Genesis 17:17: Mind's Retroactive Conception.

John D. Brey said:

הלבן מאה–שנה יולד

Shall a child yet be born to [a man who is] a hundred years old, or shall Sarah, who is ninety years old give birth?
This is how the English translation exists in The Hirsch Chumash. The bracketed statement [a man who is] is bracketed in the text of The Hirsch Chumash. Remove the bracketed comment (since the bracket means it's not really in the Hebrew text being translated), and you get: "Shall a child yet be born a hundred years old." The "to" is part of the interpretation of the preposition ל in הלבן.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation.

John D. Brey said:

And since the preposition ל is interpreted "after," many times throughout the Tanakh, the text literally reads: Shall a son be born after one hundred years.

Click to expand...

Examples?

John D. Brey said:

The commentators strain to interpret ויצחק as an expression of joy, but the meaning of יצחק throughout תנ׳ך does not allow such an interpretation here. . . צחק is always ironic laughter, laughter that denies and condemns the thing that triggers it . . . צחוק is triggered only by noticing something ridiculous or absurd . . ..

Click to expand...

The 'strain' of course comes from a different question: Both Sarah and Abraham laughed upon hearing the good news, but only Sarah was rebuked by God - why?

Harel13 said:

The 'strain' of course comes from a different question: Both Sarah and Abraham laughed upon hearing the good news, but only Sarah was rebuked by God - why?

Click to expand...

From my perspective God asks why Sarah is laughing because what she heard him say, though improbable, is nothing beyond God's power. On the other hand, what God told Abraham, i.e., that he must himself be born again, well, that's hard to swallow. God could forgive Abraham for being perplexed even as Jesus forgave Nicodemus and me.



John

John D. Brey said:

On the other hand, what God told Abraham, i.e., that he must himself be born again, well, that's hard to swallow.

Click to expand...

Still waiting on examples as evidence that ל is used as 'after' in the Tanach.

Harel13 said:

Still waiting on examples as evidence that ל is used as 'after' in the Tanach.

Click to expand...

It's used that way about a dozen times in the first chapter of the Torah. Each time it says "after" his kind, or "after" their kind, it use the preposition lamed.



John

John D. Brey said:

Each time it says "after" his kind, or "after" their kind, it use the preposition lamed.

Click to expand...

Nope, not seeing it. I'm seeing: to its species or to its kind. In other words, I'm seeing 'to'. (I'm not messing with you)

John D. Brey said:

I've spilled no small amount of ink on the subject of the mess the Masoretes have made of the Hebrew of the sacred text of the Torah. And though Genesis 17:17 could be the poster-child for the mess, and though it's a subject worthy of the greatest care, that's not the point of this thread.

This thread is about one of the most obvious, to a theist, points of observation possible, i.e., the life-giving design inherent to, in, the world, the universe/cosmos, versus the truly asinine implication, of the non-theist, that there's no mindful design inherent to the design of the world, the universe/cosmos.

In Genesis 17:17, the correct interpretation of the Hebrew text has Abram exasperated with God over the dynamics of the covenant God is engaging him. As Rabbi Elie Munk points out (R. Samson Hirsch beat him to the punch), in his brilliant, The Call of the Torah, strictly and literally interpreted, Genesis 17:17 says not that Abram laughed, but that he literally insulted God in a harsh and frustrated way. And his frustration is understood when we realize that the text isn't saying Abram is going to give birth when he's already 99 years old, since, for godsake, his father was older than that when he conceived Abram, and one of Abram's sons gave birth well past the penultimate year of a full century.

Without getting into the exegetical desperation for why the Masoretes imply the text has Abram laughing at giving birth at an age that was common in his day, we can point out that correctly exegeted the Hebrew text says that far from Abram birthing a son at 99, something a man in his day would find yawn-worthy (I personally know a woman whose father was pushing Abram's age when she was conceived), Abram is in truth exasperated that God tells him he's going to be reborn, and that he's going to conceive his new man, Abra-h-am, through his wife/sister.


John

Click to expand...

I believe I am missing something. I can see where mocked might be a better translation than laughed but what is Abraham saying then? I think the issue was how long Sarah had been barren.

John D. Brey said:

. . . The big difference between giving birth to a son at 99, versus giving birth to yourself at 99? . . . How could there be a much bigger difference?



John

Click to expand...

I see nothing in the text at all that supports a clone of self. I don't even believe it is possible while the person is living.

John D. Brey said:

. . . When did he lose it? There's no verse claiming he lost it. And since it was common in his day for men to father offspring well past 100, why would he find it unusual?

Genesis 17:17 is not only a perfect parallel to John 3:4, but in John 3:10, Jesus refers specifically (if implicitly) to Genesis 17:17. And so much so, that I, with Jesus, will say to all my Jewish and Christian friends: have you read the bible more than one time and you still don't know that Genesis 17:17 and John 3:10 are parallel passages?

If you want to get into the Hebrew exegesis of Genesis 17:17, I'm game.



John

Click to expand...

I believe he didn't lose it because He was able to impregnate Hagar.

Muffled said:

I believe he didn't lose it because He was able to impregnate Hagar.

Click to expand...

That was years earlier.


John

Harel13 said:

Nope, not seeing it. I'm seeing: to its species or to its kind. In other words, I'm seeing 'to'. (I'm not messing with you)

Click to expand...

. . . Ok . . . Sorry, I was just looking at how it was translated in KJV. I was in a hurry this morning and as I left I realized it was probably an old English peculiarity.

Exodus 16:1 uses the lamed for "after." As does 17:1. Numbers 9:1. And 9:17; 30:15 . . . to mention just a few.



John

Muffled said:

I see nothing in the text at all that supports a clone of self. I don't even believe it is possible while the person is living.

Click to expand...

. . . Are you under the impression Christian rebirth requires cloning?



John

John D. Brey said:

As does 17:1

Click to expand...

I disagree with this one.

John D. Brey said:

. Numbers 9:1

Click to expand...

Both to and after can be used in context.

John D. Brey said:

And 9:17

Click to expand...

Not even close. It means 'and when'.

John D. Brey said:

30:15

Click to expand...

There isn't a ל in this verse that may be used either as to or as after.

John D. Brey said:

Exodus 16:1 uses the lamed for "after."

Click to expand...

On this one I agree.
However, remember that the word we're dealing with is הלבן. It's a word that has both a ה and a ל in the beginning. What you seem to suggest is that the word should mean הבן, but it simply doesn't, because what you have here is both a ה and a ל.

Harel13 said:

On this one I agree.

However, remember that the word we're dealing with is הלבן. It's a word that has both a ה and a ל in the beginning. What you seem to suggest is that the word should mean הבן, but it simply doesn't, because what you have here is both a ה and a ל.

Click to expand...

Concerning your agreement with Exodus 16:1, I'll say that one case is enough since we're talking about the word of God. So a lamed can be used for "after."

The case of the heh and the lamed with the beit and the nun is somewhat problematic since if I'm not mistaken it's a hapax legomenon that doesn't occur anywhere else in the Tanakh.

In the context of how I'm interpreting the text the בן shouldn't be interpreted "child" or even "son," but merely a "person," or "man." Gesenius' Hebrew lexicon says, ". . . followed by the gen. of time, it denotes a person or thing, either born or appearing in that time, or as having existed during that time."

Furthermore, in Genesis 17:16, the verse setting the stage for 17:17, the text says, interpreted literally, "And I will bless her and give you also, out of her as a son, and will bless her [as promised in Genesis 15], so that she shall be [a mother] of nations; kings of people shall be of her." Someone who takes exegesis seriously, say like Abarbanel, will see the power of the interpretation above and question the interpretation codified in the Masoretic Text when they, Abarbanel, question the dual nature of the blessing: "Why does God say, `I will bless her and moreover I will give you a son by her'? Isn't the son himself the blessing, not something additional to the blessing? Why does verse 16 repeat `I will bless her'?"

Abarbanel never whistles Dixie. He's pointing out a serious exegetical discrepancy in the Masoretic codification of the Sage's traditional interpretation. The text is patently clear that God will give Abraham to Sarah as her first ---supernaturally born--- son; and "additionally" bless her by allowing her to give natural-birth to Isaac as promised already (chapter 15) prior to the cutting of the new covenant in chapter 17 where Abraham's brit milah symbolized rebirth is in the cross-hairs of the text. Abarbanel asks early on in exegeting chapter 17, " What is the point of this vision? Hasn't the Holy one already promised him land and offspring? He made a covenant with him about all these things already in chapter 15."

As Abarbanel knows just as well as the other Jewish Sages, Genesis chapter 17 speaks as though it's the establishment of a new, or different, covenant than the one already promised in chapter 15. There are numerous fundamental differences. For instance, Abarbanel notes that in chapter 15, land is part and parcel of the covenant associated with offspring, while in chapter 17 no land grant is promised. Throughout chapter 17 there are fundamental difference that must be dealt with in sound exegesis but which Jewish tradition can't deal with without opening up exegetical problems throughout the Tanakh.


John

John D. Brey said:

The case of the heh and the lamed with the beit and the nun is somewhat problematic since if I'm not mistaken it's a hapax legomenon that doesn't occur anywhere else in the Tanakh.

Click to expand...

There is no other הלבן but there are similar words, for example:

הלזה:


הלשלל & הלבז:
הלהוכח:

הלזה & הלכף:

And so forth. I think whoever translates הלבן as to-a-[100]-year-old is standing on pretty solid ground.

Harel13 said:

And so forth. I think whoever translates הלבן as to-a-[100]-year-old is standing on pretty solid ground.

Click to expand...

Imo, the text is flexible to a degree. It's context that determines why one interpretation might be stronger than another. And a stronger interpretation doesn't necessarily negate a weaker one since the entire revelation must be taken into account and none of us has a monopoly on the revelation of the whole scripture.

I've quoted Rabbi Samson Hirsch claiming that circumcision represents the rebirth of the one being circumcised. He's being born-again for his Jewish mission in life. . . Rabbi Hirsch claims he's born the first time like everyone else, like Abram, and born the second time for his Jewish mission, like Abraham.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, precisely as he said to Abraham (John 8:56-58), you must be born-again.

So when the very symbol of this rebirth, cutting the deliverer of the first birth with a knife (Abraham's circumcision) is taking place, it doesn't seem like it would take too much textual support to read rebirth into or out of the text. And the Hebrew text literally allows, even encourages, it.



John

John D. Brey said:

And a stronger interpretation doesn't necessarily negate a weaker one since the entire revelation must be taken into account and none of us has a monopoly on the revelation of the whole scripture.

Click to expand...

Yes, well-known. Christianity has been basing itself on the exceedingly weaker interpretations of the Tanach for nearly 2000 years now.

But come on, at least don't go around now announcing that the Masoretes were wrong. I think they deserve a little credit for knowing what they were doing, right?

Harel13 said:

Yes, well-known. Christianity has been basing itself on the exceedingly weaker interpretations of the Tanach for nearly 2000 years now.

But come on, at least don't go around now announcing that the Masoretes were wrong. I think they deserve a little credit for knowing what they were doing, right?

Click to expand...

The problem with the Masoretes, and the Masoretic Text, is that Jews had been reading the Tanakh for hundreds and hundreds of years without the pointing system and the text produced by the Masoretes.

The point of the Masoretic Text was something forbidden in the Law: overlaying one tradition, or reading, over the text itself insinuating that it is a mundane text producing only one reading.

The tradition the Masoretes codified in their text is the oral Torah given to Moses. But the commandment given to Moses is that the oral Torah is to be memorized but never written, and the written is to be written but never memorized. That's what Gittin 60b is gettin at.

The MT writes the oral Torah, which is a no no according to the Author of the Torah.

The Masoretes weren't necessarily wrong in their understanding of the Massorah, or the oral Torah given to Israel. But they were wrong as can be in believing, and pimping, one reading as though they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing less than the whole truth.



John

John D. Brey said:

The tradition the Masoretes codified in their text is the oral Torah given to Moses. But the commandment given to Moses is that the oral Torah is to be memorized but never written, and the written is to be written but never memorized. That's what Gittin 60b is gettin at.

Click to expand...

Ironically, Gittin 60b, as well as the rest of Gittin, the rest of Seder Nashim, the rest of the Talmud, the rest of the Mishnah, all the midrashim and many many many more pre-Amoraic texts are a breaking of that commandment. The Masoretes (people who lived around the 9th century CE) were not at all the first to write down Oral Tradition.
There's also a big difference between what the Masoretes did and what the Amoraim and Tannaim did. The Masoretes, though disagreeing on the spelling of certain words in the Torah, didn't ever add the vowel points into the Torah itself. That is, the vowel points they wrote down were written in non-halachic versions of the Torah and the rest of the Tanach - not the Torah scrolls used during services, which are, to this day, letters-only.
The Masoretes did what they did in order to ensure the preserving of the tradition. The fact that by the time of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali there were already over 800 disagreements on spellings and pronunciations is clear evidence of critical information that is lost during long, harsh years of exile. Just imagine how many more disagreements there would have been today had the Masoretes not written down their systems back then!

John D. Brey said:

The MT writes the oral Torah, which is a no no according to the Author of the Torah.

Click to expand...

Again, if you want to point fingers at anyone, point them as Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, not the Masoretes. They were far from the first people to write down the Oral Tradition.

Harel13 said:

Ironically, Gittin 60b, as well as the rest of Gittin, the rest of Seder Nashim, the rest of the Talmud, the rest of the Mishnah, all the midrashim and many many many more pre-Amoraic texts are a breaking of that commandment. The Masoretes (people who lived around the 9th century CE) were not at all the first to write down Oral Tradition.
There's also a big difference between what the Masoretes did and what the Amoraim and Tannaim did. The Masoretes, though disagreeing on the spelling of certain words in the Torah, didn't ever add the vowel points into the Torah itself. That is, the vowel points they wrote down were written in non-halachic versions of the Torah and the rest of the Tanach - not the Torah scrolls used during services, which are, to this day, letters-only.
The Masoretes did what they did in order to ensure the preserving of the tradition. The fact that by the time of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali there were already over 800 disagreements on spellings and pronunciations is clear evidence of critical information that is lost during long, harsh years of exile. Just imagine how many more disagreements there would have been today had the Masoretes not written down their systems back then!

Again, if you want to point fingers at anyone, point them as Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, not the Masoretes. They were far from the first people to write down the Oral Tradition.

Click to expand...

The first issue your statements bring up is the difference between the traditional reading of the Torah text, as defined by cantillation and the massorah, versus the interpretive actions found in the Talmud. One, the first, is a fundamental part of the nature of the text of the Torah, while the other is purely interpretive.

In this sense, the Talmud is like the New Testament, i.e., a particular way to read the Torah text, i.e., purely interpretive.

In the Talmud, the Chazal go back and forth developing different, opposing, live, interpretations. The Talmud is open-ended.

For the Masoretic Text to be anything like the Talmud there would have to be multifarious pointings of the text so that the Sages can constantly debate the various renderings in an open-ended fashion. And yet that would render the Masoretic Text pointless (no pun intended) since the whole point of the pointing . . . is to point the text in just one authoritative, Pharisaical, direction: the one that justified the death of a first century Torah scholar who opposed the reading codified in the MT.

As a Christian, I find the Talmud as legitimate as the New Testament. The Masoretic Text I find to be criminal, guilty of many serious crimes. One being an attempted cover-up of the most serious abortion of justice that has ever occurred.



John

John D. Brey said:

The first issue your statements bring up is the difference between the traditional reading of the Torah text, as defined by cantillation and the massorah, versus the interpretive actions found in the Talmud. One, the first, is a fundamental part of the nature of the text of the Torah, while the other is purely interpretive.

Click to expand...

No issue raised. What I'm doing is looking at the Oral Tradition as a whole, and that whole includes the halachas of the Written commandments, certain interpretations and interpretive styles, the Masoretic reading and more. All are part of Oral Tradition, all were written down post-exile for fear of being forgotten or lost. The first person to make an official halachic Oral Tradition document was Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. The Masoretes' Tanach scrolls were also halachic because they explained how to properly write and read a Sefer Torah (the one used in services).