Jewish Scriptures and their Transmission structure

[ponderingmind]

Had been reading much about Judaism, and suddenly it struck me as to what might have been the various historical chains or say structures through which these applicable scriptures where passed uptil this day. I would be thankful, if one can guide me with some links that technically explain these parameters with appropriate quotations in an Historical perspective.

Pondering Mind.

[bananabrain]

the historical perspective is not nearly as precise as the traditional one is, given that it relies upon external validation of what is effectively only authoritative internally. in other words, if you want to know how i learned something about my family history, i asked people in my family. external sources are somewhat less easier to come by, given that nobody is particularly interested in validating other people's versions of events and that nobody could ever reach the "objective" standard of truth required by historians anyway in this field!

anyway, if you want to know how we know what we know, the transmission of the chain of tradition is detailed in the mishnah, in the first chapter of the tractate "avot" (known as "pirkei avot" or "sayings/ethics of the fathers") - some of which can be seen here:

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/sylla...l212/avot.html

this page also includes many of the relevant sources:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dfalk/c...ud/academy.htm

anyway, the chain continues all the way to the rabbis of the mishnah unbroken. since we received the mishnah from them and we still have it, it therefore follows that we are part of that continuing chain of tradition that stretches all the way back to sinai.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[pohaikawahine]

mahalo nui bb .... I really liked this one in particular because it speaks so graciously to the power of the oral tradition ...."Praise cannot be duly given to one who obeys the written laws, since he acts under the admonition of restraint and the fear of punishment. But he who faithfully observes the unwritten deserves commendation, since the virtue which he displays is freely willed.

[adapted from Loeb translation]"

but I wasn't so fond of the one that said not to spend too much time speaking with women ... although I think I understood its essence, it still made me frown .... ....

they were both really good references .... aloha nui, poh

[bananabrain]

remember poh, the mishnah and gemara (which together make up the talmud) are more than just laws. they're not a hard-and-fast legal code, but a series of discussions and arguments with majority and minority opinions. these are real people being quoted in a context - some of them will have views that you (and indeed i) will find objectionable. by the same token, r. yosé of galilee, when trying to adhere to this rule and running into the famous scholar beruriah, wife of r. meir, was unable to ask for directions and was made to look like a right eejit.

if anyone is interested in looking into this subject further, i recommend the book "everyman's Talmud" by abraham cohen, which is a systematic treatment of the salient bits of the source material. jolly good stuff.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[ponderingmind]

Correct me, if i am wrong. There is one called Torah, the other one is Talmud which is comprised of Mishnah and Gemara. Is that correct? Do Kabbalah and Midrash add up to this list? Does one give these five the same importance when it comes for observances or say as the "word of god" factor?


BananaBrain said: external sources are somewhat less easier to come by, given that nobody is particularly interested in validating other people's versions of events and that nobody could ever reach the "objective" standard of truth required by historians anyway in this field!

I would be grateful if you elucidate your points through some good examples.

Thanking you,

Pondering Mind.

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by ponderingmind

Correct me, if i am wrong. There is one called Torah, the other one is Talmud which is comprised of Mishnah and Gemara. Is that correct? Do Kabbalah and Midrash add up to this list? Does one give these five the same importance when it comes for observances or say as the "word of god" factor?


BananaBrain said: external sources are somewhat less easier to come by, given that nobody is particularly interested in validating other people's versions of events and that nobody could ever reach the "objective" standard of truth required by historians anyway in this field!

I would be grateful if you elucidate your points through some good examples.

Thanking you,

Pondering Mind.

The breakdown would look like this (as far as Jewish literature):

Talmud: Mishneh, Gemara.
TaNaKh: Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim (note, Tanakh is an acronym: TNK)
Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy
Nevi'im: The Prophets.
Ketuvim: The Writings

As for everything else, I'll leave that to Banana.

[pohaikawahine]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

remember poh, the mishnah and gemara (which together make up the talmud) are more than just laws. they're not a hard-and-fast legal code, but a series of discussions and arguments with majority and minority opinions. these are real people being quoted in a context - some of them will have views that you (and indeed i) will find objectionable. by the same token, r. yosé of galilee, when trying to adhere to this rule and running into the famous scholar beruriah, wife of r. meir, was unable to ask for directions and was made to look like a right eejit.

if anyone is interested in looking into this subject further, i recommend the book "everyman's Talmud" by abraham cohen, which is a systematic treatment of the salient bits of the source material. jolly good stuff.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I adore the discussions that take place in Judiasm, it is such a breath of fresh air .... the story of r. yose of galilee was very funny,but what is an "eejit"? Couldn't find it in my dictionary. aloha nui, poh

side note: on a breath of polluted air .... today's paper has an article about comments by pat robertson regarding the stroke suffered by ariel sharon ....he said that it was "divine punishment for dividing god's land" .... the anti-defamation league issued a statement urging christian leaders to distance themselves from the remarks stating "his remarks are un-christian and a perversion of religion" (abraham foxman, national director of the anti-defamation league) "unlike robertson, we don't see god as cruel and vengeful."

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by pohaikawahine

what is an "eejit"? Couldn't find it in my dictionary.

Sorry about that - it's an accented form of "idiot".

[InChristAlways]

side note: on a breath of polluted air .... today's paper has an article about comments by pat robertson regarding the stroke suffered by ariel sharon ....he said that it was "divine punishment for dividing god's land" .... the anti-defamation league issued a statement urging christian leaders to distance themselves from the remarks stating "his remarks are un-christian and a perversion of religion" (abraham foxman, national director of the anti-defamation league) "unlike robertson, we don't see god as cruel and vengeful."

That is Scofield's unscriptural dispensationalist view of Scripture, and that doctrine and teaching have caused many to leave the Christ-ian Faith from what I have seen over the years.

Paul, a hebrew of hebrews, explains to us "Christ-ans" where God's land is now, providing one believes Paul was a True Apostle of Christ. This is all "symbolic" of course. Peace and Love to all in the Lord.
Steve

Gala 4: 24 which things are "symbolic/an alleghory".25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jesus confirms that here:

John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her--Believe me, woman! There cometh an hour, when, neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.

As far as God being "cruel and vengeful" how do you explain this passage to those who believe in the OT?

Zeph 1:14 The Great Day of the LORD [is] near; [It is] near and hastens quickly. The noise of the day of the LORD is bitter; There the mighty men shall cry out. 15 That day [is] a day of wrath, A day of trouble and distress, A day of devastation and desolation, A day of darkness and gloominess, A day of clouds and thick darkness, 16 A day of trumpet and alarm Against the fortified cities And against the high towers.

2 Peter 3:12 waiting for and hasting to the presence of the Day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;

[pohaikawahine]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways

Gala 4: 24 which things are "symbolic/an alleghory".25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.


As far as God being "cruel and vengeful" how do you explain this passage to those who believe in the OT?

Zeph 1:14 The Great Day of the LORD [is] near; [It is] near and hastens quickly. The noise of the day of the LORD is bitter; There the mighty men shall cry out. 15 That day [is] a day of wrath, A day of trouble and distress, A day of devastation and desolation, A day of darkness and gloominess, A day of clouds and thick darkness, 16 A day of trumpet and alarm Against the fortified cities And against the high towers.

2 Peter 3:12 waiting for and hasting to the presence of the Day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;

I would describe these as "symbolic/an allegorical" and do not see this as evidence of a cruel or vengeful god .... and god does not cause people to have massive strokes .... so what is your point, are you saying that people that believe in the OT do see god as cruel and vengeful .... I think not .... and as for pat robertson, his words do not reflect one filled with anytype of holy spirit or compassion or balance or peacefulness or love .... but this isn't the place to have this discussion so I'll end my comments here .... aloha nui, poh

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by pohaikawahine

I would describe these as "symbolic/an allegorical" and do not see this as evidence of a cruel or vengeful god .... and god does not cause people to have massive strokes .... so what is your point, are you saying that people that believe in the OT do see god as cruel and vengeful .... I think not .... and as for pat robertson, his words do not reflect one filled with anytype of holy spirit or compassion or balance or peacefulness or love .... but this isn't the place to have this discussion so I'll end my comments here .... aloha nui, poh

LOL, we are in agreement on old Pat. people can be cruel, but God is not cruel in the OT. God is just & people are not, that is how i see it.

[bananabrain]

i for one wish people could resist the temptation to interpret how occurences in the world fit their world-view, but then again that's robertson's entire raison d'etre. personally, i feel that if G!D was against the disengagement, as numerous people have claimed, i dare say sharon could have had his stroke before it. and even if this was the case, i fail to see why G!D would act in this case and not in the case of, say, saddam, bin laden or indeed ahmedinejad. the fact is G!D doesn't fit our ideas of Divine motivation however, ah, inspired we may feel them to be.

on the midrash question there's a very good answer here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ...ection-25.html

but a more general introduction to the relationships between texts can be found here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Does one give these five the same importance when it comes for observances or say as the "word of G!D" factor?

this is an interesting question. i would say it's a combination of all of them. the challenge is how to harmonise and integrate them all and this is very much the ongoing debate in the gemara. if it were a game of cards it would be:

custom (minhag) is outranked by gemara is outranked by mishnah which is outranked by Na"Kh which is outranked by Torah. if you really want your PoV to prevail it has to be backed up by all of these.

kabbalah, however, is also a question of an interpretative mode or style - the "sod" of PaRDe"S (peshat, remez, derash and sod). it can be extremely authoritative, or merely superstitious bunkum, depending on whose interpretation it is and where it's from.

b'shalom

bananabrain