volgadon

And it should now be painfuly obvious that just because Mark says makrothen doesn't mean that it wasn't also epi hodos. Do you see my point? Just because something is at a distance from you (and again i ask how far is makrothen) doesn't mean that it can't be by the road.

So since you've checked the lexicon can you tell us that makrothen rules out the possibility of the tree being further along the road? Perhaps you would share what lexicon it is. Certainl neither Thayer nor BAG seem to bear you out on this one.

I lean towards that understanding. Mark has Jesus come to Jerusalem, sit at the temple until it grows dark and walk the several miles over to Bethany, only to return the next day to cleanse the temple.Why not on the first day?

Don't own an NASB, nor do I intend on doing so. You are the one arguing the pre-decided point. I am saying, lets look at the text and check our assumptions. Does afar off, or at a distance tell us where the tree was located? Do they render implausible its being by the side of the road, at a distance from Christ? So please, explain to me what the difference is. silly, quatrilingual me doesn't see how at a distance excludes by the road. You and your pre-decided points. It is far from proven that Mark was Matthew's source. Sure, it is the predominant supposition, but that is all it is. Certainly not black and white.

Snow, because I refuse to be overly simplistic in my readings does not mean that I am reading into the text any more than you are. Here is a question, how far is afar off? Was it further down the road, or was it way off to the side? Guess what, the text doesn't say. Either is quite plausible.

How about you take the Ashkenazi ones, I'll do the others?

The only major difference in the two accounts is the timing of the curse, and even such is not that major. the tree still withhers up and dies. We don't know that it took a whole day in Mark's account, as they walked away from it, returning only the next day.

I'm teaching it this year.

Thanks Rameumptom, but a slight correction. City of peace is an Israelite folk etymology, which is seen in biblical wordplay. The name of the city is Canaanite, shalem was one of their gods. The yeru part can't mean city, there is no ayin. City is 'ir. Ayin-yod-reish.

It really depends on which community, as they have different traditions.

You might like to share the following link with your rabbi friend. Bar-Ilan University Parshat Hashavua Page It is from the Bar-Ilan University, so hardly a secular source. In it are essentially the same points I made in my post. I'm sorry to say that nearly everything that rabbi pointed out is wrong. Cities were not named after their covenants (if they were I would like a concrete example), we don't know if the accent was on the 1st or 2nd sylables, Jerusalem was not on mt. Moriah at that time, yeru does not mean to increase, yadim is not the plural of hands, and according to both biblical and archaeological evidence, the name of the city was Yurushalem or Yurushalim, which in time became an ayim ending. Another excellent place to look for information on ancient Jerusalem is the works of Zeev Vilnay, who was not only the father of modern historio-geographical studies of Israel, but also an observant Jew.

Such as women shutting up in church? yes.

Forgot to add that revision doesn't rule it out, much of the D&C was revised.

I don't believe it is scripture. It is the general way that the prophets and apostles want us to preach, but I recall Elder Holland at a conference in my mission said to us that he has some reservations about PMG, it making preaching the gospel a little too complicated, then the principle is a simple one- open your mouth.

Yes.

Actually, it seems that 'double-birdie' sacrifice was the standard one by then, but consider this, Joseph had just been taxed.

It is worth noting that none of the gospels state that Joseph was a native of Nazareth. To me it seems likely that he was actually residing in Bethlehem, had gone up marry Mary (terribly tautological, I'm sorry) and returned in time to be taxed at the boule (the city hall), or what seems more likely in a minor town like Bethlehem- the synagogue. He was after all a techton, which would be a middle-class contractor in today's understanding. As one of the few construction professionals to be paid in cash, Joseph would definitely have been among the leaders of a small community such as Bethlehem, the very people that were taxed. I'm pretty sure that either Luke or his source conflated that local taxation with that later census, as is wont to happen in historical (or even contemporary) accounts.

Salem does not mean covenant of peace, it means either peace or whole (that is, perfect). Seeing as the inhabitants were Canaanties, the Salem element probably refered to the god Salem, just like most place names around Jerusalem were originally named for a Canaanite God (Bethel and Beth-Horon are just two examples). The Jeru element possibly meant foundation, or founded by. So the city of Salem, or the city founded by Salem, but this is speculative. At any rate, even if the ending was the double one, it would not mean Salem on two mountains. The only thing we would get is the double Yerushal. The em ending is an integral part of the word Salem.

To refine Omaha's remarks, ashkenazi are European Jews who spoke Yiddish (a Jewish German dialect), though the largest concentration was actually in Eastern Europe. In pronounciation of Hebrew, in liturgy and in many traditions and customs they differ from the sephardic Jews. Sephardic Jews are the descendants of the Jews of Spain and Portugal who expelled in the 15th century. They mostly settled throughout the Ottoman Empire, in Turkey, Greece, the Levant and Egypt, and also the rest of North Africa. Their rites and customs influenced the local Eastern Jewish communities.

No, my grandparents converted, but I grew up in Hatzor, (not far from its biblical namesake) a small town of North-African and Yemenite immigrants, very traditional, even in the secular school system. Safed, the kabbalah capital, was just over the next hill.

Kol Israel achim, as they say. I guess we all have a bit of pilpul in the genes. =)

It is just an impression. Comes from me being Israeli, I suppose.

True, I had forgotten about Joseph. The Bible does contain Israelites with foreign names, but these for the most part were Canaanite, which were very similar, so not exactly obvious at first glance. Not how MODERN Judaism percieves the issue. If you know of any talmudic sources stating that one must have a Hebrew name as well as a foreign one, please let me know. And I said that names were important, but not that they had to be Hebrew. And point of interest, isn't Metatron a greek name?

When one comes up with semitic etymologies, one needs to look at the consonants. For Mahan it would be MHN mem-chet-nun or mem-heh-nun. Does that make any sense? If we see the final nun as a suffix, as it usually is in names, we are left with mem-chet or mem-heh. Mem-chet makes perfect sense as brain. We then look at the context. This was a title Cain gave himself, and mem-chet fights in perfectly with his boasting.

And the only double names (as opposed to nicknames) we find in the Bible date from after the Babylonian conquests, such as Daniel and friends. I know exactly what you mean by double names, I have one too, take a look at my location. As for the talmuds, yes, they were later, but there weren't THAT many converts. The concept of a Jewish name being integral to one's identity was not a major part of early Judaism. Names were important, absolutely, but there wasn't a divide between Hebrew and foreign ones.