# pierced/like a lion...need Hebrew help



## LadyFlynt (Sep 28, 2006)

> The Masoretic text is Hebrew, so to say that it says 'pierced' is false. What you mean is 'there are those who read the Hebrew as 'pierced', despite evidence from the vocalization (not to mention that the 3-letter root, which all Hebrew words are based upon, does not mean pierced!) that it indeed means 'like a lion'
> 
> Quote:
> Grammatical proof of the correctness of the Masoretic text is seen by the use of the qamatz under the kaph in ka-'ari, which is the result of an assimilated definite article. Thus, the literal translation would be "Like the lion. . . ."



Help?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2006)




----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 29, 2006)

*emphasis all me*



> "Ps. xxii 17c is an old crux which has never been satisfactorily explained. The MT's ka'ari yaday weraglay, 'like a lion my hands and my feet', makes no sense, and *most modern scholars agree the text is corrupt*.
> 
> They also agree in locating the problem in the word ka'ari, 'like a lion'. All the ancient versions with the exception of the Targum read a verb here, and following their lead, most modern scholars emend the consonantal text from k'ry to k'rw or krw in order to obtain a verb in the 3mpl suffix conjugation." [J.J.M. Roberts, Vetus Testamentum, Vol 23, pge 247f]
> 
> "MT’s ka'ari (“like a lion”) presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct. One must suppose that incorrect vocalization of the consonantal text occurred" [Craigie, Peter C. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 19: Psalms 1-50. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1998.]



http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html

see the "b." section for a very detailed explaination.

again - the Masoretic Text is NOT the oldest or most reliable text of the Scriptures.




> William D. Edwards, M.D. on the physical death of Jesus Christ. JAMA, March 21, 1986-Vol. 255, No. 11, pp. 1455-1463.
> 
> NOTE: "They pierced my hands and my feet" (22:16) describes the unique aspect of crucifixion—no other form of execution involves this. This is so clear that some opponents to Christianity have charged that Christians altered the text. The Jewish Bible (using the Masoretic text) says "like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet." The Hebrew word for "they pierced" is ka'arey. The word for "like a lion" is ka'aru. The only difference is the length of the stem of the last letter. Did the Christians alter the text to help their cause? Two reasons say this is not so.
> 
> ...



http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu3_inspiration.htm



> The Masoretic was primarily compiled, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries...


...AD. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2006)

Question, are there Judaic scholars today that would uphold the above? Anyone specifically?

I'm dealing with Jewish ppl here.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 29, 2006)

LadyFlynt,

I’m not sure who you’re quoting that defends the “like a lion” reading; I surmise it may be a Jew, perhaps what is called an “anti-missionary” – one who seeks to refute the Messianic Jewish/Christian claims of the messiahship of Jesus.

In his commentary on Psalm 22:16, Derek Kidner states,

<blockquote>_They have pierced_ (16) or simply, ‘piercing’, is the most likely translation of a problematic Hebrew word. A strong argument in its favor is that the LXX, compiled two centuries before the crucifixion, and therefore an unbiased witness, understood it so. (p.107)</blockquote>

Some Jews will say that the LXX was written (or amended) after the crucifixion by Christian scribes (there is some merit to that idea), and therefore the LXX was corrupted. I quote (or link you to) a couple of studies that reference Hebrew MSS that date before the crucifixion, and have the “pierced” reading.

This reading, although not in some Masoretic MSS, is in the primary one (which underlies the KJV), the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, also known as the Daniel Bomberg second edition (1524-25), or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, which became the standard Masoretic text for the following 400 years.

This link will take you to a brief but excellent study of the issue, including the recent discovery of a Hebrew MS supporting “pierced”: http://www.torahresource.com/Newsletter/Ps22.16.pdf

In a similar vein to the above, something I pulled off the internet (which is documented and verifiable):

<blockquote>[It] was recently pointed out in the translation of the DSS into English by the scholars Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich [_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English_, HarperCollins:1999]. At the beginning of Psalm 22 they say:

<blockquote>Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads ‘_Like a lion are my hands and feet_,’ whereas the Septuagint has ‘_They have pierced my hands and feet_.’ Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads ‘_They have pierced my hands and my feet_’! [p.519]</blockquote></blockquote>



From John Gill’s commentary (http://www.freegrace.net/gill/Psalms/Psalms_22.htm):

<blockquote>*they pierced my hands and my feet*; by nailing them to the cross, which, though not related by the evangelists, is plainly suggested in?Joh 20:25; and is referred to in other passages of Scripture,? Zec 12:10; and clearly points at the kind of death Christ should die; the death, of the cross, a shameful and painful one. In this clause there is a various reading; in some copies in the margin it is, "as a lion my hands and my feet", but in the text, "they have dug" or "pierced my hands and my feet"; both are joined together in the Targum, "biting as a lion my hands and my feet"; as it is by other interpreters {c}; and Schultens {d} retains the latter, rendering the preceding clause in connection with it thus,??"the assembly of the wicked have broken me to pieces, as a lion, my hands and my feet.''??In the Targum, in the king of Spain's Bible, the phrase, "as a lion", is left out. The modern Jews are for retaining the marginal reading, though without any good sense, and are therefore sometimes charged with a wilful and malicious corruption of the text; but without sufficient proof, since the different reading in some copies might be originally occasioned by the similarity of the letters y and w; and therefore finding it in their copies, or margin, sometimes wrak, and sometimes?yrak, have chose that which best suits their purpose, and is not to be wondered at; however, their "masoretic" notes, continued by them, sufficiently clear them from such an imputation, and direct to the true reading of the words; in the small Masorah on the text it is observed that the word is twice used as here pointed, but in two different senses; this is one of the places; the other is Isa 38:13; where the sense requires it should be read "as a lion": wherefore, according to the authors of that note, it must have a different sense here, and not to be understood of a lion; the larger Masorah, in Nu 24:9; observes the word is to be found in two places, in that place and in Ps 22:16; and adds to that, it is written wrak, "they pierced"; and Ben Chayim confirms {e} this reading, and says he found it so written in some correct copies, and in the margin yrak; and so it is written in several manuscripts; and which is confirmed by the Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Greek, and Vulgate Latin versions; in which it is rendered, "they dug my hands and my feet"; and so took it to be a verb and not a noun: so Apollinarius in his metaphrase; and which is also confirmed by the points; though taking yrak for a participle, as the Targum, that reading may be admitted, as it is by some learned men {f}, who render it "digging" or "piercing", and so has the same sense, deriving the word either from rak or rwk, which signify to dig, pierce, or make hollow; and there are many instances of plural words which end in y, the m omitted, being cut off by an apocope; see 2Sa 23:8; and either way the words are expressive of the same thing, and manifestly point to the sufferings of Christ, and that kind of death he should die, the death of the cross, and the nailing of his hands and feet to it, whereby they were pierced. This passage is sometimes applied by the Jews {g} themselves to their Messiah.

{c} Amamae Antibarb. Bibl. p. 743. {d} Origin. Heb. l. 1. c. 12. s. 8. Vid. Jacob. Alting. Dissert. Philolog. 5. s. 27-34. {e} In Maarcath a, fol. 10. 2. ad Calc. Buxtorf. Bibl. {f} Pocock. Miscell. c. 4. p. 59, 60. Pfeiffer. Exercitat. 8. s. 37. Carpzov. Critic. Sacr. p. 838, 839. Alting. ut supra. (Dissert. Philolog. 5.) s. 48, 49. {g} Pesikta in Yalkut, par. 2. fol. 56. 4.</blockquote>


A couple of links with articles containing good information (both Fundamental Baptists, I caution you, in the event you have an aversion to such – though I find them of immense value as regards their scholarship in the area of the Hebrew and Greek MSS):

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/myths-masoretic-text.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/ency/ency003e.htm

There are many who say the Hebrew vowel points were added to the Hebrew after the apostolic age by the Masoretic scribes; in the link above (myths-masoretic-text) Dr. Strouse opposes that view. It was the view – that the Hebrew had the vowel points at the time of Christ and way before – of Turrentin, Owen, Buxtorf, and the post-Reformation scholars. I have the book by John Gill, _A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents_, in pdf, which I’ll be glad to email you, or anyone interested; Gill also supports this view.

At any rate, “pierced” is the correct reading in the Bible the Lord preserved for us intact – almost all the modern versions have it also, save those Old Testaments published by Jewish publishers, who have a strong vested interest in the other reading.

Hope this helps.

Steve


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 29, 2006)

Here is my summary of the argument:

The Masoretic text was compiled by Jewish scholars ceveral centuries *after* the death of Christ and the spread of Christianity - and has "like a lion", which makes no contextual sense.

The Septuagint text was compiled by *Jewish* scholars (not Christian, obviously) ceveral centuries *before* the death of Christ and has "they pierced" - which makes contextual sense.

The Hebrew vocalization differs by *one* stroke. Which version should you trust?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2006)

Some interesting things is that they are claiming they are henotheistic rather than monotheistic (all except for on dissenting Jewish woman). They claim our ways are valid as long as we follow the Noachide Laws (seven general categories). One of these though is not to worship false gods (yet other gods are valid?). Of course to them Christians are breaking this law by worshipping a "man"...Christ.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 29, 2006)

To add to JD's helpful resources, here are a few other thoughts:

Edward Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, p. 223:



> And in Ps 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ.



John Calvin:



> 16. They have pierced my hands and my feet. The original word, which we have translated they have pierced, is yrak, caari, which literally rendered is, like a lion. As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, wrak, caaru, that is the letter w, vau, where there is now the letter y, yod.3 The Jews prate much about the literal sense being purposely and deliberately overthrown, by our rendering the original word by they have pierced:but for this allegation there is no color of truth whatever. What need was there to trifle so presumptuously in a matter where it was altogether unnecessary? Very great suspicion of falsehood, however, attaches to them, seeing it is the uppermost desire of their hearts to despoil the crucified Jesus of his escutcheons, and to divest him of his character as the Messiah and Redeemer. If we receive this reading as they would have us to do, the sense will be enveloped in marvellous obscurity. In the first place, it will be a defective form of expression, and to complete it, they say it is necessary to supply the verb to surround or to beset. But what do they mean by besetting the hands and the feet? Besetting belongs no more to these parts of the human body than to the whole man. The absurdity of this argument being discovered, they have recourse to the most ridiculous old wives' fables, according to their usual way, saying, that the lion, when he meets any man in his road, makes a circle with his tail before rushing upon his prey:from which it is abundantly evident that they are at a loss for arguments to support their view.
> 
> Again, since David, in the preceding verse, has used the similitude of a lion, the repetition of it in this verse would be superfluous. I forbear insisting upon what some of our expositors have observed, namely, that this noun, when it has prefixed to it the letter k, caph, which signifies as, the word denoting similitude, has commonly other points than those which are employed in this passage. My object, however, is not here to labor to convince the Jews who in controversy are in the highest degree obstinate and opinionative. I only intend briefly to show how wickedly they endeavor to perplex Christians on account of the different reading which occurs in this place. When they object, that by the appointment of the law no man was fastened with nails to a cross, they betray in this their gross ignorance of history, since it is certain that the Romans introduced many of their own customs and manners into the provin ces which they had conquered. If they object that David was never nailed to a cross, the answer is easy, namely, that in bewailing his condition, he has made use of a similitude, declaring that he was not less afflicted by his enemies than the man who is suspended on a cross, having his hands and feet pierced through with nails. We will meet a little after with more of the same kind of metaphors.
> 
> ...



Matthew Henry:



> They pierced my hands and my feet (Ps 22:16), which were nailed to the accursed tree, and the whole body left so to hang, the effect of which must needs be the most exquisite pain and torture. There is no one passage in all the Old Testament which the Jews have so industriously corrupted as this, because it is such an eminent prediction of the death of Christ and was so exactly fulfilled.



John Gill:



> they pierced my hands and my feet; by nailing them to the cross, which, though not related by the evangelists, is plainly suggested in Joh 20:25; and is referred to in other passages of Scripture, Zec 12:10; and clearly points at the kind of death Christ should die; the death, of the cross, a shameful and painful one. In this clause there is a various reading; in some copies in the margin it is, "as a lion my hands and my feet", but in the text, "they have dug" or "pierced my hands and my feet"; both are joined together in the Targum, "biting as a lion my hands and my feet"; as it is by other interpreters {c}; and Schultens {d} retains the latter, rendering the preceding clause in connection with it thus,
> 
> "the assembly of the wicked have broken me to pieces, as a lion, my hands and my feet.''
> 
> ...



Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:



> They pierced my hands and my feet. So the Septuagint [ooruxan], Ethiopic, Arabic Vulgate, and Syriac translate [ kaa'ªriy (OT:3738): either this is a compound of kaaraah (OT:3738), pierced, and 'ªriy, a lion - i.e., 'they pierced as a lion:' so the Chaldaic paraphrase, 'Mordentes sicut leo;' or else they read kaa'ªruw, from kaa'ar, to pierce; or the present reading is the Qal participle, plural masculine in regimen, for k-'-r-y-m, from kuwr, vocalized as: ko'ªreey, piercing-literally, (they are) piercers of my hands. Eighteen passages were, according to the Masorah, altered by the scribes. This may have been one; because it is clear the oldest versions read as the English version; and the translation, 'They enclosed (from the previous sentence) my hands and my fast as a lion is very clumsy. The singular for the plural is awkward, where the comparison is to many wicked surrounding the one Messiah; and lions do not enclose or surround (nor could one lion do so), but spring on their prey. Then the repetition of the image of a lion so soon after, in Ps 22:13, and before, in Ps 22:21, renders its introduction in this verse unlikely. Jerome, who declares he altered nothing of the strict Hebrew, translates 'fixerunt,' 'they fixed' to the cross. Aquila, a Jew, and a proselyte, under Adrian, about 133 AD, translates eeschunan, 'they disfigured'-a remarkable admission from one who would have gladly opposed the Christian exposition. The little Masora admits that the same Hebrew, which in Isa 38:13 means 'as a lion,' has a different meaning here (Ps 22:16). So many other particulars of Christ's crucifixion are detailed, that the piercing of His hands and feet was likely to be noticed].



C F Keil & F Delitzsch


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2006)

Thank you, gentlemen. It is a very pc board. I'm not trying to proselytize, merely discuss and ask questions. It all started with them asking how in the world we get that Christianity came from Judaism (Christ and NT authors being Jews don't cut it) (they also see Islam being more in line with their thinking than Christianity). The ?s toward Christians has landed on this verse for the most part (after we got past the Dispensational's comments). Realizing we were stalled on several matters, I started a thread ?s for Jewish ppl. That thread is going "interesting"  with the henotheism and Noachide Laws (yes, I brought up the NL). They actually seem to like the thought we are putting into this. But since they cannot see our points, I figure I would try to logically work through theirs (gives me an idea of their thought processes and beliefs system). They did agree when I mentioned their taking the prophecies of Messiah as to be totally fulfilled in the physical where we believe part of it is fulfilled spiritually as being the main wall in understanding and disagreement.

(oh, and I've read some of their anti-missionary stuff at jewsforjudaism.org. They call Christian missionaries fanatics  I guess some can be, but the broadbrushing bit :rolleyesagain: )

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 29, 2006)

Andrew,

I will have to look into Calvin’s remark, “As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading [as a lion –SMR], I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not…” 

For, as I said above, the Ben Chayyim edition reads “pierced”, and it was published in 1525. I have read some Jews suspected it as Jacob Ben Chayyim (I have seen him called by the first name Abraham also) converted to Christ.

I have the TBS edition of the Ben Chayyim text and it reads “pierced”. I would imagine it was available to Calvin.


LadyFlynt,

I had to look up what henotheism was! Is their take on it like there are many “gods” – what we would call angelic beings – but only one true God?

Perhaps the best books for one dealing with religious Jews (I am a Jew myself) is Dr. Michael Brown’s 3-volume set, _Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus_ (Baker, 2003). In volume 3 he has an extended discussion of Psalm 22, with verse 16 taking a number of pages. His is a scholarly – but strongly evangelistic – approach. He has studied the various Rabbinic sources and the Talmudic writings. I am not enamored of his theology _at all_ (he is a great lover of Charles Finney, for starts), but his Jewish scholarship is excellent. His discussions, in vol 2, of the triunity of God, drawing upon Jewish sources as well as Scripture, are superb. 

I like to tell the Jews there is a great celebration going on in the nearly completed Temple the God of Israel Himself is building. Which temple He shall fully manifest on earth after the great resurrection, with abundance of shalom for all those blessed to be in His glorious Kingdom. I talk about the eternal High Priest, who is a friend of sinners (He is Himself Messiah), and His Torah has been distilled down to the essence of righteousness and grace, easy to love and observe – for those who have His Spirit. I believe this is what Paul meant by provoking them to jealousy.

I’ll be praying for Him to touch their hearts through your gracious and informed witness.

Steve

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Andrew,
> 
> I will have to look into Calvin’s remark, “As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading [as a lion –SMR], I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not…”
> ...



Very interesting, Steve! 

It is also available here.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2006)

Bwhahahaha!  They want to know why Christians don't just defer to them since the 'majority' of us don't know Hebrew. Uh, bigger picture...there are many goys that DO know Hebrew and we HAVE defered to some of their writings...but not all of their writings are in agreement.

Also, they keep bringing up oral tradition. Apparently I cannot ask that they bring something strictly from scripture (not the Talmud). But that would be just like their claims not to bnring anything from the unrecogniozed (by them) NT or our commentaries.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 30, 2006)

LadyFlynt,

Here are some some passages I have excerpted from a discussion I had with Jewish apologists on the so-called Oral Law. I hope they edify; and I apologize if they are too lengthy -- I didn't have time to further edit them down.

-------

The terrible flaw of the so-called Oral Law -- the Torah she'baal'Peh -- is that its claim to have come from Moses, rather than its inception around the time of Ezra, is spurious and has the effect of giving the authority which rightfully belongs to God and His prophets to the scribes, rabbis and talmudists. As it stands in Rabbinic Judaism, the authority to decide what is of God and what not lies with the (ancient) Sanhedrin or the majority in a Beth Din. Such authority is vested in these arbiters of Halakha [a specific legal ruling, or Rabbinic legal material in general] that they could actually decide against a prophet sent from God, or even the Messiah. Not that this is a new thing in Israel, for after the rulers and scribes refused to humble themselves before God’s word through Jeremiah the prophet, and the chastenings of the LORD by king Nebuchadnezzar, He said through His inspired chronicler, "the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending, because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy." (2 Chronicles 36:15,16) The people that belong to the Almighty who abide in modern Jewry will have ears to hear the plain sense of the things that are spoken by those proclaiming God’s word. 

When a system of thought -- in this case rabbinic halakha, aka "talmudic theology" -- can supercede the Tanakh [Old Testament] in authority, you have the overthrow of the authority of God and His inspired messengers. This is how one defender of the "Oral Torah" in [an online discussion] typified the written Torah: "When Christianity...adopted the Torah without its Oral Tradition, they were left with a bare skeleton. That is what the written Torah is!"

One may caricature my position by likening it to the Karaites, but they fail to answer my arguments contra the alleged oral torah, demonstrating its falsity from Moses' certain words and the words of inspired Biblical authors.

There are those who assert: "Ezra, Nehamiah, Haggai and Malachi were among the Men of the Great Assembly who gave over that the Oral Torah was from Moshe Rabbeinu..."

But can anyone point to a place in the Book of God that supports this statement, or will one instead just use the circular (begging-the-question) reasoning of so many and resort back to the oral law, so called? If the oral law is its own support -- like the Traditions of the Roman Catholic organization -- that's but a clever legal maneuver to subvert the authority of the written law!

It was said by a Jew, “The reason most Jews ignore the literary prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel is a) we KNOW many are trained to deceive by using those texts so we ignore them; b) the message is for the most part a long winded bummer couched in overblown imagery, and c) it has little or no relevance to day to day living. Which is why Jews focus on Written Torah, Ketuviim, the Book of Jonah, and the Oral Torah..."

And I respond, the LORD our God put it this way to us of old: "And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." (Deuteronomy 8:3) The prophets spoke the word of the LORD, and how is it that some so blithely dismiss both them and Him?


--------------


On the Oral Law, so called.

When Moses died and God chose Joshua to lead the people, He told Joshua,

"Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded you: do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may act wisely wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do all that is written in it: for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall act wisely." (Joshua 1:7,8) 

No mention of an "Oral" law.

When Moses neared the end of his career as leader of Israel, he gave them a number of charges; periodically he uses words such as these almost as a formula: "If you will not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious name, The LORD Thy God; then the LORD will make your plagues remarkable..." (Deuteronomy 28:58,59) In the next chapter Moses says, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (29:29) In chapter 30 he declares to all Israel, "See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I commanded you this day to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that you may live and multiply: and the LORD your God shall bless you in the land where you go to possess it....And Moses *wrote* this law, and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, which bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel." (15,16; 31:9)

Again and again we find reference to the *written* law, upon which all the blessings and curses of the covenant devolve. When Israel faithfully and lovingly observes the written Law, she is blessed, when not, she is chastened; when she stiff-neckedly persists in spurning her God's word in the written Law, catastrophy befalls. There is no Oral Law going back to Moses. It is a legal device of the rabbinic school to wrest authority from the prophetic school, whose Chief is God.

Those times when Moses was required to inquire of the LORD concerning hard cases where the law did not specify judgment, those instances were written down. After the death of Moses counsel was to be sought of the high priest "after the judgment of Urim before the LORD..." (Numbers 27:21). Although how the Urim and the Thummim on the breastplate of the high priest was able give judgment and counsel to the children of Israel (Exodus 28:30) has not come down to us, we know that by this means the LORD was to be enquired of (1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63)

In the book of 2 Kings the inspired author writes, "But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, Him shall you fear, and Him shall you worship, and to Him shall you do sacrifice. And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do for evermore; and you shall not fear other gods." (17:36,37)

There are those who say Deut 30:11-14 refers to an oral law:

"For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not hidden from you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it."

Moses had recently charged the Levites to instruct the people in the law, stating a precept, and having the people "answer and say, 'Amen.'" The last of these precepts (in Deut 27:26) went as follows, "Cursed is he that does not confirm all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'"

It's a big stretch to assume that "in your mouth and in your heart" alludes to "Oral and Written Torah." The written Torah was in their mouths and hearts.

In fact, the context demands we understand the written commandments are what is being talked of: "If you shall listen to the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law...For this commandment...is not in heaven...but...in your mouth...and heart..." (verses 10, 11, 12, 14). It was something taught them, and in which they were catechized, according to Moses: "And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up." (Deut 6:6,7)

Although in actuality, these verses are not used by the rabbinic school to prove the above wrong opinion, but a different halakhic rule, using the phrase "not in heaven" to mean, "The Torah has already been given us from Sinai. We are not to listen to a heavenly voice [i.e., in matters of halakhic decision]." –from _Not In Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha_," by Eliezer Berkovits (KTAV, 1983), pp 47, 48.

The talmudic rule expressed here, while of far greater weight than the former opinon, is also spurious, based on rabbinic fables in order to wrest power from the living God and His prophets (who indeed spoke a word from Heaven!) and to a majority in a Sanhedrin or Beth Din. *Men* would then decide halakha, and *not* God! This sort of thinking is that which has become the bane of the Jewish people.

-----------


Sitting back and thinking about the state of the "discussion" awhile, here are some of my thoughts. I have sought to present a reasoned view, based on the Law, Writings, and Prophets -- the Tanakh -- of the authenticity of what I term Prophetic Judaism, and the spuriousness of Rabbinic or Halakhic Judaism. If I am impassioned in my presentations it is because this is no mere academic or religious dispute, but a fight to deliver my people, friends, and family from a spiritual darkness that death will not ease, but intensify. I realize mine is a small voice amidst the vastness of voices in modern Judaism, but if I do not speak, blood is on my hands. And the Lord's sheep will recognize that which is of Him, and awake to clarity.

Central to this "discussion" is the validity or invalidity of the Oral Law, so called. If it is validated, it supports the right of the Orthodox rabbis to decide what's what throughout all of Judaism: what the Scriptures mean, who is a Jew, the status of Yeshua of Nazareth, the basis of atonement apart from the Temple, the second-class status of the Reformed and some Conservative, etc etc. If the Oral Law is real, these rabbis run the show, because the Oral Law gives them that power.

My primary objections to the genuineness of the Oral Law are these: 1) It is nowhere attested to in Moses, the Prophets or the Writings, being conceived merely in human minds, based solely on human authority, and supported by nothing but circular reasoning (i.e., assuming what is yet to be proven); 2) The notorious failure of the Rabbinic school to shepherd the people of Israel in safety and prosperity these past two thousand years in their own land according to our covenant promises per Moses. (Those ignorant of the covenant stipulations are unprepared to participate in this dispute.)

In other words, the Oral Torah is a fiction, supporting a religious system and government that is born of rebellion against God, leading to centuries -- MILLENIA! -- of suffering, torment and destruction of our people. This is our story. What else to make of it? When I ask THIS question all I get are revilings of rabbinic defenders who have no reasoned response, and so depend on hackneyed name-calling. (And forget the Gentiles for a moment, this is an in-house matter!)

On the use of the phrase “oral law” instead of “oral torah”: Given that "torah" is rich in meanings, and may be translated law, instruction, teaching, decisions, etc, its replacement in English by the word law is accepted by the Jewish community, and is widely used instead of torah. For example, the Encyclopedia Judaica uses the term Oral Law rather than Oral Torah. 



The presuppositions supporting Orthodox Judaism are based largely on tannaitic (i.e., Pharasaic, Rabbinic) evidence..." One author [Lawrence H. Schiffman, in _Who Was A Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism_ (NJ, KTAV, 1985] justifies this as follows, "...by the time Judaism and Christianity made their final break, it was the tannaitic tradition which was almost completely representative of the Jewish community in Palestine and, to a great extent, of that segment of the Diaspora which remained loyal to its ancestral faith." (p. 5) He elaborates on this "ancestral faith" later, when talking of converts to Rabbinic Judaism: "[the convert], like the people of ancient Israel, must accept not only the laws of the Torah, but also the Rabbinic interpretation or oral Law which, in the view of the tannaim, was given at Sinai as well." (p. 38)

Now it is this so-called "oral Law...given at Sinai" which forms the basis and foundation of the Talmud, and of the halakhah, the Jewish legal system that typifies Rabbinic Judaism. 

But there is no evidence in the Hebrew Scriptures to support the existence of this "oral Law...given at Sinai," while there is ample evidence to refute it. The story of Josiah king of Judah is one such example. Having received the throne after his grandfather, Manasseh, and father, Amon (who was slain by his servants), Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and when he was sixteen he began to seek after God, and soon thereafter started to purge Judah and Jerusalem of its idol-worship, yet it was not until he was twenty-six (in approx 621 B.C.E.) that the book of the law of the LORD given by Moses was found hidden in the temple, and evidently lost a long time. When the young king heard the words of the law he rent his clothes, saying, "...great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do all that is written in this book." (2 Chronicles 34:19,21) God was pleased with Josiah for his tender and obedient heart. 

It was the WRITTEN Law and not any fictitious oral law which renewed the king and the people before God. Listen to the Scripture: "And the king went up into the house of the LORD, and all the men of Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the LORD. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and His statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book." (v. 30,31)

Make no mistake, we recognize the oral tradition of commentary and exposition that began around the time of Ezra the priest and scribe, when he read from the book of the law before all the people, and those under Ezra's direction "caused the people to understand the law..." and "they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Nehemiah 8:7,8) Down the generations this teaching was memorized in an unbroken tradition, with the rabbis of each generation adding their own interpretations.

By the time of Yeshua this oral tradition was vast, and not all of it in accord with the Scripture it was supposed to illumine. When Yeshua, whose Torah was to be the fulfilling and superceding of the Mosaic Torah, saw the violence done to Moses and the prophets, He critiqued and reproved the Pharisees, which earned Him their undying hatred, save for those among them whose hearts were open to His light. The B'rit Chadashah (New Covenant) tells the story of all these things, for those Jews reading this who are likewise open to Him who is the glory and crown of Israel.

This "oral tradition" and the Talmud of the rabbis, for all that may be meritorious in it, has been a bane to we Jews, for it keeps the people from the plain and fresh reading of the word of God. Such rabbis sound more like Roman Catholics than Jews, who must get their food from their priests and their understanding from the traditions of the Church! Jews are called "People of the Book," but most do not know the Book they are the people of, for a wall of rabbinic learning has been placed between them and their God, as though they were too "slow" to understand for themselves! And how many Jews know the urgent warning of Isaiah the Hebrew prophet, when he said, "The leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed." (Isaiah 9:16) Does one not think he spoke to such a time as this? (as this sort of time has been upon us often!)

Josiah needed no oral law, for there was nothing he needed but the law of the LORD in the Book.
-----------

Steve

[Edited on 10-1-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 30, 2006)

Andrew,

Thanks for that link to get the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text -- that's a treasure!

Steve


----------

