From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 11:34:41 EST
In a message dated 10/25/03 7:58:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bnelson301@yahoo.com writes:
You appear to be talking past George's comments, which
has to do with Judaism before the exhile, not after.
I think this talking past is similar to the go around
about the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, and
there, as well as here, you rely on later developments
in Judaism as a rebuttal to a point about earlier
Judaism. In each case, I think you miss the point
about the doctrines not being essential or even
present in some earlier point in time of the
tradition.
rich:
You've got to read the posts. endogamy was first practiced by Abraham and
then by Jacob. I've already made the references. These are not post exilic
patriarchs. These were the progenitors. Don't they figure in the argument? They
disagree with George. They both went to their family in Harran for wives
specifically because they would not intermarry with other peoples. I haven't missed
the point at all.
bnelson:
Even if one accepts everything you say as true, you
are talking about the Judaic tradition later than
George is, and George appeared to make exactly that
caveat, quite clearly.
rich:
I have already posted the situation around the return from exile and what
prompted ezra to reinstitute the marriage prohibitions but it began in genesis
quite clearly with abraham sending eliezer back to harran for his wife. george
disputes this and he is wrong
bnelson:
So, even assuming you are
correct, the point you are making is about Judaism
after a particular point in time, not before and not
at the point in time George is making it. Therefore,
it seems silly to impute the concepts from later to
before when there is no basis for so doing.
rich:
But I just made the basis for doing so by pointing out the incidence of
endogamy in genesis, didn't I? Before post exile, don't you think? The difference
between george and I is that he thinks Jewish endogamy is an event that
happened at a certain point in the history of Judaism. My point is that endogamy is
the sine qua non of the history of Judaism (Exodus 1:6-11). Without it, you
cannot properly understand Judaism which is why I am belaboring the point. I
think christians are duty bound to understand Judaism.
bnelson:
You do this quite a bit, like citing the Gospel of
Thomas for support for what the earliest christians
thought -- well, I do not find, for example, using any
Nag Hammadi texts, the vast majority of which are
demonstrably apocryphal and written centuries after
(as well as being outside) the christian tradition
began at all persuasive about what christians writ
large believed at any point in time, and certainly not
*before* the documents were written.
rich:
The gospel of thomas is a closely related but independent collection of
sayings that resemble Q, a collection used by Matthew and Luke for the synoptics.
It dates from the middle of the first century. If you can dig up my cite of
the GOT, you'll find it appropriate I am sure. I do go outside christianity to
gain perspective. I've gone as far as suzuki and the perspective to be gained
is amazing along with a greater appreciation of christianity.
bnelson:
I think this is yet another example of that.
To make it perhaps clearer, what a Yeshiva University
scholar may or may not say about Judaism currently is
utterly beside the point to pre exile Judaism. There
is a clear distinction between what people thought at
X point in time and what they may think now or at a Y
point in time later than X. To suggest otherwise
seems silly and/or dogmatic.
No, you are silly. You are a christian who is part of a community that is
preserving the tradition begun by Jesus and you think the Jews don't maintain
their traditions? What Jewish scholars say about genesis is utterly beside the
point to pre-exile Judaism? I think you don't know Judaism. Genesis is central
to Judaism. The torah is the cornerstone of their religion. and they are
practicing endogamy, in genesis and now. That is why they have so many genetic
neurological diseases and why they have higher mean IQs as reported in The Bell
Curve. These are signs of excessive inbreeding.
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 26 2003 - 11:36:34 EST