Exegeting Sarah . . .

[robrecht]

Judaism doesn't explicitly apply the concept of a "chok" to the Hebrew letters themselves (so far as I know).

Thanks, that goes a long way toward answering my question. As far as you know, is this idea original with Elliot R. Wolfson, or someone else, you perhaps?

They debate whether Ktav Ashuri or Ktav Ivri is the script of the original tablets given to Moses.

This is close to one of my other questions. What script do you think was used in the tablets? What script do you think was used in the original text of Genesis, which includes the story of Abraham and Sarah? Do you think it was written by Moses or perhaps later?

But they do explain that when Messiah comes he will provide a new Torah (or at least a new reading of the original consonants). I believe Robrecht and I discussed this in the past. Midrash Rabbah, Ecclesiastes XI.6, 1-9 says, "The Torah which a man learns in this world Is Vanity in comparison with the Torah [which will be learnt in the days] of the Messiah." There are a great number of similar statements in Jewish midrashim. I think I even posted many of them in the past.

I remember this discussion, but I think you were going by a different name at the time. IIRC (and frequently I do not) the earliest statement you had was from Nachminides (Ramban) about changing the word division of the consonantal text into different words than is known in Masoretic texts and not a different vocalization of the same words. Have you found anything earlier since then?

I hope you had a nice Easter.

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht,

As far as you know, is this idea original with Elliot R. Wolfson, or someone else, you perhaps?

A book by Moshe Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation, would probably interest you. Professor Idel documents in some detail both the concept of Messiah unveiling the deeper meaning of the text, and also concepts we've spoken about in relation to the consonants being readable in almost infinite ways.

What script do you think was used in the tablets? What script do you think was used in the original text of Genesis, which includes the story of Abraham and Sarah? Do you think it was written by Moses or perhaps later?

There's no question (in my mind) that the original text was Ktav Ivri. And since it was, we have a giant problem created by Israel adopting a Gentile text (Ktav Ashuri) as the text used for sacred purposes. Here's some of what Rabbi Michael Munk says in his excellent book, The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet:

The above passage has been the subject of much discussion among the commentators. The clear implication of the passage seems to be that Ksav Ashuris, the script in which all sacred scrolls are written, was not introduced to the Jewish experience until the time of Ezra, approximately twenty-three hundred years ago. Ksav Ashuris, apparently, was the script of ancient Assyria, one of the countries of the Persian Empire, under which the Jews were exiled in Ezra's time. Until then, the script used by Jews was the ancient Hebrew script known as Ksav Ivri, even though Ksav Ivri was totally unlike Ksav Ashuris. If it is true that the Tablets containing the Ten commandments were inscribed in a script other than Ksav Ashuris, then it would mean that the script now associated with the Torah is of foreign origin and that Israel discarded the script in which God originally conveyed His word to them.

On this, Joseph Naveh, in his book, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to the West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, says:

The Hebrew script [Ktav Ivri] was used infrequently by Jews until the Second War against the Romans, and thereafter it was preserved only by the Samaritans. . . We face an extraordinary phenomenon: the Jews, a conservative nation which adhered strictly to its traditional values, abandoned their own script in favour of a foreign one. . . neither expediency nor ideology--- at least in the Persian period--- explains the Jews' preference for the Aramaic script, since the Aramaic and the Hebrew scripts had the same twenty-two letters.

Israel discarded the sacred script for a Gentile one in preparation for the events that led to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The true meaning of the sacred text is "covered" up by the uncircumcised nature of the Gentile script. When Jesus arrived to fulfill the text, Israel didn't recognize him because they had already abandoned him when they abandoned the script that spoke of him. . . . Someone will say, "Doesn't the Assyrian script say the same thing as the ancient Hebrew just with a different script"?

Indeed, the symbolic dimension of Hebrew, as it appears in the sacred texts, disappears for the benefit of a purely utilitarian use of language. To be sure, in our desacralized world it is no longer a matter of consciously manipulating the magical virtualities of language in order to derive from it some personal gain. But when an entire society hijacks the language of its religious tradition to purely material ends, when it makes it into a mere instrument in the service of its immediate interests, it returns, without knowing it, to the attitude of the sorcerers of old. A "crude imitation" of the sacred text's language, modern Hebrew has emptied out the ancient words of their symbolic and religious signification in order to reduce them to mere indices of material reality.

Stephane Moses, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University Jerusalem, quoted in Derrida's Acts of Religion.

[robrecht]

Hi Robrecht,

A book by Moshe Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation, would probably interest you. Professor Idel documents in some detail both the concept of Messiah unveiling the deeper meaning of the text, and also concepts we've spoken about in relation to the consonants being readable in almost infinite ways.

There's no question (in my mind) that the original text was Ktav Ivri. And since it was, we have a giant problem created by Israel adopting a Gentile text (Ktav Ashuri) as the text used for sacred purposes. Here's some of what Rabbi Michael Munk says in his excellent book, The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet:

The above passage has been the subject of much discussion among the commentators. The clear implication of the passage seems to be that Ksav Ashuris, the script in which all sacred scrolls are written, was not introduced to the Jewish experience until the time of Ezra, approximately twenty-three hundred years ago. Ksav Ashuris, apparently, was the script of ancient Assyria, one of the countries of the Persian Empire, under which the Jews were exiled in Ezra's time. Until then, the script used by Jews was the ancient Hebrew script known as Ksav Ivri, even though Ksav Ivri was totally unlike Ksav Ashuris. If it is true that the Tablets containing the Ten commandments were inscribed in a script other than Ksav Ashuris, then it would mean that the script now associated with the Torah is of foreign origin and that Israel discarded the script in which God originally conveyed His word to them.

On this, Joseph Naveh, in his book, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to the West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, says:

The Hebrew script [Ktav Ivri] was used infrequently by Jews until the Second War against the Romans, and thereafter it was preserved only by the Samaritans. . . We face an extraordinary phenomenon: the Jews, a conservative nation which adhered strictly to its traditional values, abandoned their own script in favour of a foreign one. . . neither expediency nor ideology--- at least in the Persian period--- explains the Jews' preference for the Aramaic script, since the Aramaic and the Hebrew scripts had the same twenty-two letters.

Israel discarded the sacred script for a Gentile one in preparation for the events that led to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The true meaning of the sacred text is "covered" up by the uncircumcised nature of the Gentile script. When Jesus arrived to fulfill the text, Israel didn't recognize him because they had already abandoned him when they abandoned the script that spoke of him. . . . Someone will say, "Doesn't the Assyrian script say the same thing as the ancient Hebrew just with a different script"?

Indeed, the symbolic dimension of Hebrew, as it appears in the sacred texts, disappears for the benefit of a purely utilitarian use of language. To be sure, in our desacralized world it is no longer a matter of consciously manipulating the magical virtualities of language in order to derive from it some personal gain. But when an entire society hijacks the language of its religious tradition to purely material ends, when it makes it into a mere instrument in the service of its immediate interests, it returns, without knowing it, to the attitude of the sorcerers of old. A "crude imitation" of the sacred text's language, modern Hebrew has emptied out the ancient words of their symbolic and religious signification in order to reduce them to mere indices of material reality.

Stephane Moses, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University Jerusalem, quoted in Derrida's Acts of Religion.

Thanks, Mr Rabinovich.

So, since you believe the text of Genesis was written in the ancient Hebrew script, your exegesis of Sarah is not related to the original text and the original human author. Perhaps you think that God alone is the author and that he intends to communicate mysteries quite apart from the intention of the original author, the סוֹד (sod). My concern with this approach is that there is no way to distinguish God's hidden mystical meaning from human 'manipulation of the magical virtualities of language', as you put it. The Bible is much too important to me to reduce it to magical text that can be manipulated by readers in ways that the human author never intended. My view of inspiration is incarnational, that God inspires the human author who freely engages his intelligence, creative imagination, in the context of his historical and cultural perspective. Just as God took it upon himself to become human in the Incarnation, God inspires real human authors, who are not to be considered as unconscious robots taking dictation that they do not even understand. God is not a dictator using violence to produce a heteronomous text.

כי המצוה הזאת אשר אנכי מצוך היום לא־נפלאת הוא ממך ולא רחקה הוא׃ לא בשמים הוא לאמר מי יעלה־לנו השמימה ויקחה לנו וישמענו אתה ונעשנה׃ ולא־מעבר לים הוא לאמר מי יעבר־לנו אל־עבר הים ויקחה לנו וישמענו אתה ונעשנה׃ כי־קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשתו׃

Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.

What do you think of this concern?

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht,

So, since you believe the text of Genesis was written in the ancient Hebrew script, your exegesis of Sarah is not related to the original text and the original human author. Perhaps you think that God alone is the author and that he intends to communicate mysteries quite apart from the intention of the original author, the סוֹד (sod). My concern with this approach is that there is no way to distinguish God's hidden mystical meaning from human 'manipulation of the magical virtualities of language', as you put it. The Bible is much too important to me to reduce it to magical text that can be manipulated by readers in ways that the human author never intended. My view of inspiration is incarnational, that God inspires the human author who freely engages his intelligence, creative imagination, in the context of his historical and cultural perspective. Just as God took it upon himself to become human in the Incarnation, God inspires real human authors, who are not to be considered as unconscious robots taking dictation that they do not even understand. God is not a dictator using violence to produce a heteronomous text. . . What do you think of this concern?

. . . At this point we maybe we should distinguish between the Torah text, which doesn't have a human author, and the rest of the Tanakh. I agree with you about the inspired writing of human authors of scripture. But the Torah (Pentateuch) is not like the rest of the Tanakh. It's supernatural. It hides secrets which can be retrieved only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It has no human author.

. . . That said, there are things in the Psalms, and Isaiah (and I guess throughout the Tanakh) which are of such an incredible mystical nature, that it's hard to imagine the human author knew precisely how what he was saying would manifest itself eschatologically? Isaiah speaks of the Suffering Servant's followers wearing him around their neck as though Isaiah had a bizarre prescience concerning the crucifix? David, in the Psalms, utters the words of Messiah, he documents events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth that are uncanny. Did he know what he was writing? Or was God using him as a prophet to render things which he couldn't possibly know the deeper meaning of . . . such that these prophetic utterances gain their primary power retroactively, after the fact? If this is true, that they gain their primary significance after the fact, such that the mystical meaning must be applied retroactively, then it's not fully David or Isaiah who are speaking these utterances, but the Holy Spirit speaking through them, to me and you, in a way that David and Isaiah couldn't fathom.

[robrecht]

I think the Torah also had human authors and many of the literal prophecy fulfillment texts in the New Testament are a result of authors purposefully using scriptural language to portray deeper truths they perceived in the teaching, ministry, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, not all that different from the pesher exegesis that we see in texts from Qumran, where they would read events in the life of their founder, the Teacher of Righteousness, or of their community as illustrating previously unknown meanings of prophetic texts. Take a look at the Habakkuk pesherim as an example of this. I think the originally intended meaning of ancient prophetic texts was actually much deeper and profound than magical coincidences. The Suffering Servant songs and the psalms that were used to illustrate the life and suffering of Jesus were already profound in their own right and profound when applied to Jesus, sometimes by Jesus himself and sometimes by later authors. Some of the life and teaching and meaning of Jesus was probably much more profound than the portraits that were written later but the authors did the best they could to interpret and and dramatize the significance of Jesus.

[footwasher]

If may be hasty to conclude that a change/deviation is devoid of the guiding hand of God as seen in the choice of virgin by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint.

Another helpful article:

Quote
Since Aaron, the High Priest, and King David appear to have been anointed with forms of letters of Ivri script, we can presume that Ivri was the script used during the early generations of the Children of Israel,35 and that Ashuri script was developed later. According to the opinion of Mar Zutra, it was a thousand years later during the Babylonian Exile.

My personal reflection on this subject is to avoid the mistake of thinking that if Paleo-Hebrew was the original, then it must be the holier of the two scripts. The fact is that Ezra, the father of Ashuri script, was the author of three books of the Hebrew Scriptures36 and worked with ruach hakodesh,37 a form of prophecy. The Hebrew letters that came from his hand contain some of the deepest and most mystical teachings of the Torah. These letters have sustained the Jewish people for 2500 years and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future. But at the very least, the re-discovery of Ivri or Paleo-Hebrew suggests that we live in a new era, one that is struggling to synthesize the past with the present so as to become greater than both.

http://www.jewishmag.com/160mag/orig...rew_script.htm

Hi Robrecht,



. . . At this point we maybe we should distinguish between the Torah text, which doesn't have a human author, and the rest of the Tanakh. I agree with you about the inspired writing of human authors of scripture. But the Torah (Pentateuch) is not like the rest of the Tanakh. It's supernatural. It hides secrets which can be retrieved only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It has no human author.

. . . That said, there are things in the Psalms, and Isaiah (and I guess throughout the Tanakh) which are of such an incredible mystical nature, that it's hard to imagine the human author knew precisely how what he was saying would manifest itself eschatologically? Isaiah speaks of the Suffering Servant's followers wearing him around their neck as though Isaiah had a bizarre prescience concerning the crucifix? David, in the Psalms, utters the words of Messiah, he documents events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth that are uncanny. Did he know what he was writing? Or was God using him as a prophet to render things which he couldn't possibly know the deeper meaning of . . . such that these prophetic utterances gain their primary power retroactively, after the fact? If this is true, that they gain their primary significance after the fact, such that the mystical meaning must be applied retroactively, then it's not fully David or Isaiah who are speaking these utterances, but the Holy Spirit speaking through them, to me and you, in a way that David and Isaiah couldn't fathom.

[Xtian Rabinovich]

If may be hasty to conclude that a change/deviation is devoid of the guiding hand of God as seen in the choice of virgin by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint.

Since Aaron, the High Priest, and King David appear to have been anointed with forms of letters of Ivri script, we can presume that Ivri was the script used during the early generations of the Children of Israel,35 and that Ashuri script was developed later. According to the opinion of Mar Zutra, it was a thousand years later during the Babylonian Exile.

My personal reflection on this subject is to avoid the mistake of thinking that if Paleo-Hebrew was the original, then it must be the holier of the two scripts. The fact is that Ezra, the father of Ashuri script, was the author of three books of the Hebrew Scriptures36 and worked with ruach hakodesh,37 a form of prophecy. The Hebrew letters that came from his hand contain some of the deepest and most mystical teachings of the Torah. These letters have sustained the Jewish people for 2500 years and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future. But at the very least, the re-discovery of Ivri or Paleo-Hebrew suggests that we live in a new era, one that is struggling to synthesize the past with the present so as to become greater than both.

http://www.jewishmag.com/160mag/orig...rew_script.htm

It's clear that God's perfect creation has fallen into disarray. But since it's still God's perfect creation the disarray is part and parcel of the overall plan of God. The imperfect must be removed such that the final product, having come through this period of disarray, will not only be perfect, but knowably so since we are witnesses to the disarray, against which we can measure the final product in its perfection. . . Without the disarray we would not really understand the perfection of perfection.

The true sacred text is hieroglyphic. The "engraving" is a fundamental element of the nature of the sacred. Wherever Ktav Ivri is written with a pen, it's "demotic" rather than "hieroglyphic." The demotic text loses the most fundamental element of the sacred, i.e., being engraved.

Within the epoch of Judaism the most important of all symbols is the symbol of circumcision. The human hand removes the veil of the profane to find something previously "engraved" in the flesh by the hand of God. The human hand removes the curtain or veil in order to get to the hieroglyph engraved in human flesh. That hieroglyph engraved in the flesh, and uncovered in the fundamental rite of the Jewish religion, is the most fruitful emblem that will ever be. To see it is to see God face-to-face. To know you're seeing God face-to-face when you see that hieroglyph is to take part in the restitution of God's perfection in this world.

[footwasher]

Sylvius claims that the original font (Menachem calls it thus! ) was Ksav Ashuri, because of the hollow letters.

Quote
The Holy of Holies, therefore, contained two versions of G-d's Word - the written letters of the Torah scroll, consisting of ink painstakingly transcribed by Moses' hand onto parchment, and the Hebrew letters of the tablets of the law - letters engraved on stone by a Divine hand.

The letters of the Ten Commandments were not ordinary letters that a person could chisel into a stone surface. The tablets themselves were miraculous, as the letters could be read the same way from either side simultaneously. In addition, the "hollow" letters engraved on the tablets, such as the samech and final mem, seemed to hover in their places, impossible for a human being to duplicate.

http://www.lchaimweekly.org/lchaim/5773/1239

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi footwasher,

Sylvius claims that the original font (Menachem calls it thus! ) was Ksav Ashuri, because of the hollow letters.

. . . What does footwasher think?

[footwasher]

Exodus 8
יד**וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן הַחַרְטֻמִּים בְּלָטֵיהֶם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת-הַכִּנִּים, וְלֹא יָכֹלוּ; וַתְּהִי, הַכִּנָּם, בָּאָדָם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה. 14

And the magicians did so with their secret arts to bring forth gnats, but they could not; and there were gnats upon man, and upon beast.


טו**וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּם אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, אֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים הִוא; וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב-פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא-שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה.* {ס}

15 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh: 'This is the finger of God'; and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken.

I think the original script was ktav ashuri, because anything done by the Finger of God is impossible to reproduce by men, therefore highly distinguishable as of God. The idea of the letters floating in the air is so appealing and comports so well with God's acts (burning bush, anyone!? ), it leaves no doubt in this mind at least!


Some more support for ktav ashuri :

Quote
As time progressed during the days of the Judges and Kings of Israel only the priests and scribes still knew how to read the original holy script Kthav Ashurith. Others did not even recognize it as demonstrated when King Yoshiyahu of the Davidic Dynasty needed a priest to read to him from the Torah scroll found in the Temple. 2 Kings 22 8-11 HE
see Isaac_Abravanel Abarbanel

After the destruction of the first temple when the famous hand came down and wrote on the wall in Kthav Ashurith, Daniel was the only one King Belshazzar could find who could read it. Later when Ezra and other Jews returned to Israel, Ezra saw how the knowledge of Kthav Ashurith was forgotten , and enacted decrees that all writing of scrolls must be in Kthav Ashurith, and that day to day writing should be in an Aramaic form of Kthav Ashurith Talmud Babylonian Talmud Tractate Megilla 3a so it should not be forgotten The Samaritans however rejected the Oral Tradition and in defiance of Ezra s Law have continued till this day to write their scrolls in Kthav Ivri .

http://www.exsupera.com/sandbox/DCM/...ment.py?id=468

Hi footwasher,



. . . What does footwasher think?