Exegeting Isaiah 44.

[John D. Brey]

Why isn't the wonder-working brass-serpent (nailed to the wood) idolatrous? Heck. It possesses quasi-divine power over life and death such that Rabbi Elie Munk states that by looking up at it the Israelites were casting their gaze toward Hashem (who alone has ultimate power over life and death). What's the relationship or fundamental distinction between a molten graven image like Nehushtan (manifesting power over life and death) versus pagan divinity worship? If the brass-serpent isn't used to get you to gaze up at Hashem, what will take its place? What would qualify as a non-idolatrous-idol outside the brass-serpent, and why?

Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God which he made with you and you make a graven image פסל or likeness of anything which Lord thy God hath forbidden thee.

Deuteronomy 4:23.​

A serpent-rod made of molten-metal and wood would seem to qualify as something forbidden by God? And pointing this out isn't an attack on the veracity of scripture. The fact of the veracity of scripture implies that apparent contradictions like this are the outer shell or fore skene of palatable truth. There appear to be at least two fundamental reasons the serpent-rod isn't completely idolatrous. One of them is the Hebrew word שם found a few verses down in Deuteronomy 4:29 where we read, in context:

And there ye shall serve gods that are the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.​

And then the kicker:

But if from these שם, you seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him.

Deuteronomy 4:29.​

To find him one must be "obedient unto his voice קל" (verse 30) not to the pen from whence he wrote the decrees and commandments. Moses implies that in the latter days (v. 30) Israel will be forced to chose between the two (voice versus pen, written Torah versus oral Torah). This choosing between the two is utterly contrary to Judaism proper; it's not proper according to a Jewish understanding. More importantly, Deuteronomy 4:29 throws Judaism proper a major curve ball when it implies that if you use the idolatrous images that don't eat, or speak, or walk, or talk (to include Nehushtan), as the speculum, prism, or base manifestation, the spectacle or spectacles used to see with, then, when the time comes, i.e., Isaiah 52:10, you shall find Hashem.

In this crucial crucible the deepest meaning of the two-fold nature of the Torah (dead-letter versus living breath) is coiled around the crux of the distinction between the faithful Jews of the first century versus the apostates who left the fold. When Nehushtan can walk, talk, eat, and speak, salvation has arrived.

The frame of reference for the epithets and metaphors attached to the Torah is the characteristic terminology of the solar cults. Cleverly, the appropriate vocabulary has been emptied of its pagan content and has taken on a new life.

Professor Nahum Sarna, On the Book of Psalms, p. 92.​

Answering how a pagan idol like Nehushtan (a molten-serpent mounted on a wooden-priapic shrine) can be emptied of its pagan content so that it can take on new life leads headfirst into the second fundamental reason the serpent-rod isn't utterly idolatrous through and through.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Answering how a pagan idol like Nehushtan (a molten-serpent mounted on a wooden-priapic shrine) can be emptied of its pagan content so that it can take on new life leads headfirst into the second fundamental reason the serpent-rod isn't utterly idolatrous through and through.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

Exodus 20:22-24.​

The Lord juxtaposes the pagan idols with what's appropriate in order to call on the name of the Lord: an earthen altar of sacrifice. The emblem of the Lord, i.e., where his name, and thus Presence, will be found, will be an earthen אדמה sacrificial altar מזבח.

What follows Exodus 20:24 creates serious problems for Jewish exegetes. As its found in the MT, the text makes no sense, and neither Rashi, nor Ibn Ezra, nor any other Jewish interpreter comes up with an interpretation they're happy with. When that happens, it means something peculiar is going on in, or beneath, the text. The heart of the problem is verse 26:

Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.​

Exodus 20:26.​

Rashi scratches various itches trying to understand what the text is saying since, as he points out in his commentary, the Lord has already commanded that britches be made in such a manner that there's not going to be any dangling nakedness be there steps or no steps. Since this is the case, the verse makes no sense.

To make sense of Exodus 20:26, requires an understanding both of the biblical rules of engaging the text, and also the understanding that when verses like this are encountered, i.e., when no one understands what it's saying, the possibility of error in scribal transmission rises exponentially (if the scribe, or transcriber, or translator, doesn't know what the text is actually saying it's easier to conflate words in the copying process).

Verse 24 speaks of a sacrificial altar of earth אדמה, while verse 25 changes the subject to speak not of the first "altar" מזבח, but of a "pillar" מצבת (the text repeats the first word מזבח in what's likely a scribal error). The subject moves from an "earthen" אדמה altar of sacrifice, such as is found outside the covered shrine or temple, to a pillar of stone אבנים such as exists in the most holy place of the temple or shrine. The shift from "earth" to "stone" supplements the shift from one kind of altar to another.

Justifying the shift from an earthen altar to a "pillar" of stone is justified by the statement in verse 25 that, "thou shalt not build it by hewing or cutting stones, for if thou lift up thy tool upon it thou has polluted it." Daniel (2:34) speaks of a similar or parallel stone cut out without hands or tools as the personage who defeats the idol image in his own narrative. In the second chapter of Daniel, the stone is personified as the Lord as it appears to be here in Exodus 20:25-26.

If that be the case, then we can suspect that Exodus 20:25-26 is speaking of the juxtaposing of the pagan priapic stones with the pillar of Yahweh. Concerning the former, it was the practice that on their wedding night, all the brides of the tribe would go to the temple and ascend steps placed before the shrine where, having ascended the steps, they straddled the pillar in order to deflower themselves in the ritual that implies that the firstborn of every family belongs to the tribal god, is his son.

Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine pillar that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.​

Exodus 20:26.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Justifying the shift from an earthen altar to a "pillar" of stone is justified by the statement in verse 25 that, "thou shalt not build it by hewing or cutting stones, for if thou lift up thy tool upon it thou has polluted it." Daniel (2:34) speaks of a similar or parallel stone cut out without hands or tools as the personage who defeats the idol image in his own narrative. In the second chapter of Daniel, the stone is personified as the Lord as it appears to be here in Exodus 20:25-26.

Explaining why lifting a tool to gain or produce the pillar pollutes it requires an exegetical tour de force since another one of the tell-tale signs of scribal confusion is when we find Hebrew words or phrases that are interpreted as hapax in the text: when they're interpreted a unique way, i.e., interpreted a certain way for the first and last time in the entire Tanakh.

In Daniel 2:34, where a stone is cut out without a tool being lifted to cut and thus pollute the stone, the word used for the "hands" or tool that didn't produce or pollute the stone, is ידון; its a diminutive of the word yad יד. It means a small yad or an organ associated with a yad in some parallel way (perhaps like when in modesty the sacred text calls a penis a foot or thigh that the word penis not pollute the tongue or the written page).

The problem is that it's used (ידון is) about a dozen times in the Tanakh and not once is it interpreted as the plural of yad as found in the MT (i.e., "hands"), nor as a diminutive of yad (a small yad). In 10 out of the 12 uses, it's interpreted as a third person masculine singular "shall judge" י–דון.

At least 30 times the word for "hands" (as found in English version of the MT interpretation of Daniel 2:34) is ידים rather than ידון. It's as though the interpreters who don't know what Exodus 20:25-26 is going on about when implying that cutting the stone out with hands will pollute it, are concerned that acknowledging the diminutive of yad in Daniel 2:34 (it ain't talking about "hands") might spill the beans on what's going on in Exodus 20:25-26? On the other hand, they might just be in the dark about both scriptures and their parallel meaning.



John

 

[dybmh]

@John D. Brey ,

It's been an interesting thread so far. I have refrained from restating my previous objections about the bronze serpent in order to see where you're heading with this.

I do think its important to point out that the scribal error you're talking about is prevented by soferim because they verbalize each word as they are writing. Mizbayach ( altar ) is very much different that Matzevot ( pillars ) when spoken. Also, it's not that no one knows what these words mean. That part is rather easy. Understanding why, is only a tiny bit more difficult. There's some interesting ideas mentioned in Talmud and Midrash connecting this verse to the next section of law.

Also, these are laws given to the entire nation, not just the priests. So the laws which come later about the linen breeches don't apply to everyone. The general population brought their offerings up to the altar and slaughtered them together with the priests. So ascension was not just for the priests. I think that resolves the issue easily and simply. Exposing oneself was a liability for the people, not the priests.

And regarding ya-dohn, which you correctly identify as a verb, and as you have noted it is most often ( always? ) translated this way, will not make sense if it is switched to a noun. This is the same problem we had in another thread. If you would like to change a word from verb to noun or vice-versa that has ramifications which I don't think make sense either.

So, if you're argument is scribal errors occur when the scribe cannot understand what's written so, they make a little boo-boo to change it. Then flip-flopping verb to noun would trigger many many scribal errors. But, that's not what we see. The Torah scrolls are extremely consistent. The scribal process is very very good and has been for a very very long time. Only 9 letter differences has been detected among Torah scrolls. None of which effect the meaning of the words, they are only minor spelling differences. See below.

Accuracy of Torah Text - Aish.com

 

[John D. Brey]

I do think its important to point out that the scribal error you're talking about is prevented by soferim because they verbalize each word as they are writing. Mizbayach ( altar ) is very much different that Matzevot ( pillars ) when spoken.

A potential problem with your statement is that the vocalization is interpretive and is not a part of the signature text. The vocalization is added after the text is interpreted and not before it's interpreted. For over a thousand years the text was written, copied, and re-written, without vocalization added to the text. This means that the way the text was interpreted (how is the word vocalized) required the soferim to memorize how the word was supposed to be vocalized rather than seeing the vocalization (the Masoretic points) telling them what the vocalization is suppose to be. Furthermore, various traditions vocalized the text differently before the current tradition for reading the text was canonized and codified as allegedly correct.

Looking at the actual consonants, without the vocalization, we have:

מזבח
מצבת

The chet and the tav are nearly identical, and the zayin and tzaddi are pronounced similarly. Handwritten, rather than using a typescript, the chances of error are even greater since each scribe will have his own unique way of writing each letter.

Also, these are laws given to the entire nation, not just the priests. So the laws which come later about the linen breeches don't apply to everyone. The general population brought their offerings up to the altar and slaughtered them together with the priests. So ascension was not just for the priests. I think that resolves the issue easily and simply. Exposing oneself was a liability for the people, not the priests.

None of the commentary I've read argues your point. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But I'm not familiar with Jewish garb where a male Jew wears a skirt or kilt, or anything really, that would allow the family jewels to dangle naked when ascending stairs?

In perfect Freudian confirmation of my own exegesis, Rabbi Hirsch says, "the heights of My altar will never be mounted!" Amazing. Why do you think he says that?

And regarding ya-dohn, which you correctly identify as a verb, and as you have noted it is most often ( always? ) translated this way, will not make sense if it is switched to a noun. This is the same problem we had in another thread. If you would like to change a word from verb to noun or vice-versa that has ramifications which I don't think make sense either.

So, if you're argument is scribal errors occur when the scribe cannot understand what's written so, they make a little boo-boo to change it. Then flip-flopping verb to noun would trigger many many scribal errors. But, that's not what we see. The Torah scrolls are extremely consistent. The scribal process is very very good and has been for a very very long time. Only 9 letter differences has been detected among Torah scrolls. None of which effect the meaning of the words, they are only minor spelling differences. See below.

Accuracy of Torah Text - Aish.com

When you say only 9 letter differences have been detected you're speaking only of the copying of the authorized reading of the text. Prior to the codification of the authorized reading of the text, there were hundreds, or thousands, of differences in how the text was copied and vocalized. The Masoretic vocalization of the text is only the vocalization preferred by the Pharisaical codifiers of the text. A first century Jewish scholar by the name of Jesus of Nazareth was not thrilled with that vocalization of the text.

I know as well as you do that the Masoretic reading of the text speaks twice of an altar in the last few verses in Exodus 20. I'm implying that using something akin to archeology tools and skills transferred to exegesis, we can dig a bit deeper into the strata of the text and context to see that there's reason to believe someone somewhere may have confused, purposely, or not, an altar with a pillar. The very care with which the text is copied and cared for allows us to sniff out potential mistakes. Abarbanel is the master at noticing anomalies in the text.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I know as well as you do that the Masoretic reading of the text speaks twice of an altar in the last few verses in Exodus 20. I'm implying that using something akin to archeology tools and skills transferred to exegesis, we can dig a bit deeper into the strata of the text and context to see that there's reason to believe someone somewhere may have confused, purposely, or not, an altar with a pillar. The very care with which the text is copied and cared for allows us to sniff out potential mistakes. Abarbanel is the master at noticing anomalies in the text.

Looking again at Ibn Ezra, he says that this is the altar Moses built in 24:4. In that text Moses just happens to build an altar with, get this, twelve pillars. It appears to be a general model that you have an altar of sacrifice and also a pillar (or pillars), or a grove, such as is found in Judges 6:25.



John

 

[dybmh]

A potential problem with your statement is that the vocalization is interpretive and is not a part of the signature text. The vocalization is added after the text is interpreted and not before it's interpreted. For over a thousand years the text was written, copied, and re-written, without vocalization added to the text. This means that the way the text was interpreted (how is the word vocalized) required the soferim to memorize how the word was supposed to be vocalized rather than seeing the vocalization (the Masoretic points) telling them what the vocalization is suppose to be. Furthermore, various traditions vocalized the text differently before the current tradition for reading the text was canonized and codified as allegedly correct.

1) How do we know that the text was written without standard vocalization? Just because the vowel points aren't there doesn't mean that the language was not set. Vowels aren't written anywhere in modern Hebrew, and yet the pronounciation is standardized. It's part of the language.

2) I'm not sure that these vocalization differences could render mizbayach into matzvebot. That's a very big change.

Looking at the actual consonants, without the vocalization, we have:

מזבח
מצבת

You would have a point if the text wasn't verbalized during the scribal process.

The chet and the tav are nearly identical, and the zayin and tzaddi are pronounced similarly. Handwritten, rather than using a typescript, the chances of error are even greater since each scribe will have his own unique way of writing each letter.

Except, there is no "different" handwriting for these scribes. Every letter is written exactly the same for each and every scribe. It is "typescript". These scribes are amazing artisans. Having seen inside different Torah scrolls thoughout my life, I can tell you they are identical.

None of the commentary I've read argues your point. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But I'm not familiar with Jewish garb where a male Jew wears a skirt or kilt, or anything really, that would allow the family jewels to dangle naked when ascending stairs?

I know. I have no idea why something so simple isn't addressed by the commentators.... unless.... they didn't know what the ancient Jews would be wearing either. Considering Deuteronomy 22:5, maybe they imagined the male/female dress code distinction as more than it actually was at the time of the exodus?

Here's a picture of the semetic nomads entering egypt approx. 1800 bce. You can tell the difference between the ancient nomads and the egyptians by the beards. The typical clothing are what appear to be long open ended gowns and skirts.

In perfect Freudian confirmation of my own exegesis, Rabbi Hirsch says, "the heights of My altar will never be mounted!" Amazing. Why do you think he says that?

No clue. I'll have to read that!

When you say only 9 letter differences have been detected you're speaking only of the copying of the authorized reading of the text. Prior to the codification of the authorized reading of the text, there were hundreds, or thousands, of differences in how the text was copied and vocalized. The Masoretic vocalization of the text is only the vocalization preferred by the Pharisaical codifiers of the text. A first century Jewish scholar by the name of Jesus of Nazareth was not thrilled with that vocalization of the text.

I'm not sure you're understanding the logic of what I'm saying, or maybe I'm not being clear.

According to the article I posted, the sanhedrin used to police the accuracy of the Torah scrolls. That ended at 70 CE? The MT was established 700 CE? If there was no standard pronounciation, and no policing, and the text doesn't make sense as written, there should be many many scribal errors, many many different versions. But that's not what we see today.

Further, the text itself makes perfect sense. It's only the 'why' which is unclear. And as you have stated it is common Jewish practice not to question these rules deeply. So, the scribe wouldn't interpret, wouldn't change it. They would read the word, write the word.

I know as well as you do that the Masoretic reading of the text speaks twice of an altar in the last few verses in Exodus 20. I'm implying that using something akin to archeology tools and skills transferred to exegesis, we can dig a bit deeper into the strata of the text and context to see that there's reason to believe someone somewhere may have confused, purposely, or not, an altar with a pillar. The very care with which the text is copied and cared for allows us to sniff out potential mistakes. Abarbanel is the master at noticing anomalies in the text.

I'm certainly curious and interested to see what you have discovered.

 

[John D. Brey]

1) How do we know that the text was written without standard vocalization? Just because the vowel points aren't there doesn't mean that the language was not set. Vowels aren't written anywhere in modern Hebrew, and yet the pronounciation is standardized. It's part of the language.

Other than context, without vocalization, how would you know if the text was speaking of Adam אדם or Edom אדם?

Except, there is no "different" handwriting for these scribes. Every letter is written exactly the same for each and every scribe. It is "typescript". These scribes are amazing artisans. Having seen inside different Torah scrolls thoughout my life, I can tell you they are identical.

Concerning modern scrolls I could agree. But if you went back two thousand years, or even to when the text was written in ktav ivri instead of ktav ashuris, I think there could be some considerable differences.

I know. I have no idea why something so simple isn't addressed by the commentators.... unless.... they didn't know what the ancient Jews would be wearing either. Considering Deuteronomy 22:5, maybe they imagined the male/female dress code distinction as more than it actually was at the time of the exodus?

Actually a couple of them make arguments that the text is speaking of the temple, and the priests are in the crosshairs of the dangling chads. See Rashi. He implies that it's speaking specifically of the priesthood since Hashem is mentioned in conjunction with the altar, and the tetragrammaton is only pronounceable by priests.

Here's a picture of the semetic nomads entering egypt approx. 1800 bce. You can tell the difference between the ancient nomads and the egyptians by the beards. The typical clothing are what appear to be long open ended gowns and skirts.

Ok. Then I'll agree with Rashi.

According to the article I posted, the sanhedrin used to police the accuracy of the Torah scrolls.

Surely not using the Samaritan text. Point being they policed the accuracy of the text as they wanted it codified.

In, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Professor Emanuel Tov says:

The authors of the biblical texts [the pointed Masoretic texts] intended a certain reading of the consonantal framework, but since this reading was not recorded, traditions of reading the biblical texts developed which were not necessarily identical with the `original intention' of the texts. It is not clear whether one or more different reading traditions were in vogue from the very beginning. In principle, the existence in antiquity of multiple consonantal texts differing from each other would preclude a unified reading tradition, and would allow for the assumption of different reading traditions.​

And as you have stated it is common Jewish practice not to question these rules deeply. So, the scribe wouldn't interpret, wouldn't change it. They would read the word, write the word.

And yet we know that the scribes had the audacity to change words in the text that they felt were immodest when speaking to, or of, God. We know there are a certain number of amendments to the original text where the scribes seem to think it's their responsibility to save God from himself by changing the words sent by his Spirit to his amanuneses.

In the text in this discussion we see precisely this predilection by Jewish scribes and Pharisees to use their own norms of modesty and rightness to change what the text is saying for the good of God and his audience.

The Hebrew of Exodus 20:26 (in the KJV numbering of the verses) appears to say "that thy nakedness be not uncovered upon it." The Zohar says, "Woe to one who exposes their nakedness." Daniel Matt's commentary says:

364. Your father's nakedness . . . In this verse the idiom לגלות ערוה (le-gallot ervah) means to have sexual relations.​

Of the 18 times the term ערוה is used in the Tanakh, all but one (Prov. 26:26) speaks not of some accidental uncovering of a naked body part, a naked butt, or other item of bodily "nakedness," but of illicit sexual relations, so that though the Jewish interpreters feel it's their right to change something so unseemly, the text seems to be fairly clearly stating that you shant put steps up to My pillar, so that when the wayward children of Israel adopt the practices of their phallic-cult peers they can't ascend the stairs (you wisely didn't build) and "mount" (R. Hirsch) the pillar in order to "uncover their nakedness" (have sexual relations) with it, or on it עליו.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Of the 18 times the term ערוה is used in the Tanakh, all but one (Prov. 26:26) speaks not of some accidental uncovering of a naked body part, a naked butt, or other item of bodily "nakedness," but of illicit sexual relations, so that though the Jewish interpreters feel it's their right to change something so unseemly, the text seems to be fairly clearly stating that you shant put steps up to My pillar, so that when the wayward children of Israel adopt the practices of their phallic-cult peers they can't ascend the stairs (you wisely didn't build) and "mount" (R. Hirsch) the pillar in order to "uncover their nakedness" (have sexual relations) with it, or on it עליו.

The Christianizing of the Western world so annihilated the shrines and pillars (and practices) of the past age that the few relics of what was once standard fare haven't fared too well. A modern, reading Robert Briffault's, Three Mothers: A study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (see pages 228-233) would be incredulous after their shock and disbelief waned:

Other accounts tell us that [after jus primae noctis] the first child of a woman was alone regarded as "legitimate," while subsequent children were regarded as "********." But according to our ideas it would be the other way about; the children whom they called "legitimate" we should call ********, and those whom they called "********" we should call legitimate. . . the children of the husband were commoners.

And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, separate unto me all the firstborn who come out of the virgin's womb prior to her consummation of marriage to her groom . . . it is mine.

Exodus 13:2.

​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, separate unto me all the firstborn who come out of the virgin's womb prior to her consummation of marriage to her groom . . . it is mine.

Exodus 13:2.
​

Exegesis to justify the interpretation above would be a thread all in itself. But someone always points out the ellipsis when this verse is brought up. The text implies that it's man "and beast" for whom the "womb-opener" פטר רחם is a direct product of God? They assume this means it's not speaking of a unique, singular, supernal man, whom the human race is supposed to waiting on with bated breath, since the word "beast" is included?

And though it too is a thread all in itself, various verses in Revelation imply that the so-called "beast" is cloned from the blood on the Shroud of Turin so that he's a second version of the first virgin born son in the line of Jesse. In this sense Exodus 13:2 is speaking of the Savior, and the Beast, as the only two humans who are born, conceived, without the services, or the pollution, of the priapic organ in the cross hairs of this investigation. In this line of reasoning the Savior is the salvation from the contamination of the fleshly-priapus, while the beast is the source and Genesis (2:21) of the pollutant.

Nevertheless, from a strictly Jewish perspective, eliminating the "beast" of Revelation (aka, the "antiChrist"), the text of Exodus 13:2 can still speak of a human virgin birth, i.e., the peter rechem פטר רחם, as well as the birth of a virgin beast too, since in Jewish thought the golden-calf is the Jewish version of Revelation's "beast." According to Jewish midrashim, the golden-calf is the offspring of the parah adumah, the red cow, who, as fate would have it, remains perpetually virgin since she's sacrificed prior to ever being mounted. If, as Jewish speculation implies, the golden-calf is the offspring of the red cow, then it's a near perfect analogue for the Christian "beast" of Revelation since like that later-day non-saint, the golden-calf causes Israel untold suffering.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Earlier in the examination it was pointed out that at least 30 times the word for "hands" (as found in English version of the MT interpretation of Daniel 2:34) is always ידים rather than ידון (the latter being found in the text of Daniel 2:34). Interpreting ידון as "hands" (in Daniel 2:34) is both a hapax and an irony leading into the spirit of this study. As noted, ידון is a diminutive of yad יד which lead directly into the text that justifies much that's already said, particularly as related to Exodus 20:25, which is speaking of a "pillar" מצבת rather than an "altar" מזבח.

Aren't you children born out of a transgression, a seed of falsehood, inflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree . . . using smooth stones of the stream as a representatives of your despoiled conception, your pleasure stones, unto which you pour out a drink offering שפכת נשך . . . upon a high mountain thou has set up they bed where you go to offer sacrifice behind the doors and posts where you set up your phallic idol זכרונ.

Isaiah 57:4-8​

These verses sum up pretty amazingly the distinction between the pagan priapus versus the Jewish "pillar." Verse 4 speaks of being born from the fleshly analogue of the pagan priapus which Roman Catholicism shuns as the organ through which Adam's transgression passes on to the next generation in the generation associated with the original sin of natural birth.

The prophet points out that these reprobate Jews use smooth stones from a stream as the idolized representation of the organ of transgression from which they're conceived and thus born eight days prior to their spiritual rebirth (remembering that Rabbi Hirsch reveals that ritual circumcision is a new birth not associated with the natural-born transgressor delivered eight days earlier).

They set up these phallic symbols (NIV) behind the pillars and doors of their homes, temples, and shrines.

The Hebrew word used to speak of the despicable idol is zikkaron זכרונ. It's the word for "male" with the diminutive suffix ון, except for some reason in this text the final nun נ isn't a peshuta ן as it should be. We could call it a diminutive nun, a miniature nun (since when a nun is the final letter it takes the form of an extended or enlarged nun ---nun-peshuta ----- except that here oddly it doesn't). It's almost as though the text is begging the exegete to concede and read the truth of the text that this "memorial" is phallic through and through: it's the miniature-man, the diminutive man, the little man, the humunculus of man, it's he phallus. Finally, in verse 8 of Isaiah 57, we read the statement that clarifies the diminutive ידון of yad in Daniel 2:34:

You love the bed where you behold the yad יד.

Isaiah 57:8.​

The diminutive ידון yad יד in Daniel 2:34 is the miniature man. The stone in the cross hairs of Daniel 2:34 isn't conceived from the diminutive man, the phallus. This stone, refused by the exegetical builders of the traditional reading, is none other than the shetia stone that's the first of all creation, and the firstborn of all who are ever born. He "opens the womb" (Exodus 13:23) with his own hand since the diminutive yad is cut out of his conception and birth as it was ritually cut out of Isaac's, and is ritually removed from all Jewish births through ritual circumcision.

The stone cut out of the mountain without a diminutive yad (Daniel 3:34), without a human phallus, is the singular circumcision, the Jewish priapus/pillar, who's crying Foul! to Israel throughout the prophets as they reveal that Israel transgresses the covenant by considering themselves conceived (transgressively or not) just fine from the initial conception. No rebirth, or being born-again necessary: we will continue to knead the leaven into the bread, and oil down the diminutive yad on our wedding night as in our idolatrous rituals, since we're quite good as originally conceived and as born the first time but thank you anyway (Jeremiah 7:25-27).



John

 

[dybmh]

Daniel 2:34 is aramaic. So the diminutive is going to be different than what you'd see in modern hebrew. Which leads to the question, is diminutive even a thing in biblical hebrew and aramaic? And also, does diminutive even fit into this context? Isaiah is rebuking the use of cute little harmless idols?

 

[John D. Brey]

Daniel 2:34 is aramaic. So the diminutive is going to be different than what you'd see in modern hebrew.

That's an interesting point, though I'm not sure how it would impact the exegesis concerning the anomaly of the plural of יד being ידון rather than ידים?

Which leads to the question, is diminutive even a thing in biblical hebrew and aramaic? And also, does diminutive even fit into this context? Isaiah is rebuking the use of cute little harmless idols?

You sound just like the Jews of Isaiah's day when you speak of "harmless little idols." Isaiah is excoriating his contemporaries for considering their idolatry harmless, and little. Isaiah speaks of it as Trojan.

My point is that the text isn't saying that the stone that destroys the pagan idol is cut out of the mountain without "hands" ידים, but that it's born out of the mountain without the yad יד Isaiah describes in 57:4-8.

In Colossians Paul says those who are circumcised of the heart take part in "the circumcision made without hands." His statement is too perfect in light of Daniel 2:34 since Paul explains his statement about being part of a circumcision made without hands by referencing "the circumcision of Christ" (i.e., we share in Christ's circumcision, his non-phallic conception and birth, i.e, a conception that took place without the organ subject to ritual bleeding ---circumcision by hands ---- playing a role in his being found in, nor his removal from, the womb).

Christ's birth out of the womb owes nothing to the organ targeted for bleeding when it's taken in the "hands"of the mohel or the father. So Daniel is speaking of the conqueror of idolatry coming on the scene without reference to a yad in the normal sense (a mohel's hand or hands), and or in the sense of Isaiah 57:8 (where the yad speaks of the male-organ). Both of these senses makes perfect sense with or without Paul's statement in Colossians 2:11.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Christ's birth out of the womb owes nothing to the organ targeted for bleeding when it's taken in the "hands"of the mohel or the father. So Daniel is speaking of the conqueror of idolatry coming on the scene without reference to a yad in the normal sense (a mohel's hand or hands), and or in the sense of Isaiah 57:8 (where the yad speaks of the male-organ). Both of these senses makes perfect sense with or without Paul's statement in Colossians 2:11.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.​

The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

Rabbi Samson Hirsch, Collected Writings, p. 110-111.​

This Jewish birth, on the eighth day, is performed with "human hands," i.e., the very things Daniel claims play no role in the birth of the conqueror of idolatry in chapter 2 of his prophesy. Rabbi Hirsch calls the ritual performed by the hands of the mohel a Jewish birth, and in his Chumash calls it "rebirth" so that we're not being too froward to to speak of the Jewish birth taking place by the hands of the father or mohel such that we ask what is that? What role does the father's hands, or the hands of the mohel, play in the conception and rebirth of the Jewish male? What is the father or the mohel doing that symbolically mimics the role of the father of the first, natural, birth?

What's the father's role in the rebirth of the son of the covenant? What's the symbolic import of the father circumcising his son with his "hands" to cause him (the son) to be re-conceived and reborn into a Jewish mission, with human hands? How does the mohel or the father's hands re-conceive the child born naturally on the first day so that he's reborn into his Jewish existence?

What if, as has been suggested in dozens of threads in these parts, Abraham, Isaac, and all the natural born sons of Abraham, are merely the guardians of a secret concerning the true son of the covenant. What if the circumcision performed with human hands (hands that bleed the organ that conceives all the natural born) are nowhere to be found in the birth of the true, singular, spiritual son of the covenant, having come into being without the organ hands bleed in the ritual guarding the covenant, such that his title as the "circumcision" exists without human hands, since he's conceived and named not by a human father, or his yad, yadim or yadon, but by the spirit and the activities of God, so that he can be said to come out of the mountain of Israel without human hands, without the hands of a father or a mohel, dictating, so to say, his title as the circumcision.

Imagine a firstborn Jew who can be called, and authenticated as, the circumcision, by a circumcision that isn't performed by human hands. Imagine that, and you're conceiving the conqueror of idolatry in your mind.



John

 

[dybmh]

That's an interesting point, though I'm not sure how it would impact the exegesis concerning the anomaly of the plural of יד being ידון rather than ידים?

Well... because it's not an anomaly in aramaic. In Daniel it's written as "ידַ֔יִן". IOW, "hands" plural. That's perfectly normal way to form the plural in aramaic. Extending the yud, to make it a vav in aramaic, as a noun, the best I can come up with is the proper name, "Jadon".

"ידון" in the Talmud, virtually every time it's used, it's quoting Gen 6:3. Same in Zohar. There's one instance in the Jerusalem Talmud, but, of course, it's a verb meaning the same thing, to judge.

"ידַ֔יִן" is pretty common. I mean, not super common. But it's not an anomaly.

Naturally, if you adjust the written word, to add a modern hebrew suffix onto aramaic, it's kind of like rolling the dice to see if you luckily come up with something meaningful. Not that this is always a bad idea. That's how ciphers get cracked. Trial and error, using a similar language to decode... But, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

You sound just like the Jews of Isaiah's day when you speak of "harmless little idols." Isaiah is excoriating his contemporaries for considering their idolatry harmless, and little. Isaiah speaks of it as Trojan.

Exactly! The diminutive doesn't fit the context at all. And that assumes that a diminutive is even a thing in biblical hebrew. I'm not sure that it is.
For example:

ערב is "to pledge". עֵרָבוֹן is "a pledge". Not a tiny pledge, pledgling, pledget, pledgie...
פתר is "to interpret". פִּתְרוֹן is "an interpretation". Not a clue, or a guess, or a hint...

My point is that the text isn't saying that the stone that destroys the pagan idol is cut out of the mountain without "hands" ידים, but that it's born out of the mountain without the yad יד Isaiah describes in 57:4-8.

Well, I'm having an extremely hard time following the logic. As far as I can tell, dimintuitve isn't a thing in biblical hebrew. But for some reason it's extremely important to what you're trying to do with the text.

I see that the NIV has done something weird with their translation too. I can't figure that out either.

In Colossians Paul says those who are circumcised of the heart take part in "the circumcision made without hands." His statement is too perfect in light of Daniel 2:34 since Paul explains his statement about being part of a circumcision made without hands by referencing "the circumcision of Christ" (i.e., we share in Christ's circumcision, his non-phallic conception and birth, i.e, a conception that took place without the organ subject to ritual bleeding ---circumcision by hands ---- playing a role in his being found in, nor his removal from, the womb).

Christ's birth out of the womb owes nothing to the organ targeted for bleeding when it's taken in the "hands"of the mohel or the father. So Daniel is speaking of the conqueror of idolatry coming on the scene without reference to a yad in the normal sense (a mohel's hand or hands), and or in the sense of Isaiah 57:8 (where the yad speaks of the male-organ). Both of these senses makes perfect sense with or without Paul's statement in Colossians 2:11.

Well, I have no clue about Paul. Just reading the tiny part you posted it sounds like he's just saying no need to be snipped my fellow Christians. For the yad in Isaiah 57, I'm not sure why you need any of this diminutive stuff to make the point. It seems to be muddying the waters.

 

[John D. Brey]

"ידַ֔יִן" is pretty common. I mean, not super common. But it's not an anomaly.

The dozen or so times it's used in the Tanakh it's interpreted to be a conjugation of din דין "judge." Which links Isaiah 57 to Daniel 2 if we understand that when Isaiah speaks of those "born out of a transgression, a seed of falsehood," he's not pointing a finger just at the perps of the phallic cult practices, but is making an important, comprehensive, statement about why it's backward as hell to worship the very organ through which the "transgression" passes on to all mankind (original sin 101).

If we understand that Paul is biblical through and through when he teaches that Adam's transgression is passed down to all his children through the organ that made the transgression possible, then not only can we understand that Isaiah is including everyone in the concept of being born out of a transgression, a seed of falsehood, but we can use that concept to read Daniel 2 in the context that's clearly intended: the shetiya stone is born out of the kingdom of Israel without being born out of a transgression, from a seed of falsehood (semen), that's subject to, and makes one born of that kind of transgression, to be born into the slave-market of sin, and its resultant din, judgement.

Daniel is saying the one who will free us from sin and judgment is not himself born into the slave-market of sin and judgment since he׳s born out of the human race, Israel in particular (so he's a diminutive of Israel, Jeshurun ישרון) without the use of the transgressive organ, the yad, or the judgement come, so to say, from that organ yadon.

Using Isaiah 57:4 to interpret Daniel 2:34 makes the latter speak of Yeshuron as Yeshua (salvation from the transgression). When, before his birth, Israel worships the transgressive organ he's born without (Daniel 2:34) he kicks around in the womb of Israel (Deut. 32:15) wising he could get out before Israel does herself in before he can exit her without the transgressor opening the womb as though it conceived him, and of him, when it did neither.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

ערב is "to pledge". עֵרָבוֹן is "a pledge". Not a tiny pledge, pledgling, pledget, pledgie...
פתר is "to interpret". פִּתְרוֹן is "an interpretation". Not a clue, or a guess, or a hint...

וֹן‎ (Cholam male and Final Nun) Diminutive, sometimes masculine

• סֵפֶר‎ sefer (book) → סִפְרוֹן‎ sifron (booklet)
• מַחְשֵׁב‎ machshev (computer) → מַחְשְׁבוֹן‎ machshevon (calculator)
• מִטְבָּח‎ mitbach (kitchen) → מִטְבָּחוֹן‎ mitbachon (kitchenette)

Suffixes in Hebrew - Wikipedia​

John