Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/14/2003 3:48:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
markeddy AT adams.net writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
> 
> gfsomsel asked:
> Mark,
> 
> To whom then was David speaking?
> gfsomsel

<snip>


> 
> If you mean, who is the "you" of verse 2ff? It is David's "Lord" to whom 
> YHWH addressed the words of verse
> 1. Verse 4 again has YHWH address David's "Lord" with the words, "You are a 
> priest forever..." I think
> everyone agrees that those words are not spoken to David. Verse 6 is where 
> the address switches from
> second to third person. It seems best to apply them also to David's "Lord" 
> rather than to YHWH.
> 
And who is David's lord?

gfsomsel
>From rosewalk AT concentric.net  Fri Feb 14 16:43:42 2003
Return-Path: <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.118.93])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E656820012
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:43:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cliff.concentric.net (cliff.concentric.net [206.173.118.90])
                for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org.>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:44:50 -0500 (EST)
Errors-To: <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
Received: from [66.236.160.2] (ts003d0002.nyc-ny.xod.concentric.net
        [66.236.160.2]) by cliff.concentric.net (8.9.1a)
        id QAA19761; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:44:48 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rosewalk AT pop3.concentric.net
Message-Id: <v04210123ba731313e0df@[66.236.160.2]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:43:21 -0500
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Mikveh and Baptism
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
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 21:43:42 -0000


The origin of ritual bathing is in the various passages in Leviticus, in
which lepers, women after childbirth, people who come into contact with the
dead, and especially priests before entering the sanctuary, must wash their
flesh with water. The Hebrew word used here is "Raxac" - "wash". While
there is no specific instruction on how or where this is to be done



Yes there are - in the ORAL TORAH, which Moshe received together with 
the written, that is where Judaism and Christianity differ - that 
Christianity, and many on this list, deny the authority of oral 
Torah.  However, this is not the only place in written Torah, where 
instructions are not given in writing, but were given orally

Shoshanna







(remember Naaman the Aramean dipping in the Jordan to cure his leprosy?),
by the late Second Temple period this had been interpreted as immersion in
"living (naturally flowing) water" - a stream or lake. The common word in
the Mishnah is "Taval". However, Israel is a land of few streams, and so
the "mikveh" (reservoir) of stored stream-water was invented - especially
in places like Jerusalem and Qumran. In post-Temple Judaism, most such
"immersion" is done by woman after their menstrual period (though some men,
especially in Hasidic sects, dip as well), and while Halakhah still
recognizes immersion in a lake or stream to be "kosher", modesty,
convenience and heated water have made the indoor mikveh much more common.
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.

By the way, the modern Samaritans, who claim to take Leviticus literally,
don't use a mikveh (though archaeological evidence shows that their
ancestors did) - they just "Raxac" in the shower!

Yigal



At 08:09 AM 2/14/2003 -0600, Medina, Vincent wrote:
>Greetings to all:
>
>I have a question that I would like to submit to the collective wisdom
>of the list. My question is this...
>
>Is the Jewish mikveh the antecedent to Christian baptism? Though there
>are similarities, I suspect that it is not. However, not being an expert
>in Judaic studies, I would like some guidance. I understand that the
>term mikveh means "pool" or "reservoir" or some such. However the NT
>name for John "the Baptizer" does not seem to be related to that. The
>UBS Hebrew NT translates it as Yochanan hammatbil, from a Hebrew verb
>meaning "to dip." Is there any precedent in Judaism for someone who
>administers the mikveh being described in this way? Any insight you can
>give will be appreciated.
>
>Vince Medina
>Springfield, MO
>
>Solo Deo Gloria
>
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From markeddy AT adams.net  Fri Feb 14 18:38:19 2003
Return-Path: <markeddy AT adams.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from adams.net (mail-fe1.adams.net [216.138.0.19])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AB4A20031
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 12056 invoked by uid 0); 14 Feb 2003 23:39:27 -0000
Received: from gas53b-20.adams.net (HELO default) (216.138.36.20)
  by adams.net with SMTP; 14 Feb 2003 23:39:19 -0000
Message-ID: <000001c2d47c$9ce85420$14248ad8@default>
From: "Pastor Mark Eddy" <markeddy AT adams.net>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>,
        "Yigal Levin" <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>
References: <3.0.6.32.20030213152528.00c35b38 AT cecasun.utc.edu>
        <3.0.6.32.20030214091103.00b8e498 AT cecasun.utc.edu>
        <3.0.6.32.20030214152020.00b10ea8 AT cecasun.utc.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: [b-hebrew] LORD
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:18:05 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
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 23:38:19 -0000

Dear Prof. Yigal,
comments interspersed:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin"

> Dear Pastor Mark,
>
> Even if you do not accept them, I'm sure that you are aware of the
> conclusions of critical biblical studies of the past century or so.
I am certainly aware of them. But I do find it harder to believe that a bunch 
of post-exilic priests made
up the entire history of Israel (as some minimalists would contend), than to 
believe that the narratives
are based on relatively contemporaneous evidence. And the prophets wrote at 
the time that the narratives
describe. Most of the narratives don't sound like the myths of that (and 
earlier) time(s). And the
literary genre of the novel wasn't yet invented. I have never understood why 
"the book of the law" found
during the time of Jeremiah was supposedly only Deuteronomy and not the whole 
Torah, or why they would
have assumed that it came from Moses if it had just been written by the 
Deuteronomic historians who were
still writing their history at the time this book was discovered. The fact 
that the LXX translators didn't
have a clue about what some of the words they were translating meant leads 
many Bible students to believe
that many parts of the Hebrew Bible were written well before the 3rd century 
B.C.

> But even if David DID write Ps. 110, since the whole psalm is in the third
> person, there is no reason to assume that he's speaking from his own
> experience.
I agree that he is not speaking from his own expeience, except that he is 
recording an oracle of YHWH,
which he apparently received.

> The psalm is a poem describing a conversation between YHWH and
> someone - that someone NOT being the writer. So, in this case, whether or
> not we accept that the writer's name was David and that that David was the
> King is irrelevant.
I agree with some of this, but not all. The psalm does describe what YHWH 
says to someone other than the
writer. But the writer of the psalm does refer to himself in the phrase "my 
Lord." The write is identified
 with "my." The writer calls "that someone" "my Lord." So it can make a big 
difference who this David is.
The Hebrew Bible knows of no David other than the one who became king. It 
would seem that the burden of
proof is on those who think this David is some other David.

> As far as Melchizedek, you are right that, according to Gen. 14, he was a
> priest-king, a gentile and certainly not descended from Aaron. SO - what
> DOES the psalmist mean? Let's theorize a little:
> 1. He (David?) didn't know the "J" story in Gen. 14, which was written 
> later?
He had to have known this story, or else he wouldn't have mentioned 
Melchizedek. It doesn't make sense to
say that Psalm 110 made up a name, which would have been meaninless to anyone 
at the time, which a later
writer then had to write into his (ficticious?) history about Abraham.

> 2. He (David?) didn't know that according to "P", only Aaronides were
> supposed to be priests? Was Zadok an Aaronide?
The same historian that tells us about David's life also tells us about the 
hereditary priesthood, even
tracing the curse on Eli's family to its end many generations later in 
David's day. 1 Chr. 6 traces
Zadok's ancestry to Aaron. The author of Samuel-Kings also certainly thought 
that Zadok had a legitmate
claim to the hereditary priesthood. The story about Samuel's condemning Saul 
for making sacrifices shows
that they knew that kings of Israel were not also authorized to be priests.

> 3. The similarity to Melchizedek that he was looking for WAS, in fact, that
> of king-priest. Does that make Ps. 110 Hasmonean?
This is way too late for the composition of Samuel-Kings or the final 
compilation of the Psalms.
Samuel-Kings reads Israel's history in the light of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 
was obviously an addition to
pre-existing books of the Torah. The historic David could easily have known 
about Melchizedek. The
Hasmoneans came after the LXX, which came after the writing of the entire 
Hebrew Bible. How could any
psalm refer (as an historical reference) to the Hasmoneans?

> 4. ALL of the above?
None of the above.

> I don't know, and I admit that I don't know. You don't know either, but you
> believe, which is your right. But that doesn't make for sound academic
> investigation.
We ought to believe facts. We have to make value judgments about whom we 
trust to give us the facts.
Objectively speaking the texts of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament 
are much better attested than
any other ANE texts that have been handed down to us. We don't have to wait 
to find buried inscriptions to
accept the basic reliability of biblical texts. "What" I believe ought to be 
something that can be the
topic of sound academic investigation. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking, 
and not helpful. I agree that
the fact that I believe it doesn't make for sound academic investigation. I 
don't want it to be.

> As far as Mark (the evangelist), once again, I would not presume to try to
> convince you of what NT scholars have come up with over the past century.
One problem with much of this is that some recent "scholars" put the burden 
of proof on the ancient
tradition, to prove that Mark wrote his gospel. Instead the burden of proof 
must be on those who disagree
with the universal testimony of the early church (as recorded, e.g. in 
Eusebius). Mark is recorded as it
author in the inscription of every one of the earliest extant copies of the 
Gospel.

> Whoever "Mark" was, nowhere in his Gospel does he claim to have been an
> eyewitness to the events.
Certainly Mark didn't sign his Gospel the way Paul signed his letters. But 
aside from speculation I know
of no evidence that disproves what every early manuscript of Mark's Gospel 
claims, or what the early
tradition says about him.

> The same is true for the others.
The Gospel of John most definitely does claim to have been written by an 
eyewitness (see John 21:24). Some
of the "apostolic fathers" claimed to have known John and vouched for him. 
There is an unbroken chain
(though slim at times) of writers since John's time, so there is no good 
reason to believe that John was
written later an an eye witness would have written it.

> Even if "Mathew"
> WAS the tax-collector turned Apostle, HOW would he know of the events of,
> say, the nativity? If your answer is "the Holy Spirit guided his quill"
> that's fine, but I can't use that in academic discourse.
Jesus' mother Mary was alive and well after Jesus left this earth. If Jesus 
hadn't told Matthew about
these events, Mary could have very easily told him. She hung around with the 
disciples in Jerusalem for a
while, according to Acts 1:14.

> And the gospels
> are obviously NOT in chronological order, for if so, John (son of Zebedee,
> the Apostle) would be second, before Mark companion of Peter of Dr. Luke
> friend of Paul.
The chronological order of writing doesn't matter that much. Tradition placed 
John last, filling in some
stories not mentioned by the other three. But I admit that John could have 
been written earlier. But Luke
himself (1:1) says that others had written about the life of Jesus before he 
did. Luke was written before
Acts. Acts was written while Paul was still imprisoned in Rome, in the early 
60s. I know that "critical
scholars" often place all the Gospels after 70 A.D. But this is based on 
theological reasons (belief that
they couldn't have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in that year) 
rather than on testual or
historical evidence. Mark was also a companion of Paul at times, beginning 
with his "first missionary
journey."

> Please do not take any of this as either a personal attack or as an attack
> on your faith. It is all a part of the open, and hopefully mutually
> instructive discourse that we have come to expect on this list.

I usually don't take anything as a personal attack, even if it's meant that 
way. I have developed a very
thick skin (or head?) over the years. So don't worry about me. I hope that 
what I write will also be part
of open and mutually instructive discourse.

Mark Eddy