שלום אריאל

Discuss general issues pertaining to the Catholic faith.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
igal
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:51 pm
Antispam: Eve
Please enter the fourth number in the list (eight): 2

שלום אריאל

Post by igal » Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:51 pm

באיגרת יהודה כתוב :"אך מיכאל ,שר המלאכים ,כאשר רב עם השטן והתוכח על גוית משה..."(איגרת יהודה א:9).
השאלה שלי כזאת:
מתי הספיק מיכאל לריב עם השטן ,ועוד על גוית משה?
האם יהודה לקח את הציטוט הזה מספר חיצוני לכיתבי הקודש המכונה "עליית משה"?(אני רק שמעתי על הספר לא יצא לי לקראו אותו כי שום חנות ספרים לא מוכרת אותו ומאידך מצאתי עותק רק בלטינית).
שאלה נוספת יהודה שכתב את האיגרת זה לא יהודה איש הקריות ,נכון?
אז איזה יהודה זה?

בברכת ישוע המשיח

Ariel
Site Admin
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:28 am
Please enter the fourth number in the list (eight): 0
Location: Jerusalem

Re: שלום אריאל

Post by Ariel » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:14 am

שלום יגאל,

נכון, המחבר של איגרת יהודה הוא איננו יהודה איש קריות, אלא "עֶבֶד יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ וַאֲחִי יַעֲקֹב" כפי שמצוין בפסוק הראשון.
רוב החוקרים חשבים שמדובר ביהודה ה"אח" (בן דוד) של ישוע שמוזכר במתי יג, 55 ומרקוס ו, 3.

בקשר לסיפו על גבית משה לקחתי את הקטע הבא מן הפירוש על איגרת יהודי מאת
Richard Bauckham (Word Biblical Commentary)


Excursus: The Background and Source of Jude 9

Although the source of Jude’s story of the dispute over the body of Moses is not extant, a wealth of material is available from which it should be possible to reconstruct the story which Jude knew.
...
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
Evidently the words of Michael, quoted in Jude’s source, derive from Zech 3:2. The vision in Zech 3:1–5 is a courtroom scene in which the accusing angel, “the adversary” (השׂטן), and the angel of the Lord confront each other in a legal dispute in which the defendant is the high priest Joshua. Evidently Joshua’s guilt, as representative of Israel, has placed him in the power of Satan his accuser. When the angel of the Lord (Jude’s source must have read מלאך יהוה “the angel of the Lord” for MT יהוה “Lord” in Zech 3:2), as the Lord’s representative, silences Satan with the words, “May the Lord rebuke you, Satan,” he dismisses Satan’s case against Joshua. As Kee observes (NTS 14 [1968] 237), the translation “rebuke” is rather weak: גער here denotes more than a reprimand. It refers to God’s commanding word which asserts his authority over Satan, delivering Joshua and his people from Satan’s power (cf. Pss 9:5; 68:30; Isa 17:13; Mal 3:11; and Kee’s discussion of גער: NTS 14 [1968] 235–38).
The idea of a contest between Satan and the angel of the Lord was later applied to other episodes in the history of Israel. Jub. 17:15–18:16 tells the story of the sacrifice of Isaac within the framework of a heavenly trial of Abraham (cf. Job 1–2), in which the prince of the Mastema (equals Satan) again appears as accuser, arguing that Abraham’s faithfulness should be tested. When Abraham proves faithful, it is the angel of the presence who, on God’s behalf, intervenes to save Isaac (cf. Gen 22:11–12), while “the prince of the Mastema was put to shame” (Jub. 18:12). (With this account compare the tradition preserved in Yal. Rub. 43:3, quoted by Chaine, 311: “When Isaac was bound, there was a debate between Michael and Satan. Michael brought a ram to free Isaac, but Satan wanted to keep him off so that Isaac should be sacrificed.”)
The book of Jubilees makes further use of the theme of the contest between Satan and the angel, especially in chap 48, to illuminate the career of Moses and the Exodus. According to 48:2–3, it was the prince of the Mastema (not the Lord, as in Gen 4:24) who tried to kill Moses, and it was the angel of the presence who delivered Moses from his power (48:5). Though Satan’s motivation here plainly derives from his enmity toward God and God’s people (48:4), it may be that the author still intends him to be seen in the role of accuser: it was Moses’ failure to circumcise his son (Gen 4:25) which put him into Satan’s power.
Then the prince of the Mastema opposed Moses in his confrontation with Pharaoh, and aided the Egyptian magicians against him (48:9), while the angels of the presence assisted Moses by destroying them (48:11). This particular confrontation is recalled also by the Damascus Rule (CD 5:17–18): “Moses and Aaron arose by the hand of the Prince of lights and Satan in his cunning raised up Jannes and his brother” (tr. Vermes). However, according to Jubilees, the victory over the magicians did not yet result in the “shaming” of Satan (48:12) because he took further action: the Egyptians’ pursuit of Israel (48:12, 16–17). The angels then delivered Israel from him at the Red Sea (48:13). Again it should be noticed that in this account Satan’s power against Israel seems to rest on his power to “accuse them” (48:15, 18): as the leader of the forces of evil against the good angels he has not entirely lost his legal function of accusation (cf. also Rev 12:10).
These stories provide the principal background for the story to which Jude 9 alludes. It fits readily into the same pattern. At Moses’ death, Satan makes a last attempt to assert his power over him. As we shall see, he does so by accusing Moses of murdering the Egyptian. By this accusation he intends to claim Moses’ body and deprive him of the honor of burial by the archangel. Michael, however, silences Satan by his appeal to God to assert his authority over Satan (“May the Lord rebuke you!”), and thereby not only rescues Moses’ body from Satan’s power, but also vindicates Moses as the servant of God against Satan’s attempt to claim him as a sinner.
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” C.S. Lewis

Ariel
Site Admin
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:28 am
Please enter the fourth number in the list (eight): 0
Location: Jerusalem

Re: שלום אריאל

Post by Ariel » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:14 am

Another text which clearly belongs in broadly the same tradition is IVQVisions of ˓Amram (or Testament of ˓Amram), in which Moses’ father ˓Amram relates a dream in which he saw two angels engaged in a legal dispute over him. The two angels (of whose names only Melkireŝa˒ survives in the text) are the two chief angels, the Prince of light and the Prince of darkness, who between them “have power over all the sons of Adam” (1:12). The dispute is plainly over whether ˓Amram is a “son of light” belonging to the Prince of light or a “son of darkness” belonging to the Prince of darkness, but the text as it survives gives us no reason to suppose that it is a question of ˓Amram’s fate after death. (The vision took place during ˓Amram’s stay in Hebron, after which he returned to Egypt, and so some time before his death.) At one point the text is strikingly close to Jude 9: “behold, two of them of them disputed about me and said … and they were carrying on a great contest about me” (1:10–11). The similarity can scarcely be accidental, but probably we should not, as Milik does (RB 79 [1972] 95), conclude that Jude’s source was inspired by 4Q˓Amram. The similarity may be sufficiently explained by the broader tradition of contests between the devil and the chief of the angels. The idea of the verbal dispute derives from the original courtroom context of accusation and defense.
Berger (JSJ 4 [1973] 1–18) has sought to link both 4Q˓Amram and Jude 9 to a tradition in which two angels, or two groups of angels, contend for possession of the departed soul at death. For this tradition he marshalls a wealth of evidence from later Christian apocalyptic texts, and clearly he has identified a very influential form which the tradition of contests between the devil and the angel took in relation to the fate of the soul at death. None of his texts, however, is as early as Jude 9 (though T. Asher 6:4–6 may be early evidence of his tradition; the earliest indisputable evidence is Origen’s quotation from an apocryphal text about the death of Abraham: Hom. 35 on Luke). Berger recognizes that Jude 9, which is not about the fate of the soul at death, represents an adaptation of the tradition for a specific purpose. It is better, however, to see Jude 9 as a specific instance of the general tradition of contests between the devil and the angel, 4Q˓Amram as another specific instance of this general tradition, and Berger’s tradition of texts about the fate of the soul at death as a particular form which that tradition took, perhaps at a later date than the time of writing of Jude’s source and certainly without any direct relation to Jude’s source...

II. THE LOST ENDING OF THE TESTAMENT OF MOSES
There is widespread agreement that Jude’s source in v 9 was the lost ending of the work preserved for us only in Latin translation, in the incomplete and rather poor text of a sixth-century manuscript in Milan, a work sometimes known as the As. Mos., but more appropriately known as the T. Mos. This work, of Palestinian origin, has commonly been dated at the beginning of the first century A.D., though some have argued for its origin in the Maccabean period, with some revision in the early first century A.D.. It seems likely that Jude in v 16 made use of that part of the work which is now extant (see Comment on v 16), and may therefore have used its lost ending in v 9. Moreover, although some have argued that Jude’s story of the dispute over Moses’ body seems to belong to a different kind of literature from what we have of the T. Mos., it could be argued, from our text of the Testament, that it must have ended with a story of Moses’ death and burial, since (1) testaments usually end with an account of the subject’s death and burial (T. 12 Patr.‘, T. Abr., T. Job), and (2) T. Mos. 11:6–8’ raises the question of Moses’ burial and seems to require an account of his burial in an unknown grave.
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” C.S. Lewis

Post Reply