I'm reading various passages in "The Babylonian Talmud, Volumes 1-10: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English" and I'm trying to figure out when the various teachers wrote their interpretations. Does anyone know of a source for dating some of these references?
Ron Barry: I'm reading various passages in "The Babylonian Talmud, Volumes 1-10: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English" and I'm trying to figure out when the various teachers wrote their interpretations. Does anyone know of a source for dating some of these references?
Ron,
I'm not at home but I do have a resource called "Swimming in the Sea of Talmud". In there I found a "Generational Chart of Rabbis Cited in this book"...that should have at least some of them. Here's the link:
http://www.logos.com/product/7976/swimming-in-the-sea-of-talmud
Hope this helps...
Oldnewbie: a resource called "Swimming in the Sea of Talmud". In there I found a "Generational Chart of Rabbis Cited in this book"...that should have at least some of them. Here's the link: http://www.logos.com/product/7976/swimming-in-the-sea-of-talmud
a resource called "Swimming in the Sea of Talmud". In there I found a "Generational Chart of Rabbis Cited in this book"...that should have at least some of them. Here's the link:
The other book in => Studies in Talmud and Midrash Collection is => Searching for Meaning in Midrash that has a chart:
Keep Smiling
Logos Wiki Logos 7 Beta Free Support
As Jacob Neusner has pointed out and discussed in his book Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament: What We Cannot Show We Do Not Know, such would be a quixotic and time-wasting quest:
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/dmdneus.html
Neusner's argument here is twofold. First faith-history is not history, and therefore pseudo-orthodoxy must be recognized for what it is. Secondly, since rabbinical material, e.g., the Mekilta, Midrash Rabbah, the Talmuds, and so forth, are compilations by compilers each with his/their own agenda(s), and since individual passages, especially biographical and haggadic, are often pseudonymous inventions—and some are forgeries—no reliance ought to be placed on them except to show that such a view was expressed by the compilers always centuries after Christ, and therefore probably irrelevant to Jesus' situation. Neusner reserves some faith in the Mishnah, which, too, must explain itself. For it is whatever it is, and is not whatever it is not (p. 123)—but it must be handled circumspectly.
He likens theologians' homogenizing use of the Talmuds (p. 106) to a description of primitive Christianity using materials hardly earlier than St. Augustine and Byzantium. He marvels how New Testament scholars show such minute discrimination, even skepticism, about gospel pericopae, but treat rabbinical passages gullibly. Such uncritical behaviour is known in those rabbinical circles that ask, "Can our ancient sages lie?," presume in favour of the reliability of any text, and treat rabbinical pronouncements (as the rabbis treat the TNK) as mutually coeval, ignoring questions of chronology. Admittedly this is a specialist environment. The New Testament men seem to believe, "What you do not know, you do not have to show; just say it and it becomes so" (p. 101).
He castigates (1) their failing carefully and critically to analyse the literary and historical traits of every pericope adduced as evidence; (2) their assumption that things happened exactly as the sources allege; and (3) their use of anachronistic or inappropriate analogies and the introduction of irrelevant issues (p. 94).
It might be a useful book to include in Logos; I have a ppb copy.
Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)
Thanks for your suggestions - I did have those resources and was able to check out the chart. I appreciate your help...
I'm reading Schiffman write now (Qumran and Jerusalem / Judaism) and he just doesn't seem real happy with Neusner, mainly Neusner having emphasized the suggested lateness of the Talmud etc. I think there's a big problem in the scholarly community when a set of writings can't be easily pinned down. I very much like the Targums but (at least in my readings), they don't get much air-time and I suspect it's because no one can pin them down very well. And so the Talmud as well.
DMB: I'm reading Schiffman write now (Qumran and Jerusalem / Judaism) and he just doesn't seem real happy with Neusner, mainly Neusner having emphasized the suggested lateness of the Talmud etc. I think there's a big problem in the scholarly community when a set of writings can't be easily pinned down. I very much like the Targums but (at least in my readings), they don't get much air-time and I suspect it's because no one can pin them down very well. And so the Talmud as well.
DMB,
Very interesting. I just ordered that from Logos and got 2 other books by Prof. Schiffman in dead tree format after learning about his writings regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. I didn't know he was at odds with Neusner but his book "Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism" includes readings from the Hebrew Bible as well as the OT Apocrypha, Mishna, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the NT, and Roman and Greek writers. I've just started reading but just looking at the TOC makes me think he wants a deeper consideration of the history of editing/redacting when looking at the age of the writings/opinions in question. I've got lots of reading to do, it seems.