Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 04-03-2013, 07:28 AM

Except that that there is no indication of Neusner's having received ordination as "chief rabbi" of Jewish history either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Hmmm....Mr. Grubermust be some kind of professor, "haham" or "rabbi" to be able to know what the history of Jewish traditions are that do not appear in the Pentateuch.......

He seems like an interesting guy. I've been unable to find anything substantial on him, but have seen him referred to as Dr on google. He has several books on Amazon. My guess is that he has a PhD.

Not being a big fan of Messianistic Judaism, a lot of their websites seem excellent to me.

In any case, we see Neusner agreeing with him on Oral Law on the link Andrew Criddle provided.

semiopen · 04-03-2013, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Except that that there is no indication of Neusner's having received ordination as "chief rabbi" of Jewish history either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

He seems like an interesting guy. I've been unable to find anything substantial on him, but have seen him referred to as Dr on google. He has several books on Amazon. My guess is that he has a PhD.

Not being a big fan of Messianistic Judaism, a lot of their websites seem excellent to me.

In any case, we see Neusner agreeing with him on Oral Law on the link Andrew Criddle provided.

I was hoping you turned over a new leaf in honor of the new rules.

Jacob_Neusner

Quote:

Born in Hartford, Connecticut, Neusner was educated at Harvard University, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (where he received rabbinic ordination), the University of Oxford, and Yale University.

So he is a Rabbi albeit not Chief Rabbi of Jewish History.

I was going to mention in my last post that Haredi Rabbis are worthless in almost any academic discussion. In the current instance, this is partially due to the fact that they don't read the Apocrypha. They also have no understanding of History or even the concept of time.

Duvduv · 04-03-2013, 09:24 AM

Good for him. Well, he is not the final word on the matters under discussion, and as far as I know not a recipient of any Divine Inspiration to be considered the final arbiter on such matters. And as far as I know no "rabbi" today whether Orthodox or otherwise can be considered such in these matters. However it is rather moot since any orthodox rabbi by definition accepts the concept of orally transmitted teachings that were subsequently consigned to writing. However, since Neusner cannot empirically prove that it is untrue, his status of "chief rabbi" on this matter is highly suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Except that that there is no indication of Neusner's having received ordination as "chief rabbi" of Jewish history either.

I was hoping you turned over a new leaf in honor of the new rules.

Jacob_Neusner

Quote:

Born in Hartford, Connecticut, Neusner was educated at Harvard University, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (where he received rabbinic ordination), the University of Oxford, and Yale University.

So he is a Rabbi albeit not Chief Rabbi of Jewish History.

I was going to mention in my last post that Haredi Rabbis are worthless in almost any academic discussion. In the current instance, this is partially due to the fact that they don't read the Apocrypha. They also have no understanding of History or even the concept of time.

semiopen · 04-04-2013, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Good for him. Well, he is not the final word on the matters under discussion, and as far as I know not a recipient of any Divine Inspiration to be considered the final arbiter on such matters. And as far as I know no "rabbi" today whether Orthodox or otherwise can be considered such in these matters. However it is rather moot since any orthodox rabbi by definition accepts the concept of orally transmitted teachings that were subsequently consigned to writing. However, since Neusner cannot empirically prove that it is untrue, his status of "chief rabbi" on this matter is highly suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I was hoping you turned over a new leaf in honor of the new rules.

Jacob_Neusner

So he is a Rabbi albeit not Chief Rabbi of Jewish History.

I was going to mention in my last post that Haredi Rabbis are worthless in almost any academic discussion. In the current instance, this is partially due to the fact that they don't read the Apocrypha. They also have no understanding of History or even the concept of time.

Yours is one of the most incoherent comments I've seen here.

There is no mention of the Oral Law until the Talmud, and prior to this are some references to an Oral Tradition. Had there been an Oral Law, we would expect the same sources to mention the Oral Law and Sinai. That seems like an issue.

Gruiber gives this reference in his paper.

R. ZADOK HAKOHEN ON THE HISTORY OF HALAKHA

This paper is difficult but it is attached to this paragraph in Gruber.

Quote:

Throughout the entire Talmud, only forty-two halakhot are distinguished as having been given "to Moses from Sinai." Whether that is understood to indicate a direct revelation given to Moses or to indicate an authorized interpretation of the written Torah, one thing is quite striking: No such claim is made for the overwhelming remainder of halakhot. What then is halakha that was not given "to Moses at Sinai?" What is its source? and its purpose?
Later Rabbis said that, "Oral Torah is what the sages of Israel and Keneset Yisra'el innovated by their own perception of heart and mind of the will of God, and that is the understanding that God apportioned to them according to the limits of their capacity."17

The subject has a certain charm, in the mental gymnastics required to work around the issues of something as patently absurd as an Oral Law from Sinai is. Contrast the intelligence of the Elman article with your Chief Rabbi blithering, which is remarkably childish even for you.

The matter under discussion is what the Pharisees position on the Oral Law was. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that they were aware that it existed.

Duvduv · 04-04-2013, 10:12 AM

I am tempted to engage Semiopen in a debate on this subject, but in the interests of courtesy (despite how I am often treated by some participants) and of the forum I will not do so in this Forum. If Semiopen wants to discuss this elsewhere he can let me know.

Clivedurdle · 04-07-2013, 08:32 AM

Quote:

The matter under discussion is what the Pharisees position on the Oral Law was. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that they were aware that it existed.

Quote:

The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law, i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law; men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit; when in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of hermeneutics. It was due to this progressive tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah continued to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism.

So Britannica, linked to above is wrong and the Pharisees were not anti-slavery? The various grumpy sayings of Jesus about scribes and pharisees are of interest, because they conflate two opposing groups!

semiopen · 04-07-2013, 06:04 PM

Clive, I think that the key fact about the Pharisees is that nobody really knows anything for sure about that period. However, I think the wording on the Britannica link is dubious.

Since Duvi thinks I might be spoiling the elevated content of his Nicodemus/Nakdimon thread. maybe it is appropriate to continue the first century Pharisee discussion about him here.

Nicodemus_ben_Gurion, if he existed,

Quote:

Nicodemus ben Gurion was a wealthy Jew who lived in Jerusalem in the 1st century CE. He is widely believed to be identical to the Nicodemus mentioned in the Gospel of John.

Nicodemus appears to have been a wealthy and respected figure, known for his holiness and generosity. He was an opponent of the Zealots and of the rebellion against Rome which led to the destruction of Jerusalem.

When Vespasian became emperor, Nicodemus sought peace with the emperor's son Titus, who was conducting the war. He agitated against the prosecution of the war by the Zealots. In retaliation they destroyed the stores of provisions that he and his friends had accumulated for the use of pilgrims.

Rabbi Harvey Falk (see Duvi's thread) attempted to demonstrate that Nicodemus was a member of the Hillel branch of the Pharisees (like Jesus) as opposed to the Shammai branch of the Zealots.

One thing that has bothered me was whether Hillel is actually historical. In my limited experience it is much more probable to take the minimalist approach.

Hillel Catholic Encyclopedia

Quote:

Our only source of information concerning him is the Talmud

Important parts of the Talmud's account are outrageous.

Quote:

It is certain that a good deal of what is contained in the Talmudic account of Hillel's career is unhistorical; for example, the division of his life into three periods of forty years each; his presidency of the Sanhedrin; his understanding of all languages, etc.

actually, I thought Hillel was also in Josephus, and our Catholic friends point out that actually Josephus sort of mentions Hillel

Quote:

It has been ably argued that the Pollion referred to a few times by Josephus is Hillel under a Greek name.

This seems to be contradicted by the Jewish Encyclopedia -

ABTALION, POLLION, or PTOLLION

Quote:

Since this episode took place in the eighteenth year of Herod's reign (20 or 19 B.C.), this Pollion can not have been Abtalion, who died long before, as we learn from authoritative Talmudic sources, according to which Hillel, the pupil and successor of Abtalion, was the leader of the Pharisees about 30 B.C. It is probable, therefore, that Josephus was misled by the similarity of the names Shemaiah and Shammai, and so wrote "Pollion and Sameas" instead of "Hillel and Shammai."

Wiki copies this word for word. However, this smells like some bullshit.

The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth according to the Gospel of Matthew (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Rabbi Phillip Sigal points out that Josephus only refers to Gamliel as a Pharisee. He also says that Pollion and Sameas are not Hillel and Shammai.

Google Books

Just for amusement, the Talmud says Hillel spoke Animal and possibly Plant (I'm not clear if those are one language or two). A similar claim is made about the The Baal Shem Tov

Quote:

He knew the languages of the animals and trees.

If we take the approach that the link is correct and Hillel wasn't a member of the Sanhedrin, the whole Talmudic Oral Law structure collapses.

The Talmudic reference is from Pirkei Avot Chapter 1

Quote:

10. Shmaayah and Avtalyon received from them. Shmaayah would say: Love work, loath mastery over others, and avoid intimacy with the government.

11. Avtalyon would say: Scholars, be careful with your words. For you may be exiled to a place inhabited by evil elements [who will distort your words to suit their negative purposes]. The disciples who come after you will then drink of these evil waters and be destroyed, and the Name of Heaven will be desecrated.

12. Hillel and Shammai received from them.

If this is wrong - ie no Hillel and/or Shammai, the chain is broken.

We might also doubt the existence of the Sanhedrin as we think we know it -

sanhedrin

Quote:

Although eminent sources—the Hellenistic-Jewish historian Josephus, the New Testament, and the Talmud—have mentioned the Sanhedrin, their accounts are fragmentary, apparently contradictory, and often obscure. Hence, its exact nature, composition, and function remain a subject of scholarly investigation and controversy. In the writings of Josephus and the Gospels, for example, the Sanhedrin is presented as a political and judicial council headed by the high priest (in his role as civil ruler); in the Talmud it is described as primarily a religious legislative body headed by sages, though with certain political and judicial functions. Some scholars have accepted the first view as authentic, others the second, while a third school holds that there were two Sanhedrins, one a purely political council, the other a religious court and legislature. Moreover, some scholars attest that the Sanhedrin was a single body, combining political, religious, and judicial functions in a community where these aspects were inseparable.

It seems impossible to get into much trouble by doubting everything.

Duvduv · 04-09-2013, 07:40 AM

Semi, you seem to be all over the place, and it is difficult to follow you.

As far as Josephus is concerned, I am personally not clear on the relationship between the texts ascribed to Josephus ben Mattathias and those pertaining to Joseph ben Gorion known as Yosippon, and whether these were two different sources, or whether one was based on the other, etc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2013, 10:12 AM	#65
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I am tempted to engage Semiopen in a debate on this subject, but in the interests of courtesy (despite how I am often treated by some participants) and of the forum I will not do so in this Forum. If Semiopen wants to discuss this elsewhere he can let me know.

04-09-2013, 07:40 AM	#68
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Semi, you seem to be all over the place, and it is difficult to follow you. As far as Josephus is concerned, I am personally not clear on the relationship between the texts ascribed to Josephus ben Mattathias and those pertaining to Joseph ben Gorion known as Yosippon, and whether these were two different sources, or whether one was based on the other, etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.