05-03-2008, 05:11 AM
Shlama Dawid
How???s it going bro? I recently did some cleaning, and came across a secret stash of various print-outs from many a moon ago. I already had a few, and right when Peshitta.org was up and running again, I felt compelled to transcribe all the data I have on hardcopy into Word, so that I could work out a balanced orthographical format to then [re-]submit all of this lost (hacked) data back onto the Forum (thread-style), whose property it rightfully is. Well, hasn???t happened yet, but not because I don???t want it to. Unfortunately, there???s only a sprinkle of what was lost that I actually have copies of. But most of them are tediously long.
So ??????.
One of these, I remembered, just so happens to be my question of this selfsame Mattai 23 scenario, and it apparently got sucked up into somebody???s ???hobby collection???.
Tell you what. As much as I???ve learned since that time, and though my appraisal of this passage remains not too dissimilar from then, I???ll just go ahead and *re-submit* the thread (verbatim) and let that time???s discussion once more stand here for all our considerations, without adding any of my current comments, commentaries, or ideas. It???s short enough, so I won???t screw around with any fancy orthographical stuff to make it look professional and all. Sound good bro?
So here we go, to the time machine ??????.
Forum Index -> General
Amatsyah____Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:57 pm____Post subject: Mattai 23:3
Shlama Paul
I am wondering if the word translated in Mattai 23:3 as ???deeds??? (???works??? Lamsa) could be synonomous with the Hebrew ???takanot/ma???asim??? (rabbinic ordinances) of the Pharisees and scribes?
Thanks
Ryan <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->
gbausc____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:07 pm____Post subject:
Shlama akhi Ryan,
The Hebrew ???Maashim???-Maasheh is a cognate of the Aramaic ???Ebada???.They both mean ???work,deed,action,business,affair???.
Dave
Amatsyah____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:18 pm____Post subject:
Shlama
So the Aramaic word used here is Ebada, and its Hebrew equivalent is Ma???asim? If this is the case, as I???m trying to properly exegete verse 3 in context, then wouldn???t the verse read very similarly to the Shem Tov version? (though I do not esteem Shem Tov as scholarly) I???ve read that Ma???asim, as they relate to Minhagim, Takanot, and Gezerot, in context refers to the Pharisees???; not Moses???. In other words, we are to obey the Pharisees when they command us to obey Moses, being that they do indeed sit in the seat of Moses, but not when they command us to keep THEIR Ma???asim? If this proper exegetical interpretation, then I now understand what the Aramaic is saying here, and Shem Tov ???just so happens??? to comply as a commentary. Todah rabbah
Ryan <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
gbausc____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:37 pm____Post subject:
Shlama akhi Ryan,
Maran Yeshua tells his disciples to obey the words ???kol m???dem d???namrone??? ??? ???everything they say??? but ???not their works??? (???Ebada??? or ???Maashim???), for they say and do not.
He is saying the Pharisees were hypocrites; they did not practice what they preached. They preached Torah but did not obey it.
Burkta,
Dave
Amatsyah____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:01 pm____Post subject:
Shlama Dave
And one of the biggest reasons the Pharisees didn???t obey the written Torah, was because they were too busy following the oral torah, and their ma???asim would thus be of the oral torah, more so than the written Torah. This is why I see a distinguishing between following what they preach of Moses (implied when Y???shua admitted they indeed do sit in Moses??? seat), and what they preach that is not of Moses. There were so many Takanot and Gezerot (reforms) to the Torah, that the oral torah had become more authoritative to them, even to the point of admitting in their writings that they would not receive a prophet from Heaven itself! So for Y???shua to declare to his talmidim to obey ALL that they commanded, does not make sense. However, if the ma???asim referred to is THEIR ma???asim; their MADE-UP ma???asim required for salvation, then I see Y???shua telling his talmidim to disregard them. I see your point of view, and it???s the one I???ve traditionally held, but for some reason it doesn???t make sense, because IF THEY ACTUALLY DID DO WHAT THEY PREACHED, then we???d have to likewise obey their oral-torah teachings as well, even if they contradict the written Torah. So, pointing the camera angle from a different direction, I can easily see how Y???shua would have said to obey them when they preach Moses, but not when they preach their own ma???asim, or rabbinic halacha. Hope this makes sense, but if there???s NO possibility for verse 3 to be interpreted this way linguistically, then I cease. Just looking at it from another angle.
Ryan
Amatsyah____Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:32 am____Post subject:
Put another way, how about this: (Lamsa w/ ma???asim used in brackets)
???Saying to them, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the chair of Moses; Therefore whatever they tell you to obey, obey and do it, but do not do according to their [ordinances]; for they say and do not.???
gbausc____Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:42 pm____Post subject: The Pharisees??? sin
Shlama akhi Ryan,
I don???t think our Lord referred to any set of commandments, written or oral, when He referred to ???Maashim???, or ???Ebadah???. He definitely condemned their violating and teaching against The Torah with their traditions, but here He specifically refers to their deeds as unrighteous, though their teachings were Torah based. We don???t have any reason to believe that The Pharisees were officially teaching unscriptural doctrine in AD 30. They may have departed even from that soon afterward.
I accept our Lords??? assessment of the scenario. The Pharisees??? main problem at that juncture was not heterodoxy (other doctrine); it was heteropraxy (other practice).
The main problem with their teaching and practice was the sin of omission.
Verse 23 says what they omitted to teach and do. That is a serious problem with many self-righteous folk today. They can split a doctrinal or legal hair into a thousand equal strands, but they miss the big picture of the Bible and the Law, which is Justice, Mercy, and The Love of God. If we do not see those in God , we do not see Him at all, and hence, we will not practice them or believe in them.
All the Law and The Prophets hang in the two greatest commandments, said Maran Yeshua. Shlikha Paul wrote that ???Love is the fulfilling of the law???. So it is.
Blessings,
Dave
David____Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:54 am____Post subject:
I think Amatsya is referring to the ???oral Torah??? which would not be written down in the form of Talmud for a while after the first century. You don???t think it???s possible that this is what Y???shua was referring to?
Shalom,
David
Deut. 11:26-28
How???s it going bro? I recently did some cleaning, and came across a secret stash of various print-outs from many a moon ago. I already had a few, and right when Peshitta.org was up and running again, I felt compelled to transcribe all the data I have on hardcopy into Word, so that I could work out a balanced orthographical format to then [re-]submit all of this lost (hacked) data back onto the Forum (thread-style), whose property it rightfully is. Well, hasn???t happened yet, but not because I don???t want it to. Unfortunately, there???s only a sprinkle of what was lost that I actually have copies of. But most of them are tediously long.
So ??????.
One of these, I remembered, just so happens to be my question of this selfsame Mattai 23 scenario, and it apparently got sucked up into somebody???s ???hobby collection???.
Tell you what. As much as I???ve learned since that time, and though my appraisal of this passage remains not too dissimilar from then, I???ll just go ahead and *re-submit* the thread (verbatim) and let that time???s discussion once more stand here for all our considerations, without adding any of my current comments, commentaries, or ideas. It???s short enough, so I won???t screw around with any fancy orthographical stuff to make it look professional and all. Sound good bro?
So here we go, to the time machine ??????.
Forum Index -> General
Amatsyah____Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:57 pm____Post subject: Mattai 23:3
Shlama Paul
I am wondering if the word translated in Mattai 23:3 as ???deeds??? (???works??? Lamsa) could be synonomous with the Hebrew ???takanot/ma???asim??? (rabbinic ordinances) of the Pharisees and scribes?
Thanks
Ryan <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->
gbausc____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:07 pm____Post subject:
Shlama akhi Ryan,
The Hebrew ???Maashim???-Maasheh is a cognate of the Aramaic ???Ebada???.They both mean ???work,deed,action,business,affair???.
Dave
Amatsyah____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:18 pm____Post subject:
Shlama
So the Aramaic word used here is Ebada, and its Hebrew equivalent is Ma???asim? If this is the case, as I???m trying to properly exegete verse 3 in context, then wouldn???t the verse read very similarly to the Shem Tov version? (though I do not esteem Shem Tov as scholarly) I???ve read that Ma???asim, as they relate to Minhagim, Takanot, and Gezerot, in context refers to the Pharisees???; not Moses???. In other words, we are to obey the Pharisees when they command us to obey Moses, being that they do indeed sit in the seat of Moses, but not when they command us to keep THEIR Ma???asim? If this proper exegetical interpretation, then I now understand what the Aramaic is saying here, and Shem Tov ???just so happens??? to comply as a commentary. Todah rabbah
Ryan <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
gbausc____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:37 pm____Post subject:
Shlama akhi Ryan,
Maran Yeshua tells his disciples to obey the words ???kol m???dem d???namrone??? ??? ???everything they say??? but ???not their works??? (???Ebada??? or ???Maashim???), for they say and do not.
He is saying the Pharisees were hypocrites; they did not practice what they preached. They preached Torah but did not obey it.
Burkta,
Dave
Amatsyah____Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:01 pm____Post subject:
Shlama Dave
And one of the biggest reasons the Pharisees didn???t obey the written Torah, was because they were too busy following the oral torah, and their ma???asim would thus be of the oral torah, more so than the written Torah. This is why I see a distinguishing between following what they preach of Moses (implied when Y???shua admitted they indeed do sit in Moses??? seat), and what they preach that is not of Moses. There were so many Takanot and Gezerot (reforms) to the Torah, that the oral torah had become more authoritative to them, even to the point of admitting in their writings that they would not receive a prophet from Heaven itself! So for Y???shua to declare to his talmidim to obey ALL that they commanded, does not make sense. However, if the ma???asim referred to is THEIR ma???asim; their MADE-UP ma???asim required for salvation, then I see Y???shua telling his talmidim to disregard them. I see your point of view, and it???s the one I???ve traditionally held, but for some reason it doesn???t make sense, because IF THEY ACTUALLY DID DO WHAT THEY PREACHED, then we???d have to likewise obey their oral-torah teachings as well, even if they contradict the written Torah. So, pointing the camera angle from a different direction, I can easily see how Y???shua would have said to obey them when they preach Moses, but not when they preach their own ma???asim, or rabbinic halacha. Hope this makes sense, but if there???s NO possibility for verse 3 to be interpreted this way linguistically, then I cease. Just looking at it from another angle.
Ryan
Amatsyah____Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:32 am____Post subject:
Put another way, how about this: (Lamsa w/ ma???asim used in brackets)
???Saying to them, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the chair of Moses; Therefore whatever they tell you to obey, obey and do it, but do not do according to their [ordinances]; for they say and do not.???
gbausc____Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:42 pm____Post subject: The Pharisees??? sin
Shlama akhi Ryan,
I don???t think our Lord referred to any set of commandments, written or oral, when He referred to ???Maashim???, or ???Ebadah???. He definitely condemned their violating and teaching against The Torah with their traditions, but here He specifically refers to their deeds as unrighteous, though their teachings were Torah based. We don???t have any reason to believe that The Pharisees were officially teaching unscriptural doctrine in AD 30. They may have departed even from that soon afterward.
I accept our Lords??? assessment of the scenario. The Pharisees??? main problem at that juncture was not heterodoxy (other doctrine); it was heteropraxy (other practice).
The main problem with their teaching and practice was the sin of omission.
Verse 23 says what they omitted to teach and do. That is a serious problem with many self-righteous folk today. They can split a doctrinal or legal hair into a thousand equal strands, but they miss the big picture of the Bible and the Law, which is Justice, Mercy, and The Love of God. If we do not see those in God , we do not see Him at all, and hence, we will not practice them or believe in them.
All the Law and The Prophets hang in the two greatest commandments, said Maran Yeshua. Shlikha Paul wrote that ???Love is the fulfilling of the law???. So it is.
Blessings,
Dave
David____Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:54 am____Post subject:
I think Amatsya is referring to the ???oral Torah??? which would not be written down in the form of Talmud for a while after the first century. You don???t think it???s possible that this is what Y???shua was referring to?
Shalom,
David
Deut. 11:26-28