no i dont have it-- i was merely responding to the yalkut passage and
recalled a partial source in mechilta (not talmud but earlier) for what it
said. I think the Eusebius passage is key and "son of the rechabites" I take
to mean a descendant-- the term is strange because we have already heard he
Thanks to all who respondd to my query on Qumran Hebrew.
A new question. I'm trying to evaluate the hypothesis that the Essenes
of the Herodian era had a significant presence at Jericho. It has been
suggested that criticisms directed against the "men of Jericho" at bTal Pes
55b ff, Me
No, George, I don't think it's beside the point, and I think that you're
unfair to Jeffrey to demand that he support you rather than "BLOCK" you.
You're overreading Jeremiah, I believe, and when the Rabbinic material
didn't support your reading of Jeremiah you backed away from it. As I
suggested
Prof. Suter,
The view that the Rechabites were craftsmen in general is quite
well established. But I'm not quite certain why you think these
crafts preclude any capacity in Levitical or Priestly service.
Priests made things in the service of Yahweh. so why wouldn't
a priest be a metal work
Prof. Gibson writes:
"And if I take the "some say" correctly, this passage also indicates
> that there was some doubt that the claim itself (about daughters, etc.)
is in any way reliable."
REPLY:
The Talmud is FULL of "some say" commentary. I hardly think
you are in a position to unwravel the
Herb,
It's not clear to me you are looking at the right footnote or footnotes.
Do you have the JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS book?
And if you do, can you cite the footnote that Eisenman quotes
in support of the marriage into the lineage of the High Priest?
The footnotes were about "marriage" not ab
Herb Basser wrote:
> thanks for the citation-- i now recall george had written me about this
> months ago and i saw the passage but forgot about it until geoff brought it
> tou our attention again. I'm not sure of all the Yalkut's sources here but
> here is what we find:
>
> yalkut Jeremiah prese
well our best information is that historically converts could not marry into
priestly families -- josephus makes a to-do about it when he is given a wife
by the emperor and finally when he dumps his illegal wife that emperor had
given him and marries a priestly wife he feels relieved, rabbinic
li
thanks for the citation-- i now recall george had written me about this
months ago and i saw the passage but forgot about it until geoff brought it
tou our attention again. I'm not sure of all the Yalkut's sources here but
here is what we find:
yalkut Jeremiah preserves: some say their daughter
> Ian writes:
> On page 229 of JBJ Eisenman writes "We shall see below how the
> Rabbinic tradition also connects these "Rechabites" [..] with the
> High Priest or High Priest class..." Then on page 241 he writes "If
> we keep in mind the Rabbinic notices above that "the sons" or
> "daughters of t
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:37 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
>
>
> On page 999 of JBJ, note 22, Eisenman writes: 'followed
> by the tradit
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Ian Hutchesson
Sent: 29 May 2002 06:32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Ian writes:
On page 229 of JBJ Eisenman writes "We shall see below how the
R
As far as rabbinic evidence goes the Rechabites are noted (pesikta derav
kahana) to be descended from jethro, Moses' father in law, and in chronicles
they are noted be kenites-- and the tosefta in bikurim notes kenites have
the status of converts but even so they can recite the recitation of the
j
Apologies for sending my post on Jeremiah and alleged Rechabite priests
twice. When the first version of my post did not come through in a
timely fashion, I thought I had fouled something up in the address or
header fields. So I sent the message again -- not realizing that by the
time I sent it th
George Brooks wrote:
> Dear David Suter,
>
> You are correct. I did miss your response. Thank you for taking
> the time to re-send it. My responses are below:
>
> You write:
> > The Rechabites as a priesthood seems unlikely. They are more
> likely
> > smiths (the meaning of the n
> Can anyone on the list refer me to recent bibliography on the
> relationship of Qumran Hebrew to Classical Hebrew, Late
> Biblical Hebrew, etc.?
Very recent and of great importance:
J. Blau, "A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls",
20-25.
A. Hurvitz, "Was QH a
16 matches
Mail list logo
