Shamar on You.

[rosends]

Wiki

Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer quotes

OK, so you quote (the wrong part of) an aggadic text (you should have quoted 22:4) and try to understand it literally. That's interesting. You are using this to support your contention that there is a "strong tradition" when, in fact, not only is this midrashic work not a strong voice within normative belief, but had you looked in Chapter 14, note 32 in the Explanation of the Radal you would have seen that it doesn't mean exactly what you think it does. Here is a citation -- read it at your leisure:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21858&st=&pgnum=67

If angels can eat, they can copulate.

Then you don't understand what the "strong Jewish tradition" about that verse is.
Check out Bava Metzi'a 86b
ואכלו סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נראו כמי שאכלו ושתו

 

[outlawState]

OK, so you quote (the wrong part of) an aggadic text (you should have quoted 22:4) and try to understand it literally. That's interesting. You are using this to support your contention that there is a "strong tradition" when, in fact, not only is this midrashic work not a strong voice within normative belief, but had you looked in Chapter 14, note 32 in the Explanation of the Radal you would have seen that it doesn't mean exactly what you think it does. Here is a citation -- read it at your leisure:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21858&st=&pgnum=67

I don't know what you mean by "Explanation of the Radal"

Obvious PRE is anathema to R. Simeon b. Yohai et al. but there are Jews who take PRE literally.

OK, so you quote (the
Check out Bava Metzi'a 86b
ואכלו סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נראו כמי שאכלו ושתו

It asks "Who were the three men? - Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael."

So. It calls the three angels "men". What is your point exactly?

----------------------------------
The point that I am making is that angels interpretation was the earliest exegesis of Gen 6:1-4, even if it is not now a "strong tradition" amongst the Jews. Yet it was once a strong tradition. I refer you to "The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4" Jacob Johannes Theodoor Doedens 2013 Citation:

A–1: Angels-Interpretation
The earliest known exegetical solution identifies the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4 as angels. This interpretation is apparently inferred from places in the Old Testament where the same expression, ~yhil{a/h' ynEB., or without the article ~yhil{a/ ynEB., appears to refer to angels, as in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. The identification of the ‘sons of God’ as angels is an interpretation found most often in early Jewish literature and in that of the Early Church.

B–1: Mighty Ones-Interpretation
The earliest example of a shift in exegesis, where now the ‘sons of God’ are identified as human beings, is found in the Targumim as well as in some of the pseudepigraphical writings. Philo also gives an interpretation in which ‘sons of God’ signifies ‘virtuous men’, whereas the ‘daughters of men’ is rendered as ‘wicked and Introduction 7 corrupted women’. Similar to this explanation is Symmachus’ translation of the Old Testament where the ‘sons of God’ is rendered as the ‘sons of the rulers’. In reviewing the writings of the synagogue, it appears that it is this interpretation which has been sanctioned as the authoritative exegesis therein. Genesis Rabbah 26:8 notes that a curse was pronounced on anyone who persisted in referring to them as ‘sons of God’, that is to say, on those who still promulgated the heretofore generally accepted ‘angels-interpretation’.

B–2: Sethites-Interpretation
Within the interpretative category of the ‘sons of God’ as human beings there is found a variant, this being the so called Sethites-interpretation. According to this line of thought, the ‘sons of God’ are the offspring of Seth. Within the literature from the time of the church fathers, Julius Africanus is the first author known to have represented the view that the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4 might be regarded Sethites. At the same time, it is not likely that he is the author of this idea. The expression ‘sons of God’ becomes thus interpreted as an indication of a religious category, that is to say, that of godfearing people. The ‘daughters of men’ are, by consequence, considered to be the offspring of Cain.8 This exegesis and its associated explanation became the dominant one in the writings of the church fathers from the fourth century onwards. Despite this, traces of the older angelsinterpretation can still be found to occur.

A–2: Divine Beings-Interpretation
Newer research almost unanimously takes the expression ‘sons of God’ to refer to divine beings. This exegesis is based on lexical evidence from biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages. It is infrequent that the expression ‘sons of X’ expresses a genealogical relationship and more often indicates that individuals or objects belong to the class referred to by ‘X’. Reading the expression ‘sons of God’ in this way results in interpreting the expression as referring to divine or heavenly beings.

Because the gods of the ancient Near Eastern pantheon are also referred to as ‘sons of the gods’ and, being members of the so called ‘divine council’, some interpreters are convinced that Gen 6:1–4 draws on mythological material. According to this view, Gen 6:1–4 serves as principal evidence for the presence of mythological material from the ancient Near East in the Old Testament.​

 

[rosends]

I don't know what you mean by "Explanation of the Radal"

And this is part of the problem with your claim that anything is a strong tradition in Judaism. You don't actually know what Judaism teaches.

Obvious PRE is anathema to R. Simeon b. Yohai et al. but there are Jews who take PRE literally.

Really? Midrash and aggadah taken literally? Which Jews? And are they ones who are informed or who set up the strong traditions in the faith?

It asks "Who were the three men? - Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael."

So. It calls the three angels "men". What is your point exactly?

You didn't read the 2000 year old talmud piece I quoted, did you? That already answered your question. I see the problem here is that you are trying to represent Jewish thought without being able to study actual Jewish thinkers.

Yet it was once a strong tradition. I refer you to "The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4" Jacob Johannes Theodoor Doedens 2013 Citation:

A–1: Angels-Interpretation
The earliest known exegetical solution identifies the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4 as angels.​

So he has access to commentary which predates the talmudic explanation? Where?

The rest of this citation shows the inferences made and calls forth writers who are not part of the Jewish tradition. Other than vague claims, I don't see an actual reference to any "early Jewish literature". As has been shown to you in other posts, the phrase you are looking at is subject to explanation and understanding, and even way back then, was understood to mean something different from what you claim. Were there people who claimed that the reference was to actual angels? Sure. I could bring you sources for that if you wanted. But the existence of a medrashic opinion does not reflect the existence of a tradition of belief.

I'm just wondering if you can provide some actual Judaic text. The PrDrE text and the talmudic text don't actually support your contention.

I'll give you some help. Try reading this and pay attention to the details.
​

 

[outlawState]

And this is part of the problem with your claim that anything is a strong tradition in Judaism. You don't actually know what Judaism teaches.

I think I have a fair idea after having done some research. It is unfortunate that as to this short passage in question there is more disagreement on it than on virtually any other part of the OT. It is rare for there to be explicit rabbinical anathemas on particular interpretations; and I view this as a fatal obstacle to free discussion on the issue of the sons of God.

And this is part of the
Really? Midrash and aggadah taken literally? Which Jews? And are they ones who are informed or who set up the strong traditions in the faith?

There are modern Jewish commentators taking PRE literally. Do an internet search.

And this is part of the
You didn't read the 2000 year old talmud piece I quoted, did you? That already answered your question. I see the problem here is that you are trying to represent Jewish thought without being able to study actual Jewish thinkers.

I looked the passage up and quoted what I found. It labelled the angels as "men." That is exactly my point. I don't know what point you are making.

And this is part of the

So he has access to commentary which predates the talmudic explanation? Where?

The rest of this citation shows the inferences made and calls forth writers who are not part of the Jewish tradition. Other than vague claims, I don't see an actual reference to any "early Jewish literature". As has been shown to you in other posts, the phrase you are looking at is subject to explanation and understanding, and even way back then, was understood to mean something different from what you claim. Were there people who claimed that the reference was to actual angels? Sure. I could bring you sources for that if you wanted. But the existence of a medrashic opinion does not reflect the existence of a tradition of belief.​

I was quoting a PhD thesis approved by his department of theology in which the author clearly had sufficient knowledge of Hebrew for his subject.

As to early Jewish views, the Book of Jubilees was written by Jews 160–150 BC, and very well known in the 2nd temple period and beyond. Extensive fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (Essenes were Jewish). I am not sure where you are coming from in attempting to deny the Jewish roots of the sons of God being angels found in Jubilees.

"The Hasmoneans adopted Jubilees immediately, and it became a source for the Aramaic Levi Document.[14] Jubilees remained a point of reference for priestly circles (although they disputed its calendric proposal), and the Temple Scroll and "Epistle of Enoch" (1 Enoch 91:1–10, 92:3–93:10, 91:11–92:2, 93:11–105:3) are based on Jubilees.[15] It is the source for certain of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, for instance that of Reuben" (Wiki)

And this is part of the

I'm just wondering if you can provide some actual Judaic text. The PrDrE text and the talmudic text don't actually support your contention.

I'll give you some help. Try reading this and pay attention to the details.​

Lev 17:7 "They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.'"

1 Cor 10:20 "The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God."

Azazel (azaz + el) possibly infers ‘strong one of God.’ It is conjectured that Azazel may have been derived from the Canaanite god, ‘Asiz, who caused the sun to burn strongly. Azazel is now incorporated into both modern witchcraft and freemasonry.
Aziz is a cognate of Hebrew oz meaning "might, strength, power"
Al-Aziz is one of the names of God in Islam

So what I find as to the"Legend of Azazel" is that Azazel is probably both a scapegoat and a demon god of the Canaanites. Demons are commonly construed as fallen angels. Surely you don't deny demons?

Your source quotes The Talmud (Yoma 67b). The word Azazel can be broken down to mean “hardest of mountains”. This may be why some believe that the goat was sent off the edge of a mountainous cliff down to its death.

You treat as apocryphal many early Jewish writings. Ok, but that does not mean that they were not once in vogue amongst significant numbers of Jews.

 

[rosends]

I think I have a fair idea after having done some research.

Yes, you think that.

It is unfortunate that as to this short passage in question there is more disagreement on it than on virtually any other part of the OT.

Based on what sample assessment? There is actually relatively little argument on this verse. There are verses which invite substantially more opinions and interpretations.

There are modern Jewish commentators taking PRE literally. Do an internet search.

Thank you for the non-response.

I looked the passage up and quoted what I found. It labelled the angels as "men." That is exactly my point. I don't know what point you are making.

Because you haven't actually read what I posted. It doesn't say what you think it does.

I was quoting a PhD thesis approved by his department of theology in which the author clearly had sufficient knowledge of Hebrew for his subject.

Ah, so quoting someone who doesn't provide sources is ok.

As to early Jewish views, the Book of Jubilees was written by Jews 160–150 BC, and very well known in the 2nd temple period and beyond. Extensive fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (Essenes were Jewish). I am not sure where you are coming from in attempting to deny the Jewish roots of the sons of God being angels found in Jubilees.

Yeah, um, Jubilees isn't really representative of anything in Judaism. It is at best another midrashic work (and you should really study up on how those are viewed and used) but more likely, one from a fringe writer at odds with Judaism in many ways. Here's is some reading
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/11989/1362

So is this evidence of anything like a strong tradition in Judaism? No. Is it the recording of a (midrashic and fringe) opinion? Sure. There are many midrashic and fringe opinions.

1 Cor 10:20 "The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God."

Did you just quote the gospels to prove a point about Judaism? Wow.

Demons are commonly construed as fallen angels. Surely you don't deny demons?

And now you want to construct a bridge from the gospels to your vision of what is "commonly construed"? Judaism has an idea of demons, but they are not fallen angels. Once that link is severed, your thesis falls flat.

You treat as apocryphal many early Jewish writings. Ok, but that does not mean that they were not once in vogue amongst significant numbers of Jews.

Nor does it mean they were.