Abramide / Abrahamide / Abramite / Abrahamite / Abrahamic
KARAITE ABRAHAMISM
Faith – Covenant – Religion
The Karaite Abrahamide Community
An Assembly of Faith (AOF) of the Advancing Noah Movement (ANM)
http://abrahamism.angelfire.com
The particular Covenantal Religion of the Patriarch Abraham
(Post Noahide & Post Hebrew Religion – Pre Israelide Religion)
Weblinks
Videos
Primarily the Torah Prophecies Series
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCt0QXkAtvOkrOR41eNZIp4T_CBgfP0md
In the world today, in terms of religions of the Jewish Bible (aka the Tanakh or the Old Testament), we mainly have Judaism (Karaism for Bible-only), Samaritanism (Written Torah only) and Noahide Faith (7DF).
Jews have the covenant of Mt Sinai, the sign being the blood of bulls (Exodus 24).
Noahides have the covenant of Mt Ararat, the sign being the Rainbow (Genesis 9).
Yet, the men of Shechem were offered conversion, via circumcision, to become part of Jacob’s household. Jacob was under Abraham’s covenant at this time. And all of Abraham’s household were circumcised when God entered into the covenant with him (Genesis 17).
Essentially, a Noahide may consider converting to Karaism or Judaism, but in the world today there is now another option.
ADOPTING KARAITE ABRAHAMIC FAITH.
Haven Noahide Fellowship promotes the Rainbow Bible (Genesis 1 – 11:9) for ALL mankind.
Yet a convert to Abraham’s covenant, in truth, has the spirituality of ALL of Genesis to inculcate into their lives. While the covenant of Israel through Moses is not ratified until Exodus 24, Exodus primarily pertains to Israelite faith as from Exodus One it is all leading up to the Covenant.
But Abraham’s domain is ALL of Genesis.
Do you feel inspired to read GENESIS AND NOTHING BUT GENESIS.
Are you friendly with Israel, but don’t want to go all the way to Sabbath keeping and kosher and so on.
Try conversion to Abraham’s covenant. After Hebrew faith, which is between Noah’s covenant and Abraham’s covenant, which has no official conversion process, it is the next major religion of the world, and it does not really have a modern day parallel. Yet Abraham, in heaven, is of this faith. His children are of this faith. Ishmaelites, while many are currently Muslims, really could adopt this faith, as could the other children of Abraham through his other wife Keturah (Genesis 25).
If ABRAHAMISM is your passion, get circumcised if you are male, start a website, make yourself known to Israel and the Noahides, and enjoy the blessings of a lifelong devotion to the Book of Genesis.
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly
The Founder of the 7 Divine Fellowships of Karaite Adamide-Noahide faith
ADOPTION INTO THE KARAITE ABRAHAMIDE COMMUNITY
Adoption. It's a legal process, where a child becomes the child of new parents, which are not their biological parents. It's done, often because the child is an orphan, or because one of the parents has died and other reasons. But it is legal. Heavenly citizens born on earth have the right to grant their offspring in heaven the rights of copies of goods owned during their earthly sojourn which they earned as their heavenly reward. What you acquire in life on earth you acquire in life for eternity. I, Daniel, the founder of the Karaite Abrahamism Community, have acquired a large number of earthly possessions for eternity. Now, the Abrahamism Community exists in heaven, but for members of the Community to acquire rights on ownership of my belongings for their own copies, they would have to be eternal members of the Abrahamism Community AND also be adopted members of the founder of the Abrahamism Community, myself. Thus, a particular legal form needs to be produced which is for 'Abrahamism Community' which makes them adopted spiritual members of myself, and thus entitled to my rights of owning things. This is a legal enough process, and the way heavenly members of the Abrahamism Community can obtain copies of my possessions.
A
DEEPER MEANING IN GOD ASKING ABRAHAM TO SACRIFICE HIS SON
Here is
the 'TESTING' of Abraham from Scripture
Genesis 22 (New
International Version)
Abraham Tested
1
Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here
I am," he replied. 2 Then God said, "Take your son, your
only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah.
Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I
will tell you about."
3 Early the next morning Abraham
got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants
and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt
offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the
third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He
said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the
boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to
you."
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering
and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and
the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and
said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes,
my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are
here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt
offering?"
8 Abraham answered, "God himself will
provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of
them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had
told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on
it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the
wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his
son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven,
"Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he
replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he
said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God,
because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
13
Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [a] caught by
its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt
offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD
Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of
the LORD it will be provided."
15 The angel of the LORD
called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I
swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this
and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless
you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and
as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of
the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring [b] all
nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
19
Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for
Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.
In
the immediate sense, God was testing Abraham's loyalty. But there is
a far more significant basis behind this - something very
fundamental.
I have, in the past, thought Abraham was
gutless for not standing up to God when God asked him to kill his
son. I felt to myself if it was my son I would have told God to go to
hell. And, in a sense, that is why God asked Abraham to kill his
son. For a man of the ancient world like Abraham, and still to
a degree today, the son represented the 'SEED' of the man or 'HIS
LEGACY'. When Abraham complained to God before this that he had no
seed and a servant in his household would be his heir it reflected
how important the legacy of children was to them.
But what a
legacy of descendants can turn into, if we are proud, is a sense of
our own greatness and the pride which accompanies it. And more than
that - in our seed we seek to dominate other seeds and rule mankind.
It is the nature of the competitive spirit which all to easily
overcomes ambitious men, and even women too.
Going back in
time to the early centuries AD, this is the time when many of the
famous surnames and clan names came into being. What you could
perhaps surmise is that the progenitors of these clans all gained a
sense of pride at their great accomplishment. You see, having
children can lead to a great sense of pride as if we have
accomplished something great.
But God does not like pride in
men. Because in pride we have hatred, conflict and war. We have
tribal divisions and wars between them and have for a long time
suffered racial hatreds and divisions because of the jealousies and
prides
held in one clan hierarchy against another.
When
God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac he was cutting right to the core
of Abraham's dreams of Glory. Abraham had ambitions for his children,
to see them in Glory one day, as God had indeed promised him, but God
needed to test Abraham. He needed, in that testing, to destroy the
pride which had built up in Abraham because of the promises of God
and by asking Abraham to kill Isaac, he broke Abraham's pride. And
then God did not have a barbaric son in the people of Israel, but a
people of law, justice and peace.
God asked Abraham to kill
his pride. To kill his glory. And the real step all of us need to
take in our lives is to leave behind us the sense of accomplishment
and pride we achieve in our children's lives and realize that it is
the purpose
of men to glorify the creator God who gave us
our abilities in the first place.
Children are meant for
joy, not pride, as if we are something special.
THE SINS OF SODOM
It is clear enough that Abraham interceded for the people of Sodom and Gomorroah. And it is also clear enough that God destroyed the cities because sufficient righteous were not found there. When he was known as Abram God made the land covenant, the land from the river Egypt to the river Euhprates, Abram's land and inheritance. And Israel received a portion of this land as its blessing also for their covenant. In the Torah of Israel it clear in Leviticus 18 & 20 that male to male sexual behaviour is a transgression of the law. Abraham's land covenant contained Sodom and Gomorrah within its boundaries and was destroyed. The man of Sodom tried to rape the angels who went to redeem Lot and his family and any righteous found there. They were crude enough to rape males. Sodomite behaviour is defined by faggotry, amongst other potential aspects, and Ezekiel says they were generally haughty and merciles sort of people who committed abomination. That abomination seemed to be the sexual misbehaviours. Thus it becomes clear that Abrahamic level of faith views and understand gay and faggoty behaviour to be a sin, and worthy of the wrath of God. A death penalty is not inappropriate. God said to Israel at the end of Leviticus 18 & 20 to not practice like Egypt and to Canaan were they were commiting abomination sexually. But he only judged Canaan and destroyed them for this behaviour. It specifies that he destroyed the Egptions for their oppresion on Israel – the cruel slavery. It does not state he destroyed Egypt for their sexual misdeeds, or apparent sexual misdeeds. Thus beyond the borders of the Abrahamic land covenant God has not stipulated, as at all witnessed in the Rainbow Torah (Genesis 1:1 – 11:9) any requirement to abstain from abomination sexually. It is clear that 'Chamas' like behaviour is forbiddent to a Noahide, but that Abomination sexually - 'Toebah' – has not been specified as forbidden in the Rainbow Torah. But for the Abrahamic land covenant 'Toebah' does appear to be forbidden behaviour to a certain extent. Abram married his half sister – this was acceptable. But Israel do not have that permision, so have a stricter level of behaviour required. Thus we can see that God expects a basic code of observance from Noahide, a stricter one from Abrahamide and stricter still from Israelide. Therefore the sins of Somdom should not be practiced by Abrahmides, for this judgement was made before Israel advented, and within the Abrahamically judged covenant. A final technical point is that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are indeed located within the Abrahamic land but also within the Israelite covenant land, whereas Israel did not receive the entirety of the blessings of Abrams land covenant, evidenced by the fact they were not granted the land from the river of Egypt all the way to the river of the Euphrates. In this sense there may be a slight differentiation of requirement for an Abrahamide resident in Israel compared to an Abrahamide resident in the remainder of Abram's land covenant blessing.
The
Historical Torah
by
Daniel
Thomas Andrew Daly
Copyright 6178 SC
Introduction
What
is the 'Historical Torah'? Simply answered, it is that component of
the written Torah, whatever that component may be, which is 100%
genuinely historical in the detail it provides and the factuality and
the truthfulness of the claims it makes.
Why the
question? Simply put, this is a question from a soul (myself) and an
organisation (The Historical Torah Society) who need greater
understanding and clarity on this issue, ultimately, for the purposes
of spiritual truth: for the gaining of wisdom and knowledge from that
truth and for the application of any of God's divine principles of
that truth which remain true at the end of our study. It is a real
question to provide a real answer – what, in the Torah, are we
supposed to observe.
What is the basis for this
question? Simply put, the age old tradition of Moses as the author of
the 5 books of the Written Torah was sufficiently debunked many years
ago. The gradual development of the documentary hypothesis, which
divides the authorship of the Torah into several strands, challenges
the notion that all the Torah must be blindly obeyed and sworn
allegiance to, simply because there are now reasonable questions as
to the legitimacy of the information and how much is genuinely
divinely inspired. Especially in the 19th Century, but particularly
in the 20th, Biblical Criticism has developed to such a degree that
the fundamentalist claims of an absolute literally divinely inspired
Word of God in every detail have genuinely been shown to be false
claims. What this implies for our purposes is that applying the
legislation and principles of the Written Torah to ones life in every
detail and attempting to teach that to others may 1) Not be necessary
and 2) In fact be harmful for the often annoyance gained by those who
dislike religion because of practices within that religion they find
distasteful and reject.
Only the truth of God's faith
can stand – if it is a system of knowledge defined by man which
is shown, in time, to be corrupt, such a system must be ignored and
replaced with the correct moral teachings. The Torah is so well
entrenched in our society that many have taken for granted its
acceptance regardless. But as we leave the 20th century, whose latter
half saw a great increase in political correctness and biblical
rejection, and we enter the 21st century, those of biblical faith are
under greater attack than ever, and the bible more derided than any
other time in its history.
The facts needed to be
presented – clearly – not for the faith to 'Progress' but
for the faith to be more firmly 'Established'. Only on the 'Truth' of
scripture and the 'Truth' of divine revelation, can the faith hope to
survive this century in any decent shape, and that of the generations
to come.
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly
Founder of
the Historical Torah Society
Thursday 6th of February, 6178
SC
Macarthur, ACT, Australia
Chapter
One
'Before we even Begin - Why the Torah is True
Regardless'
“In the Beginning God Created Mankind.
And then God created Reason. And with Reason mankind walked away from
fables of snakes and floods and arks and commands, and realised
nature was the answer, and that religion was a fowl invention of
man.”
While that fabulous quote is of my own
invention, the rise of deism in America, belief in God without
religion, is one the reasons our quest to find the genuine historical
Torah is of importance. Deism does not so much deny the facts of
scripture, as ridicule them as unworthy of any serious study simply
because they appear to lack god given 'Reason'. The Miracles of
scripture 'Defy Reason' and 'Logic' in the eyes of a deist, and God
could in no way at all be the author of such confusion, which he
obviously was, should he have authored such foolery.
Deism
– belief in God without religion, based on one's own reason –
is perhaps one of the greatest opportunities for evil there ever will
be. For in the 'God of Nature alone' who will we be to one day
ultimately judge what is 'Natural' and what is 'Unnatural'. For, as a
Lion kills to eat, one day the deists might argue, as their morality
crashes to even greater lows, that murder is a natural function of
human society, and why on earth should we bother legislating against
this fact? Simply let nature run its own course will be the accepted
moral truth 'BASED ON REASON' that this movement will valiantly
uphold.
Or they would.
If they ever got the
power to do so.
They won't, though. The truth of El
Shaddai will never allow such abominations.
You see,
even the sinner kids next door, who see their dad boozing and hitting
their mother can tell you murder is wrong, and even a sin. They see
and know it every time he hits their mother. They see and know it
every time he hits THEM. It is the cold hard fact of EVIL and in the
end it is not the natural man which chooses this behaviour, but the
man who has rejected knowledge of God and lawfulness, which has
always been available from the creator, denies this very living God
who rebukes him, and chooses to act, not in any form of reason of
nature, but on the wicked choosings of the evil of his own heart and
mind – HIS OWN CHOICES – and does evil.
And
the conscience perpetually witnesses to this truth.
So,
before we even really begin our study, in all my knowledge and
revelation on life, I can already tell you this. You won't really
throw out the Torah – or to be more accurate – the
general message of the Torah, when all is said and done. Yahweh El
Shaddai will triumph in the end, not even based on the Torah, for if
you simply take it is as the writings of old Israel in a catalogue of
a mishmash of historical legends, you can still understand, in the
end, through reading its message, that whatever did go on
historically in the end – whatever the truthfulness which IS in
there about history – that the big guy presented within –
GOD – really is the Creator God and that the morals he
portrays, portrayed at a basic level, such as in the 10 commandments,
really are true in the end anyway.
You don't need to
know, ultimately, whether or not the bible is factual in every detail
in the end, to not know in your heart, after an encounter with the
text, that the creator of the universe is the one who is obviously
being described in and that, whatever parts are legendary and
whatever parts are true, they are still pointing to the creator of
the universe and giving the essential message of the kinds of moral
this creator emphasises and teaches for his human offspring.
Our
own SELF-WILL and our own pigheadedness can interfere with this
process. In our pride, which is the essential problem of deism and
all false religions, we think we know better than God and can choose
our own destiny. It is simply to choose freedom to do what we want,
to have no superiors watching over us and lecturing us and, often,
simply to bloody sin, that we are like this. We deny the God of
lawfulness, because we don't want to be lawful. We want to do our own
thing and have our own freedoms. We call the religious hypocrites
because they don't justify all the lifestyle choices we want to make
in our own lives. We say 'Live your own life' and 'Make your own
choices' to justify this truth for our own belief in our own
sovereign rights.
We all want to be our own God.
Yet,
the morality which ultimately comes across from the Torah portrays a
God who judges and makes rules, and this is the fundamental problem
that deists and other objectors to the God of scripture and any moral
truths being associated with scripture, have. They want their own
freedoms and their own moral platitudes, often to play God
themselves. Often to live the lifestyle choices they want to make,
and there is nothing at all easier in simply finding a few biblical
contradictions and off they go claiming the bible is all man-made and
the religious are all hypocrites and you never have to worry about
that old thing ever again.
And you know what?
That
is probably the way God likes it.
Why? Because he is
after the faithful and the servants. The moral and the truthful. Not
ones who simply want to live as they please, and who will end up
finding any old excuse anyway, regardless of how infallible or not
the scriptures be, to justify their own choices.
And
those choices usually end up being sin.
So, before we
even begin, you will already find the Torah the truth, if you know
the God of the Torah in your heart or have met him personally, and
this study of ours will not convince you he isn't God, whatever the
result. Yet, conversely, it may draw you a little closer, should you
feel the bible is a pile of nothing more than vain traditions, when
you understand a little more clearly how it came about and what
portions are perhaps genuinely historical – or what ideas
within those sources are genuinely historical in a divine sense as
they claim – and in this understanding you might see a little
more clearly the logic and truly rationale basis for believing in the
God of scripture and why Jehovah has been part of mankind's history
for so long now anyway.
Chapter Two
'The
Canon is formed – the Tradition Begins'
The
Council of Jamnia is a commonly held date for the timing of the
canonisation of the Hebrew Tanakh. The idea of this council as an
historical account was proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871. Before
the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 with the sacking of
Jerusalem by the invading Roman Armies, in Jamnia there had been a
school of developed phariseeism, founded by Yohanan ben Zakkai.
Yohanan had gained permission from the Roman Authorities to form a
school of Halakah (Jewish Law) in Jamnia and the school was formed,
as well as the Sanhedrin being relocated there. Later on at the end
of the second century CE with the formation of the Mishnah (which
Orthodoxy terms the 'Oral Law', believing it an orally passed on set
of extra legal rulings originating in the time of Moses which, until
being written down in the Mishnah, were only passed on Orally), the
Mishnah records the discussion of the validity of certain texts of
the Kethuvim as scripture. Graetz taught on these passages and other
references, that the canonisation of the Tanakh as a whole, through
primarily the Kethuvim being sanctioned as the third book of the
Canon in the Jamnian period, supposedly took place in the period of
AD 70 to AD 90 approximately.
In New Testament writings,
the event chronicled as the 'Transfiguration' was supposedly Jesus
justification before God upon the 'Law' and the 'Prophets'. Yet the
Law and the Prophets are the 'Torah' and the 'Neviim'. NOT the
writings, or the 'Kethuvim'.
Did the Kethuvim exist
separately as its own book in the time of Jesus? Were the books of
the Kethuvim part of the Prophets? For example, Jesus quotes the book
of Daniel and claims Daniel as a prophet, yet the book of Daniel
features only in the Kethvim in today's writings. Was Daniel part of
the Neviim, though, in some traditions in the time of Jesus? Yet what
of the Psalms? The New Testament quotes them constantly? Were they
canon yet? Were they in the process of becoming canonised?
The
information we have dates the origin of all the books of the Tanakh
well before the time of Jesus of Nazareth, yet the New Testament
writings shed no clear data on there being 3 parts of the Tanakh, nor
do the early writings in the Mishnah show clearly their canonisation
origin.
It is a matter of speculation, as more recent
commentators since Graetz have objected to the Council of Jamnia
being the time for the canonisation of the Tanakh as a whole. For
example, Jack P Lewis wrote a critique, which was published in the
April 1964 edition of 'Journal of Bible and Religion', in which he
challenges what had become a consensus amongst many that Graetz
hypothesis was practically proven.
According to
Lewis:
The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis
to explain the canonisation of the Writings (the third
division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew
canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on
which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the
question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be
relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be
allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition
of assertion.
It is clear, though, that in the early
centuries of the Common Era, a consensus of what the scriptures of
the Tanakh WERE did become established so that by the time the
Mishnah and the Babylonian and Palestinian Gemaras are complete (The
Twin Talmud’s from each of the schools rabbinic thought and
discussions) the Hebrew Bible was officially canonised and
accepted.
This was the view of Orthodoxy and Pharisaical
Judaism. Karaite Judaism emerged later on in the first millennium CE
under the initial impulses of Anan Ben David, which rejected the
Talmudic literature as man-made, but did not disagree with the
Talmudics on what constituted sacred scripture, the same 39 titled
volumes of the Tanakh as we have them today, which are classified as
24 books.
The formation of the Tanakh seems to have
progressed from first acceptance of the Torah, second, acceptance of
the Torah and the Neviim, and third, acceptance of the Torah, Neviim
and finally the Kethuvim also. It is hard to be completely precise
with the data we have historically, for the canonisation or
acceptance of various parts of the Hebrew Bible may have been done by
this or that spiritual leader amongst the people and in Karaite
tradition, the Sadducee’s may or may not have accepted just the
written Torah, meaning there was debate all along as to what was
accepted as scripture and what was not. Thus to precisely date a time
for the accepted canonisation of the official canon at an early date
is not really available on current data, yet, we do know that by the
time of the completion of the Talmud and with the origin of Karaism,
the idea of the Tanakh as it stands today had been accepted as
canon.
It was always accepted and believed that the
Torah section of the Tanakh was written first, and that it dated back
to Moses, the believed author. This is clearly the idea of the
Pharisees and the Rabbis and the Karaite community upheld this also.
To this day Orthodox Judaism, the inheritors of the Pharisaical
rabbinic assemblies, and Karaite Judaism, uphold the general
tradition of the written Torah originating in the time of
Moses.
There are likely many opinions as to the final
dating for the formation of the Torah, which is part of our job in
this study, yet what we can know is this: When the canon ultimately
did become formed, and by the time Karaite Judaism emerged, it was
believed, and still is, that the written Torah was the work of the
prophet Moses himself, that it represented the embodiment of the
divine will of God, that it was flawless, without error, the perfect
guide from God for man, and that it was, in all ways, the truth, and
the answer to the meaning of life, and, in essence, the word of
God.
Nothing less than that.
And
this tradition lasted, and has lasted, and became law and became fact
and became the book of the judgement of Israel and the book of the
Judgement of the Kingdom of God.
And then a
voice cried out.
And the cracks started to
appear.
Chapter Three
'Rise of the Heretics
– the First Biblical Critics'
The 17th century of
the Christian era was an era which was highlighted by the continued
dominance of the established Christian Church in Europe and the
emerging new spiritual energy of the Protestant reformation. Yet
equal to the zeal for biblical tradition, was an emerging zeal for
biblical historical fact. Thus, while Martin Luther on the 31st of
October 1517 sent his 'Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and
Efficacy of Indulgences' to Bishop Albert of Mainz, which came to be
known as the 95 theses, probably only in legend nailed to the door of
a catholic church, only 133 years later, Thomas Hobbes, in his work
'Leviathan', cited several passages of the holy writ of the Lawgiver
Moses to demonstrate, in the pure historical simplicity of the
scripture meaning what it says, that when Deuteronomy 34:6 teaches,
of Moses, that 'No Man Knoweth of his Sepulchre to this Day' and
Numbers 21:14 says 'Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of
the Lord what he did in the Red Sea and in the brooks of Arnon' and
Genesis 12:16 'And the Canaanite was then in the land', it becomes
clear through observation of the historical context from which the
subjects of each scripture are viewed from that it is a much latter
date, well after the time of Moses.
The essential crux
of Hobbes point is that Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah is
obviously historically untrue. How could Moses write 'No man knoweth
of his sepulchre to this day' in reference to his own grave, if he is
still alive? And 'To this day' strongly suggests a fair passage of
time has occurred. In a similar way 'It is said in the Book of the
Wars of the Lord what he did in the Red Sea' appears to quite
obviously be referring to a book known to the readers of the passage,
about Moses, written at a latter time period. And, when it says 'And
the Canaanite was then in the land' it becomes so obvious that it is
set in a post conquest of Israel time period, after the sacking of
the promised land under the warmanship of Joshua. The logical
conclusion of Thomas Hobbes was that none of these passages were
written by Moses.
Baruch Spinoza, born on the 24th of
November 1632 and died on the 21st of February 1677, was a Dutch
philosopher who has come to be considered by many as one of the great
rationalists of 17th century philosophy. He was a figure instrumental
in laying the groundwork for the Enlightenment of the 18th century,
and for our purposes, one of the early leading voices in biblical
criticism.
Baruch was a Jew. Yet he was also a critic,
and he viewed the scriptures as true and factual and the word of
Hashem or, what he gradually found out with his studies, fallible
and, the religion he was living by, ignoring the plain facts of
biblical and other passages to justify their tradition. In July 1656
the Talmud Torah congregation of Amsterdam issued a writ of
excommunication against Baruch, which was not an uncommon practice of
Jewry of the period. The essential claims of the Congregation were
that Baruch was a heretic, taught abominations and committed
monstrous deeds which had been clearly demonstrated. This translation
of the official record of the censure illustrates the congregations
concerns regarding the person of Baruch Spinoza.
The
Lords of the ma'amad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts
of Baruch de Espinoza, have endeavord by various means and promises,
to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend
his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more
serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced
and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this
numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to
this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became
convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been
investigated in the presence of the honorable chachamin, they have
decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be
excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree
of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate,
expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God,
Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in
front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-and-thirteen
precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication
with which Joshua banned Jericho, with the curse with which Elisha
cursed the boys, and with all the curses which are written in the
Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night;
cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up;
cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The
Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage
against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written
in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven,
and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of
Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the
Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive
this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or
in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same
roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed
or written by him.
The exact reasons for the issuance of
the censure appear to be: he was teaching radical theological views,
that the Amsterdam Jewish community was uncomfortable with such
viewpoints which could affect their relationship with the Christian
community of Amsterdam, and lack of contribution to the life of the
Amsterdam community as he had already withdrawn himself and was no
longer financially contributing. One would hope that a firm
conviction on the authority of scripture were the main issues of
concern for the community and that Baruch's outspoken views on the
issue were the primary reason for the censure, yet I wonder how much
the latter possibilities are closer to home.
Later,
Spinoza addressed the congregation in an apology written in Spanish,
to the elders of the Synagogue, were he quoted the medieval biblical
commentator ibn Ezra regarding the passage Genesis 12:16, which ibn
Ezra had called a 'mystery' and exhorted those who understand to keep
it silent' amongst various other biblical passages, and made the
claim, as had Hobbes, that Mosaic authorship of the written Torah as
a whole was patently untrue.
He was excommunicated at
23, died at 44, yet his legacy remained an enduring one.
Others
of the early 'Heretics' included Isaac de la Peyrere, Richard Simon
and John Hampden, who came to similar conclusions, yet their works
were condemned and several of them were imprisoned and forced to
recant.
These were the biblical critics – the
heretics – the forerunners of enlightenment, who knew the cry
of today's politically correct that the bible was full of bongers,
and that the religious hierarchy maintained their order through holy
censure and holy writ, and that while you may 'Rage Against the
Machine', in the end 'The bastards would have their way' because 'The
majority would have its say'.
The biblical critics
started the cracks.
But the faith remained, withstanding
these early shots.
Big things started happening the
following century as enlightenment dawned.
Chapter
Four
'Elohim and Yahweh – the Beginning of
Documentarianism'
In the 18th Century, Jean Astruc (1684
- 1766) was responding to the criticisms of the 17th Century Biblical
Critics in his work 'Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux,
dont il paraît que Moïse s'est servi pour composer le
livre de la Genèse ("Conjectures on the original
accounts of which it appears Moses availed himself in composing the
Book of Genesis"), believing they had gone too far in their
analysis of the authorship of the written Torah in denying Mosaic
Authorship, which he called a 'sickness of the last century'. By
applying techniques of literary analysis, which scholars of his day
used an sifting variant traditions in such works as the 'Iliad', to
arrive at the most authentic original text, he examined the Torah,
and applied the passages to two columns. One column was those
passages which used 'YHWH' as the name of God, the other column was
that which used 'Elohim' as the name of God. When this process is
done, and anybody can do it, it provides the result of two separate –
yet somewhat self-consistent – accounts in which, when one
account is compared to the other, interesting factors become
apparent.
The most notable idea that was developed was
that it seemed to be obvious, from a critical perspective, that the
two differing sources contained similar stories. Certain narratives –
separated by the divine names – seemed to be telling a story
which was quite similar to a story already told in another passage
under the other divine name. These similar passages were identified
by the title 'Doublet'. The idea of the doublet, as it came to be
accepted, was that one strand of authorship told a set of legends
from one perspective in the history of Moses record keeping, and the
other told a differing perspective in the recordings of Moses on the
history of the people. For example, there are two accounts of Sarah
and a foreign king, each account using a differing divine name, with
slightly differing historical tales told, yet mostly core similar
ideas expressed (Genesis 12 & Genesis 20). Another example was
the two apparently differing creation accounts taught in Genesis 1 &
2. Astruc taught that these were separate accounts recorded by Moses,
each meant to be taught separately. One could conjecture that Astruc
may have felt Moses composed them in differing times of his life,
when he understood things from a different perspective, and perhaps
had different information. Who really knows. Yet, so Astruc believed,
a later editor had come upon the two strands and combined them into
one overall single narrative, producing the entire Torah as we have
it today.
When we separate the passages based on either
the divine name of YHWH or the divine name of Elohim, we are left
with a set of two biblical histories. One portion of the Torah,
separated from another portion of the Torah. Taking this Torah
literally as a continuous history of mankind, we should naturally
note certain aspects of things of a repetitive nature about the two
accounts, as history often has similar occurrences in the forms of
traditions and rituals and ways of life, but, for the most part, each
account should be of differing historical tales and stories, each
usually unique in its own right, like history generally is. Yet, when
comparing one history with the other history of each strand, it
became apparent to Astruc, and generally is, that quite a number of
the differing historical tales bear such a striking resemblance to
the other tales in the alternative passage, that something more than
coincidence is at work. These similarities have come to be called
doublets. Because these doublets tell very similar stories, yet, with
the use of differing divine names and, because there is a large
number of them between the two documents, each separated by the
alternative divine names of YHWH and Elohim, it becomes an idea that
there is actually but one original origin of the tale taught by the
two stories, but that there were two accounts of this original tale
ultimately produced, told separately in the two resulting documents,
each separated by a divine name, yet only being a re-telling the same
original idea or story. The view is that the similarities between the
stories in each opposing document are of such great similitude that
they are not, in origin, each an original historical event of their
own merit, but a reflection of the other like tale, and that there is
but one original historical event, or one original strand of common
tradition, shared by these separate tales. This they called a
doublet. In other words, the Yahwistic history, as Astruc saw it,
told a history, and the Elohist history told a history again. Yet
these accounts were combined into one full document later, by an
editor. Going further, this editor did NOT unify the doublets, as one
might assume he might, but kept them separate as teaching two
separate accounts in the overall combined history of the full Torah.
Thus, in Astruc's understanding, Moses had produced two different
strands, perhaps compiled at two different occasions in life, which
were the best of his own thinkings on the issue when each had been
produced: Yet, a later editor compiled them together to produce the
complete Torah. To be precise, Astruc's work was limited to the book
of Genesis only, and in saying the Torah above, for Astruc's research
it just relates to the book of Genesis.
Astruc defended,
ultimately, the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. He was the first
documentarian (those who teach differing sources in the composition
of the Torah, known as the 'Documentary Hypothesis'), yet both his
sources were simply Moses, likely at differing times of his life.
This was, in some ways, a progressive fundamentalist type of
thinking, one which acknowledged that the Torah was composed by a
process of ongoing composition with differing aspects associated with
it, yet still, in his opinion, the work of the Lawgiver Moses and,
likely in his understanding, still the Word of God and the divine
teaching of the Most High. Still traditional scripture. He was still
a biblical believer – a follower of the faith – and
defended the scriptures as a man of God ought.
Yet what
followed soon after in the wake of his work, was not such an easy
profession of faith in Moses as the author of the sources of Torah,
yet a far more critical and determined inquiry into just how the
Pentateuch was formed and who, exactly, wrote it. And as the 18th
century progressed, further inquiry came forth and another giant
arose, whose 'Prolegomena' is still somewhat a revered text with
biblical critics to this day.
Chapter Five
'J,
E, P & D – The Documentary Hypothesis'
Astruc
had done something with his two column approach of Genesis. He had
developed 'Source Criticism'. The critical study to identify the
source from which a document arose. Yet, while he concluded it all
originated with Moses, those who followed were not so generous in
their assumptions. Around 1780 and afterwards, Johann Gottfred
Eichorn built upon the studies of Astruc to develop his own thoughts
on the sources ideas, yet went further than Genesis and applied his
research to the entire Torah. Ultimately, antagonistically to
Astruc's faith, he concluded that Moses had no part in the writing of
any of the written Torah. A far cry from tradition. In the early 19th
Century, Wilhelm de Wette proposed that the fifth book of the Torah,
Deuteronomy, was not even part of the two strand theory that Astruc
had argued at all, but that it was a third source, completely unique,
separate from the Yahwist source and the Elohist source. Mid 19th
Century, Hermann Hupfeld taught that the Elohist section was not even
one pure source at all – that there were two aspects related to
it and, in splitting it into two separate document, he identified one
as the Elohist source, yet the new document as a source relating to a
priestly code. This became the Priestly source. Hupfeld was also a
strong advocate of the work of the Redactor – the final editor
– in the ultimate production of the unification of the four
sources as the completed Torah. Yet, even then, complete agreement
had not been reached on these 4 sources alone, but smaller sections
and passages were identified and separated, a primary example of this
being Leviticus Chapters 17 to 26, which came to be known as the
Holiness code.
The scholars did not limit themselves to
simply dividing the sources up – they also attempted to date
them, and the biggest question of all – to try and understand
who may have ultimately produced each of the differing sections of
the Torah.
However, for the main part, the four sources
became the identifiable titles for the tradition of critical studies
which had developed as Source Criticism, and these separate 4 sources
earned a Capital letter to identify each. The Yahwist section was
called 'J', the Elohist section was called 'E', the Priestly section
was called 'P' and the Deuteronomist section was called 'D'.
The
debate had begun – the study was in earnest.
Professor
W. Robertson Smith, in his latter additional preface to 'Prolegomena
to the History of Israel' by Julius Wellhausen, had this to say about
Wellhausen's work.
The process of disentangling the twisted
skein of tradition is necessarily a very delicate and complicated
one, and involves certain operations for which special scholarship is
indispensable. Historical criticism is a comparatively modern
science, and in its application to this, as to other histories, it
has made many false and uncertain steps. But in this, as in other
sciences, when the truth has been reached it can generally be
presented in a comparatively simple form, and the main positions can
be justified even to the general reader by methods much less
complicated, and much more lucid, than those originally followed by
the investigators themselves. The modern view as to the age of the
Pentateuchal law, which is the key to the right understanding of the
History of Israel, has been reached by a mass of investigations and
discussions of which no satisfactory general account has ever been
laid before the English reader. Indeed, even on the Continent, where
the subject has been much more studied than among us, Professor
Wellhausen's book was the first complete and sustained argument which
took up the question in all its historical bearings.
The
Prolegomena was a work which, to this day, still carries weight in
the history of the study of Source Criticism. Julius went further
than those before him by clarifying and producing a more definitive
formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis than those who had been
before him. He argued that the Torah had its origin in a redaction of
four original independent texts, each dating several centuries after
the time of Moses. In the three parts of the Prolegomena, those being
A) History of Worship, B) History of Tradition and C) Israel and
Judaism, Wellhausen went on to argue his rationales based on such
subjects as the place of worship, sacrifice, the sacred feasts, the
priests and the levites and the endowment of the clergy, as well as
investing books beyond the Torah, in his Hexateuch theory, including
studies on Judges, Samuel and Chronicles, and also focusing on the
Oral Law of Judaism as well. The strength, depth and critical appeal
of Wellhausen's work was of such a quality that it endured, and
remained the dominant mode of thought on the discipline of source
studies until the last quarter of the 20th century. By then it was
attracting criticisms for those who felt the sources could be divided
yet further still, but by then his legacy had become
undoubtable.
Perhaps it was the work of Wellhausen, and his
influence, which led Pope Pius XII to recant on the condemnation
against such studies voiced by Pope Leo XIII in the 19th century, for
in his encylcical 'Divine Afflante Spiritu' (1943), the Pope wrote,
'Textual criticism …. (is) quit rightly employed in the case
of the sacred books.... Let the interpreter then, with all care and
without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor
to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred
writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to
which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.'
And
now, today, the 21st Century, 2014, where are we? We have no
consensus. Not completely. Richard Elliott Friedman, in his popular
work 'Who Wrote the Bible' defends, in general, the standard
documentary hypothesis ideas, with his own understandings of the
sources, the work 'The Bible with Sources Revealed' illustrating
this. Yet, while his work is latter 20th century and a defense of the
essential traditional view of Wellhausen, more critical voices are
shredding the Torah right down into a multiplicity of sources.
What
will the end result be?
My ultimate conclusion, at this
point in our discussion, is that they shall reach no consensus. It
won't happen. The debate on who wrote this passage, or which section
does this belong to, and how many authors or sources are we dealing
with, or how do you date this or how do you date that, will go on,
quite potentially, into perpetuity. It will not be easily
resolved.
My argument would be that the documentary
hypothesis of Fridemans, as an examples, establishes well enough the
ideas of a variety of sources for the written Torah and that, how
many parts or how much this may ultimatley divide up into, we
essentially get the point. It is not, in a complete sense, the work
of Moses. In the various ideas of dating the sources by various of
the critics, and how a passage is often related to other periods of
Israel's history, and have been written with a bias of that history,
thus questioning legitimate historical factualness for this passage,
we are presented with our primary problem. How, can we know with
certainty, if an idea of scripture originates as the will of God
Almighty, or that it is not the invention of zealous Israelite
priests, or various other Israelite scholarly or prophetic
figures?
And the answer is?
We can't.
We
don't have, and never really will have, sufficient enough historical
information to demonstrate much at all to everyone's satisfaction to
form a complete, united consensus. It just won't happen.
And
that is why, around the time of Wellhausen and afterwards, society
had greatly concluded that the work of the Bible was no longer the
work of God – but the work of man.
And being the work
of man – were was God in this picture at all? What biblical
truth stilll, yet reamined?
Was there any point, any more,
in studying the word of God?
And that is the question we
will answer next.
Chapter Six
'Creation Science
– Why Foundations are True'
Creation Science. Its
that false science, isn't it? Everyone knows the universe started
with a big bang, and we evolved from monkeys. Right? It's just that,
no, not all of us accept that idea. Some of us interpret the data
differently, and see a Grand Design at play, rather than the
ministrations of the desires of random chemical energy
bursts.
Creation Science has developed, and continues to do
so, teaching that the foundation of Scripture – that in the
Beginning God created the heaven and the earth – is true. There
is a lot we can say about this issue, and I will give a few arguments
now, but for proper in depth research, the only one who can
demonstrate the ultimate truthfulness of the idea is your own
honesty, and any research into the creation science literature that
you undertake. Websites abound on the subject. Type 'Creation
Science' into a search engine and you will see what I mean.
For
my part, I will present this basic argument. The historical
argument.
Consider yourself. Look at your body, your hands
and feet, your skin. Look at yourself in the mirror. What are you?
Human right. All the data in those textbooks on science about the
human body sound right, don't they? Now what about dad. Does he
follow the same pattern? Sure, he has a different DNA, and you
inherited a lot of that, but he has the same type of human body,
right? Same with mum? Right?
The population of the world
today? Approximately 7 Billion plus. I saw that on the news
recently.
Now, go back to 1900. The beginning of the 20th
Century. Grandparents or great-grandparents or so on were back there,
weren't they? You might have photos. Right? Look the same, though.
Don't they? Same human body, right? Same design, right?
The
population estimate for 1900? Various records quite likely, yet
approximately 1.65 Billion is one of them.
Now go back to
1350 at the end of the black death. Your ancestors are back there...
Show trimmed content
RADICAL
JUDAISM
Radical
Judaism functions as a sect of Karaite Abrahamism
About
Radical Judaism
The word 'Radical' means pertaining to
roots. Essentially it relates to the fundamental foundational
ideas pertaining to a situation. Politically it is also on the
far-left of the spectrum. Thus, Radical Judaism could be understood
as the 'roots' of Jewish thinking, from a far-left or
ultra-liberalist perspective.
Radical Judaism is the idea of
Gentile Daniel Daly. It is his response to the Jewish faith and
God's calling to link to the Jewish people. In his search for a
Jewish movement to call home, Daniel first
considered the
Orthodox Noahide movement, followed by the Karaite movement.
Dissatisfied with their ideologies, he turned to
Reform/Progressive Judaism to find meaning and potential conversion
to the faith. However, within this fold, certain fundamentals
were also upheld which seemed, to him, to be at odds with the
original revelation of the Jewish/Hebrew Faith.
Radical
Judaism relies heavily on higher criticism of the Torah (Pentateuch).
Its fundamental quest is to look into the Torah from a Radical
perspective to find the 'original faith' of ancient Israel
and
apply this, in the most appropriate manner, to religious practice
today.
The net result of its inquiry is that adherence to
the 'Whole Torah' list of laws is challenged.
The
Documentary Hypothesis and its implications for
observance.
Essentially, we make extensive use of higher
criticism of the Hebrew Torah, basing our understanding of the
original laws of God on what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.
Essentially this hypothesis teaches that the Torah is not all
Mosaic in origin, but rather the product of 4 distinct strands of
authorship.
These strands of authorship are known as J, E, D
& P, with a redactor, R, Assembling the work. The earliest
strands of Torahic authorship are J and E. J stands for Yahweh,
being the strand associated with those portions of the Torah that
mostly use the term Yahweh to identify God. This strand of
authorship is believed to have arisen in the Southern Kingdom of
Judah, after the Kingdom was divided, somewhere between the years 848
& 722 BCE. E stands for Elohim, being the strand associated
with those portions of the Torah that mostly use the term Elohim to
identity God.
This strand of authorship is believed to have
arisen in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, again after the Kingdom was
divided, somewhere between the years 922 & 722 BCE.
The
next level of development of the Torah was the D strand, known as the
Deuteronomic strand. This strand of authorship is believed to
have arisen via the priesthood of Shiloh in Israel, quite probably by
the prophet Jeremiah, through his scribe Baruch. This strand of
authorship comprises the book of Deuteronomy (as well as the
following 6 books in the Tanakh, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and
1 & 2 Kings).
The next level of development of the Torah
was the P strand, known as the Priestly strand. This strand of
authorship is believed to have arisen via the post-exillic priesthood
with the building of the second temple. It deals with matters
that relate to the temple and a centralized system of worship, unlike
the earlier E strand which teaches worship at multiple places.
Nearly the whole book of Leviticus is from P.
The
documentary hypothesis is, in general, accepted by the large majority
of biblical scholars today. Of the branches of Judaism, it is
only within the minority Orthodox and Karaite movements that you
would find challenges to the hypothesis.
What are the
original laws?
Questions arise. With levels of
development are there scribal additions to the original revelation of
God's holy law? In other words, is the original law of God
found in the early sections only, or
is it found within all
the sections of the Torah? Do the later strands have material
original to their period, and not emanating from the Sinai
experience? If they do, what are we to make of them? Are
they in some way inspired or totally manmade?
A thorough
investigation into the development of law through the strands can
answer these questions. Let us look at an example - the purity
laws of clean and unclean animals.
The first mention of
clean and unclean animals within the Torah is found in the J section
of the Torah. Genesis 7:2 speaks of 7 pairs of clean animals
being preserved on the ark while 1 pair of unclean
animals
are preserved on the ark. As this is in the J section of the
Torah, it readily demonstrates the idea that clean and unclean
animals - and thus likely food and sacrifice laws based upon them -
were
part of the Kingdom of Judahs religious functioning
(Judah being were the J section arose) from the earliest days of the
Kingdom. Does this then point to such laws as originating in
Sinai, as the J section along with the E section, are in fact the
oldest sections of the Torah? The answer to this is possibly,
but not necessarily definitely.
Of course the concept of
clean and unclean animals is found later in the D strand of Torah
authorship as well as later still in the P strand of Torah
authorship. So by those times it was a completely accepted idea
within the Israelite community.
However, Before D came along
(D being written later from the time from which many Israelites,
after the sacking of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BCE, drifted
south to the Kingdom of Judah) the Northern Kingdom of Israel perhaps
knew nothing of such cleanliness laws. Although impossible to
know for sure (as the scriptures are silent on the issue), the E
section of the Torah, which was the domain of Northern Israel prior
to D, contains no examples or even hints of clean and unclean animal
laws. A question you may ask is should it? Or does that
matter? Maybe it was simply left out? While these are
possible answers, they are not that satisfactory.
This is
demonstrated in the fact that the E covenant code, found in Exodus
20:21-24:15 & Exodus 32-33 is a fairly comprehensive legal code,
being, we assume, the Northern Kingdom of Israel's understanding of
the laws of God as he required of them. The fact that this
list, in the mind of the author at least, appears to be complete is
suggested by Exodus 32:15-16 which speaks of the tablets of God, upon
which the laws of the holy covenant were written. If you look
at the whole passage from Exodus 20 through to 34 it would be
understood that the tablets contained the 10 Commandments of Exodus
34. However, when reading the E script, separated from the J
passage, it becomes abundantly clear that the author of the E passage
meant that the laws of the covenant code of Exodus 20:21-24:15 were
intended, NOT the 10 commandments. In other words, the Northern
Kingdom of Israel's understanding of what was written on the tablets
of God was the whole law, being the many laws of the covenant code
from Exodus 20:21-24:15 - far more than just the 10
commandments.
So, from the Northern Kingdom of Israel's
perspective, the whole law of God was contained within the covenant
code of Exodus 20:21-24:15. The thing is, though, this code makes
absolutely NO mention of any food laws or clean and unclean
animals.
The fundamental point is this. If the laws of
clean and unclean animals go back to Sinai (and presumably before
then), then why does the E covenant code not in fact mention them.
If E contains the laws of Northern Israel, why does not this
law make reference also to the clean and unclean animal laws? The
reality is that, as such laws are currently fundamental to most
observant Jews, they, if they are in fact authentic, probably should
have been mentioned in the Northern Kingdom of Israel's legal code.
The fact that the E covenant code, and all of the E strand,
makes no mention of such laws, when it probably should, leads to one
obvious conclusion. The notion of clean and unclean animals is
an invention of the southern Kingdom of Judah. It does not go
back to Sinai or beforehand and is most probably not an authentic law
or set of laws, that are divine in origin.
Let us look
at one more example - the feast laws. Modern day Israel
celebrates 9 feasts. 7 of these are mentioned in the Torah,
with the addition of Purim, which is based on Esther, and Hannukah,
which is not found in the Tenakh, but the origins of which are
mentioned in the apocrypha.
However, Israel in the time of
Moses only celebrated 5 of the feasts - not the 7 which the book of
Leviticus mentions. E mentions the 4 main feasts in Exodus
23:14-17 (while only 3 gatherings are stated, the Passover is
included with the feast of unleavened bread) with the fifth feast
(the Sabbath) previously mentioned in the E covenant code. J,
which, in terms of law, only mentions the 10 Commandments of Exodus
34:14-28, also includes these 5 feasts. Thus we can see unity
of practice amongst BOTH of the early kingdoms around the notion of
feasts. This is in fact good evidence that the feasts tradition
do in fact go back to the time of Moses.
D also mentions the
5 feasts, as shown in Deuteronomy 16:1-17. However, when we
come to the latter traditions from the P strand for the feasts, the
priests who composed P quite probably added 2
additional
feasts - the feast of trumpets (found in Leviticus 23:23-25) and the
day of atonement (found in Leviticus 23:26-32).
Let us
look at Exodus 23:14. It states quite clearly that Israel shall
celebrate 3 (three) and only 3 holy assemblies each year. It
does not allude to any more than 3. However, with the
additional feasts
mentioned in Leviticus - those being
Trumpets and the Day of atonement - 2 (two) additional assemblies are
called for (ie required). This takes the number of assemblies
that are required of
Israel from 3 to 5.
Thus,
quite clearly, the scribes of Israel who composed P added 2
additional feasts. These feasts were NOT part of the original
feastsystem. They were not inaugurated by God from Mt Sinai.
Thus the
divine nature of these feasts can be
seriously questioned.
Separating God's law from the
rest.
Thus we see something of the complex and compelling
problem of identifying the Original faith of the people of Israel.
Radical Judaism, in attempting to arrive at a reasonable
solution to
the question of observance - ie what do we obey
within the scriptures - proposes the following. The legal codes of J
and E (found in the book of Exodus) are the earliest recollection of
Israelite law. The J legal code only contains the alternative
10 commandments, all of which are found in the E covenant code.
Thus, within reason, we suggest that such laws can reasonably
be observed. They are the closest to the Mt Sinai experience
and are the basis upon which the Israelite religious faith is
observed. We find that the D code of Deuteronomy marks the
beginning of manmade (non-Sinaitic) legislation. Because of
this we teach for our assembly that such material is non-binding upon
those who observe Israelite faith.
And the P code, scattered
throughout the Torah, and epitomized legally in Leviticus, appears to
be totally manmade with definite additions to the original Sinai
revelation. As such we would view it as non-binding upon the
children of Israel.
Other areas of Jewish life
Judaism,
as a religion, is not solely defined by the Torah, although it is
central. History, language, music, poetry, wisdom literature
etc are other areas integral to Judaism today. To say Judaism
is simply defined by a set of laws and rules is insufficient.
Radical Judaism, although primarily concerned with identifying
authentic, authoritative Jewish faith, also respects and adheres to
all avenues of authentic Jewish experience.
Key
principles of Radical Judaism
The following beliefs and
principles essentially define Radical
Judaism.
· Belief
in Almighty God
· Belief
in practicing spiritual morality or holiness
· Belief
in creation as opposed to Evolution
· Each
individual should practice a critical investigation into the origins
of Jewish faith in an attempt to discern the original Jewish faith
and apply, in a way consistent with their own understanding of what
God requires of them, such teaching to their lives. This is the
heart of the Radical 'Roots investigation' process - the heart of
Radical Judaism.
· The
sharing of each individual investigation to a community of likeminded
searchers after truth.
· A
prayer life of devotion to Almighty God. Ritualistic prayer is
disdained. Rather prayer emanating from the heart and thoughts
of eachindividual is encouraged.
· Belief
that the Documentary Hypothesis best explains Torahic Authorship,
thus rejecting the notion that Moses wrote the entire
Torah.
· Rejection
of the notion of Circumcision as a sign of the covenant. Historical
investigation into the origins of circumcision reveal that it arose
amongst the people of ancient Egypt, which is undoubtedly were the
Israelites picked up the tradition. It is highly improbable
that God gave the circumcision covenant to Abraham. However, if
in a world to come scenario eventuating it is demonstrated that the
circumcision is legitimate part of the Abrahamic covenant it would be
naturally accepted.
· Rejection
of the notion of the 'Chosen' status of the Jews as a holy nation.
Rather, God's calling is viewed to be to all mankind with those
who listen to such a call to adhere to the principles
of righteousness and holiness that Judaism expresses. We
do not believe that the Jews alone are meant to live by God's highest
standards. This principle is also expressed by the Reconstructionist
Judaism movement. We do teach that those who follow Torah are the
primacy of the holy people, and that in the 21st century
of the common era this is primarily the Israelite people. Situations
can change though.
· Rejection
of the notion of Conversion to Judaism. Rather, upon coming
into Jewish faith, we teach that the individual must simply search
out what is applicable to them and apply it to their lives. The
end result is that non-Jews who come into Jewish faith simply observe
the original faith of Israel, without the manmade additions, of which
circumcision is undoubtedly an addition. However, again, if
circumcision can be proved as valid, it would be acceptable as part
of the process.
· Rejection
of the Aaronic Priesthood. The idea of a Priesthood is probably
not part of the original Jewish faith, but was added to the Israelite
people AFTER the original Sinai revelation. Instead of an
intercessor for sacrifice, Radical Judaism teaches that each person
of faith stands before God alone, accountable to him for their own
faith practices. Progressive Judaism likewise rejects the
'Priesthood' notion. Yet again, in a world to come situation arising
with historical demonstation proving a greater validity of Torah
history, and a priesthood being validated, in that situation it would
be naturally accepted.
· The
Rabbinic system is also rejected. Instead we encourage a
'Communal' approach to the Torah, with an eldership system
encouraged. In essence experienced elders within the community
are encouraged to lead the way in discussing the direction of the
community, rather than a specific rabbinic figure. Such a
system is also practiced by the Christian 'Jehovah's witnesses'
movement.
· Rejection
of the food laws. Such laws were undoubtedly the invention of
the Deuteronomic school of thought, originally arising from the
southern kingdom of Judah. They do not go back to the original
Sinai revelation or beforehand.
· Acceptance
of Homosexual, Bisexual, transsexual and transgendered individuals
within the community, deserving equal opportunity and rights, without
any form of discrimination.
· As
well as an adherence to God's laws, Radical Judaism favours the
notion of upholding the laws of the society in which you live, were
and when these laws do not contradict God's laws.
· An
abiding respect and love for all the people of mankind, with the
express hope that all people come to a knowledge of Almighty God and
his will for their lives.
· Promotion
or evangelism of Radical Judaism in a sensible, humble,
non-confrontational manner. In essence we would like other
people to be aware of our beliefs, however without forcing them to
abide by them or judging them for not following them.
. If a hypothetical world to come advented and a greater understanding of Torah was illuminated, and things we question as genuinely historical can actually be show as genuinely historical, this would amend the practices to a degree to conform to the legal historical Torah law tradition.