Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 12-05-2011, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

No, this is not a tap dance. This is how Jewish halacha works. Everything has its own context and background and environment. This is the context of Judaism. The Torah does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a part of a body of literature.

The Torah does not explicitly tell us every last detail for every historical event and for every legal matter. For example the Torah does not tell us the story of Abraham and his father's idols. It does not tell us the name of his mother. Other sources tell us that.

The Torah does not tell us that Joseph's wife Osenat was his niece, the daughter of Dina but was adopted by Potiphar after Osenat was brought to Egypt after Joseph's brothers considered her unwanted because she was the product of a rape. But the Midrash does tell us about that. The Torah does not tell us that when Esau sold his birthright in exchange for a plate of lentils it was during the 7 day mourning period for Abraham, but the midrash does tell us that.

In other words 'other sources' and Midrash are the source for all kinds of fabricated, uncorroborated, and and Scripturally unsupported crap.

Duvduv · 12-05-2011, 01:49 PM

I don't know why you are so angry. Obviously. I refer to authentic Jewish sources.You could be more courteous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

No, this is not a tap dance. This is how Jewish halacha works. Everything has its own context and background and environment. This is the context of Judaism. The Torah does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a part of a body of literature.

The Torah does not explicitly tell us every last detail for every historical event and for every legal matter. For example the Torah does not tell us the story of Abraham and his father's idols. It does not tell us the name of his mother. Other sources tell us that.

The Torah does not tell us that Joseph's wife Osenat was his niece, the daughter of Dina but was adopted by Potiphar after Osenat was brought to Egypt after Joseph's brothers considered her unwanted because she was the product of a rape. But the Midrash does tell us about that. The Torah does not tell us that when Esau sold his birthright in exchange for a plate of lentils it was during the 7 day mourning period for Abraham, but the midrash does tell us that.

In other words 'other sources' and Midrash are the source for all kinds of fabricated, uncorroborated, and and Scripturally unsupported crap.

semiopen · 12-05-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

No, this is not a tap dance. This is how Jewish halacha works. Everything has its own context and background and environment. This is the context of Judaism. The Torah does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a part of a body of literature.

The Torah does not explicitly tell us every last detail for every historical event and for every legal matter. For example the Torah does not tell us the story of Abraham and his father's idols. It does not tell us the name of his mother. Other sources tell us that.

The Torah does not tell us that Joseph's wife Osenat was his niece, the daughter of Dina but was adopted by Potiphar after Osenat was brought to Egypt after Joseph's brothers considered her unwanted because she was the product of a rape. But the Midrash does tell us about that. The Torah does not tell us that when Esau sold his birthright in exchange for a plate of lentils it was during the 7 day mourning period for Abraham, but the midrash does tell us that.

In other words 'other sources' and Midrash are the source for all kinds of fabricated, uncorroborated, and and Scripturally unsupported crap.

The reference to Asenath is interesting.

Quote:

Genesis 46:10 Simeon's sons: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Saul the son of a Canaanite woman. (Gen 46:10 TNK)

Where the Canaanite woman is supposed to be Dinah, and Saul her son.

Asenath: Bible

Quote:

Although the Bible does not have much to say about Asenath (Osnat, LXX: Aseneth), the wife of Joseph, she became the main character of a widely disseminated Jewish novel from Hellenistic or Roman times, now called Joseph and Aseneth (JosAs). One Targum and some Midrashim tell different stories in which she is either the daughter of the wife of Potiphar (Jub 40:10; Bereshit Rabba 85.2; comp. Origenes, Commentary on Genesis MPG 12.136 ) or the offspring of Dinah’s rape, who was brought to Egypt, where she married Joseph and was reintegrated into the family of Jacob (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 41:45, 46:20, Soferim 21 (43b), Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 36, 38, Aptowitzer).

A technical problem here is who is Saul from Genesis 46:10. It turns out the idea is that Dinah was fucking Shechem after the rape because she had no other nice Jewish boy marriage prospects. So Saul is her legitimate son from Shechie while Asenath is the illegitimate daughter. Beautifully outrageous.

Jacob's Seventieth Descendant

is done by a guy who thinks he has it all figured out, unlike myself he doesn't seem to be an "authentic Jew" so who knows.

However Asenath: Midrash and Aggadah

is written by an authentic Jew (albeit a woman).

Quote:

The traditions that trace Asenath to the family of Jacob relate that she was the daughter born to Dinah following her rape by Shechem son of Hamor. Jacob’s sons wanted to kill the infant, lest it be said that there was harlotry in the tents of Jacob. Jacob brought a gold plate and wrote God’s name on it; according to another tradition, he wrote on it the episode with Shechem. Jacob hung the plate around Asenath’s neck and sent her away. God dispatched the angel Michael to bring her to the house of Poti-phera in Egypt; according to yet another tradition, Dinah left Asenath on the wall of Egypt. That day Poti-phera went out for a walk near the wall with his young men, and he heard the infant’s crying. When they brought the baby to him, he saw the plate and the record of the episode. Poti-phera told his servants, “This girl is the daughter of great ones.” He brought her to his home and gave her a wet nurse. Poti-phera’s wife was barren, and she raised Asenath as her own daughter. Consequently, she was called “Asenath daughter of Poti-phera,” for she was raised in the home of Poti-phera and his wife, as if she were their own daughter. This narrative teaches that all is foreseen by God. Each of Jacob’s sons was born together with his future spouse, except for Joseph, who was not born together with his mate, since Asenath daughter of Dinah was fit to be his wife. God directed matters so that Joseph would find a wife when he went down to Egypt, and Asenath was suitable for him (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer [ed. Higger], chaps. 35, 37; Midrash Aggadah [ed. Buber], Gen. 41:45).

This is quite fascinating, personally I can't imagine anyone taking these things as literally true.

Duvduv · 12-05-2011, 04:05 PM

Well, you could wonder why the whole story had to be created for no purpose. Who would care that Asenat was specifically the daughter of Dina?? It doesn't make any inherent difference to the story one way or the other. The Torah doesn't talk about Dina's daughter anyway. Who cares? Unless there is more to it than meets the eye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In other words 'other sources' and Midrash are the source for all kinds of fabricated, uncorroborated, and and Scripturally unsupported crap.

The reference to Asenath is interesting.

Where the Canaanite woman is supposed to be Dinah, and Saul her son.

Asenath: Bible

A technical problem here is who is Saul from Genesis 46:10. It turns out the idea is that Dinah was fucking Shechem after the rape because she had no other nice Jewish boy marriage prospects. So Saul is her legitimate son from Shechie while Asenath is the illegitimate daughter. Beautifully outrageous.

Jacob's Seventieth Descendant

is done by a guy who thinks he has it all figured out, unlike myself he doesn't seem to be an "authentic Jew" so who knows.

However Asenath: Midrash and Aggadah

is written by an authentic Jew (albeit a woman).

Quote:

The traditions that trace Asenath to the family of Jacob relate that she was the daughter born to Dinah following her rape by Shechem son of Hamor. Jacob’s sons wanted to kill the infant, lest it be said that there was harlotry in the tents of Jacob. Jacob brought a gold plate and wrote God’s name on it; according to another tradition, he wrote on it the episode with Shechem. Jacob hung the plate around Asenath’s neck and sent her away. God dispatched the angel Michael to bring her to the house of Poti-phera in Egypt; according to yet another tradition, Dinah left Asenath on the wall of Egypt. That day Poti-phera went out for a walk near the wall with his young men, and he heard the infant’s crying. When they brought the baby to him, he saw the plate and the record of the episode. Poti-phera told his servants, “This girl is the daughter of great ones.” He brought her to his home and gave her a wet nurse. Poti-phera’s wife was barren, and she raised Asenath as her own daughter. Consequently, she was called “Asenath daughter of Poti-phera,” for she was raised in the home of Poti-phera and his wife, as if she were their own daughter. This narrative teaches that all is foreseen by God. Each of Jacob’s sons was born together with his future spouse, except for Joseph, who was not born together with his mate, since Asenath daughter of Dinah was fit to be his wife. God directed matters so that Joseph would find a wife when he went down to Egypt, and Asenath was suitable for him (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer [ed. Higger], chaps. 35, 37; Midrash Aggadah [ed. Buber], Gen. 41:45).

This is quite fascinating, personally I can't imagine anyone taking these things as literally true.

Toto · 12-05-2011, 07:51 PM

Please keep modern political disputes out of this forum.

Some off topic posts have been split off here

Sheshbazzar · 12-05-2011, 08:53 PM

As though the stupid shit religionists claim to believe has no connection to the crap they try to justify by pointing to contents of their ignorant goat-herder religious traditions.

Sheshbazzar · 12-05-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, you could wonder why the whole story had to be created for no purpose. Who would care that Asenat was specifically the daughter of Dina?? It doesn't make any inherent difference to the story one way or the other. The Torah doesn't talk about Dina's daughter anyway.

The old rabbi's took particular delight in making up imaginative shit.
Like one huge liars club contest to see who could raid the Torah to fabricate the most involved and ridiculous set of lies and false history.

semiopen · 12-06-2011, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, you could wonder why the whole story had to be created for no purpose. Who would care that Asenat was specifically the daughter of Dina?? It doesn't make any inherent difference to the story one way or the other. The Torah doesn't talk about Dina's daughter anyway. Who cares? Unless there is more to it than meets the eye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The reference to Asenath is interesting.

Joseph_and_Aseneth

Quote:

is an ancient apocryphal expansion of the Book of Genesis's account of the patriarch Joseph's marriage to Aseneth.

This predates Rabbinic Judaism by a hundred or so years.

This is my own opinion, but Joseph is sort of a gay boy and so there is extra attention to his heterosexuality.

Not to lecture, but you are writing in favor of literal interpretation (there was a Joseph/Asentath, three angels visited Abraham). This isn't exactly a mainstream view, especially around here, therefore your faith that your view is correct can be abrasive.

Sheshbazzar · 12-06-2011, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, you could wonder why the whole story had to be created for no purpose.

Joseph_and_Aseneth

Quote:

is an ancient apocryphal expansion of the Book of Genesis's account of the patriarch Joseph's marriage to Aseneth.

This predates Rabbinic Judaism by a hundred or so years.

Jew's were liars for religion long before Rabbinic Judaism, even from the beginning of their 'form' of religion.
Proverbs 30:6 & John 8:44

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:07 AM

Well, that all depends on what you mean by rabbinic Judaism. As far as I know Jews did not follow Tibetan lamas or gurus to explain and interpret the Torah's teachings. The rabbis were the "teachers" who were part of the people. Before Hillel, going back, way back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Joseph_and_Aseneth
This predates Rabbinic Judaism by a hundred or so years.

Jew's were liars for religion long before Rabbinic Judaism, even from the beginning of their 'form' of religion.
Proverbs 30:6 & John 8:44

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

12-05-2011, 07:51 PM	#35
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Please keep modern political disputes out of this forum. Some off topic posts have been split off here

12-05-2011, 08:53 PM	#36
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	As though the stupid shit religionists claim to believe has no connection to the crap they try to justify by pointing to contents of their ignorant goat-herder religious traditions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.