Home (Netzarim Logo)

Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν

(Hellenist) Tzᵊdoq•im Codify Their Oral Law

We find in a marginal note to that the Pᵊrush•im referred to the codification of Hellenist, Greek-speaking (hence Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν) Boethusian Tzᵊdoq•im Oral Law either in Hebrew as the or, in Aramaic, .

Translation from the Hebrew rather than Greek, the English, "Book of Decrees," derived indirectly, from this Hebrew and Aramaic. Ergo, the English does not dictate the Greek. One finds the original Greek form in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).

"Book of Decrees" Eradicated

This marginal note of , dating back to the 7th-8th century C.E., further remarked that the Boethusian Tzᵊdoq•im "Book of Decrees" had been wiped out some time in the past on the 14th of Tamuz (4th-month, early summer) – but, curiously, does not mention by whom it was wiped out. Anyone surprised that there are no extant Greek copies simply hasn't learned the relevant history.

Proper Greek Title And Who Wiped It Out
Documented In The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)

In addition to the reference in , the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) refers to this Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•im counterpart of the later (5th century C.E.) Pᵊrush•im Ta•lᵊmud, in the 7th Book of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer – also documenting who wiped it out!

Co-authored by Hellenist Jew ΤιμόΘεος (Anglicized to "Timothy"), the 7th Book of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer was addressed to the Hellenist Jews in Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's native country in the Tᵊphutz•âh: Denizli, in southeast Turkey.

3rd-4th Century C.E.
Anti-Caesar Hellenist Χριστιανοι Challenge Pro-Caesar Hellenist

ΤιμόΘεος writes concerning the "hollow and deceptive philosophy" (2.8), leaving no doubt he referred to the Greek philosophy of the Caesar-worshiping Hellenist Roman and the Caesar-worshiping Hellenist "Reformed Judaism" of the time: the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im – exemplified in Ta•lᵊmud by the Boethusian family of high priests in the Hellenized "Temple".

Use of exclusively Hellenist names, e.g., ΤιμόΘεος, instead of Hebrew names, demonstrates that ΤιμόΘεος was a Greek-speaking Hellenist . Since he's arguing against Hellenism – yet, as an advocate himself of the Hellenist Χριστιανοι, a priori, he can only be championing the Anti-Caesar Χριστιανοι Ιησους (as opposed to, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil, the historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua, whose followers and teachings ΤιμόΘεος' Χριστιανοι had deposed and usurped back in 135 C.E.) against the Pro-Caesar worshiping Roman .

Χριστιανοι Pit Their "Law of Christ" against "Worship of Caesar"

ΤιμόΘεος cites his Hellenist christ as a greater authority than the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im—namely the " ," popularly referred to by both rival Jewish sects as the Ko•hein hâ-Rësha.

It bears mention here that the Pᵊrush•im were just as opposed to the "Book of Decrees" as the Χριστιανοι were. They, and the Qum•rân Tzᵊdoq•im (Essenes) as well, were all on the same side on this particular issue against the Boethusians and Hellenist ersatz-Tzᵊdoq•im. The latter were eradicated along with their "Book of Decrees".

Χριστιανοι Wipes Out The Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν

Thus, consistent with repudiating the authority of the increasingly rival, pro-Caesar, Hellenist ersatz-Tzᵊdoq•im, compounded by a failing Caesar government, despite their being fellow Hellenists, anti-Caesar ΤιμόΘεος reported (7th Book of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer 2.14) that his and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Hellenist Χριστιανοι Ιησους were:

"ἐξαλείψας τὀ καθ' ἡμῶν Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν – wiping-out the inferior "Book of Decrees" – which was contradictory to us.

This corresponds with the same testimony of its eradication found in the Mᵊgil•at Ta•an•it about the 14th of Fourthmonth.

That no extant copy exists evidences that the Greek speak­ing Hellenist Χριστιανοι Church under­stood the codex, written in their native Greek, recognized that it contradicted Church claims con­cern­ing some Χριστιανοι doctrines, syncretized any desired parts of it into their developing Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and eradicated its source – the Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν ("Book of Decrees").

Oral Law Becomes, By Elimination, Pᵊrush•im Ha•lâkh•âh

After codifying their formerly-Oral Law, the Hellenist (ersatz) Tzᵊdoq•im (primarily the Boethusian family of Hellenist high priests in the Hellenized "Temple") argued, as they always had, against the continuation of the Oral Law versions of the other sects, and the continued transmission of the Oral Law by the other sects; insisting that only their now-written (i.e., no longer oral) interpretations of Tor•âh – namely Tor•âh shë-Bᵊal Pëh were valid.

Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT demonstrates that not even the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•im rejected Tor•âh shë-Bᵊal Pëh.

3 Sects of 1st Century Judaism – 3 Versions of "Oral Law" Interpretations

While the earliest attestation to the phrase Tor•âh shë-Bᵊal Pëh is apparently 3rd century C.E., it is a more neutral term than Ha•lâkh•âh, which implies the rabbinic (Pᵊrush•im) view (in contrast, for example, with Ma•as•ëh of the Qum•rân Kha•sid•im Tzᵊdoq•im DSS "Essene" sect). Tor•âh shë-Bᵊal Pëh is therefore used to describe 'Oral Torah' before the divisions into (chronologically):

  1. the Qum•rân Kha•sid•im Tzᵊdoq•im DSS "Essene" sect Ma•as•ëh,

  2. the Pᵊrush•im Ha•lâkh•âh, and

  3. the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im "Book of Decrees."

Prior to the Hellenization of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh (B.C.E. 175), Tor•âh shë-Bᵊal Pëh comprised the khuq•im and mi•shᵊpât•im plus the Ha•gâd•âh. While the - convened prior to the destruction of the Hellenization of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh in 70 C.E., arguments between the sects over which version of Oral Law was correct predominated – and obsessed – the Jewish community. By contrast, Χριστιανοι remained blissfully unaware of Oral Law except for eradicating the "Book of Decrees".

Another term for Tor•âh shë-Bᵊal Pëh is Mishᵊnâh. Technically referring strictly to the earliest sections of Ta•lᵊmud (i.e., exclusive of Gᵊmâr•â or To•sëphᵊtâ). Since the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, Mishᵊnâh has become popularly used in the sense of Ta•lᵊmud plus Mi•dᵊrâsh—synonymous with Ha•lâkh•âh.

"For a discussion of [Tzᵊdoq•im & Oral Law] see D.W. Halivni, 'Midrash, Mishna, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law,' Cambridge, Mass. 1986." Qim•ron, p. 132.

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author-publisher

Int'l flags

Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic