Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Luke 2:22... Old Syriac Gets it Right!

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #833
Help Print Share
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

Luke 2:22... Old Syriac Gets it Right!

Jan-25-2002 at 11:48 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)


All,

In the first two editions of the HRV I wrongly followed the reading of the Peshitta in Luke 2:22.

In retrospect I should have followed the Old Syriac here (and will in future editions)

The Peshitta has Nwhtykdtd "of their purification" (?!?!?!?!) in agreement with the Greek.

The Old Syriac reads correctly with htykdtd"of her puification"

It was Miriam (Mary) alone who needed a purification ritual after forty days as described in the Torah (Lev. 12:1-8).

In this case the Old Syriac gets it right but the Peshitta follows the error of the Greek.

Trimm

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

1. Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 12:49 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-25-2002 at 12:55 PM (CT)

Wow - James, that's pretty amazing how Mary gave birth all by her little lonesome in that stable while her and Joseph were travelling. Maybe a donkey helped her deliver - and perhaps a chicken cut the cord?

That was sweet of her to kick him out and deliver the baby all by herself so as not to make him ritually unclean - since anyone who came into contact with her during the 40 days would also be ceremonially unclean and require purification.

James - this is getting pathetic - please give it up.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

2. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 01:12 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 

What are you talking about?

All I have said is that forty days after giving birth to a boy a woman is required by Torah to undergo a ritual purification (Lev. 12:1-8)

Unly the woman undergoes this ritual of purification. It has nothing to do with where Joseph was when she gave birth.

Trimm

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

3. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 01:12 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 

OK now I understand what you are saying. I guess you are just not familiar with the Torah.

If Joseph became ritually unclean from any unclean contact he would hav only been unclean until evening and he would not have undergone the special purification ceremony that the Torah requires of a woman forty days after giving birth to a boy. That ritual is specific only to a woman giving birth and never applies to a man.
Again see Lev. 12.

It was Miriam ONLY who was being purified by this ritual.

Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

4. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 03:05 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
It doesn't only have to do with his help during the childbirth -

When the days of Mary's purification were over (33 days after the circumcision), they would have made their way to Jerusalem to sacrifice a pair of doves or young pigeons. (Luke 2:22-24). Then they went back to Nazareth (Luke 2:39). So Joseph was with her the whole time.

Luke speaks of "the days of their purification" probably referring to the fact that the mother's uncleanness automatically makes anyone or anything with which she comes into contact (e.g. child and husband) unclean. If Joseph was with Mary during the entire fourty days he would have been ritually unclean during that whole time.

The "unclean until evening" is only if a man touches a woman who is menstruating (Lev. 15:19). It's seven days if she starts menstruating during relations (Lev. 15:24) - it's "being cut off from Israel" if they have sex when she has already begun menstruating (Lev. 20:18).

He did not simply touch her while she was menstruating - he actively participated in the delivery of a male child - and we are told in the law that the time of impurity for such a delivery is 40 days. If Joseph had kept in contact with her during the continuation of her blood-flow (of the additional 33 days) then he would be ritually impure and require purification.

Now, I agree that the Torah makes no mention of a male participant during childbirth - but they didn't normally participate in the delivery of a child anyway. Midwives or other female relatives did. And they certainly didn't have contact with the mother for the entire 40 days.

I believe the Peshitta reading, along with that of the vast majority of the oldest Greek witnesses - is the correct reading. I believe from the account given to us that Joseph would have been ritually unclean for 40 days because of his participation in the childbirth and subsequently of his non-separation from Mary.

Also - it's easy to see how "her purification" is a revision, since later scribes may have found the reading odd. It's hard to see why they would have changed "her purification" to "their purification".


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 03:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 

1. Because of the laws of Niddah Joseph would have avoided impurity from Miriam.

2. Even if Joseph had an impurity issue it would not have involved his undergoing the ritual Miriam underwent which was only for women after childbirth.

There is no way that Miriam and Joseph were both undergoing this purification ceremony at the Temple. I could only have been Miriam.

Thus the Peshitta and the Greek are wrong and the Old Syriac is correct. It was NOT "their purification" but "her purification" .

Trimm

>It doesn't only have to do
>with his help during the
>childbirth -
>
>When the days of Mary's purification
>were over (33 days after
>the circumcision), they would have
>made their way to Jerusalem
>to sacrifice a pair of
>doves or young pigeons. (Luke
>2:22-24). Then they went back
>to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).
>So Joseph was with her
>the whole time.
>
>Luke speaks of "the days of
>their purification" probably referring to
>the fact that the mother's
>uncleanness automatically makes anyone or
>anything with which she comes
>into contact (e.g. child and
>husband) unclean. If Joseph was
>with Mary during the entire
>fourty days he would have
>been ritually unclean during that
>whole time.
>
>The "unclean until evening" is only
>if a man touches a
>woman who is menstruating (Lev.
>15:19). It's seven days
>if she starts menstruating during
>relations (Lev. 15:24) - it's
>"being cut off from Israel"
>if they have sex when
>she has already begun menstruating
>(Lev. 20:18).
>
>He did not simply touch her
>while she was menstruating -
>he actively participated in the
>delivery of a male child
>- and we are told
>in the law that the
>time of impurity for such
>a delivery is 40 days.
> If Joseph had kept
>in contact with her during
>the continuation of her blood-flow
>(of the additional 33 days)
>then he would be ritually
>impure and require purification.
>
>Now, I agree that the Torah
>makes no mention of a
>male participant during childbirth -
>but they didn't normally participate
>in the delivery of a
>child anyway. Midwives or
>other female relatives did.
>And they certainly didn't have
>contact with the mother for
>the entire 40 days.
>
>I believe the Peshitta reading, along
>with that of the vast
>majority of the oldest Greek
>witnesses - is the correct
>reading. I believe from
>the account given to us
>that Joseph would have been
>ritually unclean for 40 days
>because of his participation in
>the childbirth and subsequently of
>his non-separation from Mary.
>
>Also - it's easy to see
>how "her purification" is a
>revision, since later scribes may
>have found the reading odd.
> It's hard to see
>why they would have changed
>"her purification" to "their purification".
>
>
>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

6. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 03:20 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-25-2002 at 03:20 PM (CT)

James,

I'm not going to argue the laws of niddah with you.

According to Rabbi Doniel Neustadt, a real Jew:

"A woman in active labor is a niddah and her husband may no longer touch her. "

Finally, many Greek manuscripts (although later) also read "her purification." So it's not only the "Old Syriac" - but also later Greek manuscripts.

Later, because it was a revision to the odd-sounding "their purification." Joseph was ritually unclean because he did not separate himself from Mary during the 40 days. And, he helped deliver the child which would have exposed him to the unclean emission of blood.

This is a really dumb example.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

7. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 03:48 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
> Last edited
>by Paul Younan on Jan-25-2002
>at 03:20 PM (CT)

>
>James,
>
>I'm not going to argue the
>laws of niddah with you.
>
>
>According to Rabbi Doniel Neustadt, a
>real Jew:
>
>"A woman in active labor is
>a niddah and her husband
>may no longer touch her.
>"

>
>Finally, many Greek manuscripts (although later)
>also read "her purification."
>So it's not only the
>"Old Syriac" - but also
>later Greek manuscripts.
>
>Later, because it was a revision
>to the odd-sounding "their purification."
> Joseph was ritually unclean
>because he did not separate
>himself from Mary during the
>40 days. And, he
>helped deliver the child which
>would have exposed him to
>the unclean emission of blood.
>
>

If Joseph had helped in the delivery (normally done by a midwife) he would not have still been impure 40 days later. Even if he were it would be irrelevent because his impurity would not be remedied at the Temple and certainly would not involve going through the woman-only ceremony Miriam was going through.

No amount of arguing is going to convince anyone that Joseph was also going through the ritual with Miriam, that is just ridiculous.

Its plain and simple the Peshitta says "their purification" and that reading is plain wrong. The Old Syriac has "her purification" and is correct.

Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

8. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 04:01 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-25-2002 at 04:20 PM (CT)

James,

you said:
If Joseph had helped in the delivery (normally done by a midwife) he would not have still been impure 40 days later.

He would be ritually unclean if he had not separated himself from her for that entire time. If you were a real Jew and had been brought up in a real practicing Orthodox Jewish household - you would know that if a woman is unclean for any amount of time anything that she touches (even her bed and linens) is unclean.

Joseph was with her for that entire time until they returned to Nazareth. Therefore he would have been ritually unclean until she was purified at the Temple.

Your Halacha is horrendous.

Even if he were it would be irrelevent because his impurity would not be remedied at the Temple and certainly would not involve going through the woman-only ceremony Miriam was going through.

No one said it was the exact ceremony that Maryam went through. He was, though, ritually unclean and therefore required purification. Perhaps the Kahneh made sacrifice for both of them after a long halachic discussion where Joseph admitted being with Mary the whole time. Perhaps it was a separate ceremony altogether. Who knows?

Who cares? The fact that only the OS and a small minority of later Greek manuscripts contain that reading tells me that it's a revision.

Like I said - it's easy to see going from "their purification" to "her purification" - but I can't for the life of me imagine why they would go from "her purification" to "their purification."

Finally - here's a quote from Taharat Habayit (Vol. 1 Chapter 12):

When the woman is niddah, even the slightest physical contact is absolutely forbidden. Additionally, they may not pass each other objects from one hand to another, as that might lead to inadvertent physical contact. One should also not touch the clothes of their spouse (while they are being worn) when the woman is niddah.

So don't tell me:

Because of the laws of Niddah Joseph would have avoided impurity from Miriam.

That's bull and you know it.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

9. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 05:18 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 
> Last edited
>by Paul Younan on Jan-25-2002
>at 04:20 PM (CT)

>
>James,
>
>you said:
>If Joseph had helped in the
>delivery (normally done by a
>midwife) he would not have
>still been impure 40 days
>later.

>
>He would be ritually unclean if
>he had not separated himself
>from her for that entire
>time. If you were
>a real Jew and had
>been brought up in a
>real practicing Orthodox Jewish household
>- you would know that
>if a woman is unclean
>for any amount of time
>anything that she touches (even
>her bed and linens) is
>unclean.
>

Of course I know that. I also know that Yosef was a Tzadik (Mt. 1:19) and therefore kept the Niddah rules.

>Joseph was with her for that
>entire time until they returned
>to Nazareth. Therefore he
>would have been ritually unclean
>until she was purified at
>the Temple.

He would not become unlean just by being "with her". He would have to actually toch her or sit where she had been sitting etc. i.e. violaste the rules of Niddah, which he as a Tzadik would not do.

>
>Your Halacha is horrendous.
>
>Even if he were it would
>be irrelevent because his impurity
>would not be remedied at
>the Temple and certainly would
>not involve going through the
>woman-only ceremony Miriam was going
>through.

>
>No one said it was the
>exact ceremony that Maryam went
>through. He was, though,
>ritually unclean and therefore required
>purification. Perhaps the Kahneh
>made sacrifice for both of
>them after a long halachic
>discussion where Joseph admitted being
>with Mary the whole time.

1. In that case Mt. 1:19 would not call such a Torah violator a Tzadik "righteous man".

2. You are speculating and adding a lot of what if to the story.

3. Even if it were so Yosef's ritual impurity would not require a visit to the Temple.

4. The context is that 8 days passed and the boy was circumoised (Lk. 2:21) followed by the "days of her/their purification were fulfilled according to the Torah of Moses" This had nothing to do with any after the factr discussion with a priest. This was the "days of purification" which fall between the circumcision and the purification ritual of Lev. 12. These days and their culmination in the Lev. 12 ceremony apply only to the woman.

> Perhaps it was a
>separate ceremony altogether. Who
>knows?
>
>Who cares? The fact
>that only the OS and
>a small minority of later
>Greek manuscripts contain that reading
>tells me that it's a
>revision.

>
>Like I said - it's easy
>to see going from "their
>purification" to "her purification" -
>but I can't for the
>life of me imagine why
>they would go from "her
>purification" to "their purification."
>
>Finally - here's a quote from
>Taharat Habayit (Vol. 1
>Chapter 12):
>
>When the woman is niddah, even
>the slightest physical contact is
>absolutely forbidden. Additionally, they may
>not pass each other objects
>from one hand to another,
>as that might lead to
>inadvertent physical contact. One should
>also not touch the clothes
>of their spouse (while they
>are being worn) when the
>woman is niddah.

>
>So don't tell me:
>
>Because of the laws of Niddah
>Joseph would have avoided impurity
>from Miriam.

>
>That's bull and you know it.
>
>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

10. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 06:10 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
He would not become unlean just
by being "with her".
He would have to actually
toch her or sit where
she had been sitting etc.
i.e. violaste the rules
of Niddah, which he as
a Tzadik would not do.

So you're saying she delivered the baby on her own? We know they were travelling alone - and no midwife is mentioned.

He didn't touch anything she touched for 40 days - even though they didn't return home until verse 39 ???

You can be a "righteous" man and still have sinned - so don't bring up Matthew 1:19 - it has nothing to do with it. ALL "righteous" people have sinned.

I agree with you - Joseph's ritual impurity did not require a visit to the temple - and verse 22 says nothing about a visit to the temple. It's just talking about the days of "of their purification" having been completed and bringing Eshoa to Jerusalem to "present him to the Lord" (Redemption of the Firstborn.)

In fact, Mary's sacrificial obligation is not even spoken of until verse 24. Verses 22 & 23 deal mainly with the Redemption of the Firstborn where Eshoa was presented at the temple.

So when Verse 22 is speaking of "their impurity" - you're reading ahead to verse 24 unneccessarily.

Both Joseph and Maryam would have been ritually impure and would be subject laws regarding purification (even if halachic) - and verse 22 says they both had need for purification.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

11. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 08:27 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #10
 
Which do you suppose was more important to Yosef during this difficult and dangerous time:

1) staying at the side of his wife, attending to and comforting her,

or

2) remaining ritually clean?

What did Yeshua say about the Cohen and the Levite who both avoided helping the wounded and helpless, all for the sake of thier 'cleanliness'?

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

13. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 09:06 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #11
 
Akhi Rob,

If you were here (or I there) - I'd hug you. Well said.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

14. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 11:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #11
 

3. Obeying YHWH

YHWH chose to designate a waman as unclean during the days after her childbirth.

Are you saying it was a MISTAKE that Yosef should have second guessed?

_________

Pal sees unaware of what a Tzadik is. A Tzadik is not perfect, but they certainly do not just IGNORE the Torah either.

_____________________

The phase is "days of their/her purification"
In context it clearly refers to the 33 days between a male child's circumcision and his mother's purification ritual at the Temple. Thus it refers to "the days of her purification" REGARDLESS of whether or not Yosef became ritualy impure or not. His ritual impurity would not refer to these "days" of purification that obvioulsy refer to the 33 days that apply to a woman's purification only.

______________

Where do you guys get these blinders. This is so obvious!

Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

15. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 00:19 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-26-2002 at 00:23 AM (CT)

>A Tzadik
>is not perfect, but they
>certainly do not just IGNORE
>the Torah either.

That's just what I would have imagined the Pharisees on the road saying.

Helping his wife with the childbirth when nobody else was around would not amount to ignoring the Torah.

It seems that you ignore the heart of the Torah - and it's you - a gentile who pretends to be a Jew - who doesn't know what a Tsadika is.


>
>The phase is "days of their/her
>purification"
>In context it clearly refers to
>the 33 days between a
>male child's circumcision and his
>mother's purification ritual at the
>Temple. Thus it refers
>to "the days of her
>purification" REGARDLESS of whether or
>not Yosef became ritualy impure
>or not. His ritual
>impurity would not refer to
>these "days" of purification that
>obvioulsy refer to the 33
>days that apply to a
>woman's purification only.
>

The reference of the entire passage is on a two-fold event - her purification as well as the ceremonial "Redemption of the Firstborn."

Two ceremonies were being held here on the same day. When Luke is speaking of "their", he may mean the mother and the child. That's another angle you fail to recognize.

Luke quotes, in verse 23, the requirement to present the Firstborn to God.

The child would also be considered unclean after childbirth due to the fact that it typically comes into contact with blood, vaginal discharge and even excrement (sorry.) That's why a womans Niddah is separated into two phases - 7/33 for a male and 14/66 for a female child. The male child is unclean for the first 7 days of life - that's why they are not circumsized until the 8th day.

So yes - this verse could also be referring to the uncleanness of the mother and the child having had ample time to be purified.

That might be what the 'their purification' means.

So whether Luke meant Mary and Joseph or Mary and Jesus or Mary and Joseph and Jesus had ample time to become ritually pure - it makes no difference.

There's no problem with the Peshitta reading here at all. In fact, I think it makes more sense than the OS reading.

And I really think the insinuation that Joseph would not have participated in the childbirth so as to remain ritually pure is ludicrous.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

16. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 11:52 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 
> Last edited
>by Paul Younan on Jan-26-2002
>at 00:23 AM (CT)

>
>>A Tzadik
>>is not perfect, but they
>>certainly do not just IGNORE
>>the Torah either.
>
>That's just what I would have
>imagined the Pharisees on the
>road saying.
>

Pharisees????? If you refer to the story of the Good Samaritan they were almost certainly SADDUCEES:

From my commentary on this parable:

10:29-37 Parable of the Good Samaritan

Not only does this parable illustrate the meaning of Lev. 19:18 (see comments to Mt. 5:43) it also illustrates the point that the Letter of the Law (Written Torah alone) kills while the Spirit of the Law (Written and Oral Torah) gives life.

For background information in understanding this story it is important to know that most cohenim (priests) were Sadducees and that Sadducees rejected the Oral Law, using only the written Law (see comments to Mt. 5:38).

The Cohen and the Levite saw this man who was between death and life and simply passed by. They did this, not because they were self centered and lacked compassion, but because they were obeying the letter of the Torah:

1 And YHWH said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests
the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none
be defiled for the dead among his people:
2 But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother,
and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter,
and for his brother,
3 And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him,
which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.
4 But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man
among his people, to profane himself.
(Lev. 21:1-4)

This man was between death and life, his death was eminent. These men were forbidden to come into contact with a dead body, even to prepare, carry and bury it, unless the person was one of the close relatives mentioned in Lev. 21:2-3. Coming to the aid of a man abandoned on the street between death and life would have potentially violated this commandment not to allow himself to become defiled through contact with a dead body. The Spirit of the Law as expressed in the Oral Torah however would have required these men to assist this man. This was a case of what the Talmud calls a met mitzvah.

The Talmud requires a Priest to allow himself to be defiled in the case of the met mitzvah:

And so why does Scripture say, for his father, or for his mother? For his father or for his mother he is forbidden to defile himself, but he may defile himself for a meth mizwah. ...he may not defile himself for his father but he may defile himself for a meth mizwah. ...and so just as, though there is a general prohibition stated for the common priest, he may defile himself for his father, so too though there is a general prohibition stated for the nazirite he may defile himself for his father. Scripture therefore says, He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, but he may make himself unclean for a meth mizwah.
(b.Nazir48b)

>Helping his wife with the childbirth
>when nobody else was around
>would not amount to ignoring
>the Torah.
>

Nobody else around? Bethlehem was so full of people there was no room at the inn!

>>
>>The phase is "days of their/her
>>purification"
>>In context it clearly refers to
>>the 33 days between a
>>male child's circumcision and his
>>mother's purification ritual at the
>>Temple. Thus it refers
>>to "the days of her
>>purification" REGARDLESS of whether or
>>not Yosef became ritualy impure
>>or not. His ritual
>>impurity would not refer to
>>these "days" of purification that
>>obvioulsy refer to the 33
>>days that apply to a
>>woman's purification only.
>>
>
>The reference of the entire passage
>is on a two-fold event
>- her purification as well
>as the ceremonial "Redemption of
>the Firstborn."
>

There is no "purification of the firstborn" the firstborn is not impure... in fact he is quite the contrary the firstboorn is KODESH (Holy) and thus he must be redeemed from the Temple.

The ceremony for the firstboorn is the REDEMPTION of the firstbon in which he is redeemed from the Temple for five shekels. This is because he is KODESH (holy, Temple property) (Numbers 18:16) so that the Lwvites may be accepted insted (Num. 3:12-13, 45; 8:14-19)

>Two ceremonies were being held here
>on the same day.

Yes they are (Num. 3:14) but only the WOMAN is being PURIFIED. The child is KODESH and being redeemed from the Temple (Num. 18:16)

>When Luke is speaking of
>"their", he may mean the
>mother and the child.
>That's another angle you fail
>to recognize.
>

No I was actually expecting you to make this mistake because I suspected you would not know the difference between purification and redemption.

>Luke quotes, in verse 23, the
>requirement to present the Firstborn
>to God.
>

Yes because he is KODESH NOT impure.

>The child would also be considered
>unclean after childbirth due to
>the fact that it typically
>comes into contact with blood,
>vaginal discharge and even excrement
>(sorry.) That's why a
>womans Niddah is separated into
>two phases - 7/33 for
>a male and 14/66 for
>a female child. The
>male child is unclean for
>the first 7 days of
>life - that's why they
>are not circumsized until the
>8th day.
>
>So yes - this verse could
>also be referring to the
>uncleanness of the mother and
>the child having had ample
>time to be purified.
>

Even so the childs "days of purification" could not fall AFTER his circumcision... reread the text... these days are CLEARLY Miraim's 33 days AFTER his circumcision and thus the days of HER purification.

Even if Yosef had delivered the child he would not have continued to violate Niddah for days on end since then and even if he did it would in no way make the "days of... puification" between the childs circumcision and the Temple ritual pertain to him... THOSE 33 days would STILL only pertain to HER.

Trimm

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

20. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 01:52 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
I agree with Akhi James that the text says 33 days after circumcision...

HOWEVER...

I don't see where James is coming from with identity of the priest and Levite in the parable being Saduccees. The fact is Saduccees were HIGH PRIESTS, from David's time on down. Josephus records several power struggles between them and the Pharisees where they shifted power a few times just before the time of the Messiah.

In the end, by the time this parable is told, a compromise was reached between the two factions. The Saduccees could retain the high priesthood BUT THEY HAD TO CONFORM TO PHARISAIC PRACTICE. One of the ways of making sure this was done was to have his second in command the SEGAN ALWAYS BE A PHARISEE. There is the famous case of the Saduccean high priest who did not do a Sukkot ritual according to Pharisaic law and he was almost killed. You know what I am talking about, so please don't force me to show this directly. It is in my book however fully documented, pages 398-401.

In any case, Pharisees were the priestly MAJORITY in terms of the "rank and file", whereas the Saduccees held more sway in the Sanhedrin.

Now we can split hairs about how many Saduccees might have been priests or Levites per that parable, but to say automatically that they had to be Saduccees is wrong.

If I'm missing something-- especially Dean and Rob-- then tell me so.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

24. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 09:26 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 

This subject is getting old so I will try to make this my last post on the topic (unless for example new evidence comes up on either side)

Luke here is writing to the High Priest Theophilus ( A point documented in my HRV Commentary). We need to understand that Luke is attempting to communicate this material to a person intimately aquanted with these Temple rituals in an understandable way. I do not believe that he is expecting Theophilus to read "days of their purifucation" withiout further explanation and guess at why it is "their" not "her". Theophilus' reaction to Luke, a Syrian (or Assyrian) propolyte to Judaism, would be to tell him to go back to prosolyte school and that he he (Luke) was not going to teach him (Theophilus) anything about Judaism. Luke could not afford to leave his reader, the High Priest, wondering if he understood Torah or not.

2. The natural reading of this text is to apply the "days of... purification" to the 33 days of Miriam's purification which fall between the circumcision and the Temple ritual. This is so clear that BEFORE this ever became an issue HERE David Stern writes in the Jewish New Testament Commentary:

Their purification. Only Miriam was ritually impure, so the plural is UNEXPECTED.

Then he goes on to speculate with various solutions.... solutions to a problem that IS in the phrase "their purification"

There is a rule of textual criticism that says the most difficult reading is the most likely the correct oone. This rules is somewhat questioned by those who believe in the inspiration of the original. One textual crit scholar has commented "the most difficult reading should not be accepted when it is garbage."

Anti-missionaries do with this passage just what Theophilus would have done, used it as an example of a poor understaning of Judaism on the part of the author of Luke.

Now the Jewish New Testament Commentary by Stern has said for years that "their purification" is UNEXPECTED and that we should EXPECT to see "her purification" and then I show that the Old Syriac Aramaic has "her purification" and I get nothing but attacks and people trying to defend the "unexpected" reading when they no longer NEED to.

The simplest solution to this problem is that the Old Syriac has the correct reading.

Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

21. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 01:52 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
"Dr" Trimm,

You said:
Even so the childs "days of purification" could not fall AFTER his circumcision... reread the text... these days are CLEARLY Miraim's 33 days AFTER his circumcision and thus the days of HER purification.

YOU re-read the text. It says nothing about 33 days - verse 22 simply says "their days of purification" were over. The child's ended before the mother's - yes, but they ran concurently. Both HIS 7 days and her 40 days.

And YES - a child (or anything, human or non) that touches blood and vaginal discharge, according to the law, is unclean. Nowhere in the law does it say '...except for babies' or '...except for the First Born.'

ANYTHING - let me repeat - ANYTHING that comes into contact with blood, apart from the priests in a sacrificial context, is unclean. That would have made Mary, Joseph and Jesus unclean - albeit for differing lengths of time.

There is nothing wrong with saying "the days of their purification" - and that does not mean that all three people were unclean for 40 days. And Mary's sacrifice is not even spoken of until verse 24 - verses 22 and 23 deal with the family, as a whole, presenting their Firstborn to God. I see no relation between verse 22 and verse 24.

I'm done talking about this topic. Your example is very weak. Frankly it's not worth my time.

You - however, have ruined my whole outlook on the events in question. I'll never look at a nativity scene again without imagining your ridiculous suggestion that Mary struggled all alone while Joseph wore rubber gloves and stayed back to help her with a 10-foot pole while shouting "You're doing great honey - keep it up."

Thanks alot.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

25. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 10:53 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #21
 

I never suggested any such thing. You have so failed in debating what I did say that you are now making up straw men that are easy to knock down instead. What I DID say is that a midwife would likely have been doing these things and that even if Joseph helped in the childbirth it would not caus him to be part of and "days of puity" leading up to the Temple events.


These "days of... purity" are a fixed period that ends on the day of the Temple ritual, not on a vriaty of days. They are NOT days of IMPURITY (day in which someone, anyone was impure in general) they were "days of purity" that is days in which someone was becoming pure, or at least eligeable for purity.

>You - however, have ruined my
>whole outlook on the events
>in question. I'll never
>look at a nativity scene
>again without imagining your ridiculous
>suggestion that Mary struggled all
>alone while Joseph wore rubber
>gloves and stayed back to
>help her with a 10-foot
>pole while shouting "You're doing
>great honey - keep it
>up."
>
>Thanks alot.
>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

26. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 11:28 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #25
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-26-2002 at 11:41 PM (CT)

You have so failed in debating what I did say that you are now making up straw men that are easy to knock down instead.

It would seem that YOU have failed in this debate since everyone else who's commented on this thread (Andrew, Dean, Rob and Iakov) agree with ME. It's YOU who invented this supposed problem and it's YOU who has failed to convince anyone else but yourself.

>What I DID
>say is that a midwife
>would likely have been doing
>these things ...

You're reading into the text. It says no such thing - nor does it even hint that anyone else was present - and by both accounts the plain reading is that they were alone - as the shepherds, and later the Magi, found them.

>and that even
>if Joseph helped in the
>childbirth it would not caus
>him to be part of
>and "days of puity" leading
>up to the Temple events.

Nobody said Joseph would have been impure for 40 days - you're remembering my statements incorrectly. I said he would have been ritually impure for some time if he had assisted in the delivery or even touched Mary after labor began. I did say that he would have been impure for the entire 40 days if he stayed in contact with her for that whole time.

Whether Joseph's impurity lasted 30 seconds, 1 hour, 7 days or 40 days makes little difference to the reading.

Let's assume Joseph was impure until evening (a far stretch considering this was not just a menstrual cycle.) Jesus would have been ritually impure until His circumcision (a newborn male is unclean for 7 days and then circumcized on the 8th day - after which he is "clean" - no uncircumcized male could be considered "clean".) Mary would have been ritually impure for 40 days.

At the end of 40 days - all of the "days of their purification" would be over.

It's simple James - for cryin' out loud everyone else on this thread so far has agreed with me. It's YOU who've set up a straw man in making up a supposed problem that doesn't even exist.

The Aramaic reads "the days of their purification/cleaning" - the entire context of verses 22-24 is plural to begin with - and there are TWO ceremonies taking place. There is no conflict no matter how badly you want to create one.

At first glance your argument was superfically compelling - upon further scrutiny, however, it's yet another baseless example of pseudo-scholarship.

Go ahead and make the change in the HRV - It's not the only error it'll have, anyway.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

27. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 11:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #26
 

1. I did not make up the problem, SEVERAL scholars have noted the problem with this passage including Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary.

2. The text indicates that an entire city so overlaoed with epople that there was no room at the inn were present.

> Last edited
>by Paul Younan on Jan-26-2002
>at 11:37 PM (CT)

>
>You have so failed in debating
>what I did say that
>you are now making up
>straw men that are easy
>to knock down instead.

>
>
>It would seem that YOU
>have failed in this debate
>since everyone else who's commented
>on this thread (Andrew, Dean,
>Rob and Iakov) agree with
>ME. It's YOU who
>invented this supposed problem and
>it's YOU who've failed to
>convince anyone.

>
>>What I DID
>>say is that a midwife
>>would likely have been doing
>>these things ...

>
>You're reading into the text.
> It says no such
>thing - nor does it
>even hint that anyone else
>was present - and by
>both accounts the plain reading
>is that they were alone
>- as the shepherds, and
>later the Magi, found them.

>
>
>>and that even
>>if Joseph helped in the
>>childbirth it would not caus
>>him to be part of
>>and "days of puity" leading
>>up to the Temple events.

>
>Nobody said Joseph would have
>been impure for 40 days
>- you're remembering my statements
>incorrectly. I said he
>would have been ritually impure
>for some time if he
>had assisted in the delivery
>or even touched Mary after
>labor began. I did
>say that he would have
>been impure for the entire
>40 days if he stayed
>in contact with her for
>that whole time.
>
>Whether Joseph's impurity lasted 30 seconds,
>1 hour, 7 days or
>40 days makes little difference
>to the reading.
>
>Let's assume Joseph was impure until
>evening (a far stretch considering
>this was not just a
>menstrual cycle.) Jesus would
>have been ritually impure until
>His circumcision (a newborn male
>is unclean for 7 days
>and then circumcized on the
>8th day - after which
>he is "clean" - no
>uncircumcized male could be considered
>"clean".) Mary would have
>been ritually impure for 40
>days.
>
>At the end of 40 days
>- all of the "days
>of their purification" would be
>over.
>
>It's simple James - for cryin'
>out loud everyone else on
>this thread so far has
>agreed with me. It's
>YOU who've set up a
>straw man in making up
>a supposed problem that doesn't
>even exist.
>
>The Aramaic reads "the days of
>their purification/cleaning" - the entire
>context of verses 22-24 is
>plural to begin with -
>and there are TWO ceremonies
>taking place. There
>is no conflict no matter
>how badly you want to
>create one.

>
>At first glance your argument was
>superfically compelling - upon further
>scrutiny, however, it's yet another
>baseless example of pseudo-scholarship.
>
>Go ahead and make the change
>in the HRV - It's
>not the only error it'll
>have, anyway.

>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

29. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-27-2002 at 00:02 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #27
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-27-2002 at 00:06 AM (CT)

>1. I did not make
>up the problem, SEVERAL scholars
>have noted the problem with
>this passage including Stern's Jewish
>New Testament Commentary.

OK - Stern and the rest of them are wrong, too. Better?

>2. The text indicates that
>an entire city so overlaoed
>with epople that there was
>no room at the inn
>were present.

If you're suggesting that someone else was present - the burden of proof would be on YOU to prove it.

Luke 2:16 says the shepherds found "Mary, Joseph and the Baby" - no mention of a midwife or anyone else for that matter.

You're reading into the text and you don't care about the truth - just about being "right."

It's midnight and I'm tired. I'm going to sleep before my wife locks me out. We can resume tommorrow morning if you want to waste more time on this useless topic.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

30. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-27-2002 at 10:09 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Trimm,

Where does it say, 'this is a parable...'?

It doesn't say that, because its NOT.

'gavra khad...' = "A certain man..." = A REAL STORY.

Look later in the same chapter, v. 38: 'laqritha khada' = to a certain village.

This story has to do with khesed - keeping the WRITTEN commandment 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Yeshua says to the sofer, "what is WRITTEN in the Torah?', and 'How do YOU READ it (what is YOUR interpretation)?' The sofer is stuck with this term 'neighbor'. (or wants to stick Yeshua with it):

"wa-mannu qarivi?", asking Yeshua for a REAL answer.

If it was a matter of the cohen (Sadducee or not, it makes no difference) and Levite keeping the letter of the law only, THEY WOULD CERTAINLY KNOW THIS VERSE IN THE MIDDLE OF VAYIKRA! (aka Torat haCohanim)


Its funny... you quote what you're calling 'Oral Torah' FROM A BOOK! Its a silly oxymoron.

BTW, while Sadduccees surely rejected Pharisaic interpretation, they most certainly HAD AN INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN! They also had thier own written decrees. I'm tired of this misnomer of 'Oral and Written Torah' being projected back onto 2nd Temple Judaism. Its a farce. The concept of 'torah sheb'al pe' came much later, as a stamp to 'legitamize' Rabbinic authority in a time of great disorder among the diaspora, and a general fear of losing Judaism altogether.

I understand the Torah says, "when the days of her purification are fulfilled." This does not mean that Luke MUST SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Forcing the text like this really seems to be all letter and no Spirit, and yet you are the one talking about 'the Spirit of the Law'.

Go figure...

Rob

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

31. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-27-2002 at 01:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #30
 
>Trimm,
>
>Where does it say, 'this is
>a parable...'?
>
>It doesn't say that, because its
>NOT.
>
>'gavra khad...' = "A certain man..."
>= A REAL STORY.
>

A parable can be a real story.

>
>Its funny... you quote what you're
>calling 'Oral Torah' FROM A
>BOOK! Its a silly oxymoron.
>

No... the Oral Torah was later codefied into books (Nishna, Talmud, Midrashim etc.)

>
>BTW, while Sadduccees surely rejected Pharisaic
>interpretation, they most certainly HAD
>AN INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN!
>They also had thier own
>written decrees. I'm tired of
>this misnomer of 'Oral and
>Written Torah' being projected back
>onto 2nd Temple Judaism. Its
>a farce. The concept of
>'torah sheb'al pe' came much
>later, as a stamp to
>'legitamize' Rabbinic authority

Josephus writes:

...the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadduceed reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers;...
(Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews 13:10:6)

Hillel the great, a Second Temple Era figure used the term "Oral Law":

Our Rabbis taught: A certain heathen once came before Shammai and asked him, How many Toroth6 have you? Two, he replied: the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.7 I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah .8 he scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel, daleth;9 the following day he reversed to him. But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus, he protested. Must you then not rely upon me?10 Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral too.11
(b.Shab. 31a)

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

32. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-27-2002 at 04:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #31
 
>>Trimm,
>>
>>Where does it say, 'this is
>>a parable...'?
>>
>>It doesn't say that, because its
>>NOT.
>>
>>'gavra khad...' = "A certain man..."
>>= A REAL STORY.
>>
>
>A parable can be a real
>story.

Got any examples?

The text says NOTHING about a parable, so calling it one is a misrepresentation. Luke and the other Gospel writers let us know when its a parable. And I'll stick with what they have to say.


>>
>>Its funny... you quote what you're
>>calling 'Oral Torah' FROM A
>>BOOK! Its a silly oxymoron.
>>
>
>No... the Oral Torah was later
>codefied into books (Nishna, Talmud,
>Midrashim etc.)
>

And what are your extant sources and thier dates?


>>
>>BTW, while Sadduccees surely rejected Pharisaic
>>interpretation, they most certainly HAD
>>AN INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN!
>>They also had thier own
>>written decrees. I'm tired of
>>this misnomer of 'Oral and
>>Written Torah' being projected back
>>onto 2nd Temple Judaism. Its
>>a farce. The concept of
>>'torah sheb'al pe' came much
>>later, as a stamp to
>>'legitamize' Rabbinic authority
>
>Josephus writes:
>
>...the Pharisees have delivered to the
>people a great many observances
>by succession from their fathers,
>which are not written in
>the Law of Moses; and
>for that reason it is
>that the Sadduceed reject them,
>and say that we are
>to esteem those observances to
>be obligatory which are in
>the written word, but are
>not to observe what what
>are derived from the tradition
>of our forefathers;...
>(Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews 13:10:6)

Yes, 'paradosin presbyterion', 'tequnot ha-rishonot', 'mashelmanutha d'qashishey',
BUT CERTAINLY NOT 'torah shebal peh', or 'Oral Torah'!!!

Yeshua clearly calls these 'mitvot anashim', quoting YeshaYahu haNavi.

What Yeshua calls 'commandments of men', you are calling Torah!

AND YOU ARE EVEN EQUATING THEM WITH THE RUAKH!!! (in a previous post)

We need some discernment here... That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.

So, tell me, are these commandments of men from the Spirit, or are they from the flesh?

>
>
>Hillel the great, a Second Temple
>Era figure used the term
>"Oral Law":
>
> Our Rabbis
>taught: A certain heathen once
>came before Shammai and asked
>him, How many Toroth6 have
>you? Two, he replied: the
>Written Torah and the Oral
>Torah.7 I believe you with
>respect to the Written, but
>not with respect to the
>Oral Torah; make me a
>proselyte on condition that you
>teach me the Written Torah
>.8 he scolded and
>repulsed him in anger. When
>he went before Hillel, he
>accepted him as a proselyte.
>On the first day, he
>taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel,
>daleth;9 the following day he
>reversed to him.
>But yesterday you did not
>teach them to me thus,
>he protested. Must you then
>not rely upon me?10 Then
>rely upon me with respect
>to the Oral too.11
>
>(b.Shab. 31a)

Again, what is the date of your source?
You have no source from the time of Hillel or even several centuries after him. Therefore, you are projecting post-70 developements with pre-70 reality - all filtered through a man who declared a false Messiah, Akiva.

Is that who you want to listen to for authoritative word?

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

17. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 11:52 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 
That is the answer, Akhi Paul.

The child is ritually unclean for 7 days, and is circumcised on the 8th. Mary could not attend the circumcision ceremony because she is ritually impure for the next month plus. Therefore Joseph would have had to bring the infant to the ritual. He would be clean and so would the child afterward, but Mary would not. Therefore Peshitta is summarizing by saying that when BOTH purifications were completed (mother and child) then they left. Joseph's purity is beside the point.

Joseph would also have had an OVERIDING duty to protect his wife above an beyond the impurity issues. In fact, the rabbis are unanimous that a man's protective obligations to his wife (as GOWRA) outweigh other considerations. We can suspend Shabbat to save life and we can suspend niddah to bring life into the world. This is very, very basic.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

18. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 12:42 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #17
 
>That is the answer, Akhi Paul.
>
>
>The child is ritually unclean for
>7 days, and is circumcised
>on the 8th. Mary could
>not attend the circumcision ceremony
>because she is ritually impure
>for the next month plus.
> Therefore Joseph would have
>had to bring the infant
>to the ritual. He would
>be clean and so would
>the child afterward, but Mary
>would not. Therefore Peshitta
>is summarizing by saying that
>when BOTH purifications were completed
>(mother and child) then they
>left. Joseph's purity is
>beside the point.
>

You need to reread the text. In this text there is:

1. The Cicumcision

2. Then the "days of her puification"
(that is the 33 days from this point to the Temple
ritual for Miriams Purification Ritual)

3. The Purification and the Redemption of the Firtsborn ceremonies, held on the same day.

The "days of ... purification" do not fall before the Circumcision (and therefore do not apply to the child) they fall AFTER the circumcision and before the Temple ritual They are the 33 days of MIRIAM'S purification only.

>Joseph would also have had an
>OVERIDING duty to protect his
>wife above an beyond the
>impurity issues. In fact,
>the rabbis are unanimous that
>a man's protective obligations to
>his wife (as GOWRA) outweigh
>other considerations. We can suspend
>Shabbat to save life and
>we can suspend niddah to
>bring life into the world.
> This is very, very
>basic.

Yes but would not have resulted in 40 days of impurity for Joseph and would not have entailed him going through the Temple ceremony with her.

These are the 33 days of HER purification.

>
>Shlama w'burkate
>Andrew Gabriel Roth


Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

19. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 01:05 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #18
 
>You need to reread the text.
> In this text there
>is:
>
>1. The Cicumcision
>
>2. Then the "days of
>her puification"
>(that is the 33 days from
>this point to the Temple
>
>ritual for Miriams Purification Ritual)
>
>3. The Purification and the
>Redemption of the Firtsborn ceremonies,
>held on the same day.
>
>
>The "days of ... purification" do
>not fall before the Circumcision
>(and therefore do not apply
>to the child) they fall
>AFTER the circumcision and before
>the Temple ritual They
>are the 33 days of
>MIRIAM'S purification only.

AKHI JAMES...I DON'T THINK I MADE MYSELF CLEAR OR I WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. LET ME PLEASE TRY AGAIN. I KNOW THE 33 DAYS OF PURIFICATION FOR THE WOMAN BEGINS AFTER CIRCUMCISION. I EVEN WRITE ABOUT IT IN MY BOOK, IF YOU WILL RECALL. I AM TALKING ABOUT THOUGH TWO SEPARATE PURIFICATIONS THAT ARE BEING SUMMARIZED AS "THEIR PURIFICATION". IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT WE MUST BE REFERRING TO THE SAME PURIFICATION FOR BOTH.

LOOK AT THE TEXT AGAIN. AFTER "THEIR PURIFICATION" IS CONTEXTUALLY AFTER ALL PURIFICATION RITES RELATING TO THEM WERE COMPLETED. YOU'RE SPLITTING HAIRS HERE. THIS NOT YOUR SMOKING GUN BY ANY STRETCH.
>
>>>Yes but would not have resulted
>in 40 days of impurity
>for Joseph and would not
>have entailed him going through
>the Temple ceremony with her.
>
>
>These are the 33 days of
>HER purification.

AKHI JAMES...AGAIN I KNOW THAT. LET ME SPELL THIS OUT THEN. ONE OF TWO THINGS IS HAPPENING.

1) EITHER "THEIR PURIFICATION" REFERS TO THE FACT THAT THE FAMILY WENT HOME AFTER ALL RELEVANT PURIFICATION RITUALS WERE DONE, IN WHICH CASE AFTER MARY'S TIME IS ALSO AFTER THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE INFANT, THEREFORE, "THEIR". OR...

2)THE TEXT IS REFERRING TO JOSEPH AND MARY. IN THAT CASE, IF JOSEPH HAD TO TOUCH HER ON DAY 40, HE WOULD NEED TO WAIT AND DO A SACRIFICE FOR BREAKING THE LAW. I MEAN, HE IS A TZADIK, RIGHT? I NEVER SAID THAT JOSEPH WAS RENDERED IMPURE FOR THE FULL 40 DAYS. I NEVER SAID THAT IF JOSEPH TOUCHED ON DAY 1 AND NOT AT ANY POINT PRIOR TO HIS ARRIVAL AT THE TEMPLE THAT HE WOULD BE IMPURE. HOWEVER, IF HE TOUCHED HER ON THE LAST DAY, HE HAD TO MAKE A SACRIFICE.

FURTHERMORE, Y'SHUA WENT UP TO THE TEMPLE FOR PURIFICATION RITES AT PESACH EVEN THOUGH HE WAS PURE ALREADY. JOSEPH COULD HAVE ALSO GONE UP FOR THE SAME REASON TO PREPARE FOR SUKKOT, WHICH IS THE TIME OF THE BIRTH EVEN-- AND I HAVE TO STRESS THIS--EVEN IF HE WAS PERFECTLY PURE AND NEVER TOUCHED MARY THE ENTIRE JOURNEY.

***PURIFICATION RITUAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE PERSON DOING IT WAS DEFILED.***

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS EXIST, AND WHILE NONE MAY BE DEFINITIVE, NEITHER IS THIS EXAMPLE OF OS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, I WILL TAKE THE PESHITTA WHICH HAS THE ONLY RELIABLE TRADITION AND CLEAR TEXTUAL PROOFS (GOWRA AND BAALI IN MATTI 1) THAT PUT IT IN THE FIRST CENTURY. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN OUR ESSAYS ON THAT, THEN I INVITE YOU TO DO SO AT THE BETH GAZA LINK.

SHLAMA W'BURKATE
ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH
>
>
>
>>
>>Shlama w'burkate
>>Andrew Gabriel Roth


Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

23. Redaction

Jan-26-2002 at 08:04 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #19
 
Shlama Akhay,

It is a well known fact the redactionist will opt for a simpler reading when the text seems to jeopardize authenticity.

As a Greek primacist this is something I have known. A good case in point here as it has taken linguists and those educated in judaism several days to debate a purification ritual.

If the rule of the more difficult reading is accepted here as authentic what does that say about other difficult readings where the explanation is a stetch at best?

There are a few adequate explanations here. The most likely to me may be that all three individuals had completed their required time of cleansing and Mary was the last. Isn't it certain all three had some sort of ritual uncleanness at some point?

The aorist tense in Greek would seem to indicate so as the author (or redactionist) could have opted for the perfect tense which would indicate a stretch of past action rather than punctiliar time. That is to say the tense points to certain past events rather than a continuous strectch of time.(i.e. Jesus' purification days ended, joseph's ended, and last but not least Mary's ended hence 'their days of purification were fulfilled').

So then what appears to be the more difficult reading would be the most acceptable.

Iakov

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

28. RE: Redaction

Jan-26-2002 at 11:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #23
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

I agree wholeheartedly (except for the Greek Primacy )

I can't for the life of me imagine why someone would deliberately change what (superficially) appears to be a more proper reading - "Her" to "Theirs."

But it's easy to see it the other way around.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

22. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-26-2002 at 02:04 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #18
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-26-2002 at 02:07 PM (CT)

Yes but would not have resulted in 40 days of impurity for Joseph and would not have entailed him going through the Temple ceremony with her.

Nobody is saying it did - the text certainly doesn't - you are reading into it.

Nice try, though. I give you a B+ for effort - and 8 credit hours - unaccredited by any state in this union, of course. :c

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Dean
 
Send email to DeanSend private message to DeanAdd Dean to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

12. RE: Wrong......again.

Jan-25-2002 at 08:30 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Allow me to summarize ....

There are at least 2 very important events involving at least 2 different individuals taking place somewhere between verse 22 & 25 which would warrant Lukes use of "their". (Both of which, Akhi Paul accurately mentioned in his earlier posts)

#1 Maryams required sacrifice -see Lev 12:6 (cf Luke 2:24)

-and

#2 Redemption of the First born Son -see Num 18:15-16 (cf Luke 2:23)

These are two monumental events still practiced by religious Jews today and the main participant of these two ceremonies is the mother and the first-born son.

Luke was simply reflecting back and referring to these two events, which he specifically mentions in verse 23 & 24. These events at the temple occurred probably on the same day to both of "them" which is factually and accurately true.

-Dean Dana

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service