In The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) volume 2 you make the statement, “The Jews had become familiar with many of the old Babylonian [Iraqi] myths – the creation, the deluge, the early generations of man, etc.-and they sought to harmonize the myths with biblical reports of these events. Old Babylonian tales of intercourse between the g-o-d-s and legendary heroes, and of books containing heavenly wisdom, were thus made to concur with Jewish legends; however in order to avoid contradiction with the monotheistic nature of Judaism, they were ascribed to the world of angels…” I’m uncertain about what you mean concerning the nature of מלאכים and their role in the legends and traditions of the Jewish people. When you say that they sought to “harmonize” these myths with biblical reports does this mean that the legends of the origins of humanity were adopted by the יהודים and after they became their own accounts had monotheistic ideas superimposed on top of them or do you mean to say that the historical accounts in the תורה שבכתב which existed already within עם ישראל corroborated with the myths found in their captivity to בבל in so far that it did not contradict the singular nature of 'ה? To take this line of question further is it accurate to say that if one can pose a scenario which has the possibility to call into question the validity of a supposed historical truth then he/she has in effect disqualified this information from being considered absolute truth? תודה רבה ושבת שלום!

---

No, I made no such statement. Although the confusion is somewhat understandable because of Microsoft Word's mess-up of the cross-references, you didn't notice that the part of the text of The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 1.20.1 that you cited is in quotation marks and cited with an endnote to the note. Unfortunately, the MS Word automatic cross-referencer ascribed it to the wrong endnote (it should be endnote 90, not endnote 78), so I had to track down the correct endnote number. Nevertheless, it should have been clear that it was a quotation, not an original statement that I authored. You'll have to ask your question about this passage from the Encyclopedia Judaica editors of "Angels and Angelology" (2.961). Occasionally, NHM's endnotes to the notes, in turn, have their own footnotes. So it does sometimes get a little complicated.

I cannot put words in the mouths of the EJ editors about what they meant or intended. I recommend that you consult the sources (and their sources) for context and further details about that. As for historical truth, I don't know of any authorities in history that dispute the historical authorities who wrote the passage you question. On the contrary, the Ency. Jud. article editors' bibliography list is highly respectable.

Ancient Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ didn't develop in a vacuum. There was international commerce, trade routes, etc., all of which circulated their various ideas about their religion, their gods, their beliefs about demons, angels, spirits, etc. While Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ was on the right track, and the leading edge (and still are), they were still human beings in development (and still are); not perfect beings periodically regressing – and this is what Tor•âhꞋ recounts. I don't know if that addresses your questions. I don't understand quite what you're asking, especially since you seem to be asking why I wrote something I quoted but didn't author. As to why I quoted it: because it's the scholarly-accepted historical context.

Perhaps you could take another look at it, incorporating the knowledge that it was written by the Ency. Jud. editors, not me; and that it is them you are challenging and questioning, not me. No "supposed historical truth" has been called into question here that I see. Nor do I know what information you refer to that was "in effect disqualified."

Hope this helps. Sha•vuꞋa tov (have a good week).