Posted on 11/21/2005 2:11:12 PM PST by annalex
On the Mishnah, we are dealing with a variant reading.
(30) Threads, or according to others, denars in value. Another reading is ( ,uchr ) ‘damsels’, instead of ( tuchr ) ‘ten thousand’; i.e., it was woven by eighty-two young damsels.
http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Shekalim.pdf
Marshall quotes many more traditional sources beyond the Mishnah. And why is the Jewish tradition all of a sudden "unreliable"? We would not know nearly anything of the Judaism of the Second Temple period if not for it.
Firstly if we’re going to argue from what can or cannot be imagined then we’ll be the equal of the Rabbis of the Talmud who contemplated such heavy questions as How many men can hang onto the skirt of a Jew? (they had an answer) or Whether Jesus obtained magical books from Egypt (they had an answer) or that the term Rabbi was not used til after 70 A.D. and on and on.
Like I said Jewish rabbinical tradition is like sand that one has to sift great quanities to find a few flecks of gold.
Just as the quote from the Mishnah is the opinion of some Rabbi. How accurate is it? Everything the Talmud opines must be viewed as conflicting rabbincal opinions and that makes it unreliable.
Yes, we have two different reading, if the Marshall quote is the more accurate then what is being said is that maidens (virgins) wove a Temple curtain twice a year.
Would that be a temple virgin cult? Does that support Mary as a temple virgin or such? No.
A way too much is being read into a few traditons which are not “suddenly unreliable” but have been since Jesus’ day at least.
I opine that you haven’t read much of the rabbinal writings.
I am not the Pillsbury DoughBoy.
Both He and I eat Protestant children for lunch.
Your confession confirms long held suspicions.
However, if you want to dispute his findings, you need to address the scriptural and historical evidence he offers, rather than psychologizing his, or mine, motivation, evil as it may be.
That would be much easier to do if he actually DID offer any evidence.
The salient point is that the Holy Scripture makes mention of virgins in liturgical roles in the Temple, and so does the Jewish tradition. Do you dispute that?
Certainly I do. I thought that was already apparent.
No they don't - The texts you provide mention virgins, but do not suggest a liturgical function at all. The word you are relying on, 'tsâbâ,' has a military context depicting mustering or a troop assembling:
צבא
tsâbâ'
tsaw-baw'
A primitive root; to mass (an army or servants): - assemble, fight, perform, muster, wait upon, war.
(e-Sword:KJV, Strongs[H6633])
>H6633
צבא
tsâbâ'
Total KJV Occurrences: 14
fight, 4
Isa_29:7-8 (3), Isa_31:4
assembled, 2
Exo_38:8, 1Sa_2:22
mustered, 2
2Ki_25:19, Jer_52:25
warred, 2
Num_31:7, Num_31:42
assembling, 1
Exo_38:8
fought, 1
Zec_14:12
perform, 1
Num_4:23
wait, 1
Num_8:23-24 (2)
(e-Sword:KJV, KJC[H6633])
One might better defend imagining these virgins as Amazon warriors than inferring a liturgical sense. One had best assume an assembly of virgins... a group.... perhaps with an implied zealousness, as they are by the gate, as opposed others which may linger in the courtyard...
2 Machabees mentions virgins specifically;[...]
Yes it does, but it does not mention 'consecrated' virgins. It mentions no special order of virgins... Ergo, one is left with the normal specification for virgin, which unlike what the Roman mind would assume, is the 'set apart' aspect of Hebrew virgins... namely, all of them. That does imply a sanctity, a preference among women as being undefiled, but that does not imply any order, or specific temple order thereof. 'Shut up' need not mean 'cloistered', as it seems the writer has inferred.
[...] the rest are evidence from Jewish tradition. All these are historical evidence from an unbiased source (the Rabbis had no interest in promoting Marian Christianity).
Yes. A Jewish tradition that outright denies your claim. A Jewish tradition that would better know their own Temple and it's designs... Far better to take their word on the matter than rely on foreign interpretations.
Like Dr. Marshall says, “We may not know much about [the Temple virgins], but we know that they existed”.
I would say that Dr. Marshall has done little to prove his point. We do not know they existed, and the lion's share of evidence speaks to their profound absence.
We have multiple mentionings of young women in liturgical roles, both from the scripture and from written tradition. It is not therefore an implausible one-off fantasy of "some Rabbi". It shows that the institute of temple virgins existed during the Second Temple period.
Here is the supporting occurrence in Num 4:23
כל־הבא לצבא צבא לעבד עבדה באהל מועד
all that go in and minister in the tabernacle of the covenant
Here is Num 8:24
יבוא לצבא צבא בעבדת אהל מועד
shall go in to minister in the tabernacle of the covenant.
As you can see the usage of צבא is strictly liturgical. Which you could have verified yourself, but instead chose to sidetrack into a dictionary meaning, which, of course, does not contradict the liturgical usage anyway.
'Shut up' need not mean 'cloistered', as it seems the writer has inferred.
Really? I always though that κατάκλειστοι IS "cloistered". So "shut up" virgin means something other than "under lock in a building"? Or "shut up" means "in a building" but never, ever "in a temple building"? No kidding?
Far better to take their word on the matter
Indeed. Mishna Shekalim, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 Baruch. Their word.
The quotes from the Mishna show no such thing no matter what mss. is being quoted and thus the above is reading more into it and the Scriptures referenced then is there.
In saying: “We have multiple mentionings of young women in liturgical roles, both from the scripture and from written tradition”... there is nothing that suggests temple virgins.
“liturgical roles”? What exactly are you talking about and does how that translate into “temple virgins”?
What you are left with is apocryphal writings and Marshall's assertions, if that. If that's sufficient for you, well and good for you. But please don't tell me that women serving outside the tabernacle equals temple virgins, it's like asking me to not see what I see or read.
You are denying the evidence in front of you. I don’t know beyond what I have shown but what I showed points to an institution best described as “temple virgins”: unmarried women assisting priests or making liturgical objects, separated from larger society. There are three canonical references and multiple references from the Jewish tradition that together point to their existence.
From women serving/gathered (exactly for what purpose unstated) outside the tabernacle to temple virgins (Mary, according to apocrypha) serving inside the second temple is a leap not justified by even the broadest reading or Scripture.
To say “...unmarried women assisting priests or making liturgical objects,..” is more than a bit vague. What were they doing? 82 virgins weaving the temple curtain twice a year? What objects? Assisting the priests in what way when that was the duty of Levites taking their turns at service?
A questionable quote from the Mishna (demonstrably unreliable) and inapplicable references to the OT do not evidence make of temple virgins and Mary being of their cult.
No it isn't 'strictly liturgical', as my previous post details - It's common meaning, outside of it's military root, is 'assemble' or 'assembly'... a grouping or group, or mustering, the act of forming a group. In fact, of the translations I have available, *none* use 'minister' in the verses you quote, with the general consensus being to 'perform' or to 'serve'... From that, 'ministering' could be inferred, no doubt, but since the passages are speaking to time frames of service rather than actual acts of service, 'You will assemble to perform or serve' would be a clearer sense than 'You will minister'. And such a reading would be more in line with how the word is translated elsewhere.
And even if I were to give you 'ministering' and allow a liturgical sense (which I will not), it would only open a possibility, as one is not required to allow the same sense in regard to the passages you offer with regard to an order of Temple virgins. One would still be obliged to read those passages using the common sense of the term primarily, and not jump to a use of special circumstance.
Which you could have verified yourself, but instead chose to sidetrack into a dictionary meaning, which, of course, does not contradict the liturgical usage anyway.
I did do exactly that, and my previous post speaks to that with specificity. Your interpretation would require a liturgical sense from two out of fourteen uses of the word, and by extrapolation, adopt two more of the remaining twelve verses into that sense... I am not requiring the ministerial sense, so I can allow the fourteen proof texts to remain within their common sense (or within their military sense, from which the word is derived). I see no need to modify the meaning beyond it's natural use.
Really? I always though that κατάκλειστοι IS "cloistered". So "shut up" virgin means something other than "under lock in a building"? Or "shut up" means "in a building" but never, ever "in a temple building"? No kidding?
Who would think of locking up their virgin daughters while a foreign military troop is inside the gates? How absurd is that reading? No one EVER did that in bygone days... Far better to assume cloistered nuns, even though there is no evidence of such a thing in Judaism... And why would anyone think against them being locked up in a temple where their very presence would require their death? Far better to invent a special circumstance to allow for temple virgins...
Indeed. Mishna Shekalim, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 Baruch. Their word.
Not at all - Their word on those passages, their tradition, allows for no such thing. One must impose the meaning you seem to desire.
First, no one is making a leap to personally Mary. The frequent objection to the Protoevangelium is that there were no temple virgins in principle. We are discussing evidence that there were temple virgins as an institution. Obviously, from the existence of the temple virgins does not follow that Mary was one, and no one is claiming any different.
As to your specific question, perhaps you are not familiar with the structure of the Second Temple. The tabernacle was a substructure inside the temple; so those serving outside of the tabernacle would be inside the temple. What their service was precisely outside of the tabernacle in the Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 we don't know but most rituals involve people standing at attendance, perhaps handing the priest necessary accessories, or just forming a solemn entourage. The point is that they had a set position at the door of the tabernacle.
What were they doing?
Weaving the veil of the tabernacle is specifically mentioned; as well as preparing the incense and baking "showbreads". We don't need to know what was their precise function in order to conclude that they existed.
A questionable quote from the Mishna (demonstrably unreliable) and inapplicable references to the OT
The OT references are applicable: they refer to women in some role present in the temple. The Mishnah reference may or may not be accurate even though the 82 x 10,000 threads looks like an absurd description of the veil. However, you are pretending the evidence form the Jewish tradition does not exist, whereas it is important. For example, the Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbatim, and 2 Baruch evidence all show that indeed these women made the veils.
The dictionary meanings indeed embrace other settings, but the usage in Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24 describe a service of some kind at the tabernacle, so however you want to translate that, these two usages are liturgical and not, for example, military.
jump to a use of special circumstance
What special circumstance? In Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24 men are serving at the tabernacle and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are doing the same. Nothing special here: all these usages are similarly worded and describe some liturgical function (the tabernacle is a liturgical object).
Who would think of locking up their virgin daughters while a foreign military troop is inside the gates? How absurd is that reading? [...] Far better to assume cloistered nuns
Ah, good point. Indeed, if κατάκλειστοι were to mean "placed under lock so that they don't escape" then indeed that would make no sense. If however, they are cloistered, that is live separately because they want to, then it makes every sense that they flock to the priest in the moment of crisis or "throw themselves in the flames" as Pesikta Rabbati describes them. No one is saying that they were in every respect as Catholic nuns, just that they were separated from the other folk in the way allowing for the description κατάκλειστοι, and had access to the high priest.
their tradition, allows for no such thing
So these texts, a part of the Jewish tradition, are not allowed by the Jewish tradition? Huh?
I fail to see anything faintly “christian” in this text.
It seems to fit in well with the gnostic corruptions, and it has no resemblance whatsoever to the writing of James.
>> “And so it is. Jesus and family were in a house in Bethlehem when the wisemen visited and went in. Not cave, manger, etc.” <<
.
Correct.
The Magi came long after his birth in the sheepfold of the passover lambs. They were living in a proper residence, not at the sheepfold. There is no way of knowing exactly where, since the entire area was dragged to rubble with large timbers and stones drawn by oxen by the Romans.
>> “They had some really nice caves back then.” <<
.
But the Son of Man hath not a place to lay his head...
For the sake of clarity, the tabernacle in Samuel's time was the portable tent of meeting with a courtyard round about that was screened off. An altar and water basin were present in the courtyard.
The tent of meeting its self consisted of the holy and most holy and the whole area was at times called a temple. Solomon's temple was not yet built.
Only priests could enter the tent and the only attendants mentioned are males. (1 Sam. 2:12-19)
So exactly what role the women (they are not called virgins or attendants or helpers to the priests) played is not stated and I won't speculate.
“....some role...” is not temple virgins.
I'm not “pretending” anything, I've said quite clearly I don't think the Jewish traditions are reliable.
Any role that a woman plays in a traditional society is either serving her husband or be not married, and therefore, a virgin.
The authorship of James is disputed indeed. I don’t see anything gnostic in it.
What does 1 Sam. say about attendants? No comment on your part? What was “the temple” where young male Samuel served? No comment on your part.
Numbers chapter four says it was males that served the priests and only sons of Aaron that even saw the holy utensils. No women, married, virgins or otherwise but then I'm sure you knew this.
The books of Numbers and Samuel provide far more reliable information then the uninspired Talmud which again I'm should think you would be somewhat familiar with before commenting upon the endless opinions of the rabbis, some of which I shared with you.
You have read at least some of the writings of the Jewish Rabbis haven't you? Maybe a bit of Moses Maimonides?
No? Yes? No?
Here's the thing I object most to in our discussion,
It appears to me to me you are not in the least familiar with Jewish tradition beyond what is said on someone’s blog yet you make statements like this:
“Any role that a woman plays in a traditional society is either serving her husband or be not married, and therefore, a virgin.”
You said I was “pretending” about evidence yet when I presented what Numbers (surely superior to the Talmud) says there's no acknowledgment of what it indicates. None.
So thank you for your views, but I really have no, repeat, NO, interest in spoon feeding anyone.
Good day and all that.
A person might think such an exact location really is of no importance to Christian faith and understanding interesting as it may be. And they'd be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.