@Push - Messiah Query

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
42

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(The French of the time would have known nothing of the Lilith myth.) [/quote]

I am interested to hear more about this, because I distinctly remember Lilith’s name having come up in connection with the temptation scene of the trumeau of the west facade of Notre Dame de Paris.

Of course the Jews did not enjoy the favor of the French authorities at the time of the construction of the cathedral, but Rashi, for example, had lived and written not far from Paris, and had had influence in gentile circles. (I’m not saying that Rashi dealt explicitly with Lilith, which I don’t know; only that Jewish thought was not necessarily met by deaf ears in Medieval Christian France.) Christian art has been known to take on some surprising flavors–there is a Muslim-looking Jesus on the wall of a painted monastery in Moldavia, despite the fact that the patrons of the monastery were Christian Moldavians who had hated and warred with Muslims over the course of multiple centuries.

I’m not doubting you, by the way. I’m simply interested.[/quote]

First, “lilit” is a word used only once in the OT, Isa 34:14, in the context of a list of known nocturnal and unclean animals which inhabit a ruin. It would seem likely that a “lilit” is one such animal. But Rashi himself transmitted the tradition that a “lilit” was a demon, without further explanation.

Talmud mentions Lilith not in Mishnah (the real oral law of the Second Temple) but only in Gemara (the commentary) on 3 occasions, suggesting either a demon or incubus or a fallen woman of some type. (If Rashi commented, I do not have access right now to show it.)

In any case, it is doubtful that 12th C Parisian monks and masons would have access to Rashi’s commentaries, even by second-hand transmissions, and this was also an age of Talmud burnings, not learning, in Paris.

The Lilith myth was expounded in apocryphal stuff, Kabbalah and the like, especially after the 13th C in Spain, very possibly under the influence of Moorish and Arab culture. Doubtful that this would have been transmitted to Notre Dame as its foundations and first stories arose.
[/quote]

I will note that (I believe) the Western Facade is a product of the the 13th century, and also that the stone-workers and painters who decorated cathedrals/churches were often the most cosmopolitan members of a given city, because many of them lived itinerant lives (cathedrals often being built in lurching bursts and thus not providing steady work over a lifetime). Still, I don’t doubt that you’re correct, and thanks for the explanation. The paucity of my knowledge of medieval Judaism is abhorrent.

Actually, I did some digging around after I finished the previous paragraph and discovered that, in fact, the sudden frequency of the feminine serpent is probably the result of Comestor’s description, in Historia Scholastica, of it as having a “snake-woman face.”[/quote]

Ooh! good one!

So was Comestor a contributor–or Censor—of the building of Notre Dame? Or was his comment on “snake-faced woman” (not “woman-faced snake”) sui generis? (And, yes, the pun is intentional and carefully thought out.)

45

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Not sure why a shift in addressee or not is significant.

In vs 14-15 He is addressing the serpent.

…

So the Messiah prophecy is directly given to Satan.
[/quote]

You are telling me that he is addressing Satan here:

“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”

Does Satan crawl on his belly?[/quote]

I answered this earlier. The snake itself was symbolically and physically cursed; one is directly tied to the other. Satan has the ability to possess creatures; we can find evidence in other scriptures.

The symbolism of a common ordinary snake crawling on the ground should not be lost to one who knows the Genesis story.

So no, Satan himself does not crawl on the ground but the animal he used to tempt the woman subsequently did begin to do just that.[/quote]

Exactly, the point being, as I explained, that the addressee of verse 14 is the serpent and not Satan. Which supports the notion that 15–which is not preceded by any kind of shift in addressee–is, also, addressed to the serpent and not to Satan. This is particularly so in light of the fact that verse 15 is eminently applicable to the lives and travails of ordinary snakes, i.e. it makes perfect sense.

When the addressee shifts from Adam to Eve just a few lines later, the shift is explicitly marked. This, too, strengthens the non-messianic interpretation.

48

In other words, this is obviously all addressed to the same person/animal/thing:

50

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(The French of the time would have known nothing of the Lilith myth.) [/quote]

I am interested to hear more about this, because I distinctly remember Lilith’s name having come up in connection with the temptation scene of the trumeau of the west facade of Notre Dame de Paris.

Of course the Jews did not enjoy the favor of the French authorities at the time of the construction of the cathedral, but Rashi, for example, had lived and written not far from Paris, and had had influence in gentile circles. (I’m not saying that Rashi dealt explicitly with Lilith, which I don’t know; only that Jewish thought was not necessarily met by deaf ears in Medieval Christian France.) Christian art has been known to take on some surprising flavors–there is a Muslim-looking Jesus on the wall of a painted monastery in Moldavia, despite the fact that the patrons of the monastery were Christian Moldavians who had hated and warred with Muslims over the course of multiple centuries.

I’m not doubting you, by the way. I’m simply interested.[/quote]

First, “lilit” is a word used only once in the OT, Isa 34:14, in the context of a list of known nocturnal and unclean animals which inhabit a ruin. It would seem likely that a “lilit” is one such animal. But Rashi himself transmitted the tradition that a “lilit” was a demon, without further explanation.

Talmud mentions Lilith not in Mishnah (the real oral law of the Second Temple) but only in Gemara (the commentary) on 3 occasions, suggesting either a demon or incubus or a fallen woman of some type. (If Rashi commented, I do not have access right now to show it.)

In any case, it is doubtful that 12th C Parisian monks and masons would have access to Rashi’s commentaries, even by second-hand transmissions, and this was also an age of Talmud burnings, not learning, in Paris.

The Lilith myth was expounded in apocryphal stuff, Kabbalah and the like, especially after the 13th C in Spain, very possibly under the influence of Moorish and Arab culture. Doubtful that this would have been transmitted to Notre Dame as its foundations and first stories arose.
[/quote]

I will note that (I believe) the Western Facade is a product of the the 13th century, and also that the stone-workers and painters who decorated cathedrals/churches were often the most cosmopolitan members of a given city, because many of them lived itinerant lives (cathedrals often being built in lurching bursts and thus not providing steady work over a lifetime). Still, I don’t doubt that you’re correct, and thanks for the explanation. The paucity of my knowledge of medieval Judaism is abhorrent.

Actually, I did some digging around after I finished the previous paragraph and discovered that, in fact, the sudden frequency of the feminine serpent is probably the result of Comestor’s description, in Historia Scholastica, of it as having a “snake-woman face.”[/quote]

Ooh! good one!

So was Comestor a contributor–or Censor—of the building of Notre Dame? Or was his comment on “snake-faced woman” (not “woman-faced snake”) sui generis? (And, yes, the pun is intentional and carefully thought out.)
[/quote]

He was certainty directly involved with the cathedral, but, just as important, hiss hisstoria Scholasstica was wildly popular at the time. You might say that it addered more than most religious books of the era. Or that it was tooth ought-provoking to ignore.

*Quantity over quality, I know. Long day, tired brain, beach-season cutting phase, no pun-making fuel

51

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It is fascinating to speculate on the pre-Fall biology of the serpent

Did it walk on all fours?

Or was it two-legged?

Note there is no record of Eve being surprised when approached by the serpent. She didn’t say, “Hey, dude, I didn’t know you could talk! When did you learn how to do that?”

[b]Apparently[/b], Satan used an animal that caused Eve no distress/alarm/concern/puzzlement when it talked to her. We do know from Gen 3:1 that the serpent had significant intelligence at least in the sense of “craftiness” (more than any other animal).[/quote]

Easy one. To what is the snake compared?

53

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It is fascinating to speculate on the pre-Fall biology of the serpent

Did it walk on all fours?

Or was it two-legged?

Note there is no record of Eve being surprised when approached by the serpent. She didn’t say, “Hey, dude, I didn’t know you could talk! When did you learn how to do that?”

[b]Apparently[/b], Satan used an animal that caused Eve no distress/alarm/concern/puzzlement when it talked to her. We do know from Gen 3:1 that the serpent had significant intelligence at least in the sense of “craftiness” (more than any other animal).[/quote]

Easy one. To what is the snake compared?[/quote]

Huh?

By the way, while we have you hanging around causing all sorts of trouble would you mind commenting on the Hebrew word “arum” (Gen 3:1)? Gimme the whole DocSkeptix semantic dissertation if you don’t mind.
[/quote]

Funny you should ask.

The OT delights in puns; it was meant to be both read and heard, and the listener could draw the parallels and circular language into meaning.

The pun starts in Chap 2 v 25 with the prefatory “now”
“25. Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed.”

The world for naked is 'arwmmim (arummim, as pronounced.)

The snake is “cunning” ('arwm) of all the beasts of the field (Gen 3:1) (Notice dear push, that the snake is compared to the beasts of the field, and not to swarming things or flying or walking things. The beasts of the field had 4 legs, and so did the snake! When God metes out the curses, the snake is accursed “more than the cattle and the beasts of the field.” Gone are the four legs.)

The pun comes full circle in verses 10 & 11, where Adam says he was afraid because he was naked (eirwm, the singular form of the word).

A reader sees the word as “naked.” But a listener would also understand–or mistake-- the double entendre: Adam was afraid because he was “made to be cunning”…misled, misled by his companion at the Tree.

(Lost in translation is yet another pun in verses 12 & 13: the woman–ha’ishah–and tempted (me)–hishie(ni).)

But there is yet another loose pun that ties this bundle. In 2:25, man and woman are naked but not ashamed (root word: bashwsh). And in 3:21, it is God that dresses (lib’ash) them. The story begins in naked shamelessness, and ends with mankind with the knowledge of shame, and clothed by God.

54

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

In any case, it is doubtful that 12th C Parisian monks and masons would have access to Rashi’s commentaries, even by second-hand transmissions, and this was also an age of Talmud burnings, not learning, in Paris.
[/quote]

‘Rashi also influenced non-Jewish circles. His commentaries on the Bible circulated in many different communities especially his commentaries on the Pentateuch. In the 12thâ??17th centuries, Rashi’s influence spread from French and German provinces to Spain and the east. He had a tremendous influence on Christian scholars. The French monk Nicolas de Lyre of Manjacoria, who was known as the “ape of Rashi”,[27] was dependent on Rashi when writing the ‘Postillae Perpetuate’ on the Bible. He believed that Rashi’s commentaries were the “official repository of Rabbinical tradition”.[28] and significant to understanding the Bible. De Lyre also had great influence on Martin Luther. Rashi’s commentaries became significant to humanists at this time who studied grammar and exegesis. Christian Hebraists studied Rashi’s commentaries as important interpretations "authorized by the Synagogue…’

I kan youse wikepedea! :slight_smile:

55

[quote]pushharder wrote:

By the way, while we have you hanging around causing all sorts of trouble …
[/quote]

I hope this is a joke. If, as you claim the bible must be read ‘holistically’ then who better to explain the ambiguities, antonyms, ancient Hebrew words whose precise meaning has been lost, and so on of the OT? Whether or not it comports with your interpretation matters little. The thread was addressed to you and I respect your opinion and knowledge but everyone is welcome to comment. Even an amateur like me.

56

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

In any case, it is doubtful that 12th C Parisian monks and masons would have access to Rashi’s commentaries, even by second-hand transmissions, and this was also an age of Talmud burnings, not learning, in Paris.
[/quote]

‘Rashi also influenced non-Jewish circles. His commentaries on the Bible circulated in many different communities especially his commentaries on the Pentateuch. In the 12thâ??17th centuries, Rashi’s influence spread from French and German provinces to Spain and the east. He had a tremendous influence on Christian scholars. The French monk Nicolas de Lyre of Manjacoria, who was known as the “ape of Rashi”,[27] was dependent on Rashi when writing the ‘Postillae Perpetuate’ on the Bible. He believed that Rashi’s commentaries were the “official repository of Rabbinical tradition”.[28] and significant to understanding the Bible. De Lyre also had great influence on Martin Luther. Rashi’s commentaries became significant to humanists at this time who studied grammar and exegesis. Christian Hebraists studied Rashi’s commentaries as important interpretations "authorized by the Synagogue…’

I kan youse wikepedea! :slight_smile:
[/quote]

True. But I was thinking of a timeline with smh that would have made it unlikely that such scholarship would have been known to masons–illiterate, although well-travelled they may be–and insular monks.

So noting the use and misuse biblical scholarship, wiki “Nicolas de Lyre.”

57

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

By the way, while we have you hanging around causing all sorts of trouble …
[/quote]

I hope this is a joke. If, as you claim the bible must be read ‘holistically’ then who better to explain the ambiguities, antonyms, ancient Hebrew words whose precise meaning has been lost, and so on of the OT? Whether or not it comports with your interpretation matters little. The thread was addressed to you and I respect your opinion and knowledge but everyone is welcome to comment. Even an amateur like me.[/quote]

Oh, don’t worry about push. He and I have been torturing each other for years. (E.g., search the site for Noah and the flood and evolution.)

58

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is obviously all addressed to the same person/animal/thing:

Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[/quote]

The Bible must be studied holistically.[/quote]

Or, alternatively, “the things that were written early must be poked, prodded, bent, twisted, mashed, and mangled until they appear to jibe with the things that were written much later.”

This is a joke, of course. But, I find more and more that people use the word “context,” or one of its variants, to shield fallacy (even from themselves). I say this without denying that context–I’d rather call it “depth”–is essential. It’s just that it’s often appealed to by people who are trying to bend the evidence, and this is especially so when little further explanation is offered.

[quote]
Remember, cherry-picking stretches induce ligament tearing. If you continue to insist that all ye need do is jump up and down on this one verse until you convince yourself that it contains all ye need to know about the subject you will never learn more about the subject.[/quote]

You don’t seem too eager to get into the specifics of the relevant verse.

Allow me to offer this [all second-person pronouns and second-person possessive pronouns are numbered]:

[quote]
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because [you 1] have done this,
cursed are [you 2] above all cattle,
and above all wild animals;
upon [your 3] belly [you 4] shall go,
and dust [you 5] shall eat
all the days of [your 6] life.
15 I will put enmity between [you 7] and the woman,
and between [your 8] seed and her seed;
he shall bruise [your 9] head,
and [you 10] shall bruise his heel.”[/quote]

It is your contention that instances 1-6 refer only to the serpent and then 7-10 refer to Satan as well. But the text itself–this text, which is the subject of our inquiry–does not support this interpretation, a fact unchanged by anything written centuries later.

If you disagree, then:

[quote]
14 "I think you’re wrong here,
I think you are seeing something red and trying on pairs of glasses
until it looks green.
You have offered little in the way of evidence,
and, furthermore,
there is a serious logical fallacy living in the argument that
‘part 1 prefigures and thus legitimizes part 2
and anyone will be able to see this
as soon as he accepts the legitimacy of part 2’.
15 You are the worst person that has drawn breath in a long time,
and I regret the very fact of your existence.
With a bottomless hate in my heart
I sincerely hope that you develop erectile dysfunction.[/quote]

^ Keeping in mind, of course, that my posts must be ready holistically, and that, in reality, I’m fond of you! I thought it obvious that the second part was addressed to Dick Cheney.

59

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

In any case, it is doubtful that 12th C Parisian monks and masons would have access to Rashi’s commentaries, even by second-hand transmissions, and this was also an age of Talmud burnings, not learning, in Paris.
[/quote]

‘Rashi also influenced non-Jewish circles. His commentaries on the Bible circulated in many different communities especially his commentaries on the Pentateuch. In the 12thÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??17th centuries, Rashi’s influence spread from French and German provinces to Spain and the east. He had a tremendous influence on Christian scholars. The French monk Nicolas de Lyre of Manjacoria, who was known as the “ape of Rashi”,[27] was dependent on Rashi when writing the ‘Postillae Perpetuate’ on the Bible. He believed that Rashi’s commentaries were the “official repository of Rabbinical tradition”.[28] and significant to understanding the Bible. De Lyre also had great influence on Martin Luther. Rashi’s commentaries became significant to humanists at this time who studied grammar and exegesis. Christian Hebraists studied Rashi’s commentaries as important interpretations "authorized by the Synagogue…’

I kan youse wikepedea! :slight_smile:
[/quote]

True. But I was thinking of a timeline with smh that would have made it unlikely that such scholarship would have been known to masons–illiterate, although well-travelled they may be–and insular monks.

So noting the use and misuse biblical scholarship, wiki “Nicolas de Lyre.”[/quote]

I have found the Comestor quote:

“He also chose a certain kind of serpent, as Bede says, which had the countenance of a virgin, because like favors like.” [In the Latin, “like applauds like.”]

Interestingly, the Bede exegesis to which Comestor alludes has never been found.

Dare I suggest that Comestor picked this up from Rashi, if Rashi indeed wrote anything more substantial about Lilith, and then, given the climate of France at the time (the Jews were expelled just a few years after Comestor died), decided to impute it to a famous Christian, rather than to a Jew?

Fantastical, yes. But then, see page 85:

60

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
masons–illiterate, although well-travelled they may be[/quote]

This is true, and the combination often makes for strange results.

There is a cluster of quasi-cenobitic rock-cut monasteries in Cappadocia, most of them consisting of just a refectory and church (no living quarters because most of the monks were eremites). They were sometimes cut, and almost always painted, by professionals–people who built and decorated structures for a living. As might be expected of tradesmen living in one of Christendom’s remotest regions, these people were not very literate at all: They confused scripture, made spelling errors in the captions of images, etc.

However, their work was also amazingly eclectic. There are architectural forms from Baghdad whose walls are painted with military standards from Western Europe, colloquial parables from Armenia, and Byzantine iconographic types, built for highly provincial Anatolian hermits who were living in a monastic arrangement that was partly developed in Egypt and sometimes bankrolled by Seljuk Turks. Which is not bad for a bunch of bumpkins.