Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 02-22-2013, 01:02 PM

Of course, I am not so arrogant as to think I might understand the deepness surrounding Psalm 22 and Esther, so let me continue the dog exegesis I have been following purely by instinct. After all, even a mind as simple as mine can comprehend that dog is god spelled backwards (at least in English).

From above - Megillah 15b

Quote:

Or is it because I called him ‘dog’, as it says. Deliver my soul from the sword, mine only one from the power of the dog?16 She straightway retracted and called him lion, as it says. Save me from the lion's mouth.17 And it was so when the king saw Esther the queen.

This sees like a weird paraphrase of

Quote:

Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet. (Psa 22:17 TNK)

כִּ֥י סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֭רֵעִים הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי׃
(Psa 22:17 WTT)

Onias, for example, will be delighted to know that there has been an argument about

כָּ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי

The last two words are "hands and feet" but the standard translation of כָּ֜אֲרִ֗י "like lions (they maul)" has been shown to be dubious.

The thing is the Xians like to think this should be something like they nailed my hands and feet.

The latest article JBL article I found on this issue

Psalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again
Author: Kristin M. Swenson
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 123, No. 4 (Winter, 2004)

Quote:

The problem of how to read Ps 22:17, especially the second part of the verse, has troubled scholars for centuries and has received renewed attention in several recent articles.1

1Gary A. Rendsburg, "Philological Notes," HS 43 (2002): 21-30; Brent A. Strawn, "Psalm 22:17b: More Guessing," JBL 119 (2000): 439-51; John Kaltner, "Psalm 22:17b: Second Guessing 'The Old Guess,"'JBL 117 (1998): 503-6; Gregory Vall, "Psalm 22:17B: 'The Old Guess,"'JBL 116 (1997): 45-56.

where Dr. Swenson comes up with

Quote:

Dogs surround me, a pack of wicked ones.
Like a lion, they circumscribe my hands and feet.

However Shon Hopkin responded in 2005

The Psalm 22:16 Controversy New Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Quote:

Few verses in the Bible have produced as much debate and commentary as Psalm 22:16: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” The discussions center on the last character (reading right to left) of the Hebrew vrak (“pierced/dug”), assumed to be the word from which the Septuagint Greek çrujan (“they have pierced”) was translated—assumed because the original Hebrew texts from which the Septuagint was translated are no longer extant. If the last character of the Hebrew word was a waw (v), as the Greek seems to indicate, then the translation “pierced” is tenable. But a later Hebrew text called the Masoretic text has a yod (y) instead of a waw (v), making the word yrak, which translated into English reads “like a lion my hands and my feet.”2 Thus, two divergent possibilities have existed side by side for centuries, causing much speculation and debate. The controversy has often been heated, with large variations in modern translations into English, as evidenced by a brief survey of some important Bible translations:

He goes on to discuss a DSS fragment

Quote:

Nevertheless, in 2004, Kristin Swenson continued to argue for the translation yrak (“like a lion”). In doing so, she discounts the evidence of this fragment, stating in a footnote, “Peter Flint records it as vrak [‘pierced/dug’] . . . However, the facsimile reveals a badly faded text that is nearly impossible to read.”38 The photograph of this fragment, however, which is published here from the clearest images available (fig. 1), confirms that Flint was correct and that, accordingly, Swenson’s arguments should be reevaluated.

Quote:

Having revisited the translation of Psalm 22:16 in light of the recent evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see that “pierced” remains the best possible interpretation. Even if individuals accept “pierced my hands and my feet” as the correct translation, they are left to determine whether or not this phrase points to Jesus.

So I guess this is actually what Duvi's thread is about.

I'm just amazed that religious Jews accept the historical Jesus. Maybe this is because the Talmud seems to spend some time on him. My guess is that this part of Megillah is very late, after the story of Jesus was well known and probably even the Psalm 22 rap.

Duvduv · 02-22-2013, 01:18 PM

And the purpose of all this is precisely what??

semiopen · 02-24-2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And the purpose of all this is precisely what??

as I said in the previous post -

Quote:

My guess is that this part of Megillah is very late, after the story of Jesus was well known and probably even the Psalm 22 rap.

Let's look at the OP

Quote:

Tractate Megillah 15a explains that the verse in psalm 22 was a prophetic statement concerning Esther. Although she had divine inspiration, on her way to beseech Ahaseurus she passed Persian idols and lost the divine inspiration, at which time she recited that verse, " My God, my God, why have you forsaken me."

In fact psalm 22 was considered prophetic by Xians, especially with the 22:17 controversy.

The Esther rap in the Talmud is not convincing (the idol room?). It also focuses on 22:17 to point out the yud vs vav controversy.

Personally I thought my last post was a masterpiece which might make an untrained observer think that I knew something about Talmud.

Duvduv · 02-24-2013, 08:58 AM

For heaven's sake, it's just a metaphor......what's wrong with that? It is comparing the issue preciousness to the same extent. That's all. Does that mean that Ahaseurus was a saint? Not at all. But to go beyond the metaphor is unnecessary.

And as far as Psalm 22 and Esther is concerned I don't follow your point about it at all.

The "logic" I see is:
a. The verse in psalm 22 is used in the gospels.
b. The verse was attributed in Megillah to Esther.
c. Ergo, the tradition must have only come into existence AFTER the emergence of the gospels.

The logic of your suggestion escapes me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

My intention was not to turn this thread into a Talmud class. Nor did I intend to explore all aspects of the story of the Book of Esther. I simply posted about the one verse attributed to Jesus in the gospels and its mention in the Talmud vis a vis Esther.

In any case the Talmud is not commenting on Esther's womb but stating that she was beloved as such a deer. It goes on to say she was precious as the dawn, which does not mean she was the dawn.

Now can we get back to the subject of the thread?

Here is the quote:

Quote:

R. Zera said: Why was Esther compared to a hind?9 To tell you that just as a hind has a narrow womb and is desirable to her mate at all times as at the first time, so was Esther precious to King Ahasuerus at all times as at
the first time.

If the comment was not about the narrowness of her womb (vagina) why mention the womb at all? It seems to me that this was the most important reason that the king found her precious.

It's possible that there is some reputable commentary making a claim similar to yours but unless you or someone else can note it, I have to go with my interpretation.

semiopen · 02-24-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

For heaven's sake, it's just a metaphor......what's wrong with that? It is comparing the issue preciousness to the same extent. That's all. Does that mean that Ahaseurus was a saint? Not at all. But to go beyond the metaphor is unnecessary.

And as far as Psalm 22 and Esther is concerned I don't follow your point about it at all.

The "logic" I see is:
a. The verse in psalm 22 is used in the gospels.
b. The verse was attributed in Megillah to Esther.
c. Ergo, the tradition must have only come into existence AFTER the emergence of the gospels.

The logic of your suggestion escapes me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Here is the quote:

If the comment was not about the narrowness of her womb (vagina) why mention the womb at all? It seems to me that this was the most important reason that the king found her precious.

It's possible that there is some reputable commentary making a claim similar to yours but unless you or someone else can note it, I have to go with my interpretation.

Sorry, your post is a little confusing.

Regarding the tightness of Esther's vagina, I think it is meant literally as I stated. I base this on my reading skills as a native speaker of English.

As it turns out this meaning is also taken by

The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Google Books

Dr. Rubenstein call this an analogy between sex and study. Dr Rubinstein raises no question that the Talmud is not saying that Esther's vagina was tight.

Actually I heard the hind story first from David Halperin, presenting a paper at the Association for Jewish Studies convention.

Love Goddess Stories – Esther, Ishtar, and the “Doe of the Dawn” (Part 2)

is just a few days old and probably worth reading

Quote:

A different Talmudic passage helps us understand how the “Doe” and Esther are connected:

“How was Esther like a doe? Just as a doe has a narrow vagina, and gives her mate as much pleasure each time as she did the first, so Esther gave Ahasuerus as much pleasure each time as she did the first.

If we were talking about unicorn horns instead of vaginas, I would grant that the comparison is metaphorical.

There seems to be a second part of your post that is related to my previous post. My suggestion there is that the psalm 22 in Megilla is a slap at applying psalm 22 to Jesus. Now if my dates are screwed up somehow, fine, I'd be happy to hear another explanation. However, I thought things sort of went Jesus killed, Talmud written. The question being when did the gospels get written.

Duvduv · 02-24-2013, 01:05 PM

Unfortunately you are not showing an understanding of sequiters.

IF the correspondence was the same between the two subjects it would say as follows:

“How was Esther like a doe? Just as a doe has a narrow vagina, and gives her mate as much pleasure each time as she did the first, so Esther had a narrow vagina ANDgave Ahasuerus as much pleasure each time as she did the first.

R. Zera said: Why was Esther compared to a hind?
To tell you that just as a hind has a narrow womb and is desirable to her mate at all times as at the first time, so was Esther precious to King Ahasuerus at all times as at the first time.

Dost thou see yon difference?? The term used is "chaviva" which in Hebrew means "precious" or "favorite", as opposed to "ahuva" which means beloved.

The correspondence is NOT in relation to the vagina but in relation to the the emotion, simply comparing the two in terms of emotion. This is done all the time in the Talmud and Midrash and you can see over and over again that the two corresponding cases are not meant literally.

semiopen · 02-24-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Unfortunately you are not showing an understanding of sequiters.

IF the correspondence was the same between the two subjects it would say as follows:

“How was Esther like a doe? Just as a doe has a narrow vagina, and gives her mate as much pleasure each time as she did the first, so Esther had a narrow vagina ANDgave Ahasuerus as much pleasure each time as she did the first.

R. Zera said: Why was Esther compared to a hind?
To tell you that just as a hind has a narrow womb and is desirable to her mate at all times as at the first time, so was Esther precious to King Ahasuerus at all times as at the first time.

Dost thou see yon difference?? The term used is "chaviva" which in Hebrew means "precious" or "favorite", as opposed to "ahuva" which means beloved.

The correspondence is NOT in relation to the vagina but in relation to the the emotion, simply comparing the two in terms of emotion. This is done all the time in the Talmud and Midrash and you can see over and over again that the two corresponding cases are not meant literally.

You seem to be going to a lot of trouble (other than furnishing references) to prove that the talmud is not saying Esther had a tight vagina.

The Conversation of The Sages is Naught but Lewdness…

Quote:

"Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachmani said: It is written, 'A loving doe, a graceful mountain goat. [Let her breasts satisfy you at all times, be infatuated with love of her always' (Proverbs 5:19)]. Why were the words of the Torah likened to a doe? To tell you that as the womb [vagina] of the doe is tight, and her mate enjoys it each time as though it were the first [for the sexual act is more enjoyable when the vagina remains tight], so are the words of the Torah always enjoyable to their students as though it were the first time" (Eiruvin 54b).

Below is DaatEmet's take on Esther

Quote:

This is an example of Chazal's strange aggadot about the Jewish prophetesses. It is not at all clear why they chose to attribute all kinds of sex, unmentioned by the Scriptures, to our prophetesses. (Megillah 14a: "There were seven prophetesses. Who were they? Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Hulda, and Esther.") What is this mania they have about sex?

See what our rabbis wrote of the sexual relations between Esther and Achashverosh (Megillah 13a): "'And the king loved Esther more than all the women and favored her above all the virgins' (Esther 2:17). Rav said: When he wanted to be with a virgin, she was like a virgin, and when he wanted to be with an experienced woman, she was so [therefore it says 'more than all the women and...all the virgins--Rashi]."

The virgin trope is explicit several times in different places. The talmud is saying that Esther's vagina was tight like a virgin.

semiopen · 02-24-2013, 01:41 PM

It should also be pointed out that the

Hamentash has an eerie similarity to a vagina.

Quote:

In Israel, they are called Oznei Haman (Hebrew: אוזני המן‎), Hebrew for "Haman's ears" in reference to their defeated enemy's ears. Another folk story is that Haman wore a three-cornered hat ---thus the shape.

However in Yiddish slang it can mean vagina.

Nice Jewish Girls Gone Bad

Quote:

Another featured the girls dancing to a song called something like “Eat my Hamentashen,” the preamble to which explained that hamentashen look kind of like vaginas.

Duvduv · 02-24-2013, 02:41 PM

Does anyone else care about the downward spiral of this forum?? Substance gets replaced by bickering, diversion, competition and the like.
This has to stop. At least that's my two cents. Just look at this thread.

Toto · 02-24-2013, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Does anyone else care about the downward spiral of this forum?? Substance gets replaced by bickering, diversion, competition and the like.
This has to stop. At least that's my two cents. Just look at this thread.

If you think something is wrong here, report a post.

One man's bickering is another's vigorous discussion.

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

02-22-2013, 01:18 PM	#12
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And the purpose of all this is precisely what??

02-24-2013, 01:05 PM	#16
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Unfortunately you are not showing an understanding of sequiters. IF the correspondence was the same between the two subjects it would say as follows: “How was Esther like a doe? Just as a doe has a narrow vagina, and gives her mate as much pleasure each time as she did the first, so Esther *had a narrow vagina AND*gave Ahasuerus as much pleasure each time as she did the first. R. Zera said: Why was Esther compared to a hind? To tell you that just as a hind has a narrow womb and is desirable to her mate at all times as at the first time, so was Esther precious to King Ahasuerus at all times as at the first time. Dost thou see yon difference?? The term used is "chaviva" which in Hebrew means "precious" or "favorite", as opposed to "ahuva" which means beloved. The correspondence is NOT in relation to the vagina but in relation to the the emotion, simply comparing the two in terms of emotion. This is done all the time in the Talmud and Midrash and you can see over and over again that the two corresponding cases are not meant literally.

02-24-2013, 02:41 PM	#19
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Does anyone else care about the downward spiral of this forum?? Substance gets replaced by bickering, diversion, competition and the like. This has to stop. At least that's my two cents. Just look at this thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.