Especially revealing are archives which provide us with
sequences of documents. Two of the most famous are the Persepolis
Tablets and the Murashu Archive. The former gives us several thousand
palace administrative documents, mostly dated; most come from the
reign of Darius I, but some carry on through the reign of Xerxes and
into the reign of Artaxerxes I. The latter is the complete - and
dated - records of a large Babylonian business in the reigns of
Artaxerxes I and Darius II. The dates in these confirm the lengths of
the reigns and (when we can sequence them) their order.
(iii) There are other sorts of documents that confirm the order
and length of reign of various of the Persian kings. With the start
of the reign of Darius II, one finds documents which are, unusually,
double dated by the 41st year of Artaxerxes I *and* the accession year
of Darius II: this is the result of a brief period of uncertainty
surrounding the accession of Darius, who was one of three claimants to
the throne. This confirms both the length of Artaxerxes' reign and
the identity of his successor. There are also various other examples
of business and private documents from the reign of one king that
refer back to previous events or documents in the reign of an earlier
king. Finally, of course, there are thousands of other dated
contemporary documents that, by their dates, guarantee that the king
ruled at least that length of time (if a document is dated "the 19th
year of Xerxes", it shows that Xerxes ruled at least 19 years).
All of this material simply provides additional confirmation for
what was already known from the king-lists and astronomical texts.
Moreover, there are simply no gaps into which "unknown" kings like
those in Daniel could be slotted. The material described above, that
directly provides sequences for the reigns of kings, proves this
point. For much of the Persian period our evidence is so full that we
can date reigns not merely year by year, but month by month, and
sometimes even day by day - to the point that even with kings who were
not recognised by their successors (as is the case with Bardiya, and
the claimants calling themselves "Nebuchadnezzar III" and
"Nebuchadnezzar IV" in the first years of the reign of Darius I),
documents nevertheless survive that are dated by their brief "reigns".
A (small) selection of the documents that are relevant for
dating in the period are discussed by R.A. Parker & W.H.
Dubberstein, "Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75"
(Providence, 1956).
(4) Please note that these are not "Greek sources", but Persian and
Babylonian - and often contemporary ones at that. All are independent
of one another; many provide astronomically checkable dates. This is,
as I say, only a tiny proportion of the evidence that I can introduce,
but no more should be necessary. This alone is enough to demonstrate
conclusively and overwhelmingly the correctness of our standard
chronology, and the utter impossibility of the rabbinic one.
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>To summarize, your dating system is based on the works of Greek
>historians who got their facts primarily by visiting the lands about
>which they were writing and recording the folk traditions of the
>inhabitants. These historians often disagreed with one another and were
>considered unreliable by their Roman colleagues. They even condemned one
>another as liars and frauds.
Rafael's blathering has drifted from ignorance into sheer
fantasy. For those who are interested, the standard chronology has
been *proven* correct, while Rafel's favored Seder Olam chronology
has been *proven* wrong. This is a continuation of the previous post,
quoting from Prof. David S. Levene.
*******************
(4) All of this is sufficient to prove the absolute correctness of the
standard chronology, and the absolute impossibility of the rabbinic
one. But if we need an entirely independent check, one is easily
forthcoming from Greece - or more specifically Athens.
Athenian chronology is extremely well attested, on grounds
totally independent of Babylonian and Persian chronology. We have
complete lists from the early 5th-century BCE until far into the Roman
period of Athenian archons - the annual magistrates at Athens whose
names provided the year's official date. We can confirm the accuracy
of this by cross-checking against our substantial (though less
complete) lists of other Athenian officials, and documentary material
of other sorts - annual tribute lists, for example.
From the early 5th-century BCE onwards, Athens had considerable
involvement in Persia, and there are numerous references in Athenian
writers to contemporary Persian events - well-known examples include
Aeschylus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Needless to say, these
contemporary references are exactly what would be expected from the
evidence above: they confirm comprehensively the total correctness of
the standard chronology derived from our Persian and Babylonian
sources.
(5) But I cannot resist a little bit of Greek material as well, not
least because .... has been so scathing about it.
Thucydides, who was a general in the Peloponnesian War, records
at 2.28 a solar eclipse at Athens in the first year of that war; the
eclipse can be dated astronomically to August 3, 431. Later (8.58),
he quotes a treaty between Darius II and the Spartans at the end of
the 20th year of the war - i.e. (dating from the eclipse) spring 411
(Thucydides' years run summer to spring). He quotes the date on the
treaty as the 13th year of Darius II - and, sure enough, if we
cross-check the data from our Babylonian sources, we find that the
13th year of Darius indeed began Nisanu 411.
The total correctness of the standard chronology (and,
incidentally, of Thucydides' chronology) is, as always, confirmed by
an independent contemporary source.
: Probably the most amusing thing about this whole issue is that the
: documentary hypothesis, which claims that the Bible was composed of
: several disparate and conflicting sources which were eventually
: redacted into the Bible we have today, has no basis in fact. No
: "source" has ever been discovered or is mentioned in the Bible.
: Whereas all of the arguments for this silly theory actually *are*
: true about the Greek accounts of the Classical period. The various
: "historians" (they were actually entertainers who chose the most
: exciting stories so that their patrons would keep patronizing them)
: *do* mention the various conflicting sources, etc.
Oh come now, this is ridiculous. Who was Thucydides' patron?
Who was Xenophon's? Who indeed was Herodotus'? There is not the
slightest evidence for the "patron" theory, and a fair bit against it
(what we know of the backgrounds of these writers suggests that they
were independently wealthy). The fact that you say this (I suspect
retrojecting anachronistically from other genres and later periods)
speaks volumes for your ignorance of ancient history.
As for your account of their methodology, all I can say is that it
doesn't work even for an instant for Thucydides, who was mostly
writing contemporary history, and is notorious for not citing
variants. As for the rest, what Herodotus (say) is doing when he
gives an alternative version is far removed from the "redacting
disparate sources" that is alleged by the Documentary Hypothesis for
the Torah: it is much closer to a modern historian citing variant
sources in a footnote, and trying openly and critically to assess
their value.
The point is that (a) in the one case (allegedly) one has actual
pre-existing documents which are stitched into something new with only
minimal alterations in the originals' wording; while (b) in the other
case you have someone collecting source data - but not necessarily in
document form, and not simply taking it over as it stands, but using
it actively and critically to create a work that is entirely one's
own.
All good modern historians do (b); but as for (a), while one
finds a few examples of it in Greece and Rome at later periods, I
cannot think off-hand of a 5th- or 4th-century Greek historian (and
certainly not Herodotus, Thucydides or Xenophon) who has written this
way - they are much closer to (b).
Rafael
Robert Kaiser wrote:
<delete>
> This is, I'm afraid, almost total nonsense. We do not get the
> standard Persian chronology from "Greek stories": it is the one
> overwhelmingly supported by *all* sources - Persian, Babylonian and
> Greek alike. The rabbinic chronology, by contrast, is attested only
> centuries later, and is utterly unsustainable against the Babylonian
> and Persian documentation.
<delete>
For those interested in seeing a different opinion on this matter, see
the article "Fixing the History Books: Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision
of Persian History" by Brad Aaronson in Jewish Action, Summer '91 or
Volume 14 of the Israeli journal of biblical studies, Megadim.
According to Aaronson, "...due to the fact that Alexander the Great
destroyed the bulk of Persian records when he conquered Persia, the only
records of the Persian period [where the crux of the problem lies] are
the Greek stories and Jewish tradition." While the "Greek historians
picked their stories up as they passed through the lands of Persia,
Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor" or from "stories [they heard] at home in
Greece from Persian immigrants," "the Jewish traditions regarding this
period originated in the Babylonian and Persian communities and were
passed down directly until they found their way into the Babylonian
Talmud. Local history is less likely to be misunderstood than stories,
often taken out of context, about someone else's history." Indeed, the
errors that Dr. Heifetz points out in the Greek chronology show that
"the Greeks had no grasp of the actual history of this region."
Rafael Malfatto
Jacob Love
In article <34FB89...@nyct.net>, rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>According to Jewish sources, Alexander died anywhere between 318 and 313
>BCE. The year I gave for Ezra's death (312 BCE) was from a chart which
>apparently rounded up his career to match the tradition that the era of
>prophecy lasted 1000 years. The same source, however, lists his actual
>death as 318 BCE (my apology).
Apologies are always accepted. :-)
The date of 323 BCE for Alexander's demise is one of the most secure
dates in history. That's not to say that it is impossible to find a
scholar who has a somewhat different chronological resolution, but
you're not going to find any rational historical confirmation for the
chronology found in Seder `Olam. As you note above, religious
chronologies are often written simply to conform to legend and thus
have little credibility.
The problems with the "chain of tradition" theory are huge, and one of
the reasons that we see the statements in Pirkei 'Avot, Seder `Olam,
Sefer HaQabalah, and the Rambam is because there was so much trouble
establishing a credible chain.
But even if you could arrive at a credible chain--something which is
generally considered impossible--you really haven't accomplished much
in terms of historical questions. For example, Pirqei 'Avot says
"qibbel" (received or acquired) without stating *what* was received.
Was it just the few principles which the Talmud later labelled "Torah
l'Moshe miSinai" or was it much more than that, or was it not even
that?
To understand how problematic such an argument is, you must consider
that by the testimony of our own tradition in the Bible, we had lost an
entire book of Torah (whether that should be identified with
Deuteronomy or not is a lengthy question already discussed here too
often for me to want to reopen it). While we don't know precisely what
is meant by a "book" in this case, we do know at the very least that
the lost material included the definition of Jerusalem as the sole
place where a Temple could be built (because Josiah used it as a
pretext for killing priests at other temples) and that some critical
aspects of the proper observance of Passover were included. So
whatever "qibbel" meant, it obviously did not mean that anyone
remembered these critical portions of the written law, much less the
oral, until Hilkiah happened to engage in a little interior design.
Rafael
Jacob Love wrote:
<delete>
> The date of 323 BCE for Alexander's demise is one of the most secure
> dates in history. That's not to say that it is impossible to find a
> scholar who has a somewhat different chronological resolution, but
> you're not going to find any rational historical confirmation for the
> chronology found in Seder `Olam. As you note above, religious
> chronologies are often written simply to conform to legend and thus
> have little credibility.
<delete>
Please don't take it personally, but neither I nor the readers know you
to be an authority on any of these issues. Of course, even if you were
an historian, Near Eastern archaeologist or Judaic studies professor,
you would not be immune to personal bias or scholarly error.
All I have done is cited sources that support a different opinion to the
one you have advanced. If our readers are interested, they can look to
those sources. I don't believe any date in history to be "secure." I
reserve that kind of faith for my religion. However, there is a
scholarly, empirical basis to support the traditional Jewish chronology
which does not require any more faith than does believing in the
alternative view. My hope is that open-minded Jews will give our sages
at least as much of the benefit of the doubt as they give, say,
Herodotus.
Rafael Malfatto
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>Please don't take it personally, but neither I nor the readers know you
>to be an authority on any of these issues. Of course, even if you were
>an historian, Near Eastern archaeologist or Judaic studies professor,
>you would not be immune to personal bias or scholarly error.
An expert _did_ post most of that material, which I merely reposted.
>All I have done is cited sources that support a different opinion to the
>one you have advanced. If our readers are interested, they can look to
>those sources. I don't believe any date in history to be "secure." I
>reserve that kind of faith for my religion.
Then you are a total idiot. There are astrological records
which absolutely _prove_ certain dates of events. Your denial of
this is somewhat equivalent to claiming that the Earth is flat, or that
the Holocaust never happened. Its based on disinformation piled upon
myths, without a whit of fact.
Robert
rafael
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
> >Please don't take it personally, but neither I nor the readers know you
> >to be an authority on any of these issues. Of course, even if you were
> >an historian, Near Eastern archaeologist or Judaic studies professor,
> >you would not be immune to personal bias or scholarly error.
>
> An expert _did_ post most of that material, which I merely reposted.
Not that I've heard of your "expert," but pay closer attention to my
second sentence here.
> >All I have done is cited sources that support a different opinion to the
> >one you have advanced. If our readers are interested, they can look to
> >those sources. I don't believe any date in history to be "secure." I
> >reserve that kind of faith for my religion.
>
> Then you are a total idiot. There are astrological records
> which absolutely _prove_ certain dates of events. Your denial of
> this is somewhat equivalent to claiming that the Earth is flat, or that
> the Holocaust never happened. Its based on disinformation piled upon
> myths, without a whit of fact.
You might know more about that than I do. While I have no reason to
doubt that Abraham Lincoln was a nineteenth-century American president,
I am generally skeptical about the accuracy of dates from thousands of
years ago.
As far as the subject under discussion goes, I'll have to suggest that
you take issue with the scholars who advance this opinion. It sounds
more plausible to me than the view that you foster, but I don't claim to
be an expert on the subject.
Rafael Malfatto
Zev Sero
On 3 Mar 1998 15:31:02 GMT, jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) wrote:
>To understand how problematic such an argument is, you must consider
>that by the testimony of our own tradition in the Bible, we had lost an
>entire book of Torah (whether that should be identified with
>Deuteronomy or not is a lengthy question already discussed here too
>often for me to want to reopen it). While we don't know precisely what
>is meant by a "book" in this case, we do know at the very least that
>the lost material included the definition of Jerusalem as the sole
>place where a Temple could be built (because Josiah used it as a
>pretext for killing priests at other temples) and that some critical
>aspects of the proper observance of Passover were included. So
>whatever "qibbel" meant, it obviously did not mean that anyone
>remembered these critical portions of the written law, much less the
>oral, until Hilkiah happened to engage in a little interior design.
Unless we understand that entire episode in entirely a different light.
Here's another scenario: nothing was ever lost. The entire Torah, as we
have it, existed in multiple copies, and its contents were known
throughout the land. Chilkiya found an ancient Torah scroll, thought to
have been written in Moshe's handwriting, and when he opened it it was
scrolled to the curses at the end of Devarim. The discovery of this
scroll was taken as an omen, and sparked a wave of teshuva, starting
with strict enforcement of the laws against idolatry, and a mass return
to observing Pesach properly.
What evidence is there in the text that that isn't what it means? What
reason is there to suppose that the scroll contained new text that had
been forgotten? How is this in any way less plausible than your
explanation?
--
Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire meaning
zs...@idt.net merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'.
Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God.
- C.S. Lewis
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>Please don't take it personally, but neither I nor the readers know you
>>to be an authority on any of these issues. Of course, even if you were
>>an historian, Near Eastern archaeologist or Judaic studies professor,
>>you would not be immune to personal bias or scholarly error.
>
> An expert _did_ post most of that material, which I merely reposted.
>
>>All I have done is cited sources that support a different opinion to the
>>one you have advanced. If our readers are interested, they can look to
>>those sources. I don't believe any date in history to be "secure." I
>>reserve that kind of faith for my religion.
>
> Then you are a total idiot. There are astrological records
> which absolutely _prove_ certain dates of events. Your denial of
> this is somewhat equivalent to claiming that the Earth is flat, or that
> the Holocaust never happened. Its based on disinformation piled upon
> myths, without a whit of fact.
Ever tactful, Robert equates skepticism of historical "dates" with
holocaust denial. And then he wants to be taken seriously. <sigh>
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(posted only. Robert requested that I not write to him. I wonder why?)
Herman Rubin
><delete>
>> The date of 323 BCE for Alexander's demise is one of the most secure
>> dates in history. That's not to say that it is impossible to find a
>> scholar who has a somewhat different chronological resolution, but
>> you're not going to find any rational historical confirmation for the
>> chronology found in Seder `Olam. As you note above, religious
>> chronologies are often written simply to conform to legend and thus
>> have little credibility.
><delete>
>Please don't take it personally, but neither I nor the readers know you
>to be an authority on any of these issues. Of course, even if you were
>an historian, Near Eastern archaeologist or Judaic studies professor,
>you would not be immune to personal bias or scholarly error.
He has studied history, not just the somewhat invented Jewish versions
of it. Parts of the Tanakh are reasonable accounts, but others are not.
But even the reasonable accounts are suspect, and the period from the
defeat of the Babylonians onward is one of the worst.
Also, we have had detailed postings, including from a historian, which
also come up with the same chronology. The Greeks maintained good
records, as did the Persians and Babylonians, and some of these latter
are on clay tablets which are preserved. These Greek and Persian and
Babylonian records include references to eclipses and other astronomical
events. These we can date from the highly accurate motions of other
objects in the solar system.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Rafael
Herman Rubin wrote:
> also come up with the same chronology. The Greeks maintained good
> records, as did the Persians and Babylonians, and some of these latter
> are on clay tablets which are preserved. These Greek and Persian and
According to the article in my possession, Dr. Heitetz's work is based
on the lack of Persian and Babylonian records from that specific period
(as the bulk of them were destroyed in the Persian conquest of Alexander
the Great). He also demonstrates quite convincingly that the Greeks (who
lived 2000 miles away from Babylonia) had a poor grasp of Babylonian
history.
The article says that "Herodotus admits to having heard four different
stories about Cyrus the Great--his upbringing and his rise to
power--choosing to record only the one which seemed to him the most
likely. Other Greek historians, such as Ctesias and Xenophon, often
disagreed with Herodotus's choice of the story."
Feel free to research this subject on your own, but please don't expect
us to take your word on it as authoritative (nor mine, for that matter).
Rafael Malfatto
Lyle Rooff
Robert Kaiser wrote in message <34fc8...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
> Then you are a total idiot. There are astrological records
>which absolutely _prove_ certain dates of events
And we are supposed to give credence to the records of astrologers? The
findings of astronomers, I could buy, but astrology? There IS a difference!
Eliyahu Rooff
Robert Kaiser
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il says:
>Ever tactful, Robert equates skepticism of historical "dates" with
>holocaust denial. And then he wants to be taken seriously. <sigh>
Wrong, Moshe. I equate total dismissal of _all_ historial
records and proof, total dismissal of all facts and logic, with
the same kind of thinking as goes into Holocaust denial. Because
that is exactly what it is. Its exactly the same kind of thinking,
just for a different purpose.
Robert
John Elway Rosenthal
I think it somewhat anachronistic to attempt to draw a distinction between
Babylonian astronomers and Babylonian astrologers.
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Rafael
Except that I never said that I dismiss all historical records and
proof. If I did that, why would I find Dr. Heifetz's research more
compelling than the alternative work on the subject? All I advocated is
a healthy dose of skepticism regarding both views (unless, of course,
you prefer one based on religious conviction) as we are not dealing with
an exact science here. The intimation that perhaps I deny that the world
is round or that the Holocaust occurred is both logically flawed and in
bad taste.
Rafael Malfatto
Zev Sero
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:19:08 -0800, "Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> wrote:
>Robert Kaiser wrote in message <34fc8...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>> Then you are a total idiot. There are astrological records
>>which absolutely _prove_ certain dates of events
>And we are supposed to give credence to the records of astrologers? The
>findings of astronomers, I could buy, but astrology? There IS a difference!
Not in those days, there wasn't. Even far more recently, we rely on
the findings of astrologers - Kepler, for instance.
Jacob Love
In article <34FD59F8...@nyct.net>, Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>Except that I never said that I dismiss all historical records and
>proof. If I did that, why would I find Dr. Heifetz's research more
>compelling than the alternative work on the subject? All I advocated is
>a healthy dose of skepticism regarding both views (unless, of course,
>you prefer one based on religious conviction) as we are not dealing with
>an exact science here. The intimation that perhaps I deny that the world
>is round or that the Holocaust occurred is both logically flawed and in
>bad taste.
I found this to be basically sound, but it begs the question. If a
scholarly finding contradicts one of your basic tenets, do you reject
the finding by expressing the "skepticism" you mention above, or do you
feel that your religious beliefs are subject to revision based on such
findings? It is taken for granted that "scholarly findings" are subject
to revision and sometimes are found to be completely wrong--that is the
nature of all scientific and scholarly research. But the real question
is whether you are willing to accept the *same* level of certainty with
regard to Jewish issues that you expect for others. What level of
evidence would you consider adequate to oppose a Christian religious
claim as compared with a Jewish one?
Let me make it more concrete. In literary and historical analysis, the
existance of anachronism is held to be prima facie evidence that a
literary work is to be dated later than the date of the problematic
material. Thus, if a play called "Julius Caesar" refers to the striking
of a clock, no matter what the editor or composer of the play might
state, we know that the play cannot have been written in Caesar's own
time. Likewise, if the Book of Mormon is found to contain a reference
to events which transpired in the early 1800s, we view that as
conclusive that the material could not have been completed any time
before that. The Torah contains clear cases of anachronism. Do you
accept that this demonstrates that those passages must have been
written after the death of Moses?
[To allay unnecessary rounds of this oft-repeated issue, the existance
of an anachronism does not necessarily prove that *all* of a book was
composed after the relevant date. For example, it could be argued that
"Julius Caesar" is composed of some material written during a time when
there were mechanical clocks, but also includes material from earlier
compositions. As a matter of fact this is true, as it is clear that
Shakespeare relied to a considerable extent on Plutarch.]
Yonassan Gershom
In article <6djuq6$b1c$1...@usenet88.supernews.com>,
"Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> wrote:
||>
||>Robert Kaiser wrote in message <34fc8...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
||>> Then you are a total idiot. There are astrological records
||>>which absolutely _prove_ certain dates of events
||>
||>And we are supposed to give credence to the records of astrologers?
The
||>findings of astronomers, I could buy, but astrology? There IS a
difference!
Good point, Lyle!
But actually, in ancient times astromony and astrology were closely
intertwined. I'm no expert on this, but I think there *are* certain
events reported by astrologers that can also be calculated by
modern astronomy, giving exact dates. Comets and conjunctions of
planets are some examples.
Not that I buy this guy's arguments. Altohugh i'm not sure about
this particular thread, a similar thread innthe Intelec Interfaith
conference turned out to be a "Black Hebrew" agenda intending to
febunk all modern Jews as "usurpers" of the "true Jews" who were,
suposedly, Black Africans. A Eurocentrist revisionist theory
that I consider bunk.
.-----. Rebbe Nachman once was walking through
___|_______|___ a grassy meadow when he said to the
8" @ @ "8 person with him, "If only you could
8_ /|\_ 8 hear and understand the language of the
__\\\~///__ grasses. Each blade of grass sings its
| \\ // | prayers and praises to G-d."
| \ / | (Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom #163)
"
"Yonassan Gershom" *********** <roo...@pinenet.com>
website: http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster
Rafael
You've raised some fair questions here which I think can be summed up as
"what is Torah?"
In a lecture I attended last night given by R. Berel Wein, he related a
story wherein the Bishop of Frankfurt asked R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch
to tell him the difference between Christianity and Judaism, to which he
answered: "Christianity is a religion invented by Man to define God;
Judaism is religion invented by God to define Man." R. Wein went on to
describe how the Torah tells us almost nothing about God and quite alot
about Man. Later on, Man felt the need (perhaps because of pressure from
other religions-me) to engage in philosophy. Before that, however, there
was only the Law.
The Torah contains statements about its own purpose (e.g. "Moses
commanded the Torah as a heritage of the congregation of Jacob"). The
Torah is firstly commanded to us. As R. Jonathan Saks put it: "To read
the Torah thus is to read it as it asks to be read. To read it otherwise
may be an exercise in scholarship, but it is not to read it as Torah."
I try to read the Torah and its commentaries covenantally in fulfillment
of the mitzvah of "talmud Torah." That is the way the Torah asks to be
read and that is the way it's been read for millenia. The historicism
you ask me to engage in is interesting, and I occasionally flirt with
it, but its not my raison d'etre.
Aside from this, one of the major flaws in Biblical scholarship is that
it never engaged with the concept of revelation. It took its
non-existence as given and proceeded to interpret the Bible as if it had
proven what it merely assumed. That's okay. It's rather like religion in
that sense. I come across things in my studies all the time that give me
that warm feeling that at last I've found objective "proof" for our
religous claims. And then humility/reality slowly sets in. The tugging
and pulling that goes on between our sages in the Talmud is a
manifestation akin to this inner struggle. L'havdil, given the plurality
of secular theories behind the Torah's authorship, I would imagine that
these scholars undergo similar struggles.
To sum up, Torah and scholarship rest on opposite assumptions and both
are consistent. The group which espouses the former assumptions (the one
I identify with) believes in reading the Torah the way it asks to be
read (as if it speaks to me with the voice of God), and the group which
espouses the latter believes in reading the Torah in the context of the
past (as if it speaks to piloni with the voice of ancient man/men). Both
schools have different logical methodologies for approaching the
problems surrounding their subject. While I generally have little
concern for Biblical scholarship, I am perplexed daily by the claims of
those who think it can be used to support any lasting form of Judaism.
This is really the point about which we are arguing. Otherwise, we would
have dismissed one another as irrelevent by now.
Rafael Malfatto
Jacob Love
In article <35129e9c...@news.farm.idt.net>,
Zev Sero <zs...@idt.net> wrote:
[Responding to me]
>Unless we understand that entire episode in entirely a different light.
>Here's another scenario: nothing was ever lost. The entire Torah, as we
>have it, existed in multiple copies, and its contents were known
>throughout the land. Chilkiya found an ancient Torah scroll, thought to
>have been written in Moshe's handwriting, and when he opened it it was
>scrolled to the curses at the end of Devarim. The discovery of this
>scroll was taken as an omen, and sparked a wave of teshuva, starting
>with strict enforcement of the laws against idolatry, and a mass return
>to observing Pesach properly.
Zev, I have found most of your replies to me quite rational and you
have often caused me to go back and rethink something that I had taken
for granted. This time, I think you may have gone a bit off the deep
end.
The story is found in 2 Kings, chapters 22 and 23. It says explicitly
that Hilkiah found a scroll and had it read to Josiah. Josiah then
says
[22:13] "Go, inquire of the LORD on my behalf, and on behalf of
the people, and on behalf of all Judah, concerning the words of
*this scroll* that has been found. For great indeed must be the
wrath of the LORD that has been kindled against us, because our
fathers did not obey the words of *this scroll* to do all that
has been prescribed for us."
Does that sound like Josiah and Hilkiah already knew about *this
scroll*?
>What evidence is there in the text that that isn't what it means? What
>reason is there to suppose that the scroll contained new text that had
>been forgotten? How is this in any way less plausible than your
>explanation?
Well, let's take a closer look at the issue of Passover.
[23:21] The king commanded all the people, "Offer the passover
sacrifice to the LORD your God as prescribed in *this scroll*
of the covenant." Now the passover sacrifice had not been
offered in that manner in the days of the chieftains who
ruled Israel, or during the days of the kings of Israel and
the kings of Judah. Only in the eighteenth year of King
Josiah was such a passover sacrifice offered in that manner
to the LORD in Jerusalem.
Does that sound like "nothing was ever lost"? According to this, not
even David and Solomon observed Pesah in the correct way according to
*this scroll*. Is your explanation that "nothing was lost" more
plausible in such a situation?
Micha Berger
On 5 Mar 1998 02:05:36 GMT, Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
: [22:13] "Go, inquire of the LORD on my behalf, and on behalf of
: the people, and on behalf of all Judah, concerning the words of
: *this scroll* that has been found. For great indeed must be the
: wrath of the LORD that has been kindled against us, because our
: fathers did not obey the words of *this scroll* to do all that
: has been prescribed for us."
: Does that sound like Josiah and Hilkiah already knew about *this
: scroll*?
Actually, I don't see any indication one way or the other. All it says is that
the finding of a scroll open to a section of rebuke was a sign that G-d must
be angry. It doesn't say anything about the contents of the scroll being
unique. (Even with your emphasis.)
I was under the impression, though, that the young king had actually never
seen a Torah before, nor read it. Remember, his parents were idolaters. How
many people of non- or anti-religious upbringing would know what it says in
the Torah?
: [23:21] The king commanded all the people, "Offer the passover
: sacrifice to the LORD your God as prescribed in *this scroll*
: of the covenant." Now the passover sacrifice had not been
: offered in that manner in the days of the chieftains who
: ruled Israel, or during the days of the kings of Israel and
: the kings of Judah. Only in the eighteenth year of King
: Josiah was such a passover sacrifice offered in that manner
: to the LORD in Jerusalem.
: Does that sound like "nothing was ever lost"? According to this, not
: even David and Solomon observed Pesah in the correct way according to
: *this scroll*. Is your explanation that "nothing was lost" more
: plausible in such a situation?
Ever see a BT do a particular mitzvah for the first time? There is certainly
an emotional aspect, a freshness, that isn't there in normal FFB observance.
The Talmud describes the era as being as close to messianic as we've ever
gotten -- a major period of repentance. All it says is that it was never done
like this before. Not that the same procedure was never followed before. The
words make full sense within the traditional understanding.
Of course, your translator is slanted. Here's my take:
23:21 The king commanded the whole nation, saying "Make a Pesach to
Hashem your G-d, as it says on this scroll of the covenant." (22)
Because it was not done, a Pesach like this, since the days of the
Judges who legislated over Israel. And in all the days of the kings of
Israel and the Kings of Judea. (23) Except in the 18th year of the
king Yoshiahu, this Pesach was made to G-d in Jerusalem. (24) Also the
ovos, yidonim, terafim, gilulim and shikutzim [classes of idols] which
were found in the land of Judea and Jerusalem, Yoshiahu disposed; in
order to fulfil the words of the Torah which were written on the
scroll that was found by Chilkiyahu the Kohein in the house of Hashem.
(25) There was not before him a king like him, who returned to Hashem
with all his heart, all his soul, and all that he had [cf the Shema]
-- all of the Torah of Moshe; and after him there never arose one like
him.
Clearly, given context and punctuation that better matches the traditional
cantillation, we are being told about a golden era in Jewish observance. A
teshuvah, a new quality to observance. It doesn't say that the law was new --
it credits the book to Moshe, after all.
More shocking, though, is that you imply that all those Rabbis from the
cannonization of Kings until the enlightenment couldn't open up the book and
read the simple meaning of the words. Clearly, a more traditional
explanation exists.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5742 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 4-Mar-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Zev Sero
On 5 Mar 1998 02:05:36 GMT, jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) wrote:
>The story is found in 2 Kings, chapters 22 and 23. It says explicitly
>that Hilkiah found a scroll and had it read to Josiah. Josiah then
>says
>
> [22:13] "Go, inquire of the LORD on my behalf, and on behalf of
> the people, and on behalf of all Judah, concerning the words of
> *this scroll* that has been found.
i.e. the curses in Ki Tavo.
> For great indeed must be the
> wrath of the LORD that has been kindled against us, because our
> fathers did not obey the words of *this scroll*
i.e. the words of the torah
> to do all that has been prescribed for us."
>Does that sound like Josiah and Hilkiah already knew about *this
>scroll*?
They knew about the words of the torah, and so did everyone else, but
the words of the torah were being neglected, as they so often are, and
Yoshiahu took the discovery of the sefer torah scrolled to the curses
as a sign that the nation would be punished for this laxity. There
certainly was new information in the discovered scroll, but that
information wasn't in the words but in the place that it was scrolled
to, and in the fact of its discovery. Information can be stored not
just by the contents of a data set but also in the order and in other
attributes. You're in a house that used to be inhabited by someone
who you know had a devious mind, and liked to leave mysterious puzzles
around. You pick up a book at random from a shelf, and there's a
bookmark in it, so you open it at that page and you discover what seems
to be a message to you. Knowing that he was the kind of person who
would do that, you assume that it wasn't a coincidence, and you take
the message seriously.
> [23:21] The king commanded all the people, "Offer the passover
> sacrifice to the LORD your God as prescribed in *this scroll*
> of the covenant." Now the passover sacrifice had not been
> offered in that manner in the days of the chieftains who
> ruled Israel, or during the days of the kings of Israel and
> the kings of Judah. Only in the eighteenth year of King
> Josiah was such a passover sacrifice offered in that manner
> to the LORD in Jerusalem.
>
>Does that sound like "nothing was ever lost"? According to this, not
>even David and Solomon observed Pesah in the correct way according to
>*this scroll*. Is your explanation that "nothing was lost" more
>plausible in such a situation?
I take it to mean that there was never such a large and enthusiastic
pesach observance as that one since the pesach at Gilgal when the Jews
first entered the land. i.e. it wasn't the details that were different,
but the numbers and the enthusiasm. People were inspired to do teshuva.
cf the teshuva rally that Ezra and Nechemia held on Rosh Hashana. IIRC
that's also described in terms like this, that it was the greatest such
event since a long time previous to that. That doesn't mean it was the
first time Rosh Hashana had been celebrated, or the first time anyone
had done teshuva, but it was the first time in a long time that there
had been the mass inspiration to teshuva that was stirred up at that
rally.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) writes:
> Zev Sero <zs...@idt.net> wrote:
>
> [Responding to me]
>
>>Unless we understand that entire episode in entirely a different light.
>>Here's another scenario: nothing was ever lost. The entire Torah, as we
>>have it, existed in multiple copies, and its contents were known
>>throughout the land. Chilkiya found an ancient Torah scroll, thought to
>>have been written in Moshe's handwriting, and when he opened it it was
>>scrolled to the curses at the end of Devarim. The discovery of this
>>scroll was taken as an omen, and sparked a wave of teshuva, starting
>>with strict enforcement of the laws against idolatry, and a mass return
>>to observing Pesach properly.
>
> Zev, I have found most of your replies to me quite rational and you
> have often caused me to go back and rethink something that I had taken
> for granted. This time, I think you may have gone a bit off the deep
> end.
Jack, was that really necessary?
> The story is found in 2 Kings, chapters 22 and 23. It says explicitly
> that Hilkiah found a scroll and had it read to Josiah. Josiah then
> says
>
> [22:13] "Go, inquire of the LORD on my behalf, and on behalf of
> the people, and on behalf of all Judah, concerning the words of
> *this scroll* that has been found. For great indeed must be the
> wrath of the LORD that has been kindled against us, because our
> fathers did not obey the words of *this scroll* to do all that
> has been prescribed for us."
>
> Does that sound like Josiah and Hilkiah already knew about *this
> scroll*?
Thanks for the citation. I don't know from where Zev got his scenario
but, to me at least, it does fit into the words. Your emphasis
notwithstanding.
>>What evidence is there in the text that that isn't what it means?
>>What reason is there to suppose that the scroll contained new text
>>that had been forgotten? How is this in any way less plausible
>>than your explanation?
>
> Well, let's take a closer look at the issue of Passover.
>
> [23:21] The king commanded all the people, "Offer the passover
> sacrifice to the LORD your God as prescribed in *this scroll*
> of the covenant." Now the passover sacrifice had not been
> offered in that manner in the days of the chieftains who
> ruled Israel, or during the days of the kings of Israel and
> the kings of Judah. Only in the eighteenth year of King
> Josiah was such a passover sacrifice offered in that manner
> to the LORD in Jerusalem.
>
> Does that sound like "nothing was ever lost"? According to this, not
> even David and Solomon observed Pesah in the correct way according to
> *this scroll*. Is your explanation that "nothing was lost" more
> plausible in such a situation?
That's even easier. You assume the novelty was the _quality_ of the
sacrifice. As if they had done _new_ procedures. I read it as a
_quantitative_ difference. _More_ Jews, from all over the country,
came this year than had come ever before. Either by percentage, or by
absolute number, or both!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
Jacob Love
In article <34FD8AFE...@nyct.net>, Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
[Interesting but largely irrelevant philosophical speculations
deleted.]
>That is the way the Torah asks to be
>read and that is the way it's been read for millenia. The historicism
>you ask me to engage in is interesting, and I occasionally flirt with
>it, but its not my raison d'etre.
I happen to agree that a distinction needs to be made between
historical and academic studies and religion. It has been a fairly
frequent occasion for me that one of my fellow congregants or students
makes some sort of d'var Torah or participates in a holiday event and
wanders off into some attempt to reconcile the Bible to science and/or
history. Some of the most dismal of such episodes involved an attempt
to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis. While I fully accept the DH as
the most logical and likely scenario for the composition of the Torah,
I do not think it has any place in the synagogue. For one thing, it
would bore everyone to death. For another, once we are past the hurdle
of caring who actually gathered the material together, the far more
important issues are to discuss what its meaning is to us as
individuals, as a community, and as a people among other peoples.
>Aside from this, one of the major flaws in Biblical scholarship is that
>it never engaged with the concept of revelation.
This is no more a flaw than the notion that medical science is "flawed"
by never engaging in the notion that infections are caused by demons.
Biblical scholarship (as you are using the term, I prefer other terms)
is an academic discipline (actually a collection of disciplines) which
rely on principles of research that are independent of the particular
religious affiliation of the researcher. The "flaw" as you would have
it, is entirely in the mind of the religious fundamentalist who simply
defines his conclusions prior to any consideration of the evidence.
>It took its
>non-existence as given and proceeded to interpret the Bible as if it had
>proven what it merely assumed.
Precisely the opposite. The academic is willing to accept whatever
conclusions are necessary to interpret the evidence. It is you,
representing the fundamentalist approach, who behave precisely in
the manner you describe.
[Balance deleted.]
Rafael
Jacob Love wrote:
<snip>
> to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis. While I fully accept the DH as
> the most logical and likely scenario for the composition of the Torah,
> I do not think it has any place in the synagogue. For one thing, it
> would bore everyone to death. For another, once we are past the hurdle
> of caring who actually gathered the material together, the far more
> important issues are to discuss what its meaning is to us as
> individuals, as a community, and as a people among other peoples.
Even though DH conflicts with my religious beliefs, we basically agree
here.
<snip>
> >Aside from this, one of the major flaws in Biblical scholarship is that
<snip>
> religious affiliation of the researcher. The "flaw" as you would have
> it, is entirely in the mind of the religious fundamentalist who simply
> defines his conclusions prior to any consideration of the evidence.
You're right. The word "flaw" was actually inconsistent with what I was
trying to say. Assuming that revelation didn't occur is, IMO, no more
flawed than assuming that it did. I maintain, of course, that from the
Torah perspective it is flawed.
> >It took its
> >non-existence as given and proceeded to interpret the Bible as if it had
> >proven what it merely assumed.
>
> Precisely the opposite. The academic is willing to accept whatever
> conclusions are necessary to interpret the evidence. It is you,
> representing the fundamentalist approach, who behave precisely in
> the manner you describe.
Here we disagree. I credit secularists (speaking as someone who was
raised as one) with no more objectivity than I credit religionists.
OTOH, I don't know anyone who became religious who became so just by
opening up the Torah and reading it. In spite of our reputation as "the
people of the book," Judaism is not a religion about books. It's about
people--people keep Judaism alive. Otherwise, we would just stick the
Torah in a library or a museum and leave it there in case anyone's
interested in it.
As R. S. R. Hirsch said in his Commentary on Parshat Mishpatim, the
Written Torah is but the short-hand notes to the Lecture. The Talmud is
also simply notes to the Lecture, albeit in an elaborative form. The
Lecture took place at Mt. Sinai between Moshe and God. You either accept
that or you don't. If you don't, you're not reading the notes the way
they ask to be read.
Rafael Malfatto
PS: The fact that Shelly Glickler used the term "fundamentalist" to
describe me today is proof in my mind that it is most often construed as
derogatory. Please try to refrain from using it.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>Ever tactful, Robert equates skepticism of historical "dates" with
>>holocaust denial. And then he wants to be taken seriously. <sigh>
>
> Wrong, Moshe. I equate total dismissal of _all_ historial
> records and proof, total dismissal of all facts and logic, with
> the same kind of thinking as goes into Holocaust denial. Because
> that is exactly what it is. Its exactly the same kind of thinking,
> just for a different purpose.
Had you left in your original post, everybody could see for themselves.
Now, they'll have to choose who to believe, or look it up in dejanews.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(not mailed Robert doesn't want my e-mail, just posted)