Thursday, 8 May 2014

The Immaculate Conception – Talmudic Style

http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/rubens_immaculate-conception.jpg



This post is not so much about Jesus, but about a controversial claim made by the Talmudic Rabbis.
I am also unaware of what Karaites have said about this matter in the past, but there is great disparity between the text and the rabbinic re-write of the story of King David and Bathsheba.

In the book of 2 Samuel 11, a crucial point in Israel's history occurs when David takes the wife of Uriah, gets her pregnant, and then sends Uriah to a high risk warfront, where he is likely to be killed.
In response to this, Nathan the Seer or prophet, gives David a most unpleasant message.
Because of this evil that he has done:

2 Sam 12: 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

If that wasn't enough, the love=child born to David and Bathsheba , will die as a result of the sin.
Several other terrible punishments are numerated in these chapters.

In the world of the Talmudic rabbis, such ideas are dangerous. Partly because accepting what is written in the Bible is a threat to their ideology, and hence they have to rewrite it, and partly because as King David is the prototype “Tzaddik” or perfect one, it is in the self-interest of the rabbis to manipulate this concept, and then crown themselves as the new Tzaddikim or perfect inerrant ones.
So what do they say exactly about David ?

IN Shabbat 56a (Babylonian Talmud) they write:

Whoever says that David sinned is merely erring, for it is said, And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways: and the Lord was with him. Is it possible that sin came to his hand, yet the Divine Presence was with him? Then how do I interpret, Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in his sight? He wished to do [evil], but did not.

It is also claimed elsewhere that Uriah had given his wife a divorce before going to war, and hence at this point, she was unmarried. Does the text support these claims?
The Scripture refers to her as the wife of Uriah, not his ex wife.

2 Sam 11: 3 And David sent and inquired after the woman. And one said: 'Is not this Bath-sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?'
even after he has impregnated Bathsheba, David tells her husband to go back home (and sleep with his wife)

8 And David said to Uriah: 'Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet.' And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of food from the king.

11 And Uriah said unto David: 'The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.'

Finally we see that she was still married to him until he was killed:

26 And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she made lamentation for her husband.
27 And when the mourning was past, David sent and took her home to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.


So the idea that she was somehow free and single is disproven by the explicit statements of the text.
But what then, was David's sin? Well, according to the rabbis above, “Whoever says that David sinned is merely erring,

This would, according to the learned rabbis, include Nathan and God himself:

2 Sam 12:
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11 Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

However, David himself must have erred, according to the rabbis, since he said:

13 And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.' {S} And Nathan said unto David: 'The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast greatly blasphemed the enemies of the LORD, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.'

The sin was partly forgiven, in that David did not die (adultery + murder), but the child does die. So he did sin, the question is only what was his punishment. The punishment is the eventual destruction of his Kingdom, and loss of his firstborn. These are not lightweight punishments for a no-sin.

And this brings us back to the title of this post. If, as the rabbis would have you believe, he wanted to sin, but didn't, then the child that was conceived on that night, could only have been conceived by immaculate conception.




No comments:

Post a Comment