Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Because he comes as a servant the first timethough he has always been King of
Kingshis kingship is manifest the second time. The shepherd lays down his
life for his sheep meaning he is a suffering servant. Once done, he can NOT die
again for his sheep. The staff he gets, united Ephraim and Judah, now becomes a
SCEPTER in the hands of the King! Long live the King! (Forever in fact!)
5) How does what seems to be a temporary arrangement/command of Josephs become a
binding principle in the Torah later in three places and with three different
applications?
Joseph arranges for a fifth of the produce to go to Pharaoh. In Leviticus 27:11-13
an unclean animal is redeemed for 20% more than it was valued by the kohenim,
if the one who sells the animal to the kohen wants it back. In Numbers 5:7 a man
or woman who commits sin must also pay back an extra 20% for whatever
damage they caused. So the beneficiary switches over from Pharaoh to either the
priests or Abba YHWH, depending on your point of view. Also Leviticus 24:5
with the regulations on two tenths of an ephah is the same percentage.
Retraction/Clarification from VAYESHEV:
A member wrote me and said that he knew a Hebrew expert that translated Genesis 37:24
as THEY THREW rather than HE THREW, referring to whether all, some or just one
brother (Simeon) threw Joseph into the well.
By the literal Hebrew it does seem that THEY is meant for both STRIPPED and THREW
Hebrew verbs, so I wrote the following back to my friend and member:
Shalom Brother. Yes thank you for pointing this out to me. I checked the
Hebrew and it is clear that THEY is conjugated for both "stripped" and
"took/threw". In spite of this, a number of other sources have defended the HE
TOOK/THREW reading also, like Bible.ort.org:
Written, 'he took.' Some say that it was Simeon who threw Joseph into the pit
(Bereshith Rabbah 84). It was for this reason that Simeon was later singled out
for special punishment by Joseph (Genesis 42:24). According to others, it was
Reuben who gently lowered Joseph into the pit (Josephus, Antiquities 2:3:2).
Nevertheless, tell your friend I agree with him. I will issue a retraction. The
issue, just so you know, seems to be one of translation into English. Some
clearly say "they stripped AND they took him" while others say "they stripped
and took him", which may have led others to think it could have meant "they
stripped and (he) took him'. The rabbinic accusation against Simeon personally
though is very consistent throughout the Talmud, and this in turn may have
affected how some perceived the Hebrew text when trying to line it up with that
tradition.
Israel. Generally speaking a father would not address his sonwho is by nature his
subordinatein this manner. However, this is not a usual situation. His son is second in
command only to Pharaoh! As a result, Jacob knows that his son has power to make
things happen that he does not. It might also show Jacobs humility that he is willing to
acknowledge his son has in some ways surpassed him. Or, it may also be Jacob
encouraging his son to keep going since he is soon to die.
VAYOMER HIS SHAVEAH LI VAYISHAVA LO VAYISHTACHU YISRAEL ALROSH HA-MITAH (47:31) = and he (Joseph) made an oath to him (Jacob) bowed from
the head of the bed. This is an absolutely fascinating line. The LXX says Jacob bowed on
the head of his staff and this is also quoted by Rav Shaul in Hebrews 11:21. It has long
been taught by Greek NT Primacists that this is yet another example of the LXX being
quoted over the Hebrew text in the original Greek NT.
However, once again the LXX was banned in Israel by the leading rabbis there and the
LXX itself is a translation from an ancient Hebrew version that is now, hopefully, shall
we say misplaced. The Hebrew though is its own best explanation for the diversity of
readings. The original Hebrew text of Tanakh of course had no vowels. So the word in
Genesis 47:31 is spelled MEEM-TETH-HEH. As MITTEH the word means couch,
bed but as MATTEH or MATTAH it means staff, as in the staff and cord that Tamar
kept from Judah. This word can also mean tribe but that is not really relevant for this
study. (More on how the rabbis in Israel viewed the Septuagint is our focus for the Torah
Thought for the Week.)
Also just for the record, the Samaritan Pentateuch reads MITTEH but since this word is
not pointed with vowels, once again we dont know if the intended reading should be
staff or bed. However, the Aramaic OT (Mss. 14,425, Codex Ambrosianius) both say
KHOTREH, or his staff, and there is no doubt about the reading from their end. But the
Dead Sea Scrolls, which could conceivably break the tie has unfortunately not
preserved this part of Genesis.
In any case, the point is that the original Hebrew more than explains the LXX and
Hebrews 11:21 reading. It may have simply been that MEEM-TETH-HEH was
understood as staff in Genesis 47:31 by the apostle Paul and the redactor of the LXX.
But to say it MUST be that the NT writers directly quoted the LXX only, that is
irresponsible conjecture. Let them PROVE it. Maybe they should have a STAFF
meeting.
YISRAEL VAYESHEV AL-HA-MITTAH (48:2) = Israel sat up in the bed. Given the
discussion we just had, its interesting that in this case just a few lines later it is crystal
clear which meaning of M-T-H is intended. Here it can only mean bed and this may be
the original intent of Genesis 47:31 as well.
SHECHEM (48:22) = could refer to the city of that name, but the word also means
shoulder and idiomatically can be thought of as a portion of land, a sliver. Some rabbis
think this shechem refers to a small hill in the area however I believe it is still Shechem
the city and that what happened there is what is being referred to now. Technically
speaking Jacob didnt take this land Shechem with his sword and bowhis sons took it
FOR him on account of the raping of Dinah in Genesis 34. It is clear from the records of
that event that had Jacob been given an opportunity to deal with the crime, the city would
never have been taken. However, after so many years, the territory has been his this
whole while and he seems to be taking responsibility for the bad acts of his sons and
become resigned to that outcome.
BEACHARIT HA YAMIM (49:1) = in the course of time or eventually according to
some translations, but literally this means in the End of Days. I believe End of Days
is the correct reading. Jacobs sonsthe nation of Israelwill be preserved in the End
of Days! This is also confirmed by Moshe in his address in Deuteronomy 33 and later by
Yshua when he says, This SHARBATA shall not pass away, the word SHARBATA
can mean generation but also tribe, its intended meaning. Yshua is saying this
TRIBE of JUDAH will not pass away from his time until the end of days.
KI ALITA MISHKEVEY AVICHA AZ CHALITA YETSUIALAH (49:3) = for you
ascended to the bed of your father and then you profaned it, moving up into my bed! See
also 1 Chronicles 5:1: Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the
firstborn, but because he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of
Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the
birthright. While the text is not clear as to exactly what Reuben did and when, the most
likely candidate I think is in Genesis 35:22, when Reuben had sex with Bilhah, his
fathers concubine. Another way the Hebrew could read is he moved my bed, meaning
he laid down with my concubine in my bed and moved with her.
KAVOD (49:6) = glory, the literal reading, is rendered by some as spirit, i.e. let not
My Spirit enter their counsel. I view the spirit reading as unnecessary because evil
men will not enter into Abba YHWHs Glory and Abba YHWHs Spirit is already
mentioned in the line, as NAPHSHI (My soul).
KI VE-APAM HARGU ISH U-VIRTSONAM IKRU SHOR (49:6) = for they have killed
men in anger and maimed a bull with (ill) will. Some authorities think the bullwhich
is singular in Hebrewmay be a symbolic reference to Joseph being stripped and thrown
into the Dothan well and also because of Deuteronomy 33:17:
17
"As the firstborn of his ox, majesty is his, And his horns are the horns of the
wild ox; With them he will push the peoples, All at once, to the ends of the earth.
And those are the ten thousands of Ephraim, And those are the thousands of
Manasseh." (Deut. 33:17 NAU)
So if Ephraim and Manasseh are offspring of the bull, then perhaps Joseph their father
is the bull?
In addition, since Joseph did have that dream in Genesis 37:5-11 about the sun, moon and
eleven stars bowing down to him, could this allusion possibly be an astronomical one?
For those of you who have been following the Walking Dedicated Men series, you
probably recall that I do not make a direct association between the animals speculated
about in the Babylonian Zodiac and what is essentially a different system of fixed stars
used by the Hebrews.
Put simply, I call the Hebrew version Bright Star (see also Revelation 12:1-2), because it
dealt with the brightest star in a given zodiac constellation pointing to a given starmonth in the year. The Hebrews then did not use zodiac signs as we think of the term
today because of their close association with paganism.
Nevertheless, like with the Magi being given astrological signs clearly for the purpose of
Father Yah leading them to where Yshua was born, sometimes there is a kind of
dialogue going on between the Scripture and the terminology used by the nations that
Scripture is calling to. For these reasons I was interested in exploring if there was a link
between the birth order between Judah and Joseph and the interval of months between the
signs of the first month of fall and the second month of spring (Libra and Taurus).
In this case, there wasnt any such link. I ran out of sonsjust 1 shyto complete the
pattern. And that was fine with me because the Targums offered another, and I believe
better, explanation. They linked the maimed bull to Shechems walls that were also
destroyed by Shimeon and Levi, so both are referring to the same event.
YEHUDAH ATAH YODUCHAH ACHEYCHA YADECHA BEOREF OYVECHA
YISHTACHAVU LECHA BENEY AVICHA (49:8) = Judah your brothers will praise
(or submit) to you. Your hand shall be on the necks of your enemies and your fathers
sons will bow down to you. Because of that last part, your fathers sons will bow down
to you this tells us the praise is in the form of servants praising a king or a master. It
is not the kind of praise among equals and it also helps set up the definition for the
scepter not DEPARTING from Judah (this verse says the scepter is already there). But if
Judah does not submit to Abba YHWH, that sets up exile and disaster.
LO YASUR SHEVET MI-YEHUDAH UMICHOCKEK MIGEYN RAGLAV AD KIYAVO SHILOH VELO YIKAT AMIM (49:10) = the scepter will not depart from
Yehudah, nor the government from between his legs until the coming of the Final Peace
(Shiloh). There is a TON going on in these few Hebrew words! MICHOCHEK has the
sense of both law and writing in its meanings, hence the use of government in the
English. MIGEYN RAGLAV or between his legs may be a literal reading or it can be a
euphemistic way of saying from your loins or your descendants, but either way it is
speaking to the leadership role of Judah over the other tribes, and yet the reason for it is
not given here.
Judah is given this role because Messiah Yshua is from Judah, so that line must be royal
since Yshua is King of Kings. This sets up the last part of the line, until Shiloh comes,
which the folks at bible.ort.org have very interestingly rendered as Final Peaceand I
agree with that reading. The folks from the TRIBE of Judah rule UNTIL the Final Peace
who is Yshua the Messiah manifests in the world, and then it transfers to Yshua
HaMashiyach.
OSRI LAGEFEN IROH VELASOREKAH BENI ATONO KIBES BAYAYIN
LEVUSHO UVEDAM ANAVIM SUTOH (49:11) = he loads down his donkey with a
single grapevine, his young donkey with a single vine branch. He even washes his clothes
in wine, his cloak with the blood of grapes. There is some close Messianic imagery here.
First, Yshua said that he was the vine and his followers were the branches. Second, he
rode into Jerusalem riding on a donkey. The stained robes of purple are possibly a
prophetic reference to the Romans putting a purple robe on Yshua to mock him as king
while they spilled his blood. It also doesnt hurt that this is about Judah and the Lion that
he is either!
CHACHLILI EYNAMIM MIYAYIN ULVEN-SHINAYIM MECHALAV (49:12) = but
his eyes are more sparkling than the wine, his teeth whiter than the milk. Some
translations say eyes are duller, but this is not correct. Rather the redness of his eyes is
redder than the wine or of a deeper red. I think this may be a follow up to the imagery in
49:11, showing a reinvigorated Yshua after he bled out on his purple robe. In other
words, after his resurrection.
YEHI DAN NACHASH ALEY DERECH SHIFFON ALEY ORACH (49:17) = Let Dan
be a serpent on the road, a viper on the path. The word NACHASH we looked at last
week with respect to the double meaning of snake and divination. The word
SHIFFON however, meaning viper only appears here in all Tanakh. Bible.ort.org has
some other interesting commentary on this word.
The Septuagint and Vulgate render it as Cerastes. On the basis of Semitic
cognates, it is most probably the black and red horned viper, Pseudocerastes
fieldi, that lives in the Holy Land. The Hebrew name comes from its rustling of
scales. This snake digs into the sand with only his long thin horns protruding (cf.
Yerushalmi, Terumah 8:3), and when birds take these horns for worms and peck
at them, the snake kills them. Hence, this is seen as an indication that Dan will
engage in guerilla warfare. In Talmudic tradition, this is seen as a prediction of
Samson's career.
GAD GEDUD YEGEDENU VEHU YAGUD AKEV (49:19) = Raiders/troops (gad)
shall raid (again gad) but he (Gad) will raid (gad) at their heel. The wordplays are very
obvious here on the root of Gad. Other readings according to Bible.ort.org:
(Ibn Ezra; Radak; Ralbag; Yerushalmi, Sotah 8:10; cf. Sh'muel ben Chofni).
Literally, 'Gad, a troop (gedud) shall raid him (ye-gud-enu), and he shall raid (ya-
gud) heel.' Others have, 'Gad shall provide a raiding troop, and his troop shall
return on his path' (Rashi; Lekach Tov); 'Troops shall follow Gad, and then he
shall bring up the rear' (Targum; Rashbam); 'Gad shall go forward and attack (in
contrast to Dan), and he shall attack [the enemy's] heel' (Sforno); 'Gad shall
constantly be attacked, but he will pursue his foes' (Ramban); 'Raiders will attack
Gad, but he will cut off their heel' (Sh'muel ben Chofni; Bachya; Tur); 'Plunderers
shall cut at Gad, but he will cut at their heel' (Hirsch); 'Gad shall overflow with
troops...' (Lekach Tov); '...and he will have the final victory' (Tanchuma 12;
Abarbanel); 'Gad's masses will come together, and he will remain together in the
end' (Abarbanel); 'Gad will attack head-on, and he will [also] attack from the rear'
(Malbim); or 'Good fortune will pursue Gad, and he will have good fortune in the
end' (cf. Genesis 30:10).
VESHAMA KAVARTI ET-LEAH (49:31) = and this is where I buried Leah. Although
Moshe wrote Genesis, he obviously cant be the I mentioned here. It is of course Jacob
who is speaking in the first person and his words were recorded and passed down to
Moshe.
VAYIPOL YOSEF AL-PENEY VAYEVK ALAV VAYISHAK-LO (50:1) = Joseph fell
on his fathers face and wept and kissed his father. The act of kissing Jacobs corpse
however would later be termed as making Joseph ritually impure for 7 days. If that rule
was in force at this time, the Torah text allows for Joseph to isolate himself for that
period of time if he chose to be obedient to that rule. At this moment in Genesis
however, the rule is not overtly stated.
VAYETSAV YOSEF ET-AVADAV ET-HA-ROFIM LACHANOT ET-AVIV (50:2) =
And ordered Joseph to the servants and the physicians to embalm his father. The Hebrew
word chanot literally means to make spicy which is a direct reference to the Egyptian
mummification process and the spices it used:
The abdominal cavity was then rinsed with palm wine and an infusion of crushed,
fragrant herbs and spices; the cavity was then filled with spices
including myrrh, cassia, and, Herodotus notes, "every other sort of spice
except frankincense," also to preserve the person.
The body was further dehydrated by placing it in natron, a naturally
occurring salt, for seventy days. Herodotus insists that the body did not stay
in the natron longer than seventy days (Genesis 50:3). Any shorter time and the
body is not completely dehydrated; any longer, and the body is too stiff to move
into position for wrapping. The embalmers then wash the body again and wrapped
it with linen bandages. The bandages were covered with a gum that modern
research has shown is both waterproofing agent and an antimicrobial agent.Wikipedia
As we also saw last week, the details of Jacobs funeral point squarely to him having
extremely high, if not royal, status, in Egypt. In studying details of the mummification
process which had processes dictated by the deceaseds class or wealth, I can confirm
once more that Jacobs embalmment most definitely only fit the details befitting a noble
or royal burial. This is because only the most perfect method as Egyptologists call it
involved the use of spices, which is clearly mandated by the Hebrew description of
Jacobs embalming!
SHVIIM YOM (50:3) = seventy days. The first details that the western world gets about
Egyptian burial practices outside of Torah is by the historian Herodotus writing about
400 BCE. We would not be able to confirm Herodotus count of seventy days for
embalming until about 200 years ago, when Jean-Francoise Champollion deciphered
hieroglyphics in 1822. In ancient Egypt itself, burial practices were closely guarded
secrets that were protected to ensure the dead king would bless them from the afterlife.
Only someone very exalted in their counsellike a certain Prince of Egypt perhaps
could have related this information to us 1000 years before it shows up in Herodotus
writings. Joseph couldnt return Jacob to Canaan before that, since it was Egyptian
tradition that expected 70 full days from death to final location for burial. That interval of
time is also probably related to the time it takes for the star Sirius to return after it
disappears from the night sky, about 70 days. The return of that star, as we will see
shortly, is the basis for when to start the Egyptian year.
Finally some authorities have suggested that Jacobs embalming was only partial because
it says only forty days were used for embalming. However, this was a multi-step process
and the first major part of the embalming method did in fact take 40 days. The remaining
part of the process, particularly when the body was left alone, lasted 30 days, and it is not
until after the full 70 days are completed that Jacobs body is released for final burial in
Canaan. Again, this means Jacobs remains were treated as well or nearly as well as if he
were a Pharaoh. If Jacobs and Josephs bodies were somehow found today I think it is
clear they are the only ones who would have been found as an Egyptian mummy and
ironically that distinction also means their bodies are the most likely to survive intact
until the present day.
SHIVAT YAMIM (50:10) = seven days, as in the initial mourning period we discussed
before. This is the origin of sitting Shiva which is practiced in Judaism today.
AL TARAU KI HATACHAT ELOHIM ANI (50:19) = Shall I take the place of Elohim?
This exact phrase was said by Jacob to Rachel when she couldnt bear children. The point
is the same in both cases: What judgments Abba YHWH has rendered man cannot undo.
Joseph here then means that if Abba YHWH chose to save his brothers in spite of their
evil acts, he was not going to use his position to overturn Abba YHWHs mercy. If Abba
YHWH wanted them dead, they would be dead.
10
Note on Genesis 50:23: Its at this point that the text in Genesis skips over a large chunk
of years. The reconcilement of Joseph and his brothers takes place in the 2nd year of the
famine, or when Joseph is 39 years old (elevated at 30 + 7 years of plenty + 2 years of
famine = 39). At this time the Pharaoh Joseph works for is still Khyan, the son of the first
Pharaoh Sakir-Har who elevated Joseph initially. But then 17 additional years pass to get
to now, when Jacob dies, so Joseph must at this point be 56 years old.
The statements then here in 50:23 that Joseph saw his great-grandchildren from both
Ephraim and Manasseh are to be combined with the hard date of his death at 110
(50:26) to reveal the text has now skipped 54 years. This makes sense because Manasseh
was born just at the start of the seven years of famine, and Ephraim is only a few years
younger (Genesis 41:50).
As a result, by the time Jacob dies Manasseh and Ephraim are in their teens and will
likely be married in a few more years, making it very doable for them to have grandkids
by the time Dad turns 110.
VAYISEM BARON BEMITZRAIM (50:26) = and he was embalmed and placed in a
coffin in Egypt. Although the word here is ARON, which can mean ark in the sense of
chest it is the same word as the ARK of the covenant but NOT the same word as in
Noahs ship (TEBAH). ARON is a very good descriptor for an Egyptian style
sarcophagus, and later pharaohs would also be buried with funerary chests that are almost
identical to the Ark of the Covenant in design and dimensions. Such was found in the
tomb of the 18th dynasty pharaoh Tutankhamun, with the only serous difference being the
head of the jackal Anubis replaces the cherubim on the mercy seat. However, it is also
important to note that those funerary chests themselves will never have the same
dimensions as the classic sarcophagus. Still both chests and sarcophaguses would fall
under the same general descriptor of ARON.
Bonus Teaching!
Setting up for Exodus
Two weeks ago, for Mikkets, I put up a very similar list of dates but did not comment on
them. Now the time has come to go deeper into naming the 4 kings and 1 princess that
the Scripture puts in the path of Moshe and therefore the Exodus!
BCE:
1591-Joseph dies, aged 110. This is during the long reign of Apepi, who has been
reigning 30 years at this point.
1581-Khamudi, the last Hyksos 15th dynasty king, ascends to the throne.
1570-Khamudi killed and deposed by Theban Ahmose I. 18th dynasty born. Ahmose
"doesn't know Joseph" because his people were not fed by him in the famine by their
enemy Hyksos rival. The Hebrews are enslaved at this moment or a few years later.
11
12
13
For example, in one famous case Rabbi Akiba was nearly excommunicated for trying to
proclaim three 30-day months in a row based on his lunar observations. By his time,
early 2nd century CE, certain conventions had taken hold but there was still no final
consensus on when to add a leap month. Many Jews in first century Israel, according to
Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Geza Vermes (Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 78)
had simply taken to adding a leap month at the end of every 36 months while Essenes in
the desert used a completely solar process to fix the days of their feasts and advance the
years.
There were also controversies between the Sadducees and Pharisees as they vied for
power and influence from about 135-10 BCE and later debates amongst the victorious
Pharisees who eventually became mainline Orthodox Jews. In short, it was a mess and a
lack of certainty on when to add leap months in the 2nd century proved there was no
Rabbinic Calendar functioning in Israel during the time of Messiah a century earlier.
Add to this mix of confusion extremist teachers that needed to be put down by various
Jewish leaders in the first few centuries of the Common Era. In one case, a leading rabbi
became so much in favor of calculation that he claimed there never was an observational
component to the original calendar and he was rebuked by the leadership for being too
harsh on his opponents who by the way were also the opponents of the leadership too!
Nevertheless, calculation is in essence what the rabbis went with and not, as was the case
previously, as a back up to when observation failed but in many cases trumping
observation altogether. To use one famous example, because the rabbis did not want
certain feasts like Yom Teruah to come on certain days of the week, they deliberately
invented rules where they could postpone 1 Tishri up to two days, regardless as to where
the moon was. They also allowed themselves the right to artificially prolong or shorten
the 8th and 9th months of the year against the cycles of the moon as well. To my mind,
while I understand there are some good intentions behind these rules, I must categorically
state said rules were never original to the calendar itselfneither Yshua nor the
Pharisees would have ever allowed this to happen!
The problem with a purely calculated system that is not tied to actual celestial phenomena
(i.e. equinoxes, solstices, etc.) is that the math will only work for a limited time before it
begins to fail, first occasionally, then more frequently and finally, completely. This is
also what doomed the Julian calendar and will force a massive refit or abandonment of
the Rabbinic Calendar eventually.
Heres what I mean. In ancient times, most civilizations I think had a better handle on
timekeeping than we do now, because those people were meticulous in watching the sun,
moon and stars which are actually Father Yahs true clock given to us.
So, taking Egypt as an example, they tracked the star Sirius for their calendar since that
star would disappear for about 70 days and return regularly at the same time each year in
the pre-dawn sky. That event, called heliacal rising, took place every 365 days and 6
14
hours, identical to the length of the Julian Year. The Egyptians also kept a civil count
of a 365 day year (no remainder), so how did they not lose time?
This question has baffled Egyptologists for centuries, because they knew the civil year
would be a day off in 4, 10 days off in 40 and 25 days off in just a hundred years. How
could we reconcile that level inaccuracy with the amazing precision the Egyptians
showed in building the pyramids?
As it turned out, the problem wasnt the Egyptiansthe problem was the historians who
were too used to thinking in terms they were comfortable with. Nor were they alone
when the Romans took over Egypt they eventually had to mathematically add a leap day
every 4 years because they didnt understand the role observation played in determining
the Egyptian year.
For myself, it took me more than a decade of study before I finally understood what the
Egyptians were doing, and when it made sense it was so simple that I couldnt believe it
took me that long to get it! This was the answer:
Find out when the star Sirius returned near dawn after disappearing and mark down
that calendar date. If one uses the Julian calendar the date will almost always be July
18th, give or take a day, over three thousand plus years. From there, we would simply
convert that Julian date into our current calendar.
Check your civil calendar. If your next New Moon (which would be Lunar New
Years Day) is within 11 days of Sirius return, add a leap month. Using our current
calendar as an example, if the New Moon hits between July 18th and 29th, add a leap
month1. If it hits after July 29th, thats New Years Day.
In other words, the Egyptians did not need a leap day because their observation of Sirius
already accounted for the true length of the yearmath was not needed to fix what
observation had already accomplished.
Now the case of the Hebrews and their Biblical calendar is of course a different situation
in its details, but the end result is the same. If you review the Walking Dedicated Men
series you will see how Adam and Enoch were able to use simply observational
techniques along with counting patterns given to them by Father Yah to combine into a
system whose methods never go out of date. This is so because, like the Egyptians, the
math is used on connection with natural celestial events that were given to us by Father
Yah to always stay on time, and so it does, eternally!
This brings us back to 2016 and the Rabbinic Calendar. Now completely divorced from
cycles of the sun, moon and stars, the math that was developed in the 4th century is
showing its age having had to shoulder the burden of timekeeping all by itself. This is the
1
This is a simplified example for clarity sake. In actual fact, depending on the era, the date of July 18 th
would alter based on the conversion into Gregorian. In Julian terms however, what I have described above
is perfectly accurate. But since Julian loses a day every 128 years, the actual Gregorian date will shift over
time.
15
I actually parse the actual year length to another decimal point, 365.242187, or 365 days, 5 hours, 48
minutes, 44.96 (call it 45) seconds. The Rabbinic estimate for the solar year though is 365.2468, or 365
days, 5 hours, 55 minutes, 23.52 (call it 23 seconds). That 7 minute 39 seconds overage on the rabbinic
side may not seem like much, but over time it really adds up into increasing levels of inaccuracy.
16
the bitter rivalry between Karaites and Rabbinics would make it almost emotionally
impossible for the rabbis to admit they were wrong and their rivals were right.
However, lets say the rabbis reckon the month properly, by sunset after lunar
conjunction, should or could they then adapt the rest of the Karaite system? I still doubt
this would work because they also have a disagreement with the Karaites on when to start
the omer count and using barley to determine the years.
Still another prospect would be to reform the rabbinic math itself. Cant they simply
come up with new formulas that have rules to make the year come out to the actual length
of 365.242187 days? I believe they could conceivably do thisbut finding, adopting and
gaining universal agreement from Jewry all over the world that this is now the proverbial
it could take decades, or even centuries, to accomplish. I say that because it took
centuries to do this for the current rabbinic math that now has to be replaced!
Or, as I hope, they could simply save themselves a ton of work and debate and return to
the rule that my research shows they always had: The New Moon nearest Vernal Equinox
is always Abib. Thats all they needreallyand it will always work. Even as our own
calendars estimates shift after about 3300 years, the interval of time between equinoxes
remains consistent within a handful of seconds, and reckoning by equinox always works
regardless of the calendar that is used to give it a date. Reckoning by equinox gives us the
right sunrise and the right sunset for any date, regardless as to how far back it is in the
past or how many centuries it is in the future.
Unfortunately, none of what I have shown here will be adopted in time to deal with the
chaos of 2016. To put this issue in perspective, during my own lifetime I am only aware
of one Pesach coming a month late like the 2016 one will. It was in 1970, when I was
only 6 years old. Since that year to right now I am not aware of a single year having this
problem. After 2016 however, these discrepancies are going to become a lot more
frequent.
The ironic thing about this situation is one would think the older system is more
primitive than the modern one that replaced it, but the opposite is the case. This is
because the original system is the Torah and the Torah is the literal word of Father Yah,
forever fixed and perfect. It is that Torah that divided the solar year into 12 months and
had it determined by star cycles that manifested into four real seasons with plantings and
harvests, without which ancient Israel would starve to death.
Try to use mans system instead, away from Father Yah, and we are only asking for
trouble. Still, I must again emphasize that I totally respect and appreciate the RCI am
just taking the rabbis at their own word that it was not the original calendar of Scripture is
all, and following what the Scripture says was the original calendar.
In the past, I did my best to harmonize any minor differences between RC and my
system, particularly for the benefit of all you listening to me right now. When I was in
Israel in 2011, actual Yom Kippur was a day earlier than the Rabbinic one, so I fasted for
17
two days for the sake of unity. Other times I deliberately altered my own calendar
reading schedule to align with RC when the occasional 1-2 day divergence shifted the
parsha schedule, I put it on the same footing as RC against my own calendar.
However, when it comes to a divergence of a full month, that cant be papered over and
so other measures are now necessary.
Fortunately for all of you here receiving the Torah studies, this divergence wont really
affect you in practical terms because the rabbis are choosing a month 30 days too late,
rather than 30 days too early. What the rabbis are calling a leap year is actually a normal
year for us.
That means that if you follow the Rabbinic calendar in 2016, you will find your Pesach
Special posted around March 23rd. You can either watch it at that time or wait for the
rabbis to catch up, because Pesach for them will hit April 21st. The same will be true of
the parsha schedule as a whole. What are double portions for one will be singles for the
other, and the content will not match. However, as I said, no one will be waiting a month
for the content that is relevant to them if they are following RC and thats the main point.
So thats whats going in a nutshell and I want all of you to know that I will be here to
help with any questions you might have as we go through the wild ride that is 2016. After
that we can take a bit of a pause and enjoy being in unity with the rabbis againat least
until 2019 when the same problem returns! Its going to be a bumpy century, at least until
this problem is finally dealt with.
4) Haftorah portion: (English- 1 Kings 2:1-12) and discuss common themes with the
Torah portion. Read entire portion first.
5) Our linguistic commentary
VEHAYITA LEISH (2:2) = be strong and show yourself to be a man. This is perhaps
Davids last tiny bit of rebellion against Abba YHWH, although it is probably
unconsciously done. Just as Moshe should not have allowed Israel to send spies into a
land Abba YHWH called good, so too should David not question Abba YHWHs choice
for Solomon to succeed him. Solomon was clearly not the kind of son David initially
wanted on the throne. Solomon was of a far gentler temperament and far from the
macho man type of sons David favored before him, such as Absalom and Ammon
before they went astray. David is also smarting from the fact that his warrior ways have
made his hands too bloody to actually build the Temple, an honor that falls now to
Solomon as well. By saying then be strong and show yourself to be a man, this may
indicate David still has some doubts about Solomon. He may believe that Abba YHWH
knows Solomon WILL rise to the occasion but is less convinced that Solomon is there at
the moment David is getting ready to die.
VESHAMARTA ET-MISHMERET YHWH ELOHEYCHA (2:3) = you must keep the
charge of Yahweh your Elohim. The words SHMARTA and MISHMERET are derived
18
from SHAMAR/SHOMER, to watch over, keep accounting of. The double exploitation
of the root indicates this is a point of extreme importance that the ways of Abba YHWH
be maintained. However, it is next part of the sentence that tells us how, as we see below.
LALECHET BIDIRACHAV LSIHMORE CHUKATAV MITZVOTAV UMISHPATAV
VEEDOTAV KAKATUV BETORAT MOSHE (2:3) = walking in His ways and
keeping His statutes, commandments, judgments and testimonies as it is written in the
Torah of Moshe. This has two critical applications for believers today. First, notice that
the WRITTEN TORAH is all Solomon needs for the full traditions of Abba YHWH to
assist him as king? There are no commands, judgments or anything else outside as it is
written. Second, this language is identical to the description of righteous believers given
in Revelation 12:17, those who keep the COMMANDMENTS of YHWH
(MITZVOTAV) and hold to the TESTIMONY (EDOTAV) of Yshua! Aramaic reads
very similar to the Torah line in fact: HALEYN DNATRIYN POQDANA (the cognate
for MITZVOT) DELOAH (YHWH, ELOHIM, technically Alaha in the text) WAYT
LHON SAHADUTHA (exact same root as Hebrew EDOTAV, testimonies)
DYSHUA.
IM YISHMERU VANEYCHA ET-DARKAM (2:4) = if your children guard their steps.
In one sense, the promises of the throne of David itself being eternal are
UNCONDTIONAL because our eternal King of Kings Yshua HaMashiyach comes from
that lineage. However, how long REGULAR descendants of David sit on the throne is
entirely dependent on how those after David follow the Torah. As we know, most did not
heed Abba YHWHs advice, causing civil war, mass exiles and captivities that we are
still recovering from to this day.
KI ISH CHAKAM ATA VEYADATA ET ASHER (2:9) = for you are a wise man and
you will know what to do with him. This is also very important for David as he dies, that
in addition to him having doubts about what he fears may be one of Solomons
shortcomings (not manly enough) that he does at least see Solomons strong point,
namely his wisdom. Since Abba YHWH gave Solomon that wisdom, David must look at
that as a blessing on his future house.
6) Renewed Covenant portion: (English). 1 Peter 2:11-17 (all the way through with
applicable footnotes.)
7) Highlight common themes in Aramaic (terms in footnotes which I will read):
8) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (1 Peter 2 gives
us a longer discussion on Yshuas command to render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesars and render to Elohim the things that are His, showing us the
need to obey earthly rulers AND Abba YHWH. If there is a conflict between
these two, our obedience is to Abba YHWH first, so long as we realize that part of
that obedience USUALLY involves respecting mans laws. The exception would
be something like the Maccabean Revolt.)
19
20
Thats rightthe first translation of the Torah into any language was cause for the rabbis
to fast, beat their breasts and mourn! And, for good measure, the tradition also linked that
time as the start of events that eventually led to Solomons Temple being destroyed. Why
would the rabbis take such a dim view about such a milestone event? To find out, we
need to go back to their times to see the real conditions on the ground.
We have then three main historical witnesses to this foundational event: the Jewish
historians Josephus Bar Matthias (Book 12 of Antiquities of the Jews) and Philo of
Alexandria (Life of Moses, Chapter 2), both writing during the 1st century CE; and the
Letter of Aristeas, dated to about 145 BCE. The 4th century church historian Eusebius
also gives an account of this milestone, but it comes much later and is mostly derived
from the other sources already mentioned.
Our story then begins in 322 BCE. Alexander the Great, conqueror of most of the known
world, is dying at the ripe old age of 32 years outside the borders of India. But before
Alexander dies he must deal with the fact that he has no clear heir to take over his empire
after he is gone.
In true warrior fashion, Alexander decided to reward his four greatest generals by giving
each a portion of his empire. One of these, Ptolemy, will become the first pharaoh of the
final dynasty of ancient Egypt, a dynasty that will end with the suicide of the famous
Cleopatra herself.
During the glory days of this dynasty however, a wondrous library at Alexandria would
arise, along with a Greek pharaoh named Ptolemy Philadelphus who, in 280 BCE3, was
determined to make it the academic showplace of the ancient world. The Jewish
historian Josephus takes up the account from here:
When Alexander had reigned twelve years, and after him Ptolemy Soter forty
years, Philadelphus then took the kingdom of Egypt, and held it forty years within
one. He procured the law to be interpreted, and set free those who were come
from Jerusalem into Egypt, and were in slavery there, who were a hundred and
twenty thousand. The occasion was this:--Demetrius Phalerius, who was library
keeper to the king, was now endeavoring, if it were possible, to gather
together all the books that were in the habitable earth, and buying whatever
was anywhere valuable, or agreeable to the king's inclination, (who was very
earnestly set upon collecting of books,) to which inclination of his Demetrius was
zealously subservient.
And when once Ptolemy asked him how many ten thousands of books he had
collected, he replied, that he had already about twenty times ten thousand; but
that, in a little time, he should have fifty times ten thousand.
3
Although both Josephus and Philo give the impression that the Greek translation of the first five books of
Moses was completed in a short time, most scholars, me included, believe it took a good deal longer for
this first phase of translation to be completed. I personally put the completion of this part of the OT at
about twenty years later, in about 260 BCE.
21
But be said he had been informed that there were many books of laws among the
Jews worthy of inquiring after, and worthy of the king's library, but which, being
written in characters and in a dialect of their own, will cause no small pains in
getting them translated into the Greek tongue; that the character in which they are
written seems to be like to that which is the proper character of the Syrians, and
that its sound, when pronounced, is like theirs also; and that this sound appears to
be peculiar to themselves.
Therefore he said that nothing hindered why they might not get those books to be
translated also; for while nothing is wanting that is necessary for that purpose, we
may have their books also in this library.
So the king thought that Demetrius was very zealous to procure him
abundance of books, and that he suggested what was exceedingly proper for
him to do; and therefore he wrote to the Jewish high priest, that he should
act accordingly. (Josephus, Antiquities, 12:11-16)
And so another mighty man, Eliezer Bar Shimon, enters our story. Eliezer is probably
one of the very best high priests Israel ever had, and this is all the more remarkable
considering the extent of Hellenistic incursion into the Hebrew culture of the time.
Eliezer, like Josephus himself, was one of the very few Jews who were able to
successfully navigate between the usually mutually exclusive worlds of Judaism and
Greco-Roman culture in a way that usually satisfied all concerned.
But Eliezer also faced a serious dilemma with this royal request for a Greek Torah
translation. Eliezer, who was extremely zealous for the Hebrew Torah, celebrated the fact
that since the time of Moses it had always been kept intact in its Hebrew original vessel.
This was not a mere academic or sentimental point for the Jews in Israel but a
supernatural connection they felt from the text to Moses and from Moses to the Almighty
Himself.
The idea of breaking that original vessel bywhat many viewed as defiling the text
was a tremendously revolutionary concept, even when it was understood that the Hebrew
original was not going anywhere. The Judaism of the time in Israel stressed ritual purity,
believing that even the crossing of a Gentiles shadow might defile a pious man like
Eliezer. Translating the very Words of Yah that were inscribed into the Rock of Horeb
was like a rabbi eating pork for the first time: Every fiber of his being would resist it.
We need to go into the heart of Jewish history to understand why a first translation would
hit at such a deep level in the national psyche of Israel. Put simply the Jews had been,
from the very beginning, a harried and persecuted lot.
By this time in their history, the Jews had faced near extinction at the hands of several
ancient powers that seldom lost in battle: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Persia. Dominated
22
by these Gentile powers, the Jews had almost nothing to recommend themselves on the
world stage. They could not claim to be the richest of people, nor the most successful in
battle nor even celebrated artists, writers or sculptors, much of that last one due to the
first two commandments. There were no classic Jewish plays given voice across the
Mediterranean and the pagans around them were not celebrating Jewish literature either.
But what the Jews had that no one else did wasthe Bible, the sole record of the one true
Mighty One acting in history on behalf of His chosen people. This had no parallel
whatsoever in the non-Jewish world and the Jews took pride that, even if a Gentile
wanted to learn it, they had to learn their culture and their language first. Josephus in fact
writes about this cultural bias extensively and how it was also very much a part of his
own day centuries later:
It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has
not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers,
because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and
how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident
by what we do; for, during so many ages as have already passed, no one has
been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them,
or to make any change in them; but it is becomes natural to all Jews,
immediately and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain
divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die
for them. (Against Apion, 1:41-42)
How then could a high priest like Eliezer guarantee to the faithful all around him that
such a translation did not, in effect, actually change the Set-apart text, especially in a
culture that frowned on such endeavors? To that end, Josephus had more to say:
For our nation does not encourage those who learn the languages of many
nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods:
because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to
all sorts of freemen, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But
they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our
laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been
many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning,
there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded
therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains. (Antiquities,
20:264-265)
In short, even to consider doing such an endeavor was to enter a dreaded slippery slope
that Jews in Israel scrupulously tried to avoid at all costs, even when many of their fellow
Jews went abroad to learned other languages in their new countries.
This impractical form of nationalistic posturing was because, at least in theory,
Hellenistic Jews still had to come home to Jerusalem and her Temple for true worship at
23
the Feasts, which also meant that in theory these Jews also had to keep their Hebrew
fluency.
However, the reality on the ground was something far different. The fact is, many Jews of
the Diaspora had in effect lost or greatly diminished their ability to understand and write
in Hebrew, and they were finding it increasingly difficult to read the Torah every Sabbath
while being abroad, to the point where it became the sounds of liturgy disconnected from
daily discourse.
Even so, the tides of Jewish tradition weighed heavily on Eliezer, if not for him since the
letter of Aristeas records his enthusiastic acceptance of the mission, then for trying to
sell the idea to the ultra-conservatives that surrounded him.
Furthermore, these cultural tensions come out towards the end of the Letter to Aristeas
which, while praising the entire endeavor of Torah translation, nevertheless felt the need
to include a stern warning amidst the festivities:
And when the whole company expressed their approval, they bade them
pronounce a curse in accordance with their custom upon any one who should
make any alteration either by adding anything or changing in any way
whatever any of the words which had been written or making any omission.
This was a very wise precaution to ensure that the book might be preserved for all
the future time unchanged. When the matter was reported to the king, he rejoiced
greatly, for he felt that the design which he had formed had been safely carried
out.
The whole book was read over to him and he was greatly astonished at the spirit
of the lawgiver. And he said to Demetrius, 'How is it that none of the historians or
the poets have ever thought it worth their while to allude to such a wonderful
achievement?'
And he replied, 'Because the law is sacred and of divine origin. And some of
those who formed the intention [of dealing with it] have been smitten by God
and therefore desisted from their purpose.' (Letter of Aristeas, 1:311-313, Old
Testament Pseudipegrapha by R.H. Charles)
If Aristeas expressed such concerns receiving the Torah text into translation of Greek,
how much more anxiety must have been felt by Eliezer the High Priest who upheld the
Hebrew original?
In the end, what seems to have happened is that Eliezer convinced himself that that, 1) It
was good for the Jews to maintain friendly relations with kings and therefore to honor
Ptolemy IIs request for the translation; 2) that the translations stated use was not for
Jews at all, but in theory limited to pagan Greeks who wanted to learn more about the
Torah in their own language and , 3) that such an endeavor could only foster
24
understanding with Gentile nations in general and perhaps lessen the chance of antiSemitic persecution.
What Eliezer however did not anticipate was how popular the Greek translation
eventually became with Greek Jews, to the extent that they favored it over studying
Hebrew. That aspect of this story, and the huge historical ramifications behind it, will be
the subject of later discussion.
Meanwhile, about fifty years before Josephus time, another Jewish historian named
Philo, who himself had lived all his life in Alexandria, attached way more spiritual
significance to this event than his Israel-based counterpart did:
31
And having explained his wishes, and having requested him to pick him out a
number of men, of perfect fitness for the task, who should translate the law, the
high-priest, as was natural, being greatly pleased, and thinking that the king had
only felt the inclination to undertake a work of such a character from having been
influenced by the providence of God, considered, and with great care selected
the most respectable of the Hebrews whom he had about him, who in
addition to their knowledge of their national scriptures, had also been well
instructed in Grecian literature, and cheerfully sent them.
37
Therefore, being settled in a secret place, and nothing ever being present with
them except the elements of nature, the earth, the water, the air, and the heaven,
concerning the creation of which they were going in the first place to explain the
sacred account; for the account of the creation of the world is the beginning of the
law; they, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and
another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if
some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them
41
On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn
assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not
only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across,
reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth,
and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young
and fresh. (Philo, On Moses, 2:31-32; 37; 41)
From Philos view, the completion of the Septuagint for the first five books of the Bible,
or Torah as we call it, was an event literally of Biblical proportions on par with the Holy
Spirit coming at Pentecost for another miracle with languages. Thats quite the opposite
of what the rabbis in Israel thought!
25
Whats more, it is likely that the 10th of Tevet, at least in terms of mourning the start of
the Babylonian siege, is what is being referred to in Zechariah 8:19 as the fast of the 10th
month. It makes complete sense to me to have one fast at the start (10 Tevet) and
another fast at the end (9 Ab) of this entire unfortunate chain of events leading to the
destruction of the First Temple. Nevertheless we usually dont hear about this fast in
Hebrew Roots circles nor does it seem to be universally done in Judaism either.
However the individual believer chooses to deal with the 10th of Tevet, to keep it or not, I
think a wider question about it should be asked: Is it right to fast in mourning of the
completion of the Septuagint, or Greek version of the Torah?
Well for one thing, the actual date is wrong by two days. The Septuagint was completed
on the 8th day of Tevet, (December 28th) in 246 BCE, not the 10th. I suppose the reasoning
then was since a fast was already in place on the 10th it made sense to the rabbis to simply
attach one occasion to the other without inventing another day. However, other traditions
tried to bridge the gap by suggesting Ezra the Scribe died on the 9th, thus bridging the gap
between the two main events.
Even so, while I understand very well the desire to not have the Torah translated I also
dont see any other way for history to eventually unfold to take the Word of Yah to the
Gentiles.
But in the debate of whether it should or should not be translated, I wanted to offer two
modern analogies to explain this situation better. The first analogy had to with a guy
named Ted Turner who, in the early 1990s, began colorizing many black and white
movies that aired on his television network. People protested that the originals were
somehow diminished, in much the same way that the rabbis thought the Hebrew Torah
was when it was put into Greek.
The second modern analogy involves a guy very much in the news right now because of a
fairly popular movie playing currently: George Lucas. In 1997, Lucas released, first in
the theatres and then on home video, updated digital cuts of the first three Star Wars
films. In that case the critics were horrified to see all these altered shots, debated the fact
that in the original Han Solo shot the bounty hunter first and not in self-defense as the
new cut showed (they are right about that, but thats not my point). It was the beginning
of a fan backlash against Lucas that only got worse as the prequels he directed got
released between 1999 and 2005. Now perhaps, with another director and successful
reboot, some of that criticism can cease.
But heres the point I am trying to make. With Ted Turner colorizing old films that
controversy eventually died out because almost everyone realized after a while the
original black and white versions were not going anywhere so their choice to view the
original was not infringed upon and still isnt to this very day.
26
Not so fortunate in the other case however, as Lucas denied fans all access to the original
cuts of the films they loved as children and so from their view something was taken away
from them, which is why they are still mad, at least a lot of them.
In much the same way I think the rabbis kind of over-reacted on the Septuagint. They
acted as if George Lucas had removed their original Torah and replaced it with the CG
(not computer generated, but Common Greek) version. In reality, the Hebrew never went
away, so their choice was not infringed upon, but others who wanted the Torah in Greek
were given that choice.
Therefore, to my mind at least, the translation of the Torah into Greek is not a day to fast
and mourn. Instead it is a day to celebrate the Scriptures becoming more accessible to the
nations that desperately need it. Still, to the rabbis point, I still would like to see those
very same nations that benefitted from the Septuagint then learn Hebrew now and get
back to the originals.
Im Andrew Gabriel Roth and thats your Torah Thought for the Week!
Next week we will be exploring Shemot, the first parsha for Exodus, 1:1 through 6:1.
Our Haftorah portion will be Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 27:6-28:13 and our Renewed Covenant
reading will be from Yochanan 17:1-26. Stay tuned!
27