johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2009 John D. Brey.
Truly El Shaddai is the
many-breasted-one. His Torah can feed and support numerous wholly independent
spirits of thought simultaneously. The Torah text can support the Jewish
interpretation, say for instance the Talmud, as well as the Christian
interpretation found in the New Testament.
Unfortunately, there’s the
slight problem that the Masoretic version of the Torah text attempts to codify
only the most basic Jewish interpretation as though that's the whole, or
perhaps the primary, spiritual content of the Torah. Christians then turn
around and use the Masoretic text for translations of the Torah when using the
Masoretic text obliterates much of the freedom that's the inherent and most
sovereign property of the unpunctuated text.
At best, the Masoretes’
interpretation locks in the p'shat meaning of the text (the plain
meaning) as though that's the fundamental purpose of the text. ------- To get
at the derash (deep interpretation) or the sod (secret
interpretation) . . . we’ve to pass through the p'shat, or plain
meaning, therein uncovering the mammary cornucopia where the milk, or manna, of
life is provided us. We've to pull back the wool (the p'shat meaning) to
get to El Shaddai's teat.
Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as
simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer
garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are
they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must be contained in
an outer garment. That garment is made up of tales and stories; but we, we are
bound to penetrate beyond.
The Zohar assures us
that the p'shat interpretation of the Torah is an idol and a ruse
designed to deter all but those circumcised of heart. ------ The believer who
can't see deeper than p'shat is ignorant. The one who doesn't care to
look is arrogant. The one who locks the text into the p’shat mode is
vile.
No sacred Torah scroll has
the punctuation that’s placed on the Masoretic text. The attempt to nail down
the text with punctuation is contrary to the will and purpose of the Author of
the text. ---- It's an attempt to limit what the text can say according to
human traditions, and not divine imperative. Adding punctuation to the text
requires that human pre-text, based on human tradition, be superimposed over the
divine revelation God has provide for all mankind.
As early as the ninth century, Natronai ii. b.
Hilai, who was Gaon or spiritual head of the College in Sora (859-869), in
reply to the question whether it is lawful to put the points to the Synagogal Scroll
of the Pentateuch, distinctly declared that "since the Law, as given to
Moses on Sinai, had no points, and the points are not Sinaitic [i.e. sacred],
having been invented by the sages, and put down as signs for the reader; and
moreover since it is prohibited to us to make any additions from our own
cogitations, lest we transgress the command `Ye shall not add,' &c.
(Deut. iv. 2); hence we must not put the points to the Scroll of the Law."
Elias Levita, Being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible (p.11).
Elias Levita, Being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible (p.11).
Since the Masoretes were
traditional Jews, their choice of punctuation imposed Jewish tradition on the
holy text of the divine scroll. ------- Their addition of punctuation to the
scroll said in affect, that the holy Torah was a "Jewish" production,
belonging primarily to Jews, rather than a divine product belonging to all
mankind (if mediated exclusively through inspired Jewish prophets). By
adding their punctuation, the Masoretes were showing that they felt the holy
Torah was authored by Jews, and could thus be manipulated by Jews, in total
opposition to the idea that God is the Author of the Torah scroll; and thus
only God could add punctuation (if that were His intention).
By creating the Masoretic
text, the Masoretes were saying that contrary to the truth of the matter, which
is that Jews were merely God's amanuensis, they wrote what He dictated, they
are in fact the authors and producers and the sole target audience of the holy
Torah.
* * *
In point of fact the
signature text of the Torah given to Moses by God is “fixed” so that nothing
whatsoever is to be added or subtracted from the naked consonants as they were
given by God (Deut. 4:2). . . Nevertheless, this "written" Torah is
not the "whole" Torah; it's only a cipher-text requiring the
"Oral" Torah in order to be decipherable. The holy Torah is made up
of a written cipher (represented by the tablets and the scroll), and an Oral
interpretive element given to Moses in conjunction with the "written"
text.
The Oral interpretive
element is passed on verbally; it's memorized (archived in the
"heart" leb, rather than stone or lambskin) so that the
"written" Torah becomes something like a "fence" around the
Living Torah. ------- It protects the Living Torah as though it were a fence
erected to keep out intruders (intrusive interpretations), who (which) would
damage the Living Torah with false readings of His intent.
The Oral Torah is the
password which allows the sheep of God to pass through the shamar
provided by the written text. Within this concept, the most evident attempt to
harm the Living Torah would be manifest in any suggestion that the
"written" Torah functions wholesale - as the whole Torah, or
that the Living Torah can come out from behind the written Torah simply by
reading the written Torah. ------ Anyone taking this stance is showing they
don't know the Living Torah. They don't have the password (Oral Torah) which
allows them through the text, and thus they tell us that the Presence has come
out from behind the text by their mere reading of the text.
In the ancient Jewish
procedure, the Oral Torah is the memorized password (passed secretly mouth to
ear) which allows the Jew to enter "into" the Presence of the Living
Torah (which is in effect passing through the written text.) --- If the Jew
possesses the memorized password (Oral Torah) he can pass through the fence of
the written Torah, in which case he will be in the very Presence of the Living
Torah.
In a bastardization of
authentic Judaism, the Oral Torah is thought to come from behind the fence of
the written text, and make itself Present outside, or on the surface, of the
protective boundaries of the written text. In other words, no password is
needed to enter into the Living Torah. One needn't pass through the text into
the Presence of God. One need only stand outside the boundaries of the text and
"read" aloud and God will come from behind the fence (shamar)
He’s constructed and Present Himself to readers one and all.
In this heretical and
profane form of Judaism, God is actually thought to come out from behind the
protective fence, rather than drawing circumcised Jews into His Presence behind
the protection of the text.
We can know for certain
that the "written" text of the Torah is a mere cipher . . . and that
it cannot be used apart from an "oral" presupposition, since the
sacred letters of the "written" Torah have no punctuation, no periods
(sof
pasuq), no commas , no semicolons,
no vowels (niqudot) . . . the text is subject to multiple interpretations
based on the key used to unlock a particular meaning. The text in this state
appears vulnerable to those who would read into it false con-cepts contrary to
the Will and Purpose of its Author.
But the vulnerability is a
ruse designed to draw in that ram who would attempt to shepherd the sheep of
God already safely behind the fence. The ram will be caught in the thicket of
the written text and destroyed by the Living God.
* * *
For fear of being snagged by
the thorns of a thicket fence, we’d not be tempted to take anything in the
written Torah at "face" value until we’d gotten behind the text . . .
in which case we could know that our Oral Torah (our password to a deeper
meaning) was in fact authenticated by the Spirit of God.
If it's our intention to get
to the safety behind the surface narrative of the text, then a simple example
of that sort of maneuver could be produced by acknowledging that typologically
speaking, David was the true shepherd of God, while Absalom was the false
shepherd. The Presence authenticates our presumption that the surface narrative
is a mere ploy, when we realize that in that surface narrative, Absalom, i.e.
the ram who would attempt to rule over the sheep of David (David being the true
shepherd of God), is caught in a "thicket" in his attempt to attack
David and David's sheep.
When we're aware that the
surface narrative of the Torah text (the "written" Torah) is a
"thicket" (Heb. shamar) placed around the Living Torah, the
true Shepherd, then we're inclined to look at every case where a falsehood, or
false shepherd, is caught in a "thicket," on the surface narrative,
as one more example of what will happen to anyone trying to get into the
sheepfold of the true Shepherd, apart from knowing the legitimate password.
If the written Torah is
indeed the "thicket" protecting the true Shepherd of God, then God is
not going to come out of the "thicket" to correct, or show His face,
to the false sheep and rams. He's going to follow the type of David, and wait
for the false shepherd to attempt to engage Him in His own place of safety
"behind" and "underneath" the shroud, or thorny-thicket,
which adorn Him as something like a crowning example of His most
intimate modus operandi.
* * *
In cryptography, encryption is the process of
transforming information (referred to as plaintext) using an algorithm (called
cipher) to make it unreadable to anyone except those possessing special
knowledge, usually referred to as a key.
Wikipedia.com.
Wikipedia.com.
The "un-pointed"
(no vowels added) Hebrew text is a "cipher-text" which cannot even
function until a presupposition is applied to it. It's a miraculous thing when
that cipher-text is given by God Himself. . . . For then, only God can share
the key with which to unlock the true underground streams of
life. The streams are always flowing. They cannot be dammed
without damning the text.
The un-pointed Hebrew text
is a cipher-text . . . literally an algorithm . . . and the Spirit of God is
the key which must be brought to bear on the text if a person is to unlock the
spiritual meaning of the text.
The Masoretic text destroys
the very nature of the algorithm by applying a finite rationalistic
presupposition (a human traditional reading) to the cipher text itself. Once
this rationalistic reading is "added," the true functioning of the
cipher-text is rendered inoperative by the pointed-ness of the vowels used to
nail down a rational and traditional meaning from the text. [1]
The Masoretic interpretation
is not necessarily a wrong interpretation. But to place that interpretation on
top of the sacred text, as though it were the primary, or sole, message, is
vile. The Masoretic interpretation is not "the key," but "a
key" to the written Torah. At best, it’s a product of a Jewish spirit
interacting with the sacred text.
When that Jewish spirit
suggests that it is the only spirit, so that it might as well be incorporated
into the sacred text (implying that there is only one meaning), then the text
is crucified in its Living ability to evolve and speak to persons other than
one class of Jews. The Masoretes are in affect telling the soul of the scroll
(the Living Torah behind the text) what it must say if Jews are expected to
obey.
Stated kerygmatically, the
Masoretic vowel points nail down the consonantal text to one constricted Jewish
interpretation. The Living Torah is told that if He doesn’t like being confined
to such a degree, then come out from behind the text, or down off the page, and
remove the vowel points (nails) and we will worship you accordingly.
* * *
In Emanuel Tov's book, Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Tov, a proponent of the Masoretic
text, corrects the record concerning the violence perpetrated by the
Masoretic text. He explains that originally the Masoretic text was only
consonants. And that the purpose of the addition of the vocalization, the vowel
points, was: " . . . to remove doubts regarding the reading of the text
when this allowed for more than one interpretation (p. 40)."
On the next page, Tov
states: "The authors of the biblical texts [the pointed Masoretic texts]
intended a certain reading of the consonantal framework, but since this reading
was not recorded, traditions of reading the biblical texts developed which were
not necessarily identical with the `original intention' of the texts. It is not
clear whether one or more different reading traditions were in vogue from the
very beginning. In principle, the existence in antiquity of multiple
consonantal texts differing from each other would preclude a unified reading
tradition, and would allow for the assumption of different reading traditions
(p. 41)."
What is not stated in this
paragraph is that we don't need "multiple consonantal texts" to
produce different reading traditions so long as the vowel points are not added
to the text. Without vowel points, multiple readings are not the problem at
all, they are the solution. Without vowel points, it’s absurd to speak of the
“original intention” of the text, since the text is subject to as many
intentions as the consonantal text can legitimately deliver up. God can
speak to anyone His Spirit moves simply by bringing a different pre-text to the
sacred text. To speak of an “original intention” is to consider the Living
Torah DOA (which it is in the dead letter). [2]
When the holy Sages debated
interpretations, they were not trying to fuse their variation into one
“original intention” (as though proper intercourse creates fusion rather than
diffusion). They were engaged in a productive encounter which gave birth to live
offspring. The two interpretations created a third, and not the fusion of the
two.
The Masoretic text attempts
to stop productive intercourse between the two Torahs (written and Oral), as
though the addition of the vowel points represents the “original” and
“singular” statement of the text. It becomes the equivalent of a prophylactic
barrier to giving live birth. It seeks fusion rather than diffusion. It
attempts to make all interpretations identical to the Pharisaical reading. And
to do this the Masoretes are willing to disobey Moses by silencing the unruly
voice of the Living Torah by placing Jewish presuppositions onto the sacred
text.
* * *
If perchance, Jesus is the
Oral Torah, the Living voice of the Torah, the Breath of Life . . . then the
violence perpetrated when points are added to the text is simply another
muddle-headed account of the Pharisaical attempt at protecting the Torah by
silencing voices contrary to the Pharisaical reading.
The Masoretic text stifles
multiple interpretations. It silences the Living voice of the Torah in the
belief that only one cast of characters (the dead ones) should get to speak for
the Torah.
Consequently the Masoretic
text allows Jews to refute the New Testament simply by claiming that it’s a
misinterpretation of the Masoretic text (which in many places it may be).
In other words, the
Masoretic text can be seen as a ploy used against simplistic Christians. Add
vowel points to what is otherwise a "cipher text" subject to various
interpretations, depending on the nature of the "key" used to
interpret the text. Then object when an interpretation using a different
"key" (say the belief that Jesus is the Author of the cipher text) is
applied to the already locked-in meaning of the text.
Jews have been claiming that
Christianity is a "misinterpretation" of the Torah since the
formulation of the Masoretic text. But it can be stated with all legitimacy
that at best, Christianity is a mis-interpretation of the Pharisaical
interpretation of the Torah codified in the Masoretic text.
Christians should surely
note that the "interpretation" codified according to the Pharisaical
interpretation of the text (the Masoretic version with points added to codify
the Pharisee's interpretation) is the same interpretation of the Torah which
led to Jesus of Nazareth being pointedly nailed down in the first place. The
Masoretic interpretation of the Torah text says that Christians are wrong about
Jesus being the Torah in the flesh, because they have codified the Torah to
justify the precise reading of the text used to crucify Jesus of Nazareth.
* * *
The "sacred" text that made possible all the various
translations and interpretations of Torah passages, say for
instance Genesis chapter 4, was delivered to Moses on Sinai without the punctuation
which was added to the text much later. ---- With no "accents" (ta'amin),
which represent something like our English punctuation, the signature text of
Genesis 4:1 would have looked like this (in Hebrew letters):
themanknewevehiswifeandsheconceivedandbearcain
. . . But the signature text was even more undefined than this. In the line
above, the vowels still exist whereas the signature Hebrew text had only
consonants, no vowels. ---- It would have actually looked more like this:
thmnknwvhswfndshcncvdndbrcn
A string of pure consonants like this represent a
"cipher-text." ---- A "cipher-text" forms a message
indecipherable to anyone but a person possessing the "key" necessary
to unlock the meaning hidden in the un-deciphered text. The text delivered to
Moses was not designed to be read by just anyone. It could only be read by
someone possessing the "key" necessary to unlock the text. (The
"key" would be knowledge of how the text should be read.)
God commanded that no "key" ever be placed directly on the
cipher-text in such a way as to suggest that it was the "only" or
even the "primary" key to unlocking the meaning of the text. It was
strictly forbidden to add anything to the pure string of Hebrew consonants
which made up the sacred text of the Torah.
The act of interpreting the sacred text was given to only a small cadre of specially chosen men to whom the oral "tradition" was passed by means of the "lips" or the "mouth" of someone already knowledgeable concerning this oral "tradition." It was strictly forbidden for the oral "tradition" to ever be written, or passed on in any way except word of mouth. Nothing was more anathema than the thought of placing the oral "tradition" onto the written text of the Torah; that would be an abomination punishable by death.
The act of interpreting the sacred text was given to only a small cadre of specially chosen men to whom the oral "tradition" was passed by means of the "lips" or the "mouth" of someone already knowledgeable concerning this oral "tradition." It was strictly forbidden for the oral "tradition" to ever be written, or passed on in any way except word of mouth. Nothing was more anathema than the thought of placing the oral "tradition" onto the written text of the Torah; that would be an abomination punishable by death.
The written text of the Torah was to remain forever a cipher-text subject to various interpretations based on the key used to unlock its meaning. God was concerned that the text never have a strict meaning nailed down, so that when He came personally, with the Living Breath which would unlock new meaning from the text, the text would still be receptive. . . It's clear from Paul and the Apostles that God passes the "revelation" of the key to the written Torah only to those in whom His Spirit has been passed through the intimacy of His breath . . . never through written text itself.
Those who receive the breath of God can interpret the written text of the Torah, but they're never authorized to produce a new written Torah by transferring their interpretation onto the text of the written Torah. The fluid relationship between the written word and the breath of revelation is never to be transgressed. And every instance of this transgression is a type, or trope, of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
The nation which nailed Jesus down to the wood in order to silence his spoken interpretation of the text are themselves products of the very "tradition" which decided where to place the periods (sof pasuq) and vowels (niqudot) in the version of Genesis 4:1-2 which justified the nailing down of Jesus of Nazareth; the tradition that went against tradition by destroying the cipher-text of the written Torah.
In defending his right to interpret the written Torah against the profane "tradition" which was nailed down to the text (in opposition to the text), Jesus of Nazareth was condemning the tradition, which broke tradition, in order to overlay God's sacred cipher-text with a traditional reading which somewhere along the line transgressed the prohibition against destroying the freedom of the cipher-text with points and addendums which by God's design could never be imposed on the written text itself.
In Deuteronomy 31:19-23 God tells Moses that the nation of Israel has corrupted herself and that He knows what is in their heart to do (hinting at Golgotha). Because they're predisposed to this great corruption and error, God tells Moses to write down a song, give it to Israel, and make them sing it, "so that it may be a witness for me against them":
For when I shall have
brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with
milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat;
then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break
my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are
befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it
shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their
imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the
land which I sware. Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it
the children of Israel.
Moses delivers the song to the nation of Israel and they're told to learn
and memorize it so that when it's used as the cantillation [3] through which
the Torah text is deciphered it will lead them into the trap that is the
crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
Knowing that Israel is consigned to use this bastardized cantillation as
the key to deciphering the Torah text, Moses places the text in the footstool
beneath the throne of the Ark of the Covenant where it will be seen to be the
enemy of the one sitting on the throne (Psalms 110:1). When God tells the Lord
that He will make His enemies the footstool for his feet, He's speaking
specifically of the version of the Torah that's placed in the Ark of the
Covenant (Deut. 31:24-26).
Because He knows the predisposition of the nation of Israel's heart, God
gives them a funeral dirge (the Song of Moses) as the oral cantillation through
which they will decipher the Torah text. They will read the text under this
pretense (so to say) until the veil is removed from their eyes and ears at the
glorious appearing of their Lord, and Messiah.
* * *
For those unfamiliar with
the workings of the Hebrew language, all the verbiage in the world about the
criminality of attempting to nail down the Torah with pointy addendums will
mean practically nothing. ----- Better simply to give an example of precisely
what the Pharisaical editors were able to accomplish by codifying their own
personal "interpretation" in the guise of the Masoretic text.
The King James Version of
Genesis 4:1-2 (based on the Masoretic text) goes this way:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and
bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his
brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep. But Cain was a tiller of soil.
The whole tenor and flow of
the verse is based on the addition of the punctuation which simply doesn't exist
in the consonantal text, the sacred text, the text given by God: without
punctuation. ------ Furthermore, something extremely disturbing is apparent to
anyone even vaguely familiar with the Gospels. Based on the application of the
periods in the verses, the text is made to suggest that "with the help of
the Lord Eve bore Cain"?
Yet in diametrical
opposition to the Masoretic interpretation of Genesis 4: 1-2, Jesus claims that
the “Devil,” and not YHVH, fathered his Pharisaical Jewish antagonists (John
8:44), whom he equates with the death of Abel (Matt. 23:35). ---- In other
words Jesus unambiguously associates the Pharisees with Cain and the Devil . .
. and paints himself as Abel, the “Spirit” (Hebrew “hebel” translated
“Abel”) of YHVH. The Masoretic version of the story is clearly contrary to the
message of the Gospel?
If we assume that the
redactors and editors of Genesis 4:1-2 approach the un-pointed text (no
punctuation yet) with an intention of reading the Gospel account into the text,
then they, like the Pharisees, are free to add the punctuation according to the
Spirit of their exegetical pre-text.
Ignoring everything but the
consonantal text of Genesis 4:1-2, it can be read as follows without in any way
abusing the sense of the consonantal text:
And the man came to know Eve, his wife, and
she conceived and bore Cain. ----- And then she said: "Now I have produced
a man with YHVH " and bore his brother Abel. Abel was a shepherd. And
Cain plowed through the dirt.
This is a legitimate
interpretation of the text based on the Christian presupposition that Cain is
fathered by the serpent who plows through the dirt, while Abel is born when Eve
conceives without the services of Adam's serpent.
* * *
Christians are aware that
Jesus equated his enemies with Cain, and called them murderers like Cain, but
they may not appreciate the irony of the fact that since Jesus considered
himself the Living "spirit" or "breath" of the Torah (i.e.
he's born the Hebrew "hebel" of YHVH) then he would be
justified in considering himself "hebel" (translated “Abel”) .
. . so that anyone seeking his murder would naturally be associated with Cain.
I.e. anyone attempting to murder the "spirit"of the Torah must be
associated with the murderer “Cain” in the Torah.
Professor Ismar Schorsch,
who served as Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary for twenty
years, justifies and clarifies the relationship between this line of reasoning,
and the critique of the Masoretic text, in his Torah Commentaries, Canon
Without Closure:
Christianity turns on the doctrine of incarnation
as formulated famously by the Gospel of John: "So the Word became flesh;
he came to dwell among us, and we saw his glory as befits the Father's only Son
full of grace and truth." It is a doctrine that Jews tend to identify as
uniquely Christian. Whereas both Judaism and Christianity equally acknowledged
that at creation "the Word dwelt with God" as both wisdom and
instrument, Judaism refrained from ever endowing it with human form.
But Professor Schorsch doesn't
end with the Jewish refrain from endowing the Word with human form. He goes on,
immediately after the above quote, to say: “Though valid, the distinction does
not preclude the appearance in Judaism of the doctrine [of incarnation]. For
Judaism, the Word became incarnate as Book.” ---- Professor Schorsch shows that
this concept of incarnation of the Word in Book form is a well-known concept.
He uses the Talmud, as well as other Jewish text, and various Jewish rituals
and practices to show that for Judaism, the Word is incarnate as Book.
Yet if Judaism makes the
"Book" the incarnation of the living Word formerly "with
God," but now with man, then it's scary to think of what it means for
Jewish exegetes to attempt to make the incarnation of the Word in the written
Torah, the Book, say only what they want it to say at the "pointed"
end of a "period" or a vowel point!
Furthermore, the very word
“incarnate” speaks of “flesh and blood” rather than letters and text, so that
Judaism is denying the Oral Torah, which must be archived in flesh and blood,
and claiming “incarnation” in the written text of the Torah, the Book. . . The
“breath” (associated with flesh and blood) of YHVH (hebel, Abel), is
nailed down, in, on, the Book, when it’s patently clear that the very concept
of an “incarnate” book speaks of the violent doctrine which supposes that what
can only be passed on through a Word living in flesh and blood, through
“breath” or “spirit” . . . i.e., through Abel, can instead be nailed down in
the dead letter without doing damage to the Living God.
. . . because it was "unwritten," the
Oral Torah became an ingenious instrument of change that facilitated evolution
even as it sustained continuity. The tragedy of Jewish fundamentalism is that
it turned the Oral Torah into a second Written Torah and thereby robbed Judaism
of any capacity to transform itself.
Ismar
Schorsch, Canon Without Closure: Torah Commentaries, p. 252.
The finally definitive move for the Rabbis was to
transfer all Logos and Sophia talk to the Torah alone, thus effectively
accomplishing two powerful discursive moves at once: consolidating their own
power as the sole religious virtuosi and leaders of `the Jews,’ and protecting
one version of monotheistic thinking from the problematic of division within
the godhead. For the Rabbis, Torah supersedes Logos, just as for John [the
apostle], Logos supersedes Torah. Or, to put it into more fully johaninine
terms, if for John the Logos Incarnate in Jesus replaces the Logos revealed in
the Book, for the Rabbis the Logos Incarnate in the Book displaces the Logos
that subsists anywhere else but in the Book.
Border
Lines, Daniel Boyarin, Hermann P.
and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture, Berkeley.
NOTES:
1. In his book, Alef,
Mem, Tau, (p.63), Professor Elliot R. Wolfson situates the written text of
Torah within the timeless nature of divine revelation and thereby speaks of the
necessity of the finite text manifesting "inherently timeless," i.e.
"infinite" interpretations: "Cordovero's linkage of innovative
explications of Torah and the evolving nature of time underscores the intricate
connection in kabbalistic lore between phenomenological hermeneutics and the
ontology of time. Paradoxically, the idea of an infinite Torah entails that the
text is inherently timeless, for that which is infinite cannot be contained in
any temporal frame, which is by necessity finite, yet the meaning of a text
that is inherently timeless is manifest only in and through an endless chain of
interpretations that unfolds persistently in time, indeed, in its most basic
hermeneutical sense, time is the unremitting recitation of the timeless
text."
2. In Moshe Idel's book on
kabbalistic interpretation, Absorbing Perfections, p. 365, Idel says:
"If we take into consideration that in ancient times the scroll of the
Torah was written with consecutive letters not separated into words -- a fact
that allows modern scholars of the Bible plenty of room for exegetical
imagination -- the later Torah, as it has come down to us, is based on a
separation between the words. Thus the ancient manner of writing the text
created allowed [sic] numerous readings of the same sequence of letters. This
transition has been projected onto the more primordial plane by many Kabbalists
. . . ." ----- Idel quotes Abraham Abulafia as suggesting that the current
reading of the letters is based on a separation related to
"nature"and the attribute of judgment. Though in the future God will
reveal his secrets, and the natural and philosophical wisdom, related to the
current separation of the words, will be abolished, and a new separation of the
letters will be revealed. The Christian kabbalist Johann Reuchlin is quoted
suggesting that although Moses knew how to properly divine and divide the
words, he "did not explain to the vulgar the art either of ordering and
varying the order of the letters or of sweetly interpreting Sacred Scripture to
elevate the mind, even though he had by then received that art from the Divine
Majesty." ----- Later in the same chapter (Tzerufei `Otiyyot), Idel
quotes HYDA' saying, "He arranged the letters in front of Him, according
to the words describing death and the levirate and other issues. Without sin
there would have been no death, and He would not have arranged the letters into
words telling another issue. This is the reason the scroll of the Torah is
neither vocalized nor divided into verses, nor does it have cantillation marks,
thus hinting at the original state of the Torah, [consisting in] a heap of
unarranged letters. And the purpose of His intention is that when the king
messiah will come and death will be engulfed forever, there will be no room in
the Torah for anything related to death, uncleanness, and the like, then the
Holy One, blessed be He, will annul the words of the scroll of the Torah, and
He will join a letter of one word to a letter of another word in order to
create a word that will point to another matter. . . the Holy One, blessed be
He, will teach its reading according to the arrangement of the measure of the
letters that HE will be joining to each other to form one word, and He will
teach us the [new] division and the joining of the words." -----
Throughout the chapter (Tzerufei `Otiyyot), Idel shows that by the
reasoning of these, and other kabbalists, the un-pointed Torah text is a
cipher-text capable of being read in a myriad of manners. He quotes a number of
kabbalist suggesting that the archangel (p. 380) or other angels played a role
in arriving at the combination of letters that was originally received by the
children of Israel (this jibes with Acts chapter 7 and Galatians chapter 3,
where Israel is said to be confined to worshipping angels after the golden calf
fiasco. Paul speaks clearly and often about angels acting as the mediators,
when in fact God is one). ---- Nachmanides (Ramban) teaches these things in his
Torah Commentary where he says, "It would appear that the Torah `written
with letters of black fire upon a background of white fire' was in this form we
have mentioned, namely, that the writing was contiguous, without break of
words, which made it possible for it to be read by way of Divine Names and also
by way of our normal reading which makes explicit the Torah and the
commandment. It was given to Moses our teacher using the division of words
which expresses the commandment, and orally it was transmitted to him in the
rendition which consists of the Divine Names. Thus masters of the Cabala write
the letters of the Great Name I have mentioned [namely, the Name containing the
seventy-two letters] all close to each other, and then these are divided into
words consisting of three letters and many other divisions, as is the practice
among the masters of the Cabala" (p. 15). ---- In Professor Elliot R.
Wolfson's, Pathwings, p. 181, he says, "If we accept the postmodern
insistence on the indeterminacy of meaning, to some degree buttressed by the
polysemy attested in classical rabbinic hermeneutics, then we want to avoid
positing a univocal reading of any given text. Indeed, what transforms a book
into text is the possibility of multiple readings. To proffer a particular
reading, therefore, is to follow one path of interpretation to the exclusion of
the others all the while acknowledging that other are equally valid."
3. To this day, cantillation is used
in relationship to the deciphering of the Torah. Wikipedia says: "Cantillation
is the ritual chanting of readings from the Hebrew Bible in synagogue services. The chants are written and
notated in accordance with the special signs or marks printed in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh) to complement the letters and
vowel points. These marks are known in English as accents and in Hebrew as טעמי המקרא ta`amei
ha-mikra or just טעמים te`amim. (Some of these signs were also
sometimes used in medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah.) The musical motifs associated
with the signs are known in Hebrew as niggun or neginot (not to
be confused with Hasidic nigun) and in Yiddish as טראָפ trop: the
equivalent word trope is sometimes used in English with the same
meaning. A primary purpose of the cantillation signs is to guide the chanting
of the sacred texts during public worship. Very roughly speaking, each word of
text has a cantillation mark at its primary accent and associated with that
mark is a musical phrase that tells how to sing that word. The reality is more
complex, with some words having two or no marks and the musical meaning of some
marks dependent upon context. There are different sets of musical phrases
associated with different sections of the Bible. The music varies with
different Jewish traditions and individual cantorial styles. The cantillation
signs also provide information on the syntactical structure of the text and
some say they are a commentary on the text itself, highlighting important ideas
musically. The tropes are not random strings but follow a set and describable
grammar. The very word ta'am means "taste" or
"sense", the point being that the pauses and intonation denoted by
the accents (with or without formal musical rendition)
bring out the sense of the passage."
bring out the sense of the passage."