Genesis 17:17: Mind's Retroactive Conception.

[John D. Brey]

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).

In my opinion your statement highlights the nature of the problem just as I laid it out since there was no fear of the Torah text itself being lost or forgotten in the sixth century of the current era.

What may have been lost or forgotten is only one particular way of reading the text; which proves beyond a doubt that there are multiple ways of reading the text or else you couldn't lose or forget the one and only way of reading the text.

No one is worried about forgetting how to read the Greek text of the New Testament or the English version as codified in the King James English, since they're not, like the Torah text, delivered, in the signature, as a cipher-text specifically, and by design, subject to multiple readings.

In my humble opinion, it would have been better that the reading codified in the MT was lost or forgotten than for the majority of Jews to errantly believe the MT codifies the true, singular, meaning of the text. That's tragic beyond belief. Which is not to imply the MT reading isn't legitimate; but only that if it's taken as the singular reading then burn it for it's doing more damage than good.

Most Jews and Christians think the MT is the true reading of the text. The Chazal thought nothing of the sort. They argue multiple readings of the text many of which aren't in the MT and some that are contrary to the MT.



John

 

[Harel13]

What may have been lost or forgotten is only one particular way of reading the text; which proves beyond a doubt that there are multiple ways of reading the text or else you couldn't lose or forget the one and only way of reading the text.

That's where you and us Jews differ in opinion; the Jewish view is that the most important interpretations and reading methods, not to mention various laws that could have been lost are the ones that need to be preserved, and those are the ones that were preserved.

In my humble opinion, it would have been better that the reading codified in the MT was lost or forgotten than for the majority of Jews to errantly believe the MT codifies the true, singular, meaning of the text.

But nobody believes that! That's what I've been trying to tell you throughout this thread! The Masoretic reading has always been how to read the text during services. It's technical Jewish law; no textual interpretation involved. In textual interpretations, one can go in a variety of different directions, sometimes even slightly changing or breaking down various words, as we see various rabbis doing over the ages. And this is okay, why? Because in interpretation we have the guideline of 'seventy facets to the Torah' and unlike halacha, there is usually no need for a final verdict to be made, because the non-halachic interpretations don't usually have day-to-day ramifications.

 

[John D. Brey]

But nobody believes that! That's what I've been trying to tell you throughout this thread! The Masoretic reading has always been how to read the text during services. It's technical Jewish law; no textual interpretation involved. In textual interpretations, one can go in a variety of different directions, sometimes even slightly changing or breaking down various words, as we see various rabbis doing over the ages. And this is okay, why? Because in interpretation we have the guideline of 'seventy facets to the Torah' and unlike halacha, there is usually no need for a final verdict to be made, because the non-halachic interpretations don't usually have day-to-day ramifications.

When you say, "It's technical Jewish law; no textual interpretation involved. In textual interpretations, one can go in a variety of different directions . . .," it appears that you're stating that like the signature text of the Greek New Testament, which is itself the narrative prior to interpretation, so too the MT is the raw text before interpretation.

But that's false since the Greek New Testament has multifarious interpretations but very few legitimate grammatical ways to read the text since Greek is not like Biblical Hebrew.

Greek, like English, is a demotic text, and not a hieroglyphic text. A demotic text functions by grammar rules that are incorporated into the text precisely to make it technical and precise and not sacred and imprecise, the latter being subject to more than one correct grammatical reading.

The Masoretes transformed the sacred glyphs of Biblical Hebrew into a demotic text like Greek or English.

But that's not what the Torah text is. It's a sacred, hieroglyphic, text, and not, a goy text; its not a demotic, or grammatically precise text. And to make it one, i.e., the Masoretes, is a crime of biblical proportions.

Indeed, the symbolic dimension of Hebrew, as it appears in the sacred texts, disappears for the benefit of a purely utilitarian use of language. To be sure, in our desacralized world it is no longer a matter of consciously manipulating the magical virtualities of language in order to derive from it some personal gain. But when an entire society hijacks the language of its religious tradition to purely material ends, when it makes it into a mere instrument in the service of its immediate interests, it returns, without knowing it, to the attitude of the sorcerers of old. A "crude imitation" of the sacred text's language, modern Hebrew has emptied out the ancient words of their symbolic and religious signification in order to reduce them to mere indices of material reality.

Stephane Moses, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University Jerusalem.
​

John

 

[Harel13]

Indeed, the symbolic dimension of Hebrew, as it appears in the sacred texts, disappears for the benefit of a purely utilitarian use of language. To be sure, in our desacralized world it is no longer a matter of consciously manipulating the magical virtualities of language in order to derive from it some personal gain. But when an entire society hijacks the language of its religious tradition to purely material ends, when it makes it into a mere instrument in the service of its immediate interests, it returns, without knowing it, to the attitude of the sorcerers of old. A "crude imitation" of the sacred text's language, modern Hebrew has emptied out the ancient words of their symbolic and religious signification in order to reduce them to mere indices of material reality.

Stephane Moses, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University Jerusalem.

You do realize he's talking about modern Hebrew, right? Not the Biblical text. Irrelevant to the discussion, I'm afraid.

goy text

You know goy means nation, right? You know Israel is also referred to as a goy, right? I would say non-Jewish text.

When you say, "It's technical Jewish law; no textual interpretation involved. In textual interpretations, one can go in a variety of different directions . . .," it appears that you're stating that like the signature text of the Greek New Testament, which is itself the narrative prior to interpretation, so too the MT is the raw text before interpretation.

But that's false since the Greek New Testament has multifarious interpretations but very few legitimate grammatical ways to read the text since Greek is not like Biblical Hebrew.

Greek, like English, is a demotic text, and not a hieroglyphic text. A demotic text functions by grammar rules that are incorporated into the text precisely to make it technical and precise and not sacred and imprecise, the latter being subject to more than one correct grammatical reading.

The Masoretes transformed the sacred glyphs of Biblical Hebrew into a demotic text like Greek or English.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[John D. Brey]

You do realize he's talking about modern Hebrew, right? Not the Biblical text. Irrelevant to the discussion, I'm afraid.

The Masoretic pointing system transforms a hieroglyphic text (what he refers to as a magical text) into a demotic, mundane, technical tool for expressing things in a materialistic, scientific, manner.

Which is to say that what appears to be the weakness of the undeciphered string of unpointed, unpunctuated, consonants, is in fact its strength. A strength too many modern Jews are complete ignorant of.

The unpointed Torah text is superior to the New Testament. The Masoretic Text is grossly inferior to the New Testament.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

When you say, "It's technical Jewish law; no textual interpretation involved. In textual interpretations, one can go in a variety of different directions . . .," it appears that you're stating that like the signature text of the Greek New Testament, which is itself the narrative prior to interpretation, so too the MT is the raw text before interpretation.​

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

To its detriment, the revelation given in the New Testament came to the modern world by means of a demotic text. Do you know the difference between a demotic text and a hieroglyphic text? The latter came first, and was only allowed to be written or read by a priest: it was made up of sacred glyphs.

Eventually, the written word left the purview of the priests and its sacredness to be used for more mundane purposes.

The sacred scripts and languages could only by written or read by a sacred person: a priest. The demotic text, the mundane text, was for everyone.

The difference between a sacred, hieroglyphic text, and a demotic, mundane text, is the difference between a string of unpointed, unpunctuated, consonants, versus a text with punctuation that keeps it from being read in too many ways. A demotic text is technical, precise, used to present either one or a very few precise ideas. A hieroglyphic text is so open-ended that it can't be read by the hoi polloi, but only by a priest who possesses the key to deciphering one or more of the infinite meanings hidden in the sacred text.

The Masoretes transformed a sacred text, only properly understood by sacred people, into a mundane, punctuated, demotic, modern, text, that is today read by some of the most ungodly type of people who have ever lived. . . Israel is supposed to be a sacred, priestly, people. That they of all people trade the sacred script, ktav ivri, for a Gentile script, ktav ashuris, and then turn a sacred hieroglyphic text into a profane demotic text, well, I think it's fair to say there'll be hell to pay.


John

 

[Harel13]

The unpointed Torah text is superior to the New Testament. The Masoretic Text is grossly inferior to the New Testament.

The Masoretes transformed a sacred text, only properly understood by sacred people, into a mundane, punctuated, demotic, modern, text, that is today read by some of the most ungodly type of people who have ever lived.

That a majority of Jews don't distinguish between the unpointed, unpunctuated, sacred, spiritual, text of the Torah, and that demonic, demotic, monstrosity, that is the Masoretic Text, doesn't bode well for the future of Judaism in its competition with the Gospels and the Apostolic Writings.

 

[John D. Brey]

That's where you and us Jews differ in opinion; the Jewish view is that the most important interpretations and reading methods, not to mention various laws that could have been lost are the ones that need to be preserved, and those are the ones that were preserved.

. . . because it was "unwritten," the Oral Torah became an ingenious instrument of change that facilitated evolution even as it sustained continuity. The tragedy of Jewish fundamentalism is that it turned the Oral Torah into a second Written Torah and thereby robbed Judaism of any capacity to transform itself.

Ismar Schorsch, Canon Without Closure: Torah Commentaries, p. 252.​

John

 

[Harel13]

. . . because it was "unwritten," the Oral Torah became an ingenious instrument of change that facilitated evolution even as it sustained continuity. The tragedy of Jewish fundamentalism is that it turned the Oral Torah into a second Written Torah and thereby robbed Judaism of any capacity to transform itself.

Ismar Schorsch, Canon Without Closure: Torah Commentaries, p. 252.​

John

Transform into what? What does it "need" to transform into?

 

[John D. Brey]

Transform into what? What does it "need" to transform into?

In an excellent book by Professor Moshe Idel, Hebrew University, Absorbing Perfections, he quotes a Jewish sage from the Middle Ages saying:

And the Rabbi, our master R. Elijah ha-Kohen, may his memory be blessed, the author of Shevet Mussar, and more [books], has written in a manuscript treatise [Quntres]: It should be assumed that this [nonvocalized] Torah, which was in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, before it was delivered to the mundane realm, its letters were in the [same] number in His front, but it was not formed into words as is the case today. And the reason for its arrangement [in words] is [to reflect] the way the world behaves. Because of Adam's sin, He arranged the letters in front of Him, according to the words describing death and the levirate and other issues. Without sin there would have been no death, and He would not have arranged the letters into words telling another issue. This is the reason the scroll of the Torah is neither vocalized nor divided into verses, nor does it have cantillation marks, thus hinting at the original state of the Torah, [consisting in] a heap of unarranged letters. And the purpose of His intention is that when the king messiah will come and death will be engulfed forever, there will be no room in the Torah for anything related to death, uncleannes, and the like, then the Holy One, blessed be He, will annul the words of the scroll of the Torah, and He will join a letter of one word to a letter of another word in order to create a word that will point to another matter. And this is [the meaning of] "A new Torah will proceed from Me." Is not [however] the Torah eternal? [The answer is] the scroll of the Torah will be as it is now, but the Holy One, blessed be He, will teach its reading according to the arrangement of the measure of the letters that He will be joining to each other to form one word, and He will teach us the [new] division and the joining of the words. [All bracketed words are in Idel's translation.]​

According to this way of thinking, the MT nails down the current, fallen, reading of the Torah text, as though its the singular way it will ever be read: it crucifies the living, evolving, adapting, world-shaping, Word of God, so that the mere guardians and amanuenses, the servants of the Word, thereafter gallivant at the sons of God without the crucified Word getting to have his say.

If you say that you, as a Jew, or that Jews in the aggregate, are aware that the MT is just one, fallen, temporary, way to decipher the cipher-text (the unpointed string of consonants), I would doubt you, but nevertheless it would open up a new, and extremely profitable discussion based on the truism that the MT is at best a necessary evil and by no means the singular codification of the living Word of God.



John

 

[Harel13]

Middle Ages

*Renaissance according to Wikipedia.

based on the truism that the MT is at best a necessary evil and by no means the singular codification of the living Word of God

Honestly, I wonder why you care either way. Are you looking for a creative new way to legitimize the NT?

 

[John D. Brey]

*Renaissance according to Wikipedia.

Honestly, I wonder why you care either way. Are you looking for a creative new way to legitimize the NT?

I'm looking for whatever is legitimized by factual reality to the degree God has given us the means to decipher that reality.


John