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] [Updated: 2006.04.27]The etymology of these words, including in the Greek LXX, suggests ("Urim and Thummim," Ency. Jud., 16.8) that àåÌøÄéí may have derived not from àåÉø (or; light), but from àÈøÇø (â•rar′; to curse). Thus, the two gems would have represented a Boolean solution: cursed or wholeness. For purposes of illustration only, two disputants could be blindfolded and take a gem from a box. According to their selection, one of the disputants would be declared right (tom) and the other wrong (â•rar′) with the need to make tәshuv•âh′.
Similarly, if a matter not involving disputants required a Boolean decision, the Ko•hein′ ha-Jâ•dol′ might have reached into his Ei•phod′, mixed up the gems that he couldn't see inside the Ei•phod′, and then pulled one gemstone from the Ei•phod′, again producing a decision.
β* Using the conventions of the apparatus of the Novum Testamentum Graeca, the asterisk refers to the original Hellenist Greek scribe of a document (in this example, of the Codex Vaticanus). β1 refers to the first redactor's handwriting, β2 to the second redactor's handwriting, etc. as they redacted the Greek ms.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]ñËìÌÈí éÇòÂ÷Éá Su•lam′ Ya•a•qov′) is the "Ladder (or scale) of Ya•a•qov′," Hellenized to "Jacob's Ladder."
1st century C.E. — Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ ha-Tza•diq′ Bën-Dâ•wid′ (Hellenized to "James the Just"): brother of Rib′iYәho•shu′a and first Nәtzâr•im′Pâ•qid′.
The amicability between the Nәtzâr•im′ and Pәrush•im′ subsequent to the Hellenist execution of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a (by the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ and Romans) was demonstrated ca. 62 C.E. by the condemnation, prosecuted by the Pәrush•im′, before the Roman procurator, Albinus (and the subsequent removal by King Agrippa) of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ Ko•hein′ ha-Jâ•dol′ (Ko•hein′ hâ-Rësh′a), Ananus, from the office of Ko•hein′ ha-Jâ•dol′ for his murder of Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ ha-Tza•diq′ (Josephus Ant. xx.ix.1).
[Updated: 2007.10.15] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]"The term Judaism is first found among the Greek-speaking Jews [i.e. Hellenists, particularly the pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′] of the first century… Its Hebrew equivalent, Yahadut, found only occasionally in medieval literature…, but used frequently in modern times, has parallels neither in the Bible… nor in the rabbinic literature… The term generally used in the classical sources for the whole body of Jewish teaching is Torah…" ("Judaism," Ency. Jud., 10.383).
Tor•âh′(Shәm•ot′ 18.20) uses the term äÇãÌÆøÆêÀ (ha-Dër′ëkh; the Way)—äÇãÌÆøÆêÀ éÅìÀëåÌ áÈäÌ (ha-Dër′ëkh yei•lәkh•u′ bah; the Way you [plural] are to go in). See also Ency. Jud. "Halakhah," 7.1156.)
Ha•lâkh•âh′, by contrast, didn't come to represent the whole corpus of "Judaism" until after the destruction of 70 C.E. ("Halakhah," loc. cit.). Prior to that, Ha•lâkh•âh′ represented only one (the Pәrush•im′) of the three interpretations of Tor•âh′ she-bә•al′ peh. The Pәrush•im′ interpretation of Tor•âh′ she-bә•al′ peh was rivaled by both Ma•as•ëh′, the Qum•rân′ Tzәdoq•im′ interpretation of Tor•âh′ shë-bә•al′ pëh, and the 'Book of Decrees,' which codified the pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ interpretation of Tor•âh′ shë-bә•al′ pëh.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]òÅîÆ÷ äÇéÇøÀãÌÅï —Ei′mëq ha-Yar•dein′; Jordan Plateau (popularly "Jordan Valley").
[Updated: 2006.04.27]Written at a blue-collar level of Hebrew from a centrist perspective, Yәdi•ot′ A•khar•on•ot′ (circulation 250,000) is Israel's largest and most popular independent Hebrew newspaper; almost doubling the circulation of its nearest rival and quadrupling the circulation of Israel's #3 Hebrew newspaper.
Yәdi•ot′ A•khar•on•ot′ has an English on-line site where you can—and I implore you to—post your views, at: www.ynetnews.com
[Updated: 2008.06.25]The book in Ta•na"kh′ is named after Yәho•shu′a Bën-Nun (Hellenized to 'Joshua').
'Historical Yәho•shu′a' generally refers, by contrast, to the 1st-century human Jew, a Pәrush•i′ Rib′i, named Yәho•shu′a Bën-Yo•seiph′ Bën-Dâ•wid′ of Nâ•tzәr•at′. Notice that even the name explicitly identifies Y--H, not Yәho•shu′a, as salvation! See Shәm•ot′ 15.2; Yәsha•yâh′u 12.1-4; 25.9; Yon•âh′ 2.10; Tәhil•im′ 3.9; 13.6; 14.7; 18.51; 21.6; 28.8; 53.7; 62.1-2, 7; 67.1-3; 68.20-21; 70.5-6; 74.12). His Mâ•shi′akh is His agent, not the reverse; not the Provider of expiation. By means of the Mâ•shi′akh—His Mâ•shi′akh Bën-Yo•seiph′ Bën- Dâ•wid′ (Tәhil•im′ 89:20-53)—é--ä provides expiation. Mâ•shi′akh is merely His instrument, symbol or illustration; as were the animal sacrifices.
éÀùÑåÌòÈä (Yәshu•âh′; salvation) is a fem. noun.
See also Tәhil•im′ 116.13; 18.51; 20.6; 28.8; 89.27-28; 118.19-22.
The Judaic meaning of éÀùÑåÌòÈä relates to two associated synonyms:
See also the Biblical concepts of ëÌÄôÌåÌø (ki•pur′) and äÈòåÉìÈí äÇáÌÈà (hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′).
Syncretizing selected elements of the Judaic concept of a Mâ•shi′akh with their native pagan mythology, Roman gentiles de-Judaized (Hellenized) 'historical Yәho•shu′a' to a mythical and counterfeit, antinomian, antithetical man-G-o-d idol: Ιησους—Iæsous, later anglicized to Jesus (cf. Who Are the Nәtzâr•im′? (WAN) and The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM)). These two are mutually exclusive, diametric opposites. To believe in one is to reject the other.
[Updated: 2010.07.13]Adjectives: éÀäåÌãÄé (Yәhud•i′; Jewish male), kbd>éÀäåÌãÄéú (Yәhud•it′; Jewish female) and pl. éÀäåÌãÄéí (Yәhud•im′).
Yәhud•âh′ is the single Hebrew term that originally referred both to one of the 12 Tribes of Yi•sәr•â•eil′ and, later, evolved to refer to all three Hellenized corruptions: Judah, Judea and Jew. The "Jew" cannot be extricated from "Judea" any more than Yәhud•âh′ can be extricated from Yәhud•âh′. They are inextricably defined together, and either without the other is incomplete and less than whole.
éÀäåÌãÈä derives from the root éÈãÈä, usually expressed in the hiph•il′: äåÉãÈä (cf. bә-Reish•it′ 29.35— àåÉãÆä). The pres. m.s. is îåÉãÆä. The interjection, úÌåÉãÈä, derives from this same root.
The connotation of confess(ion) is emphasized in the cognate hit•pa•eil′: verb äÄúÀåÇãÌÈä and noun åÄãÌåÌé.
The Yәhud•i(t)′, then, is one who, by definition, confesses thanks—through reciting bәrâkh•ot′!
[Updated: 2007.09.05]Yi•rәmәyâh′u prophesies that Kân•yâh′u would die childless and "none of his descendants will ever succeed in being a man who sits on the throne of Dâ•wid′, and ever to rule over Yәhud•âh′" (22.28-30).
Based on bә-Mid•bar′ 1.18, patrilineal descent determines tribal identity, including royal lineage. Thus, only Rib′i Yәho•shu′a's patrilineal genealogy, which shows his descent (The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) 1) from Dâ•wid′ ha-Mël′ëkh through Shәlom•oh′ ha-Mël′ëkh (Shәmu•eil′ Beit 7.12-16), is relevant to this prophecy (Di•vәr•ei′ ha-Yâm•im′ Âl′ëph 3.11-12, 15-17; 17.11-14; 22.9-10; 28.6-7; Tәhil•im′ 89.20-38). However, the prophecy that Kân•yâh′u would be childless (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 22.30) implies that he would have no (Jewish) son—which, according to Ha•lâkh•âh′ applies matrilineally. However, Rib′i Yәho•shu′a's matrilineal lineage (The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) 1) isn't through Kân•yâh′u!
Further, Jewish hate-mongers (many of whom call themselves "anti-missionaries") pervert Scripture and Tal•mud′ by telling only the half of the story they want you to hear.
"Fearing, however, that since the Mël′ëkh was childless, Beit-Dâ•wid′ would thus cease, the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′ succeeded in obtaining permission for his wife to live with him. Kân•yâh′u kept the laws of marital purity during this time, and as a reward was forgiven his sins (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 3.22; wa-Yi•qәr•â′ Rab•âh′ 19:6—compare to Yon•âh′'s prophecy to Ninevah that was forgiven). Even the decree the none of his seed would ascend the throne (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 22.30) was repealed when Zәru-Bâ•vël′ Bën-Shә•al•tiy•eil′ was appointed leader of the returned exiles (cf. Ma•sëk′ët Sanhedrin 37b-38a). The exile of Tzi•dәq•i•yâh′u while Kân•yâh′u was still alive as a merciful act, since Kân•yâh′u could thus teach Tor•âh′ to Tzi•dәq•i•yâh′u (Ma•sëk′ët Git•in′ 88a; "Jehoiachin," EJ 9.1318-19).
"R. Yo•khâ•nân′ said: Exile allows ki•pur′ for everything, for it is written, Thus saith ha-Sheim, write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of Dâ•wid′ and ruling any more in Yәhud•âh′. (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 22.30). Whereas after he [the Mël′ëkh] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of éÀëÈðÀéÈä: àÇñÌÄø, ùÑÀàÇìÀúÌÄéàÅì his son, etc. (Di•vәr•ei′ ha-Yâm•im′ Âl′ëph 3.17). [He was called] àÇñÌÄø because his mother conceived him in prison. ùÑÀàÇìÀúÌÄéàÅì, because Eil did not plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position. [yet she did conceive standing. Another interpretation: ùÑÀàÇìÀúÌÄéàÅì, because Eil obtained [of the Heavenly Beit-Din] absolution from His oath. æÀøËáÌÈáÆì [was so called] because he was sown in Bâvël′. But [his real name was] Nәkhëm•yâh′ Bën-Kha•khal•yâh′." (Ma•sëk′ët Sunedrion 37b-38a, Soncino Tal•mud′).
"… they made the calf-mask and deserved to be exterminated, and I would have thought that He would curse and destroy them, yet, no sooner had they made tәshuv•âh′, than the danger was averted, And ha-Sheim relented of the bad [sworn sentence, lacking tәshuv•âh′ being understood] (Shәm•ot′ 32.14). And so in many places. For example, He said about éÀëÈðÀéÈä: For no man of his seed shall prosper (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 32.30) and it says, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations… In that day, says ha-Sheim Tzәvâ•ot, will I take thee, O æÀøËáÌÈáÆì, My servant, the son of ùÑÀàÇìÀúÌÄéàÅì, saith ha-Sheim, and will make thee as a çåÉúÈí (Khaj•ai′ 2.22 f.). Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, says ha-Sheim, though ëÌÈðÀéÈäåÌ Bën-Yә•ho•yâq•im′, Mël′ëkh Yәhud•âh′, were the çåÉúÈí upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 22.24)." bә-Mid•bar′ Rab•âh′ 20:20, Soncino Mi•dәrâsh′ Rab•âh′)..
"R. Yәho•shu′a Bën-Lei•wi′, however, argued as follows: tәshuv•âh′ sets aside the entire decree, and prayer half the decree. You find that it was so with éÀëÈðÀéÈä, Mël′ëkh Yәhud•âh′. For ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, swore in His anger, As I live, saith ha-Sheim, though ëÌÈðÀéÈäåÌ Bën-Yә•ho•yâq•im′, Mël′ëkh Yәhud•âh′, were the çåÉúÈí on a hand, yet by My right—note, as R. Mei•ir′ said, that is was by His right hand that Ël•oh•im′ swore—I would pluck thee hence (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 22:24). And what was decreed against éÀëÈðÀéÈä? That he die childless. As is said Write ye this man childless (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 22:40). But as soon as he avowed tәshuv•âh′, ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, set aside the decree, as is shown by Scripture's reference to the sons of éÀëÈðÀéÈä—the same is àÇñÌÄø—ùÑÀàÇìÀúÌÄéàÅì his son, etc. (Di•vәr•ei′ ha-Yâm•im′ Âl′ëph 3:17). And Scripture says further: In that day … will I take thee, O æÀøËáÌÈáÆì… the son of ùÑÀàÇìÀúÌÄéàÅì… and will make thee as a çåÉúÈí (Khaj•ai′ 2:23). Behold, then, how tәshuv•âh′ can set aside the entire decree!" (Pәsiq•tâ′ Rab•ât•i′, Pi•sәqâ′ 47, translated by William G. Braude, Yale University Press, pg. 797-798).
"… though ëÌÈðÀéÈäåÌ Bën-Yә•ho•yâq•im′, Mël′ëkh Yәhud•âh′, were the çåÉúÈí on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off" (Yi•rәmәyâh′u 22:24).
"… O æÀøËáÌÈáÆì, my servant, and will make thee as a çåÉúÈí: for I have chosen thee, says ha-Sheim Tzәvâ•ot." (Haggai 2:23).
"Moreover, since this is the only surviving scientifically and archaeologically credible documentation of the Yu•khas•in′ of Beit-Dâ•wid′, if this sole documentation were rejected there could be no Mâ•shi′akh at all—ever" (Yәkhanyâh, The Nәtzâr•im′ Newsletter, 1996.05. pp. 16-17).
Additionally, if the curse remained in force, there could be no Mâ•shi′akh at all—ever.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2007.12.13] [Updated: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2006.04.27]Excerpted from "Jerusalem," Ency. Jud. (9.1379)—The first mention of the city of Yәru•shâ•lay′im is in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the 19th-18th centuries B.C.E… probably pronounced 'rushalimum.' In the Tell el-Amarna letters of the 14th century B.C.E., it is written Urusalim, and in Assyrian Ursalimmu (Sennacherib inscription). In the Bible it is occasionally spelled éÀøåÌùÑÀìÆí (Yәru•shәlëm′)…
The city of Salem (bә-Reish•it′ 14.18; Tәhil•im′ 76.3) is evidently Yәru•shâ•lay′im. The Greek Ιερουσαλημ (Ierousaleim) reflects the ιερος (ieros; 'consecrated,' and 'sacred' quality) of the city. (Contrary to Ency. Jud., the Greek word for holy is αγιος, agios, not ιερος, Ieros.)
It seems that the original name of the city Irusalem, and the meaning of the two words composing it is éÈøÈä (yâr•âh′; to cast, throw, found) and the name of the West Semitic god, Shulmanu, or "Shalim." The god may have been considered the patron of the city, which had contained a sanctuary in its honor. The popular later Midrashic explanation of the name of Yәru•shâ•lay′im as 'foundation of peace' (ùÑÈìåÉí; Shâ•lom′; peace) is associated with the poetic appellations given to the city.
The name éÀáåÌñ (Yәvus), by which the city was known by the éÀáåÌñÄéí (Yәvus•im′; Hellenized to "Jebusites") at the time of the conquest of Kәna•an, continued until the conquest of the city by Dâ•wid′ ha-Mël′ëkh.
The name öÄéÌåÉï (Tzi•yon′) is probably a metonym meaning "noteworthy." (The phrase "stronghold of Tzi•yon′," rather than implying that Tzi•yon′ was a stronghold within the city implies the opposite, that the city, Tzi•yon′, was the stronghold.)
The Romans destroyed Yәru•shâ•lay′im in 70 C.E. Numismatic evidence proves that by 130 C.E. (two years before the outbreak of the Bar-Kokh′vâ Revolt), the Romans had built their pagan-occupied city of Aelia Capitolina overtop and amongst the ruins of Yәru•shâ•lay′im. Upon crushing the revolt in 135 C.E., they renamed Yәhud•âh′ ('Judea') to 'Palestine' for the first time. Before 130 CE, 'Palestine' is only found twice: referring in one instance to a Mycenaean (Pilos) Greek-colonized part of Syria-Lebanon and the other to a Mycenaean (Pilos) Greek-colonized area now known as the Gaza Strip.) Until as recently as the 20th century, the Arabs still called it "Aelia," not any kind of holy city. They now refer to this Arab-occupied city as 'Al Quds.'.
Yәru•shâ•lay′im shel Malah (Yәru•shâ•lay′im of Above), i.e., in the heavens, the Realm of the heavens. Existing in the ethereal realm of satellites and radio waves and pinpointed directly above earthly Yәru•shâ•lay′im, the phrase is apt. The "Third Temple" described by Yәkhëz•qeil′ wouldn't fit in the entire country of Israel, much less in the confines of the physical and earthly city of Yәru•shâ•lay′im. It's therefore obvious that Yәkhëz•qeil′ located his "Third Temple" in Yәru•shâ•lay′im shel Malah.
[Updated: 2007.10.04]1QIsa designates the Qumran "Isaiah Scroll," which has been carbon-14 dated several times indicating a range between ca. B.C.E. 335-324 to B.C.E. 202-107.
Scholarly consensus holds that the book of Yәsha•yâh′u was written by two different Jews: Yәsha•yâh′u-1 (ca. B.C.E. 720, chapters 1-39) and Yәsha•yâh′u-2 (popularly "Deutero-Isaiah," ca. BCE 540, chapters 40-66).
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.09.07]The English name "Jesus" does not derive from the Hebrew; see "Iæsous."
[Updated: 2007.06.26]The hiph•il′ verb form äåÉùÑÄéòÇ (ho•shi′a; he saved or delivered [collectively, e.g. the nation of Israel]!) conveys the same connotation: "Save Israel, the nation, from a disaster!" This form is appended by the plea ðàÈ (nâ; prithee) to form the Suk•ot′ theme äåÉùÑÇòðÈà (ho•shan•nâ′; Save [Israel], prithee!).
The Hebrew term from which the Christian concept of "salvation" derives, by contrast, is yәshu•âh′ (the masc. form of which is yә•shu′a). Though the doctrine of 'personal salvation' (as contrasted with personal ki•pur′) didn't exist in Judaism, it is documented in paganism from Babylonian times (see Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), tracing through Marduk to Bel to Baal to Zeus to Iæsous = Jesus.
While yәshu•âh′ is used of victorious Israel, militarily—including as represented by her king and by her Mâ•shi′akh, this term is never used of the Christian concept of 'personal salvation' nor for gentiles external to Israel (Jews & geir•im′), which constitutes Displacement Theology EXACTLY opposite the concept of yәshu•âh′!
Like Jesus and Christianity, the doctrine of a deity of "personal salvation"—particularly a man-god offspring of a god mating with a human woman—all traces back to worship of Zeus and earlier paganism. There was no precedent for it in Judaism. This parallels the anomalous derivation of the name of Jesus, probably morphing Iosou with Zeus and Isis to form Iæsous, and the "Face of Christ" being documented as that of the Great Idol of Zeus (see Who Are the Nәtzâr•im′?), the pagan doctrine of a god of personal salvation is mutually corroborating with the chart graphic in our Museum section "2nd-4th Centuries C.E.: Two Simultaneous [i.e., mutually exclusive] Communities").
Ki•pur′, enabling life in hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′ (the world to come) is a different concept altogether.
[Updated: 2010.07.15] [Updated: 2007.07.01]The Yәtzi•yâh′ took place on Firstmonth 15th, ca. B.C.E. 1467 (Chronology of the Tan"kh from the 'Big Bang').
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2010.05.24] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]Assumed to be of the tribe of Yo•seiph′, and probably influenced by—or redirected to—the experience of Bar-Kokh′vâ, Tal•mud′ describes a Mâ•shi′akh Bën-Yo•seiph′ who, according to tradition, was to suffer death at the hands of the Goy•im′.
Until perverted in the 17th century C.E. by the false Mâ•shi′akh, Sha•bәt•ai′, the Mâ•shi′akh Bën-Yo•seiph′ was understood to be the suffering servant of Yәsha•yâh′u 53 (see Messianic Issues).
The record from the Yu•khas•in′ in NHM 16.1, corroborated by Mi•lәkhâm•ot′ ha-Sheim, Sei′phër Ni•tzakh•on′ Yâ•shân′ #154, and the Ë′vën Bo•khan′ documents that Rib′i Yәho•shu′a was the son of Yo•seiph′ Bën-Dâ•wid′, i.e. (Rib′i Yәho•shu′a Bën-Yo•seiph′ Bën-Dâ•wid′ (cf. NHM note 1.16.1 & table preceding note 1.13.2.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.10.20]When one entered the Bәrit Tor•âh′, he or she was entered in this genealogical Scroll—or tree—the "Tree of Life"!!! Conversely, if one was excised from the Bәrit Tor•âh′, he or she was expunged from this genealogical scroll or tree—the "Tree of Life"!!!
Since no later than the giving of the Tor•âh′ to Mosh′ëh on Har Sin•ai′, when names are recorded by the Beit-Din in the Orthodox Jewish community they are archived in the heavenly archive. Rib′i Yәho•shu′a confirmed this in The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 18.19f (for documentation and details see the corresponding notes): "I tell you, whatever you shall make â•sur′ in [the Beit-Din of the Nәtzâr•im′] on hâ-Âr′ëtz shall be made â•sur′ in the Beit-Din Above…"
Though the earthly scrolls were destroyed by the Romans and other oppressors—with the notable exception of both the patriarchal and matriarchal genealogies of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a—the names remain recorded in the Yu•khas•in′ in the heavenly archive, the Scroll of Life.
"A family once mixed up remains so" (Qidush•in′ 70b, quoted in EJ 7.383).
"Herod, who also had to face a challenge to the legitimacy of his rule, forged for himself a pedigree going back to Dâ•wid′, after first destroying the genealogical records maintained in the Temple (according to third-century Christian historian Africanus)" ("Genealogy," EJ 7.381).
"It was not without reason that, as Hegesippus informs us, the Roman emperors Vespasian, Domitian and Trajan ordered the hunting out and execution of all who claimed Davidic descent" (Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1937, 1952,, vol. II, p. 121).
"According to Hegesippus, Vespasian, Domitian and Trajan hunted down all Jews of Davidic descent and executed them in order to extirpate the royal line on which Jews had set their hopes" (Eusebius EH iii.12 (Vespasian; ibid., iii.19-20 (Domitian; ibid., iii.32, 3-4 (Trajan); all derived from Hegesippus)." (Emil Schürer, The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (B.C.E. 175—135 C.E.), vol. I, edit. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black & Pamela Vermes, Edinburgh: 1973, T. & T. Clark, p. 528)
See also Eusebius EH III.xii.19-20, 32; xxxii.1-6.
With the exception of the paternal and maternal genealogies listed for Rib′i Yәho•shu′a in NHM (ch. 1—dating back to the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′), the genealogies of Beit-Dâ•wid′ were destroyed by Herod and the Romans.
A [Ko•hein′] must himself be of proven pedigree to serve in the [Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′] (Mid•ot′ 5.4; Qi•dush•in′ 4.5). Those currently designated "[Ko•han•im′]" are "presumed [Ko•han•im′]," inasmuch as there is no legally sufficient proof testifying to their descent from ancient [Ko•han•im′] families (see Maimonides Yad. A•sur•ei′ Bi•âh′ 20.1-2; Mâ•gein′ Av•râ•hâm′ to OH 457.2)" ("Priests and Priesthood," EJ 13.1088).
This glosses over Nәkhëm•yâh′ 7.63-65, which declares Ko•han•im′ lacking official Yu•khas•in′ to be Kha•lâl•im′ (profaned Ko•han•im′), whom Tal•mud′ places on the same level as geir•im′ (Mish•nâh′ Qi•dush•in′ 69a-b)!!!
The genealogies of the Ko•han•im′ seem to have been destroyed by the Ko•han•ei′ hâ-Rësh′a, to eliminate their rivals, during the Hellenization of the priesthood, long before Herod and the Romans destroyed the genealogies of Beit-Dâ•wid′.
[Updated: 2007.10.15] [Updated: 2006.04.27]The zәqein•im′ were the patriarchal governing body (tribal chiefs) complementing the Sho•phәt•im′. Only peripherally involved in litigation in the Bât•ei′-Din, the primary function of the zәqein•im′ was in the area of family and patriarchal interests at a particular level or capacity (municipal, district, Ko•han•im′, and tribal). The zәqein•im′ were primarily involved with five laws: (1) blood redemption, (2) expiation of murder by an unknown perpetrator, (3) a rebellious son, (4) defamation of a virgin, and (5) a levirate. ("Elder," EJ, 6:578).
Zâ•qein′ corresponds, via LXX, to the Hellenist concept of πρεσβυτερος (presbuteros; elders). See also The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) 15.2.3.
[Updated: 2008.05.14]Compare with âåÉéÄí (goy•im′), contrast with ðÈëøÄé (nâ•khәr•i′; foreigner) and see a•vod•âh′ zâr•âh′ (idolatry).
[Updated: 2006.09.10] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2007.03.16] [Updated: 2008.05.05]The Zo•har′ is the core basis and authority for Qabâl•âh′. According to the foremost, widely-recognized, modern Jewish historian and scholar on Qabâl•âh′, Gershom Scholem, the Zo•har′ is a work of the superstitious, medieval world of the Dark Ages, written in the last quarter of the 13th century in Castile, Spain (The Messianic Idea in Judaism, New York: Schocken, 1971, p. 39).
"Sefer ha-Zohar, a collection of Kabbalistic writing from the late 13th and early 14th became, especially since the 16th century, the central text of Kabbalah, and one of the most authoritative and venerated text of Judaism, alongside the Old Testament and the Talmud." (Dr. Boaz Huss, Senior Lecturer, Bën-Gurion Univ. of the Negev, Interpretation and Power: The Emergence of Zohar Hermeneutics in the 16th century; ).
"Since the early 14th century, the Zohar was attributed to [Rabbi Shim•on′ Bar-Yo•khai′]. Yet, through the ages, and especially since the age of enlightenment, doubts were cast on the antiquity (as well as the literary integrity) of the Zohar, a stance accepted by Modern Kabbalah scholarship.
"Although the exact authorship of the Zoharic literature is unknown, it is evident that most of this literature was created in Castile in the late 13th and early 14th century." (Huss).
"Date of Composition Calculations of the time of redemption, which are to be found in several sections of the Zo•har′, confirm the conclusions concerning the time of its composition. These calculations give an assurance, in various forms, and be means of different interpretations and conjectures, that the redemeption will commence in the year 1300… According to the Zo•har′, 1,200 years had passed since the destruction of the Temple—a century for each of the tribes of Israel… The basic date is always 1268" (Zohar, Ency. Jud., 16.1208).
"The Author. … the book was published by part, not all at once, by the Spanish kabbalist Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon, who died in 1305… it is impossible to uncover any section that was written before 1270…" (EJ, 1209).
The Zo•har′ and Qabâl•âh′ were rejected by the original Ba•lad•i′ Tei•mân•im′ as well as Ram′ba"m and other rationalist Sages, who regarded it as a work by and for the superstitious who preferred medieval mysticism to dealing with the real (rational) world. In other words, such superstition is for those who bury their intellectual faculties in a world of their own imagination, like an Ostrich, rather than those who live Tor•âh′ of the real Creator in His real world. The Zo•har′ differs from children's fairy tales only in complexity – and it is that very complexity that deludes and deceives the gullible, the ignorant and the superstitious.
While the Zo•har′ is quoted in the al-Nakawa (d. 1391, Spain) version of Mәnor•at′ ha-Mâ•or′ (who called the Zo•har′ "Mi•dәrâsh′ Të•hi′ Or"), the Zo•har′ is not cited at all in the Tei•mân•i′ Mәnor•at′ ha-Mâ•or′ by Yi•tzәkhâq′ A•bu•hâv′.
By its very nature as mysticism, Qabâl•âh′ depends upon a messianic figure – he (and/or his "true followers") being the "only" ones who "properly and correctly" understand and can, therefore, explain the mystical world. Historically, this has led to false messiahs, the most famous being Jesus and Shabәt•ai′ Tzәvi (pop. "Zevi").
 |
|
|