Posted on 11/21/2005 2:11:12 PM PST by annalex
To that end I have no problem accepting or rejecting the scholarship of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, atheist, etc., Dr. Marshall included.
Indeed any evidence he offers should be examined for what it is no matter who cites it.
I have to break off for a few hours but I'll be back soon.
Examining the Pesikta Rabbati presents some problems as brief quotes from it are readily available but since the English translations are usually copyrighted material not available unless purchased and I don't favor paying $150 to verify a few lines of reference.
I suspect it a tad too esoteric for the local library to have.
2 Baruch is another matter. It fails the test of reliability with Talmudic writings though much older than the Rabbati.
10:18 advises virgins to toss their weaving into the flames (instead of themselves per the rabbati) to avoid enemy seizure, an act not noted in the Scriptures at all.
So if you want to look at 2 Baruch a bit more closely...sure.
Are there temple virgins there?
Chapter 6 describes the miraculous hiding of the sacred vessels of the temple (cf. 2 Machabees 2:1-9), including the veil, in anticipation of the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar. So the general context in Chapter 10 is lamentation over the loss of Jerusalem and sovereignty of Judah. Let us keep this general context in mind.
The chapter begins by woes to "all who live", and then it enumerates the husbandmen with their agricultural products, then bridegrooms and their brides, then wives, especially the mothers. This procession of grief ends with death of beauty itself: "From this time forward speak not of beauty, And discourse not of gracefulness" (v.17).
Next the lamentation focuses on the priests. The rhetorical advice to the priests is to toss the keys to the sanctuary to heavens, and somewhat defiantly say to the Lord: "Guard Your house Thyself, For lo! we are found false stewards".
It is at this point that the virgins are brought into the picture. They are advised to cast their handiwork into fire. What will the fire do? It will "send them to Him who created them". In other words, the linen and silk woven by these virgins are likewise returned to God.
At this point Chapter 10 ends and with it the lamentation ends. Chapter 11 contains an angry speech directed at Babylon.
So this is my case for the temple virgins:
So, yeah, I'd say these are the virgins working on the temple accouterments, whose work is valued alongside other temple possessions.
Now let us recall that the sacred vessels, the raiments of the priests, and the veil of the Tabernacle are to be hidden. Indeed, we know that Jeremiah, Baruch's boss, hid them in a cave. Here we have an allusion to that (Chapter 6 verse 10). So the suggestion, perhaps rhetorical, to destroy the linen, silk and gold is a continuation of the same idea, to not let the enemy possess sacred objects of any kind. Again, this corroborates the thesis that the virgins worked on the temple sacramentals.
The virgin weavers certainly weren't making cheap garments for the general populace so their listing with the priests is making a connection between the two.
However the original premise was a cult of temple virgins located within the temple, perhaps with special quarters.
The book of 2 Baruch fails reliability and accuracy in several ways, not the least in that Baruch didn't write it.
2 Baruch says God or angels on His behalf, hide the temple's sacred accouterments.
However Dan. 5:1-3 describes Belshazzar and his party drinking from the sacred vessels Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple.
2 Baruch 10:1-5 says Baruch stayed back while Jeremiah went to Egypt but Jeremiah 43:6, 7 says both Jeremiah and Baruch were taken off to Egypt together.
These are not small lapse's. And as one reads 2 Baruch it becomes apparent that it is in every way a fanciful myth.
Baruch is turned into the prophet while Jeremiah is rather like his servant in a role reversal. Baruch is carried around by angels and angels destroy Jerusalem's walls. I could go on but why do so?
You said we know Jeremiah hid sacred objects in a cave but “we know” no such thing. It would seem an important point yet the authentic book Of Jeremiah says nothing of the kind, nor most of what is falsely attributed to Baruch.
So I think any argument based on 2 Baruch would have to show it is anymore than a ginned up story by an unknown writer/s.
At least some of these "discrepancies" can easily be resolved, or at least explained by natural difference of perspective and elevated self-esteem. Most importantly, while you may or may not take 2 Machabees 2:1-9, referring to "Descriptions" by Jeremiah, a book now lost, as solid evidence of Jeremiah hiding the Ark, no passage shows specifically the Ark of the Covenant being taken to Babylon; it is always "the sacred vessels" (2 Paralipomenon/2 Chronicles 36:18). Jeremiah 51 lists the treasure taken by the Chaldeans item by item and the Ark is not listed. That the surviving and canonical Book of Jeremiah does not mention the hiding can be due to his desire, expressed in the 1 Maccabees quote, for it not to be found casually. You can hardly discredit 2 Baruch by content on these grounds.
However, the book is described as pseudoepigraphical and is considered "late 1st century AD or early 2nd century AD" (Wiki). It is considered inspired in Syriac Orthodox Church though. Going with the consensus, I would postulate that it is of the same period or a bit earlier as the Protoevangelium, as the Wiki article indicates. It is, therefore, reflective of what the 1 century Jews considered plausible, and, unlike the Protoevangelium is written for Jewish rather than Christian audience. So therefore, her you have it, a 1-2 A.D. century Jewish text describes virgins in connection with the priests and therefore with the temple.
the original premise was a cult of temple virgins located within the temple, perhaps with special quarters.
Perhaps something like that was the image cultivated by the κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων quote, found not connecting these girls to the confines of the temple. Certainly there was no suggestion of a "cult", that is the virgins themselves being cultic objects. However, the real premise is to corroborate the Protoevangelium which portrays Our Lady consecrated to the temple till such time as she reaches puberty. What we have proven is that the connection existed between Jewish virgins of the period, for sure, with the sacred objects used in the temple, and certain duties at the door of the tabernacle.
“You can hardly discredit 2 Baruch by content on these grounds.”
Indeed I can since 2 Baruch has proved its self to be not only inaccurate but out rightly deceptive from the beginning.
“At least some of these “discrepancies” can easily be resolved, or at least explained by natural difference of perspective and elevated self-esteem.”
Perhaps so but either Baruch went to Egypt with Jeremiah or he didn't, either the temple vessels were hidden in the earth or they went to Babylon, either Baruch wrote this book or he didn't.
I dare say you wouldn't accept this level of untruthfulness under any other circumstances and especially contra to sources you consider unimpeachable.
“So therefore, her you have it, a 1-2 A.D. century Jewish text describes virgins in connection with the priests and therefore with the temple.”
True, however that connection, tenuous as it is, lends nothing to its credibility as there numerous gnostic and “fill in the gaps” writings from the times. It's like citing one blog as proof that another is true and accurate.
There's a reason Jesus said that Christians would worship God not only in spirit but in truth also. That would indicate to me that one must tread carefully when it comes to truth.
We can argue whether 2 Baruch presents a valid historical account of the defeat of Judah and its aftermath, but this is not our topic on hand. I am not arguing that 2 Baruch should be added to the Christian canon, although I do not find 2 Baruch so strikingly out of touch on its biographical and historical points. Obviously, I suggest nothing of the kind for the Talmud. I am simply pointing out that each writer whose work we have examined, perhaps pursuing goals that are suspect, reflects the realities of his time and therefore is a reliable witness — not to the fantastical parents of Jesus invented by the Talmud, not to the fate of the Tabernacle, not to the composition of those seeking refuge in Egypt, — but to the fact that in the Second Temple period a group of Jewish virgins played a certain role connected to the worship in the temple. Pseudo-Baruch (let’s call him that) may have had his own “gaps” he wanted to “fill”, but “filling the gap” about Virgin Mary’s childhood was clearly not among his goals. I lost count how many times I have to make this simple point, and you seem to be an intelligent man. Don’t embarrass yourself.
Why should you keep count?
Back in your post #41 you introduced Marshall and his blog as support for your comments about the Evangelium. Well...
his extra biblical sources have been shown to be either fraudulent or inaccurate or contrary to Scripture or all three in addition to being conflated into saying something they don't.
You say these writers, “....reflects the realities of his time and therefore is a reliable witness”.
That's precisely the point! They are unreliable for all the reasons above and more, therefore cannot be assumed to reflect reality at all.
You say a group of virgins played “a certain role” connected to the worship in the temple. That's certainly vague enough to cover virtually everyone and lends nothing to Mary being a temple virgin or there being some such group being “kept in” the temple as you have asserted based upon Marshall's errant opinions.
If I had to go such sources I would be embarrassed truly, it would be like going to a politician for moral clarity.
And then verifying what he says by asking another politician.
But as it is pointing out how these pseudo (read false) account, Evangelium included, run contrary to Scripture is hardly reason for embarrassment.
Of 3 scriptural sources and 4 traditional Jewish found by Dr. Marshall to corroborate Virgin Mary's childhood association with the Temple, we identified one correct but variant reading and one mistake in translation going back to St. Jerome. The Jewish tradition was used to detect realities of the Jewish custom and it at times came from sources opposed to Christianity, so the Jewish sources used cannot be accused of filling the gaps in Catholic Mariology. I thank you for the debate and am happy with its outcome.
Cheers! Perhaps another time we’ll do this again.
Thank you for the critical textual approach, in particular.
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.