• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trivia: Hebrews 11:21 et al.; [@Harel13 and @Terry Sampson]

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
This is a One-on-One Thread. Participation is by invitation only.

Harel, ... I'm finally getting around to posting, as promised, regarding the matter we discussed.

  • You initially evoked my interest in Hebrews 11:21 with your inquiry, which follows:
    • I'm reading a book now called Barzilai, which is the Hebrew version of the original German "Barsilai" Sprache als Schrift der Psyche. Ebräisches Wurzel-Wörterbuch, a book on the origins and psychology of the Hebrew language. Along the way, the author, Aharon Marcus (who died about 90 years ago), attacks just about anyone worthy of being attacked, including antisemitic linguists, antisemitic assyrologists, Karaites, Christians, and even some rabbinical scholars (though their refutes are done in a softer fashion). At one point he writes:

      "The guarding of this treasure (the Hebrew script and Masoretic (traditional) reading) even in face of later boundary-crossers, was so strict that the early Christian preachers read, unbeknownst to them, the verse "Vayishtachu Yisrael al rosh hamitah" (And Israel bowed down upon the bed's head) (Gen. 47:31) in a mem petucha and tet segolah (types of Hebrew vowel points)...to this extent they didn't know the pronunciation."

      In other words, Marcus says that early Christians read the word Mitah, meaning bed, as Mateh, meaning staff or stick. Most of the people he agrees or disagrees with are mentioned by name, as are several other historical figures, but not here, for some reason. Do you have any idea to whom he is referring to?
  • I was, as I said, clueless; but I did a little research and found that the basis for Aharon Marcus' complaint is Hebrews 11:21.
    • Hebrews 11:21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      "By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff."
    • That verse refers to events described--I believe--in Genesis 47:29-31 and Genesis 48:1-2, 8-10,
      • 29 When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called his son Joseph and said to him, "If I have now found favor in your eyes, now place your hand beneath my thigh, and you shall deal with me with loving kindness and truth; do not bury me now in Egypt.
        30 I will lie with my forefathers, and you shall carry me out of Egypt, and you shall bury me in their grave." And he [Joseph] said, "I will do as you say."
        31 And he [Israel] said, "Swear to me. " So he swore to him, and Israel prostrated himself on the head of the bed.
      • 1 Now it came to pass after these incidents that [someone] said to Joseph, "Behold, your father is ill." So he took his two sons with him, Manasseh and Ephraim. 2 And [someone] told Jacob and said, "Behold, your son Joseph is coming to you." And Israel summoned his strength and sat up on the bed.
      • 8 Then Israel saw Joseph's sons, and he said, "Who are these?"
        9 Joseph said to his father, "They are my sons, whom God gave me here." So he said, "Now bring them near to me, so that I may bless them."
        10 Now Israel's eyes had become heavy with age, [to the extent that] he could not see. So he drew them near to him, and he kissed them and embraced them.
        11 And Israel said to Joseph, "I had not expected to see [even] your face, and behold, God has shown me your children too."
        12 And Joseph took them out from upon his [Jacob's] knees, and he[Joseph] prostrated himself to the ground.
    • Seems to me like Hebrews 11:21sure squeezes a lot of the events described in Genesis, from 47:29-31 to 48:1-2 and 48:8-13, into one short sentence. So it certainly doesn't surprise me that the author of Hebrews 11:21 falls short of thorough accuracy in his one-sentence version of events in Genesis 47 and 48.
    • What seems odd to me is that Marcos grouses over a Christian error in translating ראשׁ המטה
    • With one set of points, the last set of Hebrew letters mean "bed"; with another set of points, the same set of Hebrew letters mean "staff". As you, Harel, have pointed out: Genesis 47:31, where it reads: "Vayishtachu Yisrael al rosh ham_t_h", absent correct Hebrew vowel points, can read "And Israel bowed down upon the bed's head" or "And Israel bowed down over the top of the staff" leading to the conclusion that Christians didn't know the proper properronunciation of "המטה".
    • Personally, IMO there are worse disabilities than being illiterate in Hebrew; but I do find it intriguing that Marcos lays blame for the improper pronunciation of "המטה" on Christians. Why? Because it appears obvious to me that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not fully literate in Hebrew. If he had been, he wouldn't have described Jacob/Israel, in Hebrews 11:21, as doing something "on the top of his staff". Instead, a Hebrew-literate author would have described Jacob/Israel doing something "on the bed's head." But, ... was the Hebrew-illiterate author really to blame? Was he "just making stuff up"? I think not. Consider:
      • The earliest version of the Christian "Epistle to the Hebrews" is the Greek version.
      • In Greek, Hebrews 11:21 is written:
        • Πίστει ᾿Ιακὼβ ἀποθνῄσκων ἕκαστον τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ιωσὴφ εὐλόγησε, καὶ προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ.
      • The disputed portion is, specifically:
        "ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ" which, in English, means: "on the top/head of his staff"
      • The author's source for that phrase is NOT, in fact, his personal translation of "המטה". The author's source is the Septuagint version of Genesis 47:31. which reads:
        "ειπεν δε ομοσον μοι και ωμοσεν αυτω και προσεκυνησεν ισραηλ επι το ακρον της ραβδου αυτου" [eipen de omoson moi kai ōmosen autō kai prosekunēsen israēl epi to akron tēs rabdou autou].
      • In other words, from where I sit, Marcos ought to have been blaming the translator(s) of Genesis from Hebrew into Greek.
    • So, who failed to translate the Hebrew into Greek correctly?
 
Last edited:

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
What seems odd to me is that Marcos grouses over a Christian error in translating ראשׁ המטה
Oh... I wouldn't really call it grousing. First, it was obviously written in a mocking manner. Second, it was in passing. That was far from being the main subject of the paragraph.
    • In other words, from where I sit, Marcos ought to have been blaming the translator(s) of Genesis from Hebrew into Greek.
  • So, who failed to translate the Hebrew into Greek correctly?
I see no problem in blaming both. :) It's possible he thought the Septuagint wasn't the original Jewish LXX, because the changes made by the scribes according to Jewish tradition don't appear in the version of the Septuagint we have. I think the main gripe, per the context, however, is that Hebrews is copying a translation. If the author of Hebrews was a serious learned scholar in any sense, he would have taken the time to read the original source material and use that. So I guess if we take my conclusion and your conclusion and put them together, the result is that Marcus was mocking the author of Hebrews for being so illiterate that he used a bad translation without realizing it. :)
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Oh... I wouldn't really call it grousing. First, it was obviously written in a mocking manner. Second, it was in passing. That was far from being the main subject of the paragraph.
I sit corrected. Marcos was mocking Christians, and they weren't first on his list. LOL! The former ain't a first, but the latter, IMO, is.
I see no problem in blaming both.
Cool.
in the version of the Septuagint we have.
"We have"??? News to me. Can you direct me to the Jewish version?
I think the main gripe, per the context, however, is that Hebrews is copying a translation.
"Gripe"? You've read Marcos; I haven't. Was he griping or mocking? 'cause in my neighborhood, griping is closer to grousing than mocking is.
If the author of Hebrews was a serious learned scholar in any sense, he would have taken the time to read the original source material and use that.
"A serious learned scholar"? In all my 72 years, I've never heard a first century Christian referred to as "a learned scholar", not even Paul. "serious learned scholars" didn't start coming along until God created Jehovah's Witnesses. :D:D:D:D:D:cool:
Regarding "original source material", ... nevermind.
the result is that Marcus was mocking the author of Hebrews for being so illiterate that he used a bad translation without realizing it.
:facepalm:
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
"We have"??? News to me. Can you direct me to the Jewish version?
We have - as in, the world, today. According to Jewish tradition, the original septuagint was made by Ptolemy forcing 70 or 72 Jewish scribes to sit and translate the Torah without any knowing that there were other translators. Miraculously, they all made the same changes in terminology. When the translation was finished, that day was made into a day of fasting and mourning.

As the current septuagint we have doesn't contain that list of changes, it's widely debated whether it's the original or not.
"Gripe"? You've read Marcos; I haven't. Was he griping or mocking? 'cause in my neighborhood, griping is closer to grousing than mocking is.
Okay, wrong choice of words. :sweatsmile: Main point of humor.
"A serious learned scholar"? In all my 72 years, I've never heard a first century Christian referred to as "a learned scholar", not even Paul.
Care to explain, then, why so many online Christians are all "Paul was a student of Gamaliel he totally knew Torah better than all of the Pharisees put together" and "Jesus was a rabbi it says so in the NT and because he went bonkers in the Temple and also rewrote Halacha that means he knew more than all the Pharisees put together"? o_O:rolleyes::D
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Care to explain, then, why so many online Christians are all "Paul was a student of Gamaliel
Ha. Their inferiority complex and vain imagination that tacking the labels after his hellenized name change would earn him "respect".
Care to explain, ..., then, why so many online Christians are "Jesus was a rabbi"
Zonkers advertising for one who needs no defense or advertising. Jesus either makes a positive, constructive, beneficial impression, or he doesn't. IMO, he's a big boy and can take it; he doesn't need me to make his case for him.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Jesus ... went bonkers in the Temple
Assuming, for a moment, that he did upset some folks somewhere "within" the Temple, I've been meaning to ask: where do you think that alleged event might have taken place? Where would "the moneychangers" have been allowed to set up their tables?
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
As the current septuagint we have doesn't contain that list of changes, it's widely debated whether it's the original or not.
Wait a minute! You can tell me that "ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ" was not in any Greek version of the very first book of the Torah--which certainly seems reasonable to me, given what I know and trust to be a bona fide Hebrew version of the Torah, with or without vowel points--but you can't direct me to a copy of the pre-corrupted text"? Gee, that's a bummer. Maybe the Muslims have a copy. LOL!
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Assuming, for a moment, that he did upset some folks somewhere "within" the Temple, I've been meaning to ask: where do you think that alleged event might have taken place? Where would "the moneychangers" have been allowed to set up their tables?
The way the NT describes it, it sounds like the section of the Temple called the Israelite Section. However, that sounds absolutely crazy, considering what we know about how the Temple was run in those days. Therefore, it would make more sense that it happened - if it even happened - anywhere between what is known today as Robinson's Arch (where there's archeological evidence for there being a marketplace, including money-changing stalls) and the entrance to the Temple (meaning, somewhere in the courtyard leading up to the Temple).
Wait a minute! You can tell me that "ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ" was not in any Greek version of the very first book of the Torah--which certainly seems reasonable to me, given what I know and trust to be a bona fide Hebrew version of the Torah, with or without vowel points--but you can't direct me to a copy of the pre-corrupted text"? Gee, that's a bummer. Maybe the Muslims have a copy. LOL!
The LXX is considered a bit of a complicated issue, but suffice it to say that it was never considered important enough for scholars and scribes to do their best to preserve it over the years. As the hellenized early Christians eventually took it over and added their own Christian translation to the rest of the Tanach, usage of any version of the Septuagint fell out of favor.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
The way the NT describes it, it sounds like the section of the Temple called the Israelite Section. However, that sounds absolutely crazy
That's pretty much what I've thought ever since I started paying attention to the layout of the Second Temple, many years ago.
it would make more sense that it happened - if it even happened - anywhere between what is known today as Robinson's Arch (where there's archeological evidence for there being a marketplace, including money-changing stalls) and the entrance to the Temple (meaning, somewhere in the courtyard leading up to the Temple)
Makes far more sense to me, assuming that it happened even once.
The LXX is considered a bit of a complicated issue, but suffice it to say that it was never considered important enough for scholars and scribes to do their best to preserve it over the years. As the hellenized early Christians eventually took it over and added their own Christian translation to the rest of the Tanach, usage of any version of the Septuagint fell out of favor.
That it fell out of favor when the hellenized Christians used it when and where they could doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that someone would believe that "they added their own Christian translation to the rest of the Tanach". Safe to assume that the Septuagint as it exists today is "the corrupted version"???
I note that, according to Septuagint - Wikipedia, "Greek scriptures were in wide use by the time of Jesus and Paul of Tarsus (early Christianity) because most Christian proselytes, God-fearers, and other gentile sympathizers of Hellenistic Judaism could not read Hebrew." Paul died in the mid-60s C.E. Busy, little bees, those Hellenized Christians were.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
What does surprise me is that someone would believe that "they added their own Christian translation to the rest of the Tanach". Safe to assume that the Septuagint as it exists today is "the corrupted version"???
I note that, according to Septuagint - Wikipedia
There are two parts to the Septuagint. One is the Pentateuch. The other is the rest of the Tanach. The current Pentateuch Septuagint is thought of as mostly harmless, albeit riddled with mistakes. The other part (Prophets, Writings) is thought to have been a later Christian translation, more harmful in theological terms.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
New Topic.

Jews as you know, teach a very, very pure form of monotheism -- there is only one God, and he has no form (nor will he ever, since this is his nature)
I assume that that is an accurate statement.

Question:
  • Are the terms "the one God" and "the Ein Sof" synonyms, i.e. is God the Ein Sof And is the Ein Sof God?
 
Top