>references to Purim do not feature in the Jewish literature before the 1st century CE.
> the festival had long been established by the 2nd century CE as evidenced in the tractate Megilah of the Mishnah (corpus of the oral tradition of Jewish law).
It's perfectly consistent with it being established in, say, the early 1st century CE and spreading rapidly; a century is plenty long enough for a festival to be "long established", which it was (per the quote) by the second century CE, despite being absent from the literature before the 1st century CE.
For a contemporary example, Christmas trees do not feature in English or American Christmas traditions before the 19th century, but were long established by the 20th century. Ditto white wedding dresses.
(The rise of of both traditions dates back to Queen Victoria.)
> As God’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Esther, it was considered permissible to illustrate it.
Wow. Does anybody have some good info abut this aspect of Judaism, wikipedia doesn't have much. Specifically I'd like to know the historical reliable sources about it, not the qoutes from the Bible, that is, I'm interested in the evidence for and against the use of illustrations among the Jews.
Due to this belief you get some interesting Jewish thoughts. Such as Atheist Jews who do not believe a supernatural being exists. But that G-d is the spirit / will / empathy of the people in aggregate. For example a Jewish Atheist would say it was not some super natural being's doing that saved the Jews from the holocaust, but the good nature of people in aggregate. And it was that good nature that represents G-d.
Finally as the joke goes in Judaism. You've got 2 Jews in a room and 5 conflicting opinions.
It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d.
I don't believe the permission to illustrate the megillah has anything to do with G-d's name not being mentioned, as there are accepted illustrations of Tanach (where G-d's name is mentioned) across the spectrum. As long as there is no depiction of G-d it is fine.
As an orthodox Jew, I have no reason to believe that any other orthodox Jew would be OK with making a depiction of G-d. If someone else did, it would just be avoided. I can't speak for any other denominations.
Another thing an orthodox Jew might do is preface any anthropomorphic mention of G-d with "kavayachol" meaning "as if it were possible" (loosely translated as "so to speak"), in recognition of the fact that G-d cannot be prescribed physical qualities.
Edit: just saw your note about historical precedence. For an orthodox Jew there is no separation of what it says in the Torah and what has happened historically. We follow a masoretic tradition as to the interpretation of the Torah. So as I said above, I can't imagine an orthodox Jew being OK with a depiction of G-d from a Torah standpoint.
> It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d.
You should be more exact: It's not possible to make an image of G-d since G-d does not have a form, so it doesn't matter what image is made, it's certain that that is not an image of G-d.
What's forbidden is to make an image and consider it a (or as) G-d. Not that it is (necessarily) an image of G-d.
The canonical discussions of just this issue through Torah, Midrash and Talmud, as well as later Rabbinic writings span literally volumes. It is not possible to be "exact" about the halakhah around portrayals of G-d, which include images, analogies, textual writings of the divine name, uttering and pronouncing the divine name, and describing the nature of the divine. If you want to lay claim to being "exact" we'll need to see some Tractate references.
I'm not aware of any such rule. If you notice all the illustrators mentioned in the article were Christian (at least they seemed that way to me from the names).
What's prohibited is a 3 dimensional form (i.e. like a sculpture, not just thickness as from the layers of paint and the like). A 2D image is fine unless there is intent to worship it.
There are some additional details, for example an image of a celestial being (sun, moon, angel, etc) is assumed to be for worship, unless known otherwise, while an earthy image is not assumed that way.
I'm not sure what they are getting at there. There are beautiful illustrated haggadahs (Passover prayer books, which certainly contain the divine name) dating back to the early middle ages. The British library (the linked site) owns several examples, including the Golden Haggadah: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_27210_f0...
> For an orthodox Jew there is no separation of what it says in the Torah and what has happened historically
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but... So the earth is just 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were... implanted by God to waylay followers without enough faith and basically confuse us?
I tend to argue that while we say one can't define god, one of the attributes attributed to god is "truth" (last word of Exodus 34:6). Many have a hard time associating God who is defined by as truth with a god who is like Loki who is just here to trick us by putting our senses against us (i.e. what we can observe).
Calling God "truth" sounds nice, but at least in science, what is considered "true" is constantly debated and is not a static, immutable thing. That said, if a consensus of learned people decide a new thing is true, religions should accept it IMHO
and the argument would be that our understanding of God increase as we understand creation even more.
on the flip side, if one's faith is based more in the god of the gaps, i.e. the "magical" aspects of creation, of course one's faith will be tested or discarded as science's knowledge increases as the gaps shrink and shrink (and fits with clark's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
Further, Maimonides, who enumerated the principles of faith accepted by Orthodox Jews, also held that Genesis could/should be interpreted allegorically[1].
> Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides (Mosheh ben Maimon, the "Rambam") held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.
Most Jews and Christians don't ascribe to the 6000 year old earth view. That's a relatively modern 20th-century interpretation and mostly driven by Christian fundamentalism in the USA.
It's true that a lot of theology that we might think is "ancient" or "traditional" isn't really. However, the Jewish year (currently 5777) is widely at least referred to across Jewish denominations.
This reckoning is called לבריאת העולם or Anno Mundi in European cultures and does officially refer to the creation (בריאת). Wikipedia says that the current consensus about this timescale was fixed by Maimonides in 1178 CE.
I should add that writing dates in the Jewish calendar doesn't necessarily imply that one using the calendar personally believes that it literally refers to the age of the world, but most users would probably agree that "Jewish tradition" in some sense has regarded it that way.
I'm not sure how you can claim this is a 20th-century interpretation as I'm currently looking at writings from ~2000 years ago (the Mishnah and Talmud) that discuss it.
I don't agree that all orthodox jews subscribe to it, although I do agree that it's a commonly held belief.
The universal values held by Orthodox Jews are the articles of faith of Maimonides ("Rambam")[1], which are included in regular prayers. Maimonides is, as a result, extremely well regarded among Orthodox Jews as a source of values.
Maimonides took the position that Genesis (Bereishis) was to be considered allegorical when its plain reading conflicted with science[2]. This was a source of debate among his contemporaries, and it's uncontroversially the case that he strongly believed this.
As a former Orthodox Jew, I don't think that Orthodox Jews are doing themselves any favors by teaching their children that if they believe that the Torah is not in conflict with science, they are violating basic, universal Orthodox values when Maimonides disagrees with that point of view.
While Orthodox Judaism (and be careful, there are distinct flavours of what 'Orthodox' means and multiple authorities) holds the Torah to be the revealed truth of God, the concept of an "obvious, literal interpretation" of anything is anathema to Judaism. You're supposed to struggle with the texts, peeling back layers of meaning, context and application, finding patterns, etc. The truth doesn't come from reading a verse, but through a lifetime of focussed study. It is also part of the tradition that the revealed truth is understood in the context of the world as it is experienced---G-d doesn't lie. If your observations contradict your understanding of the Torah, your understanding is flawed.
Someone could write something very opaque and a bit random and if it were told to me that it was a holy text, it might inspire an equivalent amount of lifelong struggle
The modern creationist view on fossils is that they were laid down during Noah's flood. I grew up in a creationist home, and never heard anyone seriously claim dinosaur bones are a trick. As far as I can tell that's just a straw man.
No, there's supposed to have been dinosaurs on the Ark, too, but the climate was sufficiently messed up right after the flood that they died out. I wish I knew where to find a good summary.
I realize you probably didn't mean any harm, but this sort of generic religious tangent is not on-topic here. Also it tends to lead to religious flamewars, which are bannable offenses.
Not allowing discussion of something (including, if not especially, religion) should be the "bannable offense" by any intellectually-honest institution, especially given the significant impact that unsubstantiated religious belief has on the world.
The key to avoid flamewars (this from someone who has moderated many many discussions including those of a controversial nature) is to stick as close to facts and secular ethical reasoning as possible. Where there are no facts nor secular ethical reasoning to be found, one cannot impose one's view on others, and one cannot successfully argue any case, simple as that.
Some scholars have contended that given the striking resemblance between the names Esther and
Mordecai to the Babylonian deities Marduk and Ishtar, the story was rooted in
Babylonian worship practices...
They really just left that there, without any hint as to whether there's anything in common besides the names? The Wikipedia pages for Marduk and Ishtar don't give any hints AFAICT.
Sure, but that's sort of why it's odd that TFA seemed to be suggesting that the story was based on Babylonian religious practice, citing no evidence other than the similar names.
44 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 99.5 ms ] thread> the festival had long been established by the 2nd century CE as evidenced in the tractate Megilah of the Mishnah (corpus of the oral tradition of Jewish law).
I'm confused by this.
The compilation and writing of the Mishnah was in response to the inevitable upcoming exile.
(The rise of of both traditions dates back to Queen Victoria.)
Wow. Does anybody have some good info abut this aspect of Judaism, wikipedia doesn't have much. Specifically I'd like to know the historical reliable sources about it, not the qoutes from the Bible, that is, I'm interested in the evidence for and against the use of illustrations among the Jews.
http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm#Image and http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm
This may be the wikipedia page you're looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Judaism
Finally as the joke goes in Judaism. You've got 2 Jews in a room and 5 conflicting opinions.
I don't believe the permission to illustrate the megillah has anything to do with G-d's name not being mentioned, as there are accepted illustrations of Tanach (where G-d's name is mentioned) across the spectrum. As long as there is no depiction of G-d it is fine.
As an orthodox Jew, I have no reason to believe that any other orthodox Jew would be OK with making a depiction of G-d. If someone else did, it would just be avoided. I can't speak for any other denominations.
Another thing an orthodox Jew might do is preface any anthropomorphic mention of G-d with "kavayachol" meaning "as if it were possible" (loosely translated as "so to speak"), in recognition of the fact that G-d cannot be prescribed physical qualities.
Edit: just saw your note about historical precedence. For an orthodox Jew there is no separation of what it says in the Torah and what has happened historically. We follow a masoretic tradition as to the interpretation of the Torah. So as I said above, I can't imagine an orthodox Jew being OK with a depiction of G-d from a Torah standpoint.
You should be more exact: It's not possible to make an image of G-d since G-d does not have a form, so it doesn't matter what image is made, it's certain that that is not an image of G-d.
What's forbidden is to make an image and consider it a (or as) G-d. Not that it is (necessarily) an image of G-d.
What's prohibited is a 3 dimensional form (i.e. like a sculpture, not just thickness as from the layers of paint and the like). A 2D image is fine unless there is intent to worship it.
There are some additional details, for example an image of a celestial being (sun, moon, angel, etc) is assumed to be for worship, unless known otherwise, while an earthy image is not assumed that way.
The fact that the Megilla doesn't contain the name of God is an interesting phenomenon and the source of a lot of commentary, but not for this reason.
Seems fishy...
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but... So the earth is just 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were... implanted by God to waylay followers without enough faith and basically confuse us?
Not necessarily - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith
2) do some believe that? sure.
I tend to argue that while we say one can't define god, one of the attributes attributed to god is "truth" (last word of Exodus 34:6). Many have a hard time associating God who is defined by as truth with a god who is like Loki who is just here to trick us by putting our senses against us (i.e. what we can observe).
Calling God "truth" sounds nice, but at least in science, what is considered "true" is constantly debated and is not a static, immutable thing. That said, if a consensus of learned people decide a new thing is true, religions should accept it IMHO
on the flip side, if one's faith is based more in the god of the gaps, i.e. the "magical" aspects of creation, of course one's faith will be tested or discarded as science's knowledge increases as the gaps shrink and shrink (and fits with clark's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
> Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides (Mosheh ben Maimon, the "Rambam") held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of...
This reckoning is called לבריאת העולם or Anno Mundi in European cultures and does officially refer to the creation (בריאת). Wikipedia says that the current consensus about this timescale was fixed by Maimonides in 1178 CE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Mundi
I should add that writing dates in the Jewish calendar doesn't necessarily imply that one using the calendar personally believes that it literally refers to the age of the world, but most users would probably agree that "Jewish tradition" in some sense has regarded it that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_creation#Early_Jewish_e...
I'm not sure how you can claim this is a 20th-century interpretation as I'm currently looking at writings from ~2000 years ago (the Mishnah and Talmud) that discuss it.
As a conservative Jew, I think this view is a minority position amongst all the liberal movements.
I was mostly stating that in regards to the viewpoint of orthodox Jews as espoused in the GP.
My main point was that it is not an idea that came about in the 20th century.
The universal values held by Orthodox Jews are the articles of faith of Maimonides ("Rambam")[1], which are included in regular prayers. Maimonides is, as a result, extremely well regarded among Orthodox Jews as a source of values.
Maimonides took the position that Genesis (Bereishis) was to be considered allegorical when its plain reading conflicted with science[2]. This was a source of debate among his contemporaries, and it's uncontroversially the case that he strongly believed this.
As a former Orthodox Jew, I don't think that Orthodox Jews are doing themselves any favors by teaching their children that if they believe that the Torah is not in conflict with science, they are violating basic, universal Orthodox values when Maimonides disagrees with that point of view.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#The_13_principles_o...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of...
If you feel very strongly about it, then when you create a world, make it's physical age and time age match :-p
To give you free will. The free will to believe in God or not believe is the most fundamental free will there is.
If there is incontrovertible proof of God then there is no free will.
Judaism does NOT believe there is proof the earth is only 6000 years old (i.e. young earth creationism has never been part of Judaism).
The Earth is both 6000 years old and billions of years old. (And I mean real years, no semantic games on the meaning of "year".)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13879554 and marked it off-topic.
The key to avoid flamewars (this from someone who has moderated many many discussions including those of a controversial nature) is to stick as close to facts and secular ethical reasoning as possible. Where there are no facts nor secular ethical reasoning to be found, one cannot impose one's view on others, and one cannot successfully argue any case, simple as that.