Sunday, July 31, 2022

Friday, July 29, 2022

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

[Note: In a way I feel that I do not own any rights in this material, since it originated with "Alan," whoever that may be. But, having been instructed to "Write," I did the physical writing (in the middle of the night, in the dark) and I did the channeling. Beyond this, I feel that I do have a responsibility to protect the material.]

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

This World Is Made of Light and Shadow

Tikvah

Hope.

Sunday, July 24, 2022

Nude Selfies at Eighty?

My Workspace

My workspace. Normally I would have three or four of these books open at once (especially during this #NewTestament #Synoptic #Gospels #project), but I guess I decided to tidy up a bit (haha).

Saturday, July 23, 2022

The "Our Father" and What It Can Tell Us about the Gospels - Part VI

But the Gospels are not monolithic, and neither are their sources. The first two chapters of Luke contain material not common to the other Gospels, referred to as "special Luke." Most of this material was, almost certainly, translated from a document in the Hebrew language. There is a great deal of evidence for this, and some of the most convincing, as was brought to our attention by Jean Carmignac, is in the Benedictus (Lk. 1:68-79), specifically in Lk. 1:72-73. If one reads these verses in Hebrew, encoded into them are references to John (the Baptist), Zachary (his father), and Elizabeth (his mother). Like the Anunciation and the Magnificat, the Benedictus, spoken by Zachary, is a pastiche of quotations from Jewish Scripture. To catch on to this code, one has to know that the Hebrew form of John, Yohanan, means "God (Yah) is merciful (hanan)," the name Elisabeth means "My God (Eli) has sworn (saba)," and the name Zacharyah means "God (Yah) remembered (zakar)." It only works in Hebrew.

I might also add that these lovely biblical pastiches, The Annunciation, the Magnificat, and the Benedictus could only have been assembled by someone, or several someones, exceedingly well versed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The first two chapters of Luke are as much about John the Baptist as they are about Jesus. In connection with this it is interesting to note that a lot of people believe that John was a member of the Essene community at Qumran. It is not impossible that the Hebrew document from which Luke got the "special Luke" material originated in the Qumran community, and we may yet find it, or fragments of it, among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is also interesting to note that in some ancient manuscripts of Irenaeus and Origen, as well as in some of the Old Latin texts, the Magnificat is actually attributed to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and not to Mary, the mother of Jesus. It is certainly a confusing transition: one minute they are talking about Elizabeth, and the next about Mary. But it is not only the first two chapters of Luke that were clearly translated from Hebrew. We have already shown that to be the case in connection with the "Our Father." It is likely that all of the Sayings material, the so-called "Q" material, was translated from Hebrew. Evidence of this abounds.

Since I have mentioned the hypothetical "Q" (from German Quelle = source) document, this is as good a time as any to say that I do not believe in its existence, nor do I need it to explain Synoptic textual relationships.

(to be continued)

The above image is from Delitzsch's nineteenth-century translation of the New Testament into Hebrew. It includes Luke 1:72-73, and I have underlined in red the encoded references to "mercy" (for Yohanan), "remembering" (for Zakaryah), and "sworn" (for Elisabeth), John the Baptist and his parents. This could be seen just as well in Salkinson's Hebrew translation, and indeed in any Hebrew rendering of these verses. But the "code" only works in Hebrew.

Friday, July 22, 2022

The "Our Father" and What It Can Tell Us about the Gospels - Part V

In this part we will go outside the Gospel of Matthew, to the Gospel of Luke. The version of the Lord's Prayer in Luke (11:2-4) is much shorter than that in Matthew. In the image above, we see it in St. Jerome's Latin, in the Vulgate (late fourth century). Here is how it translates into English:

Father, may your name be sanctified,

may your kingdom come.

Give us daily our daily bread,

and forgive us our sins,

just as we also forgive all those

who are indebted to us,

and do not lead us into temptation.

Those familiar with the version in the Gospel of Matthew will notice right away that this Lukan version does not say "our," or "who is in the heavens." It does not say "may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Instead of "give us this day our daily bread," it says "give us daily our daily bread." It does say "do not lead us into temptation," but it does not say "deliver us from evil."

Never noticed that before? You're not alone. Many people who are familiar with the version in Matthew are not even aware that there is a version in Luke, or that it differs. If you go to Luke 11:2 in the King James Version (KJV), you will find a longer version, basically the same as that in Matthew, which has all the elements that are "missing" above. How did that happen?

The short answer is that the KJV is based on the so-called Received Text or Textus Receptus, which is actually the Byzantine Text. The Byzantine textual type is characterized by many interpolations that were intended to bring the gospels into closer agreement with one another, thus obscuring textual relationships.

How do we know that the shorter version is the original Lukan version? We know it because the oldest and best texts, such as the Codex Vaticanus ("B"), a fourth-century Greek Bible, considered to be the very best, and the Codex Sinaiticus ("א," also fourth-century), discovered in 1851 and considered to be the second-best, both have the shorter version, as do some other excellent, ancient sources.

Interesting. There is a principle in textual criticism by which the terser, briefer reading is considered to usually be the older, more original reading. So what are we to make of the fact that the Avinu/Our Father in canonical, Greek Matthew is longer and more elaborate (both in the Our Father and in the Beatitudes, for example) than the version in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew? Not only that, but in both of these cases (the Our Father and the Beatitudes) the version in Luke is even shorter and less elaborate. There are probably other examples, but I've really only studied these two.

We could jump to the conclusion that the Gospel according to Luke is older than the Gospel according to Matthew. But the preponderance of evidence is that Luke is, for the most part, a de-Semitized version of Matthew, suitable for the needs of Paul and his mission to the Gentiles. But why would Luke have left out such important things as whole clauses of the "Lord's Prayer" and even some of the Beatitudes? Watch this space.

(to be continued)

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

The "Our Father" and What It Can Tell Us about the Gospels - Part IV

While it is true that the retroversions into Hebrew by Salkinson and Delitzsch are very important, having brought to our attention a misreading in the Greek text (as is also the version in Jewish Aramaic), in many ways the key to this whole thing is the Hebrew Matthew published by Shem-Tob Ibn Shaprut in the fourteenth century. The Shem-Tob text is clearly older than canonical, Greek Matthew, and it has clarified the relationship between the texts of Matthew and Luke.

The "Our Father," in its trajectory through time, is like a microcosm of the whole "synoptic problem." By focusing on this beautiful and ancient prayer, we get a more manageable view of synoptic relationships.

The Shem-Tob text above translates to English as follows:

Our Father, may your name be sanctified;

may your kingdom be blessed; may your will be done in the heavens and on earth.

Give our bread continually,

Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,

and do not lead us into the hands of temptation (literally, a trial), but keep us from all evil, amen.

All versions of the prayer say "may your name be sanctified." That is top-of-mind in Judaism, because of the enormous reverence and respect due to the Name. Some versions insert "who is in the heavens," but this one does not. Neither does Luke's shorter version of the Avinu, at Lk. 11:2-4. So far as I know, the reading "may your kingdom be blessed" is unique to Shem-Tob. I prefer it to "may your kingdom come," because, as we are told (Lk. 17:21), "the kingdom of God is in the midst of us." Also, we are told in the Gospel of Thomas that the kingdom of heaven is among us, but we do not see it.

Give our bread continually (or day by day) seems to be the earliest reading.

In Aramaic (and possibly also in Hebrew, I'm not sure) the same word means both "sin" and "debt," which explains the confusion in translations.

Both the Aramaic word "nesyuna" and the Hebrew word "nisayon" literally mean "a test" or "a trial." They can also figuratively mean "temptation," but it would not be my first thought if the one doing the leading was God. I believe the intended meaning is "do not bring us to trial," in other words, "do not judge us."

The phrase "the hands of" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "the power of." It is not present either in the canonical, Greek text or in the Latin of the Vulgate. It is interesting to note that both Salkinson and Delitzsch used the phrase in their Hebrew translations, because they knew that it belonged there. The Shem-Tob Hebrew Matthew does not look like a translation from any Western text, and it is not the same as any of them. Some of the features of the Shem-Tob text, including some that can be seen in both the "Our Father" and in the Beatitudes, clearly show it to be more primitive than the canonical, Greek text.

I believe the reading "shomrenu" ("keep/guard/protect us) is found only in Shem-Tob and related Hebrew texts (such as Du Tillet and Munster). It is one of my favorite features of the Shem-Tob text, since it is proactive rather than reactive.

But the Shem-Tob Hebrew Matthew is not merely attractive due to some of the features mentioned above (which are all to be found in a mere five verses). Its greatest value lies in its intermediate position between the canonical, Greek text and parallel verses in Luke. This intermediate position provides us with a window to the development of the Gospel of Matthew, and gives us hope to solve the "synoptic problem."

(to be continued)

Tuesday, July 19, 2022

The "Our Father" and What It Can Tell Us about the Gospels - Part III

אָבִינוּ יִתְקַדַשׁ שְׁמֶךָ

וְיִתְבָרֵךְ מַלְכוּתְךָ רְצוֹנְךָ יִהְיֶה עָשׂוּי

בַשָׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ

וְתִתֵּן לַחְמֵנוּ תְּמִידִית

וּמְחוֹל לָנוּ חַטָֹּאתֵינוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ

מוֹחֲלִים לַחוֹטִאים לָנוּ

וְאַל תְּבִיאֵנוּ לִידֵי נִסָיוֹן וְשָׁמְרֵינוּ

מִכָל רָע אָמֵן

The above is a pointed text of the Avinu (Our Father) in the Shem-Tob Hebrew Matthew, one of the treasures preserved for us by the Jewish rabbis (though they did it for polemical purposes).

Now we continue with the list of salient points begun in Part II of this article:

5) The Greek word "peirasmós" means "temptation." The Hebrew word "nisayon," while it CAN mean "temptation," literally means a test or trial. The Hebrew is saying, "do not bring us to a test," or "do not bring us to trial."

6) While the later (Matthew III in my terminology) Hebrew version said "deliver us from evil," the earlier Hebrew version (Matthew IIb, corresponding to the Shem-Tob text) had "keep us from all evil." I prefer the latter, because it is proactive rather than reactive, and it says all evil.

Returning to the Hebrew text at the top of the page (the Shem-Tob version of the Avinu), its pronunciation is approximately:

awveenoo yeetkadesh sh'mehchaw

v'yeetbawrech malchoot'chaw ratson'chaw yeehyeh awsooy

bashawmayeem oovawawrets

v'teeten lachmaynoo t'meedeet

oom'chol lawnoo chatawtaynoo

kaasher anachnoo mochaleem

lachoteem lawnoo

v'al t'veeyaynoo leey'dey neesawyon v'shawmraynoo

meekol rah awmayn

One thing that will be noticed right away is that this version does not say "sh'bashawmayeem (in the heavens)." Neither did Luke's terser version at Lk. 11:2-4.

(to be continued, perhaps)

The image above is from a page of my notebooks, the page on which I added vowel pointing to the unpointed Shem-Tob text of the Avinu.

Monday, July 18, 2022

The "Our Father" and What It Can Tell Us about the Gospels - Part II

The image above is a modification of one that I found on the internet, and I do not own any rights in it. It contains a descendant of the oldest Hebrew text of the Avinu ("Our Father") that we have, It corresponds to my Matthew IIb, and is from a text similar to that of Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew, also preserved for us by the Jewish Rabbis. It is here written in Dead Sea Scrolls script, which is much the way it would have been written in the time of Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus).

In concluding Part I of this article, I indicated that there was much more that could be said on this subject. Indeed, there is, and I'll try to say it, or at least some of it, in this part.

Some of what remains to be said concerns the Aramaic version of this prayer, known as the "Abun," "Abwoon," or "Awoon," depending upon the dialect. It is important to remember, though, that Jewish Aramaic and Christian Aramaic (Syriac) are rather different. It is quite misleading to call Syriac (the language that Jesus spoke," as is often done by speakers and proponents of that language. Jesus (Rabbi Yeshua) was a Jew, and it is therefore logical to assume that he spoke Jewish Aramaic. It is also a fact that the Peshitta, the official Syriac text of the Bible, has been intentionally modified to bring it into closer harmony with the Greek textual tradition. In fact, an effort was made to suppress and destroy all earlier Biblical texts in Syriac. As usual though, they couldn't quite get all of them, and a couple of texts (Syr-s and Syr-c) did survive, and were rediscovered in the late nineteenth century. For the purposes of this article, the relevant version is the version in standard Jewish Aramaic, covered in the previous part.

Some of the salient points are these:

1) The Aramaic version is the oldest. As a poet, I am certain that it is original and not a translation, since it employs literary devices such as rhyme and plays on words. It also reveals a structure that was partially lost in all succeeding versions.

2) The Aramaic version makes clear several points that were doubtful. For example, we needn't worry about whether "sins" or "debts" is correct: it should simply depend on the context, because in Aramaic the same word has both meanings.

3) What in Greek was "daily bread" was "our bread, which is from the earth" (give it to us day by day). This is part of an internal structure of the prayer, which contrasts the heavenly kingdom with life here on earth. The idiom used for "day by day" is literally "today and tomorrow," which is why St. Jerome, who apparently didn't know much Aramaic, thought the sense was "give us our bread of the morrow today."

4)The Aramaic original was translated into Hebrew in at least two different versions. In the earlier (Matthew IIb) one, the last line read "keep us (shomrenu) from all evil." But a later Hebrew version (Matthew III) read "deliver us (hatsilenu) from evil." It was from this later, fuller Hebrew text that our Greek Matthew was translated. This is proven by a misreading in the Greek text, a confusion between two very similar-appearing Hebrew words: hatsilenu "deliver us" and chaltsenu "draw us." The word that appears in our Greek text, "rhusai" is a translation of the latter, not the former.

(to be continued)

Sunday, July 17, 2022

The "Our Father" and What It Can Tell Us about the Gospels

The above image (which is a modification of one that I found on the internet, and I do not own any rights to it) contains the "Our Father" in standard Jewish Aramaic. It is written in Dead Sea Scrolls script, which is approximately the way it would have been written in the time of Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus).

I've written previously on this subject (see entries published in this blog on 30 May 2019, 24 July 2019, and 3,4,5 July 2020.

The "Our Father" ("Avinu" in Hebrew, "Abun" in Aramaic) is an ancient prayer, and it would have been first taught in Jewish Aramaic, not in Syriac. The prayer in the image above would sound like this:

Abbun d'bishmayya

yitkadesh sh'makh

titey malkhutakh

tihey re'utakh

heykhma d'bishmayya,

keyn af be'ar'a.

lachman d'me'ar'a

hab lan yoma deyn umachra.

ushbaq lan chobayn,

heykm d'af sh'baqnan l'chayyabayn.

ve al ta'eylan l'nisayuna,

ela atseylan min bisha.

This translates to:

Our Father in the heavens,

may your name be sanctified,

may your kingdom come,

may your will be done

as in the heavens

so also on earth.

Our bread, which is from the earth,

give us day by day.

Forgive us our sins,

as we also forgive those indebted to us.

And do not bring us to trial,

but deliver us from evil.

I am certain that this is the most original version that we have. It incorporates rhyme, which is an aid to memorization, as well as at least one play on words, a common feature of Semitic literature, and this one (ta'eylan/atseylan) works only in Aramaic.

At this point, I think I need to back up a bit. I was recently reading a Hebrew translation of this prayer (that of Salkinson). I compared the last line to the last line in Delitzsch's Hebrew translation, and I noticed a strange thing: where Salkinson had "hatsilenu," Delitzsch had "chaltsenu." What was going on here? Had Delitzsch made a mistake? Was he dyslexic?

What happened was this: Salkinson translated according to the well-known meaning, "deliver," and he used exactly the right Hebrew word (which happens also to be cognate with "atseylan" in Jewish Aramaic, so we know it's correct). Delitzsch, on the other hand, had slavishly followed the Greek, which is based on a confusion of two similar-appearing Hebrew words (hatsilenu הצילנו and chaltsenu חלצנו).

The word in the canonical, Greek text of Matthew is "rhusai" (from Strong #4506, rhuomai), a Greek word meaning "to draw off," here taken to mean "rescue" or "deliver." This word is based on a misreading of "hatsilenu" as "chaltsenu" in an unpointed Hebrew manuscript. The meaning of the second verb is, in fact, "to draw off." By following the Greek text so literally, Delitzsch reproduced the original error of the translator into Greek (or of a Hebrew copyist, it makes no difference), and thus brought the error, unnoticed for almost 2000 years, to our attention.

I consider this to be strong evidence, and perhaps even sufficient proof, that our canonical, Greek Matthew was translated into Greek from a Hebrew manuscript.

There is more that could be said about this prayer and what it can tell us. Let me know if you are interested. If so, I'll continue this article.

Saturday, July 16, 2022

Both Live in the Same Body II

Both Live in the Same Body / ᎢᎬᎳ ᎡᎭᏎ ᎤᏠᏱ ᎠᏰᎸ ᎭᏫᎾ

Friday, July 15, 2022

For He Too Is Ancient II

For He Too Is Ancient / ᏰᏃ ᎠᏨᏯᎢ ᎾᏍᏉ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎯᎸᎯᏳᎢ

He Stands with the Ancients II

He Stands with the Ancients / ᎠᏨᏯᎢ ᎦᏙᎦᏎ ᎠᏂ-ᎯᎸᎯᏳᎢ ᎬᏙᏗ

Thursday, July 14, 2022

He Is Multidimensional Consciousness II

He Is Multidimensional Consciousness / ᎠᏨᏯᎢ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏣᏛ-ᏂᎦᏅᎯᏒ ᎠᏕᎶᎰᏍᎪ

The Planter II

The Planter Is Here / ᎦᎧᏅᎥᏍᎩ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᎭᏂ

Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Revelation 17:5 / ᏣᏂ ᎠᏥᎾᏄᎪᏫᏎᎸᎢ 17:5

Sunday, July 10, 2022

There Is Only Light II

Saturday, July 9, 2022

There Is Only Light / ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏩᏌ ᎤᎸᏌᏓ

146,000 Visits and One Russian Pirate

It took about two and a half months to go from 145,000 visits to this blog to 146,000 visits (page-views), which is where we are now. The reason for the slowness is unusually low activity by would-be pirates. My favorite of these pirates, normally located in the US, had spent some time in Japan (for printing?), but his/her activity is now being replaced by that of a pirate in Russia, whom I'll call "Win-Chrome" (WC for short, appropriately). This is hardly surprising, since Russia is becoming known for various kinds of piracy.

Enough about that, I like to keep things positive around here. My film-photography activity has gone way down, since it is now summer. Temperatures in our garage, which does not have the benefit of air conditioning, and is also where I develop my film, are currently around 93-94°F (35°C). I'll get back to it one of these days, but am mostly using the digital for now.

I am again working on my translation of the Gospel According to Matthew into Udugi, which had languished for some months, or possibly a year. I've just begun to translate chapter six. This translation project is causing an expansion of the vocabulary of Udugi (sourced from Cherokee, and especially from the Cherokee New Testament). I will eventually publish an expanded Udugi Dictionary (probably when I complete the translation of Matthew).

My interest in the Psalms continues, and I recently wrote on the missing verse in Psalm 145. Perhaps I'll find the courage one day to translate all the Psalms, but it's a huge job, of which I've only done one-fifth, so I'm not sure about that.

I've recently been applying graphical distortions to some of my photographs (see the example below), and I expect to further develop that technique.

Once again, I would like to thank you all for your continued interest, loyalty, and enthusiasm. Thank you. Wadó, ꮹꮩ.

Friday, July 8, 2022

Asemic WMA185

Thursday, July 7, 2022

Matthew 6:1 in Udugi / ᎹᏚ 6:1 ᎤᏚᎩ ᎭᏫᎾ

1 agesesdodu na nihi tla hnadvga nihi adasdelvdine yvwi igvyiditlv, gesvi agowadvdita nasgi gvdodi, iyuno-yeli nihi uhase tlahi asasdvne nihi edoda galvladi ehase nidvlenvda.

1 ᎠᎨᏎᏍᏙᏚ Ꮎ ᏂᎯ Ꮭ ᎿᏛᎦ ᏂᎯ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏗᏁ ᏴᏫ ᎢᎬᏱᏗᏢ, ᎨᏒᎢ ᎠᎪᏩᏛᏗᏔ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎬᏙᏗ, ᎢᏳᏃ-ᏰᎵ ᏂᎯ ᎤᎭᏎ ᏝᎯ ᎠᏌᏍᏛᏁ ᏂᎯ ᎡᏙᏓ ᎦᎸᎳᏗ ᎡᎭᏎ ᏂᏛᎴᏅᏓ.

This work has been given into the public domain by the translator, Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler, ꮓꮘꮟ-ꭴꭶꮤ.

Tuesday, July 5, 2022

We Must Accept What Is / ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᏗᏓᏁᎸᎢᏍᏗ Ꮎ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ

The Missing Verse of Psalm 145 (Again)

I have been on the Chabad mailing list for many years. I'm always telling myself that I'm going to unsubscribe, but somehow I never do. The truth is that they sometimes send me some pretty interesting things. So it was recently, when they sent me "14 Facts About the Book of Psalms." I couldn't resist this, since the Psalms (Tehillim) are an interest of mine. #10 on their list is the "Fun Fact" that Psalm 145, which is an alphabetic acrostic, is missing the verse that should begin with the Hebrew letter "nun."

I had been aware of this, and in fact I had even written about it before, but this article got me thinking about it again. As mentioned in an endnote to the Chabad article, this problem is mentioned in the Talmud (Berachot 4:b), where a solution is put into the lips of Rabbi Yohanan, who lived in the late third century CE. The explanation given there was that the omission was intentional, since "nun" is the first letter of "nawflah" (fallen) in Amos 5:2, where it says "The virgin of Yisra'el is fallen, she shall no more rise..." But this strikes me as a silly explanation, since there are many Hebrew words that begin with "nun," and many of them are suitable for glorifying God.

But the "nun" verse is not present in the Aleppo Codex, nor the Leningrad Codex, the best and oldest codices we have of the Masoretic Text. It is, however, present in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation used by the Jews of Alexandria around 150 BCE, which is almost a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text. It is also in the Latin of the Vulgate, which dates to the late fourth century, and in the Syriac of the Peshitta, which dates to the fifth century CE. But until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-twentieth century, we had no ancient example of the missing verse in Hebrew. Now we do.

The above is a photograph of the main Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (11QPs-a). I have underlined the previously missing verse. Transcribed into more modern Hebrew letters, it says:

נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכל מעשיו

Faithful is the Lord in his words, and pious in all his works.

As can be seen, the word "faithful," נאמן, begins with "nun."

The verse in the Vulgate, which is based on the LXX, is as follows:

fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis

et sanctus in omnibus operibus suis.

Faithful is the Lord in all his words,

and holy in all his works.

And the New English Translation of the Septuagint has:

The Lord is faithful in all his words,

and devout in all his deeds.

It is interesting that all of the oldest texts have the verse, while it is missing from all but one (medieval) manuscript of the later Masoretic Text. The evidence, especially that of the DSS, tells us that the verse once belonged there. If it did, why is it not in the Masoretic Text? We are left with two possibilities: 1) It "fell out" of the text, due to a copyist's error, or 2) it was intentionally deleted by some copyist or school of copyists, in an attempt to "punish" God for the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. I used to believe the latter, but I am now less inclined to believe it. For one thing, Psalm 145 is not just any Psalm. It is recited by Jews three times a day, known as the "Ashrei" because introduced by a verse from Psalm 84.5 that begins with that word. It would be difficult to intentionally delete anything, without the change being noticed. Also, no pious Jew would do it. So let's put the "missing verse back in. In view of the evidence of the DSS, many modern translations are doing just that.

A further thought: The first words of Psalm 145 in Hebrew ascribe it to David. But the prophet Amos lived some 250 years AFTER David, so the explanation offered in the Talmud (Berachot 4:b) involves a serious anachronism.

Sunday, July 31, 2022

Friday, July 29, 2022

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Sunday, July 24, 2022

Saturday, July 23, 2022

Friday, July 22, 2022

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

Tuesday, July 19, 2022

אָבִינוּ יִתְקַדַשׁ שְׁמֶךָ

וְיִתְבָרֵךְ מַלְכוּתְךָ רְצוֹנְךָ יִהְיֶה עָשׂוּי

בַשָׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ

וְתִתֵּן לַחְמֵנוּ תְּמִידִית

וּמְחוֹל לָנוּ חַטָֹּאתֵינוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ

מוֹחֲלִים לַחוֹטִאים לָנוּ

וְאַל תְּבִיאֵנוּ לִידֵי נִסָיוֹן וְשָׁמְרֵינוּ

מִכָל רָע אָמֵן

Monday, July 18, 2022

Sunday, July 17, 2022

Saturday, July 16, 2022

Friday, July 15, 2022

Thursday, July 14, 2022

Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Sunday, July 10, 2022

Saturday, July 9, 2022

Friday, July 8, 2022

Thursday, July 7, 2022

Tuesday, July 5, 2022

נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכל מעשיו

Sunday, July 3, 2022

Saturday, July 2, 2022