Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I
  • Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:29:58 +0200

Shoshanna,

I agree with you. But that's just the problem. Since we don't know when Hazal intended their midrashim to be taken literally and when they did not, our deciding to accept one statement as "accurate" and another as "not" is just that: our decision, based on our own interpretation, based on our own biases. Which, in practice, makes using ANY midrashim as historical evidence impossible.

For example, you state that "I do believe that when the midrash identified someone, it was not made up". What is your eveidence for this? Why do you think that personal identifications are more or less "historically accurate" than any other type of "information" in the midrash?

Also, your use of the term "made up" is problematic. You make it sound like an either/or issue: one either accepts all the midrashim as "accurate", or one discards them. This is a false representation. As you wrote, SOME of the midrashim were NOT meant to be taken historically - are these midrashim to be discarded? Of course not. The midrashim have an important place in the conveying of Hazal's thought and teachings. They are an important part of Jewish learning. However, Hazal were NOT historians, and they did not intend their midrashim to be taken as "history". And we should not read them as such. If Hazal identified Chedorlaomer as Elam, we should be asking "what did they intend by this?", not assuming that we have hereby solved a "historical" problem.

Yigal Levin

----- Original Message ----- From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I


I said that we will never know about all of it, which is true, which
is an exaggeration, etc. (Although I do believe that when the midrash
identified someone, it was not made up.) Except for the people who
believe it was all just made up, they are the ones who "know" that
none of it was accurate. It's easier just to discard it all.

Shoshanna Walker


Dear Shoshanna,

What is your criterion for telling which parts are "exaggeration and not
entirely accurate" and which parts are accurate? Or when Hazal intended the
midrash to be taken literally and when they intended it to be understood
allegorically?



And please remember to use your full name.


Yigal Levin



----- Original Message -----
From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
Cc: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I


Your point of view is only viable if one regards the midrash as a work of
literature, composed by various authors, out of their imaginations. That
is incompatible with my point of view, that the Midrash is a recording of
what was "popular knowledge" handed down through the generations. Some of
it could have been exaggeration, and not entirely accurate, but some of it
was also probably very true. We, alas, on this forum, will never know
which was which, except for those of you who believe it was ALL just a
fabrication - for you none of it is actually true.

Shoshanna




The "midrash" was possibly seeing $IN(AR as consisting of $IN, 'two,
different' and (AR 'river', Y)OR or NAHAR. Thus $IN(AR = the land of
the $NEI Y)OR-IM. Another midrash may see (AR as standing for (IR, )
UR, 'city, people, throng'. Still another midrash may see $IN as
standing for 'tooth' and (AR being a contracted HAR, 'mountain',
ect., ect. Likewise for the -er of Sumer, the land of the big, (ACUM,
Aryans.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Feb 3, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Yigal Levin wrote:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>


Shinar is Babylon

Probably correct in a general sense, but on what do you base this
statement?


The Midrash identifies Chedorlaomer as Elom son of Shem son of Noah

Which Midrash? Do you have a source?

You really should read Maharal on midrashim.



Shoshanna

And please remember to use your full name.

Yigal Levin

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database:
269.19.16/1250 - Release Date: 29/01/2008 22:20



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1250 - Release Date: 29/01/2008 22:20







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page