Jewish Messiah

[rosends]

@Clear

We are talking about Judea and babylon, etc. 2500 years ago. How many Jews in Judea named their children “alexander” in 600 b.c.?

I don’t know, the pronouncement went into effect in 300bce. I guess that isn’t ancient enough.

He points out in his book regarding other spellings which indicate Babylonian versions of the same name.

So your point is that you can look at SPELLINGS of names and decide origin. Imagine that – a name reflecting a surrounding linguistic culture but still being of its own origin.

In discussing the Ebabbar temple Marduk-Remanni archive he correctly uses the term “Judean family” in discussing the remnants of the archive. In using this term he cannot tell if the individuals are “Jews”, merely that they were “Judeans”. One could not tell what religion a Judean was.

You mean you believe it is “correct” because it agrees with your understanding of the use of the label.

He points out that one could often tell by the name where one was from but one could not tell what God they worshipped. Perhaps Ari (a Judean) worshipped Marduk and Ahu-Yama (a Judean name) worshipped Jehovah. One could not know BECAUSE “Judean” did not indicate a religion, but a place. (01)

Or one could not know because names don’t always clearly indicate origin or belief and using them to decide is, as I said, rife with problems. Note the word "perhaps".

Again you are referencing the Religion now called “rabbinic Judaism” or “rabbinate Judaism” and applying it’s innovations to ancient Jahwism.

That is your belief about it, yes.

If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.

And Cohen’s statement would fly in the face of biblical text. You realize that matrilineality is actually biblical, right?

But I enjoyed that little quote which mentioned “ethnic identity” and not religion as coming through the father’s line.

Modern Jews make the same mistake Christians make in assuming their modern religion is the same as the prophetic religions anciently. This is why historians distinguish the two in specific historical discussion.

Historians do try to distinguish between phases of a religion but that doesn’t contradict the idea that those phases are part of a living and developing system. No one has claimed that modern Judaism is identical with biblical Judaism, but that modern Judaism is the natural (and internally consistent) evolution of biblical Judaism, steeped in the same set of laws and understandings. Your claim that rabbis “innovate” and create a completely separate religion might make you feel better about things and make you feel comfy chatting with your historians, but then you are starting with a denial of the essential elements of Judaism and using extra-theological systems to create theological labels.

The emergence of rabbinic Judaism is full of innovations created by their leadership as they attempted to define what doctrines and practices they were going to adopt and adhere to. As Rabbinic Judaism emerged, so did their creation of rules and traditions created (often) by their interpretation of earlier prophetic religion.

That is indeed your position. You insert concepts of choosing what to adopt etc. Judaism does not see its development like that.

You say they were not called “Judeans”, the historians say they were and that the term “a Judean”, historically , simply meant “someone living in Judeah” regardless of religion just as “a Texan” simply means “someone from or living in Texas”.

I have not seen any situation in the contemporary biblical works in which any of this is true. Later historians, using other languages, applying labels they happen to think make sense to them can say what they want. The biblical terms have select uses and your insistence that later historians are right is not helpful. Once you move away in time and let your thinking be determined by historically revisionist thinking which is innovating term applications and choosing what to adopt and adhere to, you create a new type of history which is not at all connected to the prophetic, biblical era. These historians are your rabbis and you take their statements as, well, gospel.

It was a geographic term in early usage and still is today. We refer to "The Judean desert", "The judean texts", etc.

Yes, not applying to people. But in the Roman world, where people couldn’t tell who was who, loose-language users used a word which might be inaccurate. You should chafe at the admission of such inaccuracy instead of assuming that it dictated reality.

And maybe I’m missing something but that picture of Grabe’s restatement of Cohen seems mathematically askew. Before 100bce a Greek word (so we are already distanced from the Hebrew) meant geography, not religion or political, with these latter meanings developing in the 2nd century bce, which would be the years BEFORE than 100 bce. So the latter meaning only developed a century before the time when the “only use” didn’t include those meanings. Help me out with the timing in this claim, please.

And not everyone agrees with Cohen’s hypothesis and conclusions, “For example, the certainty with which he declares “Judaean” to be the proper understanding of Ioudaios for any usage prior to the mid-second century BCE is excessive. He is inconsistent with that threshold as well, dogmatically translating Josephan (and later) occurrences of Ioudaios as “Judaean” without argument.” Review: Shaye Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness

I guess you can choose which historians you want to listen to as they innovate their ideas.

What you think on this is irrelevant. Either Rabbi Cohen meant what he wrote or he did not.

That’s untrue. A person can report and reflect on earlier ideas and present opinions and not endorse or criticize. If I show you that his statement reflects a particular commentator does that mean he agrees with that commentator or just is aware and is reporting its existence. But, again, I didn’t say he does or does not mean it, so asking me to prove some position I never asserted seems silly.

If Cohen was quoting another historian, can you provide evidence that both the original commentator did not believe what Cohen quoted them as saying?

You want evidence that Emanuel of Rome did not believe what Cohen wrote? I’m pretty sure he is dead and was before Cohen wrote anything.

I agree with Emanuel that many attested to loving Jews out of fear of the Jews.

I agree with Emanuel that many did not convert. That is my claim as well.

I agree with Ohr Chadash that some people in Judea affiliated with Jews and did not convert.

Great, so you can see where Cohen might have gotten his position from regarding the non-Jews in Persia in the 5th century bce. This then clarifies why he sees mityahadim as potentially something other than a full conversion in Persia in the 5th century bce. What this has to do with calling anyone a non-Jew in Israel "Yisraelite" escapes me. You are confusing the different elements of your claims.

Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?

You are asking me to provide whatever it was that a 16th century scholar used to come to his understanding? I can’t do more right now than provide exactly what he wrote and in it, you can see the logic and text he uses to establish his deduction

ורבים מעמי הארץ וגומר. אחשוב כי המתיהדים האלה היו מזרע עמלק ולכן היו מתפחדים מפני גזרת מרדכי. שאם היו משאר עמי הארץ מה להם לפחוד ממרדכי אף כי היה גדול אם לא פשעו כנגדו. ומה שנאמר מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק גזירת שעה היתה. וזרעו לא נמנע מלבוא בקהל. ואולי כי לא נודע הדבר כי אם אחרי שנים רבות. ועשו גם המה בערמה כאשר עשו הגבעונים כדי להחיות את נפשם

The Ohr Chadash (16th century) also connects it to Amalek but in a slightly different way and you can read his sources and logic

"ובכל מדינה ומדינה וגו' ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים וגו'" (פסוק יז). דבר זה לא נמצא בשאר גאולות, רק בכאן, שהוא נצוח עמלק. לפי שגורם עמלק לבטל אחדות השם יתברך, וכדכתיב (עובדיה א, כא) "ועלו מושיעים לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה וגו'". ולכך בכאן שהפילו עמלק, היו רבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, כאשר היה בטל כח המן

I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MITAYAHADIM (NON-JEWS WHO CONVERTED) AMONG ISRAEL.

That’s a poor use of words. There is no biblical evidence that any non Jews in Israel were mityahadim because the word is not used beyond that single example in a story set in Persia in the 5th century bce. While non-Jews in Israel might have converted or quasi converted, biblically, there is a different word for that.

 

[rosends]

@Clear

“Rabbi Cohen, tells us that medieval copyists had difficulty with understanding terms (such as Mityahadin and yudazein, etc) that they understood “Make yourselves Jews” to mean “pretend to be converts" and thus substituted gerim for yehudin.”

…

Thus to the extent Jewish translators created incorrect translations on this point, their usage of terms is incorrect.

Interesting how you went from “medieval copyists” to “Jewish translators”. Regardless, all this does is show that the use of particular words can be ascribed to copyists’ lack of familiarity with the correct terms so that makes the copied end result erroneous – so decisions about what a Greek word referred to before it was translated (possibly improperly) seem useless.

This introduction of errors is similar to the admission by the Jewish Masorretes that they made changes to the original text of the Masorretic bible they created and which was adopted by the Orthodox Jews.

This is just a different ax you wish to grin. You could sit and read about the Masoretic text if you wanted Masoretic text | Hebrew Bible, Tanakh, Rabbinic Commentary

Accuracy of Torah Text

or you could just pick and choose and believe the voices that say what you like. The masoretes recognized that their source material might have been changed before they got it and they worked to resolve those minimal discrepancies. If they created the original masoretic text, how could they change it?

“No geography”?? It must have been difficult to break the various children of Israel up geographically if there was no geography.

I cited a verse from Lev 24:10-11. Was there a geographical marker for “Yisrael” at that point? That’s when the term was used. It isn’t used much elsewhere in biblical texts, except in 2 Sam where it is describing someone of “Israel” who, according to the Metzudat David, refers to a convert to Judaism

הישראלי. ובדברי הימים (א ב יז) אמר הישמעאלי, לפי שהתגורר בארץ ישמעאל

We both agree with your admission that Judean is a “catch-all” term “for people who lived among the children of Israel.

Why do you keep changing what I said? I said that Yisra’elite was a catch all, not “Judean” and it was a catch all for all the Jews who lived among the 12 tribes in the days of Solomon, before there was a kingdom of Judah or anything called Judea.

I will provide historians (WITH QUOTES) who say that early in it referred to Judean and you will provide historians (WITH QUOTES) who say it was never used geographically (since you claim there was “no geography”).

You will provide the opinions of historians who assert something and I have to show historians who specifically say otherwise? Why can’t you just show me a contemporary and primary document that uses the term to apply specifically and explicitly to non-Jews. That shouldn’t be so tough. I have shown how the words are used biblically. I have shown to whom they applied and how, even down to the names of the individuals. If you are going to draw a conclusion about their use, I would hope you would do so with primary examples.

1) Adele Reinhartz tells us : “Steve Mason, the general editor of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, makes the argument for precision most forcefully. Ioudaios/ioudaioi, he argues, was initially a geographical term, referring to people of the region of Judea. But by the first century the ioudaioi are no longer merely the residents of a certain geographic area: they are members of an ethnic-political entity.”

So no examples of use, just a forceful argument. OK.

2) Even the Christian Monasteries in the later periods are called “Judean Monasteries” by historians. The title of Yizhar Hirshfields book is called “The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period” These Christians are not Jews.

So the building and institution are referred to by locale, not the people. OK.

For example : In describing the tamkaru (Judean merchants in this case) he examines the records of cuniform tablets and follows a family of “Judean” merchants in Sippar, Babylonia. The father Arih (Ari is obviously a Judean name) is Judean whose sons are named “Marduka” and a grandson “Bel-uballit”, both theophoric names in honor of the Babylonian Gods Marduk and Bel. It is important then that some of the receipts originate with the Babylonian Ebbabar Temple.

So he has an example of people he doesn’t say are Jewish or not and who are living in Babylon, and he tries to derive something from the form of their name since it reflects that they live in Babylon. I knew a Jewish kid in college named Chris. I have known non Jews named Israel. But feel free to draw whatever conclusions work for you.

He follows the “Judean” Bride Kassaya who marries the Babylonian Guzanu from the 5th year of Cyrus. Again the point is that Kassaya and others are called “Judeans” because of their geographical origin. Not because they are “Jews”.

Nothing in that attachment indicates that they weren’t Jews.

4) Delorme uses the historical term in just the same way and further points out that deportees to babylon were assigned enclaves ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN, not according to religion. For example :

I looked at the examples and saw no mention of Judean people, just a town name. I assume you would have highlighted it if it was there. The examples he gave were of villages named for the origin of their communities, not labels of people regardless of origin.

Delorme give us example that show even when deportees came from a specific city or a specific assumed ethnicity, their enclave was converted to a geographical term (Al-Yahudu). However, to your favor, there were examples of enclaves that were named according to ethnicity Alu sa Yahudaya (the ending “aya” is a gentilic ending but still indicates ethnicity).

So are there examples of explicitly identified non-Jews who ware called Judeans, or were they called after the name of the town that got its name from Judea?

Exactly. The Jews could not have simply rounded up Gentiles among the Judeans because they were somehow different.

Who said they would?

There was a mixture of ethnicities in Judean and geographically, they were all “judeans” if they lived in Judea.

That makes a lot of sense. It would make more sense if there was a primary and explicit example of that instead of surmising and theorizing.

Then you can never enter the world of religious history outside your own personal interpretations of your own canonical texts.

That could very well be. And the people outside, who see the texts as less than canonically and theologically understood, intertwined, dependent and interrelated cannot enter the world of religious history inside the world of that religion. And maybe never the twain shall meet. But in that case, making assertions about a religion from the outside should be qualified by such a disclaimer.

That is a very small historical picture.

But if I am basing my position on those canonical texts, it is the only necessary picture. If I pointed out an error in the Christian texts by using Jewish understandings, someone might say that the text is right and the understandings are wrong. If I used history to disprove an element of the Quran, someone might say “the historians are making theories that fly in the face of what the religion teaches”.

However, I might as well point out that this is simply posturing. Of course you use other evidence else you would not have quoted other texts and individuals that are not part of your canonical texts.

Yes, but maybe I didn’t mean it. You can’t tell, just because I wrote it.

The reason Cohen uses 2 Macc 6:1 as having a different meaning than 6:6 is that 6:1 is rendered “customs” instead of “law” by certain authors (e.g. josephus) while 6:6 is “laws”.

So he makes an interpretation based on a secondary author’s understanding. If that is persuasive to you then fine. The words are the same – the difference is just in his interpretive choice.

Again, You are using the term "Judaism" but actually referring to “RABBINIC” Judaism that rejected Jesus rather than the religion of the prophets.

And you are trying to distinguish Judaism as it continued to become from the foundational aspects that are still there. The religion of the prophets is what taught us that Jesus was to be rejected. Te rabbis, continuing in the tradition and understanding of the prophets simply applied what had been passed down. These then are one and the same religion, in the same way that Judaism now is the same Judaism as it was 1000 years ago, even if there are particulars that have evolved and applications which have developed.

Jesus and his early followers were Jews who interpreted Judaism differently than the rabbis.

Yes and no. The argument could be made that Jesus and his followers were interpreted Judaism in the same way that other rabbis did, using similar tools and methods, but who came to non-normative conclusions, and rejected the authority of the rabbis and decided to make their own rules. That is still happening today within Judaism.

As a “catch-all” term Christianity is a Judaism that accepted the Messiah and Rabbinic Judaism rejected the Messiah.

No, Christianity as a catch-all is a term for people of all origins who accept Jesus and follow a set of beliefs developed by the followers of Jesus. Judaism rejected and continues to reject Jesus’ claim to anything. If you rip off the label from a loaf of bread and glue it to a white piece of cardboard and then say that the carboard is “bread which rejected carbs” you would have something which isn’t actually bread masquerading and trying to use the name “bread” while not having any connection to bread except the superficial shape and color, and the label. Are current American citizens included in the catch-all "British" but are just "British people who rejected King George"?

Even today ethnic Jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah are called “Messianic Jews” and it is certainly appropriate for them to do so.

No, it is duplicitous and they do it to trick those who are not as familiar with their Judaism into thinking that one can hold two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive positions at the same time. The leaders of these communities are usually not Jewish but they use (butchered) Hebrew words and ideas to fool the less educated. They are Christians and if they were honest, they would admit that. But they are not.

Anyhoo, you seem to be moving your subjects so that you can attack Judaism as it is. That's not new, nor interesting to me, so best of luck to you.

 

[rosends]

Why would that be a problem?

It isn't a problem if all you want to do is discuss Christianity with Christians. This thread was about the Jewish messiah so the Christian understanding is not all that useful. If you are going to discuss words from Jewish texts then you should do so (to be honest) from the Jewish perspective. Use the Jewish terminology. The idol "Gad" was called an idol a long time ago in Jewish circles, not a deity.

The first and second commandments are distinct. One relates to the living beings and the other to inanimate objects. Christians calling an object "God-breathed" doesn't bring it to life.

I don't even know what you consider the first and second commandments to be, so your particular application of them or supposed distinction that you claim is your own, personal innovation and is worthless to me.

Straw man. There's no reason to think that they're living beings.

I didn't say "living beings" I said "deity" which was the word you used for "luck."

Ambiguous and irrelevant.

Actually, relevant and clear. If you don't understand, ask. It is ok for you not to understand.

Lucifer was associated with the planet Venus, and heylel ben shakar (called Lucifer) of Isaiah 14:12 describes a living being.

No, not called Lucifer in Judaism and 14:12 is connected to Venus and also to Nevuchadnetzar.

There isn't a single Hebrew word for "God". You're conflating singlar and plural forms.

There are multiple Hebrew words for God, some in the singular and some in the plural. "Gad" is not one of them.

 

[Ebionite]

If you are going to discuss words from Jewish texts then you should do so (to be honest) from the Jewish perspective. Use the Jewish terminology. The idol "Gad" was called an idol a long time ago in Jewish circles, not a deity.

Religious bias isn't useful. Also you're using an ad antiquitatem fallacy.

I don't even know what you consider the first and second commandments to be

Exodus 20:1-6

I didn't say "living beings" I said "deity" which was the word you used for "luck."

I get that you don't accept that GD was used to represent a living being, but that's where the facts lead.

"Because the god Gad is only sporadically attested in personal names before the 5-4th century and yet appears with the same kinds of predicates as major high gods, it seems unavoidable that the name functioned as an epithet and referred to a deity commonly known by another name. The widespread attestation of theophoric personal names that link a major high god with gad in the predicative element noted above shows that the concept of good fortune and fate was not unrelated to these deities’ characters and in fact was integral to their role in personal religion (deity X is “good fortune”). "

The god Gad

The cult of the god Gad in ancient Israel is at first glance obscure. As a god identified with good fortune (the word gad means “fortune, happiness”), the divine name is attested sporadicall…

www.religionofancientpalestine.com

Actually, relevant and clear.

The burden of proof of relevance is yours.

No, not called Lucifer in Judaism and 14:12 is connected to Venus and also to Nevuchadnetzar.

Still relevant to the west because of Lucifer's role in Constantine's religions.

There are multiple Hebrew words for God, some in the singular and some in the plural. "Gad" is not one of them.

The point remains that "God" is ambiguous using that name impedes communication of issues relating to deity in general.

 

[rosends]

Religious bias isn't useful. Also you're using an ad antiquitatem fallacy.

I'm speaking of Hebrew language and the current context of discussion. Calling something a fallacy because you can't argue it is not helpful.

Exodus 20:1-6

1. I am the Lord thy God, who have brought thee out of the land of Miżrayim, out of the house of bondage.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.

You agree with that?

I get that you don't accept that GD was used to represent a living being, but that's where the facts lead.

Sure, Gad was a living being -- the son of Jacob. Is that a problem? Or are you saying that "Gad" as an idol was actually a living being?

The burden of proof of relevance is yours.

actually, it isn't. You made the claim that my statement that in Judaism, fortune and luck aren't deities or gods was ambiguous and irrelevant. You did nothing to support your dismissal. As my statement followed logically your assertion that they ARE deities, my response was on point and precise.

Still relevant to the west because of Lucifer's role in Constantine's religions.

how is it relevant in this thread that you present Isaiah as talking about something he isn't and discuss a figure unrelated to your claim about "Gad"?

The point remains that "God" is ambiguous using that name impedes communication of issues relating to deity in general.

God isn't ambiguous in Judaism and using the English word just allows a person to use English. If one wanted to discuss god, that would be different.

 

[Ebionite]

I'm speaking of Hebrew language and the current context of discussion. Calling something a fallacy because you can't argue it is not helpful.

Hebrew doesn't translate well into English, so the religious bias of the traditions of translation are relevant. Your ad antiquatem fallacy follows from that tradition. Case in point is your refusal to abandon ambiguous language eg "God isn't ambiguous in Judaism". The ambiguity is due do the fact that different Hebrew words, having different meanings, are translated as "God".

 

[rosends]

Hebrew doesn't translate well into English, so the religious bias of the traditions of translation are relevant. Your ad antiquatem fallacy follows from that tradition. Case in point is your refusal to abandon ambiguous language eg "God isn't ambiguous in Judaism". The ambiguity is due do the fact that different Hebrew words, having different meanings, are translated as "God".

How is the claim that God isn't ambiguous an ambiguous statement? God is not at all ambiguous. Understanding the use of each of the titles and labels for God helps us understand the bit we can about God and relate to God. But the issue of "translated as" then poses your problem. Translated by whom? If someone is not familiar with the different words in the Hebrew and falls back on a generic God label then that doesn't make the God idea and more ambiguous. It just speaks to the limitations of that translator.

Is your concern with the 3 English letter construct or with the God concept?

 

[Clear]

• POST ONE OF TWO
• 1) Regarding names used anciently:
  
  Rosends said : “Alexander” is not Jewish by any stretch yet many Jews have the name”
  Clear said : I agree that Alexander is not Jewish by any stretch, but we are not talking about relatively modern times are we.
  We are talking about Judea and babylon, etc. 2500 years ago. How many Jews in Judea named their children “alexander” in 600 b.c.?
  
  HISTORICAL usage is the point.
  
  While you (and I) have little training in such linguistic history, there are those who are trained in this field and understand the concept. For example
  
  Tero Astola says “Basia and Marduka both had Babylonian names, but Amuse’s name points to his non-Babylonian origin. A-mu-se-e is the Babylonian spelling of Hws (Hosea or Hoshea), a name which is attested several times in the Hebrew Bible. The significant differences in the spelling result from the Characteristics of Babylonian, in which the West Semetic h could not be accurately presented and w was customarily written as m or left completely out”.
  
  He points out in his book regarding other spellings which indicate Babylonian versions of the same name.
  
  In discussing the Ebabbar temple Marduk-Remanni archive he correctly uses the term “Judean family” in discussing the remnants of the archive. In using this term he cannot tell if the individuals are “Jews”, merely that they were “Judeans”. One could not tell what religion a Judean was.
  
  For example, the descendants of Ari (with an “h” - arih) a Judean take on Babylonian names that are theophoric (indicate a God) of the Babylonian Gods. So Arih ( (a Judean name” has descendants with names that indicate honor of other Gods such as Bel (Marduk), Nabu, and Samas and so one descendents name is “Bel-iddi”.
  
  He points out that one could often tell by the name where one was from but one could not tell what God they worshipped. Perhaps Ari (a Judean) worshipped Marduk and Ahu-Yama (a Judean name) worshipped Jehovah. One could not know BECAUSE “Judean” did not indicate a religion, but a place.
  Rosends responds : So your point is that you can look at SPELLINGS of names and decide origin.”
• Rosends responds : Or one could not know because names don’t always clearly indicate origin or belief and using them to decide is, as I said,”
• I agree that you do not have sufficient historical and linguistic familiarity with early nomenclature to do this, but historians with greater knowledge and training very, very frequently do this just as they can refer to coins and tell what country and time period they came from.

• 1a)Regarding use of historical labels such as “Judean” by historians.
• Rosends responded : “You mean you believe it is “correct” because it agrees with your understanding of the use of the label. “
• 
  
• You asked for historical “evidence”, you have no right to complain when I am able to provide it.
• 
  
• I gave you evidence from several historians regarding the historical use of the word “Judean”. While I believe it their almost universal use of these terms is perfectly correct, you seem to simply dismiss their usage because it disagrees with your belief. This is what I meant that your theory cannot survive in the historical world but must remain in the world of personal opinion and personal dogma.
• 
  
• 
  
  2) Regarding the innovation of “Matrilineality” in Rabbinic Judaism
  
  Rosends said : “… the matrilineality of Judaism still determined religious identity.”
  Clear responded : “Again you are referencing the Religion now called “rabbinic Judaism” or “rabbinate Judaism” and applying it’s innovations to ancient Jahwism.
  
  If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.
  These are not the same religions on this point.
• For example, Grabe, in reviewing Cohens point that matrilineality" was not part of ancient Israelite religion also agrees, and point out :
  

Other Historians have made the same observations as Cohen and Grabe, Edwards, etc.

One problem is that individuals often view their religion as being the same as the ancient religion. Rabbinic Jews, and Christians and Muslims all tend to do this.

Modern Jews make the same mistake Christians make in assuming their modern religion is the same as the prophetic religions anciently. This is why historians distinguish the two in specific historical discussion.

The emergence of rabbinic Judaism is full of innovations created by their leadership as they attempted to define what doctrines and practices they were going to adopt and adhere to. As Rabbinic Judaism emerged, so did their creation of rules and traditions created (often) by their interpretation of earlier prophetic religion.


3) Regarding the modern "Rabbinic" Judaism being a different religion than ancient, Prophetic religion.
Rosends replied : That is your belief about it, yes.

If I understand correctly, the response above is to my claim that rabbinic Judaism is NOT the same religion as ancient prophetic religion.

Yes, the religion created by the rabbis is NOT the same as prophetic religion.
Rabbinic Judaism is contaminated with many innovations and doctrines and rules that are simply based on their varying and often conflicting opinions and personal interpretation of scriptures.

While I know this is bothersome, still, there is a historical basis for claiming this.
Let me give you some examples :

Certain Doctrines created by Rabbis are not particularly “biblical”.

1) The Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with BOTH male and female sex organs is a jewish doctrine that I think is simply based on a bizarre interpretation of the biblical text.

2) Multiple Rabbi/Scholars admit that the Orah Torah created by early Rabbis is contaminated with man-made innovations. In fact there are so many innovations that there are entire categories of them.

3) Jewish courts may create laws and then reverse the laws created before and both are considered correct.

4) Your own rabbis teach that the current Oral Torah is not “true” per se, but is based on convention (i.e. conventional).

5) Even the language of the Mishna tells us that often the scribes innovated new laws.
Anciently, (as @Eli G pointed out), it was typically prophetic, revelation driven relevation that new laws were based on. You have no prophets nowadays. They did.

6) The scribes created laws which insist that Jews must defend these new laws even at the expense of Orah Torah.

7) The intent of writing down these innovations was often to keep later generations from disputing the views of their predecessors.

8) Some rabbinic rules were simply created for special interests (such as the rich).

9) Some corpora of Rabbinic laws are even categorized as prohibiting that which God permits.

10) Some of the Scribal laws obligate the rabbinical Jews to defend the Scribal laws with “greater stringency” than they defend actual Torah.

11) Not only does what is “true” change depending upon conflicting opinion of current Jewish leadership, but Rabbis point out that Jews, like yourself are obligated to defend this strange Scribal authority to designate as “true”, rules that state one thing in one time and place and yet must defend the opposite in another time and place if the scribes change their mind as to what is “true”.
This sort of “relativity” in “truth” is worrisome but it does explain why some of your arguments go against obvious truth.

12) There are multiple and conflicting versions of the Mishna in this “oral law” which is supposedly passed down from Moses.

That is sufficient to start.

Not only does what is “true” change depending upon conflicting opinion of current Jewish leadership, but Rabbis point out that Rabbinic Jews, like yourself are obligated to defend this strange Scribal authority to designate as “true”, rules that state one thing in one time and place and yet must defend the opposite in another time and place if the scribes change their mind as to what is “true”.

Do you want me to give you historical example of each of these points so you can understand why, historically, the religion called “Rabbinic Judaism” is not the same religion as ancient, Prophetic, Judaism?


;POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO



4) Regarding Matrilineality and the statement by historians Rabbi Cohen, Rabbi grabe, Edwards, etc that it is not biblical, but instead is another innovation of the Rabbis.

Rosends responded : “And Cohen’s statement would fly in the face of biblical text. You realize that matrilineality is actually biblical, right?”

And do YOU realize that it this innovation in Rabbinic Judaism is simply based on the interpretation of the later Jewish leaders, right?

Such innovations are often clothed in a very obscure or obtuse scriptural reference, but the Jewish (and non Jewish) religious historians are correct on this point. ( and @Eli G was correct on this point as well).


5) THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT THAT RABBINIC JUDAISM IS NOT THE SAME RELIGION AS PROPHETIC JUDAISM
Rosends said : “No one has claimed that modern Judaism is identical with biblical Judaism, but that modern Judaism is the natural (and internally consistent) evolution of biblical Judaism, steeped in the same set of laws and understandings.

That sound like a dogmatic talking point.
While the religion of Rabbinic Judaism has some of the same principles as ancient, prophetic, Judaism, it is contaminated with many, many, innovations that are not part of ancient prophetic religion.
It is NOT the same set of laws and understandings as prophetic religion..

For example :
I’ve already referred to the Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female genitalia.

While the rabbis point to a scriptural text to justify this belief, the scriptural justification is very tenuous and easily countered as irrational by other scriptural texts.

The rabbis created unusual prohibitions against specific areas of religious knowledge :
The Talmudic prohibition against discussing or inquiries into areas of learning (such as what was happening before the first letter of the Hebrew Bible have justifications which are, frankly, bizarre on their face.

Some of the rules which the rabbis innovate are troublesome and based on tenuous interpretations :

The ceremonial washing of dishes, especially those given them by non-jews : For example, the strange requirement of Tevillah where one must take certain dishes to a Mikvah and ceremonially wash them while saying a prayer over them seems silly that it is required for a barbecue spit or a chafing dish but the can opener does not. The toaster tray requires this ceremonial washing but it’s chamber does not. It seems strange for the rabbis to have to tell Jews that a corkscrew and dishwashing basis, knife sharpener and napkin ring do not require this ceremonial washing while other dishes do.

The strange rules against jews using a thermometer when entering public buildings on the sabbath (as happened during covid) : Or the strange rabbinic orders During the covid outbreak saying that use of infrared thermometer use when entering a hospital violated the sanctity of the Sabbath to avoid work on the Sabbath (by taking the measurement and writing the result). Thus there was “no permit to enter these places on Shabbat”. But, interestingly, “the right way to enter hospitals” was to let a non-jew perform the work and then it was o.k. to enter the hospital or other public place.

Such rabbinic innovations seem, to me, to be silly and simply additions and innovations and accretions in the place of authentic religion.

6) REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF GENTILES IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

Rosends said : “I said that there were commentators that said they converted fully and some that said they didn't convert fully” (post #199)

Clear replied : “So, if they started out as non-Jews among Jews and did not convert, then they remained non-Jews among Jews.”

Rosends replied : “Yes, and were not called Jews, Judeans, Israelites etc.”

Clear responded : “OK, so there is a tacit admission by both of us that there WERE non-Jews among the Jews. That is progress.

You say they were not called “Judeans”, the historians say they were and that the term “a Judean”, historically , simply meant “someone living in Judeah” regardless of religion just as “a Texan” simply means “someone from or living in Texas”.
It was a geographic term in early usage and still is today. We refer to "The Judean desert", "The judean texts", etc.
For examples :

From Edwards as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:




View attachment 80843

From Grabe as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:


View attachment 80844




From Gruen as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:



View attachment 80845



7) REGARDING CLEARS’ AGREEMENT WITH COHENS USE OF THE TERM MITYAHADIM

Rosends replied : “Great, so you can see where Cohen might have gotten his position from regarding the non-Jews in Persia in the 5th century bce.

No, I cannot see who Cohen is referring to and your response does not tell readers who you said Cohen was referring to.
I asked you to tell me who you claimed he was referring to.

If Cohen is referring to Ibn Yahya then give us some proof that Ibn Yahya’s opinion is historically, correct rather than simply representing a strange opinion of a single person trying to support his religion.





8) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT SPECIFICALLY THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK WERE SCARED OF THE JEWS.

Rosends claims : Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted.”

Clear responded : All other historians both you and I have referenced do NOT make this claim, but simply refer to non-Jews as a categorical term.”

Who is ibn Yahya and what are his historical qualifications to render an opinion?
Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?
I asked you to provide historical proof...

Rosends responded : “You are asking me to provide whatever it was that a 16th century scholar used to come to his understanding?

No, this subtle rewording is NOT what I asked you to do.

You asked for historical proof which I gave, I was simply asking you for proof for your position as well.
I am asking you to provide proof of Ibn Yahya’s claim is historically correct rather than simply a strange opinion.
If you cannot do it, then simply tell readers clearly that you cannot do it.



Then, in a bizarre twist, Rosends starts cutting and pasting hebrew for english readers to "read" saying :

Rosends said : "I can’t do more right now than provide exactly what he wrote and in it, you can see the logic and text he uses to establish his deduction

ורבים מעמי הארץ וגומר. אחשוב כי המתיהדים האלה היו מזרע עמלק ולכן היו מתפחדים מפני גזרת מרדכי. שאם היו משאר עמי הארץ מה להם לפחוד ממרדכי אף כי היה גדול אם לא פשעו כנגדו. ומה שנאמר מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק גזירת שעה היתה. וזרעו לא נמנע מלבוא בקהל. ואולי כי לא נודע הדבר כי אם אחרי שנים רבות. ועשו גם המה בערמה כאשר עשו הגבעונים כדי להחיות את נפשם

The Ohr Chadash (16th century) also connects it to Amalek but in a slightly different way and you can read his sources and logic

"ובכל מדינה ומדינה וגו' ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים וגו'" (פסוק יז). דבר זה לא נמצא בשאר גאולות, רק בכאן, שהוא נצוח עמלק. לפי שגורם עמלק לבטל אחדות השם יתברך, וכדכתיב (עובדיה א, כא) "ועלו מושיעים לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה וגו'". ולכך בכאן שהפילו עמלק, היו רבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, כאשר היה בטל כח המן


Rosends, it is silly for you to cut and paste hebrew for English speaking readers.
Do you think they do not know what you are trying to do by trying to hide the data behind a wall of Hebrew so readers cannot see the data?
This is silly.
If you’ve been able to read this in hebrew, then simply give us the data in English so they can see what you are trying to hide.

Even readers of Hebrew see the attempt to obscure your data and will not want wade through the hebrew in order to pull back the curtain of Hebrew you have put in their way to obscure any deficiency of evidence you have.


I will get back to other responses later.


Clear

 

[Ebionite]

How is the claim that God isn't ambiguous an ambiguous statement?

It's ambiguous because "God" is ambiguous.

God is not at all ambiguous.

Ignoring the argument indicates weakness. From my last:

The ambiguity is due do the fact that different Hebrew words, having different meanings, are translated as "God".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's ambiguous because "God" is ambiguous.


Ignoring the argument indicates weakness. From my last:

The only three words that are translated as God are El, Elo'ah, and Elohim, which are obviously related terms. I see no ambiguity there.

 

[rosends]

I agree that you do not have sufficient historical and linguistic familiarity with early nomenclature to do this, but historians with greater knowledge and training very, very frequently do this just as they can refer to coins and tell what country and time period they came from.

Coins are identified in a variety of ways – dates, images and specific names That’s a far cry from identifying a random person’s religion by his name.

You asked for historical “evidence”, you have no right to complain when I am able to provide it.

But you gave no evidence, just the claim of a person about his interpretation and you like that interpretation.

I gave you evidence from several historians regarding the historical use of the word “Judean”. While I believe it their almost universal use of these terms is perfectly correct, you seem to simply dismiss their usage because it disagrees with your belief. This is what I meant that your theory cannot survive in the historical world but must remain in the world of personal opinion and personal dogma.

I went through your sources and showed that none of them identified a non-Jew who was identified as Judean, even if we wanted to allow the translational errors and interpretive biases of the people involved.

If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.

So that’s his claim. Have you asked him how he deals with the biblical origin. Or do you just blindly accept his opinion even when there is biblical text which disagrees with it? Then you are back to Grabe and the statement about “ethnic identity” not religion. But ok, that’s your bent.

Yes, the religion created by the rabbis is NOT the same as prophetic religion.

Yes, that is your opinion.

Rabbinic Judaism is contaminated with many innovations and doctrines and rules that are simply based on their varying and often conflicting opinions and personal interpretation of scriptures.

More of your opinion, but OK.

Certain Doctrines created by Rabbis are not particularly “biblical”.

Here is the problem. You don’t want to accept that the basis for rabbinic authority in interpreting and applying is, itself, a biblical mandate so you see rabbinic statements as separate from the bible-textual rules. You also don’t see the oral law as complementary to the written law so you reduce its authority. Once you start by denying the theological schema of the religion, you can judge however you want. I deny that Jesus was at all connected to God so I undercut the entirety of Christianity. I assume this is the part when you start misusing the word “doctrine” and you confuse the various types of rabbinic statements in the oral law. I believe we have been through this already elsewhere.

1) The Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with BOTH male and female sex organs is a jewish doctrine that I think is simply based on a bizarre interpretation of the biblical text.

Not a Jewish doctrine. An interpretive opinion that works to reconcile a difficulty in language.

2) Multiple Rabbi/Scholars admit that the Orah Torah created by early Rabbis is contaminated with man-made innovations. In fact there are so many innovations that there are entire categories of them.

And multiple rabbis/scholars say the exact opposite. Crazy, right? That you want to listen only to the voices that agree with you.

3) Jewish courts may create laws and then reverse the laws created before and both are considered correct.

The issue of Jewish jurisprudence and the development of Jewish law is well beyond what you understand. I would suggest that you read certain foundational texts but no doubt, you already have your historians to do your thinking for you.

4) Your own rabbis teach that the current Oral Torah is not “true” per se, but is based on convention (i.e. conventional).

I have no idea what that means and I suspect that you don’t either.

5) Even the language of the Mishna tells us that often the scribes innovated new laws.

The mishna discusses laws that were instituted on a variety of legal levels. Conflating them all doesn’t help your case. You should probably start with something easy Why Do Rabbis Just "Make Stuff Up?"
What is the basis that allows Rabbis to create laws?

Anciently, (as @Eli G pointed out), it was typically prophetic, revelation driven relevation that new laws were based on. You have no prophets nowadays. They did.

Actually, very few laws were based on prophetic revelation post Moses. In fact, that’s a central belief in Judaism. The obvious exceptions relate to the observances of certain holidays which are not prophetic and well predate the rabbinic era.

6) The scribes created laws which insist that Jews must defend these new laws even at the expense of Orah Torah.

If you understood more about Jewish law you would see how this could be true and yet compromise nothing.

7) The intent of writing down these innovations was often to keep later generations from disputing the views of their predecessors.

Now you are getting to the purpose of the gemara as a whole. The question about disputing the views of predecessors is a separate religious question. It is allowed in the right circumstances.

8) Some rabbinic rules were simply created for special interests (such as the rich).

Usually the special interests were for the poor and underprivileged, not the rich.

9) Some corpora of Rabbinic laws are even categorized as prohibiting that which God permits.

Yup. That’s an important function of rabbinic law. It comes from Lev 18:30.

10) Some of the Scribal laws obligate the rabbinical Jews to defend the Scribal laws with “greater stringency” than they defend actual Torah.

Not exactly, but in a sense, yes. In order not to undercut the authority of the rabbis there are cases in which violating rabbinical applications is consider more problematic than violating biblical ones. This is from Mishna Sanhedrin 11:3. However in most cases, rabbinic laws (of certain sorts) are held less stringently than explicit biblical ones.

11) Not only does what is “true” change depending upon conflicting opinion of current Jewish leadership,

Really? While there are things that can change, “true” isn’t one of them.

12) There are multiple and conflicting versions of the Mishna in this “oral law” which is supposedly passed down from Moses.

The process of codifying the mishna did lead to variations in text which were reconciled throughout the Amoraic period.

Since you don’t really understand the scope and development of Jewish law, you can’t see why each of your statements is incomplete and steeped in a very limited view of how legal systems work.

 

[rosends]

And do YOU realize that it this innovation in Rabbinic Judaism is simply based on the interpretation of the later Jewish leaders, right?

Well, that is your repeated claim.

Such innovations are often clothed in a very obscure or obtuse scriptural reference, but the Jewish (and non Jewish) religious historians are correct on this point. ( and @Eli G was correct on this point as well).

So you admit that Jewish law was based in biblical text but it is so difficult for you to understand so you dismiss it.

Do I have to dig up the last time you went through all this? It really is tiresome to hear the same things from you.

It is NOT the same set of laws and understandings as prophetic religion..

You do keep saying that.

I’ve already referred to the Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female genitalia.

Not a “doctrine” but an interpretation based on a difficulty of language.

While the rabbis point to a scriptural text to justify this belief, the scriptural justification is very tenuous and easily countered as irrational by other scriptural texts.

So you admit that the interpretation is textual but because you don’t like it, you dismiss it. OK.

You then go through all sorts of rules and legal applications that YOU think of as silly, tenuous or whatever. So you don’t like them. You think they make no sense. But they are all bound within a set of parameters and developed and derived by following very specific logical constraints.

You started a thread on this exact same topic in March THE CREATION OF THE TRADITION OF "ORAL LAW" IN RABBINIC JUDAISM but I guess you prefer to hijack other threads and write the same stuff over and over hoping that some of it sticks.

Such rabbinic innovations seem, to me, to be silly and simply additions and innovations and accretions in the place of authentic religion.

To YOU? Oh how precious.

You say they were not called “Judeans”, the historians say they were and that the term “a Judean”, historically , simply meant “someone living in Judeah” regardless of religion just as “a Texan” simply means “someone from or living in Texas”.

Historians claim it but I have been asking you for an example of a specific reference to someone explicitly shows as not Jewish who is identified by the word Judean. You still haven’t produced an example. Why?

No, I cannot see who Cohen is referring to and your response does not tell readers who you said Cohen was referring to.

Sure you can. He is commenting on a single word that appears one time in the biblical canon, speaking about one specific case. Why would you assume he is talking about anything else?

I asked you to tell me who you claimed he was referring to.

I cannot tell you which of the various commentators which I referred to was the one he was referring to. You asked for 1, I gave 3. If you want to know which one Cohen had in mind, go ask him. Or do you think he made it up himself?

If Cohen is referring to Ibn Yahya then give us some proof that Ibn Yahya’s opinion is historically, correct rather than simply representing a strange opinion of a single person trying to support his religion.

You mean the way you are viewing Cohen’s. You clearly didn’t read the Ibn Yahya (or the others) because if you had, you would have seen HOW that understanding was developed textually.

Who is ibn Yahya and what are his historical qualifications to render an opinion?

For that, you should look him up. And understand that his “opinion” is a derivation from biblical text. Strangely none of the historians uses the biblical text…weird, right?

I asked you to provide historical proof...

I gave you the understanding of rabbinic commentators from 4-500 years ago. I gave you older commentators and even Talmudic explanations. If you don’t like that because they don’t have resumes available on Linkedin, then you will just have to leave unsatisfied.

I am asking you to provide proof of Ibn Yahya’s claim is historically correct rather than simply a strange opinion.

How can I go back in time with a microphone and interview the people in the 5th century bce? What I can do is read the logical process by which he came to that understanding. Why don’t you read it and find equal and persuasive textual evidence to argue with it? Your various historians have been muddled in “might” and “theory” but for you that’s enough, as long as it is connected to a historian.

Then, in a bizarre twist, Rosends starts cutting and pasting hebrew for english readers to "read" saying

Hey, if you can’t read the primary source and understand it, that’s not on me. You see it as bizarre that, when asked for proof, I give the actual statement made. If you want to discuss elements of Jewish commentary, you should learn how to read Jewish commentary.

Rosends, it is silly for you to cut and paste hebrew for English speaking readers.

And it is silly for you to criticize and condemn and entire system that you can’t even read, let alone understand.

Do you think they do not know what you are trying to do by trying to hide the data behind a wall of Hebrew so readers cannot see the data?

I don’t know who “they” are. I do know that studying the American Constitution is best done in English and a non-English speaker who wants to study it will have to learn English.

If you’ve been able to read this in hebrew, then simply give us the data in English so they can see what you are trying to hide.

I like how you claim “trying to hide” when I have given you the answer and you just can’t read it. Anything you don’t get must be obfuscation? Hilarious. If you can’t read and understand it, just say so.

Even readers of Hebrew see the attempt to obscure your data and will not want wade through the hebrew in order to pull back the curtain of Hebrew you have put in their way to obscure any deficiency of evidence you have.

Ooh…lashing out at “deficiency” when you can’t even read the content. Well done.

 

[rosends]

It's ambiguous because "God" is ambiguous.


Ignoring the argument indicates weakness. From my last:

Except you ignored my response about words in Hebrew and the problem with translations. Ignoring what I wrote indicates weakness.

 

[Ebionite]

Except you ignored my response about words in Hebrew and the problem with translations. Ignoring what I wrote indicates weakness.

Mirroring me won't work. My point has priority because I brought it up first.

 

[Shaul]

Excuse me… if saving us from the consequences of our own sins has no basis in Jewish thought, then how do you understand / explain Daniel’s writing of the angel’s words recorded in Daniel 9:24 about the Moshiach, “in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness…”?

Of course he would also be a king. Both roles would make Moshiach similar to Melchizedek, king-priest of Salem.

Daniel 9:24 isn't about the end time moshiach. Daniel 9 refers to two separate moshiach. Also the word moshiach isn't capitalized, as you made it. Christian routinely mistranslate this passage. Daniel 9:24 clearly says that it is the people that put an end to their sinning, not a moshiach that "saves" them from it. "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Daniel 9:24 isn't about the end time moshiach. Daniel 9 refers to two separate moshiach. Also the word moshiach isn't capitalized, as you made it. Christian routinely mistranslate this passage. Daniel 9:24 clearly says that it is the people that put an end to their sinning, not a moshiach that "saves" them from it. "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place."

Ok, but doesn’t Daniel say “moshiach the leader” (Some say, “the prince”)?


Who else would that mean?
If not the promised One, why did Daniel say his arrival would bring in “everlasting righteousness”?

 

[Shaul]

Ok, but doesn’t Daniel say “moshiach the leader” (Some say, “the prince”)?


Who else would that mean?
If not the promised One, why did Daniel say his arrival would bring in “everlasting righteousness”?

It doesn't say "moshiach the leader". It says "מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד" in verse 25. There is no "ח" indicating "the" for either moshiach nor "naged". The better translation would be "anointed governor" or "anointed prince" or "an anointed prince". The everlasting righteousness was the goal for the people to establish.

 

[Clear]

8) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT SPECIFICALLY THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK WERE SCARED OF THE JEWS.

Rosends claims : Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted.”

Clear responded : All other historians both you and I have referenced do NOT make this claim, but simply refer to non-Jews as a categorical term.”

Who is ibn Yahya and what are his historical qualifications to render an opinion?
Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?
I asked you to provide historical proof...

Rosends responded : “You are asking me to provide whatever it was that a 16th century scholar used to come to his understanding?

Clear responded : "No, this subtle rewording is NOT what I asked you to do.

You asked for historical proof which I gave, I was simply asking you for proof for your position as well.
I am asking you to provide proof of Ibn Yahya’s claim is historically correct rather than simply a strange opinion.
If you cannot do it, then simply tell readers clearly that you cannot do it.

Then, in a bizarre twist, Rosends starts cutting and pasting hebrew for english readers to "read" saying :

Rosends said : "I can’t do more right now than provide exactly what he wrote and in it, you can see the logic and text he uses to establish his deduction

ורבים מעמי הארץ וגומר. אחשוב כי המתיהדים האלה היו מזרע עמלק ולכן היו מתפחדים מפני גזרת מרדכי. שאם היו משאר עמי הארץ מה להם לפחוד ממרדכי אף כי היה גדול אם לא פשעו כנגדו. ומה שנאמר מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק גזירת שעה היתה. וזרעו לא נמנע מלבוא בקהל. ואולי כי לא נודע הדבר כי אם אחרי שנים רבות. ועשו גם המה בערמה כאשר עשו הגבעונים כדי להחיות את נפשם

The Ohr Chadash (16th century) also connects it to Amalek but in a slightly different way and you can read his sources and logic

"ובכל מדינה ומדינה וגו' ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים וגו'" (פסוק יז). דבר זה לא נמצא בשאר גאולות, רק בכאן, שהוא נצוח עמלק. לפי שגורם עמלק לבטל אחדות השם יתברך, וכדכתיב (עובדיה א, כא) "ועלו מושיעים לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה וגו'". ולכך בכאן שהפילו עמלק, היו רבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, כאשר היה בטל כח המן


Clear said : Rosends, it is silly for you to cut and paste hebrew for English speaking readers.
Do you think they do not know what you are trying to do by trying to hide the data behind a wall of Hebrew so readers cannot see the data?
This is silly.
If you’ve been able to read this in hebrew, then simply give us the data in English so they can see what you are trying to hide.

Even readers of Hebrew see the attempt to obscure your data and will not want wade through the hebrew in order to pull back the curtain of Hebrew you have put in their way to obscure any deficiency of evidence you have.

Rosend responded : "I like how you claim “trying to hide” when I have given you the answer and you just can’t read it. Anything you don’t get must be obfuscation? Hilarious. If you can’t read and understand it, just say so.


I admit my Hebrew is not good so I went to my wife for her hebrew.

NOW I UNDERSTAND why you tried to hide behind the hebrew.

Rosends, If you did not have actual, good historical evidence, you could have simply told readers you had no data other than your opinion that you read in a commentary and your credibility would not have taken such a large hit..
And if you did not have any read logic behind the claim, you could have simply told readers this rather than intimate to us that Ohr Chadash provided logic and actual evidence to support your claim.

Readers : The hebrew is simply a repeat of the claim but it contains no significant historical data or logic or evidence for the claim that Rosends made that it was only the Amalekites that pretended to convert. The first quote simply makes this claim because it said it applied to the amalekites because it claim other peoples had less reason for fear than the amalekites.

In fact, it is a good example of my claim that Rabbinic Judaism often generated bizarre and extremely tenuous connections to biblical text in order to create a doctrine (or a theory in this case).

Rosends. Why on earth would you think that you could hide behind hebrew? Where is there ANY evidence to support your claim?

Even if readers did not have access to individuals who could read hebrew, they could simply use Google translate to see that your quote was full of air and lacked historical evidence?

Did you not think that readers would not notice the deception? Bluffing in a card game and debate go bad when they don't work.


Clear

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It doesn't say "moshiach the leader". It says "מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד" in verse 25. There is no "ח" indicating "the" for either moshiach nor "naged". The better translation would be "anointed governor" or "anointed prince" or "an anointed prince"

Oh, ok. I must’ve misread the Lexicon. Sorry. I should have seen that, when I read the JPS Tanakh 1917 version.
Ancient Hebrew, like other Semitic languages, did not have indefinite articles like “a” or “an” as English does, right?
That’s like ancient Koine Greek, I guess (although it’s indo-European.)

The everlasting righteousness was the goal for the people to establish.

If it’s solely for the people to establish, why is it mentioned in conjunction with moshiach?

I don’t think I agree with that interpretation.

No human can establish anything that’s “everlasting,” imo.

Take care.