Chris Weimer

Dharma - Ur was a real city. There is no theological implications for something brand new if an idea arises from Naples, why should we attribute one to Ur? A city is a city.

Sheshbazzar

I am not sure how literate of a Hebrew student you are, but the word "ur" certainly has a broader range of meaning than just "fire" and in fact may not be refering to "fire" at all when used as the name of the city. (see Strong's #215-218)

Anat

As an atheist I do not believe any scripture was ever revealed, it is all the composition of various people over the generations. I can look at each text and see what it meant to the person(s) who composed it, and read later interpretations of older texts to see what the story meant to people in different times. I also have to consider in what sense the interpreters meant their words to be taken. When the Talmudists discuss Esau and Edom as representing the Evil Kingdom of Rome I do not have to assume that they thought Romans were biologically descended from Edomites. I do not assume that an interpretation from time X represents the thoughts of people from time Y.

Anat

Dharma, FYI mysticism is not accepted uniformly in Judaism. There have been some mystics in each generations, but their teachings tend to be outside the mainstream. But then, for quite a while Judaism has been more focused on interpreting the commanments and adapting them to the times rather than metaphysics. So it is possible for believers and deniers of mysticism to be part of the same religion.

spin

Well, no, it's not. ($H isn't simply "make" as we know the word in English. That is one common meaning, but "do" is just as common if not more so. It can also mean "obtain", as in "make money", ie "obtain money", as Jacob does in Gen 31:1. The souls that Abraham obtains in Gen 12:5 are an indication of his wealth along with his other possessions. It is only after one subtracts W)T-NP$ )$R ($W from it's context that one can retranslate it to mean making souls. The full text doesn't allow this. What can one make out of the outlandish notion of Abraham "making souls"?

As for Abraham coming from Ur, it's always Ur of the Chaldeans, )WR K$DYM, which should make it clear that the writer is referring to the Chaldean city, not "light" ()WR -- "fire" is )$).


spin

spin

I've had a quick look, but not a close one. I noticed that in a footnote you make the difference between El ('l) and Baal (b'l), only Baal is b`l with an ayin.

You also write:

"Furthermore, a good deal of the subjects of eschatological writing were clearly Jewish or Israelite in origin (whether it was Leviathan or tannin), and with only a shift from placing their battles in primordial history to end times."

yet you are aware of the Ugaritic Lotan, so why do you say "Jewish...in origin"? In fact the Isa 27:1 eschatological use of Leviathan is almost word for word from Ugaritic with the only major shift being the verb form coming to reflect the future. Yahweh/Leviathan, Yahweh/Tehom, Baal/Yamm, and Marduk/Tiamat are all different forms of the one Semitic tradition. I'm coming more to the opinion that Yahweh/Tehom is a late reuse of the Marduk/Tiamat tradition in the light of Yahweh/Leviathan and Baal/Yamm. Even Dan 7 hides the same discourse of the battle with the sea which brings forth monsters as Tiamat does, only Yahweh seems to have taken on the El role which the one like a son of man had the Baal role though it is not developed, except for him as the cloudrider going up to heaven after the victory over the sea.


spin

Celsus

But they are Israelite! Seriously though thanks for pointing those out. Presumably the phrase "local in origin" would work better, even if we haven't quite worked out the relationship between Ugarit and Akkad/Sumer yet. I'm ammending accordingly... Any other comments will also be most welcome.

Joel

Chris Weimer

Ah, Celsus, your biannual essays I give :thumbs: :thumbs:

Celsus

Biannual eh? Just you wait



Joel

Dharma

again, you are incorrect as to assert that the Sefer Yetzirah is about as valuable as the book of Mormon...most of the writings on the mystical works are as respected as the traditional Mishnah interpretations since they too represent mystical Rabbinical teachings...