Talk:Amoz

Untitled
Danny, When the Talmud states explicitly that something is a tradition, it usually does not mean that the tradition derived from logical deduction. What the Talmud ostensibly is trying to say, is that the tradition began from sources who were directly aware of the relationship between Amotz and Amatzyah. HKT 23:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No doubt, but traditions themselves originate somewhere. The Talmud is not an infallible source, and it is writing about events that happened long before. My source of this, by the way, is Shalom Paul, Ph.D., biblical scholar at Hebrew University. Danny 23:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thinking that two people are brothers because of similarities in name, is in my humble opinion, preposterous. A Ph.D.'s support won't help this idea, given that the Tanach is rife with examples of people (including during the period of Amatzyah) who bore similar names and yet bore no significant relationship. To say that the sages of the Talmud were unaware of this is also preposterous. The idea may have come from a scholar (i.e. someone holding a Ph.D.) but it certainly does not reflect scholarship. Furthermore, we typically find that factual information presented in the Talmud, when it appears unverifiable due to the absence of present authoritative sources (information such as, oh, say, the idea that Amotz was related to Amatzyah), is assumed (by earlier scholars) to be sourced in tradition from entities who possessed direct knowledge of that information. This is true even if the Talmud doesn't explicate that any tradition is involved! One notable example of this is found in the Tosafot commentary on Tractate Chullin (66b), on the passage: "All that bear a scale, bear a fin." HKT 00:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, HKT, but Wikipedia is not in a position to take the Talmud as an authoritative source. I have quoted the Talmud, and I have modified my claim to address your concern. I will not, however, state that something is fact because it is a tradition quoted in the Talmud. Danny 22:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Danny, you know quite well that I have not taken "the Talmud as an authoritative source." I have not once edited the following: "It should be remembered, however, that this is all supposition based on tradition, and that there is no other evidence that Amoz was either the aforementioned "man of God", a prophet, or a prince." HKT 21:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't quoted the Talmud as an authentic source; of course, that would be POV. I have simply edited a paragraph that you wrote, which paraphrases the Talmud's opinion on the relationship between Amoz and Amatzyah. All that I have done is transcribe the Talmud's position on the matter, never having written that it is authentic. However, you have gone a step beyond simply recording the Talmud's position. You have interpreted what the rabbis were thinking based on conjecture from a biblical scholar (apparently, however, not a talmudic scholar). I have demonstrated to you, by precedent, that Professor Shalom Paul's claim is faulty, yet I considerately waited two days before removing his claim. I did this to accommodate you, that you might have an opportunity to defend that claim. After finding that you did not respond to my post, I removed the assertion regarding the origins of the talmudic tradition. Fairly immediately, you reverted my change and criticized me for an argument I did not pose. You mischaracterized my edit and you misstated our disagreement. Our actual dispute revolves around the source of the Talmud's tradition. You have claimed that the Talmud's tradition is actually based on deductions that I consider spurious and refuted. I have claimed that the Talmud's tradition is based on alleged hard evidence. In other words, if the rabbis of the Talmud claim to possess a tradition, they also, in effect, claim that the tradition dates back to an originator who was aware of compelling evidence for the authenticity of the information transferred. I quoted undisputed talmudic scholars (the Tosafists) for precedent. You have quoted the casual speculation of a bible scholar. Please don't dismiss my claim so cavalierly. HKT 21:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, how is "the fact that the name Amoz appears nowhere else in the Bible" even remotely indicative that Amoz and Amatzyah were brothers? HKT 21:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)