Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:07 pm**

Pardes is only in the later writings.

Hebrew פרדס (pardes) appears thrice in the Tanakh; in the Song of Solomon 4:13, Ecclesiastes 2:5 and Nehemiah 2:8. In those contexts it could be interpreted as an "orchard" or a "fruit garden".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise#Etymology

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6508.htm

Eshdat looks interesting though (I see that you talk about it here (http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -lamo.html).

Alter suggests that it is unintelligible in his translation of the Torah:

The Hebrew 'eshdat, anachronistically construed by later Hebrew exegetes to mean "fire of the law," is not intelligible ... this translation embraces the proposal that the text originally read 'esh d[oleq]et (burning, or racing, fire) or something similar.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZcMhk ... ew&f=false

And this book says that it is often understood to mean "slope":

Most English translations consider it a form of the word 'ashed (or 'eshed), meaning slope ... The problem with 'eshdat, however, is lexical: the form as it is found in Deuteronomy 33:2 is not quite the same as what one sees elsewhere in the OT.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-6eOk ... ew&f=false

Unfortunately what follows this is not viewable on Google books for me. In any event, it is a curious word and I'm open to investigating it more.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:12 pm**

Secret Alias wrote:Eshdat lamo = fire law.

BDB indicates that Deut. 33:2's eshdat lamo is corrupt, with "many emendations proposed."

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:14 pm**

Nah. It is generally acknowledged.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:16 pm**

And pardes is there as a square Persian garden

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:30 pm**

Nathan wrote:

BDB indicates that Deut. 33:2's eshdat lamo is corrupt, with "many emendations proposed."

It looks odd to me in this interlinear:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/33-2.htm

And this website says:

The next expression in the same verse is no less problematic. That which is translated either “firey law” or “flashing lightning” is “eshdat” in Hebrew, being a term that appears nowhere else. If broken in two it is: “e’sh” – fire – and “dat” – meaning “law, edict” or “manner of things.” However, “dat” is found only in Esther, one time in Ezra and in the Aramaic sections of Daniel, making its usage here, at such an early stage, totally doubtful. According to the B.D.B Lexicon “eshdat” was originally “esh yokeh-dat,” that is “burning fire” (with the first two syllables now missing). [1] According to this viewpoint we should read, “On His right (-that is, the right hand side) is a burning fire.”

http://weeklyparashahebrewinsights.blog ... vezot.html

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:02 pm**

Of course and the term appears in Ezra and other early texts.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:07 pm**

And Peter Frei has provided compelling evidence of Persian involvement in writing "Torah-like" documents in other cultures under their dominion

https://archive.org/stream/ThePersianIm ... e_djvu.txt

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268393

https://books.google.com/books?id=XTxje ... ei&f=false

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:37 pm**

FWIW I wonder whether יִפָּרֵ֔ד in Genesis 2:10 is a reflection of the Persian root of pardes. Just a guess. No one knows why gardens are called pardes in Persian

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:00 pm**

Stephan wrote:

...the term appears in Ezra and other early texts.

I want to say that I'm keeping an open mind here. I wasn't aware of this issue until now.

I'm not sure if you are referring to dat, but if so the link I gave above says it is "found only in Esther, one time in Ezra and in the Aramaic sections of Daniel, making its usage here [in Dt. 32:3], at such an early stage, totally doubtful."

Those are all late writings (excepting Dt. 32:3).

So far my impression is that one doubtful word is not enough to overturn the idea that Jeremiah could have written Deuteronomy.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:15 pm**

I think Persian period is early. These are all pseudepigraphal texts. I think the widespread recognition of Jewish forgery efforts cleared the way for Christian forgeries. Even the term is redundant. They're all fake. Trump's use of "fake news" to justify dishonesty is only the modern take

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The Era

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The

Re: 60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The