Spirituality
14 Dec 09
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by vistesdoh my friend, i have but a very tatty copy myself found in a second hand book shop! please if you have the time can you give your thoughts on this,
[b]I shall prove…]
Nice. Now—and this is just where we’re likely at an impasse that we just need to understand and accept, and move on—rabbinical exegesis generally eschews any notion of “the one right meaning” of the Hebrew. But, “I shall prove to be…”—that’s certainly good.
What most seem to agree on about eheyeh is that it does not im ...[text shortened]... is busted for now, but I have at least two in mind for my wish-list. Thanks for the reference.[/b]
The diligent work of scribes throughout the ages has been involved in its preservation (the Bible , particularly the Hebrew portion). The most meticulous of these were the Masoretes, professional Hebrew scribes who worked from the sixth to the tenth century C.E. Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels. Over time, this increased the danger of losing the proper pronunciation as Aramaic replaced Hebrew. The Masoretes developed a system of vowel points to add to the Bible text in order to indicate the correct pronunciation of Hebrew words.
Significantly, the Masoretic vowel points in the Leningrad Codex allow for the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton—the four Hebrew consonants making up the divine name—as Yehwah’, Yehwih’, and Yeho·wah’. “Jehovah” is now the most widely known pronunciation of the name. The divine name was a living, familiar term to Bible writers and others of ancient times.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGranted. My only revision would be that no one can say that it wasn't pronounced YeHoVaH--since I don't think that the hard "J" sound is a possibility. (But, my understanding is that the "J" equivalent stems from Germanic, where it would also be pronounced like "Y".)
the tertagrammaton can also be written JHVH, depending upon which English equivalent you use. what is more, the divine name, Jehovah, made from the tetragrammaton, with vowels supplied i.e. JeHoVaH is readily found, in the ancient Hebrew names, such as EliJAH, AdoniJAH and has been widely accepted for hundreds of years. Of course no one can state w ...[text shortened]... tainty how it was pronounced, but none can state either that the pronunciation, was not JeHoVaH.
But that's a quibble. There is no problem with the sounds changing with language changes--that's just the way it is. Yeshu (or yeshua) = Ieysu = Jesus (with the hard "J" of English of the "H" of Spanish).
I actually have known of Lutheran congregations splitting over whether or not German was the only proper Biblical language! (And there are hyper-Orthodox Jews who object to Hebrew being used as a secular language in Israel; and there is a Talmudic lament over the Torah ever having been translated into Greek.)
Now, I am a Hebrew-phile. But I am not fluent (maybe someday), and I have to work from English translations too, and take the Hebrew in small chunks.
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwyou dont think its important for a Christian to use gods name?
God has a name. Doesn't He?
Some day I will know it.
And as far as God's gender is concerned, I'm not sure it makes any difference. But I do know that God is the Father according to scripture.
Nice spelling lesson though! Doesn't change a thing.
'our father, which art in heaven, hollowed be your name',
Jesus Christ, 'i have made your name manifest to the world',
how can you sanctify or make hallowed, gods name if you dont know what it is!
how can you make it manifest if you don't know what it is!
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree with everything you say here—except:
oh my friend, i have but a very tatty copy myself found in a second hand book shop! please if you have the time can you give your thoughts on this,
The diligent work of scribes throughout the ages has been involved in its preservation (the Bible , particularly the Hebrew portion). The most meticulous of these were the Masoretes, professional Heb ...[text shortened]... name. The divine name was a living, familiar term to Bible writers and others of ancient times.
Well, it’s always difficult in these things to say something like “most Jews”—let alone “all Jews”! The rabbinical history seems to be replete with those (including Rashi!) who will say something like “don’t say [word with this vowelization], but rather say [word with that vowelization]”. (It was Rashi—whether or not he was the first, I don’t know—who said that b’resheet should be read “When God began to create”, rather than “In the beginning”; others read “With beginning…”
So, I think Masoretic text is taken as a “provisional standard” (all the printed Torahs that I have use the Masoretic text) subject to creative/interpretive alteration.
In Judaism, the interpretive possibilities are always open. The limits might be more tightly drawn for Orthodox Jews than for, say, reform Jews—and the Kabbalists can get pretty wild. I play it pretty fast and loose myself. But even within Orthodoxy, new creative interpretations seem to be sought.
That is perhaps because rabbinical Judaism is not in essence a doctrinal religion, but—as the head of the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary in New York once said—a hermeneutical religion. The single doctrinal statement (setting aside Maimonides 13 Principles) is the Shema—and it is at least interpreted both in terms of dualistic monotheism and non-dualism.
So, when it comes to reading the Hebrew Scriptures, I can never really say: “I’m right.” (And I forget that sometimes, I admit.) All I can ever really say is: “This is a possibility.”
And traditional Torah study (which I have never had the opportunity to take part in) is framed as dialogic argument. You might recall the scene from the movie Yentl, in which two students have lapsed into a friendly side-conversation. The rabbi comes over and asks: “Are you two agreeing or disagreeing?” The reply: “Oh, we’re disagreeing, rabbi, we’re disagreeing!” The rabbi nods and moves on… Talmudic scholar Marc Alain-Ouaknin said (in a footnote to his book The Burnt Book: Reading the Talmud) that the representation of the house of study in Yentl was an accurate one.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by vistesdwow this is amazing, i was unaware that the masoretes actually included marginals and vowel points. this is of interest to us, because the Leningrad codex (man what i would give just to glimpse it, not that i could read it, just for the experience) are based sources for our own Bible, namely Rudolf Kittels Biblia Hebraica and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In your 'authorised', or how can we say, 'standardised', versions of the Torah, are these marginals and vowel points also present?
I agree with everything you say here—except:
Well, it’s always difficult in these things to say something like “most Jews”—let alone “all Jews”! The rabbinical history seems to be replete with those (including Rashi!) who will say something like “don’t say [word with this vowelization], but rather say [word with that vowelization]”. (It was Rashi—whethe ...[text shortened]... ding the Talmud[/i]) that the representation of the house of study in Yentl was an accurate one.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay smarty pants, what is God's name?
you dont think its important for a Christian to use gods name?
'our father, which art in heaven, hollowed be your name',
Jesus Christ, 'i have made your name manifest to the world',
how can you sanctify or make hallowed, gods name if you dont know what it is!
how can you make it manifest if you don't know what it is!
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI actually have the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia! (Long story!)
wow this is amazing, i was unaware that the masoretes actually included marginals and vowel points. this is of interest to us, because the Leningrad codex (man what i would give just to glimpse it, not that i could read it, just for the experience) are based sources for our own Bible, namely Rudolf Kittels Biblia Hebraica and the Biblia Hebraica Stu y, 'standardised', versions of the Torah, are these marginals and vowel points also present?
Every printed copy of the Torah that I have has the Masoreitc text (with vowel points, etc.). Torah scrolls (as, for example, read in the synagogue) have none of that.
But that rabbis generally are not bound by the Masoretes. (So maybe “convention” is better than “standard”.) Or maybe the Masoretic text is aimed at rendering P’shat: the “plain meaning” of the text. In rabbinical hermeneutics there are three deeper levels: Remez, which looks for hints and allusions to other possible considerations in the immediate text itself; D’rash, which seeks out meanings that are not apparent (or even hinted at) in the immediate text, but might be found in other texts—or even the imagination of the reader; Sod is the level of mystical interpretation, which includes the Kabbalah.
“Midrash” is the name, broadly, for this kind of exegesis, but means to a “searching out” (drash: to search). One can find in the recorded midrashim many conflicting (and unresolved) readings of a given Torah text—and these serve as springboards for further readings.
For example—just off the top of my head—some rabbis read the opening of Genesis as “With beginning, God created…”. Then they leap to the proverbs where Wisdom says: “God created me the beginning of his ways…”. So what was God’s first creation? Wisdom. Others say that God first created “in the beginning”—and that would fit in nicely with your comments on “becoming”… There is always an “in the beginning” in which one can discern a new becoming…
Here is a quote from a small graphic novel I have called The Rabbi’s Cat (by Joann Sfar), in which the rabbi says: “Western thought works by thesis, antithesis, synthesis; while Judaism goes thesis, antithesis, antithesis, antithesis…”.
So, I suppose its fair to say that the rabbis acknowledge the Masoeretic text (and it’s achievements), but are not bound by it.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by vistesdits just beautiful never the less, for it shows a reverence and respect for the revealed word of God!
I actually have the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia! (Long story!)
Every printed copy of the Torah that I have has the Masoreitc text (with vowel points, etc.). Torah scrolls (as, for example, read in the synagogue) have none of that.
But that rabbis generally are not bound by the Masoretes. (So maybe “convention” is better than “stan ...[text shortened]... hat the rabbis acknowledge the Masoeretic text (and it’s achievements), but are not bound by it.
20 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwdid you read in your bible Psalm 83:18, perhaps you would like to tell the forum, what it states? you do read the bible , dont you? it would be hard for Jesus to make Gods name manifest and to tell his followers to pray for its sanctification, if he didnt know and use it, would it not? perhaps like the trinity he just inferred it, or experienced it, or was mystified by it! but never actually spoke it!
Very odd robbie. You just finished going over this with vistesd. No one knows God's name.
I don't recall reading where Jesus said God's name either.
JEHOVAH Are you sure?
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes! A paradigmatically different approach to scripture, a paradigmatically different understanding of “the truth”—but reverent nevertheless. And even playfully reverent at times.
its just beautiful never the less, for it shows a reverence and respect for the revealed word of God!
To be able to see the beauty—across such a divide, to see it along with that necessary and quite valid “nevertheless”—that’s something, my friend. And meaningful to me.
I have just, after a year of floundering around—and regretting most of my posts on here—returned to the practice of studying the weekly Torah portion. Usually I get stuck on some particular verse or phrase and spend days, the commentaries and other—often far-fetched—source material piling up on tables and the floor. Last week it was the simple phrase “And he dreamed another dream…”, introducing the second dream of Joseph—and then I had to run ahead to read the whole Joseph cycle (beyond the weekly portion), just because of that simple poetic line… I had just gotten the 2nd and 3rd volumes of Daniel Matt’s translation of the Zohar (the reason my book budget’s busted), and had to read all of that kabbalistic “midrash” on it too. Let’s just say that, after a year of emotional and spiritual and intellectual fragmentation, that has brought me renewed shalom.
I am a nondualist (like our mutual friend blackbeetle), and I have recently promised (threatened?) he and Bosse de Nage that I would start another thread on kabbalah. I have the opening post just about put together—it is not a midrash on Torah, but a (speculative) “midrash” on a midrash: that the Torah is written in “black fire on white fire”. It’s all on the level of sod—or, rather, a pointing to the level of sod, since words are just paradoxical and poetical pointers, and not descriptors, at that level (in my view anyway). It’s about as “out there” as anything that I’ve done (I did a few midrash on here before your time; it’s been awhile). But maybe you’ll find it—the underlying principles, not my poor attempt at rendering it!—beautiful “nevertheless”. No one could ask for more.
Thanks, Robbie.
21 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd pray tell, what did Jesus say when asked what the greatest virtues were??
where you get the idea that Christ's greatest virtue was not self sacrificing love, i do not know? perhaps you are aware that love in English is very one dimensional and restrictive in meaning, whereas the Greek as used in the Bible, has four distinctive meanings, each with their respective nuances. to which aspect of love are you referring? Also C ...[text shortened]... es, but i shall spare you, for i fear i have already burdened you with many words as it is 🙂
Answer: Faith, hope and the greatest is charity.
You should read the recent discovery of the deliberate mistranslation around 1800 years ago.
Or perhaps you disagree with your "god" on this one.
I don't recall any Jehovahs Witnesses pointing this out at any time in your sects history. But I am sure they will now, lol.