Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kurt Noll" <KLNoll AT kwc.edu>]

Yigal Levin wrote (in part):
I would assume, that John Hammatbil, being an eccentric with perhaps
ties
to the Essines or Qumran, preferred the Jordan. In any case, you could
say
that the Jewish mikveh and Christian baptism both have their roots in
the
Second Temple understanding of Leviticus.

***
Question (and I apologize if it is too far off-topic)-
Since we are on the topic of the mikveh and baptism, I'd love to hear
some response to a passage written by Donald Harman Akenson, in his "bad
boy" book titled _Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus_
(Oxford University Press, 2000) page 163.  Akenson writes:

"[A]mong the things that we all think we know for certain is that a
male proselyte to Judahism [sic] in this period [i.e. First Century CE]
absolutely had to have his penis ritually reduced.  For most converts
this was indeed the case;  however, a small, but halachically
sophisticated opposition to this view existed.  The contra-view held
that . . . for proselytes it was enough for them to undergo a ritual
bath (the relationship between mikveh and baptism-by-immersion is too
obvious to require comment). . ."  (Akenson cites Bavli, Yebamoth 46a).

Those of you who have the background to evaluate this, please enlighten
me.  Is Akenson on target, or is he pushing the evidence too far?

Thanks.  
Kurt

*********************************
Dr. Kurt L. Noll
Kentucky Wesleyan College
3000 Frederica Street
Owensboro, KY  42302
http://www.kwc.edu/academic/religion/index.html
(270) 852-3220
KLNoll AT kwc.edu

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
                                            - Upton Sinclair
**********
>From Polycarp66 AT aol.com  Fri Feb 14 11:41:26 2003
Return-Path: <Polycarp66 AT aol.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310782009C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:41:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Polycarp66 AT aol.com
        by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id a.1d7.2a89fee (14374);
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:42:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
Message-ID: <1d7.2a89fee.2b7e766b AT aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:42:19 EST
Subject: Re: Fw: [b-hebrew] le DWD
To: lizfried AT umich.edu, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 4104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:41:26 -0000

In a message dated 2/14/2003 11:28:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
lizfried AT umich.edu writes:

> Bringing this back to B-Hebrew, what is the meaning of the prescript le?
> I know that in the pre-exilic period, l'PN meant "belonging to."
> In the Aramaic letters of Ezra, le is used as a prescript meaning "to
> PN."
> This use has been considered to be Hellenistic and Roman, not Persian.
> In the Persian period the convention is 'el or 'al.
> Does anyone know of an earlier use than the Hellenistic period in which
> le could mean "addressed to" rather than "belonging to"?
> As regards the psalms, I would imagine that the postscripts were
> added in the Roman period, since if I recall correctly, they do not
> exist at Qumran.
> If so, then it would mean "dedicated to" not "belonging to."
> Even if it does mean "belonging to," I would not interpret it to mean
> "written by." It would still mean "belonging to" in the sense of
> "dedicated to."

The "Song of Deborah" in Judges 5 is generally considered to be quite early.  
You might look at Judges 5.3 where it says

$iM:(W. M:LfKiYM Ha):aZiYNW. RoZ:NiYM )fNoKiY LaYHWH )fNoKiY )f$iYRfH 
):aZaM."R LaYHWH ):eLoH"Y

gfsomsel
>From Polycarp66 AT aol.com  Fri Feb 14 11:47:21 2003
Return-Path: <Polycarp66 AT aol.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD0C20044
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:47:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Polycarp66 AT aol.com
        by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id a.1f1.1ea2dcf (14374);
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:47:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
Message-ID: <1f1.1ea2dcf.2b7e77b7 AT aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:47:51 EST
Subject: Re: Fw: [b-hebrew] le DWD - Oops!
To: lizfried AT umich.edu, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 4104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:47:21 -0000

In a message dated 2/14/2003 11:43:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Polycarp66 AT aol.com writes:

> In a message dated 2/14/2003 11:28:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> lizfried AT umich.edu writes:
> 
> >Bringing this back to B-Hebrew, what is the meaning of the prescript le?
> >I know that in the pre-exilic period, l'PN meant "belonging to."
> >In the Aramaic letters of Ezra, le is used as a prescript meaning "to
> >PN."
> >This use has been considered to be Hellenistic and Roman, not Persian.
> >In the Persian period the convention is 'el or 'al.
> >Does anyone know of an earlier use than the Hellenistic period in which
> >le could mean "addressed to" rather than "belonging to"?
> >As regards the psalms, I would imagine that the postscripts were
> >added in the Roman period, since if I recall correctly, they do not
> >exist at Qumran.
> >If so, then it would mean "dedicated to" not "belonging to."
> >Even if it does mean "belonging to," I would not interpret it to mean
> >"written by." It would still mean "belonging to" in the sense of
> >"dedicated to."
> 
> The "Song of Deborah" in Judges 5 is generally considered to be quite 
> early.  
> You might look at Judges 5.3 where it says
> 
> $iM:(W. M:LfKiYM Ha):aZiYNW. RoZ:NiYM )fNoKiY LaYHWH )fNoKiY )f$iYRfH 
> ):aZaM."R LaYHWH ):eLoH"Y   

I'm sorry, I should have realized that this was a different usage entirely.  
Back to the drawing boards.  Never go with the first thing that pops into 
your mind.

gfsomsel
>From Polycarp66 AT aol.com  Fri Feb 14 12:09:04 2003
Return-Path: <Polycarp66 AT aol.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD6020069
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:09:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Polycarp66 AT aol.com
        by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id a.128.22f5f613 (14374);
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:09:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
Message-ID: <128.22f5f613.2b7e7cdc AT aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:09:48 EST
Subject: Re: Fw: [b-hebrew] le DWD - One more time
To: lizfried AT umich.edu, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 4104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:09:04 -0000

In a message dated 2/14/2003 11:28:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
lizfried AT umich.edu writes:

> Bringing this back to B-Hebrew, what is the meaning of the prescript le?
> I know that in the pre-exilic period, l'PN meant "belonging to."
> In the Aramaic letters of Ezra, le is used as a prescript meaning "to
> PN."
> This use has been considered to be Hellenistic and Roman, not Persian.
> In the Persian period the convention is 'el or 'al.
> Does anyone know of an earlier use than the Hellenistic period in which
> le could mean "addressed to" rather than "belonging to"?
> As regards the psalms, I would imagine that the postscripts were
> added in the Roman period, since if I recall correctly, they do not
> exist at Qumran.
> If so, then it would mean "dedicated to" not "belonging to."
> Even if it does mean "belonging to," I would not interpret it to mean
> "written by." It would still mean "belonging to" in the sense of
> "dedicated to."
> 
Perhaps Jer 5.10 would be more apropos

(:aLW. B:$fRoWTeYHf W:$aX"TW. W:KfLfH )aL_T.a(:a&W. 
HfSiYRW. N:+iY$oWTeHf K.iY LoW) LaYHWH H"M.fH

gfsomsel
>From eljucci AT unipv.it  Fri Feb 14 12:17:38 2003
Return-Path: <eljucci AT unipv.it>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from somma.unipv.it (www.unipv.it [193.204.35.36])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47D62009F
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:17:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from moloch.unipv.it (moloch.unipv.it [193.206.70.51])
        by somma.unipv.it (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1EHH2F50584;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:17:02 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030214181522.026c8c60 AT mail.unipv.it>
X-Sender: eljucci AT mail.unipv.it
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:25:38 +0100
To: "Pastor Mark Eddy" <markeddy AT adams.net>,
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: jucci <eljucci AT unipv.it>
In-Reply-To: <002801c2d43d$b32d9e00$d1248ad8@default>
References: <3.0.6.32.20030213152528.00c35b38 AT cecasun.utc.edu>
 <3.0.6.32.20030214091103.00b8e498 AT cecasun.utc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Psalms
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:17:38 -0000

At 09.27 14/02/03 -0600, you wrote:
>Thanks for responding. Comments below.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Yigal Levin"
> > Dear Pastor Mark,
> >
> > Despite my Jewish reading, I am capable of assuming, as do many critical
> > scholars, that the superscription "A psalm of David" may NOT be part of=
 the
> > original text of Ps. 110. I don't KONW who the original author is -
>
>Why assume that the compiler(s) of the 5 books of Psalms did NOT know who=
=20
>wrote the Psalms?

see also ... Gerald H. Wilson's  site (=20
=F9http://home.apu.edu/~geraldwilson//index.html )
http://home.apu.edu/~geraldwilson//Resources.html#PoeWis

see ... http://dobc.unipv.it/SETH/salmi.htm#salmi_links

         In search of the truth


Elio Jucci

  SETH - Semitica et Theologica
  http://dobc.unipv.it/SETH/index.htm
     Mirror Site: http://members.xoom.it/Shib/
                 http://it.geocities.com/eljucci/filosem/
         http://www.angelfire.com/wv/bible/filosem/index.htm

"Ex magno amoris incendio tantus uirtutis decor in animo crescit ..."
                         (Richard Rolle, Incendium Amoris)