orion-list Bregman and PRE 31
I have just read Mark Bregman's piece: "The Aqedah at Qumran: Fire on the Mountain" a Comparison of 4Q225 Pseudo-Jubileesa and Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 31 Abstract of lecture presented at the Orion Center, May 21, 1998. There is one note to add here:Bregman cites a passage from Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer ch 31. "He said to Ishmael and Eliezer: "Do you see anything on one of these mountains?" They replied to him: "No." He said to them: "Stay ye here with the ass" (Gen. 22:5). He said to them: "Just as the ass does not see anything [significant], so you do not see anything [significant]"; as it says: "And Abraham said to his servant boys, stay ye here with the ass [`im he- hamor, which can also be vocalized, `am he-hamor, i.e. "ass- people"]. There are some 10 places in Midrashic literature where this tradition is cited with slight variants. Bregman cites some of them. Anti-semites have made much of the phrase "am hahamor (not 'hehamor')" but this is NOT what the text says at all-- people have just confused matters. Rabbi Baruch HaLevy Epstein in his midrashic lexicon and in his Torah Temimah Genesis 22:3 note 11 goes to great lengths to show that the Rabbis interpret the word "im" with some frequency to have the meaning "just like." Eg Genesis Rabba at the beginning of Parshat Vayishlach-- 400 men with him (Esau)-- the midrash takes "im" to mean like him-- just as he was strong etc etc. When 8 midrashim say "im hahamor: im= hadomeh le-- hamor." it means they are similar to the donkey in one respect at that one time-- they did not the see supernatural sign. Bregman might have looked at Theodor-Albeck Gen R to Gen 22:5 and seen the text-- because you are similar (domim) to the donkey-- and the other vaiants he has . At any rate, even their notes imply Bregman's equation "im hadomeh=am hadomeh (a people like a donkey)." The Davka CD RoM to PRE reads "hadomim" not "hadomeh"-- "Am" is singular and you cannot say "am hadomim"-- "hadomim" is the better reading and occurs in Leviticus Rabba 20:2-- a reference also cited by Bregman. There is no reason to confuse "im hadomim" as if it said "am hadomim" which would be a very unlikely construction. Hence "im" is to be read "im," not "am" and it is correct that the rabbis interpreted it as "similar to." Ishmael and Eliezer are told "you are to stay here-- since you are similar to the donkey." Even the texts that read "im Hadomeh" are not to be taken as "am hadomeh" although gramatically it could fit-- as Epstein demonstrates. It is time we drop the pseudo-drash as it is not the meaning of any rabbinic midrash and in the end gives both Jews and non -Jews unwarranted understandings of Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews. Marc Bregman likely will be the amongst the first to get rid of the common but mistaken understanding of these words. Herb Basser For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Samaritans & Watchers + Angels & Watchers
since the lines are getting a little weird let me throw in a tangential curve: A friday night sabbath song-- sung universally in many homes-- is in aramaic which borrows phrases from Daniel and weaves them into a breathtaking pastiche with its danielic resonance but totally new composition: its second verse runs (I provide ashkenazic pronunciation because thats how it sounds natural to my polish ears) : "I will recite praises morn and eve to you God Holy One, who has created every creature: irin kadishin-- uvenei anosho wild animals and birds of heaven (cf dan 2:38) . now irin kadishin is clearly WATCHERS, HOLY ONES, (Dan 4:14) while the next phrase refers to people.The sense is a transformation and comparison Nebuchnezzar is described in his dream as ruling over people, wild animals (lit animals of the field) and birds, the poet sees Gods domain being higher encompassing angels, plus people animals and birds. However the prosody of the piece suggests breaking it up not angles, holy ones: and people and animals and birds but-- as Angels-- Holy Ones, and bnei anosho, plus animals and birds. a comma coming after anosho. The meolodies I know all break it up this way and it seems to me to be its natural scan. That suggests bnei anosho is also an angelic term for the poet. That suggests a kind of enochian reference to watchers and sons of man. The question is why does the poet join 4:14 (irin) to 2:38 (bnei anosho) -- perhaps just to aggrandize God's realm-- or perhaps because there is a natural allusion for him here and he does not see bnei anosho as simply "people". but also as angelic. hence the reference might be to creatures of the lower heavens, the upper heavens; the lower part of the world, the higher part of the world. If so it is the only reference i know of juxtaposing watchers and son(s) of man in an undisputed jewish text. still the internal rhyme might seem to dispute such an interpretation-- irIN kadishIN-- uvenei anoshO, heivat borO veofei shemayO. the counter claim is to group anosho with the first batch to parallel shemayo in the last. 10 syllables (shwas may or may not count) But what seems clear to me is that every stiche in this verse should end in O in this poem--they all do if we group bnei anosho with irin kadishin-- so here is another jump-- maybe not as "wild" as george's but no less "flighty."-- the medieval author knows of ben anash as an angelic term too when coupled with Watchers. Herb Basser [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "David Suter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 4:31 PM Subject: RE: orion-list Samaritans & Watchers + Angels & Watchers > George, > > With your "method" you can prove anything you want to prove simply by > constructing a roundabout linking of English translations in Strongs. In > the process you discover nothing. > > David Suter > Saint Martin's College For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
no i dont have it-- i was merely responding to the yalkut passage and recalled a partial source in mechilta (not talmud but earlier) for what it said. I think the Eusebius passage is key and "son of the rechabites" I take to mean a descendant-- the term is strange because we have already heard he was a rechabite priest-- so perhaps the intent is to add a gloss to explain he was descended from them but not actually a rechabite. the gloss might have been added by Eusebius. the passage reads oddly unless we posit something along these lines. h - Original Message - From: "George Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:27 PM Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim > Herb, > > It's not clear to me you are looking at the right footnote or footnotes. > Do you have the JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS book? > And if you do, can you cite the footnote that Eisenman quotes > in support of the marriage into the lineage of the High Priest? > > The footnotes were about "marriage" not about their access > to the various parts of the temple. I think the Jeremiah text > is more than sufficient to establish that we are talking about > "levitical" or "priestly" service here rather than "metal working". > So I'm not looking for Talmud references that are silent on > the marriage into the priestly lineage. > > George > > For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
well our best information is that historically converts could not marry into priestly families -- josephus makes a to-do about it when he is given a wife by the emperor and finally when he dumps his illegal wife that emperor had given him and marries a priestly wife he feels relieved, rabbinic literature also prefers that priests marry "connected" (read priestly) wives. the claims about the rechabite women's ability to marry into priestly families are based on a special status they receive from Moses-- "all the days", and jeremiah's wording "before the Lord always." and we can trace another tradition in this regard-- moses tells the israelites to love the "ger" (understood by the rabbis as "convert") and give him bread and rainment-- say the rabbis-- bread, the temple showbread; rainment-- priestly clothes. -- allow his descendants to marry into priestly families. the rabbis were extraordinarily generous towards converts-- but that does not mean any converts were priests. of course, they were not. Herb - Original Message - From: "George Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 6:25 PM Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim > > Ian writes: > > On page 229 of JBJ Eisenman writes "We shall see below how the > > Rabbinic tradition also connects these "Rechabites" [..] with the > > High Priest or High Priest class..." Then on page 241 he writes "If > > we keep in mind the Rabbinic notices above that "the sons" or > > "daughters of the Rechabites" married those of the High Priest..." > > The trouble is, looking "below" page 229 and "above" page 241, I > > could find no Rabbinic tradition cited... > > * > > Geof writes: > > On page 999 of JBJ, note 22, Eisenman writes: 'followed by the > > tradition in the Yalkut on Jer.35.12, that the grandsons of the > Rechabites > > served in the Temple and their daughters married the sons of the > Priests.' > > > I have foolishly let go of my copy of JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS. > > But I specifically remember a footnote that quotes the 2 sections of > Talmud that testify to Rechabites gaining entre into the priestly world > by marrying the children of the High Priest. > > I wish I had the footnotes right in front of me but if someone > has a copy of the book in front of them... it should be straightforward > to find. > > I will be responding to some of the other posts today or tomorrow. > > George Brooks > Tampa, FL > For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
thanks for the citation-- i now recall george had written me about this months ago and i saw the passage but forgot about it until geoff brought it tou our attention again. I'm not sure of all the Yalkut's sources here but here is what we find: yalkut Jeremiah preserves: some say their daughters married priests and their grandchildren offered sacrifices-- this doesnt make rechabites priests at all-- lineage follows males. but the same yalkut cites what we have now in mechilta jethro parsha 2: it once happened that one of the water drinkers (rechabites) offered a sacrifice and a voice came out of the holy and holies and said-- the one who accepted your sacrifice in the desert will accept this sacrifice now-- this also suggests they were not priests finally there is also a crypric comments that they entered the holy part of the temple-- and that permission was unconditional, unlike david's covenant that was conditional. However this is disputed-- and the claim is converts cant do that only their descendants through the female line can. again its not clear they acted as priests. to settle the issue the claim is made they served on the high court-- the sanhedrin.- the upshot seems to be that they were not priests although some think they could enter the sanctuary, others even think one did offer a sacrifice (in the desert they did apparently), the closest thing I find to being priests is the statement they had an eternal covenant which gave them certain temple rights. NOWHERE can I find they themselves were priests. Yalkut is suggestive as is another passage i mentioned earlier about them offering sacrifices when the messiah comes-- whatever that means-- but the text never just says they were priests-- no text clearly says it. I do not have the means to computer search it but if Yalkut is the best that exists then the peg is weak. what does eusebius mean-- likely a priestly descendant from some woman of the rechabite clan-- also nothing about them marrying high priests-- so eisenmans's note goes beyond the evidence-- although there is ambiguity and if you believed they were priests to begin with you might construe a passage ot two to intimate that-- But again: I doubt any passage wantes to make the male line real priests. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Herb Basser - Original Message - From: "Geoff Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:37 PM Subject: RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Ian Hutchesson > Sent: 29 May 2002 06:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim > > Ian writes: > On page 229 of JBJ Eisenman writes "We shall see below how the > Rabbinic tradition also connects these "Rechabites" [..] with the > High Priest or High Priest class..." Then on page 241 he writes "If > we keep in mind the Rabbinic notices above that "the sons" or > "daughters of the Rechabites" married those of the High Priest..." > The trouble is, looking "below" page 229 and "above" page 241, I > could find no Rabbinic tradition cited... > * > > On page 999 of JBJ, note 22, Eisenman writes: 'followed by the tradition > in the Yalkut on Jer.35.12, that the grandsons of the Rechabites served in > the Temple and their daughters married the sons of the Priests.' > > Perhaps someone would comment. > > Geoff > For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah and Rechabite "Priests"
As far as rabbinic evidence goes the Rechabites are noted (pesikta derav kahana) to be descended from jethro, Moses' father in law, and in chronicles they are noted be kenites-- and the tosefta in bikurim notes kenites have the status of converts but even so they can recite the recitation of the jewish land owning farmer who brings his first fruits to the Temple. Furthermore it is noted that the family will never cease and when the Messiah comes they will be the first to announce him and they will be the first to go up to the temple and offer sacrifices-- and it is further noted rabbi yose bar halafta the reputed author of seder olam was descended from them (according to a genealogical table that had been found). there is a strange passage in tractate shabbat 118 (?) to the effect that rabbi yose went with the priests when invited to bless the people in the synagogue-- the fact he only did it when invited suggests his status was in doubt or something else which was an anomoly. in some passages it is noted that rechabites will be the first to offer sacrifices in the Messianic age temple when a humungus temple descends from heaven and covers 4 mountains. Anyways-- I have no idea what any of this means-- just that such things exist. but I do not know any certain evidence they are priests-- offering sacrifices simply might mean they have a priest offer the sacrifices. theirs will be offered first-- however it might really mean they themselves will act as priests-- I cannot be certain what any of this really tells us but it seems unlikely the clan acted as priests-- if there is a talmudic passage that is clear on the matter I would like to know where it is-- I certainly know of none. herb basser [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Ezekiel vs. Jeremiah?
I'm not sure what you are asking? Maybe something got lost in Enoch's translation. What evidence are you exploring for these schools? Discussions of Enoch are always worth "taking up." Herb - Original Message - From: "George Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:12 PM Subject: orion-list Ezekiel vs. Jeremiah? > Herb, > > I'm exploring the possibility that the Ezekiel school of priests > would be at odds with the Jeremiah school of priests. Have > you ever encountered any discussion about this possibility? > And does Enoch literature lean one way or another? > > George Brooks > Tampa, FL > > For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Boccaccini: "Beyond Essene Hypothesis"?
is there a heavenly ascent in Ezekiel or merely a vision of the heavens opening while Ezekiel sees the various items in the heavens. It is quite different from Enoch I think. Herb Basser - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:28 PM Subject: Re: orion-list Boccaccini: "Beyond Essene Hypothesis"? > David, > > I haven't read Boccaccini's Sources of Rabbinic Judaism yet, so the > following comment may not accurately apply to his theory of the post-exilic > origins of what he terms Zadokite and Enochic Judaism. But it seems to me > the one Biblical book for which a case may be made that it fed into the Enoch > literature is Ezekiel. The book of Ezekiel has a heavenly ascent. > Furthermore, it is heavily indebted to the Babylonian text The Poem of Erra > (see most recently D. Brodi, _The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra_ > [Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 104; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, > 1991]). The figures of Enoch and Uriel in the Astronomical Book of Enoch are > modeled on the Babylonian prototype, the sage Uanadapa, and there are > numerous other Mesopotamian influences on the Enoch literature, so I think an > argument is to be made that the Enoch literature and Ezekiel may come from > the same social milieu. I don't think an early date for Ezekiel can be > sustained, the most obvious evidence being its reference to Persia, so > Ezekiel may well come close to the time of the earliest Enoch literature. > Yet as I recall Ezekiel is explicit in supporting the Zadokite priesthood > (even at the expense of the Levites). > On the other hand Ezekiel is closely related to the Holiness Code (H) in > Leviticus, a priestly code which is heavily influenced by the humanitarian, > social justice outlook of the Deuteronomist (D). Some recent thought sees P, > D and H more-or-less contemporary (see for instance Ranier Albertz, _History > of Religion_, who puts all of these, or ast least their social groups, down > into exilic times). There is thus an argument for a dispute within Judaism > between (P) priests concerned mainly with the temple cultus and (H) priests > with more of a lay social consciousness outlook. Ezekiel, written by a > priest, yet aligned with (H), is also influenced by heavenly ascents and > Babylonian motifs, but also supports the Zadokite priesthood. So while the > Enoch literature may be related to priestly disputes - at least this is a > hypothesis worth fully exploring - the split may not be between Zadokites and > Enochians as Boccaccini proposes. However, I haven't read Boccaccini's > latest, and his analysis may be different. > > Best regards, > Russell Gmirkin > For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list deut 32:15
Thank you so much--- LXX, Sam and the paraphrase in Neh 9:25 all show wysb' This is significant and the comment of the Rabbis in Sifre Deut to Deut 32:5 seems to cite it as well. Herb > Dear Prof. Basser: > According to the most complete Index available (Corrado Martone, The > Judaean Desert Bible: An Index [Quaderni di Henoch 11; Torino: Silvio > Zamorani Editore,2001]) the only occurence of Deut 32:15 is in one of the > 4QPhylacteries, 4QPhyl N. It is edited in DJD 6, 73, and according to > Milik, it contains at the beginning the plus of Sam and LXX: y]'k[l y]`pwb > wysb`... > Greetings > Florentino Garcia Martinez For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list deut 32:15
Can anyone tell me if Deut 32:15 was found at Qumran and if so how it reads. Herb Basser For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
