|
Updated: 2022.12.19
 |
 Modern replica of earlier Persian dagger more resembling the Arab Janbiya—and more likely similar to the ancient חֶ֔רֶב of the קַנָּאִים (Ironside Edge Works) |
Uncertain "Bible" linguists and interpreters continue to debate the meaning of קָנָּא; missing the foundation-stone key to its meaning—the exclusive usage of its adjectives:
קַנּוׂא @ Yᵊhō•shūꞋa 24.19, Na•khūmꞋ 1.2) &
קָנָּא (neut. sing. {since there is neither peer, gender nor consort}, no plural; used only of יְהוָׂה—אֵ֣ל קַנָּ֔א (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 20.5; Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 4.24; 5.9; 6.15; see also Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 34.14 —כִּי יְהֹוָה֙ קַנָּ֣א שְׁמ֔וֹ אֵ֥ל קַנָּ֖א הֽוּא׃ (Because "Zealously-Antiphysicomorphic-Existant" is Its Name; Its Name is "Æl of Zealous-Antiphysicomorphism").
vs Mortal Physical Sex & AdulteryNo metagender or metasexual distinction was apparent to mortals until a few decades ago when medical technology realized that physical sex no longer led uncontrollably to reproduction (pregnancy). Until recently, everyone referred to the Creator as a "He", like a mortal human except capitalized—like a primitive god. Recently, it's become trendy to refer to "Her" and "She". Still dependent on an "other" gender & sex rather than its peerless Creator.
יְהוָׂה and Tōr•ãhꞋ do not change—but הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus )!
Our mortal—physical—assumption tends toward understanding קָנָּא from our own—physical—perspective: referring to physical sex and—then only by extension (!)—sexual adultery. This despite that physical sex and adultery are exclusive to mortals, and restricted to the physical world, despite the Metagender Nature of יְהוָׂה, and despite the Creator's lack of peers (without which, adultery is impossible) in the metaphysical metaverse.
To grasp what קָנָּא means relative to the Creator, we must deal with the distinctions appropriate to the Creator, not physical mortals or our physical world. Consequent to the recent monumental change in sexual technology—preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs for the first time in human history, millennia of assuming an absolute bond between קָנָּא, and physical, exclusively mortal, extramarital (adulterous) sex have been shattered. Physical and Metaphysical are two distinct realms. Every human being eventually sheds the former. Until a few decades ago, however, humankind had never before realized that קָנָּא and (physical, mortal) sexual exclusivity, while usually paired with קָנָּא, has always been a generalization (non sequitur). קָנָּא never implied human (mortal, physical) sex or adultery. Humans assumed that physical and mortal extension.
While correlating קָנָּא to sex and adultery in our physical world of mortals seemed to hold true for the earliest humans and throughout the history of civilizations until this technological generation, it's been during our lifetime that this millennia-old axiom has been proven an unwarranted, exclusively mortal, addition to the original, metasexual and metaphysical, definition referenced by our Creator. The root meaning of קָנָּא refers to a connotation that is above mortal, physical sex and adultery. We then realize that this longstanding error, so deeply held, contradicts Scripture (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 13.1-6)!
Thus, קָנָּא refers specifically to a metaphysical (i.e. spiritual) betrayal of loyalty (not physical sex). The consequences of this modern discovery on human physical affairs [pun noted] is complex, but fare for separate discussion.
 |
  Sica - 1st century Roman Pugio; easily concealable, in scabbard, under a robe |
Contrary to assertions that the קַנָּאִים were founded in the 1st century (whether CE or BCE), PiꞋnᵊkhãs (Bën-Ëlᵊã•zãrꞋ, Bën-A•ha•rōnꞋ, Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ), cBCE 1481, is cited as the first קַנַּאי in Ta•na״khꞋ (bᵊMi•dᵊbarꞋ 25.10–30.1).
A fortiori, cBCE 1441–1367, Shō•pheitꞋ #2, Æ•hūdꞋ Bën-GeirꞋã is also recognizable as a קַנַּאי: drawing a dagger concealed in his robe to fatally stab MōꞋãv King ËꞋgᵊl•ōn (Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ 3.15, 22-23).
 350x365.jpg "ccc") |
  575x600.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Traditional Janbiya, the universal Arab mark of passage to manhood; silver Assib from Tiaham, Yemen (oriental-arms.com) 2. Traditional Janbiya as worn under robe in Arab attire. |
The term "sica" is a Latin word meaning "curved dagger" and Latin didn't become popular until sometime in the early 1st century CE. The type of dagger, however, dates back to the earliest knives—the חֶ֔רֶב.
In Roman usage, sicarii, i.e., those carrying a concealed sica, was a synonym for a Mack-the-Knife style vigilante (who may, or may not, also be a bandit). According to Τίτος Φλάβιος Ἰώσηπος, the Judaic Sicarii used short daggers he called Μικρἁ Ξιφίδια, concealed in their robe, to assassinate their targets, usually at religious festivals. The fact that Hellenist-Lite Τίτος Φλάβιος Ἰώσηπος employs the Latin sicarii, transliterating it into Greek, σικάριοι, demonstrates that he adopted a late Hellenist Roman Latin term used by the Roman occupation forces. His own—Hellenist Greek—word for a Mack-the-Knife vigilante or mob enforcer, which he more generally uses to describe the ruthless and viciously nationalist (anti-Roman) Hellenist-Lite Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Beit Sha•maiꞋ קַנָּאִים, was "λησταί". 
("4th Party" )The קַנָּאִים party was a Ma•kab•imꞋ-honed offshoot of the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ; a QōꞋrakh-like genetic (i.e. race-based) priest-centric & temple-centric party that had been Hellenized only 8 years earlier by Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the Hellenist Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋa, with the assistance of Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής —Dãn•iy•eilꞋ's Shi•qūtz•imꞋ Mᵊshō•meimꞋ (Anglicized as "Abomination of Desecrations")!!!
The "Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋa" Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ priests, themselves Hellenists, couldn't have been "anti-Hellenists"! Rather, they were Hellenist-Lite priests rebelling against foreign-imposed Hellenist excesses. Most of all, however, they increasingly transformed into militant nationalists rebelling against a foreign (SëꞋlë•ūk•ös) take-over of their (Hellenist-Lite) Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "temple"!
With each military success, they also increased their international ambitions, becoming increasingly fanatic: first, forcibly converting the Ëd•ōm•imꞋ (e.g. Ἡρῴδης), against the judgment of their Beit-Dã•widꞋ rival party, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ, then becoming (Hellenist-Lite priestly Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ) "religious" קַנָּאִים, believing that they could forcibly convert the rest of the world.
Sadly, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ turned the original, justified and essential, fervor into "religious" fanaticism: militant, xenophobic, nationalist vigilantes; who would soon turn even against each other, assassinating suspected Yᵊhūd•imꞋ along with the Italian (Roman) occupiers.
Self-destructively ignoring waning support from within due to their schism with the Pᵊrush•imꞋ—and between themselves, like QōꞋrakh their empire died out—leaving a disenchanted Yᵊhūd•imꞋ people under Roman rule of the Ë•dōm•iꞋ Roman-"king" Ἡρῴδης and plagued by a scattering of self-appointed קַנָּאִים, terrorist-style vigilantes that would explode in two apocalyptic destructions over the next (1st CE) century–135 CE.
qqPᵊrūsh•iꞋ Tan•ã•imꞋ RabꞋi Yō•khãn•ãnꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ "relates in Ma•sëkꞋët Sōt•ãhꞋ l.c. "that, on account of the frequent murders committed by [the קַנָּאִים] and which won them the epithet of 'murderers'…"
"The Murder of Ζαχαρίας [υιός Βαραχίου] And now these ζηλωταὶ] [= קַנָּאִים] and Ëd•ōm•imꞋ were quite weary of simple massacre, so they had the audacity to set up mock trials and Bãt•eiꞋ-Din for that purpose." While debates have raged about the identity of this Josephus' "Zakkharias" for centuries, much of the argument has rested on the phrase in the Christian Καινής Διαθήκης book of Ματταθίας. However, NHM follows the earliest extant ms. of א—which has no last name identifier.
There is no hint of קַנָּאִים involvement in the time of Zᵊkhar•yãhꞋ Bën-Bë•rëkh•yãhꞋ Bën-Id•oꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ. Ergo, this leaves no basis whatsoever to question the presence of some other "Zakkharias", who lived in the 1st century CE. There is neither basis in Ta•na״khꞋ nor NHM to more specifically identify "Zecharias".
Due to Christian pressures, (former Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•heinꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ & General) likely avoided referring to the specific identity and "son of Bë•rëkh•yãhꞋ" was then almost certainly a Christian interpolation—for which there are other precedences in Josephus as well. A priori, rejecting Christian interpolation, Josephus was certainly referring to a "Zakharias" he had recently cited: Ζαχαρίας … υἱὸς Ἀμφικάλλει!
After the near extinction of I•vᵊr•itꞋ for ¾ of a millennium (135 CE until the 1880s), reconstructing the meaning of קַנָּאִי depends solely upon its usage in Scripture and any context offered in its earliest translations (Aramaic and Greek).
Until now, the meaning of קַנָּאִים hasn't been resolved in the modern era. It continues to be universally confused between zealousness and jealousness. Yet, the meaning derives from the same term in Greek: ζῆλος.
Zealousnous conveys "passionate ardor in pursuit of an objective".
Jealousnous (jealousy), by contrast, requires 3 sentient parties: Party A who passionately and ardently suspects and envies Party C of possessing the allegiance and affections of Party B.
Since יְהוָׂה is all-knowing, suspicion isn't an experience of the Existant. Thus, anger results, not jealousy. The anthropomorphic notion of jealousy entered with the mysticism—Qa•bãl•ãhꞋ (and Christianity)—picturing Israel (or YëshꞋ"u) as the "Bride" (idolatrous Consort) of יְהוָׂה!
A priori, קַנָּאִי means zealous—passionate ardor in pursuit of an objective; not jealous.
With only one exception to date, every so-called historical and scholarly description of the קַנָּאִים, whether uncomprehending or deliberately manipulative, has buried the historical קַנָּאִים under their own—rabbinic, Christian or Muslim—tradition-agenda.
Reconstructing reality is no different than reconstructing an ancient human being or dinosaur. It requires recovering every piece possible being sure not to alter it (language & oral history being far more susceptible to perceptual alteration/interpretation), then figure out how the pieces all fit together.
One of the most significant pieces of information is that the קַנָּאִים were evident more than 2 centuries before RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa's public teaching tour or the conflict leading up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
While the קַנָּאִי trace all the way back to Pi•nᵊkhãsꞋ c. BCE 1500, who acted not independently as a vigilante above the law as most carelessly assume; but, rather, under the authority of an edict from the Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ. Pi•nᵊkhãsꞋ—for which he was later recognized as a קַנָּאִי—emulating the יְהוָׂה—and later appointed Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ—originating the line of subsequent Kō•hᵊn•eiꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ קַנָּאִים—until BCE 175.
qq The political principles of Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Beit Sha•maiꞋ perpetuated the Hellenist principles of Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the Hellenist Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋa and those of the קַנָּאִים, among whom they therefore found support.
qqThe Hillelites were, like the founder of their school (Ber. 60a; Shab. 31a; Ab. i. 12 et seq.), quiet, peace-loving men, accommodating themselves to circumstances and times, and being determined only upon fostering the Law and bringing man nearer to his God and to his neighbor. The Shammaites, on the other hand, stern and unbending like the originator of their school, emulated and even exceeded his severity. To them it seemed impossible to be sufficiently stringent in religious prohibitions. The disciples of Hillel, "the pious and gentle follower of Ezra" (Sanh. 11a), evinced in all their public dealings the peacefulness, gentleness, and conciliatory spirit which had distinguished their great master; and by the same characteristic qualities they were guided during the political storms which convulsed their country. The Shammaites, on the contrary, were intensely patriotic, and would not bow to foreign rule. They advocated the interdiction of any and all intercourse with those who either were Romans or in any way contributed toward the furtherance of Roman power or influences. Dispositions so heterogeneous and antagonistic can not usually endure side by side without provoking serious misunderstandings and feuds; and it was owing solely to the Hillelites' forbearance that the parties did not come to blows, and that even friendly relations continued between them (Tosef., Yeb. i. 10; Yeb. 14b; Yer. Yeb. i. 3b), for a time at least. But the vicissitudes of the period exerted a baneful influence also in that direction. When, after the banishment of Archelaus (6 C.E.), the Roman procurator Coponius attempted to tax the Jews, and ordered a strict census to be taken for that purpose, both schools protested, and the new measure was stigmatized as so outrageous as to justify all schemes by which it might be evaded. The general abhorrence for the system of Roman taxation manifested itself in looking with distrust upon every Jew who was officially concerned in carrying it out, whether as tax-collector ("gabbai") or as customs-collector ("mokes"); these were shunned by the higher ranks of the community, and their testimony before Jewish courts had no weight (B. Ḳ. x. 1; ib. 113a; Sanh. iii. 3; ib. 25b). About this time the malcontents held the ascendency. Under the guidance of Judas the Gaulonite (or Galilean) and of Zadok, a Shammaite (Tosef., 'Eduy. ii. 2; Yeb. 15b), a political league was called into existence, whose object was to oppose by all means the practise of the Roman laws. Adopting as their organic principle the exhortation of the father of theMaccabees (I Macc. ii. 50), "Be ye zealous for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers," these patriots called themselves "Ḳanna'im," Zealots (Josephus, "B. J." iv. 3, § 9, and vii. 8, § 1; Raphall, "Post-Biblical History," ii. 364); and the Shammaites, whose principles were akin to those of the Zealots, found support among them. Their religious austerity, combined with their hatred of the heathen Romans, naturally aroused the sympathies of the fanatic league, and as the Hillelites became powerless to stem the public indignation, the Shammaites gained the upper hand in all disputes affecting their country's oppressors. Bitter feelings were consequently engendered between the schools; and it appears that even in public worship they would no longer unite under one roof (Jost, "Gesch. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten," i. 261; Tosef., R. H., end). These feelings grew apace, until toward the last days of Jerusalem's struggle they broke out with great fury. Relation to External World. As all the nations around Judea made common cause with the Romans, the Zealots were naturally inflamed against every one of them; and therefore the Shammaites proposed to prevent all communication between Jew and Gentile, by prohibiting the Jews from buying any article of food or drink from their heathen neighbors. The Hillelites, still moderate in their religious and political views, would not agree to such sharply defined exclusiveness; but when the Sanhedrin was called together to consider the propriety of such measures, the Shammaites, with the aid of the Zealots, gained the day. Eleazar ben Ananias invited the disciples of both schools to meet at his house. Armed men were stationed at the door, and instructed to permit every one to enter, but no one to leave. During the discussions that were carried on under these circumstances, many Hillelites are said to have been killed; and there and then the remainder adopted the restrictive propositions of the Shammaites, known in the Talmud as "The Eighteen Articles." On account of the violence which attended those enactments, and because of the radicalism of the enactments themselves, the day on which the Shammaites thus triumphed over the Hillelites was thereafter regarded as a day of misfortune (Tosef., Shab. i. 16 et seq.; Shab. 13a, 17a; Yer. Shab. i. 3c). Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel continued their disputes—probably interrupted during the war times—after the destruction of the Temple, or until after the reorganization of the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Gamaliel II. (80 C.E.). By that time all political schemes and plans for the recovery of the lost liberty had become altogether foreign to the ideas of the spiritual leaders; and the characteristies of the Hillelites once more gained the ascendency. All disputed points were brought up for review (see 'Akabia); and in nearly every case the opinion of the Hillelites prevailed (Tosef., Yeb. i. 13; Yer. Ber. i. 3b; Grätz, "Gesch. der Juden," 2d ed., iv. 424, note 4). Thenceforth it was said: "Where Bet Shammai is opposed to Bet Hillel, the opinion of Bet Shammai is considered as if not incorporated in the Mishnah" ("Bet Shammai bimeḳom Bet Hillel enah Mishnah"—Ber. 36b; Beẓah 11b; Yeb. 9a); that is, null and void. BET HILLEL AND BET SHAMMAI: By: Marcus Jastrow, S. Mendelsohn https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3190-bet-hillel-and-bet-shammai accessed 2021.07.12
The first evidence of a distinct and independent coordinated קַנָּאִים religiopolitical activist group arose as the direct consequence of the single act, in BCE 175, by Yәhō•shuꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-Kō•heinꞋ and An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ—which Hellenized Israel to this day.
In displacing the last קַנָּאִי Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ,
Hellenist Yәhō•shuꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-Kō•heinꞋ and his fellow "Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ"
ousted the last קַנָּאִי Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, Yәkhōn•yãhꞋ Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ the קַנָּאִי (of the disenfranchised "קַנָּאִי Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ"
No longer pushed to the back-burner, Israel now had to deal with a Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, who preached—but no longer ãs•ãhꞋ—Tōr•ãhꞋ, opposite the ousted anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ who upheld the Ma•a•sëhꞋ Tōr•ãhꞋ —namely, the anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ.
This imposed a new—Hellenist reformed—configuration of the legislative (Hellenist Greek) Sanhedrin, pairing the leader of the new "anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ" as the Senior Chair—the Nã•siꞋ, with the leader of the anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ as the Junior Chair—the Av Beit Din.
These dual leaders who chaired the Sanhedrin were called "The Pairs" in Hebrew: "Ha-ZūgꞋōt" (the last ZūgꞋōt being Nã•siꞋ anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr. + Av Beit Din anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian"). 
Both parties of the Sanhedrin being anti-Hellenist, the remaining primary disputes orbited maintaining a relevance of kō•han•imꞋ and priestly purity—both of which went extinct leaving Beit Hi•leilꞋ Legacy
The ZūgꞋōt self-destructed when, by c BCE 32, the influence of the anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ had waned to the point that the anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian") was appointed the first Pᵊrush•iꞋ Nã•siꞋ, giving the Pᵊrush•imꞋ full control over the Sanhedrin.
Thus, the anti-Hellenist Sanhedrin ZūgꞋōt of Ōs•inꞋ-קַנָּאִים Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ Nã•siꞋ + anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ Av Beit Din found themselves pitted against Hellenist Roman Empire + Hellenist High Priest (sic) and an emerging Hellenist Temple (sic).
From the day in BCE 175 that the first Hellenist robbed his Osin-קַנָּאִים brother of the office of Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ, the Hellenist Roman occupiers & Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ High Priest (sic) collaborated to assimilate the Temple (sic), religion and Yᵊhud•imꞋ seamlessly into the Hellenist empire. incited periodic and georandom insurrections throughout YᵊhūdꞋãh and the Gã•lilꞋ.
With the Roman appointment of Herod the Ë•dōm•iꞋ (aka A•mã•leiqꞋ) to rule over Jews and build their Hellenist "Temple".
Sicarii is the Roman (i.e. Latin) name, based on the sica (sickle-like dagger), which was the literal cloak-and-dagger weapon of choice of a particularly radical branch of the קַנָּאִים.
Named in Latin for the Roman name of their dagger, the sickle-like sica, Sicarii קַנָּאִים Until The Hellenization Of The Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ In BCE 175
Among the disciples of Jesus there is mentioned a Simon the Zealot (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13); for the same person Matt. x. 4 and Mark iii. 18 have "the Canaanite," obviously a corruption of ("ha-Ḳanna'i" = "the Zealot"). file:///C:/Yirmeyahu/Netzarim/Library/ZEALOTS%20-%20JewishEncyclopedia.com.htm
Paul Acts 22:3 and Galatians 1:14-17 (then went not to Yerushalayim but to Damascus) Zealot; Stephen Acts 7.58.
Matzadah, paradigm for Jamestown
Pay it forward! Quote & Cite:
| Ben-David, Yirmeyahu. Netzarim Jews World Headquarters, Ra'anana, Israel. www.netzarim.co.il. Title of this page. Copy & paste URL of this page. Today's date. |
 |
|
 |