Matt. 23

[Dawid]

I don't know how long it will be in final layout--haven't seen it yet--but I do know the pdf and Word docs top out at 77 pages for Wheel of Stars.

Wow. That will be quite the work.

I stand corrected. Yes. But it MAY be there are parts of this that YHWH has done all along and that we have not seen until now (the sealed book in Isaiah, and the increase of knowledge foretold by Daniel). But much of it was ancient knowledge that was lost, with their echoes preserved for us to reconstruct later. Again sorry for the generalities, but it's all I have to offer right now.

That's what I thought you meant.

I don't know if this will make sense, but I perceive an even more paleo Hebrew than the paleo Hebrew we know, and this even more ancient version would probably have traces of Canaanite, Phoenician and Akkadian. But in terms of what we see for certain, my answer would be most like Paleo Hebrew as we now understand it. This is exceedingly complicated though because of the ancient character of Aramaic springing from Akkadian and cross pollenating these others. Maybe another 20 years of study will bring me closer to answering this question more intelligently than I can now.

That has been my expectation. That it would be an even more ancient form of Lashon HaQodesh.

Okay, so this is some progress. You agree that WE should not do that as a normative Netarim policy. But YHWH doesn't view Gentiles and Netzarim as "apples and oranges". YHWH has said for us to NOT be a respecter of persons. YHWH has said ONE TORAH for Jew and foreigner. YHWH has said we must use equal weights and measures.

I'm sorry if there was confusion, but I never meant to say that we should compromise as far as our own practice goes.
One mitswah for you and the stranger that dwells among you. i.e. the convert. I think we should view Xians as we view the Mormons, or Muslims. We serve the same God, but that does not mean we are of the same religion.
I do not intend to respect persons. I simply mean to acknowledge that we must deal with different people differently. If I intend to rebuke one of my peers, I may do it forcefully and with only as much respect as is basically necessary. If I intend to rebuke an elder, I must do it with tact and with a great deal of respect. I don't think that makes me a respecter of persons. Merely a servant of the Torah. Likewise we must deal with those within the faith differently than those outside of the faith.

Also I don't see Christians as totally outside the pale of the faith. We disagree with them a lot to be sure, but after all their numbers accepted Y'shua as Messiah--albeit imperfectly--whereas the vast majority of OUR NUMBERS rejected him. Never forget that.

I do not intend to forget that. But, I believe that one cannot follow the Rebbe and not do as he says. It is written, if anyone says he knows him, but keeps not his commandments, he is a liar and the truth is not in him. If a man claims to know R. Yeshu'ah, but does not keep the Torah, he is not of the faith. Is that not what Yokhanan is saying?
R. Yeshu'ah himself said that if you love me you will keep my commandments.

But having said that, I beg your patience a little further, because I do agree we should try to work with those of our brethren who have not come out of the rabbinic practice on this matter. I think there is a way to devise a kind of "Sacred Name Toleration BIll of RIghts". You see it works both ways. While CNUs (common name users) might object to the imposition of sacred names, SNUs (sacred name users, and there are a LOT of us now) equally object to making those names SHAV.

So this is what I propose: Let us assume both sides in this debate have NO PROBLEM with original Hebraic TITLES. In other words, EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM,YAH/MARYAH, and their variations, are NOT under the ban. They are read liturgically every day in every shul on earth. With me so far? The CNUs may say that at home or in private they use the common names too, and that is fine. But in shul let's draft a statement that says something like this:

"While we Netzarim recognize that there differences in opinion on the necessity and exact pronunciation of Sacred Names for Father and Son, we also recognize that both sides can and do use, as a sign of respect to our Creator, Hebraic-original titles both in writing and in spoken prayer. Such titles as EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM, YAH and MASTER YAH (Aramaic) and Yeshua, Yahshua and other variants for the Son, have never been under the rabbinic ban. As as result, common name advocates can neither point to rabbinic tradition nor litugical conventions as a reason to avoid them. At the same time, sacred name advocates have absolutely no objection to these titles either. Therefore, for the sake of peace and unity in worship and in fellowship with one another, we humbly ask that all references to Father and Son reside in this more comfortable middle ground. As long as a Netzari is doing his or her best to pronounce these names from an original Semitic context, there should be no recriminations for the inevitable variances in pronunciation of these names from the brethren. We ask this in all humility so that Father and Son's names may be uplifted in as great a number and with as much unity as is humanly possible, and so that our small numbers are not divided further by this issue."

This kind of "bill of rights" I could agree with and work with. I think that, really, we're more closely in agreement than we at first seemed. I am not saying that we should give ground and never use the name, but that we should tolerate and work with those who do not.

I believe you will be pleased at the level of detail and crossreferences between Khabouris, 1905 and other mss of all kinds. This holds true both in passage oriented footnotes and in the essays. At least, I hope you will be pleased.

lol. I'm sure I will be pleased. I love being able to follow what I'm looking at back to its sources.

It may very well be YHWH's intent that BOTH our approaches are in play at the same time to witness to our brethren properly. I can find ways to work through our differences without one of obliterating our own preferences. There is much more to do though, and this can't be done in a few postings.

It could be.

Well first relax a bit and let YHWH do His work in you. Then I would hope you would look at Mari and see how it might relate. Further, I would like you keep in mind that there is no such thing as a real Hebrew NT, and even the few Hebrew mss of Matthew in my opinion are frauds. But that doesn't mean we can't give them some voice in the footnotes. What's more, there are EXCELLENT Hebrew translations, not from the Greek where it's so uncertain, but from the Aramaic that is its sister language. No reason you can't look at that as well as "pure Aramaic". You clearly need more time to put this together, but that's not a bad thing. Your siddur and my Mari did not happen overnight, and trust me that's is a very good thing.

I know that there is no ancient Hebrew source. That is why I used a Hebrew translation from Greek, but edited it to match the Peshitta. It should be a reasonable, though rigid, translation of the 1905 text readings.
Akhi, it is not a matter of how much time I've spent on it. It's a matter of I have done virtually all that I can do. I'm not a programmer, or a designer, I don't know Aramaic, or Greek, and my range of influence is small. For the rest, I need others. That's why I've been trying to get support at the Jerusalem Council. But they are so small, they are just a new organization. All that is left for me to do is to get the word out.