But the differences between the Masoretes was in pronunciation of words. What would that have to do with interpreting the word ויצחק?I'm generalizing the Masoretic Text as representative of the Masoretes who devised it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But the differences between the Masoretes was in pronunciation of words. What would that have to do with interpreting the word ויצחק?I'm generalizing the Masoretic Text as representative of the Masoretes who devised it.
The world awaits the Ben-Brey masoretic text.. . . A type oh say like the Freudian slip of the mohel's wrist since a chet ח is closed on both sides and the top such that sinner descend to mostly to hell unless the mohel cuts a space where they can ascend to paradise ה.
Which is a fancy way of saying יעחק wasn't really born as the circumcision, that's Abraham. Isaac must have cut opening him up so that he can roll in the heh with his wife without fearing birthing goyim.
John
But the differences between the Masoretes was in pronunciation of words. What would that have to do with interpreting the word ויצחק?
not sue what your point is.C. M. Cioran said that professor of religion Mircea Eliade "stands in the periphery of every religion by profession as well as by conviction." No religion gets it all right. They're all taking a stab at Jesus on the cross whether they're doing it to kill him, or to see what he's made of, or perhaps like blind men just trying to stake a claim to something in order to anchor their existence.
John
C. M. Cioran said that professor of religion Mircea Eliade "stands in the periphery of every religion by profession as well as by conviction." No religion gets it all right. They're all taking a stab at Jesus on the cross whether they're doing it to kill him, or to see what he's made of, or perhaps like blind men just trying to stake a claim to something in order to anchor their existence.
not sue what your point is.
this makes no sense whatsoever. Your analogies don't seem to connect to what you are trying to say.Orthodoxy is strong enough, stiff enough, to hang Jesus upon. But it's not sharp enough to pierce into him to see what he's made of or what's hidden inside. As we've to break some eggs to make an omelet, we likewise have to break the shell of the scroll before we can perform metzitzah.
There will be blood. And it's what you do with it after the final stage of the ritual of the covenant that determines who and what you are. If you spit it out, you're one thing, and if you drink it that's a whole other thing.
John
The world awaits the Ben-Brey masoretic text.
Your analogies don't seem to connect to what you are trying to say.
scriptural support please. . . That's kinda the point. Orthodoxy doesn't make the necessary connections to see that all religions are throwing spears at the same target: the body hanging on the cross.
Any religion, any at all, that hits the target and then swallows the prey, will receive their just enlightenment. It's just the orthodox versions of each and every faith that with mendacity and tenacity preach to the flock that they and they alone are the chosen ones.
Only if a person swallows when they inhale the spirit will they be high born sons of God. If they wear their religion on their sleeve, or on their forehead and hand, then they're not servants of the most high and are probably just getting high on the doctrines of the antiChrist.
John
I stand by what I said earlier: You're conflating the Masoretes, the guys who preserved the technical aspects of the texts simply by being expert copyist scribes, and Jewish rabbinical commentators, who explain the meaning of the text. You argue that Jesus knew the true meaning of the text, not that he had a different version of what words were actually written. I see no reason, therefore, to blame the Masoretes. Join many other Christians who blame the Pharisees and later Jewish authorities.The Masoretic Text, in placing the Massorah on the page, crucifies the fact that the sacred text, even the synagogue text, is forbidden to be silenced or made to speak only what the authorities and their "authorized" reading make the text say.
What the Pharisees did to Jesus when he offered up a new and novel reading of the Torah-text the Masoretes did to the text itself: nailed down one particular reading with sharp pointy addendum so that it ceased to speak a living word against the calcified, dried, static, orthodoxy.
I stand by what I said earlier: You're conflating the Masoretes, the guys who preserved the technical aspects of the texts simply by being expert copyist scribes, and Jewish rabbinical commentators, who explain the meaning of the text. You argue that Jesus knew the true meaning of the text, not that he had a different version of what words were actually written. I see no reason, therefore, to blame the Masoretes. Join many other Christians who blame the Pharisees and later Jewish authorities.
I gotta ask: why do you open every post with three dots?. . .
How then do you think the text should be read? Spell out in English how the Hebrew should be pronounced, because I', not following what bothers you.. . . I'm not conflating the Masoretes with the Massorah, or the traditional manner of reading the Hebrew text, except in that the Masoretes codified the traditional cantillation/tradition of reading the text in a manner such that it could be placed right on the text itself as though it were part and parcel of the revelation. Elias Levita said that the purpose was to shut down multiple traditions of reading the text, and that placing the points and addendum on the text was against the law according the Chazal.
That Christians are so ignorant that they read the "Old Testament" as it's rendered by the Jewish tradition that got Jesus in trouble is beyond belief.
I'm not implying the Masoretes are the source for the reading they codify and place on the text. I'm merely speaking of the Masoretes and the Masoretic Text as a people and process that attempts to nail down the living word of God as that tradition nailed down Jesus (with the help of dumb goyim).
Secondly, I don't argue that Jesus knew the true meaning of the text as though it has only one true meaning. It's the Jews who, by allowing the traditional reading to be placed on the text, imply that that's the true meaning of the text.
The unbroken string of consonants that was the original Torah-text was a cipher that functioned almost like the spoken word since various interpretive strategies or eisegetical traditions/epistemologies, allowed the same string of consonants to deliver up multiple legitimate interpretations.
scriptural support please
I gotta ask: why do you open every post with three dots?
You are free to do as you wish. I was merely wondering.If it doesn't work that way I'm happy to stop.
How then do you think the text should be read? Spell out in English how the Hebrew should be pronounced, because I'[m], not following what bothers you.
What is the evidence for this?If we take into consideration that in ancient times the scroll of the Torah was written with consecutive letters not separated into words---a fact that allows modern scholars of the Bible plenty of room for exegetical imagination---the later Torah, as it has come down to us, is based on a separation between the words. Thus the ancient manner of writing the text created allowed [sic] numerous readings of the same sequence of letters.
And that still doesn't answer my question: how would you have broken up the verse/pronounced the word/whatever really bothers you about this portion?
I would appreciate if you actually showed how this can be understood from the words - if you want to reinterpret the spacing of the string of letters, that's fine by me, but I need to see in the text itself how you reached your conclusion.The literal text of the Hebrew doesn't say that a hundred year old is going to birth a son. It says a hundred year old is going to be born. It's interpretive license to make it say what the Jewish tradition makes it say. We can see this kind of exegetical license throughout the Tanakh.
The literal text of the Hebrew doesn't say that a hundred year old is going to birth a son. It says a hundred year old is going to be born. It's interpretive license to make it say what the Jewish tradition makes it say. We can see this kind of exegetical license throughout the Tanakh.
I would appreciate if you actually showed how this can be understood from the words - if you want to reinterpret the spacing of the string of letters, that's fine by me, but I need to see in the text itself how you reached your conclusion.