OT - Tanakh Archives - 10/40 Window Mission Network

Aaronic Benediction/ The Priestly Blessing

10-40 Admin — Tue, 31 Jan 2023 21:16:24 +0000

Nehemia Gordon speaks on the topic of the Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6:23-27 and about the of Mixed Seed in reference to the God’s people mixing worship of Him with false religions throughout history. Recorded May 16, 2011 at El Shaddai in Tacoma.

The post Aaronic Benediction/ The Priestly Blessing appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

The Nomadic Hebrews – Part 3 of 3

10-40 Admin — Sun, 29 Jan 2023 19:39:50 +0000

Jeff Benner

The culture and lifestyle of the Hebrew nomads have a direct relationship to their language, the same language used in the Bible. Understanding this nomadic lifestyle assists the reader of the Bible to better interpret the text.

The post The Nomadic Hebrews – Part 3 of 3 appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

The Aaronic Blessing from a Hebrew Perspective

10-40 Admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2023 13:04:43 +0000

By Jeff A. Benner

Once we have a basic understanding of the Hebrew alphabet, vocabulary, language and philosophy, we can now begin to interpret the Bible from an Ancient Hebrew perspective rather than from a Western one.

Most people are familiar with the English translation of the Aaronic blessing.

The LORD bless you and keep you: The LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: The LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. (Numbers 6:24-26 RSV)

Notice that many of the words in this translation are abstract words, including; bless, keep, gracious, countenance and peace. Each of the Hebrew words behind the English in this passage, is filled with images that are lost when translated into the English language. When we examine each of these words from their original cultural and linguistic perspectives, the message in this passage comes alive.

Bless

Camels kneeling down

The Hebrew verb ברך (Barakh, Strong’s #1288) means to kneel as seen in Genesis 24:11. However, when written in the piel form, such as it is in Aaronic blessing, it means to show respect (usually translated as bless). However, as “respect” is an abstract word, we need to uncover its original concrete meaning, which we can do by examining other words related to this verb. One such related word is the noun ברך (berekh, Strong’s #1288) meaning “knee.” Another related Hebrew word is ברכה (berakhah, Strong’s #1293) meaning a gift or present. From this we can see the concrete meaning behind the piel form of the verb barak. It is to bring a gift to another while kneeling out of respect. The extended meaning of this word is to do or give something of value to another. Elohiym “respects” us by providing for our needs and we in turn “respect” Elohiym by giving him of ourselves as his servants.

Keep

Thorns

The Hebrews were a nomadic people raising livestock. It would not be uncommon for a shepherd to be out with his flock, away from the camp, over the night. In order to protect the flock, the shepherd would construct a corral of thorn bushes. The shepherd would then guard over the flock and the corral would be a hedge of protection around them. The Hebrew word for a thorn is שמיר (shamiyr, Strong’s #8068) and derived from the verb שמר (shamar, Strong’s #8104), which literally means to guard and protect and is the word used in the Aaronic blessing.

Face

Norman Rockwell’s painting of a girl’s expression

In the painting above you can “read” the faces of each of the people within the painting. The face reflects the many different moods, emotions, and thoughts of the person. The Hebrew word פנים (paniym, Strong’s #6440), means “face,” but is always written in the plural form (the ים suffix identifies this word as plural), reflecting this idea of multiple faces of each person. This word can also mean “presence” or the “wholeness of being” of an individual.

Shine

Light brings order to chaos

The word אור (or, Strong’s #215), as a noun means “light” and as a verb, as it is used here, means to “give light” or “shine” and is equated with bringing about order as light illuminates or reveals what has been dark.

Gracious

A nomadic camp

Most theologians will define “grace” as “unmerited favor,” but notice the abstractness of these words. The Hebrew verb translated as gracious in the Aaronic blessing is the verb חנן (hhanan, Strong’s #2603) and is often paralleled with other Hebrew words meaning healing, help, being lifted up, finding refuge, strength and rescue. From a concrete Hebraic perspective this verb means to “provide protection.” Where does one run to for protection? The camp, which in Hebrew is חנה (hanah, Strong’s #2583), a word related to חנן (hhanan).

Grant

A meal that is set and arranged

The Hebrew verb שים (siym, Strong’s #7760), literally means to “set down in a fixed and arranged place.”

Peace

A windmill that is “not complete.”

When we hear the word peace, we usually associate this to mean an absence of war or strife. However, the Hebrew word שלום (shalom, Strong’s #7965) has a very different meaning. The root of this word is שלם (shalam, Strong’s #7999) and is usually used in the context of making restitution. When a person has caused another to become deficient in some way, such as a loss of livestock, it is the responsibility of the person who created the deficiency to restore what has been taken, lost or stolen. The verb shalam literally means to make whole or complete. The noun shalom has the more literal meaning of being in a state of wholeness, or being without deficiency.

A Hebraic interpretation of the Aaronic Blessing

With the Hebraic understanding of each of these Hebrew words, we can better understand the true meaning of the Aaronic blessing as it was understood by the Ancient Hebrews.

YHWH will kneel before you^[1] presenting gifts and will guard you with a hedge of protection.

YHWH will illuminate the wholeness of his being toward you bringing order and he will give you comfort and sustenance.

YHWH will lift up his wholeness of being and look upon you and he will set in place all you need to be whole and complete.

1. Many people have contacted me concerned about the phrase “kneel before you” as they cannot perceive of God kneeling before us. We too often see God as the judge and ruler who sits high above us. But I see more of a familial type relationship with God, rather than a government type relationship. God is the father of us all, agreed? Well, if my young son came to me with a request, would I tower over him looking down upon him? Or would I get down on his level by “kneeling” down and getting eye to eye with him and say, “What is it my son, what can I do for you?” Let me add that this is not a literal kneeling down, but a figurative one; the common Hebrew way of expressing an abstract thought through concrete means.

Taken from: https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/aaronic-blessing-from-a-hebrew-perspective.htm

The post The Aaronic Blessing from a Hebrew Perspective appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

Reposting: Hebrew Voices #15 – The Bible of the Dead Sea Scrolls

10-40 Admin — Tue, 10 Jan 2023 22:41:32 +0000

NOTE: This is a very scholarly discussion but one that is defintely worth listening to… It may take a few “Listens” to get it all.

In this episode of Hebrew Voices, The Bible of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nehemia Gordon talks to Professor Emanuel Tov, the world’s foremost scholar on the Dead Sea Scrolls and author of the definitive “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.” Gordon and Tov’s discussion yields an enlightening mix of 101 material as well as fascinating (and accessible) post-doctoral details. Vyomi wrote: “Thank you Nehemia! That was fascinating information.”

If you think you know the history of Bible texts, you might want to hang tightly onto your hat. Tov explains the “five families of text” that are progenitors of the Tanakh—their histories, spelling systems, adherents, the liberties taken by their respective scribes, and the events that led to the Masoretic Text becoming the only Bible of Judaism. An accident of history or Divine Providence? Tune in and decide for yourself.

http://www.emanueltov.info/ This is the website referred to in the discussion. And this https://www.accordancebible.com/ is the software program

Hebrew Voices #15 – The Bible of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Hebrew Voices #15 – The Bible of the Dead Sea Scrolls

You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

Nehemia: Shalom, this is Nehemia Gordon with Hebrew Voices, and I am here at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with Professor Emanuel Tov, who in my humble opinion is the foremost scholar in the world in the field of the Dead Sea Scrolls and what’s called “textual criticism”. In fact, he wrote the book called Textural Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, which is a textbook of universities around the world, when people study textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, of what Christians call The Old Testament.

I was looking at his CV, his list of accomplishments, and it’s unbelievable! He’s worked in the past on something like 26 projects, each one of those any scholar around the world would be extremely proud to lay claim to. I’m just going to mention a few of them. He was the editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project beginning in 1990. My small connection to the Dead Sea Scrolls was as Emanuel Tov’s assistant many years ago. I was his humble student and assistant, and I’m very proud of that.

He’s the co-director of the Computer Assisted Tools for the Septuagint Studies, the co-director for many years of the Hebrew University Bible Project. That is just a small number of the things that he’s done. He’s presently the co-director of a series called the Textural History of the Bible, it’s like a 2,000-page encyclopedia. He’s a senior scholar in the Green Scholars Initiative. Emanuel, shalom. I’m very honored to be here with you and talk today about the text of the Bible.

Emanuel: It’s a pleasure, Nehemia, to be with you again.

Nehemia: After many years.

Emanuel: After some time. You make me very humble when I listen to you mentioning these achievements. It’s a pleasure being with you.

Nehemia: Tell us about some of the things that you’re doing today.

Emanuel: Well, today I’m retired, and I’m in a very special position, because even though I’m retired I still do teach, and basically I continue working and I’m still involved in several projects. I edit the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, some of them personally, but mostly I oversee the work of others. I have a small team of people who for the Green Scholars Initiative published 13 small fragments, really small – 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 lines.

Nehemia: But even those are important in studying the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Emanuel: They are important, as all fragments are important. They’ve come to the market say, in 1990, in 2000, and these particular fragments will be published in the year 2016.

Nehemia: Wait a minute. You’re talking about publishing fragments. Are you telling us that today, in 2015, there are unpublished fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, after all these years?

Emanuel: Yes, after all these years.

Nehemia: Wow! And you’re overseeing the publication of some of those fragments?

Emanuel: That’s correct.

Nehemia: Wow!

Emanuel: I’m not the only one, because there are two or three other groups in the world, one in Norway and two other ones in the United States of America, where simply organizations or rich people have bought these fragments – they were on the market. In fact, if you or anyone has a few pennies to spare, a few thousands…

Nehemia: Is it really thousands or millions? Okay. [laughing]

Emanuel: Yes, a few millions to spare, then I can arrange it for you to buy…

Nehemia: You heard it here. He could arrange for you to buy actual Dead Sea Scrolls. How did they get onto the market? In other words, the original Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in a cave at Qumran. Then the archaeologists went and they excavated and found more scrolls, the 11 caves at Qumran, and then at approximately eight other sites around the Judean desert in addition to Qumran. So how is it that these appeared on the antiquities market?

Emanuel: I can’t say they are secrets, but basically, I don’t know. Some of these were probably illegally held back.

Nehemia: But we don’t know that for a fact.

Emanuel: No, we don’t know these things. But they were dug up and then they somehow did not get to the people who were supposed to get them in 1948 or ’50. We don’t know these things.

Nehemia: What you’re saying is that there are benefactors, if we can call them that, who have bought these scrolls and said, “You know what? I don’t just want this to sit in my living room in a display case. I want it to be published.”

Emanuel: Oh, yes. These are good people who do this for the sake of scholarship.

Nehemia: That is great. Right now, you’re working on 13 fragments. I know some of my listeners out there, they’re into conspiracy theories and things like that. Are these unpublished scrolls, because there’s something in them like the Vatican is covering them up, or something like that? You’ve probably heard these stories. I’m going to officially ask you, is there some kind of grand conspiracy that’s preventing these final scrolls from being published?

Emanuel: Ever since I started with my work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, I’ve heard these stories. They’re all nonsense. I say nonsense about conspiracies. This basically started, I would say, about 1950 already, maybe 1960.

Nehemia: Really, that early the conspiracies?

Emanuel: That early. My view of this is that I think that certain people were disappointed in the 1950s that Jesus’ name was not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were such high expectations that such an enormous amount of scrolls would not have the mentioning of Jesus in those scrolls coming from the same area, so that theories developed that the Vatican did not want certain theories to be aired, because there could be bad press for Jesus. They said, “Well, the Vatican confiscated or burned certain scrolls.”

Now, this has been in the press for a long time, and all bona fide scholars say this is pure nonsense, including all Catholic scholars who are close to the Vatican. So until today, there’s no one who takes these claims as serious, and they started with John Allegro, who was…

Nehemia: Who was he, for those who don’t know?

Emanuel: The enfant terrible of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Nehemia: That was in French. Some of my listeners might not know what that is. What was he?

Emanuel: He was the enfant terrible, the naughty boy.

Nehemia: You know what? Let’s move on, past that. [laughing] But that wasn’t because of some kind of agenda to cover something up, it might have been because he had some personal issues, or something like that.

Emanuel: He did have some personal issues.

Nehemia: Let’s not deal with that. But it wasn’t some Vatican conspiracy. I could give my own testimony here, that when I was working for you as an assistant, you had me and another assistant dig through these books looking for fragments that maybe somebody forgot to publish. Not only was there no conspiracy, there was an attempt to find some little scrap of paper that maybe had a half a letter on it. Did somebody forget to publish that?

It’s possible that there are unpublished scrolls that were just overlooked, but it wasn’t a conspiracy, right?

Emanuel: No, no. You, Nehemia, you helped us out, and you have seen with your own eyes how meticulous we were.

Nehemia: Meticulous is an understatement. [laughing]

Emanuel: How meticulous we were to really do justice to the smallest piece of inscribed material. Actually, there are also people who work on uninscribed material, because even uninscribed material could have information on something.

Nehemia: Wow. I know you’re working on a lot of projects. He has a list of 51 pages on his website, emanueltov.info, and we pulled it up and he said, “Well, it’s not complete. Today, it’s actually 53 pages.” These are his publications and projects. I’m humbled by this! [laughing] These are academic publications, each one of which is peer-reviewed and goes through this process. It’s amazing. What are some of the other things that you’re working on?

Emanuel: I’m very proud of a book that I’ve written 11 years ago. It’s called The Scribal Habits of the Fragments, the scrolls that were Found in the Dead Sea Area. It’s a single book that can still be bought, that describes to the smallest details how the scribes wrote, how they made errors, how they made paragraphs, how they corrected the errors, et cetera. So it’s a whole description of all those things that we today learn in schools. It’s a handbook. It has become a handbook for all those who now work…

Nehemia: Meaning a handbook, it’s a textbook. Like this is the definitive work if I have a question or an issue. You mentioned paragraphing, and some people might be dozing off. But guys, pay attention. There are biblical passages where the interpretation hinges on, is there a space in the manuscript which indicates a new paragraph? You went and you actually studied how this was represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls and things like that?

Emanuel: I studied this for all the years that I have been editor-in-chief, and I worked with every single editor. I worked with 60 or so editors. I sat with everyone and worked with his or her text. I made notes on the side when I learned something about a certain text. I’d say, “Gee, that’s interesting for me.” Late at night I integrated that information into the book that eventually I published.

Nehemia: We’re going to post a link on my website, nehemiaswall.com, to the book. The other book, if you want a serious book about understanding the texts of the Bible, it’s called Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Like I said, they teach it in universities around the world. I’ve been working through this book the last few weeks, and I’ve got to tell you, I was brought back all these memories. I felt like I was a student. I’m taking pages and pages of notes, and I’m going late into the night. I don’t want to put it down, it’s such an amazing book. There’s more information in some of these footnotes than many people who spend their lives on the Bible know, meaning, there are people who will spend their whole life on the Bible and you have more information in some of your footnotes than those people know. It’s amazing stuff here. I really want to recommend it.

The other book, The Scribal Habits, I’m going to have a link for both of those books on nehemiaswall.com on my website. Are there any projects that you’re working on?

Emanuel: I’ll say a few things about this book, the Textual Criticism of the Bible. This is a book that I started in 1989 in Hebrew, and from the Hebrew it found its way into English. I translated it myself. From there, into German. I did not translate that myself. Into Russian. It is now being translated into Portuguese and into Korean. Just two weeks ago it was published in an electronic edition with Acordance Company. The electronic edition is really something…

Nehemia: Tell us about that.

Emanuel: Because you can do so many things that I have never been able to do with it, all kinds of very interesting searches. We had a scholarly meeting two weeks ago. I said, “One of my principles in life is, if you don’t know something, write about it.”

Nehemia: [laughing] What does that mean?

Emanuel: That means, people had a good laugh like you just did. And I really meant it. When I knew about the areas of the textual criticism of the Bible, I knew about several areas, obviously, because I started writing about it. But like the area of the Syriac Bible, I didn’t know much.

Nehemia: That’s the Aramaic Bible written by Christians in the Syriac script, for those who don’t know.

Emanuel: Or about the Masorah, which is the…

Nehemia: The Masoretic…

Emanuel: The mediaeval commentary around the Hebrew texts.

Nehemia: Oh, the Masoretic notes, you’re talking about?

Emanuel: Yes.

Nehemia: The scribal notes.

Emanuel: I didn’t know much, so at first, I thought, “I’ll ask someone to do that for me.” Then I thought, “No. Really it doesn’t work. It has to be part of my system.” So I learned and then I wrote about it. That’s what I meant when I say, “If you don’t know something, write about it.”

Nehemia: When you say you learned, you don’t mean you picked up somebody else’s book. I think usually what you do is you do original research. You’re talking about how there were 60-plus editors, and each one was an expert on a specific text. But you got this overall picture because you were the editor-in-chief and you got to deal with all the texts.

Emanuel: Yes. My way of learning is I start from the beginning. If you could see my hands you could see how I built from the beginning with the building stones, very beginning, and then make it from the basis to a large overall picture. That’s how I made my book. Really, I’m very proud of it. It’s a description of what the Hebrew text is. It is technical, and I realize one day I should write a less technical book, but it is understandable also for those who do not understand every technical detail.

It tells you what the text of the Bible is, how it has been transmitted through the different generations, what the scribes were, and what the liberties were that the scribes took when they transmitted the Bible. If you come to a verse like in Genesis chapter 2, “Vayechal Elohim beyom hashvi’i,” that’s the Masoretic text. That’s a text that you know. “And God finished his work on the seventh day.” That’s the verse you know. You would not expect that there are basically texts that say, not that God finished His work on the seventh day, but that read, “God finished His work on the sixth day,” because God did not finish His work on the seventh day. Because God forbid God should work on the seventh day. The Jews are not allowed to work on the seventh day, so why should God Himself work on the seventh day?

Because of this somewhat difficult reading, a secondary reading developed that said that God finished His work on the sixth day. That means on the end of the sixth day. Nevertheless, the reading in our Hebrew, French, English Bible is correct, because it really means that God finished His work something like by the seventh day.

But the Greek Bible, the Samaritan Bible, the Syriac Bible, have, “God finished His work on the sixth day.” This is an example showing you how a theologically different reading developed long, long ago – you might say 2,000 years ago, it’s actually probably 2,300, 2,400 years ago – and if you know these things, you know a little bit about the development of the Biblical texts. Now, this is a small detail, and there are many large details…

Nehemia: Let me just summarize. What we have here in Genesis 2 is this verse that says, “And God finished creation on the seventh day.” What you’re saying is that probably sometime around 300 BC, some scribe, maybe a righteous scribe who thought he was doing the right thing, he came along and he said, “We can’t have God working on the Sabbath. We’ve got to fix this.” Maybe he even thought it was a mistake that he was fixing. So, what he did is, he “corrected” the text making an easier reading, which is that God finished it on the sixth day – even though in the original Hebrew it probably means He finished the creation by the seventh day.

What you’re saying is, this exists in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan version of the Bible, but what we have preserved in the Masoretic text it’s probably the original reading. This is a principle that we call in Hebrew a “hagirsa hakasha adifa”, I think they say in Latin, “dificilio electio,” I may be mispronouncing that, that the more difficult reading is preferable. I remember learning this and thinking, “Wow. Wait a minute. So when I read the easy reading, that actually might be a righteous scribe who thought he was fixing it and actually corrupting the text. That’s an incredible concept.” This is the type of thing that you talk about in your book.

Emanuel: Right. This is an example about which we can have an opinion. There are also details about which I think we cannot have an easy opinion.

Nehemia: In other words, in this one there’s no question that what’s preserved in the Masoretic text and the standard English translation is the original. You’re saying other ones aren’t so clear cut?

Emanuel: No. How tall was Goliath?

Nehemia: Yeah, I don’t remember. How tall? [laughing]

Emanuel: Well, now I’m not sure exactly what is written where, but there’s one version where it says that he was four cubits tall, and in another version it says that he was six cubits tall. So one will be the Masoretic text and the other will be a Qumran scroll, and also it will be the Septuagint. The question is, how tall was he, two meters or three meters? How will we ever know? How will we ever know? There definitely is a relation between the two. Either someone changed two meters to three meters…

Nehemia: To make it sound like it was a more impressive feat of killing him, right?

Emanuel: Or someone said, “No, three meters, that’s too much.”

Nehemia: That’s not possible.

Emanuel: “We don’t someone who is three meters tall, because God is so good, He can also work with someone who’s only two meters.” That’s again a theological issue.

Nehemia: The verse here is 1 Samuel 17:4 in the Masoretic text, it in fact says, “He was ‘shesh amot vazeret.”’ I love that, vezaret. “He’s six meters and a pinkie.” [laughing] It’s very specific. You were saying there’s another version which says he’s four meters.

Emanuel: That’s in the Septuagint.

Nehemia: In the Septuagint. One of these is, someone had theological issue to change it, and as a scholar you have no way of knowing what the original text was, whether it was our Hebrew Bible as preserved today, or the Septuagint.

Emanuel: That’s my view.

Nehemia: That’s your view, okay.

Emanuel: Other people might say, “The difference is simply a scribal error.” That’s a very important thing in our field. There are so many differences of opinion, and you can never say who is right and who is wrong. It’s a slightly technical area, of course. But there is much room for human views.

Nehemia: There’s a certain amount of textual criticism which is subjective, is what you’re saying.

Emanuel: It is very subjective. This is the area that we call “judgement, evaluation”. The evaluation is subjective. It’s always subjective.

Nehemia: I see. Very interesting. Now, one of the interesting things I read about in your book is that I guess there’s a standard explanation that many scholars have, that the text of the Bible – and we’re talking here about the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible – was originally very fluid, and then there was a process of stabilization, which eventually led to what we have, called the “Masoretic Text”. You have a very different view on that. I hope this isn’t too technical. Guys, pay attention to this, this is actually really important.

In the Rabbinical literature we’ll have these discussions about the most minute letter having significance and meaning, and what you find in the Dead Sea Scrolls is things were a lot more fluid back then.

Emanuel: I will talk about this, but I will say to your listeners that if you don’t get it exactly, this is a very difficult thing, and you may have to read my book, or to read other things, because I’m going to tell you some things which are part of a much larger issue.

Nehemia: Listen, guys. I want you to listen to this two or three times. This is really important stuff, please.

Emanuel: Basically, one of the principles is that the text of the Bible is not just one text. That’s a fact. That is, the text that you have in your hand in Hebrew, in English, is the so-called “Masoretic text”. So you will have in your hands the English text, which is a modern version, like the New Revised Standard Version, and all these English versions derive in some way from the King James Version. But they are all based in some way on the Masoretic Hebrew text, a little bit different reading or not, but it’s the medieval text.

Nehemia: For those who aren’t familiar with this, basically if you walk into the bookstore in Israel or you go into somebody’s home and they have a Bible in Hebrew, that’s the Masoretic text.

Emanuel: Now you go back some. You have the Middle Ages, you go back to the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So we go back 2,000 years. At that time, if you would walk in the streets of Jerusalem, if you would go to the community at Qumran, if you would go to any other community in ancient Israel, you would not find one text, you would find many texts. This is a major issue for scholars to understand. Which texts would you find? Well, that’s my task. If there’s anything about which Emanuel Tov thinks the whole day, that’s the issue. I think about which texts the people had in their hands in the year 200 Before the Common Era, the year 100 Before the Common Era, the year 0. That’s what I’m thinking about.

Nehemia: Just to be clear, for example, if you’d walk into the library at Qumran when it was a city – or a village – 2,000 years ago, and you’d open up one copy of Isaiah and another copy of Isaiah and compare them, they would not be identical. Actually, you can go to the Israel Museum today to the Shrine of the Book and see that’s a fact.

Emanuel: All these things are facts, because you’ll have the text that I call the “Masoretic text”, something like it is found at Qumran, and actually more so in the places, what we call “sites”, in the sites around Qumran. For example, on top of the Masada, places called Nahal Hever, Murabba’at, et cetera. This is really a marvel. Maybe it’s not a marvel, it’s a man-made marvel, but the Masoretic text that we’re using today, without vowels, mind you, is found 2,000 years ago already in the Judean Desert.

Nehemia: That’s significant, and I think some people would call that the “proto-Masoretic text”, to use the term “M-like text”, the Masoretic-like text. But basically what we have today in the Hebrew Bible that’s in any synagogue here today in Israel, or that you get in a Hebrew bookstore, a form of that already exists 2,000 years ago. In fact, 2,250 years ago, according to what you wrote. But you’re saying in addition to the Masoretic text, there are other texts?

Emanuel: First of all, I can’t stress enough how important it is, and you did not allow me to slam the table. I will not do that…

Nehemia: Because then it comes across as this boom in the recording. [laughing]

Emanuel: …how important it is. I would say also for religious reasons, that the Masoretic text was there already 2,100 years ago in the Judean Desert. Equally important for scholars, maybe not for religious reasons, is the fact that other Hebrew texts existed in ancient Israel in the Judean Desert at that time. I cannot name them exactly. One of them would the Hebrew source of the Greek translation, of the Septuagint.

Nehemia: That’s really interesting, because a lot of times we’ll see the Septuagint is different from the Masoretic text, and I think the assumption of many people is, “Well, the Greek got it wrong.” What you have shown is that in many cases, the Greek was translating a Hebrew text which existed.

Emanuel: Yeah, the Greeks did not get it wrong. In certain books, we can clearly follow that, like in the Book of Jeremiah, in the Book of Deuteronomy, in the Book of Samuel. We can clearly follow that translation. That is clear. So that is one source. We have the so-called “Samaritan Pentateuch”.

Nehemia: The Pentateuch is the Five Books of Moses, yeah?

Emanuel: That existed already in the Judean Desert at that time. Then we have an endless number of scrolls in the Judean Desert, mainly in Qumran, that are different from all these. So it’s an endless number of texts that we know not from 500 Before the Common Era, from 250 Before the Common Era until the year 0, until the year 100 after the Common Era. Now, what happens? How do I see the development of these texts? It is here is that scholars differ in their opinions.

Nehemia: Basically, up until now, this is fact. I’m just going to throw some statistics out that I copied from your book. I counted them as five families of text. You’ve got the proto-Masoretic text, or Masoretic-like text, 55 scrolls, the pre-Samaritan text, which is only the Five Books of Moses. It doesn’t have the Samaritan theological changes about Mount Gerizim, but other than that it’s very similar to the Samaritan-type of text.

Another five scrolls, proto-Septuagint, six scrolls – meaning it’s in Hebrew, but it’s the source of the Septuagint. You call them “unaligned,” 55 scrolls. And then the QSP, which we’re going to talk more about, Qumran Scribal Practices, I’m going to try to get him to talk about that. That’s really interesting to me, 28 scrolls. That’s out of about approximately 210 scrolls of the Bible at Qumran. That’s really interesting.

Then you wrote here on page 110, “A textual plurality in the country as a whole. The Qumranites paid no special attention to textual differences.” Wow.

Emanuel: From here onwards, it’s all a matter of personal opinion.

Nehemia: So, this was fact, guys. You can like it or not, but these are facts. Now he’s going to give the interpretation with his expertise.

Emanuel: There are different views, because certain scholars, I would say most scholars, say there has been a movement of what they call “stabilization” towards the Masoretic text. Now, what does stabilization mean? That slowly, the inhabitants of ancient Israel realized that the main text of the Bible should be the Masoretic text. That is called stabilization, and that’s why today we have the Masoretic texts.

Nehemia: In other words, there were many different texts. According to many scholars, it eventually moved in the direction of just one text.

Emanuel: My view is somewhat different, because I say the Masoretic text was always there. It is an important text, and in my view it’s a very good text. In my view in the Five Books of Moses – and this is something new – in the Five Books of Moses it’s clearly the best text. Not in all books, but in the Five Books of Moses it’s definitely the best text.

Nehemia: Best meaning closest to the earliest form, is that what you mean?

Emanuel: Closest to the earliest form, yes indeed. But there were certain historical developments, because of which the Masoretic text survived and not the other ones. To be clear, if in the year 200 Before the Common Era, we have all these different text forms, there were certain things that happened in the Land of Israel. In the year 70, simply, the Temple was destroyed, there was a great chaos and many people were killed. The people who were at Qumran who had all these beautiful scrolls were killed, and there were no followers who had in their hands all these scrolls that were different from the Masoretic text.

The only ones who survived the chaos of the destruction of the Temple were the official representatives of Judaism, or the representatives of what became official Judaism, which is Pharisaic Judaism, and they had the Masoretic texts. So there was no stabilization of the text, it was a historical accident, because of which streams of Judaism did not continue having their text. Because on the one hand, as I said, the people in Qumran were killed. On the other hand, the people who had in their hands the Greek text, the Septuagint, they were not part of Judaism anymore.

Nehemia: What happened to them?

Emanuel: They became Christians. It’s as simple as that. For one generation, the early Christians were Jews, and then they became Christians. The Samaritans, they were together with the Jews for some time, but after some time they became a completely separate stream within Judaism, so…

Nehemia: I believe you wrote in one of your footnotes, if I’m not mistaken, that that happened when John Hyrcanus destroyed their Temple sometime in the 2nd century BC.

Emanuel: Right. From that time onwards, the Samaritans, they had their own Bible text, so their texts were not within Judaism anymore. So the only ones who had the Hebrew Bible according to the Jewish belief, were the Rabbis, so-to-speak. The Rabbis had the Masoretic text. So there was, in my view, no stabilization. Other people, it maybe makes no big difference, let’s say, for the general public, because at the end, the result is the same.

Nehemia: Here’s the difference. If I understand you right, if I would go to a rabbi… Not a rabbi, a proto-rabbi, whatever existed before the Rabbis in 250 BC, and I would ask him, “Show me your copy of the Book of Genesis,” his Genesis will look essentially like the Genesis in my printed Bible today?

Emanuel: Yes.

Nehemia: Whereas if I went to somebody in Qumran – they weren’t there in 250 BC – but if I went to the predecessors in 250 BC and I said, “Let me see your Bible,” it would depend on which scroll he happened to pull off the shelf, and each one might be different.

Emanuel: And if you would go to a Bible store, if there were one, in the…

Nehemia: Or a professional scribe.

Emanuel: In David Street, in the ancient city of Jerusalem, and if that man had in his store four copies of the Book of Genesis, it could be four different copies.

Nehemia: Unless he was a proto-rabbi in which case they’ll probably be all four the same.

Emanuel: Unless he was a proto-rabbi, they would be all the same.

Nehemia: I love this, because this is on page 30, footnote 16. This is amazing information. [laughing] I can’t emphasis this, guys. In this footnote he has on page 30, it is more than many scholars in the world, or people who are called scholars, know. It’s unbelievable stuff.

You talk here about how it is that in 250 BC, or whenever, that these proto-rabbis would have had, and you actually said they might be related to the Sadducees – I think you said somewhere in one of the footnotes – in the Temple. How did they have this uniform form of the Bible, this one stream within Judaism, where everybody else had this plurality? How did that come about? That’s fascinating to me, this information.

Emanuel: It is fascinating, Nehemia. But being a scholar, I should stress once again that this is all hypothesis.

Nehemia: Okay. But you’ve got some sources, which admittedly were written down later, that refer to these processes that would have kept the uniform text for one stream of Judaism.

Emanuel: In my view, I base myself on the fact that in the Judean Desert, if we find three scrolls that are really identical, three scrolls of Genesis that are identical, I ask myself, basing myself only on the argument of logics. Logics is the same in the whole world at any time. How could three scrolls be identical? They can only be identical if they are copied from the same base. Where could the same base be situated? Only in the Temple.

Nehemia: I think there’s even more than that. In other words, A, they have the same base and B, there’s a scribal practice of saying, “I have to get this exact.” For example, 1 QIsaa, which is the complete scroll, you mentioned in one of the footnotes here or somewhere, that could have been copied from the Temple scroll, he just didn’t mind changing things. Is that right?

Emanuel: That’s right.

Nehemia: There was this fluidity when he copied these freely copied texts that if there’s a word here that was used in ancient Hebrew, and in the Hebrew of the era in which he copied it wasn’t used, maybe he’ll replace it with a more common word, or something like this.

Emanuel: At that time, or at any other time, there were simply different approaches, two main different approaches in ancient Israel, maybe anywhere else in the world you could say the same. One is one of precision, and one is of not precision, of a liberal approach to the text. One of precision is the one that prevailed, and the approach of precision said, “We all copy our text from the text that was in the Temple.” And we have several verses, quotations, references, in the Talmud that talk about a copying from the Temple scroll, but we should not forget – and that’s why I say this all hypothesis – that these verses in the Talmud, the Jewish legal late body of Rabbinic exegesis, that these are late.

Nehemia: But it may preserve earlier traditions. I know scholars love to say that. “It’s a late book but it may preserve earlier traditions.” [laughing] If people want to look that up, it’s in the Babylonian Talmud Ketuvot 106A. It says, “magihim,” which I guess is something like proofreaders, “of books in Jerusalem received their fees from the Temple funds.”

So there was this category of something like proofreaders who would make sure the Bible text was copied exactly. That was one approach, this precise approach. Maybe they were a little bit autistic and they said, “We’ve got to get it exactly right, every letter.”

I know other scholars make a bigger deal of this. You kind of downplayed, I think, that there were examples where very trivial details are corrected in the direction of the Masoretic text with a little Vav added above the line. I think you kind of downplay that, but I know other scholars make a big deal about that, that somebody was clearly proofreading these proto-Masoretic scrolls. Would you say that’s fair?

Emanuel: Let’s not confuse those matters, because later on, within the Masoretic tradition, there were many corrections of that type. But that was only within the Masoretic tradition.

Nehemia: Right. We’re talking now about the Masoretic-like text. That’s what you called the “precision”. And that’s amazing. I want to read something you wrote here. This is page 30. “The Temple employed professional magihim (correctors) to safeguard the proper distribution and precise copies of scriptures. These Scrolls must have been used everywhere in Israel for public reading as well as for instruction.”

What this means is that when – and now I’m going to direct this to the Christian listeners, if I may – when Jesus went into the synagogue of Nazareth according to the Gospel of Luke, and they handed him the copy of the Scroll of Isaiah, if it was a Pharisee, for example, who handed him the copy of Isaiah, then he probably read the same Isaiah that we have today, down maybe even to the letters. But if was somebody like a Qumran person, then it may have been a little bit different.

Emanuel: I have often thought about this passage in Luke, and I think in my mind that the copy that Jesus had in his hand would not have been like the Isaiah Scroll that is displayed in the Israel Museum, because that copy is a very faulty copy. It’s a free copy, many mistakes. He would have had in his hand like a Phariseic copy, like 1QIsab, or even more precise than that, and people should think about that, because it is very easy for the public to think, because of this beautiful copy – that’s not beautiful – but this complete copy in the Israel Museum might mislead people to think that that’s the copy that Jesus could have hand in his hand.

But I don’t think so, because the rabbis would never accept that copy as a kosher copy, as an acceptable copy, because there are too many corrections in every column. The rabbis did not accept a scroll as acceptable if there were more than three mistakes per column.

Nehemia: In one of your notes somewhere in the book you mention that this might not just have been the Pharisees, this might have also been the approach of the Sadducees in the Temple. In other words, when we say “Pharisees”, it doesn’t necessarily mean just the Pharisees, but there were streams within Judaism who said, “If we’re going to read a scroll in the synagogue, it has to be one based on exactly what’s written in the Temple.”

But then there was an entirely different approach, and now let me ask you to talk about the QSP, the Qumran Scribal Practices, of which I think we said there were 28 scrolls of the Bible that you identified, I believe it was, that followed this really different, very liberal, free approach. What are some of the characteristics of that approach?

And guys, when you go to the Israel Museum, they have on display the main scroll in the center – which by the way is a photograph – but the main scroll in the center there is 1QIsaa. There’s a real piece of it on the side, which isn’t a photograph. You’re saying that is not a scroll that would have been read in public. That is something that followed these Qumran Scribal Practices. Tell me about these scrolls that you categorize as QSP, the Qumran Scribal Practices.

Emanuel: There were some real surprises when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. One of the great surprises were scrolls that were written in a spelling system that is completely different from anything we knew so far. Now, what is spelling?

Spelling is when you write the word “night” N-I-G-H-T. When you write that in American English like N-I-T-E, that’s exactly the same.

Nehemia: Or maybe it’s like “color”, C-O-L-O-R versus L-O-U-R.

Emanuel: Now, we have these scrolls from Qumran, just like the large Isaiah Scroll, has completely wild spellings, spellings that we would call in modern Israel “completely wrong”. If there are people among you who know Hebrew, you know the word “ki”, that means “because”, Kaf-Yud. In that scroll it’s written Kaf-Yud-Aleph, completely wild.

If you have the word “zot”, that means “that” in English, and that is written instead of Zayin-AlephTav, it could be written Zayin-Vav-Tav, et cetera. If you have the word – and that’s already not spelling, but it’s a form – you have the word for the English word “he,” which in Hebrew is “hu”…

Nehemia: [laughing] That’s confusing, but yeah. Meaning he, the person he is “hu” in Hebrew.

Emanuel: That is written as “hua”. There are several of those cases. These forms are probably dialectal forms. This was completely unexpected, and this shows this is a sign of the freedom of that particular scribe, because you don’t really write today a Bible with the word “night”, N-I-T-E, et cetera. It’s not very honorable to do so. But at that time, they had all the honor in the world for the Bible, but they thought that you can just do that. So, there’s a whole spectrum of things you can do to the Holy Bible through the fully acceptable Bible that is read by everyone and accepted by everyone. But the concepts of what you can do with it were different at that time.

Nehemia: At Qumran, and maybe other places. But you find that primarily at Qumran, you said, and you said that there were, again, manuscripts of the Bible that were found in, I think it was 25 manuscripts of the Bible found in eight other locations, and those were all Masoretic-like texts, whereas at Qumran you had this specific type that was very free and liberal. So, it depends who you were, basically.

In other words, what you just described might have been certain people who would have done that. But again, if you would go to the Temple and ask somebody, “Show me your Bible,” it wouldn’t have looked like that – or even the synagogue in many places.

Emanuel: Right. Well, our information is very limited…

Nehemia: Right, of course.

Emanuel: …and there must be socio-religious differences between the people in ancient Israel. First of all, we think that most of the written material, the scrolls on leather and papaya, must have perished from that period. But the little we have – and that is a lot, because from Qumran alone we have something like 230 remnants of 230 Biblical scrolls. That little is still a lot, but it’s only from a few places. So if you would come to Qumran you would find a library of very different texts. If you would go to Masada, there would be only one type, the Masoretic text.

If you go to Nahal Hever, it would be only one type. If you would go to Jerusalem, you would find them of many types. If you go to the Temple, you will find them, in my view, only of one type. So it would depend where you would go.

Nehemia: Very interesting. You made the statement that it was an accident of history that this one type survived, the Masoretic text. As a scholar, of course that’s how you look at it. I think I could make a theological statement and say from my perspective, it’s providence. But as a scholar, that’s outside your purview.

Look, guys. Here are the facts and here’s the information. Decide for yourselves. Now, you were also involved in a computer program called “Accordance”, which my listeners know because my friend Keith Johnson calls it “the tap-tap-tap program”. When we were doing these podcasts, he would say something, ask me a question and say, “Look up Nehemia in your Bible program.” I would go on my computer, tap-tap-tap, and you could hear the tapping in the recording. That’s Accordance, that’s the program I learned about from you, that you were involved in designing some of the modules and creating them. Tell us about what that is. It’s a really powerful tool.

Emanuel: For me, Accordance is the very best. It’s a program that was designed for the Macintosh, and for two years now, it’s also on the PC platform.

Nehemia: I have it here, I’m using Windows 10 and I have it on the PC.

Emanuel: Oh, great.

Nehemia: Yeah, right here.

Emanuel: This is a program that is much around the Bible, but there are many, many other things. I won’t talk about all the modules that I have for the Christian world, for the Jewish world. I’ll stay close to home, to my own world, which is the Bible world.

What you can do here, you can work with the Hebrew Bible text and around it, in parallel columns, the Greek, and the Aramaic, three, four or five different Aramaic texts, Latin text, maybe 100 different translations. And one of the things, the text, the module that you refer to, Nehemia, is one module that I developed with my team in the 1980s.

This was a project that I had in conjunction with the University of Pennsylvania. It was called CATSS, a good Jewish name, Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies, and it was my concept. It sounds like long ago, and it’s a concept that in the meantime has been followed by several other projects, of having in parallel lines one word of the Hebrew and one word of a translation, or of another text. So you have, “In the beginning, bereshit…”

Nehemia: That mean the words, “In the beginning” which in Hebrew is “bereshit”. Yeah.

Emanuel: “Bara, created.” It goes according to the sequence of the Hebrew. So this is a comparison of the Hebrew and the Greek, and together with reconstruction of the Hebrew parent text of the Septuagint. Then, of course, you should realize that what you need for this purpose, you need morphological analysis and an analysis of all the base forms of all the Hebrew words, because the computer doesn’t know that the English word “went” is derived from “to go”. The same for the Hebrew word, “vayelech”, the computer doesn’t know that it is derived from “halach”. So you need all that morphological analysis for the Hebrew and for the Greek.

You can do really marvels with it. This accompanies me day and night. A book that has all those equivalences is called a “concordance”, and I don’t use my concordances anymore. I can now sit in an airplane and prepare my Septuagint classes, and do this. If I have a good flight from Tel Aviv to New York, I can prepare my classes pretty well.

Nehemia: I can’t emphasize how powerful a tool this Accordance is. In simple terms, the words in the Hebrew and in the Greek are tagged. I use this literally every day, multiple times a day. It’s funny, because I remember when I was in high school and I had a paper concordance, and the front cover would come off, and the back cover would come off, it was used so much. I would spend weeks trying to research what is the meaning of a certain word in Biblical Hebrew based on how it’s used, and the word might appear 300 times, and I have to look up every one of the 300 verses in its context. Now, I push on a button and I get them all on the screen. I can compare that, how is that translated in the Aramaic? How is it translated in the Greek? It’s unbelievable, it’s really powerful and amazing. You were involved in developing that, it’s really impressive. People are going to be using this for generations to come, and you did it. [laughing]

Emanuel: You can find this somewhere under Accordance Bible Software, or Oak Tree Bible Software. In that program, incidentally, there’s a module which has my book, The Textual History of the Bible.

Nehemia: Yeah, and you were saying you can do powerful things now with this electronic module.

Emanuel: Very powerful.

Nehemia: Wow, that’s amazing.

Emanuel: This, if you read my book, then it has hyperlinks to the Biblical text in Accordance.

Nehemia: Wow, that’s pretty cool. If you want to look up a certain verse or something, and see if that verse is referenced in the book, I’m assuming you can find that, as well?

Emanuel: That would be the other way round.

Nehemia: Yeah. I’ll give you an example here. Exodus 20 verse 24, one of my favorite verses, where God says, “In every place I will cause My name to be mentioned. There I will come and I will bless you.” You talk about that on page 88, how that’s slightly different than the Samaritan version. So if you were doing research on that verse, you could plug in Exodus 20:24 and it will pop up, “Yes, that appears in Emanuel Tov’s book, page…” and it will bring it to you?

Emanuel: That, I don’t know. I think that’s possible, but that would be called a note within Accordance, and that probably would have to be prepared. That, I don’t know.

Nehemia: For example, I know in the Gesenius module which I have, I can look up a verse, and if that verse is in there, you can search by English content, by Hebrew content, by what they call Scripture, meaning a reference like Exodus 20:24. So I’d be surprised if you can’t do that in there. Anyway, there’s amazing powerful things you can do.

It’s been a real honor to talk to you, Professor Tov. This has been an amazing, fascinating discussion. I just want to remind people that you have the book Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Another book is the Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Text Found in the Judean Desert. These are actual textbooks that people use in universities, but a layman could read them too. You probably need to put in a little bit more effort if you’re a layman to read it. Read it a few times. It’s really powerful stuff. I’m going to have a link for both of those books on nehemiaswall.com on my website.

Guys, his website is emanueltov.info. I’ll have a link on nehemiaswall.com. This has been an amazing discussion. Thank you very much, Professor Tov.

Emanuel: You’re welcome. It was really a pleasure for me.

Nehemia: Shalom.

You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!
SUPPORT NEHEMIA’S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS!
Makor Hebrew Foundation is a 501c3 tax-deductible not for profit organization.

The post Reposting: Hebrew Voices #15 – The Bible of the Dead Sea Scrolls appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

Covenants from a Hebrew Perspective

10-40 Admin — Wed, 04 Jan 2023 19:43:12 +0000

By Jeff A. Benner

They said, “We see plainly that the Lord has been with you. So we said, let there be a sworn pact between us, between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you.” (Genesis 26:28, ESV)

We will begin this study with the Hebrew word for a “covenant,” which is ברית (b’riyt, Strong’s #1285). This noun is derived from the verb ברה (B.R.H, Strong’s #1262), which means “to select the best.”

He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, “Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me.” (1 Samuel 17:8, ESV)

In this passage the Hebrew verb ברה is used for the choosing of the best man to fight Goliath. This word can also mean to eat, in the sense of selecting, such as we see in the following verse.

So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill. And when the king came to see him, Amnon said to the king, “Please let my sister Tamar come and make a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat from her hand.” (2 Samuel 13:6, ESV)

The Hebrew language is a root-oriented language, meaning that every Hebrew word is derived from a root word and that root word is the foundation to other Hebrew words. Each word derived from one root will be closely related in meaning to all the other words derived from the same root. In the case of the word ברית (b’riyt) we found that it was derived from the root verb ברה (B.R.H), but also derived from this verbal root are the nouns ברות (barut, Strong’s #1267) meaning “choice meat” and בריה (bir’yah, Strong’s #1274) meaning “fattened.” Livestock that will be slaughtered are fed special grains to make them fat and thereby making the meat of the fattened livestock the choicest.

So how is fattened choice meat related to the word for “covenant?” The phrase “make a covenant,” such as we saw in the verse that began this study, appears eighty times in the Hebrew Bible and in every instance, it is the Hebrew phrase כרת ברית (karat b’riyt), which literally means “cut a covenant.”

A covenant was instituted by the two parties of the covenant who would take a fattened animal, the best of the flock or herd, and “cut” it into two pieces. Then the two parties of the covenant would pass through the pieces symbolizing their dedication to the covenant and by this action are saying, “If I do not hold to the agreements of this covenant, you can do to me what we did to this animal.” This methodology of “making” a covenant is clearly recorded in Jeremiah 34:18-20.

18 And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like[a] the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts— 19 the officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf. 20 And I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their lives. Their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. (ESV)

With this understanding of a covenant, we can better understand what is going on in Genesis chapter 15.

9 He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” 10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. (Genesis 15:9-10, ESV)

17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made (Hebrew – karat) a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,” (Genesis 15:17-18, ESV)

Yahweh is cutting a covenant with Abram. However, Abram does not pass through the pieces, only the pot and torch, representations of Yahweh himself, pass through the pieces. Because Abram did not pass through the pieces, the actions of Abram, or his descendants, are not a condition of the covenant. The only person responsible for the fulfilling of this covenant is Yahweh and Yahweh alone.

Besides this covenant, Yahweh has made several other covenants with his people, such as the one he made with Noah and his descendants (Genesis 6:18, Genesis 9:9) and the one he made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai.

And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made (Hebrew – karat) with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exodus 24:8, ESV)

Unlike the unconditional covenants that Yahweh made with Noah and Abram, this covenant will be upheld only on the condition that Israel obeys the words of Yahweh.

14 But if you will not listen to me and will not do all these commandments, 15 if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant, 16 then I will do this to you: I will visit you with panic, with wasting disease and fever that consume the eyes and make the heart ache. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when none pursues you. 18 And if in spite of this you will not listen to me, then I will discipline you again sevenfold for your sins, 19 and I will break the pride of your power, and I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze. 20 And your strength shall be spent in vain, for your land shall not yield its increase, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit. (Leviticus 26:14-20, ESV)

And in Deuteronomy 31 Yahweh foretells of the day when Israel will break this covenant by following after other gods.

For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise me and break my covenant. (Deuteronomy 31:20, ESV)

It is interesting to note that when Israel does break this covenant, Yahweh “cuts” Israel into “two” nations, Israel and Judah. But Yahweh promises that he will make a new covenant with the children of Israel and he will unite these two nations into one nation again.

And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. (Ezekiel 37:22, ESV)

31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jereimaih 31:31-33, ESV)

Taken from: https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/covenants-from-a-hebrew-perspective.htm

The post Covenants from a Hebrew Perspective appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

Does Yehovah Mean Lord of Destruction?

10-40 Admin — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:41:07 +0000

original article: http://seekingtruth.info/blog/does-yehovah-mean-lord-of-destruction/

Some people are objecting to the pronunciation of Yehovah because they claim it means something like “Lord of Destruction”. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

This ignorant theory comes from two baseless assumptions. 1 – that “Yeh” or “Yah” means “Lord” or “God” and 2 – that “hovah” in Hebrew can only mean destruction.

Let’s first deal with assumption #1 – the meaning of “Yeh” or “Yah”

Yah (יהּ) appears in 43 verses in the Tanakh: 2 verses in Exodus, 3 verses in Isaiah, 37 verses in Psalms and 1 verse in Song of Solomon. References are listed at the end of this post. Yah (יהּ) is a contracted form of יהוה – just like John is a contracted form of Jonathan. When we read Yah, the writer intends us to think of יהוה – His personal Name. So Yah does not mean “god” it means יהוה.

Where names in Hebrew take the form “God of” they begin or end with “El”, for example Eliezer which means “God is help” or Israel which means “God prevails”. There are many examples to show that incorporating the term “God” into a name uses “El” and not “Yah”.

But what about “Lord”? Where the term Lord is incorporated into names it uses “Adon” as in Adoni-Bezek, “my lord is Besek” or Adoniyah, “my lord is Yehovah”. Here in Adoniyah we see a direct use of “Yah” referring to Yehovah and not to a title like God or Lord.

So clearly there is no linguistic or textual support for claiming that Yah means “lord” or “god”.

So what of the second assumption, that “hovah” means destruction and only destruction?

It is true that the NOUN hôvâh (הוה) means ruin or disaster, however hovah is also a VERB which means “is” as in present tense being.

When יהוה spoke to Moshe in Exodus 3; He prefaced the declaration of His Name with a very important concept – אהיה אשׁר אהיה – which literally means “I will be who I will be” or, for a more nuanced translation, “I am now and I will continue to be in the future”. He then declares His Name by which He is to be remembered/mentioned for all generations – יהוה. The root of יהוה is the verb היה Hayah/Ehyeh, which means “to be”. The past, present and future forms of hayah which make up the Father’s Name are Hayah, Hoveh & Yiheyeh, meaning “He was, He is, He will be”. Yehovah’s very name speaks to His eternal nature.

The root of “hovah” is הוה – which is a noun – a static thing, no action – and and does not have the same letters as the root for “hayah”. That there is a noun “hovah” has no relationship to the Father’s name when His Name is clearly based on the verb “Hayah/Ehyeh”.

Verses which use Yah, the poetic form of Yehovah, in the Tanakh (Young’s Literal Translation with J corrected to Y):

Exodus 15:2 My strength and song is Yah, And He is become my salvation: This [is] my God, and I glorify Him; God of my father, and I exalt Him.
Exodus 17:16 and saith, `Because a hand [is] on the throne of Yah, war [is] to Yehovah with Amalek from generation — generation.’

Isaiah 12:2 Lo, God [is] my salvation, I trust, and fear not, For my strength and song [is] Yah Yehovah, And He is to me for salvation.
Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in Yehovah for ever, For in Yah Yehovah [is] a rock of ages
Isaiah 38:11 I said, I do not see Yah — Yah! In the land of the living, I do not behold man any more, With the inhabitants of the world.

Psalm 68:4 Sing ye to God — praise His name, Raise up a highway for Him who is riding in deserts, In Yah [is] His name, and exult before Him.
Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast taken captive captivity, Thou hast taken gifts for men, That even the refractory may rest, O Yah God.
Psalm 77:11 I mention the doings of Yah, For I remember of old Thy wonders,
Psalm 89:8 O Yehovah, God of Hosts, Who [is] like Thee — a strong Yah? And Thy faithfulness [is] round about Thee.
Psalm 94:7 And they say, `Yehovah doth not see, And the God of Jacob doth not consider.’
Psalm 94:12 O the happiness of the man Whom Thou instructest, O Yah, And out of Thy law teachest him,
Psalm 102:18 This is written for a later generation, And the people created do praise Yah.
Psalm 106:1 Praise ye Yah, give thanks to Yehovah, For good, for to the age, is His kindness.
Psalm 106:48 Blessed is Yehovah, God of Israel, From the age even unto the age. And all the people said, `Amen, praise Yah!’
Psalm 111:1 Praise ye Yah! I thank Yehovah with the whole heart, In the secret meeting of the upright, And of the company.
Psalm 112:1 Praise ye Yah! O the happiness of one fearing Yehovah, In His commands he hath delighted greatly.
Psalm 113:1 Praise ye Yah! Praise, ye servants of Yehovah. Praise the name of Yehovah.
Psalm 113:9 Causing the barren one of the house to sit, A joyful mother of sons; praise ye Yah!
Psalm 115:17 The dead praise not Yah, Nor any going down to silence.
Psalm 115:18 And we, we bless Yah, From henceforth, and unto the age. Praise ye Yah!
Psalm 116:19 In the courts of the house of Yehovah, In thy midst, O Jerusalem, praise ye Yah!
Psalm 117:2 For mighty to us hath been His kindness, And the truth of Yehovah is to the age. Praise ye Yah!
Psalm 118:5 From the straitness I called Yah, Yah answered me in a broad place.
Psalm 118:14 My strength and song [is] Yah, And He is to me for salvation.
Psalm 118:17 I do not die, but live, And recount the works of Yah,
Psalm 118:18 Yah hath sorely chastened me, And to death hath not given me up.
Psalm 118:19 Open the gates of righteousness for me; I will enter them and thank Yah.
Psalm 122:4 For thither have tribes gone up, Tribes of Yah, companies of Israel, To give thanks to the name of Yehovah.
Psalm 135:1 Praise ye Yah! Praise ye the name of Yehovah, Praise, ye servants of Yehovah,
Psalm 135:3 Praise ye Yah! for Yehovah [is] good, Sing praise to His name, for [it is] pleasant.
Psalm 135:4 For Jacob hath Yah chosen for Himself, Israel for His peculiar treasure.
Psalm 135:21 Blessed [is] Yehovah from Zion, Inhabiting Jerusalem — praise ye Yah!
Psalm 146:1 Praise ye Yah! Praise, O my soul, Yehovah.
Psalm 146:10 Yehovah doth reign to the age, Thy God, O Zion, to generation and generation, Praise ye Yah!
Psalm 147:1 Praise ye Yah! For it is good to praise our God, For pleasant–comely is praise.
Psalm 147:20 He hath not done so to any nation, As to judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye Yah!
Psalm 148:1 Praise ye Yah! Praise ye Yehovah from the heavens, Praise ye Him in high places.
Psalm 148:14 And He exalteth the horn of His people, The praise of all His saints, Of the sons of Israel, a people near Him. Praise ye Yah!
Psalm 149:1 Praise ye Yah! Sing ye to Yehovah a new song, His praise in an assembly of saints.
Psalm 149:9 To do among them the judgment written, An honour it is for all his saints. Praise ye Yah!
Psalm 150:1 Praise ye Yah! Praise ye God in His holy place, Praise Him in the expanse of His strength.
Psalm 150:6 All that doth breathe doth praise Yah! Praise ye Yah!

Song of Solomon 8:6 Set me as a seal on thy heart, as a seal on thine arm, For strong as death is love, Sharp as Sheol is jealousy, Its burnings [are] burnings of fire, a flame of Yah!

The post Does Yehovah Mean Lord of Destruction? appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

Honest discussion about tallits and tsitsits.

Regina Roundtree — Thu, 27 Oct 2022 23:00:37 +0000

Before we begin...

1) When referencing scripture we will first use resorces from Jeff Benner of Ancient Hebrew Research Center.** We love the way he takes us back to Hebrew culture. We truly appreciate(and have purchased ourselves) his material. We have recieved permission to repost his material on our website.

2) We will reference articles and/or videoes we think are helpful; however, that does NOT imply we agree with EVERYTHING they present on the site/channel. There are many great teachers from diffrent faith systems. We may not agree with ALL the pillars of their faith (in fact some of them don’t even agreee with the pillars of their faith) but the topic in the linked article is worth considering.

**We are also an affiliate partner with ARHC and recieve compensation for any items that you purchase. Any monies recieved go to further the work of 1040Window.club as it shares Torah-oriented (BUT non-religious & non-denominational) studies to people living in that part of the world.**

What does the Torah say about prayer shawls (Tallits) and fringes (tzitzit).

A Little bit of History

Typically, in the Christian community the consideration about prayer shawls (tallits) or fringes (tzitzit) may be an “Old Testament thing” or one that only belongs within Judaism. Many are recently coming to understand that the Old Testament was the only “Bible” that was read by Jesus/ Yeshua[1] (his name in Hebrew) and everyone who lived in that time. Many are also seeking to find out what of Judaism is relevant for those not in the direct bloodline of Abraham. Unfortunately, we may have been taught by our denominations and/or religious leaders that the Old Testament is only about a “chosen” people who are direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Maybe we have even done our own search and have become disheartened that we cannot find a place for us there – in the covenant blessing. We walk away thinking that YHWH has favorites. So we run back to the New Testament and take comfort there in a false doctrine that there has a been a replacement once Yehoshua came and now we are also chosen. The truth is, we have been ignorantly mislead, ALL humanity was always the plan – always[2].

Before Abraham, YHWH spoke with humans directly but had not yet identified a chosen people (at least not that we know). The term chosen people should not be taken out of context. As Genesis begins, ELOHIM/Creator made many attempts to give instructions, but humanity did not do well with following his intent Adam, Cain, society during Noah’s day. When ELOHIM finally meets Abram in Genesis 12, YHWH asks him to leave all that he knows for a new life in a new place that ELOHIM will show him on the way.

The Creator makes a promise that if Abram will serve HIM only, then the Creator will 1) bless him, 2) make him a great nation, 3) make his name great and 4) and thou “shalt be a blessing” Gen 12:1-4. It was always ELOHIM’s desire to bless the whole world. He just needed someone to commit to following His instructions so that everyone else would know how to live. Many promises and challenges happened along the way for Abraham and his seed.

As we get to Numbers 15, which is the focus of this article, they (the seed of Abraham, now known as the children of Israel because Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes had his name changed in Gen 32: 22-32) were then tasked with teaching the next generation how to walk with their Creator in a way that no other god had done with his followers.[3] Chosen was not meant to be to the exclusivity of everyone else. In many places we see a mixed multitude/ stranger/ foreigner/ sojourner who are allowed to participate with them. We also see that YHWH says there is one law for those of the bloodline (native) and those who are not. Once a foreigner came in and were a part of the group all the rules applied to the native as well as the foreigner. After this EVERYONE was called Israel. [4]

[1] Hebrew names God and Jesus

[2] Explain chosen

[3] Ross Nichols has an excellent video.

[4] Mixed multitude video

Again we are just setting a foundation that YHWH can be specific when he speaks to us. We don’t need to add or take away from His words.

We are going to start with the fringes first.

FRINGES – Hebrew צִיצִת (ṣîṣiṯ = tzitzit) [Strongs H6734]. If you have researched fringes, you may have seen there are many teachings from Judaism[1] about it. The word used is tzitzit. Few other religions have as many teachings about it although many cultures have fringes as a common garment design and some religions even wear fringes on sacred garments. If one were to research into each culture or religion, fringes may have a special meaning. In the Middle East you may notice that men wear garments with fringes and the women do not. Fringes could also have meaning within cultures as well as religion. Ever wonder why scarves have fringes? Where did we even get the design for a scarf? Could it have been a smaller simpler design of the tallits? Jewish store do sell the small tallits as well as the very big ones.

[1] There are many “denominations” of Jews in Judaism as with Muslims and Christianity. Good article .

Sample garments in different cultures

It’s amazing how many things we have in society that have been influenced by the Torah. And further how many cultures have traces of Torah influence in their society. What happens as time progresses is that religious traditions, people’s personal preferences and the influence of cultural around us impact how we walk out the commandments of Yehovah. As can been seen even in Torah, without constant discipline to be obedient, people will fall away from “their first love”. Traditions are only bad if it contradicts what Yehovah says not to do.- or if it applies his name falsely.[1]

Our first reference is Numbers 15: 37-41. To give some context to this passage. The children of Israel have been free from Egypt for about 2 months. In the previous chapters, the spies went to search out the promised land. 10 brought back a bad report which caused the people to murmur and complain. As a result of doubting Yehovah they just received judgement from ELOHIM that they will wander for 40 years in the desert – end of chapter 14. As a side note, this is an example of the children paying for the sins of the fathers for the third and fourth generation. Read our document about this topic here.[2] Chapter 15 contains some instructions including fringes.

	KJV	Sefaria.org
Num 15:37	And the LORD (YHWH) spake unto Moses, saying,	יהוה said to Moses as follows:
Num 15:38	Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments[Strongs H899] throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:	Speak to the Israelite people^{Israelite people* Heb. bene yisra’el; whether women are in view is uncertain}. and instruct them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout the ages; let them attach a cord of blue to the fringe at each corner.
Num 15:39	And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD (YHWH), and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:	That shall be your fringe; look at it and recall all the commandments of יהוה and observe them, so that you do not follow your heart and eyes in your lustful urge.
40	That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God (ELOHIM).	Thus you shall be reminded to observe all My commandments and to be holy to your God.
41	I am the LORD (YHWH) your God (ELOHIM), which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God(ELOHIM): I am the LORD(YHWH) your God (ELOHIM).	I יהוה am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I, your God יהוה.

	KJV	Sefaria.org
Deut 22:12	Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture [Strong H3682], wherewith thou coverest thyself.	You shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

In summary Numbers 15: 38-41 speaks of the fringes and he is specific with only these details.

Fringes on the borders of garment
To be done throughout the ages
Attach a cord of blue to the fringe at the corner
Look at them and remember His commandments

What it does not say

He doesn’t say it’s for men only.
He doesn’t define the material or color of the garment or fringes (Only that it needs a blue ribbon.)
Nothing on who has to make it.
No requirements about knots, twisting or what shade of blue

That is it. So YES, you need to wear fringes/tassels as they are a requirement – throughout your generations. Now there are certain laws/statutes where YHWH says “forever” or uses language like throughout your generations. We have made another article that looks at this in detail because we also will review the 613 commandments as identified by Jewish scholars[3]. But for now, let’s stay on the fringes. There is no end to this commandment.

[1] Teaching about using his name in vain. Coming Soon.

[2] Sour grapes and generational curses. Coming Soon

[3] Dissecting the 613 document. Coming Soon

We have to go deeper….much deeper and understand the culture better. Jeff Benner is a teacher and I have been studying his material- it is excellent. We will reference his writings frequently and have gained permission to repost on our site. This next explanation below is beautiful and gives so much more meaning. The complete document is here.

A tsiytsiyt

In Numbers 15:38 we read; Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, make tsiytsiyt on the corners of your garment. The Hebrew word ציצית (tsiytsiyt) is a noun derived from the word ציץ (tsiyts).

A Blossom

A ציץ (tsiyts) is the “blossom” of a tree, which in time will become a fruit. The tsiytsiyt then is a blossom, not in appearance, but in function. The function of the tsiytsiyt is to be a reminder to the wearer to produce fruit, fruit being the observance of the commands, as stated in verse 39, “remember the commandments,” the teachings of God, which according to Psalm 1:2,3, is like producing fruit.

Therefore, the word tsiytsiyt carries with it a cultural perspective which connects the blossoms of a tree with the performance of a commandment.

This “concrete” Hebrew language continued to function as the Jewish people’s native language until their removal from the land after the Bar Kockba revolt in 135 AD, at which time they were dispersed into many different nations. While the Jewish people continued to use the Hebrew language from then until now, it was relegated to their religious lives alone. The language of the people around them, quite often this was Greek or Aramaic, was adopted as the language for everyday use. At this point, the new adopted language becomes the influential language in their life and their perspectives of words and ideas are now determined by this dominant language.

The Hebrew word tsiytsiyt is now translated into their new language. In the case of the Greek language, it is translated into κρασπεδον (kraspedon), meaning “a decorative fringe or thread.” No longer is the tsiytsiyt attached to the idea of a “blossom,” but instead simply as a “fringe.” This same shift in perception occurred each time a new language was adopted, whether it was Spanish, German or English.

Declaration of the State of Israel in 1948

In 1948 Israel became a Jewish state and with that, Hebrew once again became the everyday language of the Jewish people. While the language had been resurrected, the original cultural perspective of Ancient Hebrew had disappeared long ago and the Western influence survived. Therefore, a tsiytsiyt, in the mind of modern Orthodox Jews, is still a decorative fringe and no longer functionally related to a blossom.

(back to 10/40 Window)

Let’s not make this about functionality and decoration. When we wear the fringes/blossoms, we should remember the process of growth and blossoming in YHWH.

The word for garment is Strongs H899 בִגְדֵיהֶם you will see this word is used 217 times in the KJV. A few examples

Tamar with Judah – Gen 38: 14, 19
Joseph’s garment when Potiphar’s wife tries to seduce him – Gen 39:12-19
Levitical garments – Exodus chapters 28, 29, 39, 40 (just to name a few)

Based on Deut 22:12 “wherewith thou coverest thyself.” we believe it is an outer garment. The point is you should be able to see it.

Something else to consider about who should see it. Because it seems to imply that everyone should be able to see it. The scripture says “you” and “ye” the singular or plural of the word you. This is a good article that talks about – thou, thee, ye, your.[1] And this one as well.[2]

And that makes sense – “and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:”. If I look at someone to lust and I see the fringes – yup, I’m gonna check myself. LOL. And if I go to sit down or stretch my hand to do something, I see the fringes I am going to remember. Wearing the fringes is so that others can also identify you as one who keeps the Torah.

KJV – number 15:39

“And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:”

If it is to be a reminder, then you should be able to see it. If it is an outer garment it is not needed for prayer in your home. In fact, you don’t need to wear it in your home, because YHWH has provided other ways for you to remember HIS commandments in your home (read Deut 6:1-9; we also wrote a document about it).[3]

As a quick reference it is law #84 that speaks about the garment in the 613 commandments. In short, the 613 were first mentioned in the Talmud but not listed. Most give credit to Maimonides (1135-1204 C.E.or BC) for creating the list. Are the commandments relevant today? Many are, but many are not. I will say this, Yehovah sees all eternity. He certainly knows the time He will return and how culture will change until He does. So when He says, “forever, through all ages, throughout all generations”. It means we are NEVER to stop doing those commandments. These are the moments when He doesn’t care what changes these “forever” commandments do not change. However, there are commandments He gave because this was a generation of people who had no established government or health laws to live by as they journeyed out of captivity. Being a gracious and loving Creator, he gave them instructions to establish and operate their new government.

Example of instructions that are constant and instructions that change depending on other factors:

Constant – Murder is illegal in every country.

Change – But the traffic laws or housing guidelines are different depending on where you live, and they will change from century to century. Most all the laws that humanity currently has – are based off the laws we see here in the Torah.

Another example of instructions changing with the current times: Lev 18 about safe sexual relations. As an example, we understand now that inter-familiar relationships can cause genetic problems in children. However before Torah was given, in order to populate the earth sex with siblings and cousin was needed.

And the same time there are commandments not necessary anymore

Law #128 – marry a brother’s widow and raise up a child Deut 25:5
Law #136 – wife accused of adultery Numbers 5:12-31
Law #37 – put to death anyone who tries to lead other to follow after idols. Deut 13:7-11

Back to our topic on fringes (tzitzit) and prayer shawls (tallit). Next is the prayer shawl. YHWH/ Yehovah does not give a commandment, law or statute about a prayer shawl. He does say to wear the fringes on the corners of a garment with a blue thread/ribbon. Is there anything wrong with a prayer shawl or tallit -No, nothing wrong at all, but it is not required.

Torah does not indicate size, type of material or the colors of the garment. He does say it must have a blue thread on the fringe. Torah does not say how many knots and loops it should have. Some Jewish traditions use numerical values that are represented by the knots. Torah does not give this requirement. Remember above we reminded you that Yehovah has no problem giving specifics when He wants specifics. Let’s just give Yehovah/YHWH what He wants. It will be less burdensome on us.

[1] Explains the sinhgular and plural Document

[2]Explains the singular and plural Another

[3] mezuzah -what to write on your posts? Coming Soon

This is a great place to refer to another book by Benner – The Living Words -Volume One** (which I own). He has a section starting on page 76. You are fortunate that you can also read this on his website here.

One of the most beautiful aspects of the Hebrew language is its clear connection between a word and its illustrative meaning. The Hebrew word ציצת tsiytsiyt ^[H:6734] is a good example of this relationship.

38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes (tsiytsiyt) in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe (tsiytsiyt) of the borders a ribband of blue: 39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe (tsiytsiyt), that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: 40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God. Numbers 15:38-40 (KJV)

From the above passage we learn the ציצת tsiytsiyt ^[H:6734], translated as “fringe,” are worn on the four corners of the garments. The standard dress of the Hebrews was a rectangular piece of cloth with a hole in the center for the head and was worn similar to a modern poncho. A sash was then tied around the waist to secure the garment. The fringes were then tied to each corner, border in the KJV translation, of this garment as reminders of God’s commands for his people.

The image above is an example of a tsiytsiyt used today on the Tallit, four-cornered garment with the tsiytsiyt tied to each corner. This garment is worn today by Orthodox Jews in order to observe the command of Numbers chapter 15.

The word tsiytsiyt is derived from the noun ציץ tsiyts ^[H:6731] and the verb צוץ tsuts ^[H:6692], both of which can be found in the following passage.

And it came to pass, that on the morrow Moses went into the tabernacle of witness; and, behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed (tsuts) blossoms (tsiyts), and yielded almonds. Numbers 17:8 (KJV)

When I first began studying the word tsiytsiyt, I pondered the connection between tsiytsiyt, meaning fringe, and tsiyts, meaning blossom, and wondered if the fringe originally looked like a blossom. I then reminded myself I was concentrating on the physical appearance of these objects, a Greek way of thinking, and had forgotten the Hebrews were concerned with function. When I realized the function of a blossom was to produce fruit on a tree, I was amazed to discover this was the exact same function of the tsiytsiyt, to produce fruit within the man.

But his delight is in the teachings of Yahweh and in his teachings he meditates day and night, and he will be like a tree planted by streams of water which gives his fruit in its season Psalm 1:2,3

The function of the fringe, according to Numbers 15:38-40, is to remember the commandments, the teachings of God, which according to Psalm 1:2,3, is like producing fruit.

According to the book of Matthew, Yeshua also wore these fringes.

And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment. For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. Matthew 9:20 (KJV)

The Septuagint uses the Greek word kraspedon ^[G:2899] for the Hebrew word ציצת tsiytsiyt ^[H:6734] in Numbers 15:38. In the passage from Matthew above, the Greek word for “hem” is the same word, kraspedon, and literally means “fringe.” The final evidence showing that Yeshua did in fact wear tsiytsiyt is found in the Shem Tov Hebrew text where we find the Hebrew word tsiytsiyt in Matthew 9:20.

The woman knew if she just touched his fringe she would be healed. Why? Because she knew of the prophecy in Malachi 4:2:

But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings (KJV)

The Hebrew word meaning “wing” is כנף kanaph ^[H:3671] but it is also the word for a “corner,” as in the corners of a garment. The woman grabbed hold of his tsiytsiyt, which were tied to the “corners” of his garment because she knew that he had healing in his “corners.”

Another word in the Malachi verse I would like to address is, the word “sun.” Is this a reference to the worshipping of the sun god? I don’t think so. The Hebrew word for the sun is שמש shemesh ^[H:8121] and is closely related to the Aramaic word שמש shamash (While this word is not found in the Hebrew Bible or the Aramaic portions of it, its verbal root is used in Daniel 7:20 where it means “to serve”) meaning “servant.” Notice these two words are spelled identically. Only the vowel sounds are different. Could the author of the Malachi passage have intended the meaning “servant of righteousness” rather than “sun of righteousness”?

(Back to 10/40 Window)

As for the “Prayer” in the phrase prayer shawl. The verse does not say to be used for prayer only. It doesn’t say how to use it only that it should be worn. I would imagine (I am being subjective) that it is to be worn when you are outside your home. Inside your home you can read the Torah. In your home you have already been commanded to place it on the doorposts and gates (Deut 6:6-9). This item is often called a mezuzah.

A few questions…

Q: Is using the Jewish version of a prayer shawl (tallit) for prayer wrong or right?
A: No it is not wrong as a prayer shawl. The word “prayer” implies that you are using it at home or maybe in public for prayer. However, in regard to the garment in Num 15 & Deut 12, Torah say wear the garment with a fringes on the corners AND with a blue thread. Also, the point is to wear it when you go out as a reminder.

Q: I feel so different when I use a prayer shawl.. why?

A: Covering your head and face tends to block other things out and helps you to focus (if you have a hard time focusing). We also tend to add emotions to tasks.

Example: Husbands and wives should respect and honor one another in all things. Date nights, anniversary meals/gifts, flowers, “I love you” text in the middle of the day, Monday night football…. None of those things are required by Torah. Are they nice traditions? Do they make you feel special? Yes and Yes. But they are not required to have a strong marriage.

Q: Can I make my own garment with fringes? If, so what are the requirements according to Torah?.

A: On the corners, it needs to have fringes with a blue strand. Use any color material you want (don’t mix wool and linen see Deut 22:11. I am still studying this out and not sure if it is still relevant today). Different Jewish traditions have Hebrew writing on the top front edge and the corners, but Torah doesn’t require this. They also tie knots and wrap the fringes in a fashion that represents numbers. The Torah doesn’t require this. One last point, many tallits do not have the ribbon of blue on the fringe as required in Numbers 15. Can you still use it? Yes, but it doesn’t put you in compliance with Numbers 15:38-41/ Deut 22:12.

What I love about Yehovah is that He is so thoughtful about what people can afford. In Leviticus 15, we read that He gives instruction for a guilt offering. It starts with a lamb but then He says if they can’t afford a lamb then bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons. If they can’t afford that then they could bring a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour. And yet when he wants a specific offering for a certain event (sacrifice for a feast), He makes it clear – King or peasant the offering is the same and he gives the exact amount.

That’s all we have to say about fringes. If /When you choose to be compliant with Numbers 15:38-41/ Deut 22:12 Read this document for ideas on how to get started.

The post Honest discussion about tallits and tsitsits. appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

The Nomadic Hebrews – Part 2 of 3

10-40 Admin — Mon, 10 Oct 2022 19:30:00 +0000

The post The Nomadic Hebrews – Part 2 of 3 appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

The Nomadic Hebrews – Part 1 of 3

10-40 Admin — Mon, 10 Oct 2022 19:27:48 +0000

Jeff Benner

The post The Nomadic Hebrews – Part 1 of 3 appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.

The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language

10-40 Admin — Wed, 14 Sep 2022 13:10:00 +0000

By Jeff A. Benner

East and West

Ancient philosophers, Plato (left) and Confucius (right)

Throughout the world, past and present, there are two major divisions of thought or philosophy; Western and Eastern. Western Philosophy has its beginnings in the sixth century B.C. in Greece with such philosophers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Eastern Philosophy has its roots in the ancient past and was the philosophy of all ancient cultures of the Far East (including China and Japan), Middle East (Including India and Babylon) and Near East (including Egypt and Israel). As the Greek culture spread, so did Western philosophy to the point that Western philosophy has become the predominant philosophy throughout the world.

The Hebrews of the Bible wrote the Bible from the perspective of Eastern philosophy, but today’s readers are interpreting these writings with Western philosophy, the results being misinterpretations and mistranslations of the text. For this reason, it is essential that we learn the philosophy of the Ancient Hebrews in order to better understand the text we are reading.

The language of the Hebrews is a concrete language, meaning that it uses words that express something that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard and all five of the senses are used when speaking, hearing, writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; “He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaf does not wither”.

In contrast to the Eastern philosophy of a concrete language, Western philosophy uses an abstract language to express itself. An abstract word is an expression that cannot be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms 103:8; “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love”. The words compassion, grace, anger and love are all abstract words, ideas that cannot be experienced by the senses. Why do we find these abstract words in a passage of concrete thinking Hebrews? Actually, these are abstract English words used to translate the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated for Western thinkers.

Concrete and Abstract Thought

While there are many differences between the Western and Eastern schools of thought, one of the major differences is the use of abstracts and concretes.
Concrete (left) and abstract (right) art

Just as artwork may be created in the concrete or the abstract, words can also be created in the concrete or the abstract. A concrete word, idea or concept is something that can be perceived by the five senses. It can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched. An abstract is something that cannot be perceived by the five senses.

As the Bible was written from an Eastern philosophical perspective, it is important that we recognize that we cannot interpret it through our own Western philosophy. To do so, would place a meaning and interpretation that may not be that of the original authors.

Thorleif Boman’s monumental work, Hebrew thought compared with Greek, states; “The thinking of the Old Testament is primitive and hence can be compared only with the thinking of other primitive peoples and not with thinking as advanced as Plato’s or Bergson’s.”

Victor H. Matthews explains how the culture of the Hebrews can be studied in his book, Manners and Customs of the Bible.” One of the joys of studying the Bible is attempting to reconstruct the manners and customs of the peoples of ancient times. The gulf of thousands of years can be bridged, at least in part, by insights into their everyday life. These can be garnered through the close examination of the biblical narratives and through the use of comparative written and physical remains from other ancient civilizations.”

In his books The Hebrew Genius as Exhibited in the Old Testament, George Adam Smith said; “…the Hebrews were mainly a doing and feeling people. Thus, their language has few abstract terms. Rather, “Hebrew may be called primarily a language of the senses. The words originally expressed concrete or material things and movements or actions which struck the senses or started the emotions. Only secondarily and in metaphor could they be used to denote abstract or metaphysical ideas.”

These same Concrete concepts of Eastern thought can also be found in Primitive cultures that exist today who have not been influenced by our Modern Western culture. The linguist Dan Everett, presented during his Endangered Languages and Lost Knowledge seminar, his discovery through his research that the primitive Pirahã tribe in the Amazon did not use abstract perspectives, but instead concrete ones. As an example, the Pirahã tribe call themselves the “straight heads” and outsiders are “crooked heads.” Interestingly, the Ancient Hebrew language uses this same style of speech. A literal translation of Proverbs 14:2 reads, “One who makes his walk straight will revere Yahweh, but the one who makes his path crooked is worthless.”

Everett also found that they had no concept of “left” and “right” (abstract terms of direction), but instead gave direction in relation to the surrounding topography, as in “toward the river,” or “toward the jungle.” Again, this is strikingly similar to the Ancient Hebrews’ perspectives of direction. Exodus 38:9-13 describes the direction of the court in relationship to the four sides of the Tabernacle. The Hebrew words used for these four directions are;

נגב (negev) – meaning “The desert region” (south)
צפון (tzafon) – meaning “The unknown region” (north)
ים (yam) – meaning “The Mediterranean Sea” (west)
קדם (qedem) – meaning “the region of the rising sun” (east)

Step Logic vs. Block Logic

While the Modern Western person thinks and arranges events chronologically (Step Logic), the Ancient Hebrews thought and arranged events according to action and purpose (Block Logic). Let me demonstrate with the following paragraph from a western step logic perspective.

“I got up and ate breakfast and read the newspaper. I then drove to work. While at work I read yesterday’s reports. At noon I walked across the street for lunch. While there I read a magazine. Back at work I read my emails. After work I drove home and had dinner.“

Now let me rearrange this paragraph in block form, the way the Hebrews would have conveyed this same story.

“I drove to work and walked across the street and I drove home. I ate breakfast and I ate lunch and I ate dinner. I read the newspaper and I read the reports and I read a magazine and I read my emails.“

To a person who is steeped in Western step logic, this paragraph would seem illogical as there is no way to make any chronological sense out of this narrative. However, this narrative would make much more sense to a person who is steeped in block logic as they can easily see my actions being grouped together. It is very important when reading the Bible to ignore the philosophy that has been ingrained in you and instead learn a completely new form of philosophy and logic.

Western readers of the Bible, who are reading the Bible from a linear perspective, read the creation account in Genesis as if it was written in chronological order, but this was not how the narrative was written; the different events of the creation account are recorded in blocks of related events.

The first three days of creation are related to separation.

Day 1 – Separating light from darkness
Day 2 – Separating the water from the sky
Day 3 – Separating the land from the water

The next three days of creation are related to the filling of the creation.

Day 4 – Filling the light with the sun and the dark with the moon
Day 5 – Filling the water fish and the sky with birds
Day 6 – Filling the land with animals and man

The record of events for the first six days of creation, are written in blocks of parallels, a form of Hebrew poetry, and can be written like this;

1 – Separating light from darkness

2 – Separating the water from the sky

3 – Separating the land from the water

4 – Filling the light with the sun and the dark with the moon

5 – Filling up the water with fish and the sky with birds

6 – Filling up the land with animals

Days 1 and 4 are paralleled with each other and are recording the same event as we can see from the following verses.

And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. (ESV, Genesis 1:4)

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night … and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.” (ESV, Genesis 1:14a, 18b)

Verse 4 occurs on the first day and is describing the action of God separating light and darkness, but in verse 14, which is day four, we have God again separating light and darkness. There are only two possible explanations for this. Either the separation of light and darkness on the first day disappeared and had to be separated again on the fourth day, or the first and fourth days are recording the same event. In addition, days 2 and 5 are recording the same event, as are days 3 and 6.

Hebrew Descriptions

An oak tree and a ram

In our minds we would never relate an oak tree to a ram or view them as the same. The reason being is that we relate to features and appearances. However, the Hebrews relate to the function and in the case of the oak and the ram, they function in the same way. An oak tree is a very hard wood and the horns and skull of a ram are equally as hard. For this reason, the Hebrew word איל (ayil) is used for a ram (see Genesis 22:13) and an oak (see Isaiah 1:29).

This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. (Genesis 6:15)

From our Modern Western mindset, we assume that this passage is describing the “appearance” of the ark. But this is not so, the dimensions are not given to tell us what it “looked like,” but instead to tell us that it is very large as it is going to hold a large number of animals.

Another example of differing cultural perspectives is how different cultures perceive time. In our modern Western world, we view the past as behind us and the future as ahead of us. In Biblical Hebrew, the word for “yesterday” (the past) is תמול (temol), which comes from the root מול (mul) meaning “in front.” The Biblical Hebrew word for “tomorrow” (the future) is מחר (mahher), which comes from the root אחר (ahher) meaning “in back.” Therefore, from a Biblical Hebrew perspective, the past is in front and the future is behind. We see time from the perspective of passing through it. As we have walked through the past, we see it as behind us and the future, which we have not yet walked in, is in front of us. The Hebrews saw time from the perspective of observance. The past is known and therefore can be seen (in front of the observer), but the future is not known and therefore cannot be seen (behind the observer).

Another major difference between the modern Western view and the ancient Eastern one is how something is described. A westerner would describe a pencil in relationship to its appearance, such as long and yellow. An ancient easterner on the other hand, would describe it by its function, such as “you write with it.” Notice that the western description uses adjectives, but the eastern description uses verbs. Biblical Hebrew rarely uses adjectives; instead, it much more prefers to use verbs.

Static vs. Dynamic

In our Modern western language verbs express action (dynamic) while nouns express inanimate (static) objects. In Hebrew all things are in motion (dynamic) including verbs and nouns. In Hebrew sentences the verbs identify the action of an object while nouns identify an object of action. The verb מלך (malak) is “the reign of the king” while the noun מלך (melek) is the “the king who reigns”. A mountain top is not a static object but the “head lifting up out of the hill”. A good example of action in what appears to be a static passage is the command to “have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). In Hebrew thought this passage is saying “not to bring another one of power in front of my face”.

Hebrew Psychology

Different cultures view the same picture differently

If you were to ask a Westerner, such as from the Americas or Europe, what they see in the picture above, they would probably say “a deer.” However, if you were to ask an Easterner, such as from Japan or China, what they see, they will probably say “a grove.” The difference is that the Western thinker focuses in on one point, while the Eastern thinker looks at the whole of the image.

An experiment demonstrating the different between Western and Eastern thought

In an extensive study on these different forms of philosophy, a wide range of people from America, Canada and Europe were asked if they thought the boy in the middle of the picture on the left was happy or sad, they all said “happy.” They were then asked if they thought the boy in the middle of the picture on the right was happy or sad, they all said “happy.” Then a wide range of people from Asia, including Japan and China, were asked the same questions. When asked if the boy on the left was happy or sad, they all said “happy.” When they were asked if the boy on the right was happy or sad, they all said “sad.”

Again, Western thinkers focus on one point, the boy in the middle. Eastern thinkers on the other hand focus on the picture as a whole and because the majority of the children in the picture on the right were sad, their answer was “sad,” regardless of the smile on the boy in the middle.

The Psychology of the Ancient Hebrews is very different from our own and when we read the Bible, we must learn to read it from the Hebrew’s perspective rather than our own.

When we use a word like “name,” we focus in on how it is written and pronounced.

I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee. (Psalm 22:23)

What does it mean to “tell someone about another’s name?” Does it mean to tell others how to write or pronounce the name? From a Western perspective yes, but from a Hebraic perspective a name is much more than its pronunciation; it is the character of the individual, his ethics, workmanship, attitude, dependability, resourcefulness, compassion, honor, etc. When the Bible teaches us to “tell others the name of Yahweh,” it isn’t telling us to teach others how to write or pronounce it correctly; it is telling us to teach Yahweh’s character.

Taken from : https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/philosophy-of-the-hebrew-language.htm

The post The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language appeared first on 10/40 Window Mission Network.