Matt. 23

[Dawid]

I imagine you are all familiar with the Mattai 23 controversy. I have some thoughts, but I would like a more expert opinion than mine. Especially on verse 3. Is Maran Yeshu'a really telling us to observe the halachic rulings of the Sophrim and P'rushim?
I would be especially interested in hearing Mr. Roth's thoughts on this.

Shabbat shalom,
David

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid, and feel free to call me Andrew.

What I find problematic when this discussion topic comes up is a tendency to overly commingle issues that need to be dealt with separately, and thus in my view a lot of unnecessary confusion is created.

So, first things first! The 'alternate readings" in Dutillet, Shem Tob, and Munster as a COLLECTION are proven frauds. Not one of these mss is dated earlier than 1300. What's more two were found in Rome and the other elsewhere in Europe. They have ZERO attestation in the most ancient mss record at least where Greek and Aramaic are concerned. I have heard interesting SPECULATION, and that is all that it is, of some tenuous links to the Vulgate, but I remain extremely skeptical. We can see their true uses are to convert Jews into Catholics and the laughable lengths they go to "improve" the Greek by adding a generation, etc. So step 1 in my view is to remove "everything HE says" as a valid and equal reading to "everything THEY say". By every rule of attestation, provenance and antiquity, these mss fail and are not even on par with the Greek. Their reading, in its "clarity" is exactly the kind of revision we would expect to come way after the fact, when timeworn idioms like "Moshe's seat" became less clear, especially in medieval Rome.

Alright, now let's get to the REAL question that you did ask me about: What is Y'shua's intention by saying "everything they say do but do not follow them because they don't practice what they preach" (or words to that effect as I am writing quickly here)?

Well there are clues to Y'shua's real meaning scattered about. In Matthew 15 he spends almost all the chapter talking about Pharisaic man-made traditions being put over WRITTEN TORAH. In John he says that if the Pharisees listed to the writings of Moshe they would listed to Y'shua. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matti Y'shua slams the Oral Law SIX TIMES with the phrase "you have heard that it was SAID____, but I say to you_____." Furthermore the intent of the Aramaic of Matthew 5:17-19 is "for I have not come to UNRAVEL the Torah and the prophets, but to PROVIDE PROPER INTERPRETATION for them." (For more information, see "Path to Life" the essay on my website.

Now, if you piece these all together, you only need one more part: That of Tanakh commanding Moshe to raise up judges for the people to INTERPRET TORAH, not add their own traditions. When the Pharisees just use Torah properly, Y'shua praises them, as he does in Mark, saying "you are not far from the kingdom of Elohim". If the Pharisees intepret the signs of the times, as Y'shua says elsewhere, then they would have known he was coming and when. That is what being in Moshe's seat means.

The Talmud then explains in Pirkei Avot 1 that Moshe gave the Torah to Israel and that eventually it came to the Sanhedrin in an unbroken line. Whether that is historically 100% accurate or not it was nevertheless a commonly held belief of the time. The Pharisees had won the battle over their rivals to be arbiter of the Torah in Y'shua's age and Y'shua for his part NEVER countermanded the Pharisees on TORAH ITSELF. The proof of this is in the fact that Y'shua always kept the same CALENDAR of the Pharisees with repsect to Pesach, counting the omer, etc. He celebrated the feasts in unity with the people setting the schedule. Such a fact is confirmed in Josephus and explained very well in modern sources like Edershiem.

On the other hand, the Pharisees strayed and were rebuked by their LEAVEN (extra yeast) that ruined the whole mass (matzah) or the NEW WINE (oral teachings) that was added to the OLD WINE (Torah) making the wineskins burst but the OLD WINE (Torah) was SUFFICIENT and no one who drinks it wants the NEW! Pretty tough stuff. But this is why Abraham and Moshe, according to Y'shua would have rejoiced to see his day because he was bringing them back to the WRITTEN TORAH.

So, and I hope I have not rambled too much, to wrap up, Y'shua says do what they do WHEN ON WRITTEN TORAH. But watch for their hypocrisy when they don't measure up to their own standards, get corrupt, be blind guides, etc. And with respect to oral halakha, follow Y'shua's alone.

Hope this helps a little!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

Thank you for your reply, akhi Andrew.
I had already dismissed the Shem-Tob reading that Mr. Rood and Mr. Gordon support, because of its obvious inferiority to the other readings.

So, allow me to clarify, since I am slow to understand. You are saying that when a P'rushi is appointed to a position on a legitimate Beyt Din, or Sanhedrin, as Moshe established, he ought to be obeyed, regardless of his sectarian leaning. His judgment on points of Torah Sheba'al Ktiv, applied to the cases brought before him are final. However, if a P'rushi makes a ruling based on Torah Sheba'al Peh, or if one of their "Rabbi"s creates such a ruling ignoring Torah Sheba'al Peh, then he is not to be obeyed.

I know you are pressed for time, but I would like to ask about current situations. Your feelings on the Sanhedrin. If it gains recognition, what will be your reaction, based on this? Should we keep the Hillel calendar, and the Orthodox reckoning of the Omer, even if we believe, as I do, that it is inaccurate because they have misplaced Bikkurim?

Thank you for being so patient as to answer my questions.

Todah Rabba, akhi Andrew,

Dawid

[Amatsyah]

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

[Dawid]

Thank you very much for reposting all of that. It was very interesting and helpful.
What are your thoughts and comments now? What would you add to that?

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Yes, I think you apprehend my position quite well. I would add though for clarity's sake that it is not the individual's authority on Torah alone, but the collective wisdom of all the elders of Israel ruling on the WRITTEN TORAH of Moshe. There are many things that the previous Sanhedrin added before being dissolved in the fourth century that were not helpful. The whole idea of minhagim, "a custom in Israel is law" just doesn't sit right by me. It seems to arbitrary and randomized. The ideas of Eruvin 21b and Rambam's introduction to the Mishmah about the 1001 rabbis trumping the judgment of the 1000 prophets of Eliyahu's status saying contrary, I have major issues with too. These things continued in smaller but un-unified councils of the middle ages and into the new Sanhedrim we have now.

There are many who rightly point out that the new Sanhedrin was never authorized from an un broken chain from Moshe to the elders and through Y'shua's time as the old one was (at least in legend). I suppose the new Sanhedrin believes it has simply carried on the prevous one's commands and rulings through the preservation of the Talmud and other sources, and I think a decent--but not overwhilemingly compelling--argument can be made that they knew what the previous version did and they carried it over intact in spite of a 16 century gap.

Now, Y'shua clearly taught in Matti 15 that the traditions of men should not overpower plain understanding of Scripture, or overturn clear Scriptural practice. Y'shua though claims many times that the Pharisees do just that "and then you make a son of gehenna twice as bad as yourselves". The reason is those disciples are not wedded to writtern Torah but to TAKANOT and mitzvot d'chakhanim. As if the Torah (and I include Brit Chadasha here) needed REPAIRING??? What an arrogant claim! That is why, again, Y'shua said that no one drinking the old wine needed the new, because when the new doctrines of men invade the wineskin of Torah, it bursts open, runing the lot that was perfectly sweetened over the long count of years from Sinai to now. (And since Tanakh contains prophecies of Messiah Y'shua, his teachings are part of that perfect wine, but not man made stuff during and after).

So, with that said, let me answer your other question:

I know you are pressed for time, but I would like to ask about current situations. Your feelings on the Sanhedrin. If it gains recognition, what will be your reaction, based on this? Should we keep the Hillel calendar, and the Orthodox reckoning of the Omer, even if we believe, as I do, that it is inaccurate because they have misplaced Bikkurim?

Well, this is a toughie isn't it? This is one of the things that divide or small numbers into infnnititely smaller separated sects, and we don't need that. But on the other hand, we don't need to follow the Sanhedrin that, even at this very hour, considers Y'shua's Gospel a lie. But we can learn one thing from them: If they can re-form their halachic body that was broken in the fourth century, we Netzarim can and should do the same thing. I have written extensively about how this should be done, and much of what I am doing with Mari/PEACE is meant to address one issue of great importance--namely an NT Masorah/liturgy--but it goes much deeper than that. We also have to set up Netzarim yeshivas and standardized ordinations for Rabbis. Then, it is only from these folks, that we can set up the Sanhedrin and have them rule on these matters.

In the meantime, we need to establish some kind of "moedic toleration treaty" with all Netzarim worldwide. We can express our beliefs as being derived from Scripture as we best understand it, but not to go to war on matters of timing. I am personally mostly pro-Rabbinic in my practice but I do admit places where the Karaites have some valid points as well that may clarify things, but not overturn majority practice.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for worshipping in unity with the vast majority of Yehuda even as we reject their theology elsewhere. I would personally like to see some kind of language that basically says: "We follow this Rabinic system even though we know it is flawed and incomplete, and we extend no malice to the few who do otherwise so long as they keep the heart of the Torah requirement in general time, space, message and intention. We do this, expecting in return that those who are under minority systems like the Karaites will not accuse us of base motives and power mongering, but realize that this is the starting point of future halachic discussion."

Now, of course I also know that even if those discussions conclude successfully there will always be a group of folks who will disagree forever with its findings. For them, I would extend similar toleration language and even issue joint calendars and build up infrastructure so that any pious Netzari who wants to keep moedim can do so in whatever system he desires under the auspices of unified practice.

It should be pointed out again that Y'shua never disagreed with Pharisaic timing, even though he knew other religious minorities he talked to did. Still, he kept their calendar even while knowing it might not be 100% accurate. I submit then that for now, we can follow his example, but wait eagerly for all questions to be answered upon his Second Coming. But to embrace Hillel II's calendar (or perhaps it should be called Maimonides' calendar given some inconvenient facts) uncritically and give it a veneer of perfection is simply NOT kosher, but it may be the best we can do prior to Y'shua's return.

If it makes you feel a little better though I believe it far more likely that Y'shua will return long before these steps I have outlined will be completed.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Yes, I think you apprehend my position quite well. I would add though for clarity's sake that it is not the individual's authority on Torah alone, but the collective wisdom of all the elders of Israel ruling on the WRITTEN TORAH of Moshe. There are many things that the previous Sanhedrin added before being dissolved in the fourth century that were not helpful. The whole idea of minhagim, "a custom in Israel is law" just doesn't sit right by me. It seems to arbitrary and randomized. The ideas of Eruvin 21b and Rambam's introduction to the Mishmah about the 1001 rabbis trumping the judgment of the 1000 prophets of Eliyahu's status saying contrary, I have major issues with too. These things continued in smaller but un-unified councils of the middle ages and into the new Sanhedrim we have now.

Thank you. I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying, and it helps me to restate things, so that they're clearer in my mind.
I certainly agree with your thoughts on the Minhagim and on the rabbis overruling the prophets. Especially when it is stated that they do not even listen to voices from Heaven.

There are many who rightly point out that the new Sanhedrin was never authorized from an un broken chain from Moshe to the elders and through Y'shua's time as the old one was (at least in legend). I suppose the new Sanhedrin believes it has simply carried on the prevous one's commands and rulings through the preservation of the Talmud and other sources, and I think a decent--but not overwhilemingly compelling--argument can be made that they knew what the previous version did and they carried it over intact in spite of a 16 century gap.

The new Sanhedrin was established by an interesting method that is recorded in the Talmud as being the proper method for establishing a new Sanhedrin. It's fairly complicated, and I don't remember exactly how it worked, but I think it's fairly easy to find online.
I noticed yesterday that the term in Acts when they were bringing the issue of new converts to the "Apostles and Elders" the term for elders is the same as is used in the Gospels when Yeshu'a was brought before the priests and elders. It was elders that made up the Sanhedrin...I know that it's often thought that the Apostles formed a Beyt Din (which makes sense) but do you think that the Elders formed a N'tzari Sanhedrin?

Now, Y'shua clearly taught in Matti 15 that the traditions of men should not overpower plain understanding of Scripture, or overturn clear Scriptural practice. Y'shua though claims many times that the Pharisees do just that "and then you make a son of gehenna twice as bad as yourselves". The reason is those disciples are not wedded to writtern Torah but to TAKANOT and mitzvot d'chakhanim. As if the Torah (and I include Brit Chadasha here) needed REPAIRING??? What an arrogant claim! That is why, again, Y'shua said that no one drinking the old wine needed the new, because when the new doctrines of men invade the wineskin of Torah, it bursts open, ruining the lot that was perfectly sweetened over the long count of years from Sinai to now. (And since Tanakh contains prophecies of Messiah Y'shua, his teachings are part of that perfect wine, but not man made stuff during and after).

Exactly. But if you point this out then you are accused of being arrogant, because you are saying that three thousand years of tradition are wrong. Thus leaving one in a bit of a quandary.
Also, we know that Yeshu'a is living Torah, so he is part of the old wine. The Torah is simply his autobiography, and the Gospel is simply its explanation.

So, with that said, let me answer your other question:

I know you are pressed for time, but I would like to ask about current situations. Your feelings on the Sanhedrin. If it gains recognition, what will be your reaction, based on this? Should we keep the Hillel calendar, and the Orthodox reckoning of the Omer, even if we believe, as I do, that it is inaccurate because they have misplaced Bikkurim?

Well, this is a toughie isn't it? This is one of the things that divide or small numbers into infnnititely smaller separated sects, and we don't need that. But on the other hand, we don't need to follow the Sanhedrin that, even at this very hour, considers Y'shua's Gospel a lie. But we can learn one thing from them: If they can re-form their halachic body that was broken in the fourth century, we Netzarim can and should do the same thing. I have written extensively about how this should be done, and much of what I am doing with Mari/PEACE is meant to address one issue of great importance--namely an NT Masorah/liturgy--but it goes much deeper than that. We also have to set up Netzarim yeshivas and standardized ordinations for Rabbis. Then, it is only from these folks, that we can set up the Sanhedrin and have them rule on these matters.

It is tough. That's why I asked you. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: --> The calendar is such a frustrating issue. Dark of the moon, or sliver? Hillel or Karaite? weekly Sabbath or high Sabbath? First month or seventh month?
Yes, yes, yes! We need to establish a Beyth Din, at least. We need Yeshivot. We need a Siddur and various festival Haggadot. This is one reason that I am anxiously awaiting PEACE, and why I am working on the Siddur project.
Are you familiar with the Jerusalem Council organization?

In the meantime, we need to establish some kind of "moedic toleration treaty" with all Netzarim worldwide. We can express our beliefs as being derived from Scripture as we best understand it, but not to go to war on matters of timing. I am personally mostly pro-Rabbinic in my practice but I do admit places where the Karaites have some valid points as well that may clarify things, but not overturn majority practice.

I think that would be a very important step. If we could just make peace amongst ourselves and agree to disagree it would be a huge step in the right direction.
I am somewhat the same. I am Karaite in theory (i.e. I reject the idea and authority of Torah SheBa'al Peh) but largely rabbinic in practice (sometimes Conservative, sometimes Orthodox, sometimes even Chassidic).
There are some issues, though, where I think we can disagree as individuals and not have to follow majority practice. There are other issues, community issues and such, where it is better to follow majority practice, because it effects others. In my community, though, if I were to follow the Hillel calendar, that would put me in just about the smallest minority. So here it is actually best to follow the Karaite calendar, as it has one of the largest followings. (a small N'tzari community, but the people follow at least three and possibly four different calendrical methods. For cryin' out loud. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> )

On the other hand, there is something to be said for worshipping in unity with the vast majority of Yehuda even as we reject their theology elsewhere. I would personally like to see some kind of language that basically says: "We follow this Rabinic system even though we know it is flawed and incomplete, and we extend no malice to the few who do otherwise so long as they keep the heart of the Torah requirement in general time, space, message and intention. We do this, expecting in return that those who are under minority systems like the Karaites will not accuse us of base motives and power mongering, but realize that this is the starting point of future halachic discussion."

I agree with this. However, what do we do when, in the N'tzari community, probably close to half follow the Karaite reckoning?
We also have a lot of Americans. That means that they're rugged individualists. They insist on doing it their own way no matter what. Trying to make everyone happy on issues like the Sacred Name is next to impossible.

Now, of course I also know that even if those discussions conclude successfully there will always be a group of folks who will disagree forever with its findings. For them, I would extend similar toleration language and even issue joint calendars and build up infrastructure so that any pious Netzari who wants to keep moedim can do so in whatever system he desires under the auspices of unified practice.

It should be pointed out again that Y'shua never disagreed with Pharisaic timing, even though he knew other religious minorities he talked to did. Still, he kept their calendar even while knowing it might not be 100% accurate. I submit then that for now, we can follow his example, but wait eagerly for all questions to be answered upon his Second Coming. But to embrace Hillel II's calendar (or perhaps it should be called Maimonides' calendar given some inconvenient facts) uncritically and give it a veneer of perfection is simply NOT kosher, but it may be the best we can do prior to Y'shua's return.

But in the first century there was less disagreement as far as the calendar goes. The P'rushim also followed a system based on the moon and the seasons. As far as determining the new month and the new year there would be no real difference between them and the Zadokim. I've heard that the Sanhedrin wants to go back to the ancient calendar, but I don't really know.
So we should follow the Hillel calendar with the clear statement that it is a tradition, not a mitswah?

If it makes you feel a little better though I believe it far more likely that Y'shua will return long before these steps I have outlined will be completed.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions and all, Akhi. I am very much in agreement with you on most of these points.

Shavua tov,
Dawid

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying, and it helps me to restate things, so that they're clearer in my mind. I certainly agree with your thoughts on the Minhagim and on the rabbis overruling the prophets. Especially when it is stated that they do not even listen to voices from Heaven.

AGR:

Shlama Akhi Dawid, yes that amusing story in Talmud, where the rabbis tell YHWH to keep quiet, is also very indicative of some very deep problems to be sure!

The new Sanhedrin was established by an interesting method that is recorded in the Talmud as being the proper method for establishing a new Sanhedrin. It's fairly complicated, and I don't remember exactly how it worked, but I think it's fairly easy to find online. I noticed yesterday that the term in Acts when they were bringing the issue of new converts to the "Apostles and Elders" the term for elders is the same as is used in the Gospels when Yeshu'a was brought before the priests and elders. It was elders that made up the Sanhedrin...I know that it's often thought that the Apostles formed a Beyt Din (which makes sense) but do you think that the Elders formed a N'tzari Sanhedrin?

AGR:

Beyond any doubt Akhi Dawid. The clues are all over the place. You have Y'shua sending out 72 talmidim to teach his halakha--and I don't need to remind you the significance of that number. Then you have Ya'akov in his lettter (2:2) specifically mentioning the word KNOOSHTA (Knesset, synagogue) rather than the later but more generic EIDATA that Rav Shaul talks about. Ya'akov is writing from his shul to other other Netzari shuls, and does this not once, but several times (Acts 9 and 15, etc). When you get lines like this one, I think it is very clear as to what is going on:

17. So that Master YHWH will seek the remainder of mankind and all the Gentiles, those who My Name is called over them, said Master YHWH who made all these things. 18. The works of Elohim are known from eternity. 19. Because of this (I) say that you should not be those oppressors who from the Gentiles are turning to Elohim. 20. But we will send (word) to them that they should abstain from uncleanness of sacrifices (idols) and from adultery and from things that are strangled and from blood. 21. For from ancient generations in all cities Moshe had preachers in the synagogues that on every Shabbat they read him.??? 22. Then the Shlichim and the elders with all the congregation chose men from among them and sent (them) to Antiochi with Paul and Bar-Naba and also Yehuda who is called Bar-Shaba and Shila and men leaders who were among them, among the Brothers.

Acts 15:17-22

Again these are instructions going out from the Jerusalem Rosh Beit Din to Messianic shuls under their authority, but also a comment on how in terms of Tanakh conventional and Messianic shuls were doing a lot of the same things as well.

It is tough. That's why I asked you. The calendar is such a frustrating issue. Dark of the moon, or sliver? Hillel or Karaite? weekly Sabbath or high Sabbath? First month or seventh month?
Yes, yes, yes! We need to establish a Beyth Din, at least. We need Yeshivot. We need a Siddur and various festival Haggadot. This is one reason that I am anxiously awaiting PEACE, and why I am working on the Siddur project. Are you familiar with the Jerusalem Council organization?

AGR:

Yes, I have heard a little about them. My ultimate answer to this is rather unusual and I choose not to go there right now. But what I can say is this: It is clear from Genesis 1:14 that both sun and moon mark the time. I believe that the fact that weeks is not included there (signs, seasons, days and years) is highly significant. Shabbat is a counting process that is beyond month-year calculations in the sense that we count 7 day intervals even if we run out of days in one year and pick up a few in the next. To me those facts, along with clues from Noah and a key incident with David and Jonathan, show that some fixed reckoning (based on many centuries of observation of course) was also in play here. Mishnaic details allow for people to come forward as witnesses of the new moon and such, but that practice is not as easy as most think it is. (Very long story.)

The bottom line is that some form of intercalculation was in place in Tanakh times MANY CENTURIES BEFORE METON AND BABYLONIAN SYSTEMS WERE. In Mari/PEACE I call this system "Pre Metonic Lunar Regression" and I tie it to the preistly service cycle in a way that I don't think has been done before. Suffice to say for now that I believe we can recover the True Heavenly Calendar that YHWH intended and that YHWH uses to mark out our time even now. We can recognize in the Rabbinic an attempt to have sun and moon mark the seasons, but not necessarily the best process and certainly not the most ancient.

In the meantime, while this understanding is not well known I think we need to do for the Rabbinic calendrical system what most Jews and Netzarim have done for the Masoretic Text. But that validation should come from OUR Beit Din, not theirs. We must take ownership of our own decisions, whether they agree with the Rabbinics or not. As such, it falls to US to get OUR HOUSE unified and in proper order first, we remove the beam from OUR eyes first before trying to take one out from our nieghbors. That is Y'shua 101, as far as I am concerned.

Now with respect to Calendar Toleration Doctrine as I call it, think about this. We know that the MT is a standardization barely 1000 years old. We know that there are significant ancient variants out there that may in fact in some cases contain superior readings, such as LXX containing Cain's words to Abel for example. We know that the Masoretes went from other sources now lost to us, that some of this is preserved in Targums, Peshitta Tanakh, Samaritan Pentatuech, and that these will never totally agree.

I have found a statement in the 1999 Jewish Publication Society Hebrew-English Tanakh most helpful. It talks about the importance of admitting that a perfectly transmitted text in this case is not possible, so the best we can do is have a DEFENSIBLE text that does justice in reperesenting the ancient fragments that survived and marrying those to the best modern scholarship can infer. Implicit in that process is the idea that when we find better textual evidence that we remain open to it but to recognize what is the best that can be done at present.

So what we do there is we start from the base (Masiretic Tanakh, Peshitta NT) and work our way outwards in looking at other ancient traditions. THIS IS THE EXACT SAME PROCESS WE SHOULD EMPLOY WITH CALENDAR. DECIDE ON A BASE PROCESS BUT EXTEND TOLERATION TO MINORITY ANCIENT WITNESSES, AGREEING TO DISAGREE UNTIL MESSIAH Y'SHUA COMES BACK AND SETS IT STRAIGHT.

I think that would be a very important step. If we could just make peace amongst ourselves and agree to disagree it would be a huge step in the right direction. I am somewhat the same. I am Karaite in theory (i.e. I reject the idea and authority of Torah SheBa'al Peh) but largely rabbinic in practice (sometimes Conservative, sometimes Orthodox, sometimes even Chassidic).
There are some issues, though, where I think we can disagree as individuals and not have to follow majority practice. There are other issues, community issues and such, where it is better to follow majority practice, because it effects others. In my community, though, if I were to follow the Hillel calendar, that would put me in just about the smallest minority. So here it is actually best to follow the Karaite calendar, as it has one of the largest followings. (a small N'tzari community, but the people follow at least three and possibly four different calendrical methods. For cryin' out loud. )

AGR:

That is why we need this toleration, because otherwise it will drive wedges between us that more then help the purposes of the Accuser. It is in essence the same problem Eve had in the Garden. She added her halakha that YHWH said not to TOUCH the forbidden fruit. The fact is YHWH only said not to EAT it or they would die. Eve did the same reasoning that many rabbis fall victim to: She decided if she added the don't touch provision that what she didn't touch she couldn't eat. But the reality was it was very easy for her to forget where YHWH's halackha ended and hers began, so when she touched it and didn't die, she reasoned she could then eat it as well! This is what happens when we add or subtract from Torah. So in matters that are open to interpretation, a wider safer view is better for the sake of unity in the present. It is a temporary fix until we no longer see darkly but face to face.

I agree with this. However, what do we do when, in the N'tzari community, probably close to half follow the Karaite reckoning? We also have a lot of Americans. That means that they're rugged individualists. They insist on doing it their own way no matter what. Trying to make everyone happy on issues like the Sacred Name is next to impossible.

AGR:

Well there as you know I have extremely passionate opinions that I won't share here. But I think what we Netzari need to agree on is how the Name was NOT pronounced, and it was NEVER pronounced LORD or JEHOVAH. We know there is no letter J before 1600 so let's move on. Furthermore, we need to also agree that any titles that are SANCTIFIED BY YHWH EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE DUAL PAGANISTIC USE, ARE STILL KOSHER BECAUSE YHWH SAID SO. What that means is that EL, Elohim, El-Shaddai, etc., these are kosher because YHWH directly used them, but others perverted them. Remember the normative literal view of Torah is that monotheism came before paganism and the latter was a corruption after being expelled from Paradise.

Beyond this, I am willing at least to grant good intentions/kavannah status to all original Hebrew names based as YAH, YAHU or YEHO. So while I feel majority usage should be Yah-Way (see my article on the website), I can live with others in the Netzari faith using Yah-u-wah, Yehovah, etc. But what I will NOT ABIDE is a belief that no attempt to TRY to say YHWH's name properly is needed and that pagan substitutes are just fine. That I will fight on forever.


But in the first century there was less disagreement as far as the calendar goes. The P'rushim also followed a system based on the moon and the seasons. As far as determining the new month and the new year there would be no real difference between them and the Zadokim. I've heard that the Sanhedrin wants to go back to the ancient calendar, but I don't really know.
So we should follow the Hillel calendar with the clear statement that it is a tradition, not a mitswah?

AGR:

Not quite Akhi. There was quite a lot of disagreement about the calendar. It's just that the minority views went underground and yielded to the Pharisees. The Saduccess held a different view of calendar but were not permitted to promote it. Furthermore, these disagreements did filter over to the Netzarim and are suggested in places like Colossians 2. I think there was also a great amount of disagreement as to the role of the barley in setting the year. Not one biblical figure is ever recorded as having looked for the barley in the manner that modern Karaites do. I won't give my view here, but suffice to say I believe barley has some role, but is beholden to other factors in setting the year. What's more I think I can prove this to be the way it was done 2000 years ago, but that's a long argument too.

But to answer your question, I think it is YES, with the proviso also that we Netzarim must validate each rabbinic innovation (or Karaite if need be) through our own Beit Din and not just cling to tradition for the sake of tradition. We start though with the Rabbinic for now and work our way through it.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions and all, Akhi. I am very much in agreement with you on most of these points.

[Dawid]

Shlama Akhi Dawid, yes that amusing story in Talmud, where the rabbis tell YHWH to keep quiet, is also very indicative of some very deep problems to be sure!

I agree.

Beyond any doubt Akhi Dawid. The clues are all over the place. You have Y'shua sending out 72 talmidim to teach his halakha--and I don't need to remind you the significance of that number. Then you have Ya'akov in his lettter (2:2) specifically mentioning the word KNOOSHTA (Knesset, synagogue) rather than the later but more generic EIDATA that Rav Shaul talks about. Ya'akov is writing from his shul to other other Netzari shuls, and does this not once, but several times (Acts 9 and 15, etc). When you get lines like this one, I think it is very clear as to what is going on:

17. So that Master YHWH will seek the remainder of mankind and all the Gentiles, those who My Name is called over them, said Master YHWH who made all these things. 18. The works of Elohim are known from eternity. 19. Because of this (I) say that you should not be those oppressors who from the Gentiles are turning to Elohim. 20. But we will send (word) to them that they should abstain from uncleanness of sacrifices (idols) and from adultery and from things that are strangled and from blood. 21. For from ancient generations in all cities Moshe had preachers in the synagogues that on every Shabbat they read him.??? 22. Then the Shlichim and the elders with all the congregation chose men from among them and sent (them) to Antiochi with Paul and Bar-Naba and also Yehuda who is called Bar-Shaba and Shila and men leaders who were among them, among the Brothers.

Acts 15:17-22

Again these are instructions going out from the Jerusalem Rosh Beit Din to Messianic shuls under their authority, but also a comment on how in terms of Tanakh conventional and Messianic shuls were doing a lot of the same things as well.

So do you think that this was actually a N'tzari Sanhedrin, or was it simply a Beyth Din? I'd heard of it being thought of as a Beyth Din before, but it wasn't until yesterday that it occurred to me that it may actually be a Sanhedrin. The seventy being sent out, and the use of the term "elders" seem to point to more than a regular Beyth Din, don't you think?

Yes, I have heard a little about them. My ultimate answer to this is rather unusual and I choose not to go there right now. But what I can say is this: It is clear from Genesis 1:14 that both sun and moon mark the time. I believe that the fact that weeks is not included there (signs, seasons, days and years) is highly significant. Shabbat is a counting process that is beyond month-year calculations in the sense that we count 7 day intervals even if we run out of days in one year and pick up a few in the next. To me those facts, along with clues from Noah and a key incident with David and Jonathan, show that some fixed reckoning (based on many centuries of observation of course) was also in play here. Mishnaic details allow for people to come forward as witnesses of the new moon and such, but that practice is not as easy as most think it is. (Very long story.)

So this is why you count Bikkurim from the morrow after the fifteenth, rather than the morrow after the following Yom Rishon, correct? I won't impose upon your time more than I am already to ask you to explain all of your thoughts on this, but if you could give me the specific addresses of the passages on Noah and David and Jonathan that you are referring to so I can look at them I would greatly appreciate it.

The bottom line is that some form of intercalculation was in place in Tanakh times MANY CENTURIES BEFORE METON AND BABYLONIAN SYSTEMS WERE. In Mari/PEACE I call this system "Pre Metonic Lunar Regression" and I tie it to the preistly service cycle in a way that I don't think has been done before. Suffice to say for now that I believe we can recover the True Heavenly Calendar that YHWH intended and that YHWH uses to mark out our time even now. We can recognize in the Rabbinic an attempt to have sun and moon mark the seasons, but not necessarily the best process and certainly not the most ancient.

Some have suggested that we didn't have as many problems in the past, since there was, supposedly, a 360 day year. Allegedly there was some kind of shift that changed the cycle by about 4.25 days and wreaked havoc with the Biblical calendar.

In the meantime, while this understanding is not well known I think we need to do for the Rabbinic calendrical system what most Jews and Netzarim have done for the Masoretic Text. But that validation should come from OUR Beit Din, not theirs. We must take ownership of our own decisions, whether they agree with the Rabbinics or not. As such, it falls to US to get OUR HOUSE unified and in proper order first, we remove the beam from OUR eyes first before trying to take one out from our nieghbors. That is Y'shua 101, as far as I am concerned.

Well...what some have done from the MT. Most accept it a priori. I'm more skeptical and sometimes run readings back to the DSS, LXX, POT, and SP. I tend strongly toward textual criticism, and I think we need to use the MT as a basis, but check it against these other sources.

Now with respect to Calendar Toleration Doctrine as I call it, think about this. We know that the MT is a standardization barely 1000 years old. We know that there are significant ancient variants out there that may in fact in some cases contain superior readings, such as LXX containing Cain's words to Abel for example. We know that the Masoretes went from other sources now lost to us, that some of this is preserved in Targums, Peshitta Tanakh, Samaritan Pentatuech, and that these will never totally agree.

The calendar I am willing to surrender. Less than a year ago, I would not have. But I think the issue of the canon is too important. We must treat the canon critically, and cannot simply agree to accept the MT.

I have found a statement in the 1999 Jewish Publication Society Hebrew-English Tanakh most helpful. It talks about the importance of admitting that a perfectly transmitted text in this case is not possible, so the best we can do is have a DEFENSIBLE text that does justice in reperesenting the ancient fragments that survived and marrying those to the best modern scholarship can infer. Implicit in that process is the idea that when we find better textual evidence that we remain open to it but to recognize what is the best that can be done at present.

I recognize that we can only do so much at the present, with the canon aswell as with the calendar. However, we must be very careful and analyze the canon with all of our best resources. We should not simply use the MT without checking it.
But I do agree that we cannot be certain, and that we must simply use a defensible text. What I do not like is the way it makes it sound like we should be happy with a straight Massoretic reading.

So what we do there is we start from the base (Masiretic Tanakh, Peshitta NT) and work our way outwards in looking at other ancient traditions. THIS IS THE EXACT SAME PROCESS WE SHOULD EMPLOY WITH CALENDAR. DECIDE ON A BASE PROCESS BUT EXTEND TOLERATION TO MINORITY ANCIENT WITNESSES, AGREEING TO DISAGREE UNTIL MESSIAH Y'SHUA COMES BACK AND SETS IT STRAIGHT.

So are you suggesting that we, basically, apply text-critical principles to the calendar? To analyze it historically, contextually, and scientifically to attempt to reach the best conclusion for the majority of the community, and simply make peace with the rest until Mashiakh?

That is why we need this toleration, because otherwise it will drive wedges between us that more then help the purposes of the Accuser. It is in essence the same problem Eve had in the Garden. She added her halakha that YHWH said not to TOUCH the forbidden fruit. The fact is YHWH only said not to EAT it or they would die. Eve did the same reasoning that many rabbis fall victim to: She decided if she added the don't touch provision that what she didn't touch she couldn't eat. But the reality was it was very easy for her to forget where YHWH's halackha ended and hers began, so when she touched it and didn't die, she reasoned she could then eat it as well! This is what happens when we add or subtract from Torah. So in matters that are open to interpretation, a wider safer view is better for the sake of unity in the present. It is a temporary fix until we no longer see darkly but face to face.

But in matters that only effect an individual, no one else in the community, such as how to tie tzitziot, I think we should be lenient and not have an official ruling. There is no need to open the door to offense in these areas. Do you agree?

Well there as you know I have extremely passionate opinions that I won't share here. But I think what we Netzari need to agree on is how the Name was NOT pronounced, and it was NEVER pronounced LORD or JEHOVAH. We know there is no letter J before 1600 so let's move on. Furthermore, we need to also agree that any titles that are SANCTIFIED BY YHWH EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE DUAL PAGANISTIC USE, ARE STILL KOSHER BECAUSE YHWH SAID SO. What that means is that EL, Elohim, El-Shaddai, etc., these are kosher because YHWH directly used them, but others perverted them. Remember the normative literal view of Torah is that monotheism came before paganism and the latter was a corruption after being expelled from Paradise.

I'm certainly with you on the titles that have been used in the TN"K for YHWH, even if they're also used for pagan deities. There are people who throw a fit if you use Adonay, because it is supposedly derived from Ad*nis.

Beyond this, I am willing at least to grant good intentions/kavannah status to all original Hebrew names based as YAH, YAHU or YEHO. So while I feel majority usage should be Yah-Way (see my article on the website), I can live with others in the Netzari faith using Yah-u-wah, Yehovah, etc. But what I will NOT ABIDE is a belief that no attempt to TRY to say YHWH's name properly is needed and that pagan substitutes are just fine. That I will fight on forever.

I generally prefer Yahueh, but that is just me.
With all due respect, I think that it is necessary for us to make peace with our brothers who consider pronouncing it at all to be profaning it. I am of the opinion that not pronouncing it is also profaning it, but I think that we need to give grace. This issue is so volatile that I seriously doubt we will come up with a final solution for it until Mashiakh. So we need to make peace.

Not quite Akhi. There was quite a lot of disagreement about the calendar. It's just that the minority views went underground and yielded to the Pharisees. The Saduccess held a different view of calendar but were not permitted to promote it. Furthermore, these disagreements did filter over to the Netzarim and are suggested in places like Colossians 2. I think there was also a great amount of disagreement as to the role of the barley in setting the year. Not one biblical figure is ever recorded as having looked for the barley in the manner that modern Karaites do. I won't give my view here, but suffice to say I believe barley has some role, but is beholden to other factors in setting the year. What's more I think I can prove this to be the way it was done 2000 years ago, but that's a long argument too.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed.
It is true that no figure is recorded as having done this. On the other hand, the calendar does not seem to have been a big deal in the TN"K. It was simply something that they knew. Isn't this argument against the Aviv calendar basically an argument from silence? I'm not saying that I think the Barley should be the deciding factor. I think it should be taken into account along with other things, but I don't think that the fact that it is never mentioned is the strongest argument against it.

But to answer your question, I think it is YES, with the proviso also that we Netzarim must validate each rabbinic innovation (or Karaite if need be) through our own Beit Din and not just cling to tradition for the sake of tradition. We start though with the Rabbinic for now and work our way through it.

I see.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Yes, thank you, it has been very helpful.
If I may crave your indulgence while I ask one more question: Are you still interested in the work of the Siddur project?

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Allow me to answer quickly as I am under time constraints. For any that remains I will return to this important question shortly:

Again these are instructions going out from the Jerusalem Rosh Beit Din to Messianic shuls under their authority, but also a comment on how in terms of Tanakh conventional and Messianic shuls were doing a lot of the same things as well.So do you think that this was actually a N'tzari Sanhedrin, or was it simply a Beyth Din? I'd heard of it being thought of as a Beyth Din before, but it wasn't until yesterday that it occurred to me that it may actually be a Sanhedrin. The seventy being sent out, and the use of the term "elders" seem to point to more than a regular Beyth Din, don't you think?

AGR:

Yes I would tend to agree. Either that or it was more of Beit Din in Y'shua's time but after Netzari shuls had been set up under Ya'kov and Keefa it could have evolved into a fully functioning Sanhedrin. There are clues about this in the Aramaic Gospels I believe, especially with respect to cursing the fig tree, that being a symbol of the conventional Sanhedrin. Too much to get into now however.

So this is why you count Bikkurim from the morrow after the fifteenth, rather than the morrow after the following Yom Rishon, correct? I won't impose upon your time more than I am already to ask you to explain all of your thoughts on this, but if you could give me the specific addresses of the passages on Noah and David and Jonathan that you are referring to so I can look at them I would greatly appreciate it.

AGR:

Yes, this is one reason among many. The passage involving Noah has to do with the fact that he is in the ark exactly 5 months and those 5 months equal exactly 30 days each (150 days). Furthermore Noah is locked up in the ark during the deluge and clearly cannot see the sky to note the sun and moon's positions. David and Jonathan have a discussion also where Jonathan know sfor a fact that the roch chodesh ceremony will be in two days, WITHOUT WAITING FOR WITNESSES TO PROVE IT. THE COURT OF SAUL IS PROCLAIMING IT AS SUCH REGARDLESS. Both these incidents prove to my mind that fixed calendrical patterns back up ovservations and where observation is not possible or practical, the fixed calendar acts as deciding mechanism. This is a major theme in my calendar study in Mari called "Wheel of Stars".

Some have suggested that we didn't have as many problems in the past, since there was, supposedly, a 360 day year. Allegedly there was some kind of shift that changed the cycle by about 4.25 days and wreaked havoc with the Biblical calendar.

AGR:

I don't believe the length of year changed due to some cosmic event if that is what you are asking. But I do believe both the 360 day system as I outline it and our current Gregorian system speak to many of the same time issues. I can interclculate between the two and actually am prettyc ertain I can prove that the 365.2422 day year is "hidden" in the real 360 day calendar. I can't say more than that pre-publication. Sorry.

Well...what some have done from the MT. Most accept it a priori. I'm more skeptical and sometimes run readings back to the DSS, LXX, POT, and SP. I tend strongly toward textual criticism, and I think we need to use the MT as a basis, but check it against these other sources.

AGR:

If you will re-read what I said before you will find I agree with you. I encourage use of MT as base text but insist that all other ancient variants are carefully studied as well. The key is knowing though what main text and what footnotes should be, and the two should not be confused. So I take a strong pro text crit stance, hopefully though with a proper spiritual focus though to go with it.

The calendar I am willing to surrender. Less than a year ago, I would not have. But I think the issue of the canon is too important. We must treat the canon critically, and cannot simply agree to accept the MT.

AGR:

I am saying as base text, a starting point only, while studying all the other variants too. The only alternative would be a less likely unifying source, like Peshitta Tanakh, but I see advantages going in that direction as well.

I recognize that we can only do so much at the present, with the canon aswell as with the calendar. However, we must be very careful and analyze the canon with all of our best resources. We should not simply use the MT without checking it.
But I do agree that we cannot be certain, and that we must simply use a defensible text. What I do not like is the way it makes it sound like we should be happy with a straight Massoretic reading.

AGR:

See that is what I am also saying.

So are you suggesting that we, basically, apply text-critical principles to the calendar? To analyze it historically, contextually, and scientifically to attempt to reach the best conclusion for the majority of the community, and simply make peace with the rest until Mashiakh?

AGR:

Essentially yes, although I hadn't thought of it precisely in those terms.

So in matters that are open to interpretation, a wider safer view is better for the sake of unity in the present. It is a temporary fix until we no longer see darkly but face to face.But in matters that only effect an individual, no one else in the community, such as how to tie tzitziot, I think we should be lenient and not have an official ruling. There is no need to open the door to offense in these areas. Do you agree?

AGR:

In those scenarios yes, I agree. Where things are not salvation-specific and open to interpretation, reasonable men of good character should tolerate one another for the sake of the wider goals to please YHWH. Yes.

I'm certainly with you on the titles that have been used in the TN"K for YHWH, even if they're also used for pagan deities. There are people who throw a fit if you use Adonay, because it is supposedly derived from Ad*nis.

AGR:

And those people would be wrong and need to study more. It is not so simple. We are talking about linguistic links between proto-Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician and even Greek. It is more complicated, and besides which I am pretty sure I can find verses where Adonai is endorsed by YHWH as a title too that do not include 134 Masoretic emendations. The principle I believe stands as rendered.


I generally prefer Yahueh, but that is just me. With all due respect, I think that it is necessary for us to make peace with our brothers who consider pronouncing it at all to be profaning it. I am of the opinion that not pronouncing it is also profaning it, but I think that we need to give grace. This issue is so volatile that I seriously doubt we will come up with a final solution for it until Mashiakh. So we need to make peace.

AGR:

Sorry my brother, I won't make peace on that matter. To replace YHWH's name is to make it desolate and YHWH does not take subsitutes (Isaiah 42:8-9). This is actually protecting the third commandment rather than violating the cursing ban, but we are commanded 300 times to call on it, sing it, shout it, play it on the lyre, etc. It is a rabbinic fence like my example from Eve, that if we don't SAY the name we don't CURSE in it. But we are commanded to call on Him for our salvation.

I can compromise on some folks' opinion as to how the Name should be pronounced, but I will not accept the rabbinic syag around my mouth telling me I cannot call on my Creator. No way. As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh!!!! This may be a stumbling block for those in Orthodox practice I agree, but I also think there are ways to diplomatically and gradually ease them through this in respect and peace. I have thought a great deal as to how to bifurcate certain services to achieve this goal but I can't do details at this moment. I will say that one route is using YAH (as in halel-u-YAH or MarYAH) as the simplified form of the name was never banned. I view YAH and YHWH as the same exact name, and therefore can very comfortably use YAH with those who would prefer I do so from their tradition. But I will NOT try to NEVER pronounce YAH/YHWH for their sake, you can forget that.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed.
It is true that no figure is recorded as having done this. On the other hand, the calendar does not seem to have been a big deal in the TN"K. It was simply something that they knew. Isn't this argument against the Aviv calendar basically an argument from silence? I'm not saying that I think the Barley should be the deciding factor. I think it should be taken into account along with other things, but I don't think that the fact that it is never mentioned is the strongest argument against it.

AGR:

This is another theme from "Wheel of Stars" that I can only comment on very briefly. The barley is an EARTH sign and EARTH SIGNS are subject to SKY SIGNS that must precede them. The laws of the heavens and constellations rule on the earth as Job 38:31-34 says. My version of the calendar uses the sky signs as the pre-requistities for the earth signs to count. The attempts to "look for" barley in aviv are flawed and unscriptural. It is simply Karaite oral law instead of the Rabbinics that they deride for also adding to Torah. But we are told to observe the sun and the moon to mark "signs, seasons, days and years" AND IN THAT EXACT ORDER. This is what my calendar study attempts to prove and do.

If I may crave your indulgence while I ask one more question: Are you still interested in the work of the Siddur project?

AGR:

Yes, but not at this moment. I have to complete Mari before I can show it to you as a viable candidate for Renewed Covenant Masorah, which would include application of it in liturgy, matzors, siddurs, etc. Mari and immediate post publication issues that may arise from it must be my total focus for now. I'm sure you understand.

Todah for your great questions here Akhi Dawid. It is pleasant dialoguing with you.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Allow me to answer quickly as I am under time constraints. For any that remains I will return to this important question shortly:

I'm very sorry for taking up your time. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Yes I would tend to agree. Either that or it was more of Beit Din in Y'shua's time but after Netzari shuls had been set up under Ya'kov and Keefa it could have evolved into a fully functioning Sanhedrin. There are clues about this in the Aramaic Gospels I believe, especially with respect to cursing the fig tree, that being a symbol of the conventional Sanhedrin. Too much to get into now however.

Very interesting. I may have to look into the cursing of the tree on my own account. This makes some of the theories of the Jerusalem Council very difficult to support.

Yes, this is one reason among many. The passage involving Noah has to do with the fact that he is in the ark exactly 5 months and those 5 months equal exactly 30 days each (150 days). Furthermore Noah is locked up in the ark during the deluge and clearly cannot see the sky to note the sun and moon's positions. David and Jonathan have a discussion also where Jonathan know sfor a fact that the roch chodesh ceremony will be in two days, WITHOUT WAITING FOR WITNESSES TO PROVE IT. THE COURT OF SAUL IS PROCLAIMING IT AS SUCH REGARDLESS. Both these incidents prove to my mind that fixed calendrical patterns back up ovservations and where observation is not possible or practical, the fixed calendar acts as deciding mechanism. This is a major theme in my calendar study in Mari called "Wheel of Stars".

That's very interesting.
So I understand how the idea of a calculated calendar is derived from the Memra, but how about how these calculations are made? How do we know the proper way of forming this fixed calendar?

I don't believe the length of year changed due to some cosmic event if that is what you are asking. But I do believe both the 360 day system as I outline it and our current Gregorian system speak to many of the same time issues. I can interclculate between the two and actually am prettyc ertain I can prove that the 365.2422 day year is "hidden" in the real 360 day calendar. I can't say more than that pre-publication. Sorry.

Fascinating. Now I'm on the edge of my seat to learn more.
Some have pointed to historical evidence that there was a certain time when it changed. I only wish I could remember what it was they pointed to so you could answer it specifically, rather than just my general recollection that there was something. Frustrating. I should have paid more attention.

If you will re-read what I said before you will find I agree with you. I encourage use of MT as base text but insist that all other ancient variants are carefully studied as well. The key is knowing though what main text and what footnotes should be, and the two should not be confused. So I take a strong pro text crit stance, hopefully though with a proper spiritual focus though to go with it.

I'm sorry. My mistake.
I agree. It is difficult to decide what to put as the main reading, and when to simply say "X is an alternate reading, which may or may not be more accurate than the reading in the text."
This is one thing that I need to work on in the Siddur. I tried to check it against the DSS and Massorah as much as I could, but there is a long way to go.

I am saying as base text, a starting point only, while studying all the other variants too. The only alternative would be a less likely unifying source, like Peshitta Tanakh, but I see advantages going in that direction as well.

I think there are a lot of pros and cons to using the Peshitta TN"K. The main cons being that it will be more divisive than using the MT as the base text, and that it is in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

See that is what I am also saying.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Essentially yes, although I hadn't thought of it precisely in those terms.

Good.

In those scenarios yes, I agree. Where things are not salvation-specific and open to interpretation, reasonable men of good character should tolerate one another for the sake of the wider goals to please YHWH. Yes.

So we agree.

And those people would be wrong and need to study more. It is not so simple. We are talking about linguistic links between proto-Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician and even Greek. It is more complicated, and besides which I am pretty sure I can find verses where Adonai is endorsed by YHWH as a title too that do not include 134 Masoretic emendations. The principle I believe stands as rendered.

I think a large part of the misunderstanding is that they don't understand that proper nouns come from improper nouns, not the other way 'round.
I agree with you that there are places that Adonay is used other than the places that were altered. I've found a few of them myself in my reading and research.

Sorry my brother, I won't make peace on that matter. To replace YHWH's name is to make it desolate and YHWH does not take subsitutes (Isaiah 42:8-9). This is actually protecting the third commandment rather than violating the cursing ban, but we are commanded 300 times to call on it, sing it, shout it, play it on the lyre, etc. It is a rabbinic fence like my example from Eve, that if we don't SAY the name we don't CURSE in it. But we are commanded to call on Him for our salvation.

I don't need to tell you how much people will resist this. And I even have friends who do not object to using it on the grounds of guarding the third commandment, but on grounds of saying that we don't know how to pronounce it. I disagree with them, but I think that we must look at this group separately. They do not say it because they do not know how to say it. This is not the same as following the Rabbinical fence.

I can compromise on some folks' opinion as to how the Name should be pronounced, but I will not accept the rabbinic syag around my mouth telling me I cannot call on my Creator. No way. As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh!!!! This may be a stumbling block for those in Orthodox practice I agree, but I also think there are ways to diplomatically and gradually ease them through this in respect and peace. I have thought a great deal as to how to bifurcate certain services to achieve this goal but I can't do details at this moment. I will say that one route is using YAH (as in halel-u-YAH or MarYAH) as the simplified form of the name was never banned. I view YAH and YHWH as the same exact name, and therefore can very comfortably use YAH with those who would prefer I do so from their tradition. But I will NOT try to NEVER pronounce YAH/YHWH for their sake, you can forget that.

Yah may, indeed, be a way to ease them into use, but it is still bound to cause a lot of friction.
I am not suggesting that you take the rabbinical injunction upon yourself. I would not suggest that. But I think we need to work with those who do.

This is another theme from "Wheel of Stars" that I can only comment on very briefly. The barley is an EARTH sign and EARTH SIGNS are subject to SKY SIGNS that must precede them. The laws of the heavens and constellations rule on the earth as Job 38:31-34 says. My version of the calendar uses the sky signs as the pre-requistities for the earth signs to count. The attempts to "look for" barley in aviv are flawed and unscriptural. It is simply Karaite oral law instead of the Rabbinics that they deride for also adding to Torah. But we are told to observe the sun and the moon to mark "signs, seasons, days and years" AND IN THAT EXACT ORDER. This is what my calendar study attempts to prove and do.

If I may ask, what is "Wheel of Stars"?
Well...it only sort of comes from Sevel HaYerushah. It is derived from two oblique references in the Torah, one regarding Pesach and the other regarding Shavu'oth.
What do you mean by "in that exact order"? They are primarily for signs, and only secondarily for years?
Do you have your calendar studies available in full anywhere?

Yes, but not at this moment. I have to complete Mari before I can show it to you as a viable candidate for Renewed Covenant Masorah, which would include application of it in liturgy, matzors, siddurs, etc. Mari and immediate post publication issues that may arise from it must be my total focus for now. I'm sure you understand.

Naturally, I understand that PEACE takes precedence. I just wanted to make sure you were still interested. I did not intend to try to get you involved right now.
I was also wondering, though, is the text that you used for PEACE a critical text? I would assume it is based on your thoughts on textual criticism.
At present the Siddur has "NT" texts in Hebrew, partly because I can't translate from Aramaic, and partly to make it more palatable to the adamant Hebrew-only ppl. I hope to change it to change to Aramaic once I can calm people down on the idea of using something other than Hebrew. lol. Long before it goes into any kind of final form.

Todah for your great questions here Akhi Dawid. It is pleasant dialoguing with you.

And todah rabbah for your answers. I'm learning a lot.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

I'm very sorry for taking up your time. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

AGR:

No, no Akhi. You didn't take up too much of my time. If you did I wouldn't answer for a while. I meant I had to write quickly because of other things on my plate last night. These questions are important.


Very interesting. I may have to look into the cursing of the tree on my own account. This makes some of the theories of the Jerusalem Council very difficult to support.

AGR:

Indeed. There is much more to this than meets the eye...

That's very interesting.So I understand how the idea of a calculated calendar is derived from the Memra, but how about how these calculations are made? How do we know the proper way of forming this fixed calendar?

AGR:

It is a combination of methods, all spoken of in Scripture in considerable detail, if you know where to look. The months are lunar, but the year is solar. The intercalculation synched to the priestly overlay is---well still not telling yet! <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->

Fascinating. Now I'm on the edge of my seat to learn more. Some have pointed to historical evidence that there was a certain time when it changed. I only wish I could remember what it was they pointed to so you could answer it specifically, rather than just my general recollection that there was something. Frustrating. I should have paid more attention.

AGR:

Again staying very general, remember that YHWH made the sun do its 365.2422 orbit and it made the moon cycle every 29.54 days. It is foolhardy to think that He who chose the mechanisms and their timings would not want us to go by them as well. But then again, the stars are also supposed to help...

I'm sorry. My mistake.I agree. It is difficult to decide what to put as the main reading, and when to simply say "X is an alternate reading, which may or may not be more accurate than the reading in the text."This is one thing that I need to work on in the Siddur. I tried to check it against the DSS and Massorah as much as I could, but there is a long way to go.

AGR:

No need--no offense at all taken. But yes, it is quite a lexical tapestry out there. Any choice will be the best of a mediocre and unsatsifying lot to some, but we have no choice but to do our best.


I think there are a lot of pros and cons to using the Peshitta TN"K. The main cons being that it will be more divisive than using the MT as the base text, and that it is in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

AGR:

Ah but Aramaic is in Hebrew Tanakh (Palestinian Talmud, Sotah 7.2). And the Talmud itself is Aramaic too. Pure linguistics is not the barrier it might otherwise appear to be. But it will be divisive until we realize there are sources behind the MT that helped in its creation. (Long story.)


In those scenarios yes, I agree. Where things are not salvation-specific and open to interpretation, reasonable men of good character should tolerate one another for the sake of the wider goals to please YHWH. Yes.

So we agree.

AGR:

We most certainly do agree.

I think a large part of the misunderstanding is that they don't understand that proper nouns come from improper nouns, not the other way 'round.I agree with you that there are places that Adonay is used other than the places that were altered. I've found a few of them myself in my reading and research.

AGR:

Tov.

I don't need to tell you how much people will resist this. And I even have friends who do not object to using it on the grounds of guarding the third commandment, but on grounds of saying that we don't know how to pronounce it. I disagree with them, but I think that we must look at this group separately. They do not say it because they do not know how to say it. This is not the same as following the Rabbinical fence.

AGR:

Again, I can't compromise. I don't care how many resist. It's not about being popular but being right. The world loves pork too, so should I eat it because all of them do??? This is one of the Top Ten Commands we are talking about here. We shall not make His Name SHAV and substitute it is SHAV.

Yah may, indeed, be a way to ease them into use, but it is still bound to cause a lot of friction.
I am not suggesting that you take the rabbinical injunction upon yourself. I would not suggest that. But I think we need to work with those who do.

AGR:

Well you know the old saying: TRUTH IS STRONGER THAN FRICTION!

Dialogue yes. Compromise no. This is as strong an education as anything we Netzarim would do for those from the nations. We cannot show partiality here. Yah is no respecter of persons when it comes to His truth, and we cannot use unjust weights and measures. You know this as well as I.

If I may ask, what is "Wheel of Stars"?

AGR:

"Wheel of Stars" is a massive essay in Mari/PEACE that deals with these calendar issues. It also delves into the single most prophetic event of them all, but I digress... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

Well...it only sort of comes from Sevel HaYerushah. It is derived from two oblique references in the Torah, one regarding Pesach and the other regarding Shavu'oth.

AGR:

There is another place it comes from. You will see.


What do you mean by "in that exact order"? They are primarily for signs, and only secondarily for years?

Signs (sky then earth) set the seasons (aviv) which start the days, which mark the year. Again, you will see why. Very few understand this.


Do you have your calendar studies available in full anywhere?

AGR:

No. I have kept this secret for a very long time. It is only now that I have found a place for it.

Naturally, I understand that PEACE takes precedence. I just wanted to make sure you were still interested. I did not intend to try to get you involved right now.
I was also wondering, though, is the text that you used for PEACE a critical text? I would assume it is based on your thoughts on textual criticism.

AGR:

Yes it is a critical text, but it is not 1905. It is Khabouris mostly and invovles the most ancient readings even in the Western 5 that the 1905 left out. It is restoring original EASTERN ARAMAIC readings throughout. I explain the methodology in Mari in great detail there.

At present the Siddur has "NT" texts in Hebrew, partly because I can't translate from Aramaic, and partly to make it more palatable to the adamant Hebrew-only ppl. I hope to change it to change to Aramaic once I can calm people down on the idea of using something other than Hebrew. lol. Long before it goes into any kind of final form.

AGR:

Well if they can use Greek texts translated back into Hebrew for NT (as many Netzari mdo) then they can embrace the sister language of Aramaic and its very ancient tradition that is also reflected in Tanakh and our most ancient liturgy and prayers. All it takes is a littlte patience and some education.

Todah for your great questions here Akhi Dawid. It is pleasant dialoguing with you.
And todah rabbah for your answers. I'm learning a lot.

AGR:

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

Indeed. There is much more to this than meets the eye...

There usually is.

It is a combination of methods, all spoken of in Scripture in considerable detail, if you know where to look. The months are lunar, but the year is solar. The intercalculation synched to the priestly overlay is---well still not telling yet! <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->

Sounds Samaritan. The Shomrim have a secret method of synchronizing the lunar and solar calendars. I've read a lot about the Shomrim, but I've never been able to find where their method is divulged. It seems to be a well-kept secret.

Again staying very general, remember that YHWH made the sun do its 365.2422 orbit and it made the moon cycle every 29.54 days. It is foolhardy to think that He who chose the mechanisms and their timings would not want us to go by them as well. But then again, the stars are also supposed to help...

That's interesting. I assume you're familiar with the Josephan calendar? The one that he mentions uses the stars in conjunction with the sun and moon to determine the new year.

No need--no offense at all taken. But yes, it is quite a lexical tapestry out there. Any choice will be the best of a mediocre and unsatsifying lot to some, but we have no choice but to do our best.

It may even be mediocre and unsatisfying to those who do it, but it will, hopefully, be the best that can be done, nu?

Ah but Aramaic is in Hebrew Tanakh (Palestinian Talmud, Sotah 7.2). And the Talmud itself is Aramaic too. Pure linguistics is not the barrier it might otherwise appear to be. But it will be divisive until we realize there are sources behind the MT that helped in its creation. (Long story.)

I realise that there is Aramaic in the TN"K. That is not the same as saying that the entire TN"K is in Aramaic. Also, the sections that are in Aramaic are in Biblical Aramaic, not Syriac Aramaic like the Peshitta is.
Are you referring to proto-semitic sources? Or any of the text-critical theories of multiple authorships?
Please understand, I am not against Aramaic. I am simply against Aramaic which ought to be Hebrew. I am also against Hebrew which ought to be Aramaic.

Again, I can't compromise. I don't care how many resist. It's not about being popular but being right. The world loves pork too, so should I eat it because all of them do??? This is one of the Top Ten Commands we are talking about here. We shall not make His Name SHAV and substitute it is SHAV.

I've never been accused of pandering. But I do think that this may be an inaccurate comparison. The world loves pork, and they eat it because they disregard the Torah. Those who do not pronounce the Name are not disregarding the Torah, they are simply misunderstanding it. I agree that in attempting to not profane the Name, they are doing the very thing they wished not to do, but I think they must be given credit for trying.

Dialogue yes. Compromise no. This is as strong an education as anything we Netzarim would do for those from the nations. We cannot show partiality here. Yah is no respecter of persons when it comes to His truth, and we cannot use unjust weights and measures. You know this as well as I.

I don't think I am suggesting that we be "accepters of faces." I am not saying that we should accept the people because of who they are, other than that they are fellow servants.
How do you propose that we act toward those that refuse to pronounce the name?

"Wheel of Stars" is a massive essay in Mari/PEACE that deals with these calendar issues. It also delves into the single most prophetic event of them all, but I digress... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

Sounds most interesting. Now I'm looking forward to PEACE more than ever. <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

There is another place it comes from. You will see.

In Whell of Stars?

Signs (sky then earth) set the seasons (aviv) which start the days, which mark the year. Again, you will see why. Very few understand this.

I think I understand now.

No. I have kept this secret for a very long time. It is only now that I have found a place for it.

Why have you kept it secret?

Yes it is a critical text, but it is not 1905. It is Khabouris mostly and invovles the most ancient readings even in the Western 5 that the 1905 left out. It is restoring original EASTERN ARAMAIC readings throughout. I explain the methodology in Mari in great detail there.

Did you use readings found in eastern church fathers, or did you just use Peshitta texts? I suppose you list your sources in Mari?

Well if they can use Greek texts translated back into Hebrew for NT (as many Netzari mdo) then they can embrace the sister language of Aramaic and its very ancient tradition that is also reflected in Tanakh and our most ancient liturgy and prayers. All it takes is a littlte patience and some education.

I know that and you know that, but not everyone is as familiar and comfortable with Aramaic. It will take some warming them to the idea. That's why, for now, I used a Hebrew translation of the Greek, and with the 1905 in one hand and a Syriac lexicon in the other I edited the Hebrew text to match the 1905. That is the text that is there for now. In Hebrew. I want to finalize it with Aramaic, but I can't do that, because I can't translate it. I think Murdock is public domain now, but I'd rather not use his if I can help it. I do appreciate his objectivity, not being a Peshitta primacist himself, though.

Shalom,
Dawid

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Indeed. There is much more to this than meets the eye...

There usually is.

Shlama Akhi Dawid, for ease of reading this time I will put all my newest responses in bold

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
It is a combination of methods, all spoken of in Scripture in considerable detail, if you know where to look. The months are lunar, but the year is solar. The intercalculation synched to the priestly overlay is---well still not telling yet! Sounds Samaritan. The Shomrim have a secret method of synchronizing the lunar and solar calendars. I've read a lot about the Shomrim, but I've never been able to find where their method is divulged. It seems to be a well-kept secret.

All I will say is that it is Scriptural. The last hint I will say is that I also have some support, logical extensions from Scripture, from the two priestly first century priestly authorities that have come down to us, Josephus and Philo. However I emphasize that these sections from them would not be used if they did not agree at least foundationally with Tanakh. You will just have to see what I have chosen and why and make up your own mind.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Again staying very general, remember that YHWH made the sun do its 365.2422 orbit and it made the moon cycle every 29.54 days. It is foolhardy to think that He who chose the mechanisms and their timings would not want us to go by them as well. But then again, the stars are also supposed to help...That's interesting. I assume you're familiar with the Josephan calendar? The one that he mentions uses the stars in conjunction with the sun and moon to determine the new year.

I do believe a lot of what I have done has NEVER been done before but I know what you mean. The details are very intricate but the mechanisms are easy to see, so I would not be surprised at some general agreement on the basics, but I would not say my system is specifically derived from another, nor vice versa.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
No need--no offense at all taken. But yes, it is quite a lexical tapestry out there. Any choice will be the best of a mediocre and unsatsifying lot to some, but we have no choice but to do our best.It may even be mediocre and unsatisfying to those who do it, but it will, hopefully, be the best that can be done, nu?

It is what it is...but we keep trying, yes.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Ah but Aramaic is in Hebrew Tanakh (Palestinian Talmud, Sotah 7.2). And the Talmud itself is Aramaic too. Pure linguistics is not the barrier it might otherwise appear to be. But it will be divisive until we realize there are sources behind the MT that helped in its creation. (Long story.)

I realise that there is Aramaic in the TN"K. That is not the same as saying that the entire TN"K is in Aramaic. Also, the sections that are in Aramaic are in Biblical Aramaic, not Syriac Aramaic like the Peshitta is.
Are you referring to proto-semitic sources? Or any of the text-critical theories of multiple authorships?
Please understand, I am not against Aramaic. I am simply against Aramaic which ought to be Hebrew. I am also against Hebrew which ought to be Aramaic.

I don't think it will be benficial to answer this question in depth until Mari/PEACE is in your hands as a reference, and no that is not a sales pitch. What I will say is this: 1) Yes, I am referring to proto-Semitic sources in general with respect to Tanakh. 2) I have general skepticism not about text crit in general but about some of the more prominent theories regarding it.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Again, I can't compromise. I don't care how many resist. It's not about being popular but being right. The world loves pork too, so should I eat it because all of them do??? This is one of the Top Ten Commands we are talking about here. We shall not make His Name SHAV and substitute it is SHAV.I've never been accused of pandering. But I do think that this may be an inaccurate comparison. The world loves pork, and they eat it because they disregard the Torah. Those who do not pronounce the Name are not disregarding the Torah, they are simply misunderstanding it. I agree that in attempting to not profane the Name, they are doing the very thing they wished not to do, but I think they must be given credit for trying.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Dialogue yes. Compromise no. This is as strong an education as anything we Netzarim would do for those from the nations. We cannot show partiality here. Yah is no respecter of persons when it comes to His truth, and we cannot use unjust weights and measures. You know this as well as I.

I don't think I am suggesting that we be "accepters of faces." I am not saying that we should accept the people because of who they are, other than that they are fellow servants.
How do you propose that we act toward those that refuse to pronounce the name?

Dawid we rebuke or brothers with love and teach them with love and patience. But we don't compromise on what is right just to be popular with them. If everyone meets everyone else where they are, then when can we expect progress? When do we say "We love you brothers, but this is the truth that we wanted to share with you"? I don't think you see my point. Alot of us in the Nazarene faith have no trouble doing this to Christians, talking about "sloppy agape" and anti Replacement theology, dispensationalism. If we do that to them --and we do--we should not close our eyes when it comes to our own. I am not saying shun. I am saying don't compromise in the dialogue to educate them because the alternative is to except common names as acceptable liturgically and interchangeable from the Word. We can NOT do that.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
"Wheel of Stars" is a massive essay in Mari/PEACE that deals with these calendar issues. It also delves into the single most prophetic event of them all, but I digress... Sounds most interesting. Now I'm looking forward to PEACE more than ever.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
There is another place it comes from. You will see.In Whell of Stars?

Wheel of Stars gives all the sources.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Signs (sky then earth) set the seasons (aviv) which start the days, which mark the year. Again, you will see why. Very few understand this.I think I understand now.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
No. I have kept this secret for a very long time. It is only now that I have found a place for it.Why have you kept it secret?

Because I didn't view calendar-moedim studies as my main purpose. I had bigger things on my mind like trying to save Aramaic from extinction. I also thought this might distract from the main point of my scholarship and for the rest, honestly, I just wasn't ready to talk about it.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Yes it is a critical text, but it is not 1905. It is Khabouris mostly and invovles the most ancient readings even in the Western 5 that the 1905 left out. It is restoring original EASTERN ARAMAIC readings throughout. I explain the methodology in Mari in great detail there.Did you use readings found in eastern church fathers, or did you just use Peshitta texts? I suppose you list your sources in Mari?

I do list the source. As I mentioned, Khabouris is the main base text for the 22. Mosul text is used for Western 5, but in some cases, more ancient readings that were rejected from later Aramaic traditions are put back. You will see.

Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote:
Well if they can use Greek texts translated back into Hebrew for NT (as many Netzari mdo) then they can embrace the sister language of Aramaic and its very ancient tradition that is also reflected in Tanakh and our most ancient liturgy and prayers. All it takes is a littlte patience and some education.

I know that and you know that, but not everyone is as familiar and comfortable with Aramaic. It will take some warming them to the idea. That's why, for now, I used a Hebrew translation of the Greek, and with the 1905 in one hand and a Syriac lexicon in the other I edited the Hebrew text to match the 1905. That is the text that is there for now. In Hebrew. I want to finalize it with Aramaic, but I can't do that, because I can't translate it. I think Murdock is public domain now, but I'd rather not use his if I can help it. I do appreciate his objectivity, not being a Peshitta primacist himself, though.

Dawid your conervatisim and care is laudable, but I have succeeded through not shirking on the facts, showing the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may. I really don't care if anyone, Netzari, Christian, Muslim, has a problem with this. If they do, they can study Aramaic and try to tell me differently and I will listen. But BECAUSE I forced the matter 10 years ago many prominent Messianic Rabbis who used to call Aramaic a joke now embrace it as, if not the original NT, as something of equal authority with the Greek and that clarifies the Greek. I didn't get that far by being timid nor will I depart from my methods now. And even for you, i will consieder making Mari/PEACE available to you in part or more, for you to use along side what ever you have. But really we must unify our base text, and I won't stop on that point until YHWH take my spirit or it is done. But you do what you think best and I will see how I can help. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you. I respect you but there are differences too.

Shalom,
Dawid

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

All I will say is that it is Scriptural. The last hint I will say is that I also have some support, logical extensions from Scripture, from the two priestly first century priestly authorities that have come down to us, Josephus and Philo. However I emphasize that these sections from them would not be used if they did not agree at least foundationally with Tanakh. You will just have to see what I have chosen and why and make up your own mind.

lol. If I wasn't excited about the release of it before I would be now. This will be very interesting. How long is the article?

I do believe a lot of what I have done has NEVER been done before but I know what you mean. The details are very intricate but the mechanisms are easy to see, so I would not be surprised at some general agreement on the basics, but I would not say my system is specifically derived from another, nor vice versa.

What do you mean by "never"? If it's literally never been done before then it cannot possibly be valid. I'm assuming that you mean it's never been done since it was first lost?

I don't think it will be benficial to answer this question in depth until Mari/PEACE is in your hands as a reference, and no that is not a sales pitch. What I will say is this: 1) Yes, I am referring to proto-Semitic sources in general with respect to Tanakh. 2) I have general skepticism not about text crit in general but about some of the more prominent theories regarding it.

No need for a sales pitch, khaveri. lol.
Sort of related question: What language do you think proto-Semitic was most like?

Dawid we rebuke or brothers with love and teach them with love and patience. But we don't compromise on what is right just to be popular with them. If everyone meets everyone else where they are, then when can we expect progress? When do we say "We love you brothers, but this is the truth that we wanted to share with you"? I don't think you see my point. Alot of us in the Nazarene faith have no trouble doing this to Christians, talking about "sloppy agape" and anti Replacement theology, dispensationalism. If we do that to them --and we do--we should not close our eyes when it comes to our own. I am not saying shun. I am saying don't compromise in the dialogue to educate them because the alternative is to except common names as acceptable liturgically and interchangeable from the Word. We can NOT do that.

I thought we were discussing what needs to be done for unity. We must be willing to work with those who have an honest disagreement on issues of halacha. We do not have to give ground. We do not have to be weak about our stance. However, we must be willing to work with these people.
Again, I think this is not an accurate analogy. To compare other N'tsarim to Xians is comparing apples to oranges. Xians are outside of the pale of the faith. Orthodox N'tsarim are not. Yes, I think we should teach them. Yes, I think we should rebuke them in love. I do not think that we should sever ourselves from them. We should work with them.

Wheel of Stars gives all the sources.

Tov Me'od.

Because I didn't view calendar-moedim studies as my main purpose. I had bigger things on my mind like trying to save Aramaic from extinction. I also thought this might distract from the main point of my scholarship and for the rest, honestly, I just wasn't ready to talk about it.

Do you still have any reservations about it distracting from your main purpose?

I do list the source. As I mentioned, Khabouris is the main base text for the 22. Mosul text is used for Western 5, but in some cases, more ancient readings that were rejected from later Aramaic traditions are put back. You will see.

Great. Do you have cross-references in the notes?

Dawid your conervatisim and care is laudable, but I have succeeded through not shirking on the facts, showing the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may. I really don't care if anyone, Netzari, Christian, Muslim, has a problem with this. If they do, they can study Aramaic and try to tell me differently and I will listen. But BECAUSE I forced the matter 10 years ago many prominent Messianic Rabbis who used to call Aramaic a joke now embrace it as, if not the original NT, as something of equal authority with the Greek and that clarifies the Greek. I didn't get that far by being timid nor will I depart from my methods now. And even for you, i will consieder making Mari/PEACE available to you in part or more, for you to use along side what ever you have. But really we must unify our base text, and I won't stop on that point until YHWH take my spirit or it is done. But you do what you think best and I will see how I can help. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you. I respect you but there are differences too.

I, too, have tried this approach. I have forced the issues, and have made very little progress. I've found that when I give the issues to others gently, slowly, and logically they are far more inclined to accept it than when I simply shove it in their faces. Believe me, I love to be direct. I do not like doing things this way. I am generally very in-your-face, open, and honest. You know that from experience. When I have a problem with someone I am completely direct about it. It may have something to do with age.
Please understand, when it is finalized, I intend for it to have the "NT" texts in Aramaic. I do not want them to remain in Hebrew. At first I intended to have them in Hebrew, but after considering it, I think it is best to have them in Syriac, so that we can use the Peshitta. I used 1905 because it is what I have access to. As far as unifying our texts I am with you completely.
Akhi, I am tired. I don't think I can do this siddur by myself. And I have not been able to get any material help. Yes, there are five other members of the Siddur project, but everyone is so busy right now. I don't even know what to do next.