Posted on 11/21/2005 2:11:12 PM PST by annalex
No, Num 4/8 do not describe a service of some kind. They describe the assignment of those who will perform service, not the service itself. So your argument that this is liturgy, or liturgical in nature falls absolutely flat. It does describe the mustering of those who will perform, and hence the word is used properly in it's natural context, and it also explains why the word is used here and not in a context where liturgy is described specifically.
What special circumstance? In Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24 men are serving at the tabernacle and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are doing the same. Nothing special here: all these usages are similarly worded and describe some liturgical function (the tabernacle is a liturgical object).
Again, Num 4/8 does not describe men serving, but rather, their assignment toward that service... Ex 38 and 1Sam 2 are not assignment, but action, and the liturgical function you seem to desire is merely inferred in all cases. Your inference is only that - it is not explicitly described. And since the law specifically and explicitly denies the service of women in the Tabernacle and in the Temple, the explicit law should weigh more than your inference and discount it wholly (which it does indeed). Another interpretation is necessary.
Ah, good point. Indeed, if κατάκλειστοι were to mean "placed under lock so that they don't escape" then indeed that would make no sense. If however, they are cloistered, that is live separately because they want to, then it makes every sense that they flock to the priest in the moment of crisis or "throw themselves in the flames" as Pesikta Rabbati describes them. No one is saying that they were in every respect as Catholic nuns, just that they were separated from the other folk in the way allowing for the description κατάκλειστοι, and had access to the high priest.
In the first place, everyone had access to the high priest, unless he was serving in a function wherein he was consecrated. This idea of seclusion is imprinted in the Roman mind because of centuries of religious nobility. When a consecrated act was finished, the high priest was free to move about among the people.
The same goes for virgins - No special order is necessary to describe 'set apart' virgins, as ALL virgins are set apart by YHWH. It does the Hebrew people damage to impart heroism to this imaginary special sect, when it should be read as describing the whole of the people (ie: all young women) in the face of extreme desperation.
As far as cloistering, As I suggested before, it was by no means an uncommon thing for a city to lock away their daughters (which, one assumes was voluntary to some degree) when a foreign troop was inside the gate. That is not to say they were locked away indefinitely, but rather for the purpose of not tempting fate with rough soldiers in the streets. Daughters are a treasure to any man, and it is not hard to imagine that their protection would be an high priority in such a circumstance, whether by the device of each man, or by the community collectively. Such a circumstance is just as easy to deduce from the story as is some vestal order... And such a thing requires no invention.
So these texts, a part of the Jewish tradition, are not allowed by the Jewish tradition? Huh?
Your interpretation of these texts does not take into account the greater body thereof. It is what you impose that stands against, not the texts themselves. There is *no* reputable Jewish source which proclaims any sort of Hebrew 'vestal virgin'. In fact, the concept goes against not only their tradition, but also against the clear dictates of the Torah. So even if, by some chance, it is proven that there ever were such a thing, it would necessarily be formed in apostasy, and would not be something to emulate. It is most certainly not a part of their orthodoxy.
Which brings me to a question I had asked earlier that remains unanswered:
Lets look to the inverse evidence: In pagan systems, their vestal virgins are famously defined. One cannot long study the Greeks or Romans without finding volumes of evidences toward their existence (their actual virginity, be it as it may)... Not only by prescription and regulation within their religious activities and in their stories and myths, but even to the point of secular writings and poetry, and in murals, pictures, and decorations.
But here you would seem to impose such a thing in a system which lauds them not at all... where their very existence must be established in wispy and far-flung passages, if it is to be found in the least part, and that against the judgement of the very practitioners thereof (Judaism and it's traditions). How do you explain such a dichotomy?
Frankly, the very mention of “temple virgins” seems related to the gnostic premise that the temple was inspired by Baal worshippers.
Hebrew worship deliberately excluded women, and the stated reason was that Eve was deceived. (Adam was no prince either)
Is says that they were attending at the door of the tabernacle.
No women, married, virgins or otherwise
See evidence that it is not so, presented by Marshall, specifically, Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22.
The books of Numbers and Samuel provide far more reliable information then the uninspired Talmud
And Exodus, which supports Dr. Marshall's claim. The Talmud, or any Jewish tradition, of course, would have no bearing oin a Christian theological discussion, but in an historical discussion such as ours all historical evidence is important, not just scriptural.
you are not in the least familiar with Jewish tradition beyond what is said on someone’s blog
Which should be enough since Dr. Marshall provides specific quotes, several in number.
there's no acknowledgment of what it indicates
What did you post and I did not acknowledge? I am not one running away from concrete textual evidence; you are.
OK, and what? Are you going to argue that men in Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24, and women in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 were assigned to an nonexistent service? These assigned to service at the tabernacle per Numbers 4/8 were men. In Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women assigned to service are described using the same verbiage. So women were assigned to some service similarly to men at the tabernacle. Tabernacle is a liturgical object. Women were assigned to assist in liturgy. That is the salient point.
Ex 38 and 1Sam 2 are not assignment, but action
In Numbers 4/8 men are assigned to action צבא and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are characterized as those performing the same action צבא. While we don't know what that action is, it is connected to the tabernacle per all four occurrences.
since the law specifically and explicitly denies the service of women in the Tabernacle and in the Temple
Let is see how it does that. Note that no one is claiming that women were priests, no one is claiming they entered the very tabernacle, and Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 show that they were at its door, and therefore inside the Temple. References from Jewish tradition, moreover, show what precisely these women were doing: weaving the veil, preparing incense etc. Somehow it did not occur to whoever was writing Mishna Shekalim, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 Baruch that he was describing a legal impossibility. So there. I believe the evidence in front of me, as a rational person. I understand that the implications from the evidence probably upset you, but I am appealing to your rational sense.
This idea of seclusion is imprinted in the Roman mind because of centuries of religious nobility.
Psychologize all you want, I read "κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων" and conclude that these were not merely virgins set apart by their virginity but κατάκλειστοι, locked away, virgins. Otherwise the inspired author would have simply said παρθένων.
As I suggested before, it was by no means an uncommon thing for a city to lock away their daughters
This is your speculation, not supported by the text in 2 Maccabees. On the other hand, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a) gives a rational reason for the institute of such virgins at all times: ordinary feminine work at the temple.
There is *no* reputable Jewish source which proclaims any sort of Hebrew 'vestal virgin'.
Are the asterisks around "no" make it a provable fact? We just went over such Jewish sources.
In pagan systems, their vestal virgins are famously defined.
So? Their role was different altogether.
Respect for virginity is common to the Jewish culture, and authentic Christianity, as well as Gnosticism and Islam, so it is not specifically indicative of Gnosticism. Oh wait! Am I gnostic? I must be...
“Here's the thing I object most to in our discussion,
It appears to me to me you are not in the least familiar with Jewish tradition beyond what is said on someone’s blog yet you make statements like this:
“Any role that a woman plays in a traditional society is either serving her husband or be not married, and therefore, a virgin.”
So good day and thanks but I really don't need any more regurgitations of Marshall's speculations. Understand now?
I should amend it: a respected woman in any traditional society is in one of three, not two states: a virgin; married; a widow. So a woman weaving, making incense and baking ceremonial breads in the temple, rather than in her husband’s house, would be a virgin, or possibly, if health permits, a widow. That is controversial?
All Marshall’s assertions that I presented here were substantiated by evidence from the Holy Scripture or from multiple independent sources in the Jewish written tradition.
It would be salient if it were true. The word 'tsâbâ' does not form the linkage you seem to desire. I tire of this nonsense, and will address it no longer. We disagree profoundly and completely.
Let is see how it does that. Note that no one is claiming that women were priests, no one is claiming they entered the very tabernacle, and Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 show that they were at its door, and therefore inside the Temple.
The Holy of Holies was surrounded by the Sanctuary. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that, only once a year. Only the priesthood could enter the Sanctuary, where priestly duties were performed... This is the 'Temple' proper. The Sanctuary was ringed with the Court of Israel (the Court of the Men), and only Hebrew men could enter therein. The Court of Israel was ringed by the Court of the Women. This was as far as Hebrew women could go. The Court of the Women was adjacent to, or ringed by (there is some contention) the General Court, or Court of the Gentiles. This was as far as any non-Hebrew could go.
The gate you must refer to is the gate between the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel, and thereby you seem to insist that these vestal virgins were allowed to enter the Court of the Men (where no woman could go, on pain of death), which can serve no liturgical purpose. Liturgical processes were limited to the precincts of the Sanctuary, where no one but the priesthood could enter. These are courtyards, and not the Temple itself.
And btw, 'at the gate' does not mean 'inside the gate', And considering the commandment that no woman should enter therein, one would naturally presume that 'at the gate' would mean near to the gate on the proper side thereof.
References from Jewish tradition, moreover, show what precisely these women were doing: weaving the veil, preparing incense etc. Somehow it did not occur to whoever was writing Mishna Shekalim, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 Baruch that he was describing a legal impossibility. So there.
References from the traditions of Judaism, or at least those you have provided, can just as easily apply to the natural meaning of virgin in the Hebrew sense, and require no special circumstance or order, nor do they lend the credence you would require. The legal impossibility is rendered in your interpretaion thereof, rather than within the texts themselves. Ergo, as I said before, another interpretation is most definitely called for, as any interpretation which causes the commandment to be nullified, must by it's nature, be in error.
I believe the evidence in front of me, as a rational person. I understand that the implications from the evidence probably upset you, but I am appealing to your rational sense.
I am not upset. But my rational sense requires me to understand that twisting the word of YHWH to fit the desires of men is the very definition of wickedness. What I am defending is the very kernel of that word, and the commandment that it can neither be added to or taken from - As Yeshua has commanded us both to observe. When one is purposefully denying what is specifically and explicitly laid out therein, one must of a necessity retire the thought and find another way forward. Since there is no exception within the explicit thing, one cannot use the implicit thing to change it, lest anything would be allowable, and that which is precise would lose the very nature of it's precision. It must be human hubris at that point, and we are told to follow YHWH, not Man.
And I would add btw, that I have entertained your argument by allowing not only the psuedapigraphal text you begin with, and your apocryphal sources and traditions, and also allowed the traditions of Judaism... But do not think for a minute that any of them, or all of them together, can move me from the clear word of YHWH. It boils down to the explicit commandments of the Torah, which are declared immutable and eternal. But do not feel slighted - Even if an angel came down and declared otherwise, I would show him the door as well.
[roamer_1:] This idea of seclusion is imprinted in the Roman mind because of centuries of religious nobility.
Psychologize all you want, I read "κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων" and conclude that these were not merely virgins set apart by their virginity but κατάκλειστοι, locked away, virgins. Otherwise the inspired author would have simply said παρθένων.
I was speaking to the seclusion, the untouchable nature you implied wrt to the High Priest, not your imaginary nuns. You had claimed these virgins had access to the High Priest as if it showed some special status they possessed. My point was that everyone had access to the High Priest unless he was going about some consecrated duty, so virgins of any kind would have that access, along with anyone else.
And I do not consider 2Mac or any tradition to be inspired.
[roamer_1:] As I suggested before, it was by no means an uncommon thing for a city to lock away their daughters
This is your speculation, not supported by the text in 2 Maccabees.
I think it every bit as supported as your reading (which is also speculation):
18: Others ran flocking out of their houses to the general supplication, because the place was like to come into contempt.
19: And the women, girt with sackcloth under their breasts, abounded in the streets, and the virgins that were kept in ran, some to the gates, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows.
20: And all, holding their hands toward heaven, made supplication.
KJV w/Apoc, Mac 3:18-20
It says 'virgins who were kept in', not 'virgins who are kept in'. 'Were' implies 'had been, but are no longer kept'.
[...] On the other hand, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a) gives a rational reason for the institute of such virgins at all times: ordinary feminine work at the temple.
Right... work that can be performed by any virgin or betrothed woman. No special order is either necessary or noted. And were it noted, it would more likely be Levite women, the wives (betrothed) and daughters of the priests themselves - If one begins with a thought of celibate priests, one forgets that these priests had family and tribe, and might suppose them to be without access to females for such work - But it doesn't even say that. These virgins are the normal use of virgin, thus without implication, would naturally be daughters of the people generally.
Are the asterisks around "no" make it a provable fact? We just went over such Jewish sources.
The asterisks were for emphasis, And what you have presented from Jewish tradition is badly misinterpreted to suit your cause, else you should be able to find at least an handful of practicing Jews here on FR that agree with your argument. I would dare to say that no such testimony will be forthcoming...
So? Their role was different altogether.
So the Jewish Temple Virgins' role was to be completely hidden? That makes no sense at all... To the point of no creation of the order in the Torah, and no recognition or regulation within the Hebrew tradition? There are reams of regulation covering every aspect of Temple governance, yet not a peep about these mythical virgins? It is patently absurd.
Sure it does. Quoting myself: In Numbers 4/8 men are assigned to action צבא and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are characterized as those performing the same action צבא. While we don't know what that action is, it is connected to the tabernacle per all four occurrences. That is your linkage.
The gate you must refer to is the gate between the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel, and thereby you seem to insist that these vestal virgins were allowed to enter the Court of the Men (where no woman could go, on pain of death), which can serve no liturgical purpose
Could be, and it could be that the somewhat mysterious service, צבא, was service directed to the women there assembled. Or it could be that the liturgical role in question was excluding women of marriageable age but exception was made for the virgins, who were allowed "at the door of the tabernacle" as the inspired text says. Like I said, it would be interesting to see the actual text banning women, since what you give is but a general description of the layout of the temple in your own words.
References from the traditions of Judaism, or at least those you have provided, can just as easily apply to the natural meaning of virgin in the Hebrew sense, and require no special circumstance or order, nor do they lend the credence you would require
I don't know what is "natural meaning of virgin in the Hebrew sense" and how it is different form the meaning of "virgin" in Dr. Marhsall's sense or, more to the point, in the Protoevagelium's sense. The point remains: they are at the door of the tabernacle; they were κατάκλειστοι and not simply παρθένοι; they had distinct functions making incense, baking ceremonial breads, and weaving the veil.
twisting the word of YHWH to fit the desires of men
I read the available evidence, some of it inspired and some not, and I do so objectively. I am not the one splitting hairs over assignment and action or suggesting that צבא must be said in military sense while it contradicts all four contexts we had in focus.
You had claimed these virgins had access to the High Priest as if it showed some special status they possessed
Don't put stuff in my mouth. I simply pointed out that epithet κατάκλειστοι is there for a reason and that epithet suggests some kind of separation from the rest of humanity.
the virgins that were kept
The rule of the English language is that all the verbs in a sentence have to be coordinated by tense, so if the narrative is in past tense that every verb in any role is in past tense also. I don't care how anyone translates it either; the original is clear enough, κατάκλειστοι, "under lock", or "locked", -- not a verb tense but a participle.
These virgins are the normal use of virgin, thus without implication, would naturally be daughters of the people generally.
Indeed, except they are given access to holy objects and described at least once as "under lock".
So the Jewish Temple Virgins' role was to be completely hidden?
It is manifestly not hidden since several scripture references and several tradition references are made to them. It is only hidden for people like yourself trying to deny evidence they don't like.
I wonder if the folks at the Temple Institute have a colony of virgins producing artifacts for the next temple?
http://www.templeinstitute.org/contact.htm
Yes, but we are not looking for spiritual guidance there, just for historical evidence of the customs of the time. Besides, the Talmud is but one of several references pointing toward the virgins present at the Temple at some role.
LOL, good luck.
If not the Talmud, if not the O.T., if not Josephus....then that leaves...what? Just “several references”? What?
“We find another reference to the “women who made the veils for the Temple...baked the showbread...prepared the incense” (Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a).”
This is what the Talmud actually says there:
“(Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a)
R. Nahman said: Rab stated that the women who wove the [Temple] curtains received their wages from the Temple funds25 but I maintain [that they received them] from the sums consecrated for Temple repairs, since the curtains were a substitute for builder’s work.
An objection was raised: The women who wove the [Temple] curtains, and the house of Garmo29 [who were in charge] of the preparation of the shewbread,30 and the house of Abtinas29 [who were in charge] of the preparation of the incense,31 received their wages from the Temple funds!32 — There33 [it may be replied] the reference is [to the curtains] of the gates;34 for R. Zera related in the name of Rab: There were thirteen curtains in the second Temple, seven corresponding to the seven gates,35 one for the entrance to the Hekal,36 one for the entrance to the ‘Ulam,36 two37 [at the entrance] to the Debir36 and two [above them and] corresponding to them in the upper storey.38
29. A priestly family.”
As I said, the opinions of the rabbis and even that you’ve misquoted.
Misquoted where? Your quote mentions all three activities linked to women, and Dr. Marshall did not provide any quotes of that.
Linked? linked how? Only by you leaving out part of the quote. See the footnote.
Sounds like the women and workers of the two (priestly)houses (men-women?) were paid workers. That’s a “link”?
The issue is not whether they were paid, or whether their parents or otherwise their “houses” were paid, but that they were women engaged in work on the sacramental objects in the Temple.
In short the Talmud is what I said, the opinion of the rabbis that cannot be relied upon.
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.