The Protoevangelium of James

Early Christian Writings ^ | 2nd century AD | Attributed to St. James

[annalex]

Correct, the Talmud reference only shows that there were women working on the diverse temple objects. Other references are to virgins secluded in the temple, yet other, of women serving in some unspecified role at the door of the tabernacle. Also common sense shows that married women or old women would not be employed by the temple for reasons of them either busy serving their husbands or being frail. I suggest, why don’t you re-read the material presented in post 41 since it appears you did not get it the first time around. If you have new questions, or do additional research, I’ll be happy to reply.

I also would like to know where is my “misquote” that you second time accuse me of.

[count-your-change]

I showed that in #96.

[annalex]

The difference is difference of translation, and the quote is not mine, but Dr. Marshall’s.

[count-your-change]

Difference in translation? What translation? Evidently you didn’t read what the Talmud says there and repeated as though your own an unattributed misquote.

See what happens when you repeat what some blog says.

I can’t understand why you wouldn’t check what Marshall says when it could be done with a few key strokes. Or did you?

[BlueDragon]

Too funny! Perhaps the one insisting "temple virgins" were part of historic Jewish custom, should write the Institute a letter reminding them of the need for a contingent of virgins!

I'll put it more plainly --- is there a knowledgeable Jew anywhere who is buying what we have been presented with (by the OP) here? Bueller? Anyone..?

[annalex]

There are several translations of the Talmud, and besides several editions in the original Hebrew. One English translation is digitized (Kethuboth), you quoted from it and found no textual match but substantially, it is a match. Dr. Marshal apparently used another edition and I do not know if he provided his own translation or used one available to him. I do not own my own copy of the Talmud in any language, but apparently the only one available online is the one you are citing from, and it confirms Dr. Marshall's quote, albeit not verbatim.

[jjotto]

If there were anything like ‘temple virgins’, there would be at least one whole tractate of the Talmud devoted to it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Catholicism can never separate itself from Jew-hate. Jews must forever be accused of a giant conspiracy and fiendish manipulation in order to cover up their own true history, which of course is only honestly carried forth by the Catholic Church.

[count-your-change]

Marshall left out part of the quote to make it say something he wanted it to and I gave you the full text showing just what he did. You, who said the Talmud had historical value, should examine it. Here is an example of some of its "history": Shabbath 104b www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_104.html "HE WHO SCRATCHES A MARK ON HIS FLESH, [etc.] It was taught. R. Eliezer said to the Sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches18 [in the form of charms] upon his flesh?19 He was a fool, answered they, and proof cannot be adduced from fools.20 19.Which proves that scratches are important. and so one should be liable therefore. In the uncensored text this passage follows: Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? — Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? — His mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? — It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from' — satath da) her husband. — On the identity of Ben Stada v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 456, n. 5." And who is this son of Stada or Ben Stada? "BEN SṬADA Jewish Virtual Library While the Babylonian tradition clearly seems to identify Ben Sṭada with Ben Pantira (Jesus), it is highly unlikely that this reflects any historical tradition deriving from the tannaitic period. On the contrary, it is almost certainly a classic example of the Babylonian Talmud's "creative historiography" which seeks to identify obscure and unknown figures (like Ben Sṭada) with significant and well known figures (like Ben Pantira = Jesus). The Babylonian Talmud here as elsewhere reworks early sources (Tosefta and TJ) in order to achieve its own literary and polemical ends. It is therefore not surprising that inconsistencies remain between the older, more original elements, and the more recent trends and interpretations which coexist in the Babylonian Talmud's final retelling of these stories. Attempts to relate all of these various elements to a particular concrete historical figure will therefore almost always result in contradiction." You can and could have read more at either source but what I've researched for you makes more than evident that the Talmud is full of nonsensical tales even when misquoted. Nonsense is nonsense no matter who translates it or misquotes it.

[BlueDragon]

If there were anything like ‘temple virgins’, there would be at least one whole tractate of the Talmud devoted to it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident?

"...but Catholicism can never separate itself from Jew-hate. Jews must forever be accused of a giant conspiracy and fiendish manipulation in order to cover up their own true history, which of course is only honestly carried forth by the Catholic Church."

It's difficult to imagine a bunch of rabbis agreeing on "fiendishly manipulating" their own religious history (hide those temple virgins!) just to mess with Roman Catholics. I mean, first there's the getting them to agree part (yeah, ri-ight)...then there would be the getting them to keep totally quiet about it.

The first time the issue would be raised (and it would be, if more than one or two knew about it) and there was more than one side to argue, then it would be off to the races, hehhehheh.

[count-your-change]

Marshall left out part of the quote to make it say something he wanted it to and I gave you the full text showing just what he did. You, who said the Talmud had historical value, should examine it. Here is an example of some of its "history":

Shabbath 104b HE WHO SCRATCHES A MARK ON HIS FLESH, [etc.] It was taught. R. Eliezer said to the Sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches18 [in the form of charms] upon his flesh?19 He was a fool, answered they, and proof cannot be adduced from fools.20

19.Which proves that scratches are important. and so one should be liable therefore. In the uncensored text this passage follows: Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? — Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? — His mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? — It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from' — satath da) her husband. — On the identity of Ben Stada v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 456, n. 5."

www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath

And who is this son of Stada or Ben Stada?

"BEN SṬADA Jewish Virtual Library

While the Babylonian tradition clearly seems to identify Ben Sṭada with Ben Pantira (Jesus), it is highly unlikely that this reflects any historical tradition deriving from the tannaitic period. On the contrary, it is almost certainly a classic example of the Babylonian Talmud's "creative historiography" which seeks to identify obscure and unknown figures (like Ben Sṭada) with significant and well known figures (like Ben Pantira = Jesus). The Babylonian Talmud here as elsewhere reworks early sources (Tosefta and TJ) in order to achieve its own literary and polemical ends. It is therefore not surprising that inconsistencies remain between the older, more original elements, and the more recent trends and interpretations which coexist in the Babylonian Talmud's final retelling of these stories. Attempts to relate all of these various elements to a particular concrete historical figure will therefore almost always result in contradiction."

You can and could have read more at either source but what I've researched for you makes more than evident that the Talmud is full of nonsensical tales even when misquoted. Nonsense is nonsense no matter who translates it or misquotes it.

[annalex]

No one here accused the Jews “of a giant conspiracy and fiendish manipulation”. References to the virgins exist, as these posts show. There is no tractate, probably, because the institution was marginal or unimportant from the Jewish perspective. And yes, we Catholics are very much interested in our history, rooted in the Old Testament.

[annalex]

Marshall left out the fact that the houses from which the virgins came were paid for the virgins' labor. This fact has nothing to do with the main thesis, that these virgins existed and had specific tasks at the temple, and he replaced it with ellipses. What remained, does not match textually: "women who made the veils for the Temple" is in the translation you posted "women who wove the curtains", but the meaning fits.

There is a difference between conflicting interpretations of facts and facts themselves. Your example, shows that the Talmud is filled with conflicting opinions about some characters. If I, or Dr. Marshall were to take Rabbi Eliezer's side or Rabbi Hisda's side about the romantic triangle involving Stada and Pandira, it would be right to point out that neither of the rabbis' opinions was without controversy. But if we were to use the passage to assert that, for example, some women were hairdressers in those days, we would be correct in our assertion, regardless of anything else that passage says.

[count-your-change]

And some women wove cloth and some women were virgins and there was a temple. Put it all together and give it a shake and there’s the temple virgins.

The example I gave from the Talmud is the source of Jewish myths about Jesus being the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. The Talmud is to be read with only the greatest skepticism, i.e., unless demonstrated as true it must be regarded as false.

[annalex]

Jewish myths about Jesus

"we are not looking for spiritual guidance there, just for historical evidence of the customs of the time" (92) .

[BlueDragon]

And some women wove cloth and some women were virgins and there was a temple. Put it all together and give it a shake and there’s the temple virgins.

That's about the size of it...failing to be as advertised.

[count-your-change]

Exactly! So why would anyone try to use the Talmud as a history source? Nothing I referred to had to do with spiritual guidance but showed how far fetched these tales were from any history. And I think that is a rather generous evaluation.

[jjotto]

Just FYI, the family that made the incense is known, and it was done by the males.

[count-your-change]

Indeed. Little wonder Jesus said what he did about the endless burdensome traditions of the rabbis.

[count-your-change]

Thank you for that. I find it difficult to picture women hammering out gold and copper at a forge for the temple utensils too.
But please do share this with annalex in case he, she, they miss it.

[jjotto]

Actual utensils were carried over from the Tabernacle of the ‘Old Testament’ and were fashioned by Betzalel (I don’t know what name is used in English Bibles), or at least supervised by him.

Actually, most ‘consumables’ in the Temple ended up in a known family. For example, the Garmu family baked the Temple bread and the Avtinut family made incense, etc.

I’m under the impression that most was done by the males, but possibly wives and virgin (i.e., unmarried) daughters assisted. If that was their livelihood, it would certainly make sense.

I have not learned details except in the case of the incense, and that only because colorful archaeologist Vendyl Jones apparently found a silo full of the stuff.