Messiah as Torah (another view)

[fremen]

Found this article online, which offers an interesting view. Thought you Messianics might like it:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE SUM OF THE TORAH

Shalom Chaverim,

I have recently made some discoveries which shed even more light on
Romans chapter 10 and I would like to share them with you.

To best understand this new insight, it is best to incorporate it into
the whole of that light which has already been shed on this section of
Romans. So for some of you this entire article will be revolutionary,
however even for those who have studied with us for many years will
find a new nugget of insight in this article.

Let us begin with Romans 10:4. This is a passage which is so
misunderstood. It appears in the KJV to say that "Christ is the end
of the law". The Aramaic word used for "end" here is SAKA. Back in
1893 when James Murdock S.T.D. (A Christian) translated the Aramaic
Peshitta into English for the first time, he translated this word as
"aim". He noted the original Aramaic word in the margin and further
defined it "end, scope, summary". This Aramaic word is used in the
Rabbinic literature to mean "number" "sum" or "total". In the
Babylonian Talmud this word is used as follows "…the SUM of pupils for
a teacher in the primary class is twenty five" (b.Bat. 21a) The root
verb for this Aramaic noun means "to calculate, count, sum up" or "to
look out for, to hope for".

With this Aramaic word, Paul is saying, not that the Messiah is the
TERMINATION of the Torah, but that Messiah is the aim, goal, scope,
summary, number, total and sum of the Torah! Paul is saying that the
Messiah *IS* the Torah. Messiah is the SUM of the Torah.

Rom 10:5 then continues with:

"For Moses thus wrote of the righteousness that is by the Torah that
`he who does these will live by them.'(Lev. 18:5)"

Remember now, Paul has just said that the Messiah is the sum of the
Torah, and now he is quoting the Torah to prove that "life" comes from
the Torah.

Then in Rom. 10:6-8 Paul continues:

"And of the righteousness that is by trust, he thus says: `Do not say
in your heart: who has ascended to heaven' (Deut. 30:12) and brought
down the Messiah? `And who has descended' to the depth of She'ol `and
brought up' (Deut. 13:13) the Messiah from among the dead? But what
does it say? `The answer is near to you, to your mouth and to your
heart,' (Deut. 30:14) which is the word of trust that we proclaim"

Now Christian commentators have taken Paul to be contrasting "the
righteousness that is by the Torah" (Rom. 10:5) with "the
righteousness that is by faith" (Rom. 10:6) to prove that Messiah is
the "end"/"termination" of the Law as stated in Rom. 10:4.

There are several problems with this interpretation.

To begin with, we have already shown that Paul's point in Rom. 10:4 is
not that Messiah is the termination of the law, but that Messiah is
the goal and sum of the Torah.

Secondly Rom. 10:5 and Rom 10:6f both quote passages from the Torah to
prove their points.

Thirdly, these commentators totally mangle the point Paul is making in
Rom. 10:6-8.

When Paul was teaching the Bereans in Acts 17, we are told that they
checked "the Scriptures" to see if what Paul said could be found
there, and Paul said they were more noble than others he had toaght,
for doing this. Now the only Scriptures they had at the time were
those of the Tanak ("Old Testament") so Paul would look to the
passages he cites from the Tanak to see that we are applying his words
accurately as they are in the Tanak.

So lets be good Bereans and look at the portion of Torah Paul actually
quotes in Rom. 10:6-8, see what it actually says in context, and see
how Paul is using it. Paul is quoting from Deut. 30:12-14. To get
some context we will begin in verse 9 and take the quote through verse 16:

(Deut. 30:9-16)

9 And YHWH your Elohim will make you over-abundant in all the work of
your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle,
and in the fruit of your land, for good; for YHWH will again rejoice
over you for good, as He rejoiced over your fathers,
10 If you shall hearken to the voice of YHWH your Elohim, to keep His
commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the
Torah; if you turn unto HYWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with
all your soul.
11 For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too
hard for you, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that you should say: `Who shall go up for us
to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may
do it?'
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should says: `Who shall go
over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it,
that we may do it?'
14 But the word if very near unto you, in your mouth, and in your
heart, that you may do it.
15 See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil,
16 In that I command you this day to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in
His ways, and to keep His commandments and His statues and His
ordinances; then you shall live and multiply, and YHWH your Elohim
shall bless you in the land where you go in to possess it.

Now the first and most important point is that in Deut. 30:12-13 it is
the Torah that we do not have to have brought down to us, but in
Paul's citations in Rom. 10:6-7 it is the "Messiah" who does not have
to be brought down to us. Paul is applying his logic that Messiah is
the sum of the Torah from Rom. 10:4 (thus reaffirming that we are
correct in our understanding of SAKA in Rom. 10:4).

Moreover, when Paul says "the answer is near to you, to your mouth,
and to your heart, which is the word of trust that we proclaim" (Rom.
10:8) Deut. Says "But the WORD is very near unto you, in your mouth
and in your heart, that you may do it" (Deut. 30:14). So the "answer"
and the "word of trust/faith" in Rom. 10:8 is the "word" in Deut.
30:14, but in Deut. 30:14 that "word" is CLEARLY the Torah! In other
words Rom. 10:8 might be understood "the TORAH is near to you, to your
mouth, and to your heart, which is the TORAH of trust/faith that we
proclaim".

Fourth, we find that Deut. 30:15-16 parallel the meaning of Lev. 18:5
so that we can see that Paul is citing these two passages together,
not because he is contrasting them, but because they teach the same
thing!

Finally if we look back to Rom. 10:6 which is quoting Deut. 30:12 and
we look closely at the phrase Paul quotes "who shall go up for us to
heaven" in the original Hebrew of Deut. 30:12, and if we take the
first letter of each word to from a new word (this is a technique
known as "Notarikon") then we spell the Hebrew word MILAH (which can
mean "word" or "circumcision") and if we take the last letter of each
word we find the name YHWH, so hidden and imbedded in this Hebrew
phrase is the phrase "Word of YHWH". Paul's point is that both the
Messiah and the Torah are the "Word of YHWH".

Now as Romans continues we read:

(Rom. 10:9-13)

9 And if you confess with your mouth our Adon Yeshua, and you believe
in your heart that Eloah raised him from the dead, you will have life.
10 For the heart that believes in him is made righteousness, and the
mouth that confesses him has life.
11 For the scripture has said that anyone who believes in him will not
be humiliated (Is. 28:16).
12 And in this it does not discriminate, either against Jews or
against Aramaeans, for YHWH of all of them is one who is rich with all
who call on him.
13 For all who will call on the name of YHWH have life (Joel 3:5 (2:32)).

Note the progression of thought:

Point 1: The Messiah is the sum of the Torah (Rom. 10:4)

Point 2: The Torah brings life. (Rom. 10:5-8

"For Moses thus wrote of the righteousness that is by the Torah that
`he who does these will LIVE by them.'(Lev. 18:5)" (Rom. 10:5)

"…I have set before you this day LIFE and good… in that I have
commanded you this day to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in His ways,
and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances: then
you shall LIVE…" (Deut. 30:15-16) (pointed to in that Rom. 10:6-8
quotes Deut. 30:12-14)

Point 3: The Messiah brings life (Rom. 10:9-10)

9 And if you confess with your mouth our Adon Yeshua, and you believe
in your heart that Eloah raised him from the dead, you will have LIFE.
10 For the heart that believes in him is made righteousness, and the
mouth that confesses him has LIFE.
(Rom. 10:9-10)

Point 4: The "name of YHWH" brings life (Rom. 10:13)

13 For all who will call on the name of YHWH have LIFE (Joel 3:5 (2:32)).
(Rom. 10:13)

(At this point I should add that Paul is clearly writing this letter
in Aramaic. In Aramaic "life" and "salvation" are the same ambiguous
word, but in both Hebrew and Greek "life" and "salvation" are
different words.)

Here there is a clear equivalence being made between:

The Torah and:

"The Word"

"our Adon Yeshua"

"the name of YHWH"

According to the Tanak, the Torah is the "Word of YHWH" (Is. 1:10;
2:3) and according to Yochanan Messiah is the Word of YHWH (Jn. 1:1-3,
14-18; Rev. 19:13).

Jewish tradition teaches that the entire Torah, from the first letter
to the last letter, is one of the names of YHWH.

The Targums were authoritative Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the
Tanak which were read in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah
and Haftorah readings. Often when the Targums come to passages where YHWH
is anthropomorphisised or seen, or where two or more YHWHs are
indicated by
the text, the Targums will substitute "The Word [Memra] of YHWH" for YHWH.

For example in Gen. 19:4 the Tanak has:

And YHVH rained brimstone and fire
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah,
from YHVH, from the heavens.

The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one YHWH rains fire from another
YHWH) But Targum Jonathan substitutes "The Word of YHWH/the L-RD" for the
first of the two YHWHs as follows:

And the Word of the YHWH
caused to descend upon the peoples
of Sodom and Gommorah,
brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven.

In another example the Torah has:

Ex. 24:1a (YHWH is the speaker, see Ex. 20:1-2)
Now He [YHWH] said to Moses,
"come up to YHWH..."

But Targum Jonathan paraphrases the speaker in Ex. 20:1 with the
substitution "the Word [Memra] of YHWH" in place of "YHWH."

And the Word of the Lord
spoke all these glorious words...

So it would seem that one of these entities called "YHWH" in these Torah
passages was actually understood by the Targumists as being the "Word of
YHWH." It was, according to Targum Onkelos, this Word of YHWH that Abraham
trusted in:

And Abraham trusted in
the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and He counted it to him for righteousness.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 15:6)

Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH:

And Abraham worshipped and prayed
in the name of the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and said, "You are YHWH who does see,
but You cannot be seen."
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 22:14)

Note that here Abraham prays "in the name of the Word of YHWH" to the YHWH
who "cannot be seen." Here two YHWHs are very apparent. Abraham is praying
in the name of the Word of YHWH but is praying to the YHWH who cannot be
seen. This idea is reinforced elsewhere as follows:

And Hagar praised and prayed in the name of
the Word [Memra] Of YHWH
who had revealed Himself to herS
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 16:3)

PAGE 1/2

[fremen]

It was this Word of YHWH that Jacob also trusted in:

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying,
"If the Word [Memra] of YHWH
will be my support, and will keep me
in the way that I go, and will give me
bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
so that I come again to my father's house in peace;
then shall the Word [Memra]of YHWH
be my Elohim.
(Targum Onkelos on Gen. 28:20-21)

King David also urged Israel to trust in the Word of Yah as the Targum of
Psalm 62 reads:

Trust in the Word of Yah at all times,
O people of the house of Israel!
Pour out before Him the sighings of your heart;
Say, Elohim is our trust forever.
(Targum on Psalm 62:9)

This "Word of YHWH" was, according to Targum Jonathan, the Creator:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH
created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH,
YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)

This idea is also put forward in the Jerusalem Targum:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH
said to Moses: "I am He who said
unto the world 'Be!' and it was:
and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!'
and it shall be." And He said:
"Thus you shall say to the children of Israel:
'I Am' has sent me to you."
(Jerusalem Targum Ex. 3:14)

The Fragmentary Targum of the Torah also expresses that the Word of YHWH
was the Creator:

The first night, when the "Word of YHWH"
was revealed to the world in order to create it,
the world was desolate and void,
and darkness spread over the face of the abyss
and the "Word of the Lord" was bright and
illuminating and He called it the first night.
(Fragmentary Targum Ex. 12:42)

That the Word of YHWH was the Creator can also be seen in the Tenach
itself:

By the Word of YHWH
were the heavens made,
And all the hosts of them
by the Spirit of His mouth.
(Ps. 33:6)

The Word was also the covenant maker. For example the Noachdic
covenant was
between the Word and all mankind:

And YHWH said to Noah,
"This is the token of the covenant
which I have established between
My Word [Memra] and between all flesh
that is upon the earth.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 9:17)

The Word also made the Abrahamic covenant as Targum Onkelos also
paraphrases:

And I will establish my covenant
between My Word [Memra]
and between youS
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 17:7)

The Word of YHWH was also the giver of the Mosaic Covenant and the
Torah as
the Jerusalem Targum (as quoted above) makes the Torah giver "the Word of
YHWH" in Ex. 20:1. It was to the Word that Jacob turned to for salvation:

Our father Jacob said:
"My soul does not wait for salvation
such as that wrought by Gideon, the son of Joash,
for that was but temporal;
neither for a salvation like that of Samson,
which was only transitory;
but for that salvation which
You have promised to come,
through Your Word unto Your people,
the children of Israel;
for your salvation my soul hopes."
(Targum Jonathan Gen. 49:18)

That the Word of YHWH is the savior is expressed elsewhere:

But Israel shall be saved
by the Word of YHWH
with an everlasting salvationS
By the Word of YHWH
shall all the seed of Israel be justifiedS
(Targum Jonathan Is. 45:17, 25)

But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah,
and I will save them
by the Word of YHWH, their Elohim.
(Targum Jonathan Hosea 1:7)

All of this is in keeping with the argument Paul is making in Romans
chapter 10:

1. The Messiah is the sum of the Torah
2. The Torah gives life
3. The Messiah gives life/salvation
4. The name of YHWH gives life/salvation

The true teaching of Romans 10 is that Messiah is the Word of YHWH,
the living Torah incarnate, and as such is the source of
life/salvation (not apart from the Torah, but through his role as the
Torah) and is therefore the very "name of YHWH" which saves us when we
call upon it.

PAGE 2/2

[A_Pioneer]

Good Post, Thank you.

Shalom

[Bananna]

Is this your writing or someone elses?

May I quote it?

bananna

[visionary]

Yesh... that is it exactly.... thank you

[muffler dragon]

Back in 1893 when James Murdock S.T.D. (A Christian) translated the Aramaic Peshitta into English for the first time,

I didn't realize that the Aramaic Peshitta included a translation from the Greek Letter to the Romans. Does any one have any background/substantiation on this?

This Aramaic word is used in the Rabbinic literature to mean "number" "sum" or "total". In the
Babylonian Talmud this word is used as follows "…the SUM of pupils for a teacher in the primary class is twenty five" (b.Bat. 21a) The root verb for this Aramaic noun means "to calculate, count, sum up" or "to look out for, to hope for".

For those so interested in a source, here you go.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_21.html

Raba further said: The number of pupils to be assigned to each teacher is twenty-five. If there are fifty, we appoint two teachers. If there are forty, we appoint an assistant, at the expense of the town.

For the author to use the secondary definition, I would like to see some substantiation. All this above shows is the first definition. Root words do NOT always account for interpretational considerations.

With this Aramaic word, Paul is saying, not that the Messiah is the TERMINATION of the Torah, but that Messiah is the aim, goal, scope, summary, number, total and sum of the Torah! Paul is saying that the Messiah *IS* the Torah. Messiah is the SUM of the Torah.

<snip>

To begin with, we have already shown that Paul's point in Rom. 10:4 is not that Messiah is the termination of the law, but that Messiah is the goal and sum of the Torah.

Actually, no, this has not been shown. It's been a conjecture thus far, but not "shown".

Secondly Rom. 10:5 and Rom 10:6f both quote passages from the Torah to prove their points.

Points from the Septuagint, which is Greek. I've yet to see anyone prove that Paul quoted from the Hebrew.

Thirdly, these commentators totally mangle the point Paul is making in Rom. 10:6-8.

When Paul was teaching the Bereans in Acts 17, we are told that they checked "the Scriptures" to see if what Paul said could be found there, and Paul said they were more noble than others he had toaght, for doing this. Now the only Scriptures they had at the time were those of the Tanak ("Old Testament") so Paul would look to the
passages he cites from the Tanak to see that we are applying his words accurately as they are in the Tanak.

Like I said above, it would have been the Greek Septuagint (which has not been shown to have any play in this document thus far).

So lets be good Bereans and look at the portion of Torah Paul actually
quotes in Rom. 10:6-8, see what it actually says in context, and see
how Paul is using it. Paul is quoting from Deut. 30:12-14. To get
some context we will begin in verse 9 and take the quote through verse 16:

(Deut. 30:9-16) <snip>

Paul is applying his logic that Messiah is
the sum of the Torah from Rom. 10:4 (thus reaffirming that we are
correct in our understanding of SAKA in Rom. 10:4).

So what is the Greek word in the text?

I'll skip the remainder of the Pauline consideration until someone addresses the Greek situation.

(At this point I should add that Paul is clearly writing this letter in Aramaic. In Aramaic "life" and "salvation" are the same ambiguous word, but in both Hebrew and Greek "life" and "salvation" are
different words.)

I'd love to see the background to this statement.

The Targums were authoritative Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Tanak which were read in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah
and Haftorah readings. Often when the Targums come to passages where YHWH is anthropomorphisised or seen, or where two or more YHWHs are indicated by
the text, the Targums will substitute "The Word [Memra] of YHWH" for YHWH.

I'd be interested in knowing just how authoritative the author considers the Targums to be. Furthermore, the belief in a literal anthropomorphism in Judaism is idolatry. That is something that should be kept in mind.

With regard to all the Targum references, it may be of benefit to evaluate them one by one in context. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the Targums at my disposal. Does anyone else?

[fremen]

Bananna: I found the article on the net. It's not mine. As it was on several sites, I don't think it's a problem to quote it.

MD: Many in the East hold to the idea that of the Aramaic Primacy of the NT. And yes, the Peshitta does contain a copy of Romans

As for the Targum, google up the term "Targum Onkelos" and navigate to the "tulane" site. It's all there.

About the anthropomorphism in Judaism, open your mind. Not everything is as black and white as idolatry or non-idolatry. Judaism has a wide variety of thoughts and ideas, and also has evolved with time.

Güt shabbos!

Fremen

[muffler dragon]

Bananna: I found the article on the net. It's not mine. As it was on several sites, I don't think it's a problem to quote it.

You should provide a link or reference it.

MD: Many in the East hold to the idea that of the Aramaic Primacy of the NT.

I understand that. However, there is no conclusive evidence as to it's age, authenticy or authorship.

And yes, the Peshitta does contain a copy of Romans

In accordance with what I wrote above, we have no idea if it's a translation of a translation or what. Therefore, the subjective nature of this takes it not much beyond hypothesis.

As for the Targum, google up the term "Targum Onkelos" and navigate to the "tulane" site. It's all there.

Thanks.

About the anthropomorphism in Judaism, open your mind.

I resent this inference, and suggest you don't make it again. Opening my mind is what afforded me the opportunity and ability to study and LEAVE Christianity as well as REJECT Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. I don't ever call someone else narrow-minded, and I expect the same from those who disagree with me.

Not everything is as black and white as idolatry or non-idolatry. Judaism has a wide variety of thoughts and ideas, and also has evolved with time.

Güt shabbos!

Fremen

Judaism has held from time immemorial that G-d is incorporal, ineffable, and eternal. None of these three have any compatibility with incarnation nor literal anthropomorphism. The "evolution" of Judaism has occurred on levels that have NOTHING to do with the perception of HaShem.. It's only on the terrestrial level that evolution has occurred.

[fremen]

You should provide a link or reference it.


I would. But apparently I can only do that after so many posts...


I understand that. However, there is no conclusive evidence as to it's age, authenticy or authorship.


I am not here to discuss Aramaic primacy of the NT. I guess you can find a lot of such debate, as well as evidence for and against, on the web.


I resent this inference, and suggest you don't make it again. Opening my mind is what afforded me the opportunity and ability to study and LEAVE Christianity as well as REJECT Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. I don't ever call someone else narrow-minded, and I expect the same from those who disagree with me.


I didn't call YOU narrow minded, I only suggested you to open your mind. Anthropomorfism goes far beyond suggesting that Hashem has incarnated.

When you say that Hashem cries, loves, feels, etc, THAT is, literally speaking, anthropomorfism. And my friend, Judaism is full of that. Just read the Jewish canon of the Bible.


Judaism has held from time immemorial that G-d is incorporal, ineffable, and eternal.

No need to try to teach me what Judaism believes, my friend. I am Jewish. And I'm not Messianic, nor Christian. I am only here because I like to study comparative religions.

There's a midrash that says that when Moshe saw Hashem's back, that Hashem was wearing tefilin to remember us. In fact, I believe Targum Onkelos (or was it Pseudo-Jonathan) has the same story.

Hashem now has a back, a head, an arm and wears tefilin? That, my dear, is sheer anthropomorfism. And as I said before, yes, Judaism is full of it. No, it doesn't compromise the monotheism Judaism has defended for millennia. And no, it's not idolatry.

Güt shabbos,
Fremen

[muffler dragon]

I would. But apparently I can only do that after so many posts...

I tried to google "Sum of the Torah", and couldn't find a link to the article. Therefore, when you get your post count up, would you mind doing so? Or just type of the address like this:

www(dot)address(dot)com

I am not here to discuss Aramaic primacy of the NT. I guess you can find a lot of such debate, as well as evidence for and against, on the web.

The basic premise of the article you presented is an assumption that the Aramaic is an authoritative document. If the Aramaic is not a primary source text; then it throws the entire argument into even more ambiguity.

I didn't call YOU narrow minded, I only suggested you to open your mind.

An inference to a closed/narrow mind.

Anthropomorfism goes far beyond suggesting that Hashem has incarnated.

I'm well aware of that. Merriam-Webster defines it as such:

: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization

And, you'll note, that I speak regarding "literal" anthropomorphism; not allegory. Which is what you describe above:

When you say that Hashem cries, loves, feels, etc, THAT is, literally speaking, anthropomorfism. And my friend, Judaism is full of that. Just read the Jewish canon of the Bible.

Yet, none of this is literal. That was my point. It is allegory for a human mind to grasp onto a concept displayed by the Infinite. That is the distinction I'm drawing. Whereas, in your post, you specifically used the phrase "seen". Hence, a literal, physical anthropomorphism.

No need to try to teach me what Judaism believes, my friend. I am Jewish. And I'm not Messianic, nor Christian. I am only here because I like to study comparative religions.

Are you suggesting that you don't agree with the article you presented?

There's a midrash that says that when Moshe saw Hashem's back, that Hashem was wearing tefilin to remember us. In fact, I believe Targum Onkelos (or was it Pseudo-Jonathan) has the same story.

Hashem now has a back, a head, an arm and wears tefilin? That, my dear, is sheer anthropomorfism. And as I said before, yes, Judaism is full of it. No, it doesn't compromise the monotheism Judaism has defended for millennia. And no, it's not idolatry.

Güt shabbos,
Fremen

As you said, it's a midrash. In fact, it's a midrash aggadah, and not midrash halacha. In midrash aggadah, the understanding is that a moral is to be presented; not that the story is actually factual. The story you speak of presents G-d's commonality with His people; not that G-d actually has a back, a head, arms and wears tefillim. To think that G-d physically has a back, head, arms, and such is, indeed, idolatry; because it brings G-d down to our level.

[Steve Petersen]

There is a passage in the Talmud in which Rabbi Eliezer is equated with a Torah scroll.

It also refers to 'laying up treasures' in the World to Come.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: When R. Eliezer fell sick, his disciples entered [his house] to visit him. He said to them, ‘There is a fierce wrath in the world.’ They broke into tears, but R. Akiba laughed. ‘Why dost thou laugh?’ they enquired of him ‘Why do ye weep?’ he retorted. They answered, ‘Shall the Scroll of the Torah lie in pain, and we not weep?’ — He replied, ‘For that very reason I rejoice. As long as I saw that my master's wine did not turn sour, nor was his flax smitten, nor his oil putrefied, nor his honey become rancid, I thought, God forbid, that he may have received all his reward in this world [leaving nothing for the next]; but now that I see him lying in pain, I rejoice [knowing that his reward has been treasured up for him in the next].’ He [R. Eliezer] said to him, ‘Akiba, have I neglected anything of the whole Torah?’ — He replied, ‘Thou, O Master, hast taught us, For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.’

So the equation of a man with the Torah is not a Messianic creation but has a historical precedent.

[visionary]

http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Light-Romans-Through-Corinthians/dp/0976008009

The following sequence of text will specify the exact content of Ms. Schoyen 2530 and prove its unity with the Syriac fragment no. 30 of the Ambrosian Library and with Ms. Sinai syr. 3.

fol [7ra]/Rom vi,12-13


fol [7vb]/Rom vii,2-3


fol 8r/Rom vii,3-12



fol 8v/Rom vii,12-22


fol 9r/Rom vii,22-viii,7


fol 9v/Rom viii,7-16


fol 10r/Rom viii,17-27


fol 10v/Rom viii,27-38


fol 11r/Rom viii,38-ix,9


fol 11v/Rom ix,9-20


fol 12r/Rom ix,20-30


fol 12v/Rom ix,30-x,7


Bibl. Ambros., syr. fragment 30
fol 13r/Rom x,7-18


fol 13v/Rom x,18-xi,6


Ms Sin. syr. 3 (incipit Rom xi,6)
fol 1 (modern)/[14] (Syriac)

http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Juckel.html

[fremen]

I tried to google "Sum of the Torah", and couldn't find a link to the article. Therefore, when you get your post count up, would you mind doing so? Or just type of the address like this:

www(dot)address(dot)com

It's at the "Messianic-Judaism" group of Yahoo Groups. Hope that helps.


The basic premise of the article you presented is an assumption that the Aramaic is an authoritative document. If the Aramaic is not a primary source text; then it throws the entire argument into even more ambiguity.

I beg to differ. I was never under the impression that the Aramaic primacy was a basic assumption to the point being made. Yes, the author does draw some information from it, but even if one believes otherwise, the article still does make some good sense. After all, Paul was a Jew with rabbinic training, as history tells us.


An inference to a closed/narrow mind.

:sigh:
I merely asked you to keep an open mind about ONE CONCEPT. That is far from inferring that you are narrow minded. I don't know know and would have no reason to believe such thing of you? Why are you trying to antagonize?


Yet, none of this is literal. That was my point. It is allegory for a human mind to grasp onto a concept displayed by the Infinite. That is the distinction I'm drawing. Whereas, in your post, you specifically used the phrase "seen". Hence, a literal, physical anthropomorphism.

Everything concerning Hashem, my friend, is always an attempt of the human mind to grasp Him. It has always been, and it always will be. I simply pointed that Judaism is no different. You incorrectly make it sound like Judaism is some sort of New-Ageish religion that thinks of Hashem only in ethereal terms. That is just not true.


Are you suggesting that you don't agree with the article you presented?

My views on the article are irrelevant, since I am not Messianic, and I am respectful enough of this place where I am a guest not to voice my own opinions.

However, the article does point a fact. A fact, by definition, is independent of any opinion. And the fact is that the Targums do use the expression "The Word" when Hashem is described in anthropomorfical terms.

Now, if one believes in Paul as Scripture, then yes, I could see the validity of the author's attempt to show that Paul was equating his Messiah with the Torah.


As you said, it's a midrash. In fact, it's a midrash aggadah, and not midrash halacha. In midrash aggadah, the understanding is that a moral is to be presented; not that the story is actually factual. The story you speak of presents G-d's commonality with His people; not that G-d actually has a back, a head, arms and wears tefillim. To think that G-d physically has a back, head, arms, and such is, indeed, idolatry; because it brings G-d down to our level.

And yet, NO midrash would EVER contradict the main tenants of Judaism. Let alone monotheism itself. And by the way: some Jews take that text quite literally. At least, our rabbi (Chabad) does... But that's irrelevant.

Frankly, from what I have read here and at other threads you've posted at, you seem to be too concerned about what would and what would not be "a Jewish concept" in terms so strict that are not compatible even with present-day Judaism, let alone with historical Judaism, which has evolved a lot (and Hashem willing will keep on evolving because humans evolve). And besides, if you're not even Jewish (since you present yourself as a Noachide), why do you worry so much about Judaism anyway?

Gutte voche,
Fremen

[muffler dragon]

It's at the "Messianic-Judaism" group of Yahoo Groups. Hope that helps.


Okay.

I beg to differ. I was never under the impression that the Aramaic primacy was a basic assumption to the point being made. Yes, the author does draw some information from it, but even if one believes otherwise, the article still does make some good sense.

The only way, to me, that this would be a matter of alluding to something outside of the Aramaic is IF the author dealt with the Greek. Which isn't done at all. Hence, the foundation of the Aramaic and the necessity of Peshitta primacy.

After all, Paul was a Jew with rabbinic training, as history tells us.

A history I disagree with. ;)

:sigh:
I merely asked you to keep an open mind about ONE CONCEPT. That is far from inferring that you are narrow minded. I don't know know and would have no reason to believe such thing of you? Why are you trying to antagonize?

I'm not antagonizing. I told you I took offense to your statement. Consider it over with.

Everything concerning Hashem, my friend, is always an attempt of the human mind to grasp Him. It has always been, and it always will be. I simply pointed that Judaism is no different. You incorrectly make it sound like Judaism is some sort of New-Ageish religion that thinks of Hashem only in ethereal terms. That is just not true.

I made no inference whatsoever. I stated three words specifically: incorporeal, ineffable and eternal. What three of those words do you disagree with?

My views on the article are irrelevant, since I am not Messianic, and I am respectful enough of this place where I am a guest not to voice my own opinions.

Fine. Just figured I would ask.

However, the article does point a fact. A fact, by definition, is independent of any opinion. And the fact is that the Targums do use the expression "The Word" when Hashem is described in anthropomorfical terms.

I'm not denying that. Never have, never will. It's the underlying context that I'm attempting to clarify. The perspectives of the nominal Christian v. that of Judaic differ significantly IMO.

Now, if one believes in Paul as Scripture, then yes, I could see the validity of the author's attempt to show that Paul was equating his Messiah with the Torah.

Which brings us back again to the Greek or the Aramaic. Anyway.

And yet, NO midrash would EVER contradict the main tenants of Judaism. Let alone monotheism itself. And by the way: some Jews take that text quite literally. At least, our rabbi (Chabad) does... But that's irrelevant.

I feel the same. I don't know where you think this is counter to what I have said thus far.

Frankly, from what I have read here and at other threads you've posted at, you seem to be too concerned about what would and what would not be "a Jewish concept" in terms so strict that are not compatible even with present-day Judaism, let alone with historical Judaism, which has evolved a lot (and Hashem willing will keep on evolving because humans evolve). And besides, if you're not even Jewish (since you present yourself as a Noachide), why do you worry so much about Judaism anyway?

Gutte voche,
Fremen

1) I don't worry about Judaism. I present a Judaic point of view for two reasons: 1) to inform those who don't know and 2) to correct those who often misstate what Judaism believes (in general).
2) Feel free to ask those Jews that do post here when and where I have misspoken regarding Judaism. I would bet dollars to pesos that there would be little agreement with what you stated above. Yet, as is perfectly reasonable, you're more than entitled to your opinion.

I'll just bid myself adieu.

[A_Pioneer]

There is a passage in the Talmud in which Rabbi Eliezer is equated with a Torah scroll.

It also refers to 'laying up treasures' in the World to Come.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: When R. Eliezer fell sick, his disciples entered [his house] to visit him. He said to them, ‘There is a fierce wrath in the world.’ They broke into tears, but R. Akiba laughed. ‘Why dost thou laugh?’ they enquired of him ‘Why do ye weep?’ he retorted. They answered, ‘Shall the Scroll of the Torah lie in pain, and we not weep?’ — He replied, ‘For that very reason I rejoice. As long as I saw that my master's wine did not turn sour, nor was his flax smitten, nor his oil putrefied, nor his honey become rancid, I thought, God forbid, that he may have received all his reward in this world [leaving nothing for the next]; but now that I see him lying in pain, I rejoice [knowing that his reward has been treasured up for him in the next].’ He [R. Eliezer] said to him, ‘Akiba, have I neglected anything of the whole Torah?’ — He replied, ‘Thou, O Master, hast taught us, For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.’

So the equation of a man with the Torah is not a Messianic creation but has a historical precedent.
Thank You, Steve, Good post!