Archive for the ‘Targum Onkelos’ Category

A Response to Comments on Tridentine Judaism

February 25, 2008

Concerning the last blog posting, Tridentine Judaism, a reader has commented:

If you search Newadvent.org the term shekinah does come up in a few searches. Could this be the result of an ignorance of the origin of Shekinah or is the author of this blog jumping to conclusions?

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia makes reference to the rabbinic texts in numerous instances. There is certainly a familiarity with the rabbinic texts there. Whether the writers/editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia knew of the rabbinic origin of “Shekinah” I cannot say. I can tell you with great certainty that the “Shekinah” is a non-biblical, post-Temple rabbinic invention. Its source is the Targum Onkelos which scholars date between 100-400 A.D. It is very likely a rabbinic reinvention/preservation of the pagan goddess that the apostate Israelites worshiped (Jeremias 7;18, Jeremias 44;17).

Am I overreacting? As I see it, Fr. Finigan, at least figuratively, perhaps unwittingly, is putting Asherah back in the Temple with his use of the term “Shekinah” in reference to the sanctuary. This is an abomination.

I would add that the logic behind the comment seems to be that the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which predates Vatican II by several decades, is a solid test of orthodoxy by that fact. I’m sorry to say that if this is the thinking behind the comment, it is flawed. The errors that we’re dealing with here go back centuries before Vatican II to the medieval and renaissance “Christian” Cabalists (Johannes Reuchlin, Pico della Mirandola, et al) who believed that post-Temple rabbinic texts, mysticism, gematria and other rabbinic exegetical methods could be incorporated into Christianity. This movement was largely pushed underground by the Council of Trent but was never fully stamped out. Today, this thinking has the endorsement of the Vatican and Benedict himself as documented here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/05/vatican-christians-can-learn-much-from.html

The Vatican recommends that Christians learn from post-Temple rabbinic texts which they say are of great value for interpreting both the Old and New Testaments. So, Fr. Finigan is really only acting as the Vatican encourages all Catholics to do when he incorporates post-Temple rabbinic concepts into Catholic tradition. The title of his blog, “The Hermeneutic of Continuity” is really quite telling in this regard. I anticipate more of this kind of diabolical Tridentine Judaism to come from the priests whose concept of obedience is more akin to that of Masonry or the Mafia than the Gospel, or who don’t know the difference between Catholic and rabbinic tradition to begin with.

Advertisements

A Response to Comments on Tridentine Judaism

February 25, 2008

Concerning the last blog posting, Tridentine Judaism, a reader has commented:

If you search Newadvent.org the term shekinah does come up in a few searches. Could this be the result of an ignorance of the origin of Shekinah or is the author of this blog jumping to conclusions?

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia makes reference to the rabbinic texts in numerous instances. There is certainly a familiarity with the rabbinic texts there. Whether the writers/editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia knew of the rabbinic origin of “Shekinah” I cannot say. I can tell you with great certainty that the “Shekinah” is a non-biblical, post-Temple rabbinic invention. Its source is the Targum Onkelos which scholars date between 100-400 A.D. It is very likely a rabbinic reinvention/preservation of the pagan goddess that the apostate Israelites worshiped (Jeremias 7;18, Jeremias 44;17).

Am I overreacting? As I see it, Fr. Finigan, at least figuratively, perhaps unwittingly, is putting Asherah back in the Temple with his use of the term “Shekinah” in reference to the sanctuary. This is an abomination.

I would add that the logic behind the comment seems to be that the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which predates Vatican II by several decades, is a solid test of orthodoxy by that fact. I’m sorry to say that if this is the thinking behind the comment, it is flawed. The errors that we’re dealing with here go back centuries before Vatican II to the medieval and renaissance “Christian” Cabalists (Johannes Reuchlin, Pico della Mirandola, et al) who believed that post-Temple rabbinic texts, mysticism, gematria and other rabbinic exegetical methods could be incorporated into Christianity. This movement was largely pushed underground by the Council of Trent but was never fully stamped out. Today, this thinking has the endorsement of the Vatican and Benedict himself as documented here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/05/vatican-christians-can-learn-much-from.html

The Vatican recommends that Christians learn from post-Temple rabbinic texts which they say are of great value for interpreting both the Old and New Testaments. So, Fr. Finigan is really only acting as the Vatican encourages all Catholics to do when he incorporates post-Temple rabbinic concepts into Catholic tradition. The title of his blog, “The Hermeneutic of Continuity” is really quite telling in this regard. I anticipate more of this kind of diabolical Tridentine Judaism to come from the priests whose concept of obedience is more akin to that of Masonry or the Mafia than the Gospel, or who don’t know the difference between Catholic and rabbinic tradition to begin with.