The reason this simple page of glossary definitions is ranked so popular with the search engine is because so many people click on our links to these definitions from the content in… the 'Netzarim Quarter' Village web site in Ra•an•an′â(h), Israel at www.netzarim.co.il
The real content is in the 'Netzarim Quarter'! Click on our logo above for an exciting visit to the 'Netzarim Quarter' where you'll learn about Historical Ribi Yehoshua and his original, Jewish, followers before the great Roman-Hellenist apostasy of 135 C.E.—and even more importantly, how you (whether Jew or non-Jew) can follow the historically true, Judaic, Ribi Yehoshua. In Hebrew, his original followers were called the Netzarim (Hellenized to "Nazarenes").
Until Paqid Yirmeyahu researched the Netzarim name and sect and began publishing about it in 1972 in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) no one in modern times was even aware of the name Netzarim. It stretches credulity that no one in modern times had heard of the Netzarim until Paqid Yirmeyahu published it in 1972… and then, suddenly, everybody figured it out??? Check (and verify) the dates of the earliest works about the Netzarim by the others and you'll see that they are deceiver-plagiarists. Then insist on the person whom ha-Sheim selected to entrust the knowledge, not imposters who falsely call their continuing practice of Displacement Theology "Nazarene Judaism."
Because we teach and practice the authentic Judaic teachings of Ribi Yehoshua—not Displacement Theology—we are the only group who have restored the Netzarim to be accepted in the legitimate Jewish community in Israel—genuinely like Ribi Yehoshua and the original Netzarim. Consequently, the 'Netzarim Quarter' is the only web site of legitimate Netzarim / Nazarene Judaism.
Give all the friends you've ever known the chance to know about this exciting site; send them our web site address (www.netzarim.co.il) that opens modern eyes for the first time to the Judaic world that Ribi Yehoshua and his original Netzarim knew, practiced and taught.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2006.04.27]This, NOT the Arabic "wadi," is the correct term for stream andor dry streambed often found in a valley.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]ëÌÀôÇø ðÇçåÌí (Kәphar Na•khum′; Town or village of Na•khum′), i.e. Nakhumville; Hellenized to "Capernaum."
[Updated: 2008.10.29]Nâ•si′ derives from the verb ðÈùÒÈà (nâs•â′; to bear or carry [burdens, responsibilities, etc.]).
Nâ•si′ describes an executive or manager, in ancient times the tribal chief. Subsequent to Har Sinai, the Nâ•si′ designated the president of the Beit-Din hâ-Jâ•dol′ and was the only person who could ordain Tor•âh′ teachers in Israel during the existence of the Beit-Din hâ-Jâ•dol′. (A special title was afforded these Torah-teachers ordained by the Nâ•si′ in the land of Israel during the existence of the Beit-Din hâ-Jâ•dol′: Rib′i. The term Rib′i is used in no other context.) Thus, the prophesied Nâ•si′ of the messianic era, the Mâ•shi′akh scion of David, will preside over the heavenly Beit-Din hâ-Jâ•dol′. Cf. Yәkhëz•qeil′ 38.02.
ðÈùÒÄéà øÉàùÑ (Nâ•si′ Rosh; Chief Nâ•si′, head or chief manager, president or executive).
[Updated: 2008.07.24]
The meaning of the name Nâ•tzәr•at′ is obvious on a map (especially a topographical map), relative to äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ (also spelled äÇø îÀâÄéãÌåÉ). The maps show that while äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ is the water-supplied spearpoint of defense forces repelling invaders coming south down the major trade route from the north, ãÆøÆê äÇéÌÈí, Nâ•tzәr•at′ was located high on a commanding hill near the south end of ãÆøÆê äÇéÌÈí where it opens into òÅîÆ÷ éÄæøÀòÆàì—controlling the corridor through which invaders from Lebanon or Syria would have to pass. (Ei′mëq Yiz•rәël′ is an expansive internal valley that is more like a large inland strip or plain running southeast from Haifa to the Jordan Valley.)
ðÈöÀøÇú (Nâ•tzәr•at′) is the connective form of an unused form, ðÈöÀøÈä (Nâ•tzәr•âh′) which would mean "a sentry." Thus, ðÈöÀøÇú (Nâ•tzәr•at′) means "a sentry of…"
Situated to the north opposite äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ, Nâ•tzәr•at′ served as a Nâ•tzәr•at′ ha-Dër′ëkh. When Nâ•tzәr•at′ sentries spotted invaders coming from the north, a signal fire (and resisting force) would provide several hours warning to äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ to muster troops and prepare for battle before invaders could reach äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ; even longer before invading troops could populate an effective battle formation to attack äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ.
Archeologists have excavated one house from the early 1st century C.E. village of Nâ•tzәr•at′ from the time when Rib′i Yәho•shu′a was a child. Since there were no more than about 50 houses in the small village, it is certain that Rib′i Yәho•shu′a knew this house.
[Updated: 2006.06.15]Biblically, a Nâ•vi′ is an individual who has focused his mind and nature to the point where he is able to receive the outpouring of the Ru′akh (spirit) of é--ä, and is evidenced by his clarity of understanding Tor•âh′. (See Ram′ba"m, Hi•lәkh•ot′ Yәsod•ei′ ha-Tor•âh′ 7.7; Kha•tam′ So•pheir′, Ëv′ën ha-Ëz′ër section 40.)
Thus, the earlier prophets —foreseers —were called øåÉàÄéí (ro•im′, seers; e.g. Shәmu•eil′ Âl′ëph 9.9). These are in contrast to nәviy•im′ who are proclaimers, of Tor•âh′ because they were Divinely granted deeper insight, which enabled them to provide spiritual and practical guidance to Israel. But øåÉàÄéí were not sent to be the leaders of Israel as were the nәviy•im′. Thus, nәviy•im′—expositors of Tor•âh′—are embued with greater honor and authority than the earlier øåÉàÄéí.
In contrast, the term ha-Nâ•vi′, which essentially means a preacher (Rash′"i, Shәm•ot′ 7.1), was commonly used for Jews who exhorted others to go in the Way of Tor•âh′, and prayed for them in their time of need (Ë•mët′ lә-Ya•a•qov′, bә-Reish•it′ 20.7). Obviously, they had to be wise and Tza•diq′, but such exponents of Tor•âh′ weren't, according to the Sages, necessarily Divinely inspired individuals.
Only in later years, when there was a need to send nәviy•im′ to admonish the Jewish people and provide national leadership, did ha-Nâ•vi′ acquire the general appellation of a prophet. (ArtScroll, Tәr•ei′ •sâr′, xix-xx). See also The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) note 11.9.1.
[Updated: 2006.04.30]While LXX usually renders this ευχομαι (eukhomai; [one] "praying" according to Vine's Expository Dictionary), if the nâ•zir′-ευχομαι correspondence carried over originally into the NT as a consecrant, it was distorted by the later redactions (cf. wish, would or prayMa•a•vâr′ 26:29; 27:29 where, during the time of the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′, nâ•zir′ would have been implied).
LXX also renders nâ•zir′ as Ναζειραιος (Nazeiraios), which is how it blurred into the totally unrelated, obviously gentile (unable to discern even between a nâ•zir′ and a Ko•hein′ ha-Jâ•dol′) sect of Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios; Nazoraeans) in NT.
[Updated: 2010.07.18]ëÌÈì ðÄãøÅé (Kol Ni•drei′) "all of the vows of…" a tәphil•âh′ to be released from any and all vows forced upon us by the goy•im′:
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2007.07.12]In LXX, Hellenists comprehended no distinction between ðÆôÆùÑ and ðÀùÑÈîÈä. The two are both rendered by ψυχως (psukhos; psyche)—which explains the confusion in subsequent translations.
Your ðÆôÆùÑ is an inherent part of you—your sapience, your awareness of yourself relative to é--ä, your free will. The purpose of life is to learn to subordinate the ðÆôÆùÑ to the ðÀùÑÈîÈä, and to differentiate those who succeed in doing so from those who fail to do so. Like the ðÀùÑÈîÈä, the ðÆôÆùÑ is also a part of you that continues, along with your øåÌçÇ after shedding your body. (The body, being physical, is confined to this physical universe. Therefore, it cannot make the transition into the non-dimensional domain of hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′.)
[Updated: 2006.04.27]In LXX, Hellenists comprehended no distinction between ðÀùÑÈîÈä and ðÆôÆùÑ. The two are both rendered by ψυχως (psukhos; psyche)—which explains the confusion in subsequent translations.
Your ðÀùÑÈîÈä is you, your essence (conscience), the essential—life-giving—breath of your øåÌçÇ (wind). Like the ðÆôÆùÑ, the ðÀùÑÈîÈä is also a part of you that continues, along with your øåÌçÇ, after shedding your body. (The body, being physical, is confined to this physical universe. Therefore, it cannot make the transition into the non-dimensional domain of hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′.)
[Updated: 2008.07.24]| Pәshitәtâ′ Aramaic: |  113x36.gif "''Christiane'' (Peshiteta Aramaic)"){kind=small} |
| Hellenist Greek: | Χριστιανος |
| Hebrew term "Christian" | ðÈöÀøÄéí and ðÉöÀøÄéí not Hebrew transliteration of Pәshitәtâ′ Aramaic: ëøÄñèÄéÇðÆà |
Most Christians (and Jews) believe that the followers of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a were originally called "Christians," based on Acts 11.19-26. As the reader will see (below), the Church has worked very hard to gloss over this misrepresentation. With only two exceptions, Christian translators have interpreted "Nazareth" for every substantiation of the Judaic name by which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and his original Pharisee Jewish followers were known… and Helllenized even those two instances to "Nazarene." In contrast to Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and his original Pharisee Jewish followers—who were Yәhud•im′ Pәrush•im′ living and teaching Tor•âh′, Christians were Hellenist followers of the apostate Hellenist Turkish-Jew, Paul—in Hellenist Turkey. As followers of an excised apostate, the original Christians had no connection or roots whatsoever to Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and his original Pharisee Jewish followers… or to legitimate Judaism.
According to the Pәshitәtâ′, the text states that those in the Hellenist Diaspora city of Antakya, Turkey, who were preaching the NT teachings of the apostate Hellenist Turkish-Jew, Paul were called, in Aramaic, "Christiane"—conspicuously not the Aramaic îÀùÑÄéçÄé used in Jewish circles. Rather, this was a transliteration of the Hellenist Greek Χριστιανος (Khristianos). These were Hellenist Christians, of Hellenist Turkey, followers of apostate Hellenist Turkish-Jew, Paul—who had been excised for his Hellenist—Reform—syncretizing (assimilation) by the original Pharisee Jewish followers of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a!!!
Of 31 instances translated into English as "Nazareth," only 12 of these instances in the Greek source texts of the NT, properly refer to Ναζαρεθ (Nazareth) = Nâ•tzәr•at′. Yet, of the remaining 19 instances, which properly refer to Nәtzâr•im′—Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios; from which gentile sects derived 'Nazoraeans' or distorting Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ ha-Tza•diq′ Bën-Dâ•wid′ to be a Nâ•zir′) and Ναζαρηνος (Nazareinos, from which the English "Nazarene" derived), Christian versions typically render only 2 passages faithfully as "Nazarene" (Mt. 2:23 & "Acts" 24:5).
See for yourself the many instances where this identical term—Ναζωραιος—in the earliest extant source documents deliberately avoids acknowledging the Jewish Pharisee Nәtzâr•im′ in the gentile Roman Christian campaign to DISPLACE the original Nәtzâr•im′: Mt. 2:23; 26:71; Mk. 10:47; Lu. 18:37; 24:19; Jn. 18:5, 7; 19:19; Ma•a•vâr′ 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8 and 26:9.
The Christian Displacement Theology is also evident in their redactions to LXX. In their campaign of Displacement Theology, the Hellenist Christians attempted to paint themselves as "gentile Nazirites" perhaps by perverting Nâ•zir′ and morphing it with αγιος (agios; "holy") to form Ναζωραιος. These post-135 CE Roman gentile Christian redactions are documented in Codex Alexandrius:
Through this documented redaction, Codex Alexandrius thus makes Ναζειραιοι (Nazeiraioi) distinct from Ναζιραιοι (Naziraioi; ; her Nәzir•im′). The then-apparent—but incorrect and misleading—similarity in the Greek between distinct Ναζειραιος (Nazeiraios; Nâ•zir′) and Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios; Nәtzâr•im′) is the only plausible basis for the frequent confusion between the terms —totally unrelated in Hebrew —ðÈöÀøÄéí (Nәtzâr•im′; offshoots) and ðÀæÄéøÄéí (Nәzir•im′; consecrated [ones; pl. masc. noun]). This is especially true of Christian misconceptions that our first Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′, Ya•a•qov′ Bën-Dâ•wid′, was a "Nazirite." All evidence indicates that Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ Bën-Dâ•wid′ was not a "Nazirite." He was, however, a Nәtzâr•im′
ðÀöÈøÄéí is the masc. plural of ðÅöÆø, which, in turn, is related to the Aramaic ðÄöÀøÈà—"wicker (basket)". As can be seen from Yәsha•yâh′u 11.1 and 60.21, inter alia, Nei′tzër referred more specifically to the basal-sucker offshoot(s) from the root or trunk of an olive tree—which stood around the mother tree like little sentry-guard(s)—and transplantable young green shoots sprouting from the trunk… used (according to the dictionaries) to weave wicker-baskets.
Thus, the question arises, are these terms related to the shor′ësh ðÈöÇø? Because ðÈöÇø is a synonym of ùÈîÇø, the distinct meaning of ðÈöÇø must be teased out in order to understand how it might be related to ðÅöÆø and what connotations that might imply… particularly to cognates ðÈöÀøÇú and ðÈöÀøÄéí.
ðÈöÇø and ùÈîÇø are synonyms that seem to be interchangeable with only one distinct and consistent thematic exception. (Additionally, this distinction lends new meaning to many passages.)
The only time both synonyms are found in the same verse is in Mish•lei′ Shlom′oh 4.6: "àÇì-úÌÇòÇæÀáÆäÈ åÀúÄùÑÀîÀøÆêÈ; àÁäÈáÆäÈ åÀúÄöÀøÆêÌÈ:" (Don't let go of [Tor•âh′, v. 2] and she will ùÈîÇø you; love her and she will ðÈöÇø you).
The Tar•gum′ sheds futher light on this contrast: "ìà úùá÷éðä åúñøéðê, åúðèøéê; øçîä ãúùâáéê, ãúùâáéðê, contrasting ðÈèÇø (guard, observe secundum Jastrow) with ùÒÄâÌÅá (elevate, lift up, exalt, strengthen secundum Jastrow).
The Pәshitәtâ′ also illuminates the distinction: "úùá÷éä ãúðèøê øçäéä ãúùåæáê," contrasting ðÈèÇø (guard, observe secundum Jastrow) with ùÑÅéæÅá (release, save secundum Jastrow; i.e., deliver).
Nei′tzër probably evolved from calling the sentry-like basal-sucker offshoots "sentries"; wicker used for weaving baskets, etc. (The correlation with "offshoots" is clear in the two Biblical passages and dictionaries.)
There are five references in the Bible to ðÅöÆø, the plural of which is ðÀöÈøÄéí, from ðÈöÇø.
"The Nei′tzër" was the title of the prophesied Mâ•shi′akh (Yәsha•yâh′u 11.1 and 60.21) and historical Rib′i Yәho•shu′a (The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 2.23). The plural, Nәtzâr•im′, describes his original Pharisee Jewish followers, including the first 12, who were specifically identified in NT by the name Nәtzâr•im′ (cf., for example Ma•a•vâr′ 24:5, but also the numerous additional instances in the earliest Greek cited).
The term Nei′tzër was displaced by apostate Hellenist Turkish-Jew, Paul's Χριστιανος and, later, the telltale terms in the Greek mss. were de-Judaized (Hellenized) by the post-135 CE Christian NT redactors —unsupported by LXX —to Ναζαρηνος (nazareinos), Anglicized to 'Nazarene.'
The plural, Nәtzâr•im′ (referring to his followers), was de-Judaized (Hellenized) in the NT to Ναζωραιος (nazoraios) where it is clearly translated as "Nazarenes" in Ma•a•vâr′ 24:5 (as well as confused, elsewhere, with Nazoraeans / Nazirites).
Another distinct cognate, n. & adj. (implying a distinction between the two groups requiring distinct names) is ðÈöÀøÄé(í(—Χριστιανος—reflecting the meaning of the shor′ësh (ðÈöÇø). Thus, while the ðÀöÈøÄéí continued to live harmoniously among their fellow Pharisee Jews, the ðÈöÀøÄéí were Hellenist gentiles, outside and alien to the Pharisee Jews and understood by Pharisee Jews as gentile Hellenist sentries of the Hellenist Roman occupiers. Further, significantly, it was the ðÈöÀøÄéí who incited the most vitriolic antinomian—misojudaic—libels, labeling ðÀöÈøÄéí "lost to the 'law' of sin and death, enemies of God and the Church and servants of Sâ•tân′" (see Eusebius)—demonstrating inarguably that the ðÈöÀøÄéí were not only mutually exclusive from the ðÀöÈøÄéí with no connection whatsoever, the ðÈöÀøÄéí Church was the most bitter enemy of the ðÀöÈøÄéí, whom they loathed as Jews.
These are in addition to contextual input from all extant Hebrew and Aramaic literature prior to 399 C.E. (including the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Nag Hammadi codices and alternate "gospels," et al. and the LXX and early Christian historians (e.g., Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ignatius, Irenaeus Hegesippus, Papias, Origen, et al.):
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.07.06]The adjective and noun form is ðÄìåÆä (nil•wëh′), plural ðÄìåÄéí nil•wim′. When used as a noun, a ni•lәwëh′ is an escort or accompanier. As an adjective, the term refers to an escort or accompanier ni•lәwëh′ status.
Another cognate of ìÈåÈä is ìÅåÄé (Lei•wi′), plural Lәwiy•im′, who escorted the Ko•han•im′.
Qa•bâl•ists′ initiated îÀìÇåÌÅä îÇìëÌÈä (mәla•weih′ ma•lәk•âh′; the accompanying Queen [Shab•ât′]) are songs sung in concluding Shab•ât′ and ñÀòËãÌÇú îÀìÇåÌÅä îÇìëÌÈä (Sә•ud•at′ mәla•weih′ mal•kâh′) is the concluding (4th) meal of the accompanying Queen (meaning Shab•ât′).
Lâ•wâh′ is likely the inspiration for the concept, advanced by Rib′i Yәho•shu′a, of "grafting" the "wild branches"—geir•im′—onto the "olive tree," which is Yi•sәr•â•eil′. Of the five instances of ìÈåÈä in MT that connote accompanying, joining or becoming attached, for which the rendering in LXX reflects the same meaning, three instances (bә-Mid•bar′ 18.2, 4 & Yәsha•yâh′u 14.1) are rendered by προστιθημι (prostitheimi; to put or place onto) while the other two instances (Yәsha•yâh′u 56.3, 6) are rendered by προσκειμαι (proskeimai; to lay or rest [something] on [something]). The NT term, ενκεντριζω (enkentrizo; graft onto) is not found in LXX. The term that defines this concept is clearly ìÈåÈä, from which all three Hellenist (Greek) terms derived.
Lâ•wâh′ implies much more than simple "joining"; and is certainly the antithesis of being integrated, unchanged, into something. Lâ•wâh′ implies gradual, but active, assimilation into Israel; the abandonment of any elements of one's previous life and culture that conflict with Tor•âh′, complemented by the replacing of the abandoned elements through undertaking the life practice and culture of Tor•âh′ and Israel, i.e. properly interfacing with the Jewish people (Israel) faithful to the example of Rut (1.16) —through the Jewish culture: the Hebrew language, Tor•âh′, Jewish music, Jewish chanting of Ta•na"kh′, etc.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.06.18] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.07.25]The term ðÈöÀøÄéí (No•tzәr•im′) refers to the gentile Hellenist Pauline proto-Christian groups, and subsequent gentile Christians, cursed in the Bi•rәk•at′ ha-Min•im′; all of whom are distinguished from legitimate Judaism recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′ by the sine qua non of having embraced selective observance of Tor•âh′, i.e., at least partial rejection of Tor•âh′ (including Tor•âh′ she-bә•al′ peh). Thus, No•tzәr•im′ are diametrically antithetical to the Nәtzâr•im′.
Notice that, in Hebrew, though pronounced differently and deriving from an entirely unrelated root, the non-vowelized spelling of No•tzәr•im′ can be spelled, without vowels, identically to Nәtzâr•im′ as ðöøéí. This identical spelling enabled the ðÀöÈøÄéí (Nәtzâr•im′) and other Pharisee Jews (it was Pharisee Jews who prayed in "synagogues") to recite, undetected by the Church, the written Bi•rәk•at′ ha-Min•im′ against their antithesis—the ðÈöÀøÄéí (No•tzәr•im′, cf. min•im′. One may observe in, for example, the Alcalay Hebrew-English Dictionary, that ðÈöÀøÄé (No•tzәr•i′); a Christian) is different from ðÈöÀøÇúé (Nâ•tzәr•ât•i′; Nazarethan, person from the city of Nâ•tzәr•at′). There is no evidence that Nәtzâr•im′ (offshoots) were ever called "Nâ•tzәr•ât•im′" (Nazarethans).
Despite the NT claim that Jesus was called a "Nazarene" because he was from "Nazareth"—this was clearly a similarity dependent upon the Hellenist Greek of the NT, already long divorced from the Hebrew, in order to be associated with "Nazareth" instead of the prophecy of Yәsha•yâh′u 11:1.
Up through the 4th century C.E. there is no instance where No•tzәr•im′ (or Nәtzâr•im′ either) were called Nâ•tzәr•ât•im′.
Christians were Greek-speaking Hellenists. After 135 C.E., they were predominated by gentiles with no knowledge of Hebrew. For them, both Hebrew terms were alien. They referred to themselves by the Greek term for "messianic": χριστιανος (Khristianos; Christian). To them, ðÉöÀøÄéí appeared related (or identical) to ðÀöÈøÄéí (Nәtzâr•im′), particularly since, whenever Jews wanted the Church confused, they could spell them identically and one could then tell only by context. However, the two terms derive from completely different stems and are unrelated except, perhaps, that "offshoots" from the root of an olive tree somewhat resemble sentry-guards around the mother tree.
The only instance in the Bible of ðÉöÀøÄéí is found in Yi•rәmәyâh′u 4.16:
"Remind the goy•im′, Behold, make it heard concerning Yәru•shâ•la′yim: ðÉöÀøÄéí are coming from a distant land; and they will give upon the cities of Yәhud•âh′ their voice."
Written ca. B.C.E. 600, Christians wouldn't exist for more than 7 centuries (viz., 135 C.E.). Yi•rәmәyâh′u used this term in the ancient sense of prison guards or sentries, from ðÈöÇø.
We can learn how Jews understood this term by how they translated it into Aramaic and Greek (although the latter reflects significant Hellenization).
Targum Yonatan, believed to be first written in the 1st century C.E. but revised to reflect the 3rd-4th century C.E., renders ðÉöÀøÄéí as çÈèåÉôÄéï ëÀ÷ÈèåÉôÄéï.
LXX renders ðÉöÀøÄéí with a more Diaspora oriented and Hellenist-sensitive (politically-correct) συστροφαι—a squirming, teeming, wriggling aggregate.
The Jewish reaction to post-135 C.E. Christianity, requiring a term to distinguish the Hellenist goy•im′ from the earlier Jews, found a convenient play on words from the original Nәtzâr•im′ to the Hellenist goy•im′ No•tzәr•im′, reflecting the connotations of Targum Yonatan in Yi•rәmәyâh′u 4.16—"predacious grape harvesters," i.e., "missionaries harvesting souls of the Jewish Vine."
It should also be noted that no historical-political reason for this reaction existed until sometime between 135 C.E. and Constantine (333 C.E.). Prior to 135 C.E., the enmity was with the Roman Hellenist occupiers of Israel.
The No•tzәr•im′ had developed a completely Hellenistic and Romanized self-identification as the true Χριστιανος (Khristianos; Christians) as opposed to Nәtzâr•im′ and other Jews—whom the No•tzәr•im′ viewed as sons of Sâ•tân′ remaining under the law of sin and death and enemies of the Church.
Persecuted under the containment guards of the Church, the so•phәr•im′ (scribes) encrypted a warning in the Tor•âh′ selection for the intermediate Shab•ât′ of Khag ha-Matz•ot′ by enlarging two letters, the first to call attention to a word and then the next to call attention to the associated meaning.
The first letter of Shәm•ot′ 34.7 is the ð in the word ðÉöÅø (no•tzeir′; warning sentry [relative to khës′ëd])!!! The next enlarged letter, calling attention to the hidden meaning, is (ending v. 13) the ø (rësh) in the word àÇçÅø (a•kheir′; another-different) in the phrase "You shall not prostrate ourselves ìÀàÅì àÇçÅø (lә-Eil a•kheir′; to an Eil [Who is] another-different)."
That the encrypted warning is found in the pâ•râsh•âh′ during the year that is closest to the anniversary of the crucifixion is also a clear indication to the reader that Shәm•ot′ 34.7 stipulates that é--ä, not a man or man-god, is the ðÉöÅø (No•tzeir′) and we "shall not prostrate ourselves to an Eil [Who is] another-different."
The earliest extant complete source texts of what the Christians call their "New Testament" are the Greek—Hellenized—codices א and β of the 4th-century. All historians, including Christian scholars, agree that there was no "New Testament" during the lifetime of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a his original eyewitness followers, or even his Nәtzâr•im′.
According to the earliest extant Christian Church historian (Eusebius), these original Pharisee Jewish followers of the Pәrush•i′ Rib′i Yәho•shu′a ("Rib′i," hello; only the perushim had Rib′is and rabbis) rejected the Christian claimed "new testament" (EH III.xxvii.4-6)!!!
Christianity was born with the Hellenist-Roman expulsion of the 15th Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ from Yәru•shâ•lay′im in 135 C.E. and his consequent displacement by the first gentile—(Hellenist-Roman) Christian—"bishop." While the occasional verse of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) may have been translated into Greek from ca. 64 C.E., large-scale translation by Hellenists into Greek and redaction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) and various letters, with the inherent Hellenization, began in earnest only subsequent to 135 C.E.
Even according to the most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledges:
"A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma" ("Text, NT," 2nd edition (Abingdon, 1962).
Of course Christians redacting the Jewish texts made Christian redactions to make the Jewish texts compatible with "the substance of Christian dogma." Duh.
Quoting again from The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
"It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons—even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma. [Thanks for reminding us that Christians made Christian redactions compatible with Christian dogma; ybd]). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the 'original reading' but in the 'true reading'"
(ibid.)—as perceived by the Roman Christian redactors, of course. (Emphasis added and quoted from Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN))
The Nәtzâr•im′ never changed their mind about it, maintaining that only the Jewish Ta•na"kh′ is Scripture and only their own The Nәtzâr•im′ Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) was a legitimate account of the life and teachings of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a.
The Nәtzâr•im′ haven't changed from this position, and won't change from this position.
Christian versions include the relatively modern KJ/V (King James [per]version) of 1611 C.E.
Thus, for Jews, which includes the Nәtzâr•im′, "NT" stands not for "New Testament," allowing a pass for Christians to beg the question, but for "Null Testament." (See also Ta•na"kh′ and OT.)
Accordingly, only quotes from The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) and Ta•na"kh′ are recognized by the Nәtzâr•im′ as authentically and authoritatively Judaic. Other works not recognized as authoritative by standard Judaic institutions are not recognized as authoritative by the Nәtzâr•im′.
In Judaism, as in the Bible, these are called simply Day-one through Day-six and Shab•ât′. One soon realizes how pervasive paganism is in Christianity.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]The Mi•shәkân′ bә-mi•dәbar′ in which Mosh′ëh met with é--ä.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]A cognate is òÂìÄéÌÈä (a•liy•âh′; an ascending), pl. a•liy•ot′. òÂìÄéÌÈä is used primarily to refer [a] ascending to read Tor•âh′ andor [b] immigrating to Israel.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]äÈòåÉìÈí äÇæÌÆä (hâ-o•lâm′ ha-zeh; "this age/world, world-age")
ìÀòåÉìÈí (lә-o•lâm′), lit. "to the age / world," connotes, and is often specified as, äÈòåÉìÈí äÇáÌÈà (hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′; "the age/world to come")
Another use of this term is in the phrase ìÀòåÉìÈí åÈòÅã (lә-o•lâm′ va-ëd; forever and ever [lit. "to the age/world and until"]).
[Updated: 2008.05.05]The first and seventh days of khag ha-Matz•ot′ are each a special Shab•ât′, on which mәlâkh•âh′ is prohibited.
Fifty days are counted from this waving of the O′mër to Shәvu•ot′, the first six days of which coincide with the 2nd —7th days of khag ha-Matz•ot′.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.03.26] [Updated: 2006.04.27]In addition to the logical fallacy of petitio principii, this offensive assumption also depends upon another logical fallacy: ad ignorantiam (shifting the burden of proof). No responsible scholar denies that Jews recognized the authority of Tor•âh′ from the time of Har Sin•ai′. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon anyone who alleges the polar change of rejecting Tor•âh′. Such proof has never been offered because it never existed.
The Nәtzâr•im′ never changed their mind about it, maintaining that only the Jewish Ta•na"kh′ was Scripture and only their own The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) was a legitimate account of the life and teachings of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a.
Nәtzâr•im′ haven't changed, and won't change.
Thus, for Jews, including the Nәtzâr•im′, OT stands not for "Old Testament" but for "Original Torah." (See also Ta•na"kh′ and NT.)
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2009.05.26]ôÌåÉãÆä (pod•ëh′; he ransoms or redeems; he is ransomer or redeemer of…) found only in Dәvâr•im′ 13.6 and Tәhil•im′ 34.23. See also go•eil′ , often mistranslated as redeem or ransom.
A check of history books and encyclopedias in your local university or public library will confirm that while a number of countries have "administered" this area, no country has attained sovereignty over Israel. Except for the Jews, no country or people has any innate or inherited right to sovereignty. 'Palestinian' claims of sovereignty are a PR bubble empty of any basis. However, the 'Palestinians' claim of occupation is valid. There is an occupation by squatters who moved in after the Romans drove us from our native land. The Holy Land is Arab-occupied Israel!!!
Arabs initially refused to be called "Palestinians," insisting they were an inseparable part of one pan-Arab Nation.
Many readers may be shocked to learn that "Palestinians" in modern parlance at first didn't refer to Arabs at all. "Palestinians" initially described post-Holocaust Jews immigrating to the Holy Land. The Jerusalem Post, a Jewish newspaper, was formerly The Palestinian Post.
Neither is there any connection between local 'Palestinian' Arabs and the ancient Philistines or ancient "Palestine." Modern 'Palestinian' Arabs freely acknowledge they are Arabs. Yet, any reputable encyclopedia will confirm for you that the ancient Philistines weren't Arabs at all. In fact, the ancient Philistines were an Aegean people who existed before Av•râ•hâm′—before the first Arabs and Jews were even born!
Until 135 C.E., the name "Palestine" referred only to a region of Syria and òÇæÌÈä (A•zâh′; —Hellenized to 'Gaza'), not to Israel or Yәhud•âh′. It wasn't until some time after 135 C.E. that Romans renamed Yәhud•âh′ to "Palestine" —in a deliberately misojudaic gesture. 'Palestine' as a name for Yәhud•âh′ or Israel never existed prior to the Roman renaming some time after 135 C.E.! Ever since, only the thoughtless, the ignorant and misojudaics call it 'Palestine.'
[Updated: 2007.01.29]Notice that for the first few centuries—until the 3rd century, documented below—there were only bishops—no "popes"!!!
The Hebrew derives from the verb ôÌÈ÷Çã (pâ•qad′; he supervised, oversaw—i.e., exacted accountability [Ho•shei′a 1.4], held accountable, mustered, monitored or audited). This was understood in the Hellenist community as επισκεπτομαι (episkeptomai; judge critically, examine).
The fem. noun cognate, ôÌ÷ËãÌÈä (pәqud•âh′), an overseeing, supervision, mustering or auditing.
The first 15 pәqid•im′ are listed by the earliest extant Church historian, (EH loc. cit. and "Jerusalem," EJ 9:1405). More documentation and details are found in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)
Thus, there have only been 15 pәqid•im′ in the legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught until our generation—when, for the first time since 135 C.E., a Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′, the 16th, has again been accepted in good standing, restoring the Nәtzâr•im′ to the same legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught!!!
Unlike any of the fakes, Pâ•qid′ Yi•rәmәyâh′u has been an Orthodox Israeli Jew in good standing in an Orthodox synagogue (Moreshet Avot in Ra'anana, Israel) since 1998.
No others claiming to be "Netzarim" are accepted in the legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught. Thus, all others claiming to be "Netzarim" without being recognized by our Beit-Din are fakes and deceivers!
 Hadrian (117-138 C.E.) |
The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius, documents (EH IV.v.3) that in 135 C.E. Hellenist proto-Christians, collaborating with the Hellenist Roman occupiers under Hadrian, forcibly ousted and expelled the 15th Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ from Yәru•shâ•lay′im with the other Jews, displacing him with the first Roman gentile—Christian—bishop: Επισκοπος Μαρκος (Episkopos Markos; Bishop Markos)—thereby usurping the Nәtzâr•im′ paqid with the first gentile Christian "bishop." This marks the true birth of Christianity and the Church.
Until Hegesippus in the 3rd century, there were only bishops—no popes!!! Hegesippus himself documents that he fabricated the Papal Succession: εποιησαμην, (epoieisamein; "I made) the list of the succession…." This is the first aorist indicative middle singular of ποιεω (poieo, "I make" or "I do"). Even this is documented no earlier than the 4th century C.E., by Eusebius (EH IV.xxii.3). See also, inter alia, "Pius I," Smith & Wace, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography," IV.416 and Yi•rәmәyâh′u Bën- Dâ•wid′, Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)). Hegesippus then projected his fabrication of the 3rd century back to "Simon Peter."
Thus, the pope is documented to be false, a usurping displacement-counterfeit Pâ•qid′—the 11th horn of the 4th beast of Dâ•ni•eil′ 7.25—with no connection to Shim•on′ "Keiph′â" Bar-Yon′âh . Everything the papacy has usurped, and all authority the pope falsely claims, depends on Displacement Theology and rightfully remains, and must be returned to, the domain of the Pâ•qid′ ha-Nәtzâr•im′.
Note, too, that the Nәtzâr•im′ succession of Pәqid•im′ is the chain of authority in Yәru•shâ•lay′im (not Rome) that was recognized by Shim•on′ "Keiph′â" Bar-Yon′âh—whom Christians claim was the first pope. (If Shim•on′ "Keiph′â" Bar-Yon′âh had defied the Beit-Din in Yәru•shâ•lay′im, which he didn't, then he would have been excised as an apostate—no longer legitimate—as Paul the Apostate was decades later.)
As Tal•mud′ (Ma•sëk′ët Ho•rây•ot′ 3b) demonstrates from Biblical text, Ha•lâkh•âh′ from the first century and before holds that only in the land of Israel may Jews be legitimately referred to as a Qâ•hâl′. There were no more pәqid•im′, nor any legitimately identifiable group of Nәtzâr•im′ until 1983 when Yi•rәmәyâh′u Bën-Dâ•wid′ was admitted by Orthodox rabbis as a Nәtzâr•im′ into the legitimate Jewish community where he thereby became the first, and only, identifiable Nәtzâr•im′ in the legitimate Jewish community since 135 C.E.
Ha•lâkh•âh′ requires that every community constitute a beit din. While normally comprising three Tor•âh′-observant Jews recognized by Orthodox rabbis (who were called 'Pharisees' in the first century), Ha•lâkh•âh′ permits small communities to constitute a beit din with as few as one Tor•âh′-observant Jew recognized by Orthodox rabbis.
Accordingly, as the only Nәtzâr•im′ in the legitimate Jewish community since 135 C.E., Ha•lâkh•âh′ required Yi•rәmәyâh′u Bën-Dâ•wid′ to restore the Nәtzâr•im′ beit din to operation for the first time since 135 C.E. and shoulder the mantle of Pâ•qid′ that had been vacated by the gentile ouster of Pâ•qid′ Yәhud•âh′ in 135 C.E. Thus, Pâ•qid′ Yi•rәmәyâh′u became the 16th Pâ•qid′ of the Nәtzâr•im′, restoring the Nәtzâr•im′ as an identifiable group within the legitimate (Orthodox) Jewish community as they were in 135 C.E.
See also Dâ•ni•eil′'s prophecies in The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) note 16.19.5; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York: Athen-eum, 1977) p. 93 and Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971), p. 9.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]The pâ•râsh•ot′ Shâ•vu′a (or Si•dәr•ot′) are successive weekly portions of Tor•âh′, with associated Ha•phәtâr•âh′ selections from the Nәviy•im′. Jews all over the world read the same pâ•râsh•âh′ on any given Shab•ât′ in every Beit ha-Kәnës′ët around the world.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.06.14]A Hellenist Turk Jew (from Tarsus, Turkey), Shâ•ul′ was, by his own testimony, raised in the tradition of Beit-Sham•ai′ (Ma•a•vâr′ 26.5), which predominated the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′ until 20 C.E. Jerome alleged, probably to create a fictional proximity to Rib′i Yәho•shu′a, that his family was originally from the Gâ•lil′.
Shâ•ul′ later studied in Yәru•shâ•lay′im under Nâ•si′ Rib′i Ja•mәl•iy•eil′—who taught the less-strict tradition of Beit-Hi•leil′ and, presumably, reoriented Shâ•ul′ to its less-strict interpretations. Apparently rebelling against the strict teachings of his upbringing, Shâ•ul′ found this an intellectually liberating enlightenment, which prepared him for his eventual "vision" that would manifest itself in his extreme swing from the strictness of his upbringing to an obsessive "vision" of Hellenism and assimilation in the tradition of Yәho•shu′a Bën-Shim•on′ (II) Bën-Tzâ•doq′.
Paul's rabid obsession with Hellenism is evidenced:
Circa 36 C.E., "Shâ•ul′" was in Yәru•shâ•lay′im where, as a loyal Hellenist Roman citizen, he had been persecuting the Nәtzâr•im′. As he was leaving Yәru•shâ•lay′im on his return to Damascus, Syria, he was met by a prototype of Justin, who gave him a Hellenist "vision" of "Jesus" that was compatible with his Roman citizenship and inspired anew his Hellenist "enlightenment" (Ma•a•vâr′ 26.12ff). There is good reason to wonder, given the description in Ma•a•vâr′ 26.15ff, which Yәho•shu′a inspired Paul's Hellenism, Rib′i Yәho•shu′a Bën- Dâ•wid′, as claimed by Christians, the more likely rabid Hellenist paradigm, Yәho•shu′a Bën-Shim•on′ (II) Bën-Tzâ•doq′— who was certainly the champion of Hellenism among the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ Ko•han•ei′ hâ-Rësh′a or, even more likely, a hybrid image of the two that formed in Paul's mind and developed into the 4th-century Christian idol.
This prototype of Justin who met with Paul on the road to Damascus was almost certainly the Ko•hein′ hâ-Rësh′a—the same Sâ•tân′ (or his successor) who offered the same deal to Rib′i Yәho•shu′a (The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) 4.8-11). However, whereas Rib′i Yәho•shu′a refused the deal, Paul, offered the same "vision" on the road to Damascus, Syria, accepted it and the rest is history.
Before his "first mission" (to Cyprus) in 45 C.E., Paul's intractable insistence on his Hellenist "vision" eventually resulted in a breach and his kâ•reit′, being expunged from the Yu•khas•in′ (not merely the Nәtzâr•im′), as documented by Eusebius (EH III.xxvii.4), described with typical Judaic elegance in the NT (Ma•a•vâr′ 15.38) as "having been 'delivered over to khën (graciousness) of é--ä by the brothers" (see notes in Appendix IV, Transition 15, Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)).
Until his kâ•reit′, the point noted in Ma•a•vâr′ 13.9 (and described in Ma•a•vâr′ 15.38), he is referred to as Shâ•ul′, while in Ma•a•vâr′ 13.9 he is last called by his Hebrew name, Shâ•ul′, and first called by his Hellenist name, Paul—the apostate never again (except by himself in his own letters) referred to as Shâ•ul′.
Christian beliefs about Paul's "martyrdom" range from execution by Romans for practicing Judaism ("proving" Paul's Christianity was Judaism) to murder by Jews for being a Christian. Both are driven by a need to corroborate Christianity rather than historical fact. It's no accident that Paul, a rabidly Hellenist Jew, was executed, in Rome, between 66-68 C.E. This is precisely the time that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′, with whom Paul was intimately and inextricably tied, declared war on Rome (see Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′). Paul was killed by the Romans at this time because he was a Hellenist Jew, no different in any significant respect from the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ in Yәru•shâ•lay′im who had declared war on them. Paul's execution by the Romans had no more to do with his proto-Christian theology than the Roman killings of other Hellenist Jews, who had no connection to his theology, during this period as tensions mounted toward the destruction of Yәru•shâ•lay′im and the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ ha-Shein•i′ in 70 C.E. Because it was the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ who had attacked the Roman occupiers in Yәru•shâ•lay′im, the Romans focused their retaliation particularly on Hellenist Jews, like Paul; for a short time leaving non-Hellenist Jews outside of Yәhud•âh′ in relative, though fearful, oppressed and short-lived, "peace."
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2006.04.27]The Pәrush•i′ appeared in Judaism in the Maccabean period (B.C.E. 2nd century). These early rabbis were the first to establish local Bât•ei′ ha-Kәnës′ët to encourage local prayer patterned after the liturgy of the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′. One of the reasons that Rib′i Yәho•shu′a incurred such wrath from the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ Ko•han•ei′ hâ-Rësh′a is because Rib′i Yәho•shu′a was becoming so successful in popularizing the practice of praying in Bât•ei′ ha-Kәnës′ët among the masses, which was perceived as a religious, political and financial a threat to the pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ who, along with the Hellenist Romans, controlled the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ ha-Shein•i′.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2010.06.30]Cognates: ôÌåÉùÑÅòÇ (posh•ei′a; a rebellious and felonious transgressor against Tor•âh′), pl. ôÌåÉùÑÀòÄéí (posh•im′).
[Updated: 2008.03.23]Although Matityahu was originally written in Hebrew (cf. The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM), note 1.1.1), the Pәshi•tә•tâ′ is a translation from the Greek, not an originally Aramaic work.
In the original Hebrew, there are several different titles / names for Ël•oh•im′. These are always differentiated in Hebrew and Aramaic when quoting from the Ta•na"kh′ (or the Tar•jum′).
In the Greek, by contrast, these are all expressed by only two terms, corresponding either to θεος or κυριος. Despite Aramaic's richness in paralleling of names and titles, the Pәshi•tә•tâ′ follows the Greek pattern, unlike original Aramaic and Hebrew texts. The richness of the Aramaic has, with certainty, been funneled and filtered through Hellenized limitations of understanding, translating one of the two Greek concepts.
The only reasonable explanation is that the Pәshi•tә•tâ′ was translated from a Greek (or possibly Latin a-3) text. The Pәshi•tә•tâ′, most certainly, does not reflect a pristine Aramaic text. Being a second-generation product of an earlier Greek text, the Pәshi•tә•tâ′ is even less reliable than the earliest Greek mss. This is like the modern Hebrew translation of the NT, which is the product of some Christian organization hiring a modern Israeli to translate the KJ/V into Hebrew.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.05.25] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2009.11.10] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2009.03.20]Ideally: the underside (bottom) of an upside-down cast iron round-bottomed pot or other heavy skillet or griddle at least 30 cm (12") in diameter to make the large size ôÌÄúÌÈä or 20 cm (8") in diameter to make the small-size ôÌÄúÌÈä.
Alternately: pizza stone (i.e., unglazed quarry tile, check that it's non-poisonous type for baking), or
several baking sheets
large bread bowl
rolling pin
1 tsp dry yeast
2½ cups tepid-warm water
2 cups whole wheat flour (or about 4 cups unbleached all-purpose or bread flour)
1 Tbsp salt
1-2 Tbsps olive oil
Sift the yeast over the warm water in the large bread bowl.
Stir to dissolve.
Add whole wheat flour, one cup at a time, then 1 cup white flour.
Stir one minute (about 100 stirs) in the same direction to activate the gluten in the flour.
Let this sponge rest for at least 10 minutes or as long as 2 hours.
Sprinkle salt over the sponge, stir in the olive oil and mix well.
Add white flour, one cup at a time.
When the dough is too stiff to stir, turn it out onto a lightly floured bread board and knead for 8 to 10 minutes, until dough is smooth and elastic. Return the dough to a lightly oiled bread bowl and cover with plastic wrap. Let rise until at least double in size, approximately 1½ hours.
Gently punch down.
Dough can be made ahead to this point and then stored, covered, in the refrigerator for 5 days or less.
(If at this time you want to save the dough in the refrigerator for baking later, simply wrap it in a plastic bag that is at least three times the size of the dough, pull the bag together, and secure it just at the opening of the bag to allow full expansion. This will give the dough a chance to expand when it is in the refrigerator (which it will do). From day to day, simply cut off the amount of dough you need and keep the rest in the refrigerator, for up to one week. The dough will smell slightly fermented after a few days, but this simply improves the taste of the bread.)
Dough should be brought to room temperature before baking.
 200x161.jpg "ôÌÄúÌÈä (courtesy Anders Branderud)")
This amount of dough will make approximately 16 smaller pitas if rolled out into circles approximately 21 cm (8") in diameter and ½ cm (¼") thick. The large 30 cm (12") size should be rolled-out thinner. (The smaller size, which balloons better, is generally sliced halfway through on one side and filled with khum′us and other fillings. The larger size is generally spread with khum′us and wrapped around, or used to pick up, foods and fillings.)
Place baking surface on a rack in the bottom third of your oven, leaving a one inch gap all around to allow air to circulate.
Preheat oven to 235°C (450°F).
Divide dough in half, then set half aside, covered, while you work with the rest.
Divide dough into eight equal pieces and flatten each piece with lightly floured hands. Roll out each piece to a circle about 30 cm (12") in diameter for large size or 20 cm (9") for smaller size. You may wish to roll out all eight before starting to bake. Cover rolled out breads, but do not stack.
Bake 1 at a time (unless you can keep up with their progress and the baking surface is large enough for more) directly on the baking surface until the bread has ballooned-up or until it is starting to turn lightly golden, whichever happens first (1-4 minutes, depending on accuracy of oven heat). Note: If there are seams or dry bits of dough - or for a variety of other reasons - your bread may not go into a full "balloon". Don't worry, it will still taste great. The more you bake pitas the more you will become familiar with all the little tricks and pitfalls, and your breads will more consistently "balloon." But even then, if you're like us, it won't always "balloon" fully (the large size will probably only balloon in spots).
When baked, remove, place on a rack for about five minutes to let cool slightly, then wrap breads in a large kitchen towel (this will keep the breads soft). When first half of the dough has been rolled out and baked, repeat for rest of dough, or store in refrigerator for later use, as described above. You can also divide the dough into more, smaller pieces if you wish, to give you smaller breads for falafel or simply (cut a slit in one side) smear it liberally inside with khum′us (especially spiked with green skhug and, perhaps, a dash of Zaatar), stuff it full of tossed salad, topped with Salat Turki.
The "salami tactic" is a well-known negotiating tactic by which one side extracts a slice at a time until they have taken the entire salami.
The 'Palestinian' Arabs call their salami tactic their "plan of phases," by which they intend to take whatever they can get, applying terrorism whenever convenient, slice by slice, until the "holy Islamic middle east" has been "ethnically cleansed" of Jews. Using human bombs, Arabs turn our streets into a grisly pizza of Jewish blood and body parts. Their 'Salami Tactic' is more accurately a grisly 'Pizza Tactic' for acquiring "all of 'Palestine'" (as they call Israel) a grisly pizza-slice at a time through terrorist warfare.
With a wink to Arab terrorists, the world pervertedly calls blowing up Jews a "peace process." 'Palestinians' get the peace —plus land, money, and employment —while Israel and Jews get a war of terror, a grisly 'Pizza Process', and nearly unanimous condemnation by the UN for resisting this wonderful opportunity to go like sheep to our slaughter like we did in the Holocaust.
Though obviously Hellenized, being in Greek, the papyri fragments represent the earliest sources of tiny parts of the NT and The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM). Despite their antiquity, there is little evidence to suggest that papyri should be regarded as authoritative. Their authorship and usage may signify nothing more than the recall of Greek-speaking Roman (pagan) students of apostate Hellenist Jews. Consequently, one might incline toward à and even β in preference to a given papyrus.
Yet, things aren't so simple. We can see that misojudaism antinomian (anti-Tor•âh′; in concert with misojudaic attitudes) increased with the passage of time among those who exercised control over the mss. Consider graphing time on an x-axis and increasing antinomianism on the y-axis. The earlier we can view this text in terms of time (the x-axis), the lower the point at which we can intercept the antinomian curve on the y-axis. This minimizes the antinomian distortion and misojudaism in the text.
– "…to call the Pseudepigrapha 'non-canonical,' or the biblical books 'canonical,' can be historically inaccurate prior to [100 C.E.] and the period in which most of these documents were written. These terms should be used as an expression of some later 'orthodoxy' about a collection that is well defined regarding what belongs within and what is to be excluded from it. It is potentially misleading to use the terms 'non-canonical,' 'canonical,' 'heresy,' and 'orthodoxy' when describing either Early Judaism or Early Christianity" (Charlesworth, p. xxiv).
However, the above statement is misleading without noting Charlesworth's earlier acknowledgment of the earlier compilation of Ta•na"kh′ (p. xxiii), "it is becoming obvious that the process of canonization began long before the first century [C.E.], and that perhaps the earliest part of the Bible, the [Torah], had been closed and defined as authoritative well before the second century [B.C.E.], and the Prophets surely by that time. On the other hand, it is clear that after [90 C.E.] there were still debates regarding the canonicity of such writings as the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, but it is not clear what were the full ramifications of these debates. It seems to follow, therefore, both that the early Pseudepigrapha were composed during a period in which the limits of the canon apparently remained fluid at least to some Jews [namely, the Hellenists, who can be dismissed], and that some [i.e., Hellenist] Jews and [Hellenist] Christians inherited and passed on these documents as inspired. They did not necessarily regard them as apocryphal, or outside a canon."
The Dead Sea Scrolls are customarily considered a separate class, and excluded, from the Pseudepigrapha or Apocrypha.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]Hypothesized source document supposedly used as the basis for later Christians to compose the Christian "gospels."
More accurately, Q represents the Hellenized oral accounts—stories and myths—of Hellenist (i.e., Greek-speaking) Jews to the Hellenist, gentile, Roman Christians.
Unsurprisingly, the Hellenist product supports Paul's Hellenist Christianity, leaving precious little authentic Judaic content.
It can be seen from the historical record that the Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u, documented by Eusebius, in contrast to Q, would have been a thoroughly Judaic description uncontaminated by Hellenism / Christianity. However, pointing to a few, sparse, Judaic elements in the heavily Hellenist-redacted "gospels" as "Q" ignores the many Hellenizing redactions that, when restored to their Judaic original, produces a far fuller and richer account. This can be achieved only by threading back from the NT Greek, matching it to LXX Greek to restore a Tor•âh′-faithful Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u—exactly what The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Matityâhu, alone, has achieved.
[Updated: 2009.01.20] øîá"í (Ramb"m); statue in Córdoba, Spain. |
Thus, the medieval esoteric mysticism defined in the 12th century and since as—what is today called—"Qabâlâh" was introduced during the lifetime of Ramb"m, who was born in 1135 C.E. in Córdoba, Spain.
Ramb"m vehemently opposed Jews straying into the medieval magic practices and superstitions that we observe in Qabâlâh: amulets, incantations disguised as magic "blessings" and other supposed supernatural powers that rival the Christian charismatic and Pentecostal "gifts." Ramb"m explicitly opposed the irrationalism of Qabâlâh, championing, instead, rational—logical—thought and interpretation of Halâkhâh.
According to the foremost, widely-recognized, modern Jewish historian and scholar on Qabâlâh, Gershom Scholem, the Zohar is a work of the dark ages of the superstitious medieval world, written in the last quarter of the 13th century in Castile, Spain (The Messianic Idea in Judaism, New York: Schocken, 1971, p. 39).
"The most famous work of Qabâlâh, the Zohar. was revealed to the Jewish world in the thirteenth century by Moses De Leon, who claimed that the book contained the mystical writings of the second-century rabbi [Shimon bar Yokhai]. Almost all modern Jewish academic scholars believe that De Leon himself authored the Zohar" (Jewish Virtual Library).
The Zohar is written exclusively in medieval Aramaic and medieval Hebrew. There is no reference to the Zohar or its main tenets anywhere in Jewish literature prior to Moses De Leon. Neither Moses De Leon nor any other has ever produced any supporting evidence of the claimed authorship of Shimon bar Yokhai. The claim is self-evidently baseless and, therefore, false and, as Ramb"m correctly held, an apostasy from Tor•âh′.
While there is an ancient spiritual tradition, it is necessarily logical—reflecting the inerrant Logic of the Creator, reflected, in turn, in His inerrantly logical universe. Therefore, while authentic spiritual tradition is intrinsically symbolic and eschatological, it cannot be the mystical and esoteric tradition adapted from medieval goy•im′.
As the term Qa•bâl•âh′ is used today, however, it refers NOT to the authentic ancient spiritual tradition of Tor•âh′ but, rather, to the post-medieval, Zo•har′-based apostasy of adapting and adopting (assimilating) the magic, wizardry and superstition (prohibited by Tor•âh′) of Middle Ages Goy•im′ that infused 12th century Judaism and was condemned by no less than Ram′ba"m.
Rational spiritual Tor•âh′ tradition predating the 12th century was recorded by Tei•mân•i′ Sage Yi•tzәkhâq′ A•bu•hâv′ in his work Mәnor•at′ ha-Ma•or′, which traces back through Judaism's most pristine—Tei•mân•i′—oral tradition not only to Shimon bar Yokhai but back to Yi•rәmәyâh′u ha-Nâ•vi′ (see the Tei•mân•i′ page of our History Museum); and was quoted by Moses De Leon in his Zo•har′!!!
[Updated: 2006.04.27]Conventionally anglicized (Hellenized) to "Kaddish." Contrary to more than a few ignorant Jews, the Qa•dish′ is NOT, nor has it ever been, a prayer for the dead!
Like most Judaic Tәphil•ot′, the Qa•dish′ received its name due to its opening phrase:
éÄúÀâÌÇãÌÇì åÀéÄúÀ÷ÇãÌÇùÑ ùÑÀîÅéäÌ øÇáÌÈà (yit•ga•dal′ wә-yitqa•dash′ shәm•ei′ rab•â′; may be magnified and may be sanctified His Great Name).
There are four versions of this tәphil•âh′: Complete Qa•dish′, Half Qa•dish′, Scholar's Qa•dish′ and Mourner's Qa•dish′. The overriding purpose of each is to sanctify the Great Name. The mourners' version (Mourner's Qa•dish′) sanctifies the Great Name even in the face of great sorrow and mourning. It contains not even a remote hint of any prayer for the dead.
[Updated: 2008.06.13]äÇ÷ÌÈãåÉùÑ (ha-Qâ•dosh′; the Holy), i.e., é--ä and is invariably followed by the phrase áÌÈøåÌê äåÌà (bâ•rukh′ hu; blessed be He).
[Updated: 2007.03.08] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.05.29]Hellenized to εκκλησια (ekkleisia; congress, corrupted to "church").
[Updated: 2008.08.20] [Updated: 2007.09.14] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.09.15]'÷ÄãÌåÌùÑ ä (Qi•dush′ha-Sheim; consecration, sanctification or making holy of the Name) complemented by lә-hav•dil′, khi•lul′ ha-Sheim, form counter-balancing pillars, sanctification versus diminution of the kâ•vod′ of ha-Sheim, constituting one of the most significant concepts in Tor•âh′, based on wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 22.31-32.
Two orientations or perspectives apply to these counter-balancing pillars: ha-Sheim-originating (seeing ha-Sheim as the Sanctifier of His Name; e.g. Yәkhëz•qeil′ 20, 36, 39) and man-originating (seeing man as sanctifying—or failing to sanctify (including giving proper credit to)—the Name; e.g., bә-Mi•dәbar′ 20.12; Dәvâr•im′ 32.51; wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 22.32; Yi•rәmәyâh′u 34.16; •mos′ 2.7).
According to rabbinic interpretation, Qi•dush′ha-Sheim could be consummated in three ways: martyrdom, exemplary ethical and moral conduct and tәphil•ot′.
Two formal tәphil•ot′ of the si•dur′ stand out in this respect: the Qәdush•âh′ and the Qa•dish′. The Qәdush•âh′ is based on Yәsha•yâh′u 6.1-3. The more esoteric recitation, preceding the Shәm•a′, refers to the sanctification of é--ä by the mәlâkh•im′, while the recitation in the A•mid•âh′ is a live recitation by Yi•sәr•â•eil′ sanctifying ha-Sheim.
See also khi•lul′ ha-Sheim.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.09.29]Though pop. "approach," the nouns ÷ÆøÆá (qër′ëv; innards, see pâ•râsh•at′ Tzav, 7.3) and ÷ÀøÇá (qәrav; hostile convergence, i.e., hand-to-hand combat) demonstrate that mere approach doesn't fully relate ÷ÈøÇá, which implies approach culminating in convergence. The cognate ÷ÈøáÌÈï, then, implied the necessary provisions for expiation producing a (re-)convergence with é--ä—i.e., rapprochement.
Just as it is the custom to bring a house-warming gift (bottle of wine or the like) when invited to someone's home for a dinner or evening, so the ÷ÈøáÌÈï parallels the custom of bringing such a gift when obtaining an audience with a King.
Another term deriving from ÷ÈøÇá is ÷ÄéøåÌá (qi•ruv′; outreach).
 |
|
|
 980x1427.jpg){kind=link}