Shoa of the Yid of God.

[dybmh]

I'd add that it's the uncircumcised who have no portion in the world-to-come.

You'd have a point if this was the *only* condition for entering the world to come. Looks like there's 36 offenses that could do it, at least according to Rambam.

Kareth - Wikipedia.

 

[dybmh]

Are you denying that the text is implying that Israel lost out on peace as a river, and righteousness as waves of the sea, because they didn't hearken to God's commandments?

OK. You're right. It doesn't make a difference in the meaning of those verses.

 

[John D. Brey]

Before you made it sound like the *only* thing you did was smoosh the letters together and presto, there's the word you want. Something so insignificant maybe wouldn't be noticed.

. . . I was moving fast and trying to tie some things together quick. In one sense I was thinking of אל הים where אל means god, and the הים makes it gods (plural of אל). So I was thinking of plural waves, or plural Galilee גלי הים.

Secondarily, the software I use shows the root words for "waves of the sea" in Isaiah 48:18 as גלל ים. On the fly (sue me ) I "smooshed" the root words together to make it imply, loosely, Galileans.

I can withdraw that questionable exegesis until I get more support without it damaging my overall exegesis on the overall passage. I had a similar case related to a verse (coming up in this exegesis if I get there) where I made it say what I thought it was saying using some creative exegesis, only later to find Ibn Ezra justified my instincts with his own exegesis. There was a lapse of about a year between my creative word-play and my finding out Ibn Ezra thought the same way about it.



John

 

[dybmh]

. . . I was moving fast and trying to tie some things together quick. In one sense I was thinking of אל הים where אל means god, and the הים makes it gods (plural of אל). So I was thinking of plural waves, or plural Galilee גלי הים.

Secondarily, the software I use shows the root words for "waves of the sea" in Isaiah 48:18 as גלל ים. On the fly (sue me ) I "smooshed" the root words together to make it imply, loosely, Galileans.

In my opinion, take it or leave it, the allegation of "Masoretic prejudice" complicates what you're saying. It's distracting. That's what I reacted to. Thank you for explaining.

 

[John D. Brey]

In my opinion, take it or leave it, the allegation of "Masoretic prejudice" complicates what you're saying. It's distracting. That's what I reacted to. Thank you for explaining.

The Masoretic Text is undeniably a prejudiced interpretation of a Hebrew text that was originally without spaces, without punctuation, and that can be read a myriad of ways ("prejudice" doesn't necessarily imply perjury or a pejorative act). The primary point of the MT is to prejudice a particular reading of the text so that other possible, legitimate, interpretations are treated as noncanonical. The Christian OT is based mostly on the MT. Which is ironic in the extreme (perhaps Rome and Jerusalem are at it again?).

In Moshe Idel's book, Absorbing Perfections, chapter 12, he points this out in exacting detail from dozens of Jewish sages. Below he quotes a sage explaining a truth that informs every exegetical foray into the Hebrew text I ever engage:

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.]​

When Messiah is circumcised, so also will the current fore skene of the Torah scroll be removed: the fallen reading of the holy consonants, consonants nailed down with pointy addendum so they can't speak or breath except what they're told by the guardians of the law. The Torah scroll will be circumcised the moment Messiah is circumcised (John 8:26-32). Imagine if that's already occurred for some. Imagine if the new reading is enduring the same treatment as the man from Galilee: blindness, rejection, and humiliation (and ultimately destruction). Imagine if the man from Galilee's destruction empowers the desolation of his revelation of the new Torah's meaning (for a time, season, and for persons, determined by God). Imagine what God will do to the guardians of his vineyard when he takes account of the matter (Matthew 21:33-40).



John

 

[dybmh]

alef, heh, vav, and yod, are used as consonantal vowels. The Masoretic text actually adds these letters as vowel letters in certain cases.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[John D. Brey]

Do you have a source for this?

Hebrew
The earliest method of indicating some vowels in Hebrew writing was to use the consonant letters yod י‎, waw ו‎, he ה‎,and aleph א‎ of the Hebrew alphabet to also write long vowels in some cases. Originally, א‎ and ה‎ were only used as matres lectiones at the end of words, and י‎ and ו‎ were used mainly to write the original diphthongs /aw/ and /aj/ as well as original vowel+[y]+vowel sequences (which sometimes simplified to plain long vowels). Gradually, as it was found to be insufficient for differentiating between similar nouns, י‎ and ו‎ were also inserted to mark some long vowels of non-diphthongal origin.

If words can be written with or without matres lectionis, spellings that include the letters are called malē (Hebrew) or plene (Latin), meaning "full", and spellings without them are called ḥaser or defective. In some verb forms, matres lectionis are almost always used. Around the 9th century CE, it was decided that the system of matres lectionis did not suffice to indicate the vowels precisely enough for purposes of liturgical recitation of Biblical texts so a supplemental vowel pointing system (niqqud) (diacritic symbols indicating vowel pronunciation and other important phonological features not written by the traditional basic consonantal orthography) joined matres lectionis as part of the Hebrew writing system.

In some words in Hebrew, there is a choice of whether to use a mater lectionis or not, and in modern printed texts matres lectionis are sometimes used even for short vowels, which is considered to be grammatically incorrect according to traditional norms, though instances are found as far back as Talmudic times. Such texts from Judaea and Galilee were noticeably more inclined to malē spellings than texts from Babylonia. Similarly, in the Middle Ages, Ashkenazi Jews tended to use malē spellings under the influence of European languages, but Sephardi Jews tended to use ḥaser spellings under the influence of Arabic.

Wikipedia, Matres Lectionis.​

See Professor Emanuel Tov here.

We know of various accounts of tiqqun soferim where the scribes emended the text where it said things they deemed unacceptable. We know for certain of particular cases. But we don't know everywhere that a particular scribe (or group of scribes) might have emended the text to fix it from saying things that would, clearing throat, confuse Jews into thinking things they shouldn't really be considering. Rashi himself said it's ok to misinterpret the text if it guards it from Christian interpretations.

Qere and ketiv covered some of the cases of matres lectionis, but not necessarily all cases:

Torah scrolls for use in public reading in synagogues contain only the Hebrew language consonantal text, handed down by tradition (with only a very limited and ambiguous indication of vowels by means of matres lectionis). However, in the Masoretic codices of the 9th–10th centuries, and most subsequent manuscripts and published editions of the Tanakh intended for personal study, the pure consonantal text is annotated with vowel points, cantillation marks and other diacritic symbols used by the Masoretes to indicate how it should be read and chanted, besides marginal notes serving various functions. That Masoretic reading or pronunciation is known as the qere (Aramaic קרי "to be read"), while the pre-Masoretic consonantal spelling is known as the ketiv (Aramaic כתיב "(what is) written").

The basic consonantal text written in the Hebrew alphabet was rarely altered; but sometimes the Masoretes noted a different reading of a word than that found in the pre-Masoretic consonantal text. The scribes used qere/ketiv to show, without changing the received consonantal text, that in their tradition a different reading of the text was to be used. Qere were also used to correct obvious errors in the consonantal text without changing it.[citation needed]

However, not all qere/ketiv represented cases of textual doubt; sometimes the change is deliberate. For example, in Deut. 28:27, the ketiv word ובעפלים ophalim, "hemorrhoids," was replaced with the qere וּבַטְּחֹרִים techorim, "abscesses," because the ketiv was (after the return from Exile) considered too obscene to read in public.[1] A very high percentage of qere/ketiv is accounted for by change of dialect from old archaic Hebrew to later Hebrew. When the old Hebrew dialect fell into disuse and certain words became unfamiliar to the masses, the scribes amended the original dialect to the later familiar dialect. A good example is the word "Jerusalem," which in old Hebrew was always written ירושלם, but in a later period was written ירושלים. The qere provides the more familiar reading without altering the text. This is also evident throughout 2 Kings 4, where the archaic Hebrew 2p feminine form of -ti is consistently eliminated by the qere, which replaces it with the familiar standard form of -t.[2]

In such Masoretic texts, the vowel diacritics of the qere (the Masoretic reading) would be placed in the main text, added around the consonantal letters of the ketiv (the written variant to be substituted – even if it contains a completely different number of letters), with a special sign indicating that there was a marginal note for this word. In the margins there would be a ק‎ sign (for qere), followed by the consonants of the qere reading. In this way, the vowel points were removed from the qere and written instead on the ketiv. Despite this, the vowels and consonantal letters of the qere were still meant to be read together.

Wikipedia, Qere and Ketiv.​

So you see, a Tanakh text that might be read to imply part of Messiah's name includes Nazareth, or Galilee, could give a card-carrying scribe a real case of hemorrhoids, or else be considered more unacceptable than the uses of the word hemorrhoids in a sacred Jewish text.

And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Matthew 21:11.

Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou wast with Jesus of Galilee.

Matthew 26:69.

In the times of the approach of Messiah . . . Galilee shall be destroyed.

Mishnah Sotah 9.​

John

 

[dybmh]

Hebrew
The earliest method of indicating some vowels in Hebrew writing was to use the consonant letters yod י‎, waw ו‎, he ה‎,and aleph א‎ of the Hebrew alphabet to also write long vowels in some cases. Originally, א‎ and ה‎ were only used as matres lectiones at the end of words, and י‎ and ו‎ were used mainly to write the original diphthongs /aw/ and /aj/ as well as original vowel+[y]+vowel sequences (which sometimes simplified to plain long vowels). Gradually, as it was found to be insufficient for differentiating between similar nouns, י‎ and ו‎ were also inserted to mark some long vowels of non-diphthongal origin.

If words can be written with or without matres lectionis, spellings that include the letters are called malē (Hebrew) or plene (Latin), meaning "full", and spellings without them are called ḥaser or defective. In some verb forms, matres lectionis are almost always used. Around the 9th century CE, it was decided that the system of matres lectionis did not suffice to indicate the vowels precisely enough for purposes of liturgical recitation of Biblical texts so a supplemental vowel pointing system (niqqud) (diacritic symbols indicating vowel pronunciation and other important phonological features not written by the traditional basic consonantal orthography) joined matres lectionis as part of the Hebrew writing system.

In some words in Hebrew, there is a choice of whether to use a mater lectionis or not, and in modern printed texts matres lectionis are sometimes used even for short vowels, which is considered to be grammatically incorrect according to traditional norms, though instances are found as far back as Talmudic times. Such texts from Judaea and Galilee were noticeably more inclined to malē spellings than texts from Babylonia. Similarly, in the Middle Ages, Ashkenazi Jews tended to use malē spellings under the influence of European languages, but Sephardi Jews tended to use ḥaser spellings under the influence of Arabic.

Wikipedia, Matres Lectionis.​

See Professor Emanuel Tov here.

We know of various accounts of tiqqun soferim where the scribes emended the text where it said things they deemed unacceptable. We know for certain of particular cases. But we don't know everywhere that a particular scribe (or group of scribes) might have emended the text to fix it from saying things that would, clearing throat, confuse Jews into thinking things they shouldn't really be considering. Rashi himself said it's ok to misinterpret the text if it guards it from Christian interpretations.

Qere and ketiv covered some of the cases of matres lectionis, but not necessarily all cases:

Torah scrolls for use in public reading in synagogues contain only the Hebrew language consonantal text, handed down by tradition (with only a very limited and ambiguous indication of vowels by means of matres lectionis). However, in the Masoretic codices of the 9th–10th centuries, and most subsequent manuscripts and published editions of the Tanakh intended for personal study, the pure consonantal text is annotated with vowel points, cantillation marks and other diacritic symbols used by the Masoretes to indicate how it should be read and chanted, besides marginal notes serving various functions. That Masoretic reading or pronunciation is known as the qere (Aramaic קרי "to be read"), while the pre-Masoretic consonantal spelling is known as the ketiv (Aramaic כתיב "(what is) written").

The basic consonantal text written in the Hebrew alphabet was rarely altered; but sometimes the Masoretes noted a different reading of a word than that found in the pre-Masoretic consonantal text. The scribes used qere/ketiv to show, without changing the received consonantal text, that in their tradition a different reading of the text was to be used. Qere were also used to correct obvious errors in the consonantal text without changing it.[citation needed]

However, not all qere/ketiv represented cases of textual doubt; sometimes the change is deliberate. For example, in Deut. 28:27, the ketiv word ובעפלים ophalim, "hemorrhoids," was replaced with the qere וּבַטְּחֹרִים techorim, "abscesses," because the ketiv was (after the return from Exile) considered too obscene to read in public.[1] A very high percentage of qere/ketiv is accounted for by change of dialect from old archaic Hebrew to later Hebrew. When the old Hebrew dialect fell into disuse and certain words became unfamiliar to the masses, the scribes amended the original dialect to the later familiar dialect. A good example is the word "Jerusalem," which in old Hebrew was always written ירושלם, but in a later period was written ירושלים. The qere provides the more familiar reading without altering the text. This is also evident throughout 2 Kings 4, where the archaic Hebrew 2p feminine form of -ti is consistently eliminated by the qere, which replaces it with the familiar standard form of -t.[2]

In such Masoretic texts, the vowel diacritics of the qere (the Masoretic reading) would be placed in the main text, added around the consonantal letters of the ketiv (the written variant to be substituted – even if it contains a completely different number of letters), with a special sign indicating that there was a marginal note for this word. In the margins there would be a ק‎ sign (for qere), followed by the consonants of the qere reading. In this way, the vowel points were removed from the qere and written instead on the ketiv. Despite this, the vowels and consonantal letters of the qere were still meant to be read together.

Wikipedia, Qere and Ketiv.​

So you see, a Tanakh text that might be read to imply part of Messiah's name includes Nazareth, or Galilee, could give a card-carrying scribe a real case of hemorrhoids, or else be considered more unacceptable than the uses of the word hemorrhoids in a sacred Jewish text.

And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Matthew 21:11.

Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou wast with Jesus of Galilee.

Matthew 26:69.

In the times of the approach of Messiah . . . Galilee shall be destroyed.

Mishnah Sotah 9.​

John

Super informative. Easy to understand. Well sourced. Thank you!

The only tidbit that would be great to have is the precise text from Rashi saying that it's OK to change the interpretation to protect it from heresy. If you have that accessible, I would really,really appreciate it.

And I'll not object in the future in regards to minor changes to the text.

 

[dybmh]

I use shows the root words for "waves of the sea" in Isaiah 48:18 as גלל ים. On

גללים = idols

2 Kings 17:12 Interlinear: and serve the idols, of which Jehovah said to them, 'Ye do not do this thing;'

 

[John D. Brey]

גללים = idols

2 Kings 17:12 Interlinear: and serve the idols, of which Jehovah said to them, 'Ye do not do this thing;'

Keep that in mind. It's coming up in the exegesis. There's so many nuances contained in the consonants gimmel-lamed.

One other thing is that I don't think there's a plural for Galilee in the Tanakh. The NT speaks of Galileans (Jesus is the man from Galilee, and his followers Galileans). But I haven't found that term in the Tanakh. If Isaiah 48:18 wanted to imply Galilean or Galileans, it wouldn't just be a hapax; it would be a case where a word might have had to be coined for the occasion.

Btw, גלגלת is the locale of the greatest idol ever erected in the holy land (two gimmel-lamed rolled into one). Perhaps even the greatest idol the world has, or will, ever know. It'd be pretty interesting if גללים (idols) refers to the Galilean and his horde (an idol and a pack of idol worshipers). In that case it would fit perfect in Isaiah 48:18. Except for the gross-ness of the irony, "righteous idol worshipers" גללים (Numbers 21:9; John 3:14; Isaiah 11:10; 2 Kings 18:4).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The only tidbit that would be great to have is the precise text from Rashi saying that it's OK to change the interpretation to protect it from heresy. If you have that accessible, I would really,really appreciate it.

As noted by scholars like Avraham Grossman, most Rashi commentary generally available to the public has cleaned up Rashi's anti-Christian statements to avoid offending Christians. Avraham Grossman has studied various versions of Rashi where his statements aren't yet edited.

In Psalms 2, Rashi is quoted to imply that the passage refers to Messiah. But he adds that according to its apparent meaning it's ok to imply it refers to David himself. I've personally read versions of this particular Rashi commentary where he said that because of the sectarians (i.e., Christians) it's ok to imply it means David.

In fact, in Judaica Books of The Holy Writings, Psalms vol. 1, (Psalms 2:1) it reads:

Why have the nations gathered --- Our sages (Ber. 7b) expounded the passage as referring to King Messiah, but according to its apparent meaning, [and, in order to reply to the sectarians, --Parshandatha] it is proper to interpret it as referring to David himself . . . [Bracketed words appear in all mss. Rashi alludes to the Christian interpretation of this chapter, mainly verses 6 and 12, which will be discussed further].​

All the brackets are in Judaic Books. And they note that the first bracket is in all Rashi manuscripts (so why is it bracketed?). Not so today. For those who don't know, "Parshandatha" is a term referring to Rashi.

Btw, for those who don't know the history of the time, Rashi's anti-Christian attitude was totally justified. It's not his anger and contrary attitude toward Christians that should be important, since that was justified (by ignorant and evil persecution of Jews by Christians), but his willingness to toy with the Torah text because of his justified attitude toward the Christians. He was applying the pen is more powerful than the sword principle but doing it in a way that crosses (or crosses out) too many scriptural lines (of text) in the process. And since the Torah text is God's very Name, Rashi allowed evil Christians to cause him to do one of the most evil things imaginable: use the Lord's Name in vain.

We don't want to repeat the Christian's mistake in persecuting Jews, nor Rashi's mistake in using the Lord's Name in vain. God will fight for us. We shouldn't beat anyone over the head with a wooden cross or use a superior knowledge of Hebrew to use God's Name in vain for private gain. (If anyone's interested, the thread we did on this a couple years ago was edited into an essay here)




John

 

[dybmh]

Keep that in mind. It's coming up in the exegesis. There's so many nuances contained in the consonants gimmel-lamed.

Great! I look fwd to it!

One other thing is that I don't think there's a plural for Galilee in the Tanakh.

Take a look at Numbers 26. Galileans aren't listed, but there's plenty of examples here how Tanach would communicate that. Notice the endings. So it would be something like "עם הגלילי"? Examples: מִשְׁפַּ֙חַת֙ הַצְּפוֹנִ֔י, מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַֽחַגִּ֑י, מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַשּׁוּנִֽי.

Perhaps even the greatest idol the world has, or will, ever know.

Dagon - Wikipedia "An incantation against snakebite mentions Dagan" "דָּגוֹן" ... <>< ...

In that case it would fit perfect in Isaiah 48:18. Except for the gross-ness of the irony, "righteous idol worshipers"

That's the point. Simply constructing a word here based on the root and a common plural suffix would be utterly confusing for a Hebrew speaker. So the idea that a/the masoretes covered up a verse intended to speak about Galilee, still needs more support.

Numbers 21:9

hmmmm.... could have been one of the greatest mistakes in Torah ...

John 3:14

I can see why you like this verse.

 

[John D. Brey]

One other thing is that I don't think there's a plural for Galilee in the Tanakh. The NT speaks of Galileans (Jesus is the man from Galilee, and his followers Galileans). But I haven't found that term in the Tanakh. If Isaiah 48:18 wanted to imply Galilean or Galileans, it wouldn't just be a hapax; it would be a case where a word might have had to be coined for the occasion.

Btw, גלגלת is the locale of the greatest idol ever erected in the holy land (two gimmel-lamed rolled into one). Perhaps even the greatest idol the world has, or will, ever know. It'd be pretty interesting if גללים (idols) refers to the Galilean and his horde (an idol and a pack of idol worshipers). In that case it would fit perfect in Isaiah 48:18. Except for the gross-ness of the irony, "righteous idol worshipers" גללים (Numbers 21:9; John 3:14; Isaiah 11:10; 2 Kings 18:4).

Someone only half-interested could be forgiven for ignoring the scriptures noted in the parentheses at the end of the message above. Nevertheless they're seminal to the importance this exegesis is placing on the meaning of the use of "waves of the sea" בגליהים in Isaiah 48:18 (which is being considered a parallel to Isaiah 9:1). The idea is that just as "Nehushtan" נחשתן is a hapax (found only at 2 Kings 18:4), so to גליהים is a hapax doing the same thing as the consonants found in 2 Kings 18:4): transforming Hebrew words into a crucially important name.

Nehusהtan is two Hebrew words (נחש and תן) made into one word to form a name (נחשתן).

This exegesis is implying that "waves of the sea" should really be translated "Galileans" or "Galilee-im) so that just as "bronze" נחש and "serpent" תן combine into the name of the "bronze serpent," i.e., Nehush-tan, so too, "waves of the sea" is really speaking, the only time in the scripture (a hapax) of the latter-day idolater and idolaters who will eventually follow the Galilean, and be known as the Galileans.

The quotations above support this in a pretty remarkable manner:

And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. . . And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. . . For in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, Which shall stand as a symbol for the people; To it shall the Gentiles seek: And where he temporarily rests in peace shall be glorious . . . For Hezekiah . . . brakes in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made [as his descendants break the son of man].​

John

 

[dybmh]

In Psalms 2, Rashi is quoted to imply that the passage refers to Messiah. But he adds that according to its apparent meaning it's ok to imply it refers to David himself. I've personally read versions of this particular Rashi commentary where he said that because of the sectarians (i.e., Christians) it's ok to imply it means David.

FYI: Ibn Ezra agrees with Rashi on the meaning of the verse... hopefully that has some value to you as a reliable source.

"הנכון בעיני: כי זה המזמור חברו אחד מהמשוררים על דוד ביום המשחו, על כן כתוב: אני היום ילדתיך, או על המשיח"

הנכון בעיני = "The truth in my eyes ... "
על דוד ביום המשחו = " ... it's David's annointing day ... "
או על המשיח = " ... or it's Messiah."

He cites verse 7, but based on his comments there it sounds like, "אני היום ילדתיך" is a metaphor. I suppose it could be read not as a metaphor instead as a hint to a literal interpretation. But again, "in truth" Ibn Ezra's "eyes" see "David" not "Messiah" which supports Rashi.

 

[John D. Brey]

FYI: Ibn Ezra agrees with Rashi on the meaning of the verse... hopefully that has some value to you as a reliable source.

"הנכון בעיני: כי זה המזמור חברו אחד מהמשוררים על דוד ביום המשחו, על כן כתוב: אני היום ילדתיך, או על המשיח"

הנכון בעיני = "The truth in my eyes ... "
על דוד ביום המשחו = " ... it's David's annointing day ... "
או על המשיח = " ... or it's Messiah."

He cites verse 7, but based on his comments there it sounds like, "אני היום ילדתיך" is a metaphor. I suppose it could be read not as a metaphor instead as a hint to a literal interpretation. But again, "in truth" Ibn Ezra's "eyes" see "David" not "Messiah" which supports Rashi.

Ibn Ezra shares Rashi's concern with where Psalms chapter two is going if it's not speaking of David but Messiah. I.e., it lends itself too powerfully to the sectarians whose Gospels would then seem to be too perfect a fulfillment of Psalms chapter two. Though Ibn Ezra leans hard toward Rashi's desired interpretation, he then notes some problems with that interpretation, and ends saying:

However, our verse is better explained in accordance with those who say that our chapter deals with messiah.​

Ibn Ezra said he will always trust the sages and their interpretation:

The Sages taught: To Messiah ben David, who is destined to be revealed swiftly in our time, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Ask of Me anything and I will give you whatever you wish, as it is stated: “I will tell of the decree; the Lord said unto me: You are My son, this day have I begotten you, ask of Me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession” (Psalms 2:7–8).

Sukkah 52b.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Take a look at Numbers 26. Galileans aren't listed, but there's plenty of examples here how Tanach would communicate that. Notice the endings. So it would be something like "עם הגלילי"? Examples: מִשְׁפַּ֙חַת֙ הַצְּפוֹנִ֔י, מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַֽחַגִּ֑י, מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַשּׁוּנִֽי.

Right. That would be the expected inflection of the noun. But the scripture is full of surprises and speaks to us differently than any merely human language. For instance, we read that Moses makes a "serpent" נחש of "brass" נחשת, and yet it's named a "brass" נחש "serpent" תנין? Not a serpent נחש of brass נחשת.

When a particularly important name is in the crosshairs, the Hebrew does miraculous, or at least weird, things. For instance, as recently noted, Shaddai שדי is, for the sectarians, the "lamb of God," which makes Shaddai the God of the field (שדי). Shaddai is God's name, and also a word meaning a "field," such that Shaddai is the God of the field, a lamb, or ram, or quadruped, of God. Perhaps even a beast of the field one might mistake as an offering?

Dagon - Wikipedia "An incantation against snakebite mentions Dagan" "דָּגוֹן" ... <>< ...

Read carefully, the article says equating Dagon with a fish is an erroneous interpretation. It's not legit.



John <Ἰ Χ Θ Υ Σ><

 

[dybmh]

we read that Moses makes a "serpent" נחש of "brass" נחשת, and yet it's named a "brass" נחש "serpent" תנין? Not a serpent נחש of brass נחשת.

First of all, Moses didn't make Nehushtan. Also, this is what I found researching it:

, ◌תָן PBH suff. forming agential nouns and adjectives, as in עַנְוְתָן (= humble, meek, modest), פְּעַלְתָּן (= an active person), רַעַבְתָן (= hungry). [Originally added to f. nouns, hence compounded of the f. ending t and the agential suff. ◌ָן (see ◌ָן). Later the suff. ◌תָן was also added to m. nouns. Often there are two parallel forms, one ending in ◌ָן, the other in ◌תָן, both being of the same meaning; cp. e.g. כַּרְסְתָן–כַּרְסָן, עַנְוְתָן–עַנְוָן.] Derivatives: ◌תָּנוּת, ◌תָּנִי.

So the idol, nehushtan is serpenty. Or bronzish. Or you can have it your way and call it a bronze serpent, or a serpent serpent... whatever. it's still not connected to Moses.

 

[dybmh]

Read carefully, the article says equating Dagon with a fish is an erroneous interpretation. It's not legit.

What, it's name is Dagon. Dag **means** fish. By your logic, this must be significant. The research refuting it was made by Christians or Christian sympathizers. They must be covering up the truth.

 

[John D. Brey]

First of all, Moses didn't make Nehushtan. Also, this is what I found researching it:

, ◌תָן PBH suff. forming agential nouns and adjectives, as in עַנְוְתָן (= humble, meek, modest), פְּעַלְתָּן (= an active person), רַעַבְתָן (= hungry). [Originally added to f. nouns, hence compounded of the f. ending t and the agential suff. ◌ָן (see ◌ָן). Later the suff. ◌תָן was also added to m. nouns. Often there are two parallel forms, one ending in ◌ָן, the other in ◌תָן, both being of the same meaning; cp. e.g. כַּרְסְתָן–כַּרְסָן, עַנְוְתָן–עַנְוָן.] Derivatives: ◌תָּנוּת, ◌תָּנִי.

So the idol, nehushtan is serpenty. Or bronzish. Or you can have it your way and call it a bronze serpent, or a serpent serpent... whatever. it's still not connected to Moses.

What does Moses manufacture in Numbers 21:9?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What, it's name is Dagon. Dag **means** fish. By your logic, this must be significant. The research refuting it was made by Christians or Christian sympathizers. They must be covering up the truth.

Ok. I missed that. . . . Fwiw, I concede that I'm an idol worshiper. I suspect that there's something huge in Moses manufacturing Nehustan as a salvific idol such that anyone who won't gaze upon it won't be healed. Great is the mystery of iniquity as well as salvation. Don't make an image of anything on earth, under the earth, or in heaven. But what are the angels on the ark of the covenant? What is Moses' bronze embellished wonder-working rod if not a salvific idol par excellent?



John