Quite some time ago, I commented on Awilum that one of the things which makes historical investigation of Torah difficult is that much of the Pentateuchal history is a personal/family/private history instead of the public kind that most ancient documents are concerned with.
Therefore, we have virtually no chance of finding extra-biblical evidence of the Patriarchs or the events and circumstances that shaped their lives. One who requires this in order to believe the Pentateuchal narratives are historically accurate demands what historical investigation cannot reasonably provide.
Angela Erisman of Imaginary Grace challenged my assessment of the part Torah plays in Israelite history, saying that the narratives are primarily public/national, not private/personal. I did not at the time attempt to support or defend my position. Here, however, I hope to look at some specific linguistic evidence from the texts in question that, I believe, do considerable damage to the concept of Torah as representing national history as opposed to a personal/private family record.
In People
and Nation
of Israel by E.A. Speiser, originally published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, June 1960, the differentiated use of ’am and goy (translated people
and nation
respectively) in Hebrew literature is discussed. Several details are worth mentioning. First, YHWH is never connected linguistically to a nation (goy), but a people (’am). For instance, there is no such thing as the construction goy-YHWH (nation of YHWH), only ’am-YHWH (people of YHWH).(p.158) For this reason, Speiser says, all references to Yahweh as a ’national’ God at any given time are terminologically inaccurate
(ibid, note 5). If the head of a nation is the king and if the head of the king is a god, it stands to reason that unless the distinction is specifically made, such a god would be identified intimately in terms of the nation. But YHWH is not defined by a nation. He transcends national and political boundaries (or rules over all the kingdoms of men as is later described in Daniel), setting up and pulling down nations as he wills…including Israel. This is not only shocking generally speaking, but crippling to the idea that Israel is describing or establishing a national identity in Torah.
’Am is also often prefixed in Hebrew names. We have, for example, Amminadab and Ammiel, whereas there is no such thing as Goyminadab, Goymiel, or any other goy-prefixed name.(ibid, p.159). This serves to identity a person with a common ethnic family or lineage as opposed to a national or political body, which is not what one would expect if the characters or authors of the texts were more concerned with the later than the former. Indeed, even Israel herself is referred to in the first five books of Moses with ’am instead of goy. For instance, Exodus 1:9 calls the Israelites an ethnic family line (or ’am) that Pharaoh must let go, not a nation (or goy). In Numbers 23:9, Balaam prophetically announces the Israelites as a people (’am) that will not be reckoned among the nations (goyim). According to linguistic evidence such as this, biblical Israel is a kinship group, not a national one.
Even though I’ve switched my party affiliation to the Libertarian recently, I was put on the trail of 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul by a co-worker of mine, saying he ran a few years back as the Libertarian presidential candidate. As far as I can tell it seems he has always been a Republican except for the year he ran as a Libertarian president. Despite being a Republican from what I have gathered thus far he votes in line with libertarian ideals consistently. Anyways, the reason for this post is I was hoping someone out there knew where I can find the official voting records our Representatives, so I can confirm what I read so far at Wikipedia and his website.
But I was thinking you know what I should use that resource to look at every Representative, so I’m better informed on who is really telling the truth at campaign time. As words mean nothing my book. but actions do.
On the same token it would be nice to have the bills cross referenced with the bill it self so I can read and attempt to understand the implications and confirm that what the summary states, matches what is written in the bill.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle-but only in degree-between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
In the Talmud Bavli (better known as the Babylonian Talmud), the Rabbis describe a prayer that was added to the 18 Benedictions after the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. The subject of this additional prayer (called the Birkat Ha Minim) was the minim or Jewish heretics (see Tractate Berakoth, folio 28b and 29a). Any sectarian Jew who recited the prayer would bring down a curse of Yahweh’s condemnation and judgment upon himself. Therefore, by requiring this to be spoken aloud in the synagogue along with the other 18 Benedictions, it was the purpose of the rabbis to expose the non-Orthodox who would not speak such a thing upon themselves. Several rabbis spoke of these Benedictions metaphorically as vertebrae in the spinal column. To use a modern equivalent of the metaphor, this means that the Rabbis saw these Benedictions (including the additional one against minim) as being the backbone of their faith. One of the Jewish sects that the word minim undoubtedly represented was that of the Jewish believers in Yeshua, the Nazarenes. An ancient version of the Birkat Ha Minim found in the Cairo Geniza actually makes this identification explicit.
For the renegades let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days, and the Nazarenes and the minim perish as in a moment and be blotted out from the book of life and with the righteous may they not be inscribed. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant.
published by Solomon Schechter in Genizah Specimens
, Jewish Quarterly Review 10
Not that I’m an advocate of government stealing from me or you what we have rightfully earned in order to use it for its own brand of arbitrary ethical propaganda…
But in light of Microsoft’s absurd declaration against open source software, saying that it violates at least 235 of its intellectual property
patents, I had me a thought. Since the government has felt free over the past several years to use my money to tell me how bad smoking is and that I shouldn’t do it, wouldn’t it be great if government came out with another campaign–a campaign against Microsoft? Think of the commercial possiblities… There could be billboards saying free yourself from Windows
or see a Vista they won’t let you see
showing a woman racing from a glass house into a field of flowers in the fresh open air, new worlds waiting to be discovered on the horizon.
Like the glass structures of the same name, Windows is enclosing. It limits your freedom by controlling and defining your actions and possibilities. Microsoft is not leading the way in faster, more efficient, more innovative, or more affordable software. Each new version is more system dependant. More resource intensive. And full of more holes and problems. Instead of following software standards meant to increase individual and public utlitiy, efficiency, and interoperability, Microsoft has created their own standards
in order to create a software slave market. Microsoft does not exist to give you more power, but to increase its power over you. Most people are shocked to discover that when they laid down their hundreds of dollars for Windows, they didn’t actually purchase an operating system–only a license to use one. Microsoft still owns, controls, and authorizes your computer use–not you. And the more you try to open their Windows, the harder Microsoft will shut it in your face (Vista).
Enter Open Source. Everything that Microsoft isn’t, open source is. It’s for that reason that open source has taken the world by storm and Microsoft is trying desperately to control it–from selling cripled versions of its operating system and software for 3 dollars overseas to making empty threats of patent violation lawsuits. In time, the Tyrant will fall and the digital Middle East will be free. Until then, Microsoft is a much bigger threat to civilization than cigarettes. Of course, I’m a computer addict, not a tabacco one.
I received the following pseudepigraphic folklore in my email. Apparently it has been going around for some time and undergone many changes. This is one of its latest incarnations with my comments interspersed among it.
Paul Harvey and Prayer Paul Harvey says: I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I’m not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don’t agree with Darwin, but I didn’t go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution. Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what’s the big deal? It’s not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They’re just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. But it’s a Christian prayer, some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect — somebody chanting Hare Krishna? If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn’t be offended. It wouldn’t bother me one bit. When in Rome … But what about the atheists? is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We’re not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that’s asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don’t think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world’s foundations.
Throughout the history of the world, religions have been defined by geography, race or ethnicity, and ruling power. In most places and most times you were part of a religion because your father and grandfather and grandfather’s father were part of that religion, because you were in a land and culture defined by that religion, and because your rulers and authorities enforced that religion. Globalization and freedom of religion have enabled many parts of the world to break free from these controlling factors, which is glorious news to some, but dire news to others (like China or Baghdad).
This is a very new situation. The United States has not been around long (it still might be called a young nation) and it was the very first nation in history to purposely pursue the release from these controlling religious factors and do it with a large measure of success. In this kind of new secular environment which aims to give the most freedom to the most people without preference, the prayer at a football game
situation, which is inherently a public situation and not a private one, can proceed only in two directions without plunging us back into the religion-contained environment: 1. disallow any kind of prayer or 2. allow almost every kind of prayer. Those who do not see 2 taking place will inevitably go for 1. And since we hold a precarious position in history, this is, indeed, a foundation-shaking situation.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Speaking as a Christian, I have to say that the sentence above was so badly worded that it smacks of an anti-Christian attitude, not a Christian one. It was Christ himself who told us to turn the other cheek. If people are not interested in following him, then they have no place arguing for prayers to him at football games.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
I don’t think this is true in the slightest. No one has outlawed private prayer anywhere in this nation. I’ve never had anyone sue me or accuse me of praying before meals or at bedtime.
God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well . .. just sue me. The silent majority has been silent too long.. It’s time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don’t care what they want. It is time the majority rules!
I’m not sure what century or nation the author is living in…but in this century and in this nation (the U.S. in the 21st Century), the majority is not Christian.
It’s time we tell them, you don’t have to pray; you don’t have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don’t have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right … But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back … and we WILL WIN! God bless us one and all … especially those who denounce Him , God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God. May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. Keep looking up. If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not delete it. AND THAT’S THE REST OF THE STORY
BC
Definitely stand up for what you believe and fight for your rights. But don’t do it under the mistaken pretense that you are part of the majority or that your rights supersede or have pre-eminence over someone else’s. If you really want to have prayer at football, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. The question is whether you will participate in this new secular environment or help push us back into the historical mold.
Marching through the center of the city calling on everyone (including our own government) to love instead of violence in the name of the Prince of Peace. I will be uniting with many other Christians tomorrow for this very purpose. Click here to read an article about the upcoming event in the Pasadena Star.
Bible Review and Biblical Archaeology Review have made available free of charge several articles by professionals in the field on the subject of Yeshua’s and 1st Century Jewish burial. To download the PDF ebook, go here.
Contents are as follows:
- Introduction
- What Did Jesus’ Tomb Look Like? - Jodi Magness
- Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb? - Amos Kloner
- Does the Holy Sepulchre Mark the Burial of Jesus? - Dan Bahat
- The Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here? - Gabriel Barkay
- The Garden Tomb and the Misfortunes of an Inscription - Jerome Murphy-O’Connor
- Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple - Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner
- All in the Family - Richard J. Bauckham
- Notes
*Gabriel Barkay is known for his discovery of the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls – the earliest witness of Hebrew scripture in existence, outdating even the Dead Sea Scrolls by two or three hundred years.
The name Mariamne for Mary Magdalen does not originate in gnostic texts 300 years or more after the time, but from an opponent of Gnosticism, Hippolytus, in his Refutation of All Heresies (230-ish AD). There, he uses two forms of the name for Mary: Mariamme and Mariamne. This is the first use of Mariamne for Mary Magdalen that we have on record…more than a century earlier than the gnostic Acts of Phillip and from the pen of a church father.
It is easy to explain the presence of a Matthew…because this tomb, according to the archaeological data, was used for between 3 and 4 generations, was home to upwards of about 35 individuals, and was open between the close of the first century BC and 70 AD (pot sherds being found in the tomb could date back as far as 30-ish BC). The ossuraries are not the only places where relatives would be buried…remains would also be kept on the shelves in the different rooms of the tomb…sometimes before being transfered to an ossurary. Bone residue/dust was found on tomb shelves (so there were at least more than 10 people). Therefore, it is possible that Matthew could be a brother, an uncle, or any of several other number of relatives of Maria
.
For those reasons above, it is also quite easy to explain why the other brothers of Yeshua of Nazareth (if this is his family’s tomb) are not mentioned: 1. because we have four bone boxes that are not inscribed, 2. because the sealing of the tomb by about 70 AD would keep any living relatives from being admitted, and 3. because not all family members are usually mentioned on ossuaries in family tombs (this tomb has more names than is usual).
There is a problem with identifying Jesus
in the Jesus son of Joseph
inscription. The first name is somewhat illegible. The problem can be cleared up archaeologically by the presence of the same name on another ossuary in the tomb, but we begin to see the conclusion softening and becoming questionable…especially since Jesus
was such a common name.
Since we have no other data linking a son named Judah to Yeshua of Nazareth, let’s set that aside from the discussion at present… First it should be shown why the family in the tomb is likely to be Yeshua of Nazareth’s, then it will make sense to argue that Judah
is his son.
Moving on, we come to Mariamne. Looking at the inscription, we find that the name is not Mariamne, but Mariamenou. This is the genitive of Mariamenon
. Mariamenou would mean belonging to
or of Mariamenon
. But since Mariamenon does not match up with any known Mary name, it is likely a derivative of Meriamene.
The claim of the film and book appears to be that Mariamne is a shortened form of Mariamene (stupid Es, always getting lost…). If we can eliminate Mary Magdalen as a possibility for Mariamene, then we are left with three names from record that identify us with the family of Yeshua of Nazareth: Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. If we can get to that point, the possibility of these three names occurring—not just in a family of two generations but perhaps of three or four—becomes nothing exceptional and takes away any power of statistics that hitherto have been the single greatest reason for linking Yeshua of Nazareth and his family to this tomb and its contents.
First, we don’t know the filmmakers personally, we don’t know their motives, and we don’t know their hearts, therefore not only have we no grounds for judgment of them, but using such a judgment to thereby invalidate their claims is a logical fallacy called ad hominem.
Second, almost everyone forming judgments either in support or refutation of the claims that this is or might be Yeshua’s family tomb are doing so NOT on the basis of a careful evaluation of the evidence in question, but on a presuppositional bias and either blind ignorance or folkloric hearsay (he said, she said). Few people have bothered to think about and examine the evidence before forming their opinions.
Third, quite a few arguments are either reactions to claims that are NOT being made about the Talpiot tomb or its contents OR are refuting the claim with judgments based solely on previous understanding. I hope I am not saying something new when I suggest that it is foolhardy to dismiss new evidence simply because it doesn’t jive with previous evidence.
I quote from one of the scholars who worked directly with the evidence, who comments on the reactions among the Christianity community. Hopefully it will be sobering…
In this rush to judgment
without hearing any of the facts, one detects a bit of paranoia. I noticed this on the Larry King Show last night as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention tried to defend the faith based on a host of erroneous assertions and almost no knowledge whatsoever of the most basic evidence related to the Talpiot tomb…It is difficult carry one [sic] discussion when the main content of the evidence is not clear to those who are making their assertions.
To come to grips with what the evidence is and what it is not, what is and is not being claimed by the evidence, and make a wise judgment on the issue:
- Read James Tabor’s blog at www.jesusdynasty.com. His professional, hands-on experience will demystify a lot of the hocus-pocus out there resulting from people who have made prejudgments in ignorance of the evidence or claim. Thus, for instance, he helps us understand why the argument
this could not be Yeshua’s family tomb because it is the tomb of a wealthy family
is incorrect (because the tomb has been identified archaeologically as belonging to the poor class).
- Visit the Discovery Channel tomb discussion site at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/forum/forum.html, where you can ask questions from scholars and read responses.
- Download some of the actual evidence such as archaeological reports and such here: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf
- Watch the documentary and/or buy the book and do research on any points of interest arising from it/them.
- Allow time for cross-examination and questioning of supposed
facts
regarding the evidence (for example, it took time for the fact to come to light that the IAA’s—Israeli Antiquity Authority’s—judgment against the James brother of Jesus
ossuary was not only unprofessional, but outright misleading).
