Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 02-12-2013, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I forgot about good old Pope Leopold Zunz upon whom the "Holy Spirit" rested and revealed so many truths of when Jewish texts were written.

Why don't you just say that you dismiss any claims of Jewish sources to dating anything. Then there is nothing relevant to discuss on any matter for which a Jewish source has anything to say.

If relevant you can add the silly claims of Gershon Scholem about the dating of the huge literature of the Zohar based on interpretations of several words.

I already said that the mention of the rather obscure Jambros and Yannos in Timothy had to have come from some source, and the author of Timothy is knowledgeable about them in a Jewish context and assumes his audience of Greek gentiles is as well.

I hadn't heard of Zunz before this thread.

There are no academics who argue that the Zohar wasn't written by de Leon. Criticizing Scholem is silly because the world has moved on since his time. However his theory about the authorship is universally accepted.

As an example of this, take

Late Aramaic: The Literary and Linguistic Context of the Zohar

Quote:

This article introduces a new research project focusing on the Aramaic language of the Zohar—the most influential work in the literary canon of the Jewish mystical tradition. The Zohar is generally assumed by scholars to have been written in Spain during the final decades of the thirteenth century, although traditional kabbalists and Orthodox Jews believe that it was authored by its main protagonist, Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, in second-century Palestine. While not disputing the late medieval provenance of the work, this article challenges the standard scholarly opinion whereby the Aramaic in which it was written was an artificially manufactured idiom, drawing its vocabulary, grammar and syntax indiscriminately from a variety of 'genuine' Aramaic sources.

Scholem's analysis was mistaken about the quality of the Aramaic, but not mistaken about the origin of the work.

I'm sorry, but I overestimated your knowledge. Your OP had what you mistakenly considered Jewish sources for these names that predated 2 Timothy. I simply corrected your mistake.

Toto · 02-12-2013, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The "must" here is a false statement.

Joseph

JW:
The "must" conclusion is dependent on what precedes being facts. Neither:

1) "the writer knew what the reference was"

or

2) "the recipients knew what the reference was"

has been established as a fact. Neither one has any direct evidence. In fact, only literary criticism has been offered as evidence and the claim is especially amazing as the author and "recipients" are unknown not to mention the Thread's thus far Epic Fail of even being able to find a literary parallel to the names. And don't get me started on the different languages.

To avoid being a false statement it needs to borrow one of Andrew's IFs (a big one).

Joseph

OK -"must" overstates things on a logical plane. But it seems most probable that a writer who uses a reference to two particular names has heard of those names in context and knows their association with Moses. It is also probable, but not certain, that the author expects that his/her audience knows of those names and their association.

But this just means that a story associating Moses with Jannes and Jambros was known at the time 2 Tim was written - probably the mid second century. We know that there was such a story later, by the time or Origen at least.

I'm not sure what the big issue is here. We don't know who wrote 2 Timothy, but it was probably the same person who wrote Acts. (Robert M. Price thinks it was Polycarp.) 2 Tim would have been aimed at the same audience - Christians who were appropriating Jewish themes, and knew the entire story of Moses. We can speculate about why these two villains were chosen, versus others, but that's about all we can do.

Duvduv · 02-12-2013, 03:28 PM

For one it would have been impossible for Rabbi de Leon to write the vast amount of text in the brief time suggested. Not only that, but a comparison of his other writings shows he was not the author at all. There ris quite a bit of discussion on this subject, and not everything proposed by the 19th century secularized Jewish German scholars is the gospel truth (sorry for the pun).

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I forgot about good old Pope Leopold Zunz upon whom the "Holy Spirit" rested and revealed so many truths of when Jewish texts were written.

Why don't you just say that you dismiss any claims of Jewish sources to dating anything. Then there is nothing relevant to discuss on any matter for which a Jewish source has anything to say.

If relevant you can add the silly claims of Gershon Scholem about the dating of the huge literature of the Zohar based on interpretations of several words.

I already said that the mention of the rather obscure Jambros and Yannos in Timothy had to have come from some source, and the author of Timothy is knowledgeable about them in a Jewish context and assumes his audience of Greek gentiles is as well.

I hadn't heard of Zunz before this thread.

There are no academics who argue that the Zohar wasn't written by de Leon. Criticizing Scholem is silly because the world has moved on since his time. However his theory about the authorship is universally accepted.

As an example of this, take

Late Aramaic: The Literary and Linguistic Context of the Zohar

Quote:

This article introduces a new research project focusing on the Aramaic language of the Zohar—the most influential work in the literary canon of the Jewish mystical tradition. The Zohar is generally assumed by scholars to have been written in Spain during the final decades of the thirteenth century, although traditional kabbalists and Orthodox Jews believe that it was authored by its main protagonist, Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, in second-century Palestine. While not disputing the late medieval provenance of the work, this article challenges the standard scholarly opinion whereby the Aramaic in which it was written was an artificially manufactured idiom, drawing its vocabulary, grammar and syntax indiscriminately from a variety of 'genuine' Aramaic sources.

Scholem's analysis was mistaken about the quality of the Aramaic, but not mistaken about the origin of the work.

I'm sorry, but I overestimated your knowledge. Your OP had what you mistakenly considered Jewish sources for these names that predated 2 Timothy. I simply corrected your mistake.

semiopen · 02-13-2013, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

For one it would have been impossible for Rabbi de Leon to write the vast amount of text in the brief time suggested. Not only that, but a comparison of his other writings shows he was not the author at all. There ris quite a bit of discussion on this subject, and not everything proposed by the 19th century secularized Jewish German scholars is the gospel truth (sorry for the pun).

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

There are no academics who argue that the Zohar wasn't written by de Leon. Criticizing Scholem is silly because the world has moved on since his time. However his theory about the authorship is universally accepted.

As an example of this, take

Late Aramaic: The Literary and Linguistic Context of the Zohar

Scholem's analysis was mistaken about the quality of the Aramaic, but not mistaken about the origin of the work.

I'm sorry, but I overestimated your knowledge. Your OP had what you mistakenly considered Jewish sources for these names that predated 2 Timothy. I simply corrected your mistake.

This seems to be a last stand by Jewish biblical literalists and maybe this also carries over into your opinions about dating rabbinical texts.

For example, in this forum, a person claiming that the book of Joshua was written by Joshua would be rightly subject to ridicule. Similar reactions might follow things like claiming Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and an oral torah based on the unbroken chain from Sinai.

When my Rabbi makes these claims, I don't debate him because it is not appropriate.

There are several reasonable academic theories for the origin of the Zohar. The most simple is Scholem's - de Leon wrote it. Another is that he got help from his buddies. Ronit Meroz has a different theory.

Ronit Meroz-Who wrote the Zohar?

Quote:

She states that the texts of the Zohar were written between the 11th and the 14th century, layer upon layer, each generation adding or taking out what they wanted. she claims that the manuscripts show that there were many things called Zohar.

Personally, I prefer Scholem's explanation. Nobody is seriously saying that it was written in first or second century Palestine by

Shimon_bar_Yochai.

Regarding time needed to write it; this would be an excellent criticism if they were saying semiopen wrote the Zohar... but this issue has been addressed.

The literalist's arguments generally take the form you originally used. This is to ridicule Scholem for alleged mistakes he made in his analysis.

The Zohar's Mysterious Origins

This is written by Moshe Miller who has translated the Zohar. I included him on a list of "educated" Haredi Jews which appeared here several years ago.

The thing is, Miller's articles were written many years ago and the world moves on.

Gershom_Scholem died in 1982. The literalists can't deal with an ongoing conversation or research.

semiopen · 02-13-2013, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I forgot about good old Pope Leopold Zunz upon whom the "Holy Spirit" rested and revealed so many truths of when Jewish texts were written.

Why don't you just say that you dismiss any claims of Jewish sources to dating anything. Then there is nothing relevant to discuss on any matter for which a Jewish source has anything to say.

Prior to this you posted this which is obscure to say the least.

Quote:

Then remember that the Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer midrash on Ishmael in Genesis mentions that he had a wife called Aisa or Aifa, and another Fatuma, which Muslim legends says were two wives of Mohammed, Ayisha and his daughter Fatima (not in the Quran). Targum pseudo-yonatan calls her Adisha.

I noted this page previously and only quoted a line about Zunz, who apparently you know well.

Pirke_De-Rabbi_Eliezer

Quote:

The topic of chapters one and two of the composition is the beginnings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus; it is due to them that medieval sages attributed the entire work to him. However, Zunz conclusively proved that this traditional ascription is not historically accurate. Based on an ancient list of works found in the Cairo Genizah scholars have posited that these chapters were transferred to PRE from Avot de-Rabbi Natan, version II, chapter 13, and that they were not originally part of the composition that we now call PRE. This is further proved by one manuscript which places the title “Pirkei R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus” and begins the chapter numbering only after chapter two. Nevertheless, it is critical to note that both chapters are found in all full manuscripts of the composition, which increases the likelihood that they have always been part of the composition. Furthermore, examination of the language of these chapters also points to the fact that these chapters are properly considered part of the composition. PRE contains distinct literary phrases which appear and reappear throughout the entire work. Despite the fact that the core language of these two chapters is almost identical to that found in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, a unique phrase found in PRE, absent from the parallel in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, is present here as well.

The wiki goes into more technical detail of Zunz's analysis in the next section.

Dating and Place

Quote:

Jost was the first to point out that in the 30th chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Muslim conquest, that of Arabia (משא בערב), of Spain (איי הים), and of Rome (830 C.E.; כרך גדול רומי), the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, leading to the conclusion that the book originated in a time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. As in ch. xxxvi. two brothers reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the 9th century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rashid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over the Islamic realm. If a statement in ch. xxviii. did not point to an even earlier date, approximately the same date might be inferred from the enumeration of the four powerful kingdoms and the substitution of Ishmael for one of the four which are enumerated in the Talmud and the Mekilta.

The author seems to have been a rabbi of the Land of Israel; this appears not only from the fact that some of the customs to which he refers (in ch. xiii. and xx.) are known only as customs of the Land of Israel, but also from the fact that nearly all the authorities he quotes are from the Land of Israel, the exceptions being Rav Mesharshia and Rav Shemaiah, who are from Babylonia. The work is ascribed to R. Eliezer (80-118 C.E.), although he was a tanna, while the book itself the Pirḳe Abot is quoted. Late Talmudic authorities belonging to the 3rd century C.E., like Shemaiah (ch. xxiii.), Ze'era (ch. xxi., xxix.), and Shila (ch. xlii., xliv.), are also quoted, indicating that the work was edited or additions were made to it after the time of R. Eliezar.

Regarding "Jewish sources" modern rabbinic scholars are generally Jewish. I wouldn't accept any Haredi historical opinion without a lot of research.

Duvduv · 02-13-2013, 07:43 AM

If Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer on Ishmael came after the emergence of Islam then the author would have known that Fatima was Mohammed's daughter, so giving the name based on Islamic hadith to Ishmael's wife was unnecessary since Mohammed had several wives according to legend, none of whom was Fatima.
But this doesn't matter to the school of thought that holds that historical Judaism, unlike historical Christianity or Islam, has had absolutely nothing original to contribute at all anywhere, and has merely been the recipient from everyone else.

However, major sources for Quran biblical stories can be traced directly to Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer and Midrash Rabba on Genesis.
Now can we return to the CONTEXT of the original issue of this thread please?

semiopen · 02-13-2013, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer on Ishmael came after the emergence of Islam then the author would have known that Fatima was Mohammed's daughter, so giving the name based on Islamic hadith to Ishmael's wife was unnecessary since Mohammed had several wives according to legend, none of whom was Fatima.
But this doesn't matter to the school of thought that holds that historical Judaism, unlike historical Christianity or Islam, has had absolutely nothing original to contribute at all anywhere, and has merely been the recipient from everyone else.

However, major sources for Quran biblical stories can be traced directly to Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer and Midrash Rabba on Genesis.
Now can we return to the CONTEXT of the original issue of this thread please?

I'm sorry I don't follow your logic. Fatima was not the only objection to the dating of PRE and I don't think you have even answered that convincingly.

Since I don't follow Yoshke threads much, I don't know if the apparent deficiencies in your knowledge have been exposed before.

You have failed to show any references to the two guys that are before 2 Timothy. In a previous thread you said:

Quote:

The names are mentioned more than once in the Targum Yonatan and Yalkut Shimoni. And I remember that they are mentioned in the tractate Sanhedrin, but I have to check where.

So far you haven't shown a reference in the Talmud (but that doesn't exist) and you offer no justification for your other two references being pre-Timothy 2 other than the bizarre assertion that

Quote:

historical Judaism... has had absolutely [a lot of amazing shit] to contribute ... [every]where

Duvduv · 02-13-2013, 08:33 AM

I don't know why this has to be so complicated. The mention specifically of these two villains assumes they are known to the audience with reason enough that there is a Jewish tradition about them whose proof is no greater or lesser than that the tradition came from anywhere else.
The fact that they would be used in Timothy is significant in this regard in the overall context of the later likely origins of the epistles. And the strong possibility that Titus itself is a composite. They are relevant in Sanhedrin 106a, Midrash Tanhuma 115b.

semiopen · 02-13-2013, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't know why this has to be so complicated. The mention specifically of these two villains assumes they are known to the audience with reason enough that there is a Jewish tradition about them whose proof is no greater or lesser than that the tradition came from anywhere else.
The fact that they would be used in Timothy is significant in this regard in the overall context of the later likely origins of the epistles. And the strong possibility that Titus itself is a composite. They are relevant in Sanhedrin 106a, Midrash Tanhuma 115b.

I posted a link to Sanhedrin 106 before, here it is again.

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 106a

Do you have a religious objection to posting links? I don't see any mention of the two guys.

Quote:

Balaam said to Jethro, 'Thou Kenite, wast thou not with us in that scheme?4

4. To destroy Israel through Pharoah's decree: Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river — Ex. I, 22 — Of course thou wast!

Of course thou wast businessman, of course thou wast. I don't see anything more relevant.

Tanhuma might be a better argument for someone who opposes your view. (BTW, Your view is probably correct, the two guys were probably invented by the Jews.)

This thing was allegedly written by

R._Tanḥuma -

Quote:

a Palestinian amora of the 5th generation, one of the foremost haggadists of his time.

He probably read 2 Timothy because he specialized in anti-Christian polemics and was alive in the late fourth century.

Quote:

Tanḥuma often held religious disputations with non-Jewish, especially Christian, scholars; and he himself tells of one which took place in Antioch (Gen. R. xix. 4). He was asked concerning Gen. iii. 5, where the word "Ke-Elohim [yode'e ṭob wa-ra']" seems to point to a plurality of gods. Tanḥuma replied that such a construction was refuted by the immediately preceding words, "yodea' [singular] Elohim."

However there is little danger of R Tanhuma actually writing that because of general principles and the discussion in the Tanhuma link.

Sacred Texts - Tanhuma

Quote:

There were forty thousand of the mixed multitude, who forced themselves on the Israelites at the Exodus and came out with them from Egypt. Among them were the two great Egyptian magicians of Pharaoh who imitated Moses's miracles before Pharaoh. Their names were Junus and Jumburius.

Odd that he got the spelling wrong.

Duvduv · 02-13-2013, 10:43 AM

Right...... He "probably" did because he engaged in anti-Christian polemics, and what better polemic than to dig through one obscure Christian epistle to find the reference to the two villains opposed to Moses and pop them into his book especially considering there is no pattern of this type of behavior.

Of course we know the work could NEVER be the other way around since no one EVER took anything original from Jewish sources, and it is ALWAYS the case that Jewish sources take from others, whether Persians, Christians, Muslims, you name it, they took it. Good grief.

He was not the first exegete to address the reference to elohim, nor the last, and it has nothing specifically to do with Christians. It has to do with a question relating to polytheism in general.

In any case, confronting Christian texts in the 4th century would be about as important as confronting the producers of the Watchtower in the 20th century.

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

02-13-2013, 07:43 AM	#26
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	If Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer on Ishmael came after the emergence of Islam then the author would have known that Fatima was Mohammed's daughter, so giving the name based on Islamic hadith to Ishmael's wife was unnecessary since Mohammed had several wives according to legend, none of whom was Fatima. But this doesn't matter to the school of thought that holds that historical Judaism, unlike historical Christianity or Islam, has had absolutely nothing original to contribute at all anywhere, and has merely been the recipient from everyone else. However, major sources for Quran biblical stories can be traced directly to Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer and Midrash Rabba on Genesis. Now can we return to the CONTEXT of the original issue of this thread please?

02-13-2013, 08:33 AM	#28
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I don't know why this has to be so complicated. The mention specifically of these two villains assumes they are known to the audience with reason enough that there is a Jewish tradition about them whose proof is no greater or lesser than that the tradition came from anywhere else. The fact that they would be used in Timothy is significant in this regard in the overall context of the later likely origins of the epistles. And the strong possibility that Titus itself is a composite. They are relevant in Sanhedrin 106a, Midrash Tanhuma 115b.

02-13-2013, 10:43 AM	#30
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Right...... He "probably" did because he engaged in anti-Christian polemics, and what better polemic than to dig through one obscure Christian epistle to find the reference to the two villains opposed to Moses and pop them into his book especially considering there is no pattern of this type of behavior. Of course we know the work could NEVER be the other way around since no one EVER took anything original from Jewish sources, and it is ALWAYS the case that Jewish sources take from others, whether Persians, Christians, Muslims, you name it, they took it. Good grief. He was not the first exegete to address the reference to elohim, nor the last, and it has nothing specifically to do with Christians. It has to do with a question relating to polytheism in general. In any case, confronting Christian texts in the 4th century would be about as important as confronting the producers of the Watchtower in the 20th century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.