i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
Krüger is correct. Don't you read Hebrew? One of my parents is Israeli and I was sent to Hebrew school. The text has a cadence to it that demonstrates this.
Where did you learn your Hebrew? Is it litugical? Sephardic? Do you also speak modern Israeli Hebrew as well?
Would you like to use one of the apps designed to interact with Sefaria so you can demonstrate to us all how you interpret from the Masoretic text?
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
I am in the middle of my travels and have a moment to add one more thought I could not before.
The entire Document Hypothesis as stated above, even in its newer form, has been largely abandoned in light of etymological studies in Israel and Europe.
The work of Konrad Schmid, a professor from the University of Zurich, is at the forefront which suggests that the stories of Abraham and Moses grew indepent of one another and merged when Israel was invaded and exiles came into Judah.
This view supports the same conclusions in the end that I wrote of, namely that the first chapter of Genesis is a cosmological religious lesson that works as a forword to the Torah, designed to teach Jews to observe the Sabbath in imitation of God.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
I am on my way out for an extended vacation as we speak for the holiday.
No offense was intended.
I am a retired teacher of the Bible, though an exJW who left the religion a very long time ago and decided to become an educated teacher in linguistics, Catholic and Jewish liturgy, etymology and manuscript transmission. I was also a catechist for some years, though I worked mainly for Protestant churches and academies.
Right before I retired a few years ago, there was an update, at least in Judaism and Europe, on the document hypothesis, as to how the Bible was written. It was changed due to archeology and Jewish history. This is what I based my comments on.
While I have little time to go into detail since I have to leave in just a bit (perhaps you can do the research since that is what you apparently do if you are an academic and I am now retired), the theory works like so:
None of the material in these books is historical; it is political-religio-mythology designed to invent a new society after the return from Babylonian exile under the control of the Levitical priesthood
The Levites did not expect the world power of Greece to conquer the Persians. This altered their plans. When they attempted to change it by creating the Hasmonean dynasty, the effect backfired due to the fact that members of their own tribe, Levites, were anointed as king instead of members of the tribe of Judah. When they made a pact with the Herods who had secretly made a pact with Rome, they lost control and they inadvertently created the "Messianic doctrine" that would develop into Christianity and the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 136 A.D.
The "prologue" to the Torah (Genesis 1-2:3) is now attributed to what they call R of this Judean/Levitical authorship. It is based on the theology of a "punishing God" that was abandoned after 1) the Shoah and 2) with the introduction of such thinkers like Rabbi Modecai Kaplan who taught that God was not personal or a supernatural entity in the footsteps of Moses Maimonides and Benedict de Spinoza.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
My comments were not meant in anyway to be seen or read as saying I disagree with the work of Mebaqqer2 (which by the way is totally different from what I wrote about).
Mebaqqer2 does indeed do well with the subject at hand which, though not directly from, did grow from schools of thought from what these Jewish writers were at first composing, which was religious law. Even some Jews dabbled with the idea that perhaps there was more to this cosmology and for a time some of these agreed with Christians prior to the Enlightenment with those who were involved in Hexaemeron theology. It did not last long, and no one does this in Judaism today, but it did happen. It is a very interesting subject.
Anyway, to all who celebrate, best wishes for Easter.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
I hope you find whatever success you are looking for with regards to your paper.
It might be of interest to know that the Jews did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind (which is generally a Christian/Western invention from the faith of my forefathers, the Roman Catholics).
The first chapter of Genesis was the last portion of the Torah to be written, as it was the Introduction or Foreword to the work after the redaction and editing of the Torah was completed after the Exile. It is a mythological cosmology that introduces God in anthropomorphic form performing mitzvot in his creation of the "heavens and the earth," limiting his activity to 6 days and then resting on the Sabbath as if God is under obligation to observe the Torah itself.
The idea is that God is but another character like any other in this story and follows his yetzer ha-tov, his inner impulse to do what is "good," accomplishing good works on each day of the week, filling his days doing what is "very good" (Genesis 1:31), but stopping to do what the Mosaic Law commands, and resting from his works on the 7th day.--Genesis 2:1-3.
In this preface, God creates the first Jews--not the first human beings in general (Adam and Eve are the ancestors of Abraham and Sarah, and they are merely placed into this narrative like God is)--and they are said to be made "in the image of God." (Ge 1:26-27) Being that this is the Mosaic Law, the Torah, and not a history book, this is giving legal instruction to the Jewish people only, telling the Jews that they are meant to copy God, in whose "image" they were meant to follow: God does good works every day, six days a week, and then rests on the Sabbath, so Jews are supposed to do the same, working for 6 days but resting on the Sabbath.
A theology had been built to attempt to make sense of why the Jews ended up in exile. While the Jews have since abandoned it today, at the time it fueled the creation of the written Torah itself, namely the belief that God had punished the Jews for failure to obey the Mosaic Law in the first place, especially in keeping the Sabbath.--2 Chronicles 36:21.
Believing that strict worship of God via adherence to the Torah would prevent another national disaster should the Jews ever get to return to their homeland, this mythological cosmology was placed as the introduction to the Torah, teaching the Jews that it was part of their created nature, their yetzer ha-tov to obey the Torah, perform mitzvot daily, filling every day of the week by doing what was "very good" like God, and on the 7th day, resting on the Sabbath. The idea is that this was literally "built into the cosmological makeup" and could be seen with the passing of the heavenly bodies that kept note of the passing days until the Sabbath arrived.
It had nothing to do with explaining how the literal universe came into being or even explaining the origin of life for the Gentiles, which the original writers could have cared less about. In fact, the following narrative, the Garden of Eden expulsion, is actually about losing the first Temple/Promised Land due to breaking the Law and being sent "east of Eden" (Babylon) upon the development of Adam and Eve's yetzer ha-ra, inclination to defy the Torah.
Only later would Jewish commentators expand via allegory these characterizations as illustrative to humanity in relation to God, but never wholy applicable. Only the third creation myth, the Noachin Flood, involves Gentiles on a universal scale, with the Noahide Laws being added afterwards. But again, it is not to be considered as historical either.
please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.
the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.
as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.
Jeffro--
I think you quoted KOW out of context. At one point he also stated:
In fact, some scholars are in agreement that the redactors of the Torah might be making fun of the Atrahasis (another older Mesoptamian flood legend) and the Gilgamesh story by showing...
I believe he merely mentioned that the "original [Noachin] flood story" originated from the Gilgamesh narrative as found in Genesis in that specific reference you quote.
Compared to the other I have pasted, he appears to be aware that Gilgamesh is not the first, and thus is talking to us in that context.
the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.
the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.
the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.
I am a woman, the daughter of a Jewish mother, and a father who was Catholic who became a JW and left.
I was raised as all three. I left the Watchtower after being horribly abused by an elder--and no one came to my aid, and no one believed me. So I am used to being pre-judged by a mob of others who have the wrong opion of me. I am no stranger to that.
My words were directed solely towards Peacefulpete because Pete was talking about the subject of "Judas Iscariot," and how Judas was "invented" by means of "midrash." He did not stick to his guns and failed to make his case.
Peacefulpete could do nothing but "cut and paste" from other sources when discussing midrash--not explain it.
I could explain the process of midrash. Pete could only point to other names and sources--some of which said the exact same things I did if Pete only looked closer--which obviously Pete did not. It was horribly irritating.
In the end, Pete was just going in circles, using words to muddle the argument about "midrash."
I had talked to Peacefulpete on here several times on other threads, and it was the same thing. It is like a circus with Peacefulpete, a cut-and-paste fiasco. I am not talking about anyone else.
Don't cut-and-paste answers at me, Pete, when they have nothing to do with your original argument.
Don't jump around from subject to subject like JWs do in the field service when they can't win a debate.
And don't start making assumptions and spread gossip about someone behind their back when you don't know anything about them. You judge people in the Kingdom Hall for doing that about you when you left. And you do that to people when then want to leave here?! Goodness!
Grow up, Pete. Next time you meet somebody, stick to the subject at hand. Argue only a subject matter you have mastered. And don't try to prove your point by citing an authority. If you can't discuss a subject like midrash from memory, you don't know it. Don't cut and paste a Gentile at me. At least you should have cited a rabbinical authority.
Now, if you don't mind--I think I've deserved a reason to leave. If people jumped to conclusions about you in the same way, I am sure you wouldn't feel welcomed either, would you?
(And no, I am not going to be reading your comments from here onward.)
the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.
the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.
the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.
You are just a nut who likes to use big words.
I went to 10 years of Hebrew school, 10 years of Christian religious studies on top of that.
I worked on one of the first new English translations of Tobit from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I started my studies in Koine Greek beginning in 1984.
I was the editor for a nationally read religious magazine for two and a half years.
I am tired of dealing with armchair exJW scholars who think they know what they are talking about and just want the Bible to be wrong because they were WOUNDED by the Watchtower and are not brave enough to put the blame where it belongs--not on a book but on stupid men leading a cult.
Believe what you want. Go ahead. If it helps you to hear this: You're the expert.
Enjoy sounding smart to yourself.
the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.
the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.
the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.
Midrash is a form of Jewish exegesis, an ancient form of commentary on Scriptural text. The methodology started around the time of the school of Hillel the Elder, who was active around the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE.
My mother is a Conservative Jew and I myself was educated in it, studying midrash for almost 10 years.
While the author of the gospel of Matthew employs midrash at Mt 1:22-23 and 1:15 (as in other places), it is a method of exegesis, not narrative. For instance, it is not midrash when Matthew claims Jesus fulfills another prophecy at 1:5-6. (Can you spot the difference between midrash and regular "prophecy" fulfillment--or are you just another Gentile using the term like a novelty?)
Midrash is not folklore or legend or mythology as it involves explaining what previously composed texts means (not composing new ones), commenting on them, and interpreting texts, sometimes via a play on words such as at Matthew 1:23.
There is an entire book of this method in the Talmud called "The Midrash" that employs this form. But one cannot create entire characters or storylines by means of it.
The term "midrash" is synonymous with "exegesis," and saying that the story elements of the gospels were created by means of exegesis or commentary is incorrect. You are misuing the term or just don't know what midrash is.
the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.
the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.
the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.
Very interesting work.
Again, though not declaring any personal claim to Christianity myself, I find the "invention" of Judas Iscariot unnecessary.
The mythology of the gospels aside, the rabbi known as Jesus of Nazareth was destined to crucifixion, no matter what as the priesthood of the time had no sympathy for messianic pretenders that publically embrassed them while creating powerful movements consisting of sympathic followers. Rome likewise did not appreciate anyone calling themselves "king" in opposition to Caesar, and this self-proclaimed rabbi had might as well fashioned his own cross and asked his apostles to nail himself to it after congratulating Peter for identifying him the Messiah, King of the Jews.
Another character, like Judas Iscariot, handing him over as a betrayer is an invention? Unlikely. Judas is actually just the name "Jude," which was slightly changed so as not to confuse it with the name of the brother of Jesus who is also named Jude. (John 14:22) There is also the prophet named Judas Barsabbas mentioned in Acts 15:22-33.
Then, whether or not this is the same Judas as the "brother of Jesus" or someone merely writing in his name, the Epistle or Letter of Jude is actually written by someone named Judas--but since "Judas Iscariot" is supposedly the betrayer, Christians changed the name of the author to "Jude" to avoid confusion.
While I do know that the prophecies supposedly fulfilled by the betrayal of Judas Iscariot are merely midrash attributed after the fact, it is unlikely that someone with the same name of the "brother of Jesus" who helped to betray him to his death--an embrassing fact--is entirely invented. There would be no reason to change "Judas" to "Jude" in the title of the epistle, especially since scholars believe it is pseudonymous--and that would make no sense if we are talking about a character made up of tropes harvested from the Old Testament.
Why hide a "made up fact" you worked so hard to make up? You would want people to see what you worked so hard to make up, wouldn't you?
With or without Judas in the gospel narrative, Jesus of Nazareth always marches to his death. Why invent such a character with a name of the brother of the person who betrayed him--and then change the name of the innocent brother?
But it doesn't matter to me in the end.