[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew

VC vadim_lv at center-tv.net
Tue Jun 8 14:04:17 EDT 2004


Dear George,

Even many Christian scholars doubt the accuracy of the Acts. Don't rely on the mention of Gamliel.

Philo's grammar is not that bad as you imagine. elokim may refer to prominent men. MT does not have "sons of God", as you believe. It has bnei elokim, and now you imagine this means sons of God, which is ludicrous in the first place, since God has no physical sons to copulate with earthly women.

>If the passage is "garbled", it hardly falls to the account of Christians. <
But using this garbled gibberish for thousands of years - yes, it falls to their account.

>I would say that you apparently have about as much antipathy to Christianity as some who are considered anti-Semitic have toward Jews<
You mix different things. I reject Christianity for intellectual reasons. I don't hate people of Christian faith, of course. Anti-Semites hate Jews; they cannot disregard Judaism, since they proclaim their religion is based upon it.

>about as much knowledge of those you excoriate as the anti-Semitic have <
I wrote already in this list for someone else. I guess writing a book of 800 pages on early Christianity establish my credentials as someone who knows the subject.

>The method employed in understanding the text within the church was about the same as that employed in the synagogue<
Ludicrous. Jesus was asked, by whose authority he was doing these things. The text is wrong, as the question refers to teaching. He didn't rely on any authority in his interpretation - thus, his method was not rabbinical to begin with. He didn't employ any of the four or sixteen standard methods.

>It is this type of interpretation which has evolved the kashrut rule for the separation of meat and dairy from the prohibition to "seeth a kid in its mother's milk." <
You simply don't know. The idea was to avoid inadvertent sin.


Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny
  I would hardly say that a student of the eminent Gamaliel did not know Tanak (BTW:  the author of Acts where the Stephen quotation appears was a companion of this same student of Gamaliel, the Apostle Paul).  As regards the "garbled quotations" you might consult Philo regarding his understanding of Tanak.  Take but a small example:  Gen 6.2.  Here the MT and the LXX have "Sons of God" but Philo says

  "And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all of them whom they chose." Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the air. 

  Obviously they are not called AGGELOI [LXX] or MaL:)fKiYM [MT] but B:N"Y_Hf)e:LoHiYM.

  I hardly think that the LXX which was the Bible of the early church was a product of Romans or Chinese but of Greek-speaking Jews.  If the passage is "garbled", it hardly falls to the account of Christians.  I would say that you apparently have about as much antipathy to Christianity as some who are considered anti-Semitic have toward Jews -- and about as much knowledge of those you excoriate as the anti-Semitic have (or should I say "about as little knowledge"?).  The method employed in understanding the text within the church was about the same as that employed in the synagogue which is quite different from that which would be used today in academic circles.  It is this type of interpretation which has evolved the kashrut rule for the separation of meat and dairy from the prohibition to "seeth a kid in its mother's milk."  This has become a part of the observant Jew's practice.  I am not going to beat them over the head and say that they shouldn't be doing that, but I think they themselves realize that it was not the intention of the text in its origin but a development in the history of their faith.  As such their practice is beyond any criticism.

  gfsomsel
  _________

  On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:21:20 +0300 "VC" <vadim_lv at center-tv.net> writes:
  > 
  > >>I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted 
  > with
  > the
  > >>Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why 
  > this
  > title
  > >>is of importance to you.
  > >You seem to have a misunderstanding about who the earliest 
  > Christians were.
  > The earliest Christians were Jews.  Gentiles were not initially 
  > included in
  > the membership of the church. While it is true that some of them may 
  > not
  > have been well versed in the scripture, some of them were very well
  > educated.<
  > 
  > Surely, very odd Jews those have been. They did not know Tanakh, 
  > cited
  > garbled quotations of the verses the should have studied in 
  > childhood (if
  > you know about bar Sheta reforms) and were unobservant. Wishful 
  > thinking
  > 
  > Sincerely,
  > 
  > Vadim Cherny
  > 
  > 
  > Sincerely,
  > Michael Abernathy
  > 
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > 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
  > 
  > 



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list