Parashat Miketz פרשת מקץ

I finished reading the parasha for this week, and felt compelled to write a short entry about it. This parasha, "miketz", is probably one of my most favorite portions to read. Every year when I read it strikes more for its simplicity, yet complexity in regard to the several story lines, such as Yosef's relationship with his brothers. I'm affected every time I read about Yosef crying, and I myself want to cry for the overwhelming emotions involved. As I read the parasha, I am hooked as if reading a modern thriller, wanting to read more and more, as if I have not read it dozens of times already!

I could write a whole essay on the beauty of this story, the lessons we can learn about human nature. Before our very eyes we see the maturity of Yosef, who began as a little spoiled and perhaps even bratty, to a strong, humble man in control over a vast kingdom. He never sought revenge on those who harmed him, and even forgave his brothers, who sought to kill him, but were "satisfied" to only sell him into slavery. We also get to see the change in his brothers, which is no less remarkable.

One note about the style of the Biblical narrative. I noticed during this reading that Yehuda tells his father that they told about Binyamin (ch. 43, v. 7) because the ruler (Yosef) asked if they had another brother. Odd enough in the account that is given to us in chapter 42 it seems as if they volunteer the information to Yosef. First of all, it is possible that Yehuda was lying to Ya'akov to cover themselves- a very feasible answer. Nonetheless, I think it gives a witness to the unique style in these stories, which do not claim to be giving a full, detailed account. There's a brevity in the narration, which leaves us wanting for more a times, but also allows us to imagine and fill in possibilities for ourselves. I am sure that the complexity in the human interactions was no different than those today, as we know there is nothing new under the sun.

I may have finished reading the parasha for this year, but I'm excited about reading it again next year!

Messianic Judaism in 1910

The following are excerpts from the first issue of a journal published in 1910 in Johannesburg, entitled The Messianic Jew. The authors (5 Jewish, 2 Gentile) laid out a program for living with Jewish identity, lifestyle, and purpose within the community of Israel, as opposed to assimilation into the Gentile Christian world. Their ideas were judged "heretical" and roundly condemned by other contemporary "Hebrew Christians." (For part of that story, see Messianic Judaism vs. Hebrew Christianity in 1917.)

Has anything much changed since then, except that Hebrew Christians -- after viciously maligning and condemning Messianic Jews for a century -- now call themselves "Messianic Jews"?

---

     It is truly deplorable that Jewish Christians, who should constitute the "True Israel of God," have allowed themselves to become detached from their own people and have, by complacently accommodating themselves within the sphere of Gentile Christendom, neglected and ignored the very things which should have been most precious to them. [p. 1]

     Criticising others is always a delicate matter, and especially will this be an unpleasant task when those concerned may bear honoured names, but things have reached a stage when, we feel, true and good service can only be rendered by speaking the unvarnished truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be. [p. 2]

     That is to say, we Gentiles are the "proselytes," if any there be, while those of Israel are the original heirs. Thus Gentile pride has completely overturned the Divine order, and has perverted the Hebrew Christian's consciousness from the very start. And Hebrew Christians have submitted, and are still submitting, to this perversion. Incalculable harm has thus been done.... The error being fundamental, the whole superstructure is hopelessly out of line. This grievous wrong on the part of Gentile Christianity needs confession and, as far as possible, correction and redress. [p. 4]

     You owe this testimony to your nation.... Follow Paul's example. It is sound and safe.... His final testimony to the elders of the Synagogue at Rome was: "Men and brethren, I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers." (Acts 26:17). Would to God that every Hebrew Christian could speak thus. [p. 7]

     I cannot help but feel that only a Jewish Christianity which does not seek to deck itself with foreign plumage, but takes its nourishment from the depths of Jewish national life and custom and awakens Jewish memories and hopes, only such a Christianity is capable of transforming the Jewish people from being the greatest opponents of the Gospel, into the greatest messengers of God's saving grace to mankind. But alas! the attitude of most Hebrew Christians upon this question is one of carelessness and, in some instances, of hostility. Permit me further to emphasise the fact that to millions of good and orthodox Jews, Hebrew Christianity as it stands to-day does not convey the idea of a thorough moral change, but rather the idea of the abandonment of Jewish distinctiveness and a general contempt for all that is dear to the Jewish heart. [pp. 8-9]

     Allow me to say that I fully endorse what may be termed the "Minimum-programme"...: That Hebrew Christians should observe Circumcision, the Sabbath, the Jewish Festivals, and that every effort should be made to revive the Hebrew language.... We should show to our unconverted brethren that we are not "Meshumadim" (renegades [or converts]), but, on the contrary, genuine, patriotic Jews, true sons and daughters of Israel. [p. 9]

     ...by way of a Manifesto...: (1) That the policy of complete assimilation, which Hebrew Christians are now pursuing, is having an injurious effect upon themselves, their children and their people. It has become one of the greatest obstacles in the way of Jews seriously considering the true claim of Jesus as Israel's Messiah.... (4) ...our children will grow up with a living consciousness that ours is Messianic (Biblical) Judaism, in contradistinction to Rabinnic.... [p. 11]

     As long as the Grecian calendar was in vogue, agreeing as it does to a great extent with the Jewish calendar, the Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus, as well as the rest of the Jewish people, celebrated the Feast of Chanucah at one and the same time. As, however, the church became more and more Gentilised, until the Gentile branch dominated the Jewish root from whence it had sprung, culminating in the adoption of the solar calendar as opposed to the lunar calendar of the Jews, not only was the month changed, but the origin of Christmas was almost entirely lost sight of. [p. 16]

     Apart from the fact that anything which tends to efface the distinctiveness of the Jew must be directly contrary to God's will, it will be apparent that a Gospel which couples with itself denationalisation and absorption, must be distasteful and meet with violent opposition.... The Japanese are a patriotic and loyal people.... How would such a message as this be received, and how many Japanese would accept Jesus under such conditions? And the heritage of the Japanese is not the heritage of the Jew, who looks back upon a past with which God Himself is intimately bound up, and who can look into a future such as can no other nation, and if the Japanese looks askance upon a teaching which would stifle every national feeling, how much more the Jew? And what is the remedy? The answer is not far to seek. Jesus must be stripped of the "Gentile" garb which the Jew sees around Him, and must be revealed in His true form, as an Israelite, as one who, in the truest sense, was a Hebrew, as one who came not to destroy, not to change, not to "Gentilise," but to fulfil. And Jesus cannot be stripped of His "Gentile" garb and stand revealed to the Jew as a Jew until the believing Israelite himself comes to a true understanding of his position, and until the attitude of the Gentile Christian world toward the believing Jew is also altered. [p. 19]

     [Biblical] Jewish customs and institutions can never be put down as idolatrous and sinful. They were instituted by God Himself, and were ordained as part of His Divine service. [p. 22]

Easy fast? צום קל

KosherVitamins.com is offering "Easy Fast" pills to aid people on Yom Kippur. Now, some of these are specifically for pregnant and nursing women, who perhaps should not be fasting anyway [one relevant discussion can be found at A Mother in Israel]. But there are also pills for everyone that are designed to "curb appetite" and "control thirst." Does this make sense? Should one even want or wish others an "easy" fast? Isn't the whole point of fasting that it can be one way of humbling or afflicting the soul (תְּעַנּוּ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, Lev. 16:29 & 16:31, Num. 29:7)?

On a related note, is the rabbinic prohibition of bathing and oils contradicted by Matt. 6:16-18 ("when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face")?

For those who like parody, see the Schmelvian rules about Yom Kippur from Voices on the Hasidic Fringe.

Why we need another way

Recently I received two pieces of writing on the topic of which foods are permissible for Jews to eat. One author, calling himself a Messianic Jew, argued that we can eat "anything" and that it would be wrong to make any restrictive rules, since this is what "Paul's writings" say. The other, an Orthodox Jew, discussed the intricacies of different (contradictory) rulings concerning whether one is allowed to eat a certain kind of vegetable if there is a possibility that a Gentile might have touched it at some point. He concluded that in some cases it is ok.

Right now I don't want to get into all the reasons why each of these "authoritative" and widely accepted opinions is (in my own humble opinion, of course) wrong, unbiblical, illogical, and offensive. I hear these two kinds of opinions over and over and over from these two camps, and I simply don't have the energy to keep responding to them every time. I just want to point out that we desperately need a different way. A true way. A way that is based on what Torah actually says -- about food and everything else in life.

Can we please have community without being fascist about it?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is justly honored as a remarkable and rare anti-Nazi Christian. As can be read elsewhere, he not only stood against Hitler's evil genocide and euthanasia programs, but he also took firm and decisive action to combat them. In 1933 and 1939 Bonhoeffer left Germany on various trips and could have remained abroad. But his conscience bothered him for having left at all at a time of terror in his nation. He decided he must be at home to make the terrible choices that had to be made, and to be an example to others of how to act when their nation had gone utterly mad and was seeking to "destroy civilization." Rather than save himself, he considered it a "privilege and honor" to suffer with the Jewish "brothers of Jesus Christ." He was murdered by the Nazis in 1945.

I am not a big fan of the term "martyr," for obvious reasons; but if anyone truly deserved that title in the good sense of the word, Bonhoeffer did.

Recently I came across this quotation from one of his many writings. It pertains to Christian community, but could be applicable to other types of community as well:

"The measure with which God gives the gift of visible community is varied. Christians who live dispersed from one another are comforted by a brief visit of another Christian, a prayer together, and another Christian's blessing. Indeed, they are strengthened by letters written by the hand of other Christians. Paul's greetings in his letters written in his own hand were no doubt tokens of such community. Others are given the gift on Sundays of the community of the worship service. Still others have the privilege of living a Christian life in the community of their families."

I noticed this because it stands in striking contrast to the opinions of some we know, who regard official congregational governmental structures as the only legitimate form of community.

It also stands in contrast, in general, to most religious people's obsession with imposing uniformity. This is manifest in rabbinic Judaism, in Messianic Judaism, in Christianity, and in other religions. It is something I have never been able to understand. If you say you believe in a God who created the universe, why not take a look around you and see what he created?! One of the most obvious and striking features of Creation is an incredible diversity and beauty of variety. So please don't tell me that God wants everyone to be exactly the same and to fit into your little narrow religious definition of how everybody is supposed to look and act!

In my opinion, nothing in the Bible justifies that view. The Bible does of course have rules for how to behave, but within that framework there is enormous room for individual freedom and variety in how to live. (See also this and that previous post.) I would go further and say that it is every person's responsibility before God to be an individual. Actually, it's fascism (not God) that tries to justify the imposition of uniformity.

To translate or not to translate? When is a language no longer itself?

"בתחילת הבריאה, כשברא אלוהים את העולם, והארץ היתה שוממה וריקה..."

"At the beginning of creation, when God created the world/universe, the earth was desolate and empty..."

— Bereshit/Genesis 1:1-2a in the modern Hebrew translation of Avraham Ahuvia, a 90-year-old Israeli kibbutznik

According to BAR:

• “I didn’t say ‘heaven and earth’ but ‘the world,’” Ahuvia said, “because on the second day he created the firmament and called it heaven. In the Bible, the phrase ha-shamayim ve-ha’aretz means ‘the world.’”

• Drora Halevy, national supervisor of Bible studies at the Ministry of Education, claims: “This translation cuts out the heart of the Bible. It reduces the Bible to just another book. In the Bible, form and content are bound together. The translation kills it."

 See also an older article in הארץ.

On the historicity of the conquest

Here is what Frank Cross of Harvard University, described as "America's leading Bible scholar," has to say on the question of whether Israel could have conquered Canaan as described in the biblical book of Joshua (an idea ridiculed today by many scholars):

"I am bemused by the fact that, given the widespread evidence of destruction in Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, some scholars are inclined to attribute the violence to various people, despite the lack of written records, to almost anyone—except Israel, for whom we have elaborate written records of warfare." [Conversations with a Bible Scholar, p.23]

Translating first-century Jewish faith accurately

The Messianic Writings

translated and annotated by Daniel Gruber

Elijah Publishing, 2011; 411 pp.

ISBN 978-0966925364

Two thousand years ago, a Jewish teacher named Yeshua ben Yosef appeared in the hills of Galilee and shared his simple, heartfelt, brilliant interpretation of Torah with the many crowds of Jews and some others who flocked to hear him. He quickly gained a reputation as a great prophet and healer, and many believed him to be the promised Messiah -- the deliverer of Israel. In subsequent decades, Yeshua's followers wrote accounts of his words and deeds, as well as their own letters and visions. These texts have come down to us in a Jewish-Greek hybrid language heavily influenced by Hebrew (similar to Yiddish or Ladino). Such a dialect had been employed a couple centuries earlier in producing the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Hebrew Scripture, which at the time of Yeshua was widely used by Greek-speaking Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean world.

The Messianic Writings as translated and annotated by Daniel Gruber represent, to my knowledge, the first attempt to render the texts about Yeshua (Jesus) into English from Jewish-Greek. Common translations erroneously operate as if these writings were originally written in a Christian, rather than a Jewish, idiom. However, an enormous and continually growing body of scholarship demonstrates that this was certainly not the case. Anyone familiar with the works of David Flusser, James Charlesworth, Daniel Boyarin, David Bivin, Oskar Skarsaune, or other leading researchers in the field will immediately recognize the validity and importance of translating from a first-century Jewish context instead of anachronistically and inappropriately from a Gentile Christian one. Today such an approach is widely accepted, at least in theory -- much more so than a century ago when Yosef Klausner began to urge studying Yeshua in his first-century Jewish context. Nonetheless, until now no one had actually made an English translation from the correct language or dialect: Hebraic or Judeo-Greek.

The print version of this book consists essentially of four parts: an introduction; the translation itself; notes attached to the translation; and additional notes or brief essays on specific questions of interpretation, usually related to enigmatic passages.

In his introduction, Gruber explains that the LXX "is an indispensable bridge for understanding the ways in which words are used in the Messianic Writings" (5). He describes his approach to translation in general and to the various manuscripts and textual compilations. He argues that Christian "New Testaments" often distort the original meaning of the texts due to theological bias and misinterpretation. Such errors in interpretation and translation -- such as the infamous "synagogue of Satan" rendering in Revelation -- have often fed into anti-Jewish sentiment and persecution throughout history, including "violent, tragic events" (7). Though no translation is perfect, this one at least has the advantage of starting from a historically defensible perspective on the original language and context.

The Greek word christos meant "smeared with oil." Jewish-Greek authors such as the LXX translators employed it as the equivalent for Hebrew mashiakh, "anointed, Messiah." The Messianic Writings translation therefore renders christos as "Messiah," since that is the most accurate English equivalent today for what was meant. Recognizing what Jean Carmignac called the obvious "Semitic substructure" of the text, Gruber correctly perceives diatheke as standing for Hebrew brit, "covenant," and thus avoids much confusion introduced by Christian use of the word "testament." Simply translating this word and related notions correctly shows Heb. 9:15-18 to be clear, straightforward, and consistent with its context, whereas most other translations make it appear incomprehensible and fallacious. Ekklesia is not translated as "church," nor sunagoge as "synagogue," because that is not what the terms meant in their first-century historical setting. Other expressions concerning government, law, faith, prophecy, and daily life are also rendered in a more contextually appropriate manner, often leading to eye-opening reinterpretations. These are but some of the more obvious examples of difference from common translations. No reader is likely to agree with every one of Gruber's choices, but that is to be expected when dealing with complex ancient writings. One subtle but highly commendable inclusion is the differentiation between singular and plural "you," an important distinction usually ignored in modern English versions.

The accompanying notes contain some brief explanatory comments and excerpts from related material in Qumranic, rabbinic, and other sources. This usually helps to frame the text in an ancient Jewish context and to reveal "conversations" that were ongoing at the time, even though much of the material does date from a later period. For example, the notes to Mt. 5:13 and Luke 14:34-35 ("if the salt becomes flat and tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?") point to a Talmudic tractate that asks the very same hypothetical or rhetorical question (16, 123). The note to Acts 15:29 (an explanation of what commandments Gentiles should keep) refers to a Talmudic discussion of the seven "Noahide laws" considered applicable to all humans, not only Jews (203). This reader finds the notes extremely helpful and hopes that they will continue to be developed in future editions. In particular, the roughly contemporaneous Qumran library (Dead Sea Scrolls) has much to offer in this respect. Both DSS 4QFlor and Philo Judaeus mention the idea of miqdash adam, a temple for God's presence constructed of human beings rather than of stones; it would be useful to have such references when reading 1Cor. 3:16-19, 2Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, or Rev. 3:12 -- all of which describe the same or a very similar notion. There is almost no end to the number of useful notes that could be compiled and that would help to modify widespread but mistaken understandings of numerous passages.

The additional notes or essays at the back of the book address such topics as: other ancient Jewish sources that speak of the Messiah dying; textual rebuttal of allegations that Yeshua opposed or abrogated Torah's dietary guidelines; and whether long hair was considered desirable for men in the ancient world. The note on "The Seat of Moses" presents a powerful and convincing resolution of a difficult passage in Mt. 23. These notes also help to explain further the translation approach and choices. Some people are likely to disagree on religious (theological) grounds. However, if one's interest lies first of all in understanding the texts themselves as accurately as possible, then such considerations are both irrelevant and prejudicial. The Messianic Writings do not seek to cater to any particular religious standpoint, but rather to remain faithful to the records of the past as they were written at the time. This endeavor should please all honest seekers of truth -- whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or other.

In sum, it is hard to overestimate the importance of this groundbreaking attempt at a translation from Jewish-Greek into English. Translations that fully recognize the Hebraic dimensions of the writings in question have previously appeared in Hebrew (e.g., Yitskhak Zalkinson) and French (André Chouraqui). Yet the vast majority of existent versions in all modern languages do not translate from the original language or context. As the back cover of The Messianic Writings notes, "This initial translation is not perfect, and will always stand in need of improvement, but it is faithful to the text and its context." That fundamental reorientation -- accepting the text in its own historical setting, rather than through the prism of later theologies and biases -- makes a world of difference. This translation opens up vast areas for future discoveries and refinements. It is a new starting point for all those who are willing to encounter profound and revelatory Jewish faith of the first century on its own terms.

=======

The Messianic Writings are available in the following formats:

Print -- messianicwritings.com

Kindle -- amazon.com

Nook -- barnesandnoble.com

iPod/iPhone/iPad -- iTunes, iBookstore