05-05-2008, 01:52 AM
Shlama Akhi Dawid,
Allow me to answer quickly as I am under time constraints. For any that remains I will return to this important question shortly:
Again these are instructions going out from the Jerusalem Rosh Beit Din to Messianic shuls under their authority, but also a comment on how in terms of Tanakh conventional and Messianic shuls were doing a lot of the same things as well.So do you think that this was actually a N'tzari Sanhedrin, or was it simply a Beyth Din? I'd heard of it being thought of as a Beyth Din before, but it wasn't until yesterday that it occurred to me that it may actually be a Sanhedrin. The seventy being sent out, and the use of the term "elders" seem to point to more than a regular Beyth Din, don't you think?
AGR:
Yes I would tend to agree. Either that or it was more of Beit Din in Y'shua's time but after Netzari shuls had been set up under Ya'kov and Keefa it could have evolved into a fully functioning Sanhedrin. There are clues about this in the Aramaic Gospels I believe, especially with respect to cursing the fig tree, that being a symbol of the conventional Sanhedrin. Too much to get into now however.
So this is why you count Bikkurim from the morrow after the fifteenth, rather than the morrow after the following Yom Rishon, correct? I won't impose upon your time more than I am already to ask you to explain all of your thoughts on this, but if you could give me the specific addresses of the passages on Noah and David and Jonathan that you are referring to so I can look at them I would greatly appreciate it.
AGR:
Yes, this is one reason among many. The passage involving Noah has to do with the fact that he is in the ark exactly 5 months and those 5 months equal exactly 30 days each (150 days). Furthermore Noah is locked up in the ark during the deluge and clearly cannot see the sky to note the sun and moon's positions. David and Jonathan have a discussion also where Jonathan know sfor a fact that the roch chodesh ceremony will be in two days, WITHOUT WAITING FOR WITNESSES TO PROVE IT. THE COURT OF SAUL IS PROCLAIMING IT AS SUCH REGARDLESS. Both these incidents prove to my mind that fixed calendrical patterns back up ovservations and where observation is not possible or practical, the fixed calendar acts as deciding mechanism. This is a major theme in my calendar study in Mari called "Wheel of Stars".
Some have suggested that we didn't have as many problems in the past, since there was, supposedly, a 360 day year. Allegedly there was some kind of shift that changed the cycle by about 4.25 days and wreaked havoc with the Biblical calendar.
AGR:
I don't believe the length of year changed due to some cosmic event if that is what you are asking. But I do believe both the 360 day system as I outline it and our current Gregorian system speak to many of the same time issues. I can interclculate between the two and actually am prettyc ertain I can prove that the 365.2422 day year is "hidden" in the real 360 day calendar. I can't say more than that pre-publication. Sorry.
Well...what some have done from the MT. Most accept it a priori. I'm more skeptical and sometimes run readings back to the DSS, LXX, POT, and SP. I tend strongly toward textual criticism, and I think we need to use the MT as a basis, but check it against these other sources.
AGR:
If you will re-read what I said before you will find I agree with you. I encourage use of MT as base text but insist that all other ancient variants are carefully studied as well. The key is knowing though what main text and what footnotes should be, and the two should not be confused. So I take a strong pro text crit stance, hopefully though with a proper spiritual focus though to go with it.
The calendar I am willing to surrender. Less than a year ago, I would not have. But I think the issue of the canon is too important. We must treat the canon critically, and cannot simply agree to accept the MT.
AGR:
I am saying as base text, a starting point only, while studying all the other variants too. The only alternative would be a less likely unifying source, like Peshitta Tanakh, but I see advantages going in that direction as well.
I recognize that we can only do so much at the present, with the canon aswell as with the calendar. However, we must be very careful and analyze the canon with all of our best resources. We should not simply use the MT without checking it.
But I do agree that we cannot be certain, and that we must simply use a defensible text. What I do not like is the way it makes it sound like we should be happy with a straight Massoretic reading.
AGR:
See that is what I am also saying.
So are you suggesting that we, basically, apply text-critical principles to the calendar? To analyze it historically, contextually, and scientifically to attempt to reach the best conclusion for the majority of the community, and simply make peace with the rest until Mashiakh?
AGR:
Essentially yes, although I hadn't thought of it precisely in those terms.
So in matters that are open to interpretation, a wider safer view is better for the sake of unity in the present. It is a temporary fix until we no longer see darkly but face to face.But in matters that only effect an individual, no one else in the community, such as how to tie tzitziot, I think we should be lenient and not have an official ruling. There is no need to open the door to offense in these areas. Do you agree?
AGR:
In those scenarios yes, I agree. Where things are not salvation-specific and open to interpretation, reasonable men of good character should tolerate one another for the sake of the wider goals to please YHWH. Yes.
I'm certainly with you on the titles that have been used in the TN"K for YHWH, even if they're also used for pagan deities. There are people who throw a fit if you use Adonay, because it is supposedly derived from Ad*nis.
AGR:
And those people would be wrong and need to study more. It is not so simple. We are talking about linguistic links between proto-Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician and even Greek. It is more complicated, and besides which I am pretty sure I can find verses where Adonai is endorsed by YHWH as a title too that do not include 134 Masoretic emendations. The principle I believe stands as rendered.
I generally prefer Yahueh, but that is just me. With all due respect, I think that it is necessary for us to make peace with our brothers who consider pronouncing it at all to be profaning it. I am of the opinion that not pronouncing it is also profaning it, but I think that we need to give grace. This issue is so volatile that I seriously doubt we will come up with a final solution for it until Mashiakh. So we need to make peace.
AGR:
Sorry my brother, I won't make peace on that matter. To replace YHWH's name is to make it desolate and YHWH does not take subsitutes (Isaiah 42:8-9). This is actually protecting the third commandment rather than violating the cursing ban, but we are commanded 300 times to call on it, sing it, shout it, play it on the lyre, etc. It is a rabbinic fence like my example from Eve, that if we don't SAY the name we don't CURSE in it. But we are commanded to call on Him for our salvation.
I can compromise on some folks' opinion as to how the Name should be pronounced, but I will not accept the rabbinic syag around my mouth telling me I cannot call on my Creator. No way. As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh!!!! This may be a stumbling block for those in Orthodox practice I agree, but I also think there are ways to diplomatically and gradually ease them through this in respect and peace. I have thought a great deal as to how to bifurcate certain services to achieve this goal but I can't do details at this moment. I will say that one route is using YAH (as in halel-u-YAH or MarYAH) as the simplified form of the name was never banned. I view YAH and YHWH as the same exact name, and therefore can very comfortably use YAH with those who would prefer I do so from their tradition. But I will NOT try to NEVER pronounce YAH/YHWH for their sake, you can forget that.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed.
It is true that no figure is recorded as having done this. On the other hand, the calendar does not seem to have been a big deal in the TN"K. It was simply something that they knew. Isn't this argument against the Aviv calendar basically an argument from silence? I'm not saying that I think the Barley should be the deciding factor. I think it should be taken into account along with other things, but I don't think that the fact that it is never mentioned is the strongest argument against it.
AGR:
This is another theme from "Wheel of Stars" that I can only comment on very briefly. The barley is an EARTH sign and EARTH SIGNS are subject to SKY SIGNS that must precede them. The laws of the heavens and constellations rule on the earth as Job 38:31-34 says. My version of the calendar uses the sky signs as the pre-requistities for the earth signs to count. The attempts to "look for" barley in aviv are flawed and unscriptural. It is simply Karaite oral law instead of the Rabbinics that they deride for also adding to Torah. But we are told to observe the sun and the moon to mark "signs, seasons, days and years" AND IN THAT EXACT ORDER. This is what my calendar study attempts to prove and do.
If I may crave your indulgence while I ask one more question: Are you still interested in the work of the Siddur project?
AGR:
Yes, but not at this moment. I have to complete Mari before I can show it to you as a viable candidate for Renewed Covenant Masorah, which would include application of it in liturgy, matzors, siddurs, etc. Mari and immediate post publication issues that may arise from it must be my total focus for now. I'm sure you understand.
Todah for your great questions here Akhi Dawid. It is pleasant dialoguing with you.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Allow me to answer quickly as I am under time constraints. For any that remains I will return to this important question shortly:
Again these are instructions going out from the Jerusalem Rosh Beit Din to Messianic shuls under their authority, but also a comment on how in terms of Tanakh conventional and Messianic shuls were doing a lot of the same things as well.So do you think that this was actually a N'tzari Sanhedrin, or was it simply a Beyth Din? I'd heard of it being thought of as a Beyth Din before, but it wasn't until yesterday that it occurred to me that it may actually be a Sanhedrin. The seventy being sent out, and the use of the term "elders" seem to point to more than a regular Beyth Din, don't you think?
AGR:
Yes I would tend to agree. Either that or it was more of Beit Din in Y'shua's time but after Netzari shuls had been set up under Ya'kov and Keefa it could have evolved into a fully functioning Sanhedrin. There are clues about this in the Aramaic Gospels I believe, especially with respect to cursing the fig tree, that being a symbol of the conventional Sanhedrin. Too much to get into now however.
So this is why you count Bikkurim from the morrow after the fifteenth, rather than the morrow after the following Yom Rishon, correct? I won't impose upon your time more than I am already to ask you to explain all of your thoughts on this, but if you could give me the specific addresses of the passages on Noah and David and Jonathan that you are referring to so I can look at them I would greatly appreciate it.
AGR:
Yes, this is one reason among many. The passage involving Noah has to do with the fact that he is in the ark exactly 5 months and those 5 months equal exactly 30 days each (150 days). Furthermore Noah is locked up in the ark during the deluge and clearly cannot see the sky to note the sun and moon's positions. David and Jonathan have a discussion also where Jonathan know sfor a fact that the roch chodesh ceremony will be in two days, WITHOUT WAITING FOR WITNESSES TO PROVE IT. THE COURT OF SAUL IS PROCLAIMING IT AS SUCH REGARDLESS. Both these incidents prove to my mind that fixed calendrical patterns back up ovservations and where observation is not possible or practical, the fixed calendar acts as deciding mechanism. This is a major theme in my calendar study in Mari called "Wheel of Stars".
Some have suggested that we didn't have as many problems in the past, since there was, supposedly, a 360 day year. Allegedly there was some kind of shift that changed the cycle by about 4.25 days and wreaked havoc with the Biblical calendar.
AGR:
I don't believe the length of year changed due to some cosmic event if that is what you are asking. But I do believe both the 360 day system as I outline it and our current Gregorian system speak to many of the same time issues. I can interclculate between the two and actually am prettyc ertain I can prove that the 365.2422 day year is "hidden" in the real 360 day calendar. I can't say more than that pre-publication. Sorry.
Well...what some have done from the MT. Most accept it a priori. I'm more skeptical and sometimes run readings back to the DSS, LXX, POT, and SP. I tend strongly toward textual criticism, and I think we need to use the MT as a basis, but check it against these other sources.
AGR:
If you will re-read what I said before you will find I agree with you. I encourage use of MT as base text but insist that all other ancient variants are carefully studied as well. The key is knowing though what main text and what footnotes should be, and the two should not be confused. So I take a strong pro text crit stance, hopefully though with a proper spiritual focus though to go with it.
The calendar I am willing to surrender. Less than a year ago, I would not have. But I think the issue of the canon is too important. We must treat the canon critically, and cannot simply agree to accept the MT.
AGR:
I am saying as base text, a starting point only, while studying all the other variants too. The only alternative would be a less likely unifying source, like Peshitta Tanakh, but I see advantages going in that direction as well.
I recognize that we can only do so much at the present, with the canon aswell as with the calendar. However, we must be very careful and analyze the canon with all of our best resources. We should not simply use the MT without checking it.
But I do agree that we cannot be certain, and that we must simply use a defensible text. What I do not like is the way it makes it sound like we should be happy with a straight Massoretic reading.
AGR:
See that is what I am also saying.
So are you suggesting that we, basically, apply text-critical principles to the calendar? To analyze it historically, contextually, and scientifically to attempt to reach the best conclusion for the majority of the community, and simply make peace with the rest until Mashiakh?
AGR:
Essentially yes, although I hadn't thought of it precisely in those terms.
So in matters that are open to interpretation, a wider safer view is better for the sake of unity in the present. It is a temporary fix until we no longer see darkly but face to face.But in matters that only effect an individual, no one else in the community, such as how to tie tzitziot, I think we should be lenient and not have an official ruling. There is no need to open the door to offense in these areas. Do you agree?
AGR:
In those scenarios yes, I agree. Where things are not salvation-specific and open to interpretation, reasonable men of good character should tolerate one another for the sake of the wider goals to please YHWH. Yes.
I'm certainly with you on the titles that have been used in the TN"K for YHWH, even if they're also used for pagan deities. There are people who throw a fit if you use Adonay, because it is supposedly derived from Ad*nis.
AGR:
And those people would be wrong and need to study more. It is not so simple. We are talking about linguistic links between proto-Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician and even Greek. It is more complicated, and besides which I am pretty sure I can find verses where Adonai is endorsed by YHWH as a title too that do not include 134 Masoretic emendations. The principle I believe stands as rendered.
I generally prefer Yahueh, but that is just me. With all due respect, I think that it is necessary for us to make peace with our brothers who consider pronouncing it at all to be profaning it. I am of the opinion that not pronouncing it is also profaning it, but I think that we need to give grace. This issue is so volatile that I seriously doubt we will come up with a final solution for it until Mashiakh. So we need to make peace.
AGR:
Sorry my brother, I won't make peace on that matter. To replace YHWH's name is to make it desolate and YHWH does not take subsitutes (Isaiah 42:8-9). This is actually protecting the third commandment rather than violating the cursing ban, but we are commanded 300 times to call on it, sing it, shout it, play it on the lyre, etc. It is a rabbinic fence like my example from Eve, that if we don't SAY the name we don't CURSE in it. But we are commanded to call on Him for our salvation.
I can compromise on some folks' opinion as to how the Name should be pronounced, but I will not accept the rabbinic syag around my mouth telling me I cannot call on my Creator. No way. As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh!!!! This may be a stumbling block for those in Orthodox practice I agree, but I also think there are ways to diplomatically and gradually ease them through this in respect and peace. I have thought a great deal as to how to bifurcate certain services to achieve this goal but I can't do details at this moment. I will say that one route is using YAH (as in halel-u-YAH or MarYAH) as the simplified form of the name was never banned. I view YAH and YHWH as the same exact name, and therefore can very comfortably use YAH with those who would prefer I do so from their tradition. But I will NOT try to NEVER pronounce YAH/YHWH for their sake, you can forget that.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed.
It is true that no figure is recorded as having done this. On the other hand, the calendar does not seem to have been a big deal in the TN"K. It was simply something that they knew. Isn't this argument against the Aviv calendar basically an argument from silence? I'm not saying that I think the Barley should be the deciding factor. I think it should be taken into account along with other things, but I don't think that the fact that it is never mentioned is the strongest argument against it.
AGR:
This is another theme from "Wheel of Stars" that I can only comment on very briefly. The barley is an EARTH sign and EARTH SIGNS are subject to SKY SIGNS that must precede them. The laws of the heavens and constellations rule on the earth as Job 38:31-34 says. My version of the calendar uses the sky signs as the pre-requistities for the earth signs to count. The attempts to "look for" barley in aviv are flawed and unscriptural. It is simply Karaite oral law instead of the Rabbinics that they deride for also adding to Torah. But we are told to observe the sun and the moon to mark "signs, seasons, days and years" AND IN THAT EXACT ORDER. This is what my calendar study attempts to prove and do.
If I may crave your indulgence while I ask one more question: Are you still interested in the work of the Siddur project?
AGR:
Yes, but not at this moment. I have to complete Mari before I can show it to you as a viable candidate for Renewed Covenant Masorah, which would include application of it in liturgy, matzors, siddurs, etc. Mari and immediate post publication issues that may arise from it must be my total focus for now. I'm sure you understand.
Todah for your great questions here Akhi Dawid. It is pleasant dialoguing with you.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth