ONE WAY OR AN OTHER
(Stein Atle Vere ©2012. One way or an other. brakha.blogspot.com)
KEYWORDS
Tora תורה (instruction) (Judaism)
Ha'Tora התורה (“The” Tora) (Five Books of the Tora Scroll)
Talmud Bavli תלמוד בבלי (Book of the Babylonian Talmud)
Sanhedrin סנהדרין (Talmud Section of Sanhedrin)
Brit Khadasha ברית חדשה (Books of New Testament)
Matityahu מתתיהו (New Testament Book of Matthew)
Rabi רבי (Rabbi)
Rabanim רבנים (Rabbis)
Rabani (Rabbinic)
Rabi Yhoshua Ben Khananya רבי יהושע בן חנניה (Rabbi Joshua Son of Hanania)
Yhoshua Ben Yosef יהושע בן יוסף (Joshua Son of Joseph) (Historical Jesus)
Mashiakh (Anointed King) (an official representative of an ideal government of Yisrael according to Tora)
Tshuva תשובה (Return to God) (Repentance) (Returning to the way of Tora)
WITH OR WITHOUT A RETURN
The Book of the Talmud agrees with Rabi Yhoshua Ben Khananya. God will make the Days of Mashiakh happen. This is a future time when an ideal government prevails for a thousand years. One way or an other.
One way, is by Tshuva. Humans returning to God, doing Tora, optimizing compassion and justice, and trusting God to allow this effort to succeed.
An other way, is by humans veering away from God. If humans do not return, God allows their fear and lack of trust to spawn cruel governments. Eventually humans cannot survive such oppression, except by returning to God and trusting in God to press on.
But even if humans continue to veer away from God, God guarantees the Days of Mashiakh will happen. Ultimately, there is a deadline at the beginning of the seventh millennium. No matter what, God ensures the thousand years of this ideal government will happen by this time. God creates the universe in a way that makes the age inevitable.
If this optimal government begins with return, then it can start early - even today. It is possible for humans to get a headstart, to enjoy life now, with even miraculous assistance.
If this optimal government begins without return, by defaulting to the deadline at the start of the seventh millennium, then sadly, humans undergo massive suffering before that deadline. Moreover the “holy one”, the government official that accomplishes this ideal government does so under total humiliation.
Nevertheless. The thousand years of joy will happen. Either way.
Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b
(Stein Atle Vere 2012. Translation to English. brakha.blogspot.com)
(Talmud Bavli. Organization: Mechon Mamre 2002. mechon-mamre.org):
Rabi Yhoshua (Ben Khananya) said to (Rabi Eliezer):
If theres no (Yisrael) doing a return (to God),
(then) theres no being redeemed,
but the Holy (God) - that one is blessed! - makes a king stand (with hostility) to them,
that his decrees are (as) cruel as Haman.
And (thereby) Yisrael do a return (to God).
And (God) makes them revert to doing well.
...
And is it not already being said?:
(Yhoshua 49'):
God the redeemer of Yisrael said thusly:
And (with regard to) his holy one,
lifeforce is to despise (him),
a (foreign) ethnicity is to abhor (him).
(He is) to (be) the servant of (foreign) rulers.
אמר ליה רבי יהושע
אם אין עושין תשובה
אין נגאלין אלא הקב״ה מעמיד להן מלך
שגזרותיו קשות כהמן
וישראל עושין תשובה
ומחזירן למוטב
...
והלא כבר נאמר
כה אמר ה׳ גואל ישראל
וקדושו לבזה נפש למתעב גוי לעבד מושלים
According to the Talmud, God guarantees to redeem humanity.
God will ensure humans enter this thousand years of Mashiakh. Either by the difficult way of humans returning to God and doing their part in Tora. Or by the painful way of humans veering from God and defaulting to a cruel life that is with fear and without trust.
But even if humans choose the painful way, God empowers a holy leader who can withstand the predatory instinct of foreign governments and can succeed in establishing a holy government among the Kinship of Yisrael. When this government succeeds, all of the governments of humanity will ratify treaties to participate in it.
COME IN BY THE NARROW ENTRANCE
The Book of Matityahu, portrays Yhoshua Ben Yosef teaching Tora. Yhoshua evidences an early form of the understanding of the Talmud, about the arrival of the thousand years of Mashiakh.
This is a new age, when all of humanity enters an ideal government of holiness, compassion-and-justice, that persists for a thousand years.
God will accomplish it, one way or an other. If humans do Tora and optimize a difficult life of sharing, wisdom, and trusting, then humans can achieve and enter this miraculous government - even now. Early. Without tragedy.
Alternatively, if humans veer away from Tora and default to a “convenient” life of fear, shortsightedness, and predation, then humans manifest the governments of oppression and death.
Nevertheless, both of these “entrances” inevitably lead into the Kingdom of the Heavens. Ultimately. God guarantees this ideal government will happen one way or an other.
Book of Matityahu 7'13-14
(Stein Atle Vere 2012. Translations from Greek to Hebrew to English. brakha.blogspot.com)
(Novum Testamentum Graece. NA27 1998):
Come (in) by the narrow entrance.
Because broad is the entrance.
And spacious is the way leading to destruction.
And masses are the ones going (in) by it.
And narrow is the entrance.
And pressed is the way leading to lives.
And few are the ones (even) finding it.
בֹּאוּ בַּפֶּתַח הַצָּר
כִּי רָחָב הַפֶּתַח
וּמְרֻוַּחַת הַדֶּרֶךְ הַמּוֹלִיכָה לַאֲבַדּוֹן
וְרַבִּים הַהוֹלְכִים בוֹ ׃
וְצַר הַפֶּתַח
וּלְחוּצָה הַדֶּרֶךְ הַמּוֹלִיכָה לַחַיִּים
וּמְעַטִּים הַמּוֹצְאִים אוֹתוֹ ׃
εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης ·
ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη
καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν ,
καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι αὐτῆς ·
τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη
καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν ,
καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν .
There are two ways for humanity to enter paradise. The difficult way or the painful way.
The way of Tora discerns useful limits, to channel the energy of selfish desires toward altruistic goals. Both compassion and justice are important. The optimal way is subtle, involving balance - even hard to recognize.
Alternatively, the painful way results in death and destruction for most of humanity.
Nevertheless, ultimately, both entrances lead into the Kingdom of the Heavens, the government of paradise.
God desires a great destiny for the human species.
One way or an other, humans will learn to avoid future errors.
2012-04-11
2012-04-09
Timeline of Archeology
ARCHEOLOGY TIMELINE
(Stein Atle Vere ©2012. Timeline of Archeology. brakha.blogspot.com).
brakha .blogspot .com consults the following Archeology Timeline:
Clink the link to the Timeline page here - OR - click the link in the Pages list (top right sidecolumn).
HERDER-GARDENER AGE
(−9500)
POTTERY AGE
(−5500)
COPPER AGE
(−4500)
BRONZE AGE
(−3400) Early Bronze 1 Period
(−3000) Early Bronze 2 Period
(−2700) Early Bronze 3 Period
(−2200) Intermediate Bronze Period
(−2000) Middle Bronze Period
(−1550) Late Bronze Period
IRON AGE
(−1200) Early Iron Period
(−1009) Late Iron Period
CLASSICAL AGE
(−538) Proto Classical Period
(−331) Early Classical 1 Period
(−166) Early Classical 2 Period
(−36) Middle Classical 1 Period
(220) Middle Classical 2 Period
(324) Late Classical 1 Period
(425) Late Classical 2 Period
MEDIEVAL AGE
(638) Early Medieval Period
(1099) Middle Medieval Period
(1250) Late Medieval Period
MODERN AGE
(1517) Early Modern Period
(1917) Late Modern Period
FUTURE AGE
(2240) ;-)
PERIODIZE
Here appear considerations for the Archeology Timeline above.
UPDATE
Archeologists debate when activities happen, or what dates define new trends in culture. Naturally, the periods that seem most important provoke the most interest, and the most challenges.
If compelling information comes to light, the Timeline updates to accommodate it.
BE NEUTRAL
The names of the periods strive for neutrality: Bronze, Iron, Classical, Medieval, Modern.
Neutral names work in a variety of contexts. For example, to periodize political trends for government structures, the name “Late Medieval Period” corresponds to the “Mamluk Period”. Alternatively to periodize spiritual trends for Tora (Judaism), this same period, “Late Medieval Period”, corresponds to the publication of the Zohar, and the flourishing of Kabala across the Tora World. Neutral names organize and coordinate a diversity of trends.
Neutral names reduce distortion. For example, to periodize by political names - thus to list those foreigners who oppress the Land of Yisrael - such as “Persian”, “Roman”, “Arab”, “Crusader”, and so on - seems to make some archeologists forget: the aborigines of the Land are still here - alive and well - and have been here since the dawn of human history. Most foreign rulers never visit the Land of Yisrael. For the aborigines of Yisrael - Yhudim (Jews) and Shomronim (Samaritans) - life goes on. Often the main difference is who they pay their taxes to.
The name “Proto” signals an ambiguous transition between between ages.
Here, the “Proto Classical Period” corresponds to the Persian Period. Archeologists usually separate it out as its own distinctive period. Some lump it with Iron Age, calling it Iron Age 3. Some lump it with the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, calling it the Second Temple Period. Here, the Persian Period is “Classical” in a sense similar to its contemporary neighbor, “Classical Greece” (−478\−322).
Similarly, the “Early” Modern Period corresponds to the Ottoman Period. It is “Modern” in a sense similar to the Renaissance Period of Europe.
ORGANIZE
An “age” divides into “periods”. Each period subdivides into “eras”.
The period is the basic measure of time, about a century or more. A period distinguishes the features of an evolution in culture.
Periods lump together into an age, about a millennium or more. An age is a panaroma to see the massive trends of the human species.
A period splits into eras, each about a decade or more. An era is a closeup to notice the developments of a vibrant generation.
I am keen to “metricize” the passage of time, also for neutrality. The keywords correspond roughly to magnitudes of 10.
Epoch: a million years or more (1m)
Eon: ten thousand years or more (10000)
Age: a thousand years - a millennium - or more (1000)
Period: a hundred years - a century - or more (100)
Era: ten years - a decade - or more (10)
Year: one year (1)
These keywords convey the scope of a comment, whether broad generalizations or narrow specifics, to help navigate thru time.
Age, period, or era.
Highlighting the amount of time that an activity involves helps show how it fits in the big picture.
Ideally, an “age” is a thousand years or more. However, conventional periodization makes this goal difficult for certain ages. For example, here the “Iron Age” is only six hundred plus years. Its brevity inspires doubt about it being useful as an “age”. Perhaps it makes more sense to think of Iron as periods within the Bronze Age. Perhaps a new name is more helpful, such as a “Law Age” beginning from the Middle Bronze Age with the Code of Hammurabi onward. Yet, the term “Iron” entrenches within the archeological tradition. So there are few options to rethink it. Oppositely, the Early Bronze Age is awefully long. All by itself it spans over a thousand years. Probably it is more useful to think of it as its own “age”. It might make more sense to split it off, to emphasize what makes it differ from the later other timespans.
Note, I lump the “Proto Classical” Persian Period with the “Classical Age”, rather than with the Iron Age. Among vast empires, the Persian Empire is at least as sophisticated as its Greek contemporary that defines the Classical Age. Indeed, the “Early Classical” Hellenic Periods exist because the Greek Empire blends with the Persian Empire. This transnationalism characterizes the Classical Period.
In any case, as is, cutting off timespans at magnitudes of ten, where possible, intimates a sense of scale. there are inconsistencies with this “metric” methodology.
Measuring by tens isnt perfect, but it is still good.
YEAR ZERO
Archeology already uses a “year zero” for astronomical years, radiocarbon dating, and so on.
This year 0 equals the year 1 BCE in the common calendar.
By extension, year −10 (“year minus ten”) equals 11 BCE.
To remember: The “minus” date is “one less” than the common date BCE.
Note, dates that approximate round numbers, such as the “Copper Age” (−4500) remain round.
The invention of the common calendar, during the Medieval Age, lacks the mathematical discovery of the zero. But when exploring the distant past, calculations and comparisons become friendlier with a year zero.
Our hero, zero.
SIMPLIFY NUMBERS
Modern numbers replace Roman numerals, for example, for archeological excavations (Early Bronze 2) and for dynastic names (Thutmose 3).
MCMXLVIII. Nuff said.
SYMBOLS OF CONVENIENCE
Usually, the meaning of a slash or backslash is obvious in context.
“/”
The slash signifies an uncertainty or a dispute about when an event happens, thus alternative dates.
“either/or”
A slash can signify if the year according to different calendar system overlaps two common years. The event might happen in the later part of one year or the earlier part of the next year. But not both.
For example, the phrase, “in the fourth year of King Shlomo”, referring to a regnal year in the ancient Yhudi (Judahite) calendar system. According to some chronological calculations, it overlaps two common years: −968/−967. Thus either date might be the actual one, but not both. In this case, it happens in spring, thus the beginning of the year, thus year −967.
Sometimes archeologists dispute a date. There are different approaches to define when the Bronze Age begins: −3600/−3500/−3400.
“\”
The backslash signifies an activity that takes place during an extensive span of time.
“both\and”, “from\to”, “begins\ends”.
For example, with regard to the Copper Age (chalcholithic):
−4500: begins in year −4500
−4500\−3400: begins −4500 and ends −3400
\−3400: ends in year −3400
\−4000\: an activity flourishes in year −4000, but its beginning and ending remain unsaid
Bio dates for a leader might look like so:
Hilel Ha'Zakan (−110, Reign −30\10)
Read this as “born in −90, and reigning from −30 to 10”, reigning until death in year 10, traditionally at age 120. In this case, Hilel reigns as one of the Zugot (“pairs”), probably two co-presiders over the Sanhedrin, analogous to the two Consuli of Rome.
Unless notes say otherwise, treat ALL ancient dates as “circa”. Even accurate dates may be one year off. Many dynasties can stretch earlier-or-later by several years, depending. Radiocarbon dating is vague. Astronomical synchronisms are rare. And so on.
IN SUM
In sum, brakha.blogspot.com uses timeline that strives to be accurate, convenient, and easy to understand.
(Stein Atle Vere ©2012. Timeline of Archeology. brakha.blogspot.com).
brakha .blogspot .com consults the following Archeology Timeline:
Clink the link to the Timeline page here - OR - click the link in the Pages list (top right sidecolumn).
HERDER-GARDENER AGE
(−9500)
POTTERY AGE
(−5500)
COPPER AGE
(−4500)
BRONZE AGE
(−3400) Early Bronze 1 Period
(−3000) Early Bronze 2 Period
(−2700) Early Bronze 3 Period
(−2200) Intermediate Bronze Period
(−2000) Middle Bronze Period
(−1550) Late Bronze Period
IRON AGE
(−1200) Early Iron Period
(−1009) Late Iron Period
CLASSICAL AGE
(−538) Proto Classical Period
(−331) Early Classical 1 Period
(−166) Early Classical 2 Period
(−36) Middle Classical 1 Period
(220) Middle Classical 2 Period
(324) Late Classical 1 Period
(425) Late Classical 2 Period
MEDIEVAL AGE
(638) Early Medieval Period
(1099) Middle Medieval Period
(1250) Late Medieval Period
MODERN AGE
(1517) Early Modern Period
(1917) Late Modern Period
FUTURE AGE
(2240) ;-)
PERIODIZE
Here appear considerations for the Archeology Timeline above.
UPDATE
Archeologists debate when activities happen, or what dates define new trends in culture. Naturally, the periods that seem most important provoke the most interest, and the most challenges.
If compelling information comes to light, the Timeline updates to accommodate it.
BE NEUTRAL
The names of the periods strive for neutrality: Bronze, Iron, Classical, Medieval, Modern.
Neutral names work in a variety of contexts. For example, to periodize political trends for government structures, the name “Late Medieval Period” corresponds to the “Mamluk Period”. Alternatively to periodize spiritual trends for Tora (Judaism), this same period, “Late Medieval Period”, corresponds to the publication of the Zohar, and the flourishing of Kabala across the Tora World. Neutral names organize and coordinate a diversity of trends.
Neutral names reduce distortion. For example, to periodize by political names - thus to list those foreigners who oppress the Land of Yisrael - such as “Persian”, “Roman”, “Arab”, “Crusader”, and so on - seems to make some archeologists forget: the aborigines of the Land are still here - alive and well - and have been here since the dawn of human history. Most foreign rulers never visit the Land of Yisrael. For the aborigines of Yisrael - Yhudim (Jews) and Shomronim (Samaritans) - life goes on. Often the main difference is who they pay their taxes to.
The name “Proto” signals an ambiguous transition between between ages.
Here, the “Proto Classical Period” corresponds to the Persian Period. Archeologists usually separate it out as its own distinctive period. Some lump it with Iron Age, calling it Iron Age 3. Some lump it with the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, calling it the Second Temple Period. Here, the Persian Period is “Classical” in a sense similar to its contemporary neighbor, “Classical Greece” (−478\−322).
Similarly, the “Early” Modern Period corresponds to the Ottoman Period. It is “Modern” in a sense similar to the Renaissance Period of Europe.
ORGANIZE
An “age” divides into “periods”. Each period subdivides into “eras”.
The period is the basic measure of time, about a century or more. A period distinguishes the features of an evolution in culture.
Periods lump together into an age, about a millennium or more. An age is a panaroma to see the massive trends of the human species.
A period splits into eras, each about a decade or more. An era is a closeup to notice the developments of a vibrant generation.
I am keen to “metricize” the passage of time, also for neutrality. The keywords correspond roughly to magnitudes of 10.
Epoch: a million years or more (1m)
Eon: ten thousand years or more (10000)
Age: a thousand years - a millennium - or more (1000)
Period: a hundred years - a century - or more (100)
Era: ten years - a decade - or more (10)
Year: one year (1)
These keywords convey the scope of a comment, whether broad generalizations or narrow specifics, to help navigate thru time.
Age, period, or era.
Highlighting the amount of time that an activity involves helps show how it fits in the big picture.
Ideally, an “age” is a thousand years or more. However, conventional periodization makes this goal difficult for certain ages. For example, here the “Iron Age” is only six hundred plus years. Its brevity inspires doubt about it being useful as an “age”. Perhaps it makes more sense to think of Iron as periods within the Bronze Age. Perhaps a new name is more helpful, such as a “Law Age” beginning from the Middle Bronze Age with the Code of Hammurabi onward. Yet, the term “Iron” entrenches within the archeological tradition. So there are few options to rethink it. Oppositely, the Early Bronze Age is awefully long. All by itself it spans over a thousand years. Probably it is more useful to think of it as its own “age”. It might make more sense to split it off, to emphasize what makes it differ from the later other timespans.
Note, I lump the “Proto Classical” Persian Period with the “Classical Age”, rather than with the Iron Age. Among vast empires, the Persian Empire is at least as sophisticated as its Greek contemporary that defines the Classical Age. Indeed, the “Early Classical” Hellenic Periods exist because the Greek Empire blends with the Persian Empire. This transnationalism characterizes the Classical Period.
In any case, as is, cutting off timespans at magnitudes of ten, where possible, intimates a sense of scale. there are inconsistencies with this “metric” methodology.
Measuring by tens isnt perfect, but it is still good.
YEAR ZERO
Archeology already uses a “year zero” for astronomical years, radiocarbon dating, and so on.
This year 0 equals the year 1 BCE in the common calendar.
By extension, year −10 (“year minus ten”) equals 11 BCE.
To remember: The “minus” date is “one less” than the common date BCE.
Note, dates that approximate round numbers, such as the “Copper Age” (−4500) remain round.
The invention of the common calendar, during the Medieval Age, lacks the mathematical discovery of the zero. But when exploring the distant past, calculations and comparisons become friendlier with a year zero.
Our hero, zero.
SIMPLIFY NUMBERS
Modern numbers replace Roman numerals, for example, for archeological excavations (Early Bronze 2) and for dynastic names (Thutmose 3).
MCMXLVIII. Nuff said.
SYMBOLS OF CONVENIENCE
Usually, the meaning of a slash or backslash is obvious in context.
“/”
The slash signifies an uncertainty or a dispute about when an event happens, thus alternative dates.
“either/or”
A slash can signify if the year according to different calendar system overlaps two common years. The event might happen in the later part of one year or the earlier part of the next year. But not both.
For example, the phrase, “in the fourth year of King Shlomo”, referring to a regnal year in the ancient Yhudi (Judahite) calendar system. According to some chronological calculations, it overlaps two common years: −968/−967. Thus either date might be the actual one, but not both. In this case, it happens in spring, thus the beginning of the year, thus year −967.
Sometimes archeologists dispute a date. There are different approaches to define when the Bronze Age begins: −3600/−3500/−3400.
“\”
The backslash signifies an activity that takes place during an extensive span of time.
“both\and”, “from\to”, “begins\ends”.
For example, with regard to the Copper Age (chalcholithic):
−4500: begins in year −4500
−4500\−3400: begins −4500 and ends −3400
\−3400: ends in year −3400
\−4000\: an activity flourishes in year −4000, but its beginning and ending remain unsaid
Bio dates for a leader might look like so:
Hilel Ha'Zakan (−110, Reign −30\10)
Read this as “born in −90, and reigning from −30 to 10”, reigning until death in year 10, traditionally at age 120. In this case, Hilel reigns as one of the Zugot (“pairs”), probably two co-presiders over the Sanhedrin, analogous to the two Consuli of Rome.
Unless notes say otherwise, treat ALL ancient dates as “circa”. Even accurate dates may be one year off. Many dynasties can stretch earlier-or-later by several years, depending. Radiocarbon dating is vague. Astronomical synchronisms are rare. And so on.
IN SUM
In sum, brakha.blogspot.com uses timeline that strives to be accurate, convenient, and easy to understand.
Birkat Ha'Kohanim - 70000!
See last year at brakha: Birkat Ha'Kohanim
This year:
About seventy thousand people attended the Kotel (Outerwall) of Har Bet Ha'Mikdash (the Mountain of the House of the Holy Place) to manifest Birkat Ha'Kohanim (the blessing of the priests). One of the biggest turnouts for the blessing ever!
Birkat Ha'Kohanim
(Image: Priestly Blessing. Israel news photo. Journal: Arutz Sheva. ©2012 4/9. Digital: IsraelNationalNews.com.
2012-04-04
Pesakh - Going Out From Mitsrayim
Khag Pesakh!
Khag Pesakh lkhem! (A joyous Passover to you guys!)
Pesakh is the celebration of the freedom from oppression - from enslavement of any kind.
In honor of the upcoming Pesakh, I want to explore the archeology relating to an ancient miracle.
Not only does God continue to save us today, but God also saves the Tribes of Yisrael (Israel) in ancient days!
This Ytsiya (exodus) from Mitsrayim (Egypt) shapes the self-identity of an aboriginal people.
Even thousands of years later, today, the event continues to shape the self-identity of over a billion members of the human species, directly and indirectly.
The Hiddenness of the Ytsiya
The Tora (first section of the Jewish Bible) describes the setting of the Ytsiya (exodus) as well as the event itself. The narrative involves large numbers of people and upheavals.
Nevertheless, despite the strong interest, archeologists still fail to identify these ancient Yisrelim (Israelis/Israelites) within the archeological record. Of course, what archeologists “want” is to find an inscription that mentions Yisrael by the name - better yet - an Mitsri (Egyptian) inscription that details the “plagues” that compel their Pharaoh to let these Yisraelim go free. Yes, that would be nice. Lacking these convenient labels, the archeological record is ... ambiguous.
The Tora never mentions the Pharaoh by name, but addresses him as “Pharaoh”, in other words, “King”. The title of address appears appropriate for the culture of this time - but unhelpful for modern scholars to identify the pharaoh, thus to examine the evidence.
Yet more difficult, the archeology of Mitsrayim is becoming robust. The science is gaining a better understanding of the record, to the point the scientists can start to say with confidence what times and places the Ytsiya *didnt* happen. And the Ytisiya is running out of places to hide in the archeological record.
Even archeologists that are skeptical about the Tora tend to suspect a “grain of truth” in these kinds of sacred traditions. They too want to clarify what actually happened.
Toward a Hypothesis
I have a tentative solution. It is speculative, but it understands the Tora tradition in a way that coheres with the archeological record. It is specific enough to form a hypothesis that archeology can confirm or disconfirm, and by knowing when and where to look, perhaps even to identify positively the tribes of Yisrael in their Ytsiya from Mitsrayim.
Khag Pesakh lkhem! (A joyous Passover to you guys!)
Pesakh is the celebration of the freedom from oppression - from enslavement of any kind.
In honor of the upcoming Pesakh, I want to explore the archeology relating to an ancient miracle.
Not only does God continue to save us today, but God also saves the Tribes of Yisrael (Israel) in ancient days!
This Ytsiya (exodus) from Mitsrayim (Egypt) shapes the self-identity of an aboriginal people.
Even thousands of years later, today, the event continues to shape the self-identity of over a billion members of the human species, directly and indirectly.
The Hiddenness of the Ytsiya
The Tora (first section of the Jewish Bible) describes the setting of the Ytsiya (exodus) as well as the event itself. The narrative involves large numbers of people and upheavals.
Nevertheless, despite the strong interest, archeologists still fail to identify these ancient Yisrelim (Israelis/Israelites) within the archeological record. Of course, what archeologists “want” is to find an inscription that mentions Yisrael by the name - better yet - an Mitsri (Egyptian) inscription that details the “plagues” that compel their Pharaoh to let these Yisraelim go free. Yes, that would be nice. Lacking these convenient labels, the archeological record is ... ambiguous.
The Tora never mentions the Pharaoh by name, but addresses him as “Pharaoh”, in other words, “King”. The title of address appears appropriate for the culture of this time - but unhelpful for modern scholars to identify the pharaoh, thus to examine the evidence.
Yet more difficult, the archeology of Mitsrayim is becoming robust. The science is gaining a better understanding of the record, to the point the scientists can start to say with confidence what times and places the Ytsiya *didnt* happen. And the Ytisiya is running out of places to hide in the archeological record.
Even archeologists that are skeptical about the Tora tend to suspect a “grain of truth” in these kinds of sacred traditions. They too want to clarify what actually happened.
Toward a Hypothesis
I have a tentative solution. It is speculative, but it understands the Tora tradition in a way that coheres with the archeological record. It is specific enough to form a hypothesis that archeology can confirm or disconfirm, and by knowing when and where to look, perhaps even to identify positively the tribes of Yisrael in their Ytsiya from Mitsrayim.
2012-03-29
The “Greatest”
(Stein Atle Vere. ©2012. The “Greatest”. brakha.blogspot.com.)
Rabi Shimon Ben Yokhai רַבִי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי is a sage during the Roman Period, who the Talmud mentions. To him, the Medieval Rabanim (Rabbis) attribute the Zohar, the authoritative book of Kabala קַבָּלָה (Jewish spirituality). He lives about a hundred years after Yhoshua. In the disaster of the Bar Kokhba Rebellion around 135, he witnesses the massacre of Yhudim (Jews). The Roman emperor and his armies murdered hundreds of thousands of the Yhudi aborigines in Yhuda (Judea).
In the Book of Talmud Yrushalmi, Ben Yokhai teaches his students:
“The greatest of the Nonjews is a killer.”
Hyperliterally:
A good one that is among the Nonjews is a killer.
טוֹב שֶׁבַּגּוֹיִים הָרוֹג
(Kidushin 66c.)
Note: הָרוֹג , irregular plural הָרוֹגוֹת (Post-Biblical Hebrew) killer, murderer. (Klein. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language.)
In the days of Ben Yokhai, the “greatest” of the Nonjews was Caesar Hadrianus, indeed a killer.
Even before Ben Yokhai, Yhoshua (Historical Jesus) teaches this same Tora tradition:
And Yhoshua called them unto him.
He said:
You know:
As: The chiefs of the Nonjews oppress among them.
And the great ones dominate among them.
It will not be thus among you ones.
But each someone that will desire
to be great among you ones,
will be a servant that (belongs) to you ones.
וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ קָרָא אֶלָיו אֹתָם
אָמַר
אַתֶּם יֹדְעִים
כִּי שָׂרֵי הַגּוֹיִם רֹדִים בָּהֶם
וְהַגְּדוֹלִים שֹׁלְטִים בָּהֶם
לֹא כֵּן יִהְיֶה בָּכֶם
כִּי אִם כֹּל מִי אֲשֶׁר יִרְצֶה
לִהְיוֹת גָּדוֹל בָּכֶם
יִהְיֶה מְשָׁרֵת אֲשֶׁר לָכֶם
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς
εἶπεν
οἴδατε
ὅτι οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν
καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν
οὐχ οὕτως ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν
ἀλλ ὃς ἐὰν θέλῃ
ἐν ὑμῖν μέγας γενέσθαι
ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος
(Mt 20'25-26.)
It is an uncomfortable fact of history, the “great” empires among Nonjews - especially the Pagan Roman Empire - achieved their “greatness” by becoming brutal killers.
When Yhoshua and Ben Yokhai refer this tradition of Nonjewish oppressors, they seem to refer to four specific Nonjewish governments who oppress the Jewish Land of Yisrael, as the Tanakhi (biblical) Book of Daniel describes them.
Daniel portrays these four governments as parts of an idolatrous statue. (Daniel 2'31-45.)
• The head is gold corresponding to the Kingship of Bavel (Babylonian Empire).
• The chest and arms are silver for the Kingship of Madai and Paras (Mede and Persian Empire).
• The belly and thighs are bronze for the Kingship of Yavan (several Hellenistic governments, namely, Aleksandros the Great, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Selucid Syria).
• The shins and and feet are iron corresponding, as the Rabanim (Rabbis) understand it, to the Kingship of Rome.
The kingship of Rome also encompasses several governments: Roman, Byzantine, and other governments emerging from the Roman legal system, such as Nazi Germany.
This fourth Kingship, Rome, mixes partially with a fifth Nonjewish Kingship, because the iron intermingles with clay to form the feet. But the iron and clay fail to blend or adhere. This fifth kingship comes to correspond with the Arab Empires, and other governments that emerge from its legal system.
The iron and clay alternate their coercive control over the aboriginal Jewish Land of Yisrael.
Ultimately, God will overthrow these historically oppressive Nonjewish governments, and will empower an aboriginal Jewish government over the Land of Yisrael. Daniel visualizes this sacred ancestral government as a holy unhewn stone. The Kingship of the Heavens.
Tora (Judaism) recognizes the authority that comes from violence, but the violence has no authority in itself, and no merit. Only the Tora itself has the authority. Only those who choose to pursue the authority of Tora gain merit.
This authority that comes from love, is “the kingship of the heavens” מַלְכוּת הַשָּׁמַיִם .
Rabi Shimon Ben Yokhai רַבִי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי is a sage during the Roman Period, who the Talmud mentions. To him, the Medieval Rabanim (Rabbis) attribute the Zohar, the authoritative book of Kabala קַבָּלָה (Jewish spirituality). He lives about a hundred years after Yhoshua. In the disaster of the Bar Kokhba Rebellion around 135, he witnesses the massacre of Yhudim (Jews). The Roman emperor and his armies murdered hundreds of thousands of the Yhudi aborigines in Yhuda (Judea).
(Stein Atle Vere. ©2012. Image: Caesar Hadrianus Augustus. brakha.blogspot.com.)
In the Book of Talmud Yrushalmi, Ben Yokhai teaches his students:
“The greatest of the Nonjews is a killer.”
Hyperliterally:
A good one that is among the Nonjews is a killer.
טוֹב שֶׁבַּגּוֹיִים הָרוֹג
(Kidushin 66c.)
Note: הָרוֹג , irregular plural הָרוֹגוֹת (Post-Biblical Hebrew) killer, murderer. (Klein. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language.)
In the days of Ben Yokhai, the “greatest” of the Nonjews was Caesar Hadrianus, indeed a killer.
Even before Ben Yokhai, Yhoshua (Historical Jesus) teaches this same Tora tradition:
And Yhoshua called them unto him.
He said:
You know:
As: The chiefs of the Nonjews oppress among them.
And the great ones dominate among them.
It will not be thus among you ones.
But each someone that will desire
to be great among you ones,
will be a servant that (belongs) to you ones.
וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ קָרָא אֶלָיו אֹתָם
אָמַר
אַתֶּם יֹדְעִים
כִּי שָׂרֵי הַגּוֹיִם רֹדִים בָּהֶם
וְהַגְּדוֹלִים שֹׁלְטִים בָּהֶם
לֹא כֵּן יִהְיֶה בָּכֶם
כִּי אִם כֹּל מִי אֲשֶׁר יִרְצֶה
לִהְיוֹת גָּדוֹל בָּכֶם
יִהְיֶה מְשָׁרֵת אֲשֶׁר לָכֶם
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς
εἶπεν
οἴδατε
ὅτι οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν
καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν
οὐχ οὕτως ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν
ἀλλ ὃς ἐὰν θέλῃ
ἐν ὑμῖν μέγας γενέσθαι
ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος
(Mt 20'25-26.)
It is an uncomfortable fact of history, the “great” empires among Nonjews - especially the Pagan Roman Empire - achieved their “greatness” by becoming brutal killers.
When Yhoshua and Ben Yokhai refer this tradition of Nonjewish oppressors, they seem to refer to four specific Nonjewish governments who oppress the Jewish Land of Yisrael, as the Tanakhi (biblical) Book of Daniel describes them.
Daniel portrays these four governments as parts of an idolatrous statue. (Daniel 2'31-45.)
• The head is gold corresponding to the Kingship of Bavel (Babylonian Empire).
• The chest and arms are silver for the Kingship of Madai and Paras (Mede and Persian Empire).
• The belly and thighs are bronze for the Kingship of Yavan (several Hellenistic governments, namely, Aleksandros the Great, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Selucid Syria).
• The shins and and feet are iron corresponding, as the Rabanim (Rabbis) understand it, to the Kingship of Rome.
The kingship of Rome also encompasses several governments: Roman, Byzantine, and other governments emerging from the Roman legal system, such as Nazi Germany.
This fourth Kingship, Rome, mixes partially with a fifth Nonjewish Kingship, because the iron intermingles with clay to form the feet. But the iron and clay fail to blend or adhere. This fifth kingship comes to correspond with the Arab Empires, and other governments that emerge from its legal system.
The iron and clay alternate their coercive control over the aboriginal Jewish Land of Yisrael.
Ultimately, God will overthrow these historically oppressive Nonjewish governments, and will empower an aboriginal Jewish government over the Land of Yisrael. Daniel visualizes this sacred ancestral government as a holy unhewn stone. The Kingship of the Heavens.
Tora (Judaism) recognizes the authority that comes from violence, but the violence has no authority in itself, and no merit. Only the Tora itself has the authority. Only those who choose to pursue the authority of Tora gain merit.
This authority that comes from love, is “the kingship of the heavens” מַלְכוּת הַשָּׁמַיִם .
2012-03-28
But Chosen for What?
(Stein Atle Vere. ©2012. But Chosen for What? brakha.blogspot.com.)
Jews are “chosen”. But chosen for what?
God chooses Jews to do Tora. Tora. Thats it. Tora. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Most Nonjews dont want to do Tora. So there is no reason to resent this choice by God. Of course, if there are Nonjews who want to do Tora, they can convert to Judaism.
Nonjews dont need to do Tora. But Jews do.
God chooses Jews to do Tora.
Notice Yhoshua (Historical Jesus) also desires Jews to do Tora. Yhoshua commands his own Jewish students: “The Sofrim (scribes) and the Prushim (Pharisees) sit in the [Judgment] Seat of Moshe (Moses). Therefore do whatever they say.” (Matt 23'2-3.)
With regard to the commandments by God that are in the first five books of the Bible - the Tora of Moshe - the Prushim and Sofrim are the ones who inherit the authority (“the judgment seat”) to define how Jews must do these commandments.
The Prushim are the successors of the ancient “seventy elders” who share the spirit that God gave to Moshe. (Numbers 11'16-17,24-25.) Here Yhoshua corroborates the Rabanim (Rabbis) who trace the transmission of this authority from Moshe to Yhoshua Ben Nun to the seventy elders, and so on all the way to Hilel, who is one of the Prushim. (Mishna, Pirke Avot 1'1-.)
Jews must do Tora in whatever way the Prushim and their successors define it.
Moreover Yhoshua instructs his own students, it isnt enough to just do the commandments of the Tora. They must do them with the proper intention: do the commandment with love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness.
Jewish spirituality considers proper intention to be a vital requirement to fulfill a commandment by God.
Yhoshua wants Jews to do Tora.
Of course, Nonjews dont need to do these commandments in Tora. But Yhoshua believes Jews do them.
Jews are “chosen”. But chosen for what?
God chooses Jews to do Tora. Tora. Thats it. Tora. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Most Nonjews dont want to do Tora. So there is no reason to resent this choice by God. Of course, if there are Nonjews who want to do Tora, they can convert to Judaism.
Nonjews dont need to do Tora. But Jews do.
God chooses Jews to do Tora.
Notice Yhoshua (Historical Jesus) also desires Jews to do Tora. Yhoshua commands his own Jewish students: “The Sofrim (scribes) and the Prushim (Pharisees) sit in the [Judgment] Seat of Moshe (Moses). Therefore do whatever they say.” (Matt 23'2-3.)
With regard to the commandments by God that are in the first five books of the Bible - the Tora of Moshe - the Prushim and Sofrim are the ones who inherit the authority (“the judgment seat”) to define how Jews must do these commandments.
The Prushim are the successors of the ancient “seventy elders” who share the spirit that God gave to Moshe. (Numbers 11'16-17,24-25.) Here Yhoshua corroborates the Rabanim (Rabbis) who trace the transmission of this authority from Moshe to Yhoshua Ben Nun to the seventy elders, and so on all the way to Hilel, who is one of the Prushim. (Mishna, Pirke Avot 1'1-.)
Jews must do Tora in whatever way the Prushim and their successors define it.
Moreover Yhoshua instructs his own students, it isnt enough to just do the commandments of the Tora. They must do them with the proper intention: do the commandment with love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness.
Jewish spirituality considers proper intention to be a vital requirement to fulfill a commandment by God.
Yhoshua wants Jews to do Tora.
Of course, Nonjews dont need to do these commandments in Tora. But Yhoshua believes Jews do them.
Hate the Hate
(Stein Atle Vere. ©2012. Hate the Hate. brakha.blogspot.com.)
The following article with the link is by Giulio Meotti.
The news is disturbing, about a resurgence of hate against Jews among Christian churches today.
Giulio Meotti. 2011. Op-Ed: How Deep is the Christian-Jewish Abyss? Arutz Sheva.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11447, 2012.
His article mentions:
• the Vatican seems to indulge a medieval demonization of Jews that persists among Catholics in the Mideast, and similarly among Orthodox Christians in the Mideast
• Mainline Protestant Churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and United Church of Christ) initiate radical delegitimization doctrines and boycott campaigns against the Jewish state - especially vicious in their umbrella organization, World Council of Churches.
• even the Evangelical Churches (especially Pentacostal) experience some Antiisrael groups emerging
To combat this dark trend, Meotti lists the following steps that Christians can take,
• dont proselytize the Jews
• dont slander them
• dont preach their conversion
• avoid any theological topic
• fight the apocalyptic cults
• proclaim the uniqueness of the Jewish covenant
• recognize Jews right to Judea and Samaria
• defend a united Jewish Jerusalem
• support Israel’s right to defend itself
• stop spiritualize the Bible, as if the promises to Abraham were not about a specific land for a specific people but about some heavenly domain
This is an excellent list. In sum, help Jews worship God in a Jewish way - according to the Jewish Bible.
Meotti warns, “Unless these steps are taken, any Jewish-Christian reapproachment would be not only futile, but dangerous.” Note, this blog seeks a reapproachment between Jews and Nonjewish Christians. But he is correct. Christians must do everything in their power to prevent the hate against Jews. Pray for God to help Jews be Jews.
Hate the hate.
The following article with the link is by Giulio Meotti.
The news is disturbing, about a resurgence of hate against Jews among Christian churches today.
Giulio Meotti. 2011. Op-Ed: How Deep is the Christian-Jewish Abyss? Arutz Sheva.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11447, 2012.
His article mentions:
• the Vatican seems to indulge a medieval demonization of Jews that persists among Catholics in the Mideast, and similarly among Orthodox Christians in the Mideast
• Mainline Protestant Churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and United Church of Christ) initiate radical delegitimization doctrines and boycott campaigns against the Jewish state - especially vicious in their umbrella organization, World Council of Churches.
• even the Evangelical Churches (especially Pentacostal) experience some Antiisrael groups emerging
To combat this dark trend, Meotti lists the following steps that Christians can take,
• dont proselytize the Jews
• dont slander them
• dont preach their conversion
• avoid any theological topic
• fight the apocalyptic cults
• proclaim the uniqueness of the Jewish covenant
• recognize Jews right to Judea and Samaria
• defend a united Jewish Jerusalem
• support Israel’s right to defend itself
• stop spiritualize the Bible, as if the promises to Abraham were not about a specific land for a specific people but about some heavenly domain
This is an excellent list. In sum, help Jews worship God in a Jewish way - according to the Jewish Bible.
Meotti warns, “Unless these steps are taken, any Jewish-Christian reapproachment would be not only futile, but dangerous.” Note, this blog seeks a reapproachment between Jews and Nonjewish Christians. But he is correct. Christians must do everything in their power to prevent the hate against Jews. Pray for God to help Jews be Jews.
Hate the hate.
2012-03-27
The Spirituality of Science
(Vere, Stein Atle. ©2012. “The Spirituality of Science”. brakha.blogspot.com.)
Tora spirituality - Kabala - refers to the four levels of meaning as Pardes “Paradise”. P-r-d-s is the acronym for: Pshat “plain meaning”, Remez “gesture”, Drush “inquired meaning”, and Sod “mystery”. From bottom up, these levels function as a kind of scientific method.
• Pshat: physical activity, the evidence
• Remez: patterns, analysis and feeling, the investigation
• Drush: paradigm, synthesis of conceptual principles and ideals, the laws and theories
• Sod: transcendence, the centrality of the unknown, the decision to trust (confidence) and to doubt (skepticism).
Here Tora spirituality corresponds well with post-modern epistomology and scientific methodology.
The level of Pshat is the “plain meaning”. The raw data, the sensory experience. This is the physical level that we desire to understand and master. Science engages this level via evidence. It observes this evidence and interacts with it to test its responses.
The level of Remez is the “gesture” of meaning. This is the appearing of patterns within physical activity. Thereby the evidence provokes us to intuit explanations, research for consistency, define verifiable hypotheses, experiment, verify (confirm or disconfirm) the hypotheses, publish these findings, and corroborate, integrate, and systematize those insights that prevail by confirmations.
Most of the steps of the scientific method occur within the spiritual level of Remez. Here scientific method prioritizes logical analysis as well as repeatability of experiments. At the same time, this method tentatively values a “scientific hunch” (proto-science) if experiments are currently difficult to do, as long as the speculation coheres with current research and strives toward the formulation of hypotheses that later experiments can test.
Remez is the level of both logical analysis and emotional feeling. Consider the expression, “Cant see the forest because of the trees.” Logic sees the individual trees. Emotion sees the collective forest. Logic tends to analyze phenomena atomistically as “on” or “off”. Emotion tends to feel phenomena holistically as “clear” or “blurry”. Each method of discernment has strengths and weaknesses. While logical detachment enjoys advantages toward maneuverability and innovation, it can get lost in the details of the central “text” thus become “unrealistic”. Meanwhile emotional attachment enjoys advantages toward integration and standardization, while it also maintains some awareness of the peripheral “context”. Altho these methods of discernment are conflictive, we need both. Science prioritizes rational logic, but it is an error to underestimate the role of emotional feeling.
The level of Drush is the “inquired meaning”, or perhaps more literally the “demanded answer”. This is the level of meaning that we experience as concepts.
The Drush is within thought itself. The understanding. The paradigm. It includes both logical constructs and the emotional ideals. Principles and archetypes. It is our worldview. The world as we can understand it. Generally, whatever evidence we dont understand, we also dont experience, because we simply dont “notice” it. We tend to live in our conceptual worldview, moreso than in our sensations of the physical world.
At this level of meaning, we engage the paradigms that give meaning to our world. Often we take these paradigms for granted as “true”. They are unquestioned often unconscious assumptions. It doesnt even occur to us to doubt them. Our sensorial experiences seem to confirm these paradigms seamlessly. The paradigms often cover over contradictions and “fill in blind spots”. Often what we call “common sense” is paradigms we learned since birth.
Science strives to consciously construct more effective paradigms to enlighten the world that experience. By means of carefully examining our physical world, and consciously defining our paradigms, science achieves more powerful ways for us humans to master our physical world.
Note, while science searches for paradigms at the level of Remez, the paradigms themselves exist at the level of Drush. Drush comprises the “laws” of physical sciences and human sciences - or at least the tentative theories that seem to survive ongoing disputes. It needs to be said, but these paradigms also comprise the emotional ideals. The world of Remez is a bridge between the physical world of Pshat and the conceptual world of Drush. Remez is where scientists wrestle for accuracy and precision, to find an agreement between the physical results of experiments and the conceptual explanations for them. And discuss these results.
The level of Sod is the “mystery”. This is the level where we “know” - in the sense we personally experience - the infinite. Infinity is intimate, such as our openess to new possibilities and our capacity to learn new things. The human brain is infinite in the sense it can go beyond its current finite memory. We experience this infinite as an aspect of our consciousness. Beyond being aware of particular finite sensations or concepts, we are aware of being aware. This aspect of consciousness transcends our ability to describe it adequately, since it is no particular thing to describe. But we can use analogies to refer to it, to “point” to it, and trust our fellow humans who likewise experience the infinite to recognize what our analogies refer to. Ultimately, the infinite capacity achieves a sense of freewill. Choice.
Science is “positivist”, preferring to rely on those concepts that we can demonstrate by means of observable evidence. Science loves the known. It firmly establishes itself within the level of Pshat. Nevertheless, science prioritizes the unknown. It makes an effort to discover new phenomena and to clarify perplexing phenomena. What is known extends into the unknown. Science uses what we do understand to try to make sense of what we dont yet understand. This confidence to reach into the unknown, is where the role of choice comes into play. In this way, science engages the infinite, the level of Sod.
So science has the evidence in the form of physical activities. It has the level of discussion of the patterns and the formulation of experiments to test these patterns. And science has the paradigms that successfully explain these patterns.
These paradigms (Drush) are the models that successfully explain ... the patterns (Remez) ... of the physical activity (Pshat). ... But this method also engages the existentialist level (Sod), when choosing to be confident or skeptical, trusting or doubting either the physical evidence or the conceptual paradigms.
This trust and doubt are “more” than just the evidence and concepts alone. They are the infinite part of ourself choosing how to interact with what the infinite presents to us.
Once paradigms “win” over other paradigms, we experience them as “truth”. They organize our thoughts and emotions. They become the worldview that we take for granted. If a paradigm fails, we experience pain. The dissonance between our paradigm and our senses of the physical world, destabilize the paradigm to the point of collapse. Then the world as we know it falls apart. It feels like an apocalypse. But it is during these times of crisis, while our understandings fail, that we become accutely aware of the infinite that transcends all understanding. To be open to new paradigms, new ways of understanding the world, takes courage. Of course, not all paradigms are equal. Some paradigms are more useful and robust than others.
Science strives to avoid taking its paradigms for granted. It makes an effort to remember these are paradigms. Conceptual constructs and visions. The goal is to be able to welcome new paradigms if they cohere better with the physical evidence. (In this way, science opposes “idolatry”. It will not “worship” a finite concept.) For example, a famous paradigm shift is from the Neutonian paradigm that understands the world as resembling the machinery of a clock, to the Einsteinian paradigm that understands the world as partly resembling waves of energy - where even the flow of time becomes relative. Here the paradigm shift was less painful because it moves from one good explanation to another good explanation whose superiority is only for special situations, such as extreme speed. Even so, the worldview changed. Thus the universe as we know it became different. The openess to learning new worldviews is brave. And it requires trust. Science must trust the infinite, to provide good ways of understanding our world. Science continues the quest for new knowledge because science believes the infinite does provide.
In this sense, science makes the unknown the center of the scientific worldview. It employs what scientific discussions can explain adequately, to begin the process of explaining what currently defies explanation - or perhaps defies discovery. Science trusts the unknown to become helpful. In this way, the scientific community maintains a relationship with the infinite.
Notice the difference between theoretical science and applied science. Theoretical science is bottom up, from the physical evidence to discover new conceptual paradigms. Oppositely applied science is top down, employing the conceptual paradigms to invent new physical tools.
Science engages the infinite (Sod), especially as skepticism about the known and confidence to enter the unknown. The scientific worldview with its principles and ideals (Drush) ... strive to discuss and master (Remez) ... the world of physical activity (Pshat).
Moreover science applies its hard-won power over the physical world ... to do compassionate actions for fellow humans ... in ways that are increasingly wiser (more efficient, more effective, more self-sustaining).
Significantly, science requires a community to make this effort.
Science is a spiritual activity.
Tora spirituality - Kabala - refers to the four levels of meaning as Pardes “Paradise”. P-r-d-s is the acronym for: Pshat “plain meaning”, Remez “gesture”, Drush “inquired meaning”, and Sod “mystery”. From bottom up, these levels function as a kind of scientific method.
• Pshat: physical activity, the evidence
• Remez: patterns, analysis and feeling, the investigation
• Drush: paradigm, synthesis of conceptual principles and ideals, the laws and theories
• Sod: transcendence, the centrality of the unknown, the decision to trust (confidence) and to doubt (skepticism).
Here Tora spirituality corresponds well with post-modern epistomology and scientific methodology.
The level of Pshat is the “plain meaning”. The raw data, the sensory experience. This is the physical level that we desire to understand and master. Science engages this level via evidence. It observes this evidence and interacts with it to test its responses.
The level of Remez is the “gesture” of meaning. This is the appearing of patterns within physical activity. Thereby the evidence provokes us to intuit explanations, research for consistency, define verifiable hypotheses, experiment, verify (confirm or disconfirm) the hypotheses, publish these findings, and corroborate, integrate, and systematize those insights that prevail by confirmations.
Most of the steps of the scientific method occur within the spiritual level of Remez. Here scientific method prioritizes logical analysis as well as repeatability of experiments. At the same time, this method tentatively values a “scientific hunch” (proto-science) if experiments are currently difficult to do, as long as the speculation coheres with current research and strives toward the formulation of hypotheses that later experiments can test.
Remez is the level of both logical analysis and emotional feeling. Consider the expression, “Cant see the forest because of the trees.” Logic sees the individual trees. Emotion sees the collective forest. Logic tends to analyze phenomena atomistically as “on” or “off”. Emotion tends to feel phenomena holistically as “clear” or “blurry”. Each method of discernment has strengths and weaknesses. While logical detachment enjoys advantages toward maneuverability and innovation, it can get lost in the details of the central “text” thus become “unrealistic”. Meanwhile emotional attachment enjoys advantages toward integration and standardization, while it also maintains some awareness of the peripheral “context”. Altho these methods of discernment are conflictive, we need both. Science prioritizes rational logic, but it is an error to underestimate the role of emotional feeling.
The level of Drush is the “inquired meaning”, or perhaps more literally the “demanded answer”. This is the level of meaning that we experience as concepts.
The Drush is within thought itself. The understanding. The paradigm. It includes both logical constructs and the emotional ideals. Principles and archetypes. It is our worldview. The world as we can understand it. Generally, whatever evidence we dont understand, we also dont experience, because we simply dont “notice” it. We tend to live in our conceptual worldview, moreso than in our sensations of the physical world.
At this level of meaning, we engage the paradigms that give meaning to our world. Often we take these paradigms for granted as “true”. They are unquestioned often unconscious assumptions. It doesnt even occur to us to doubt them. Our sensorial experiences seem to confirm these paradigms seamlessly. The paradigms often cover over contradictions and “fill in blind spots”. Often what we call “common sense” is paradigms we learned since birth.
Science strives to consciously construct more effective paradigms to enlighten the world that experience. By means of carefully examining our physical world, and consciously defining our paradigms, science achieves more powerful ways for us humans to master our physical world.
Note, while science searches for paradigms at the level of Remez, the paradigms themselves exist at the level of Drush. Drush comprises the “laws” of physical sciences and human sciences - or at least the tentative theories that seem to survive ongoing disputes. It needs to be said, but these paradigms also comprise the emotional ideals. The world of Remez is a bridge between the physical world of Pshat and the conceptual world of Drush. Remez is where scientists wrestle for accuracy and precision, to find an agreement between the physical results of experiments and the conceptual explanations for them. And discuss these results.
The level of Sod is the “mystery”. This is the level where we “know” - in the sense we personally experience - the infinite. Infinity is intimate, such as our openess to new possibilities and our capacity to learn new things. The human brain is infinite in the sense it can go beyond its current finite memory. We experience this infinite as an aspect of our consciousness. Beyond being aware of particular finite sensations or concepts, we are aware of being aware. This aspect of consciousness transcends our ability to describe it adequately, since it is no particular thing to describe. But we can use analogies to refer to it, to “point” to it, and trust our fellow humans who likewise experience the infinite to recognize what our analogies refer to. Ultimately, the infinite capacity achieves a sense of freewill. Choice.
Science is “positivist”, preferring to rely on those concepts that we can demonstrate by means of observable evidence. Science loves the known. It firmly establishes itself within the level of Pshat. Nevertheless, science prioritizes the unknown. It makes an effort to discover new phenomena and to clarify perplexing phenomena. What is known extends into the unknown. Science uses what we do understand to try to make sense of what we dont yet understand. This confidence to reach into the unknown, is where the role of choice comes into play. In this way, science engages the infinite, the level of Sod.
So science has the evidence in the form of physical activities. It has the level of discussion of the patterns and the formulation of experiments to test these patterns. And science has the paradigms that successfully explain these patterns.
These paradigms (Drush) are the models that successfully explain ... the patterns (Remez) ... of the physical activity (Pshat). ... But this method also engages the existentialist level (Sod), when choosing to be confident or skeptical, trusting or doubting either the physical evidence or the conceptual paradigms.
This trust and doubt are “more” than just the evidence and concepts alone. They are the infinite part of ourself choosing how to interact with what the infinite presents to us.
Once paradigms “win” over other paradigms, we experience them as “truth”. They organize our thoughts and emotions. They become the worldview that we take for granted. If a paradigm fails, we experience pain. The dissonance between our paradigm and our senses of the physical world, destabilize the paradigm to the point of collapse. Then the world as we know it falls apart. It feels like an apocalypse. But it is during these times of crisis, while our understandings fail, that we become accutely aware of the infinite that transcends all understanding. To be open to new paradigms, new ways of understanding the world, takes courage. Of course, not all paradigms are equal. Some paradigms are more useful and robust than others.
Science strives to avoid taking its paradigms for granted. It makes an effort to remember these are paradigms. Conceptual constructs and visions. The goal is to be able to welcome new paradigms if they cohere better with the physical evidence. (In this way, science opposes “idolatry”. It will not “worship” a finite concept.) For example, a famous paradigm shift is from the Neutonian paradigm that understands the world as resembling the machinery of a clock, to the Einsteinian paradigm that understands the world as partly resembling waves of energy - where even the flow of time becomes relative. Here the paradigm shift was less painful because it moves from one good explanation to another good explanation whose superiority is only for special situations, such as extreme speed. Even so, the worldview changed. Thus the universe as we know it became different. The openess to learning new worldviews is brave. And it requires trust. Science must trust the infinite, to provide good ways of understanding our world. Science continues the quest for new knowledge because science believes the infinite does provide.
In this sense, science makes the unknown the center of the scientific worldview. It employs what scientific discussions can explain adequately, to begin the process of explaining what currently defies explanation - or perhaps defies discovery. Science trusts the unknown to become helpful. In this way, the scientific community maintains a relationship with the infinite.
Notice the difference between theoretical science and applied science. Theoretical science is bottom up, from the physical evidence to discover new conceptual paradigms. Oppositely applied science is top down, employing the conceptual paradigms to invent new physical tools.
Science engages the infinite (Sod), especially as skepticism about the known and confidence to enter the unknown. The scientific worldview with its principles and ideals (Drush) ... strive to discuss and master (Remez) ... the world of physical activity (Pshat).
Moreover science applies its hard-won power over the physical world ... to do compassionate actions for fellow humans ... in ways that are increasingly wiser (more efficient, more effective, more self-sustaining).
Significantly, science requires a community to make this effort.
Science is a spiritual activity.
2012-03-25
Knowledge
Midrash מדרש means “inquiry”. But the Hebrew word is stronger than that. It comes from the verb, Darash דרש meaning “he demanded” - required. In the sense of “he demanded answers”, he “inquired”.
Knowledge necessitates desire and effort.
The Tora is a text of many meanings. Most of them are hidden. The Infinite wants us to “demand answers” from the Tora. To discover its meanings. And put the insights into actions.
The Tora is the “saying” Maamar, it is the “thought” Makhashava. It is the capacity of meaning itself. A place to engage meaning. As we engage the Tora, our efforts to discern its meanings, also bring to light our own meanings. Our values, our language, our assumptions, our worldviews. We do this as a spiritual community. We share understanding, while we transcend together.
The spirituality of Tora seems to cluster into three kinds of Midrash. The areas of inquiry are: Agada, Halakha, and Kabala.
Agada אגדה is the “tale”, the narrative tradition. Our goals, our challenges, where we come from, and where we are going.
Halakha הלכה is the “going”, the way, the legal tradition. Our human rights, our personal freedoms, our mutual responsibilities, our negotiations.
Kabala קבלה is the “reception”, the spiritual tradition. Our insights, our compassionate actions, our system, our transcendence.
Of course, these three discussions entangle eachother, giving eachother contexts.
By these kinds of Midrash, the infinite imbues our humanity with meaning. It is like learning a language. Meaning takes effort. But it is more than our words, it is our actions - every aspect of our humanity.
There are also four worlds of meaning: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod.
Pshat פשט is the “plain”, the unembellished meaning, the naked truth. The things that appear to be. What you can see, hear, smell, taste, touch. Matter-of-fact. The literal meaning, the obvious point of the analogy. The raw data. The evidence.
Remez רמז is the “gesture”, the indication, the subtle nod, the hint, the clue, the suggestion. These are the patterns that you can detect. When you wonder why, you look for answers. The emotional pull, the logical conclusion. The evaluation, the analysis. But where do the clues lead to?
Drush דרוש is the “demanded answer”. The insight. The knowledge we struggle for. The plot of the story, the principles of the ethical behavior, the laws of nature. The deep meaning. The vision, the integrity, the science. The synthesis. The comprehensive paradigm that imbues all the diversity of experiences with meaning. The thought that can make sense of the world.
Sod סוד is the “mystery”, beyond any understanding, the experience of infinity. There is a transcendent meaning, utterly free, utterly unshakable. We trust the Infinite even while we cannot understand. We know, even while we cannot describe. We know more than we know. It is faith in God. It is confidence in the infinite. We can always go beyond. Even when we know facts, we can doubt. Even when we lack facts, we can trust. We can imagin other ways. We can sympathize with other points of view. We can pursue the best options. Seek out new options. There is more to knowing than any particular thing we happen to know.
Together these four levels of meaning, Pshat-Remez-Drush-Sod, spell P-R-D-S: Pardes פרדס “Paradise”.
By these levels of meaning, we learn love and power. By these levels of meaning, we do love and power.
We see the Pshat - how the things of this world are. But we know the Sod - there is more. We can pursue the Remez of the patterns of things. We can envision the Drush and build a world to come.
Knowledge necessitates desire and effort.
The Tora is a text of many meanings. Most of them are hidden. The Infinite wants us to “demand answers” from the Tora. To discover its meanings. And put the insights into actions.
The Tora is the “saying” Maamar, it is the “thought” Makhashava. It is the capacity of meaning itself. A place to engage meaning. As we engage the Tora, our efforts to discern its meanings, also bring to light our own meanings. Our values, our language, our assumptions, our worldviews. We do this as a spiritual community. We share understanding, while we transcend together.
The spirituality of Tora seems to cluster into three kinds of Midrash. The areas of inquiry are: Agada, Halakha, and Kabala.
Agada אגדה is the “tale”, the narrative tradition. Our goals, our challenges, where we come from, and where we are going.
Halakha הלכה is the “going”, the way, the legal tradition. Our human rights, our personal freedoms, our mutual responsibilities, our negotiations.
Kabala קבלה is the “reception”, the spiritual tradition. Our insights, our compassionate actions, our system, our transcendence.
Of course, these three discussions entangle eachother, giving eachother contexts.
By these kinds of Midrash, the infinite imbues our humanity with meaning. It is like learning a language. Meaning takes effort. But it is more than our words, it is our actions - every aspect of our humanity.
There are also four worlds of meaning: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod.
Pshat פשט is the “plain”, the unembellished meaning, the naked truth. The things that appear to be. What you can see, hear, smell, taste, touch. Matter-of-fact. The literal meaning, the obvious point of the analogy. The raw data. The evidence.
Remez רמז is the “gesture”, the indication, the subtle nod, the hint, the clue, the suggestion. These are the patterns that you can detect. When you wonder why, you look for answers. The emotional pull, the logical conclusion. The evaluation, the analysis. But where do the clues lead to?
Drush דרוש is the “demanded answer”. The insight. The knowledge we struggle for. The plot of the story, the principles of the ethical behavior, the laws of nature. The deep meaning. The vision, the integrity, the science. The synthesis. The comprehensive paradigm that imbues all the diversity of experiences with meaning. The thought that can make sense of the world.
Sod סוד is the “mystery”, beyond any understanding, the experience of infinity. There is a transcendent meaning, utterly free, utterly unshakable. We trust the Infinite even while we cannot understand. We know, even while we cannot describe. We know more than we know. It is faith in God. It is confidence in the infinite. We can always go beyond. Even when we know facts, we can doubt. Even when we lack facts, we can trust. We can imagin other ways. We can sympathize with other points of view. We can pursue the best options. Seek out new options. There is more to knowing than any particular thing we happen to know.
Together these four levels of meaning, Pshat-Remez-Drush-Sod, spell P-R-D-S: Pardes פרדס “Paradise”.
By these levels of meaning, we learn love and power. By these levels of meaning, we do love and power.
We see the Pshat - how the things of this world are. But we know the Sod - there is more. We can pursue the Remez of the patterns of things. We can envision the Drush and build a world to come.
Spring
brakha.blogspot.com comes out of hibernation.
Back to our weekly schedule - by the help of God.
Pesakh (Passover) is coming soon!
Khag Sameakh!
Joyous festival!
Back to our weekly schedule - by the help of God.
Pesakh (Passover) is coming soon!
Khag Sameakh!
Joyous festival!
2011-07-01
Stones of Heavens - Midrash and Yhoshua
(Vere, Stein Atle. ©2011. “Stones of Heavens: Midrash and Yhoshua”. brakha.blogspot.com.)
Due to time constraints this is an unfinished roughdraft to finish soon.
Remarkably, the list of the twelve gems in Midrash Raba by the Rabanim (Rabbis), in the book of Shmot Raba, seems identical to the list in the New Testament by the students of Yhoshua (Historical Jesus), in the book of Khazon Yhokhanan (Revelation of John).
The twelve different types of gems decorate the Khoshen חשן amulet that Kohen Ha'Mashiakh כהן המשיח (anointed priest) wears to enter the holiest area of the presence of God. Each is the official gem of one of the twelve tribes of Yisrael (Israel).
The list of the gem types that survives in Greek in the New Testament, in the book of Khazon Yhokhanan 21'19-20, is unusual. It differs from the Greek list in the Targum Hashivim (Septuagint Greek Bible), by updating the Greek gem names to Huakinthos υακινθος, Khalkėdȯn χαλκηδων, and so on. This list in Khazon represents the gem names that Yhoshua יהושע (Historical Jesus) and his students know during the Classical Age circa 00s.
About a thousand years later, during the Medieval Age circa 1000s, a similar list survives in Hebrew in Midrash Raba, in the book of Shmot Raba 38'10. The list is Hebrew, but its gem names derive clearly derive from Greek loanwords, such as Daykintin דייקינתין being a variant of Hebrew *Hyakintin הְיַקִינְתִּין from Greek Hyakinthos, and Bardinin ברדינין probably being a scribal copying variant of *Kardonin כַּרְדּוֹנִין , a contraction of *Karkdonin כַּרְכְדּוֹנִין from Greek Kalkhėdȯn. (For Hebrew Karkdonim compare the Latin variant Carcedonius in the Vulgate Latin Bible circa 300s to refer to the same gem name.)
Note: The copying variants in this list in Shmot Raba evidence, the Rabanim do not quote these gem names directly from a Greek source, but rather preserve their own list of gem names in Hebrew, that the scribes recopy a number of times, thus transmitting the names since ancient times. It is an independent Rabani tradition.
The medieval Rabanim and the ancient students of Yhoshua share this same Tora tradition to identify the twelve tribal gems.
Regarding the Rabanim, the list in the book of Khazon by the students of Yhoshua demonstrates the antiquity of the Tora tradition - already existing about a thousand years earlier.
Regarding the students of Yhoshua, this list in the book of Shmot Raba by the Rabanim demonstrates the Yahadut (“Jewishness”) of the Tora tradition that Yhoshua upholds.
The gem list in Shmot Raba that the medieval Rabanim copy is already ancient.
The Rabanim seem to preserve this list, generation after generation, for almost a thousand years. The list is in Hebrew, but most of these Hebrew gem names - probably all of these Hebrew gem names - derive from the Greek gem names. As such, the Hebrew names function as technical terms (somewhat analogous to modern scientific nomenclature) to specify the merchandise of the international gem trade across the Roman Empire.
This Hebrew list originates during the Classical Age, probably as early as circa 00s (first century CE). It uses the same gemological nomenclature as do the book of Khazon, the books by Titus Iosephus Flavia (Flavia Josephus), and as the encyclopedic books of Naturalis Historia (Natural History) by Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder). All of these writers flourish during the 00s, and the Hebrew list preserves this same terminology.
During the Classical Age circa 00s, the Temple of God stands in Yrushalayim ירושלים (Jerusalem), the capital city of Yhuda יהודה (Judea). Pilgrimage there from the across the known world brings enormous wealth to the city. Gold, silver, and the costliest gems adorn the aboriginal sacred traditions of Yisrael. Since the days of the Hashmonim (Hasmoneans), the Kohanim (priests) are the sovereign leaders of the Yhudim יהודים (Judeans), especially after the secular kings and governors are representatives of Rome. Moreover, Yrushalayim includes a significant minority of Greek-speaking “Hellenist” Yhudim. Note: The Greek gem names that actually derive from Hebrew - such as Greek Sapphiros from Hebrew Sapir ספיר and Greek To-pazd-ion from Hebrew Pitda פטדה - evidence the Yhudim to enjoy a significantly presence in the international gem trade since ancient times. The land of Yisrael is part of the links between Rome and Bavli בבלי (Babylon), and via the Red Sea even part of the links between Rome and India. Apparently, there are Hebrew-speakers during the 00s who know the Greek gem names because of their participation in the international trade for gems.
These ancient Yhudi lapidaries - gem dealers - are probably the authorship that ultimately produces the list of gem names that the Rabanim mention in Shmot Raba.
The Hebrew gem list is an independent tradition. It doesnt simply copy an ancient text, such as that of Khazon, Iosephus, or Plinius.
If the Hebrew list already exists during the 00s, then the book of Khazon Yhokhanan probably knows it, so that its gem names in Greek actually refers to the Hebrew international gem nomenclature as it pertains to the gems that the Kohen Ha'Mashiakh wears in the sacred Khoshen amulet.
The Hebrew list of these gem names seems to already exist by the 300s. At that time, Hieronymus (Saint Jerome) seems to refer to it for his Vulgate Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible. He lives in the land of Yisrael, in the coastal city of Caesarea. He frequently consults with the Rabanim there to explain obscure Hebrew words. It seems his original spelling in Latin, Carcedonius, with an -r- to represent the Greek gem name Khalkedon with an -l-, seems to derive directly from the Hebrew gem name *Karkdonin כַּרְכְּדוֹנִין.
Note: This particular gem, Karkdonin, derives from the name of the ancient city of “Carthage” in today Tunisia, and not from the ancient city of “Kalkedon” in today Turkey. Notably, both of these names come from the same Canaanite Kart-Khadsha קרת חדשה meaning “New Town” and referring to a colony of the seafaring Knaanim (Canaanites) of today Lebanon. It makes sense the gem corresponds to Carthage, since the same gems of that city also tend to exist in Mitsrayim (Egypt). The tribes of Yisrael get these twelve gems during the Bronze Age, from Mitsrayim.
During the Classical Age circa 00s, Plinius describes the gem of Carthage as a dark gem that gleams a fiery orange-red light when held up to the sun. Evidently, this is the same gem that today calls the garnet - a dark variety of it - and is identical to the same gem that Targum Hashivim (Septuagint Greek Bible) calls Anthraks, meaning an ember of burning “coal” in Greek. Moreover, this is identical to the Latin loan translation Carbunculus, which also means “coal”, and that Hieronymus uses elsewhere as the name for this same garnet gem.
Indeed the Mitsriyim (Egyptians) use garnets in their amulets during the Bronze Age.
In sum, the garnet stone in the Khoshen, that comes from the gems of Mitsrayim during the Bronze Age, appears during the Classical Age in Greek in Targum Hashivim as the name Anthraks, but appears in Greek in the New Testament as Khalkedon. Notably, this gem name apparently refers to the name of the city, Carthage, in today Tunisia that is famous for garnet, rather than to the city in Turkey that shares a related name. In the 300s, this garnet appears in Latin in the Vulgate Bible as Carbunculus that translates Greek Anthraks exactly and as Carcedonius that refers to Carthage. This Latin name Carcedonius appears to correspond to the Hebrew technical name for this garnet, Karkdonin, thus corroborates the existence circa 300s of the gem list that the later medieval Rabanim refer to in Shmot Raba.
In the Hebrew gem list, the twelve gem names are part of the living Hebrew language and evidence natural linguistic shifts. Its existence within a living Hebrew language also points to the early date.
Example: The name for the purple quartz - also known as amethyst - exemplifies the linguistic shifts that most of the gem names undergo in the Rabani Hebrew list.
Ultimately, the Greek name Amethustos αμεθυστος evolves into the Hebrew name *Hemesiyin הֵימֵיסִּיִין .
When Hebrew first borrows the Greek name Amethustos, the Hebrew lacks certain Greek sounds. The distinctive Greek -u- (rounded high front) vowel sometimes approximates as the Hebrew -u- (rounded high back) vowel or else the Hebrew -i- (unrounded high front) vowel, depending on the context of nearby sounds. Here, the -u- in Greek Amethustos approximates to the -i- in Hebrew Amethistos. But then Hebrew adds the suffix -in ין . This is the classical Greek diminutive suffix -ion -ιον , but signifies precisely the later pronunciation per the international Koine Greek as -in. (Klein. “ין”. Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language.) Thus the original Hebrew gem name deriving from Greek circa 00s, and serving as the professional nomenclature for the purple quartz in the gem trade, reconstructs as something like: *Ametistin אֲמֶתִּיסְטִין in Hebrew.
However this original approximation is unstable, and shifts.
The syllable stress from the -e- in Greek Amethustos to the final syllable -in in Hebrew *Ametistin causes a rapid succession of sounds.
Hebrew finds it awkward to pronounce two nearby -t- sounds in Greek loanwords and often reduces them to one. Thus in the context of resolving the shortened syllables, *Ametistin swaps the sounds of the consonant -t- and vowel -i- (metathesizing), tentatively *Ameitsĕtin אֲמֶיִתְּסְטִין with the vowels merging to a monosyllabic *Ametsĕtin אֲמֵיתְּסְטִין , and finally the aspirated -t- sound assimilating into the oncoming nearby -t- sound: *Amesĕtin אֲמֵיסְּטִין . To prevent contracting the initial ultrashort vowel into nothing, the initial syllable expands into a long vowel while assimilating into the oncoming -e- vowel: *Emesĕtin אֵמֵיסְּטִין . While expanding, the initial vowel also aspirates. Hebrew often does this for Greek loanwords. (Compare Greek Sunedros that becomes Hebrew Sanhedrin, when the addition of the Greek diminutive suffix -ion, actually -in, mark a Greek loanword, but shifts the stress of vowels, while the distinctive Greek -u- approximates into Hebrew as unstressed -i-, likely -ĕ-, whence -a-, and while -e- aspirates into -he-.) So far: *Hemesĕtin הֵמֵיסְּטִין . Probably later, this -t- weakens, assimilating (palletizing) among the -s-, ultrashort -ĕ-, and oncoming -i-, thus forming a -y-: *Hemesyin הֵימֵיסְּיִין .
The result: The Greek loanword Amethustos enters Hebrew as *Ametistin אֲמֶתִּיסְטִין but morphs into *Hemesyin הֵימֵיסְּיִין as part of the rhythm of the living Hebrew language.
The surviving form of the gem name in texts is, Hemesyon הֵימֵיסְּיוֹן . Probably, the -o- is a copying variant by scribe who is unfamiliar with the obscure Hebrew technical term and who visually reinterprets an ambiguous form of -י- as -ו- , thus an -o- instead of the original -i-. The accumulation of scribal variants evidences the passage of time. This list that the Rabanim cite appears many centuries old.
The gem list of the Shmot Raba evidences spoken Hebrew. Hebrew-speakers adapt these Greek technical terms as part of the rhythm of the everyday Hebrew language. Hebrew ceases to be a language of common speech circa 300, in the aftermath of the genocide of the Yhudim in Yhuda (Judea) that culminates the Bar Kokhba War circa 135. Thus the names probably derive before 300.
The Hebrew names in this list already exist during the 300s. One of the gem names survives as ברדינין , at first glance this looks something like Bardinim, a meaningless word. Most scholars agree this name must somehow be a scribal “garble” of the Hebrew gem name Kadkod כַּדְכֹּד . I agree, but the variant isnt as drastic as it seems. It seems obvious to me, the Hebrew letters ברדינין are a scribal variant of כרדונין . Rereading these letters this way is common in Hebrew even with the best handwriting. Thus the Hebrew Gem name is actually Kardonim כַּרְדּוֹנִין
Due to time constraints this is an unfinished roughdraft to finish soon.
Remarkably, the list of the twelve gems in Midrash Raba by the Rabanim (Rabbis), in the book of Shmot Raba, seems identical to the list in the New Testament by the students of Yhoshua (Historical Jesus), in the book of Khazon Yhokhanan (Revelation of John).
The twelve different types of gems decorate the Khoshen חשן amulet that Kohen Ha'Mashiakh כהן המשיח (anointed priest) wears to enter the holiest area of the presence of God. Each is the official gem of one of the twelve tribes of Yisrael (Israel).
The list of the gem types that survives in Greek in the New Testament, in the book of Khazon Yhokhanan 21'19-20, is unusual. It differs from the Greek list in the Targum Hashivim (Septuagint Greek Bible), by updating the Greek gem names to Huakinthos υακινθος, Khalkėdȯn χαλκηδων, and so on. This list in Khazon represents the gem names that Yhoshua יהושע (Historical Jesus) and his students know during the Classical Age circa 00s.
About a thousand years later, during the Medieval Age circa 1000s, a similar list survives in Hebrew in Midrash Raba, in the book of Shmot Raba 38'10. The list is Hebrew, but its gem names derive clearly derive from Greek loanwords, such as Daykintin דייקינתין being a variant of Hebrew *Hyakintin הְיַקִינְתִּין from Greek Hyakinthos, and Bardinin ברדינין probably being a scribal copying variant of *Kardonin כַּרְדּוֹנִין , a contraction of *Karkdonin כַּרְכְדּוֹנִין from Greek Kalkhėdȯn. (For Hebrew Karkdonim compare the Latin variant Carcedonius in the Vulgate Latin Bible circa 300s to refer to the same gem name.)
Note: The copying variants in this list in Shmot Raba evidence, the Rabanim do not quote these gem names directly from a Greek source, but rather preserve their own list of gem names in Hebrew, that the scribes recopy a number of times, thus transmitting the names since ancient times. It is an independent Rabani tradition.
The medieval Rabanim and the ancient students of Yhoshua share this same Tora tradition to identify the twelve tribal gems.
Regarding the Rabanim, the list in the book of Khazon by the students of Yhoshua demonstrates the antiquity of the Tora tradition - already existing about a thousand years earlier.
Regarding the students of Yhoshua, this list in the book of Shmot Raba by the Rabanim demonstrates the Yahadut (“Jewishness”) of the Tora tradition that Yhoshua upholds.
The gem list in Shmot Raba that the medieval Rabanim copy is already ancient.
The Rabanim seem to preserve this list, generation after generation, for almost a thousand years. The list is in Hebrew, but most of these Hebrew gem names - probably all of these Hebrew gem names - derive from the Greek gem names. As such, the Hebrew names function as technical terms (somewhat analogous to modern scientific nomenclature) to specify the merchandise of the international gem trade across the Roman Empire.
This Hebrew list originates during the Classical Age, probably as early as circa 00s (first century CE). It uses the same gemological nomenclature as do the book of Khazon, the books by Titus Iosephus Flavia (Flavia Josephus), and as the encyclopedic books of Naturalis Historia (Natural History) by Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder). All of these writers flourish during the 00s, and the Hebrew list preserves this same terminology.
During the Classical Age circa 00s, the Temple of God stands in Yrushalayim ירושלים (Jerusalem), the capital city of Yhuda יהודה (Judea). Pilgrimage there from the across the known world brings enormous wealth to the city. Gold, silver, and the costliest gems adorn the aboriginal sacred traditions of Yisrael. Since the days of the Hashmonim (Hasmoneans), the Kohanim (priests) are the sovereign leaders of the Yhudim יהודים (Judeans), especially after the secular kings and governors are representatives of Rome. Moreover, Yrushalayim includes a significant minority of Greek-speaking “Hellenist” Yhudim. Note: The Greek gem names that actually derive from Hebrew - such as Greek Sapphiros from Hebrew Sapir ספיר and Greek To-pazd-ion from Hebrew Pitda פטדה - evidence the Yhudim to enjoy a significantly presence in the international gem trade since ancient times. The land of Yisrael is part of the links between Rome and Bavli בבלי (Babylon), and via the Red Sea even part of the links between Rome and India. Apparently, there are Hebrew-speakers during the 00s who know the Greek gem names because of their participation in the international trade for gems.
These ancient Yhudi lapidaries - gem dealers - are probably the authorship that ultimately produces the list of gem names that the Rabanim mention in Shmot Raba.
The Hebrew gem list is an independent tradition. It doesnt simply copy an ancient text, such as that of Khazon, Iosephus, or Plinius.
If the Hebrew list already exists during the 00s, then the book of Khazon Yhokhanan probably knows it, so that its gem names in Greek actually refers to the Hebrew international gem nomenclature as it pertains to the gems that the Kohen Ha'Mashiakh wears in the sacred Khoshen amulet.
The Hebrew list of these gem names seems to already exist by the 300s. At that time, Hieronymus (Saint Jerome) seems to refer to it for his Vulgate Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible. He lives in the land of Yisrael, in the coastal city of Caesarea. He frequently consults with the Rabanim there to explain obscure Hebrew words. It seems his original spelling in Latin, Carcedonius, with an -r- to represent the Greek gem name Khalkedon with an -l-, seems to derive directly from the Hebrew gem name *Karkdonin כַּרְכְּדוֹנִין.
Note: This particular gem, Karkdonin, derives from the name of the ancient city of “Carthage” in today Tunisia, and not from the ancient city of “Kalkedon” in today Turkey. Notably, both of these names come from the same Canaanite Kart-Khadsha קרת חדשה meaning “New Town” and referring to a colony of the seafaring Knaanim (Canaanites) of today Lebanon. It makes sense the gem corresponds to Carthage, since the same gems of that city also tend to exist in Mitsrayim (Egypt). The tribes of Yisrael get these twelve gems during the Bronze Age, from Mitsrayim.
During the Classical Age circa 00s, Plinius describes the gem of Carthage as a dark gem that gleams a fiery orange-red light when held up to the sun. Evidently, this is the same gem that today calls the garnet - a dark variety of it - and is identical to the same gem that Targum Hashivim (Septuagint Greek Bible) calls Anthraks, meaning an ember of burning “coal” in Greek. Moreover, this is identical to the Latin loan translation Carbunculus, which also means “coal”, and that Hieronymus uses elsewhere as the name for this same garnet gem.
Indeed the Mitsriyim (Egyptians) use garnets in their amulets during the Bronze Age.
In sum, the garnet stone in the Khoshen, that comes from the gems of Mitsrayim during the Bronze Age, appears during the Classical Age in Greek in Targum Hashivim as the name Anthraks, but appears in Greek in the New Testament as Khalkedon. Notably, this gem name apparently refers to the name of the city, Carthage, in today Tunisia that is famous for garnet, rather than to the city in Turkey that shares a related name. In the 300s, this garnet appears in Latin in the Vulgate Bible as Carbunculus that translates Greek Anthraks exactly and as Carcedonius that refers to Carthage. This Latin name Carcedonius appears to correspond to the Hebrew technical name for this garnet, Karkdonin, thus corroborates the existence circa 300s of the gem list that the later medieval Rabanim refer to in Shmot Raba.
In the Hebrew gem list, the twelve gem names are part of the living Hebrew language and evidence natural linguistic shifts. Its existence within a living Hebrew language also points to the early date.
Example: The name for the purple quartz - also known as amethyst - exemplifies the linguistic shifts that most of the gem names undergo in the Rabani Hebrew list.
Ultimately, the Greek name Amethustos αμεθυστος evolves into the Hebrew name *Hemesiyin הֵימֵיסִּיִין .
When Hebrew first borrows the Greek name Amethustos, the Hebrew lacks certain Greek sounds. The distinctive Greek -u- (rounded high front) vowel sometimes approximates as the Hebrew -u- (rounded high back) vowel or else the Hebrew -i- (unrounded high front) vowel, depending on the context of nearby sounds. Here, the -u- in Greek Amethustos approximates to the -i- in Hebrew Amethistos. But then Hebrew adds the suffix -in ין . This is the classical Greek diminutive suffix -ion -ιον , but signifies precisely the later pronunciation per the international Koine Greek as -in. (Klein. “ין”. Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language.) Thus the original Hebrew gem name deriving from Greek circa 00s, and serving as the professional nomenclature for the purple quartz in the gem trade, reconstructs as something like: *Ametistin אֲמֶתִּיסְטִין in Hebrew.
However this original approximation is unstable, and shifts.
The syllable stress from the -e- in Greek Amethustos to the final syllable -in in Hebrew *Ametistin causes a rapid succession of sounds.
Hebrew finds it awkward to pronounce two nearby -t- sounds in Greek loanwords and often reduces them to one. Thus in the context of resolving the shortened syllables, *Ametistin swaps the sounds of the consonant -t- and vowel -i- (metathesizing), tentatively *Ameitsĕtin אֲמֶיִתְּסְטִין with the vowels merging to a monosyllabic *Ametsĕtin אֲמֵיתְּסְטִין , and finally the aspirated -t- sound assimilating into the oncoming nearby -t- sound: *Amesĕtin אֲמֵיסְּטִין . To prevent contracting the initial ultrashort vowel into nothing, the initial syllable expands into a long vowel while assimilating into the oncoming -e- vowel: *Emesĕtin אֵמֵיסְּטִין . While expanding, the initial vowel also aspirates. Hebrew often does this for Greek loanwords. (Compare Greek Sunedros that becomes Hebrew Sanhedrin, when the addition of the Greek diminutive suffix -ion, actually -in, mark a Greek loanword, but shifts the stress of vowels, while the distinctive Greek -u- approximates into Hebrew as unstressed -i-, likely -ĕ-, whence -a-, and while -e- aspirates into -he-.) So far: *Hemesĕtin הֵמֵיסְּטִין . Probably later, this -t- weakens, assimilating (palletizing) among the -s-, ultrashort -ĕ-, and oncoming -i-, thus forming a -y-: *Hemesyin הֵימֵיסְּיִין .
The result: The Greek loanword Amethustos enters Hebrew as *Ametistin אֲמֶתִּיסְטִין but morphs into *Hemesyin הֵימֵיסְּיִין as part of the rhythm of the living Hebrew language.
The surviving form of the gem name in texts is, Hemesyon הֵימֵיסְּיוֹן . Probably, the -o- is a copying variant by scribe who is unfamiliar with the obscure Hebrew technical term and who visually reinterprets an ambiguous form of -י- as -ו- , thus an -o- instead of the original -i-. The accumulation of scribal variants evidences the passage of time. This list that the Rabanim cite appears many centuries old.
The gem list of the Shmot Raba evidences spoken Hebrew. Hebrew-speakers adapt these Greek technical terms as part of the rhythm of the everyday Hebrew language. Hebrew ceases to be a language of common speech circa 300, in the aftermath of the genocide of the Yhudim in Yhuda (Judea) that culminates the Bar Kokhba War circa 135. Thus the names probably derive before 300.
The Hebrew names in this list already exist during the 300s. One of the gem names survives as ברדינין , at first glance this looks something like Bardinim, a meaningless word. Most scholars agree this name must somehow be a scribal “garble” of the Hebrew gem name Kadkod כַּדְכֹּד . I agree, but the variant isnt as drastic as it seems. It seems obvious to me, the Hebrew letters ברדינין are a scribal variant of כרדונין . Rereading these letters this way is common in Hebrew even with the best handwriting. Thus the Hebrew Gem name is actually Kardonim כַּרְדּוֹנִין
GREEK | LATIN | HEBREW | |||
Iosephus (Jewish Antiquities) | Khazon Yhokhanon 21'19-20 (Revelation of John) | Vulgate Bible / Plinius | Reconstruct of original classical Hebrew gem names | Extent of later medieval Hebrew gem names Shmot Raba 38'10 | |
σαρδόνυξ | σαρδόνυξ | Sardonix | *Sardonukin | שַׂרְדֹנֻכִּין | שדרגנין |
τόπαζος | τοπάζιον | Topazius | *Topazin | טוֹפַזִין | שימפוזין |
λιγύριον | ὑάκινθος | Hyacintus | *Hyakinthin | הְיַקִינְתִּין | דייקינתין |
ἄνθραξ | χαλκηδών | Carcedonius | *Karkdonin | כַּרְכְּדוֹנִין | ברדינין |
σάπφειρος | σάπφιρος | Sapphyrus | *Sapirin | סַפִּירִין | סנפרינון |
σμάραγδος | σμάραγδος | Zmaragdus | *Smaragdin | סְמַרַגְדִּין | אסמרגדין |
βήρυλλος | βήρυλλος | Berillus | *Berulin | בֵּירוּלִּין | כוחלין |
ἀχάτης | σάρδιον | Sardinus / Achates | *Akhates | אֲכַאטֵיס | אבאטיס |
ἀμέθυσος | ἀμέθυστος | Amethistus | *Amethistin | אֲמֶתִּיסְטִּין | הימיסיון |
ὄνυξ | χρυσόπρασος | Chrysoprassus | *Krusoprasin | קְרוּסֹפְרַסִין | קרומטסין |
ἴασπις | ἴασπις | Iaspis / Perileucos | *Perileukin | פֵּרִילֶוְקִין | פראלוקין |
χρυσόλιθος | χρυσόλιθος | Chrysolithus | *Krusolitos | כְּרוּסוֹלִיטוֹס | מרגליטוס |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)