Linguistic Anthropology of Genesis 4-6

[John D. Brey]

The "sacred" text which made possible all the various translations and interpretations of Genesis chapter 4, was delivered to Moses on Sinai without the punctuation that was added to the text much later. ---- Without the "accents" (ta'amin), which represent something like our English punctuation, the signature text of Genesis 4:1 would have looked something like this (in Hebrew letters of course):

themanknewevehiswifeandsheconceivedandbearcain

. . . But the signature text was even more undefined than this. In the line above, we can still pick out vowels . . . whereas the signature Hebrew text had only consonants, no vowels (niqudot). ---- It would have actually looked more like this:

thmnknwvhswfndshcncvdndbrcn

Anyone familiar with linguistics knows that a string of pure consonants represents a "cipher-text." ---- A "cipher-text" forms a message indecipherable to anyone but the person possessing the "key" necessary to unlock the meaning hidden in the undeciphered text. The text delivered to Moses was not designed to be read by just anyone. It could only be read by someone possessing the "key" necessary to unlock the text. (The "key" would be knowledge of how the text should be read.)

God commanded that no "key" ever be placed directly on the cipher-text in such a way as to suggest that it was the "only" or even the "primary" key to unlocking the meaning of the text. It was strictly forbidden to add anything to the pure string of Hebrew consonants which made up the sacred text of the Torah.

The act of interpreting the sacred text was given to only a small cadre of specially chosen men to whom the oral "tradition" was passed on by means of the "lips" or the "mouth" of someone already knowledgeable concerning this oral "tradition." It was strictly forbidden for the oral "tradition" to ever be written, or passed on in any way except word of mouth. Nothing was more anathama than the thought of placing the oral "tradition" onto the written text of the Torah; that would be an abomination punishable by death. The written text of the Torah was to remain forever a cipher-text subject to interpretations based on the key used to unlock its meaning. God was concerned that the sacred text never have a strict meaning nailed down until He came personally with the Living Breath which would unlock the true meaning of the text. . . Even then, it's clear from Paul and the Apostles, that God passes the "revelation" of the key to the written Torah only to those in whom His Spirit has been passed through the intimacy of His breath . . . never through written text.

Those who receive the breath of God can interpret the written text of the Torah, but they're never authorized to produce a new written Torah by transferring their interpretation onto the text of the written Torah. The relationship between the written word and the breath of revelation is never to be transgressed. And every instance of this transgression is a type, or trope, of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Masoretic text is the prototype transgression of the written Torah; it's the crucifixion of the written text in preparation for the crucifixion of the oral Torah to come. It's the profane contamination of God's sacred cipher-text with the punctuation and vowel points derived from one particular Jewish tradition; the one that led to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The very people, who nailed Jesus down to the wood in order to silence his spoken interpretation of the sacred text of the Torah, are themselves products of the very "tradition" which decided where to place the periods (sof pasuq) and vowels (niqudot) in the version of Genesis 4:1-2 which justified the nailing down of Jesus of Nazareth; the tradition that went against tradition by destroying the cipher-text of the written Torah.

In defending his right to interpret the written Torah against the profane "tradition" which was nailed down to the text (in opposition to the text), Jesus of Nazareth was condemning the tradition, which broke tradition in order to overlay God's sacred cipher-text with a tradtitonal reading which somewhere along the line transgressed the prohibition against destroying the freedom of the cipher-text with points and addendums which by God's design could never be imposed on the written text itself.



Dan

[John D. Brey]

Without the "accents" (ta'amin), which represent something like our English punctuation, the signature text of Genesis 4:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Genesis+4%3A1) would have looked something like this (in Hebrew letters of course):

themanknewevehiswifeandsheconceivedandbearcain

. . . But the signature text was even more undefined than this. In the line above, we can still pick out vowels . . . whereas the signature Hebrew text had only consonants, no vowels (niqudot). ---- It would have actually looked more like this:

thmnknwvhswfndshcncvdndbrcn

Anyone familiar with linguistics knows that a string of pure consonants represents a "cipher-text." ---- A "cipher-text" forms a message indecipherable to anyone but the person possessing the "key" necessary to unlock the meaning hidden in the undeciphered text. The text delivered to Moses was not designed to be read by just anyone. It could only be read by someone possessing the "key" necessary to unlock the text. (The "key" would be knowledge of how the text should be read.)



If I sent out a consonant only cipher-text like this:

agstnnthnntnsxtythrsmybrthdy

. . . Some person smarter than myself, but not necessarilly brilliant, per se, could probably decipher the text without too much difficulty.

But if gave the spirit of my thought, which is manifest in those consonants, nearly everyone could decipher it. ----- If I said the consonants listed above manifest a day near and dear to me, everyone could decipher the text:

august ninth nineteen sixty three is my birthday

Unfortunately (and with apologies to Ron) the Torah text is some orders of magnitude more complex than what I've presented above. In the Torah text God has aligned the consonants in such a way as to present both His true intent, which can be deciphered when He gives the spirit manifest in the text, but, He has also aligned the text in such a way, that it presents a secondary meaning, close enough to the first to be considered authentic, which in fact is used to deceive those who have no business in the Presence of His Holiness.


Dan

[DuraGizer]

Interesting post(s). It's a shame I'm not up to the task of evaluating them myself, and that there haven't been any replies.

[John D. Brey]

Interesting post(s). It's a shame I'm not up to the task of evaluating them myself, and that there haven't been any replies.

Hi DuraGizer . . . If you appreciate what's being said briefly in this thread, you might enjoy the essay Masoretic Malfeasance. (http://masoreticmalfeasance.blogspot.com/) --- If you read it, let me know what you think.



Dan

[slaveofone]

Anyone familiar with linguistics knows that a string of pure consonants represents a "cipher-text." ---- A "cipher-text" forms a message indecipherable to anyone but the person possessing the "key" necessary to unlock the meaning hidden in the undeciphered text.

I know a small bit of linguistics, but I don’t get what you’re trying to say. All language is composed of a cipher and a meaning. I could say or write something like DOG, but it would be gibberish unless that certain combination of sounds/signs have a predetermined meaning in the context in which I say/write them. The “key” to any cipher is meaning itself. Sometimes we possess the meaning, sometimes we don’t. Sometimes something has a meaning and sometimes it doesn’t. In order to communicate anything, we need more than the cipher—we also need the meaning.


God commanded that no "key" ever be placed directly on the cipher-text in such a way as to suggest that it was the "only" or even the "primary" key to unlocking the meaning of the text. It was strictly forbidden to add anything to the pure string of Hebrew consonants which made up the sacred text of the Torah.

1. Let’s assume simply for the sake of my question that Moses was truly given Gen 4 on Sinai as you presume…I’d be curious to know in what language and by what script (two different things) Gen 4 was given and why you think that.

2. Are you referring to a certain Hebrew canon as being this so-called cipher-text? If so, which one? Or are you referring to a certain Hebrew manuscript as being this so-called cipher-text? If so, which one? And which texts and text-forms are included in this so-called cipher-text? How do you know?

3. What is the command you refer to and how do we know it refers to the Hebrew canon or Hebrew texts and text-forms you think it does?


God was concerned that the sacred text never have a strict meaning nailed down until He came personally with the Living Breath which would unlock the true meaning of the text. . .

What makes you think God had this concern? Why not give all people the primary meaning instead of making them dependent upon oral tradition or the breath of revelation?


The Masoretic text is the prototype transgression of the written Torah…

What about the Septuagint? What about the Targumim? What about the Dead Sea Scrolls that use consonants like Waw or Yod as vowels? What about the Palestinian and Babylonian text-types that preceded the Masoretic, which had their own vowel systems? What text or text-type is the non-transgressed one?


The very people, who nailed Jesus down to the wood in order to silence his spoken interpretation of the sacred text of the Torah, are themselves products of the very "tradition" which decided where to place the periods (sof pasuq) and vowels (niqudot) in the version of Genesis 4:1-2 which justified the nailing down of Jesus of Nazareth; the tradition that went against tradition by destroying the cipher-text of the written Torah.

Why do you think Yeshua was crucified because he was trying to give people a primary interpretation of your so-called “cipher-text”? What about those who created the Greek versions before the time of Yeshua, who wrote Aramaic versions before the time of Yeshua (and afterward), or who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and inserted consonants as vowels into them before the time of Yeshua?

What about those who wrote the Oral Torah?


In defending his right to interpret the written Torah against the profane "tradition" which was nailed down to the text (in opposition to the text), Jesus of Nazareth was condemning the tradition,

Where does Yeshua defend his right to do that?

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

One thing about the Masoretic text is that it does cement a meaning in place where there could be many alternate ones. And sometimes that meaning doesn’t always make sense. I try to be wary of this when I approach the Masoretic text, because just because it gives a certain meaning doesn’t necessarily mean that that is a better or more likely meaning.

Is there some particular meaning in Gen 4-6 that you take issue with in the Masoretic rendering?

[John D. Brey]

I know a small bit of linguistics, but I don’t get what you’re trying to say. All language is composed of a cipher and a meaning. I could say or write something like DOG, but it would be gibberish unless that certain combination of sounds/signs have a predetermined meaning in the context in which I say/write them. The “key” to any cipher is meaning itself. Sometimes we possess the meaning, sometimes we don’t. Sometimes something has a meaning and sometimes it doesn’t. In order to communicate anything, we need more than the cipher—we also need the meaning.


If you write the word "Dog," the letters themselves represent the "cipher." The "key" to the "cipher" would be the pre-established law that whenever these letters come together like this, they signify a beloved quadraped a.k.a. man's best friend. --- The letters "Dog" are not onomatopoetic. There is no meaning in the letters unless the meaning is pre-established. It must be first established that the letters have the given meaning.


Let’s assume simply for the sake of my question that Moses was truly given Gen 4 on Sinai as you presume…I’d be curious to know in what language and by what script (two different things) Gen 4 was given and why you think that.


I assume it was K'tav Ivri "Hebrew Script," rather than K'tav Ashuri, which is the Assyrian script.

In the Hebrew script, the last letter, tav, was a Latin cross, signifying that the "last thing" (the completion of the Torah) would be associated with a cross. (The Hebrew alphabet is considered a symbol of the Torah, and the first and last letter (aleph, tav) are also considered a symbol of the Torah).


Are you referring to a certain Hebrew canon as being this so-called cipher-text? If so, which one? Or are you referring to a certain Hebrew manuscript as being this so-called cipher-text? If so, which one? And which texts and text-forms are included in this so-called cipher-text? How do you know?


The Torah scroll in the synagogue has no punctuation. It is "unpointed" as they say. It is a representation of the original text, which was probably not even broken down into sections like the synagogue scroll.

I assume the scrolls in the synagogue are remarkably similar to the text received from Moses. It is the addition of the punctuation to the text which gets us into trouble.

After the calf fiasco at Sinai, God determined to use the text to hide certain things from Israel. Moses gave a song as the oral key used to decipher the text. The "song of Moses" is the "key" that Moses gave Israel to determine vowels and sentence breaks in the text. But this song revealed only a certain level of the cipher, the one God intended for Israel after the calf fiasco, when He determined to keep them in the dark.

The traditions that arose using the song of Moses as the "key" to decipher the text, became the tradtion that led to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In a message in this tread, I included a link to an essay, Masoretic Malfeasance, (http://masoreticmalfeasance.blogspot.com/) which give an example of how the first part of Genesis 4 would be deciphered if the Gospel of Jesus Christ informed the placement of sentence breaks.

God was concerned that the sacred text never have a strict meaning nailed down until He came personally with the Living Breath which would unlock the true meaning of the text. . .


What makes you think God had this concern? Why not give all people the primary meaning instead of making them dependent upon oral tradition or the breath of revelation?


The apostle Paul tells us that there was a mystery hidden since the beginning of the world, and that if the principalities and powers in heaven (the angelic rulers) could ascertain the mystery, then they would not have crucified Christ, and Christ would not have been able to triumph over them.

Paul speaks of a special revelation he received from the risen lord, which was not mediated through the other apostles, the Torah, the Tanakh, or any other mediator. It was given to him directly by the Holy Spirit. He said this mystery is "unsearchable" ἀνεξιχνίαστος (anexichniastos), meaning it cannot be found in the text of the Torah.

Paul presents elements of this mystery throughout his epistles. But this mystery too is hidden from all but a select few. God refuses to be perceived by the carnal mind. The more carnal the mind, the thicker the prepuce God wraps around the text. The more humble and receptive the mind, the sharper the izmel the Holy Spirit gives the believer.

The Masoretic text is the prototype transgression of the written Torah…

What about the Septuagint? What about the Targumim? What about the Dead Sea Scrolls that use consonants like Waw or Yod as vowels? What about the Palestinian and Babylonian text-types that preceded the Masoretic, which had their own vowel systems? What text or text-type is the non-transgressed one?


These translations all use the same Massorah (Jewish tradtional reading) codified in the Masoretic text.

Think how outrageous it is that our "Old Testament" is translated into English from the very reading of the Tanakh that led to, and even justified, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

This fact tells us that God's plan is still unfolding, and there is still almost universal blindness concerning so much of the truth of the scripture.



Dan

[John D. Brey]

The very people, who nailed Jesus down to the wood in order to silence his spoken interpretation of the sacred text of the Torah, are themselves products of the very "tradition" which decided where to place the periods (sof pasuq) and vowels (niqudot) in the version of Genesis 4:1-2 which justified the nailing down of Jesus of Nazareth; the tradition that went against tradition by destroying the cipher-text of the written Torah.


Why do you think Yeshua was crucified because he was trying to give people a primary interpretation of your so-called “cipher-text”? What about those who created the Greek versions before the time of Yeshua, who wrote Aramaic versions before the time of Yeshua (and afterward), or who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and inserted consonants as vowels into them before the time of Yeshua? . . . What about those who wrote the Oral Torah?


The cipher-text of the Torah is subject to myriad legitimate interpretations. The interpretation codified in the Masoretic text is legitimate. That's not the point. . . The point is that it's not the sole interpretation, or even the most important one.

After the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Masoretic interpretation should have been seen for what it is, the interpretation used to see to it that Jesus got crucified per God's grand plan, and then it should have been abandoned for a new interpretation that used the Gospel of Jesus Christ to interpret the text. That's what Jesus' apostles did, and what all Jews should have done. But instead they assumed that the Masoretic interpretation was the only one.

Much of the oral tradition found in the Talmud, and various midrash, is a stunning example of the brilliance of the Jewish exegetes who clearly knew that the meaning of the text was not fixed. Unfortunately, the minds of these brilliant Jewish men were constrained by certain presuppositions that would not allow them to see very far past certain boundaries set by the "authorized" Jewish tradition.

The Jewish mystics skirted the very line of the authorized interpretation. In many places (in the Zohar for instance) they nearly cross over (so to say) to a Christian understanding of the text.



Dan

[John D. Brey]

In defending his right to interpret the written Torah against the profane "tradition" which was nailed down to the text (in opposition to the text), Jesus of Nazareth was condemning the tradition,


Where does Yeshua defend his right to do that?


Throughout the Gospels, Jesus says thing like, "You've heard it said that" and then he quotes the written scripture, "but I tell you," and then he give an interpretation that goes against the grain of the authorized interpretation. He says "your Torah says" and then he gives his interpretation.

It was precisely his willingness to re-interpret the Torah, against the grain of the Jewish tradition codified in the Masorah, which led to his crucifixion.



Dan

[slaveofone]

I assume it was K'tav Ivri "Hebrew Script," rather than K'tav Ashuri, which is the Assyrian script.

I assume the scrolls in the synagogue are remarkably similar to the text received from Moses

No offense, man, but that's A LOT of assumption. If you have nothing more than assumption to go on about what the original text was and what it was like, how can you say anything about how it was changed or corrupted? It begs the question.


God determined to use the text to hide certain things from Israel.

Which text? How do you know it is that text?


The "song of Moses" is the "key" that Moses gave Israel to determine vowels and sentence breaks in the text.

How do you know that?


The apostle Paul tells us that there was a mystery hidden since the beginning of the world, and that if the principalities and powers in heaven (the angelic rulers) could ascertain the mystery, then they would not have crucified Christ, and Christ would not have been able to triumph over them.

After the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Masoretic interpretation should have been seen for what it is, the interpretation used to see to it that Jesus got crucified per God's grand plan, . . .

You realize what you're saying, don't you? If the reason Christ was crucified was because nobody knew, and if they didn't know because God himself hid it from them, and this was all intentional on God's part—God's plan—then that makes God responsible for Christ's crucifixion and death. It means God is responsible for slaying Christ—not those who didn't know what was hidden from them. We also have an English term for this: deception. If God knowingly hides from Israel what they need to know in order to do the right thing, that makes God a deceiver.

It is like if I gave my child a sword and didn't tell my child that that sword was sharp at the edges and could injure or kill him/her – if my child then slices a hand off or stabs him/herself in the chest and dies, it would be my fault AND I would have deceived my own child about what it was that I gave to him/her. What you are saying makes God one who deceives and slaughters the righteous one.


These translations all use the same Massorah (Jewish tradtional reading) codified in the Masoretic text.

This makes me think you have not read them. There are vast differences in the ancient translations that don't exist in the Masoretic and are not possible translations of the Hebrew in the Masoretic text. The Greek version (Septuagint) was considered inspired scripture among many diaspora Jews and it is not Masoretic at all. The Aramaic versions such as Jonathan, Psuedo-Jonathan, and Neofiti are even more non-Masoretic. There are Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls that are vastly different even than the Masoretic and Septuagint. They are certainly not the same codified text. So which text among all these very different texts is the “cypher text”?


The cipher-text of the Torah is subject to myriad legitimate interpretations. The interpretation codified in the Masoretic text is legitimate. That's not the point. . . The point is that it's not the sole interpretation, or even the most important one.

I happen to follow Ishmael and not Akiva when it comes to the nature of scripture. Rabbi Ishmael's principle is thus: Torah speaks in human language. Human language isn't subject to a myriad of legitimate interpretations...and neither is Torah if it is written thusly.


then it should have been abandoned for a new interpretation that used the Gospel of Jesus Christ to interpret the text. That's what Jesus' apostles did, and what all Jews should have done. But instead they assumed that the Masoretic interpretation was the only one.

Before the time of Yeshua, there was a group of people that some scholars refer to as the Yahad. We know of them from the Dead Sea Scrolls. They purported to write interpretations (pesharim) of the Hebrew scrolls via “the breath of revelation.” They sought to make clear by the Spirit what was hidden in the text for the benefit of their own enlightened people. They called themselves Sons of Light, who alone knew the true meaning of the text and were keeping the true meaning and the true praxis of that meaning alive in their community until the end of the age. They were to be the Remnant that would restore Israel. And yet they said nothing about Yeshua.

If there are many who claim to know what the primary meaning or true interpretation of the text is, but they are wrong (the Yahad), and they do not at all appear to be carnally minded, then how can anyone possibly tell who has the true meaning and who does not? How can you be certain that it is the gospel of Yeshua that should interpret the text and not the way of the Teacher of Righteousness that informed the Yahad?


Throughout the Gospels, Jesus says thing like, "You've heard it said that" and then he quotes the written scripture, "but I tell you," and then he give an interpretation that goes against the grain of the authorized interpretation. He says "your Torah says" and then he gives his interpretation.

It was precisely his willingness to re-interpret the Torah, against the grain of the Jewish tradition codified in the Masorah, which led to his crucifixion.

Yeshua wasn't giving an “interpretation of the text.” He was saying something that the text did not and could not say. Example:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
--Matthew 5:39, KJV

Saying “resist not evil so that whoever smites your cheek should be offered to smite the other as well” is not a possible interpretation of ANY of the Hebrew in Leviticus 24, Exodus 21, or Deuteronomy 19 (where the law of the eye for eye and tooth for tooth are), no matter what vowels you use and no matter what punctuation you place. Matthew 5:39 is a direct contradiction of it. Yeshua is not challenging a “Masoretic” understanding of Leviticus 24, Exodus 21, or Deuteronomy 19, he is challenging Leviticus 24, Exodus 21, and Deuteronomy 19! If you think differently, then explain how anyone can look at the Hebrew of Leviticus 24, Exodus 21, or Deuteronomy 19 and get that idea from it.

[John D. Brey]

I assume it was K'tav Ivri "Hebrew Script," rather than K'tav Ashuri, which is the Assyrian script.

I assume the scrolls in the synagogue are remarkably similar to the text received from Moses


No offense, man, but that's A LOT of assumption. If you have nothing more than assumption to go on about what the original text was and what it was like, how can you say anything about how it was changed or corrupted? It begs the question.


No offense man, but it seem like you haven't read the other messages in this thread? K'tav Ivri is simply a type of letter design. It doesn't have anything to do with the the actual text except to tell us what the letters looked like.

If you took a Torah scroll from a synagogue, and started with the first letter in Genesis, and ended with the last letter in the Torah, if you listed all the letters in line with no breaks or punctuation or anything else, that is what was delivered to Moses. A pure string of consonants with no puctuation, sentence breaks, or any other way of knowing what was actually being said.

The Jewish theologians know that the Torah given to Moses was a pure string of consonants. They know that all means of making sense of the consonantal text was added after the fact, and that the text can be read in almost infinite ways, according to how you add the word and sentence breaks.

None of this is new, or theoretical. It is factual.

What I am saying in this thread is that the Jewish Massorah, which is the Jewish traditional way of reading the text, is not to be taken as authoritatively related to God's revelation to the Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[John D. Brey]

The "song of Moses" is the "key" that Moses gave Israel to determine vowels and sentence breaks in the text.


How do you know that?


To this day, cantillation is used in relationship to the deciphering of the Torah. Wikipedia says:


Cantillation is the ritual chanting of readings from the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) in synagogue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue) services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_services). The chants are written and notated in accordance with the special signs or marks printed in the Masoretic text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_text) of the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) (or Tanakh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh)) to complement the letters and vowel points. These marks are known in English as accents and in Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language) as טעמי המקרא ta`amei ha-mikra or just טעמים te`amim. (Some of these signs were also sometimes used in medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah).) The musical motifs associated with the signs are known in Hebrew as niggun or neginot (not to be confused with Hasidic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism) nigun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigun)) and in Yiddish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish) as טראָפ trop: the equivalent word trope is sometimes used in English with the same meaning.

A primary purpose of the cantillation signs is to guide the chanting of the sacred texts during public worship. Very roughly speaking, each word of text has a cantillation mark at its primary accent and associated with that mark is a musical phrase that tells how to sing that word. The reality is more complex, with some words having two or no marks and the musical meaning of some marks dependent upon context. There are different sets of musical phrases associated with different sections of the Bible. The music varies with different Jewish traditions and individual cantorial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazzan) styles.

The cantillation signs also provide information on the syntactical structure of the text and some say they are a commentary on the text itself, highlighting important ideas musically. The tropes are not random strings but follow a set and describable grammar. The very word ta'am means "taste" or "sense", the point being that the pauses and intonation denoted by the accents (with or without formal musical rendition) bring out the sense of the passage.
The original cantillation given in conjunction with the Torah text is the song of Moses.

In Deuteronomy 31:19 God tells Moses that Israel is corrupt and that He knows what is in their heart to do (hinting at Golgotha). Because they are a predisposed to this great corruption and error, God tells Moses to write down a song and give it to Israel and make them sing it, "so that it may be a witness for me against them."



For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware. Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009 (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.) (Dt 31:20–23). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Moses gives the song God gives him as the "oral Torah" to Israel to learn and memorize so that when it is used to interpret the "written Torah" it will lead Israel into the trap that is the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, where God's judgment will come upon them.

After receiving the the "oral Torah" Mose writes down the "written Torah" (Deut. 31:24-26), and has it placed in the footstool of the Ark of the Covenant, where it will be seen to be the enemy of the one sitting on the throne of the Ark of the Covenant (the Ark is a footstool for the Throne) so that when God tells the Lord that He will make His enemies the footstool for his feet, He is speaking specifically of the version of the Torah that is placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:24-26).

In Deut. 32:44-47, directly after finishing the recital of the song, Moses says this:


And Moses came and spake all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he, and Hoshea the son of Nun. And Moses made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel: And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life: and through this thing ye shall prolong your days in the land, whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009 (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.) (Dt 32:44–47). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Moses links the song he has just delivered, to the written law, signifying that the song, and the written law, make up the dual Torah, "oral" and "written." ----- But the "oral" given to Israel to sing, was explicity commanded not to be placed on the written text, for such a thing was a desecration of the Name YHVH. Nevertheless, against the command, Israel created the Masoretic Text, which is a desecration of the Name YHVH.

Jesus gave another "oral" key to interpreting the sacred Torah text. Because Jesus "oral" Torah did not agree with the song of Moses' version of the text, the Jews, as God forewarned Moses, crucified the Covenant, broke Him, and brought on great suffering for the Jewish people from that day onward.