|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
© 1997, 2006, Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, Pâ•qidꞋ 16
In the first edition of WAN, we relied on a 1991 Israeli Hebrew newspaper account,
citing previously unpublished Qum•rânꞋ Scrolls, which recounted what can now be seen as scholarly careless and over-sensationalized claims by Robert Eisenman, Michael Wise, and James Tabor that DSS 4Q285 describes the Mâ•shiꞋakh being put to death by the goy•imꞋ confirming, according to them, the Christian provision of "salvation."
The discovery of the Qum•rânꞋ scrolls filled in many blanks in Judaism, alluded to in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, from the time of the conclusion of the Ta•na"khꞋ (viz., ËꞋzᵊr•â, ca. B.C.E. 4th century) until the first copy of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)—in the 4th century C.E. (surprise Christians! 
) and the first copy of Ta•lᵊmudꞋ in the 5th century C.E. (surprise Jews! ).
A prominent Anglican bishop claimed: "The Scrolls signified a breakthrough in the history-of-religions approach to [the Gospel of 'St. John'] thought and language." Much of what some [Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)] scholars had attributed to non-Jewish Hellenism or at least diaspora Judaism suddenly acquired substantial parallels in contemporary texts from a predominantly priestly group which did not reside far from [Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim].
This very connection between Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (or at least their doctrines) and other Tor•âhꞋ-strict Judaic sects of the period in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim also binds the Mâ•shiꞋakh to Tor•âhꞋ-strictness – an unpleasant shock contradicting Christianity and vindicating the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. Continuing finds and research increasingly corroborate the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ.
At the time, we had no access to the text in order to check their work.
Now we do. This over-sensationalized fragment of 4Q285 was analyzed by Prof. Martin G. Abegg, Jr. In his paper he addressed the arguments that had been raised by Prof. Robert H. Eisenman, Prof. Michael O. Wise, and Prof. James D. Tabor.
Moreover, the photo we found online and used turned out to be an unlabled fake "scribed" by Jack Kilmon (still not labeled with any warning that it is his stylized reproduction when accessed at historian.net, 2012.05.22)! We have removed his faked photo and now use photos I've scanned from my personal copies of the (initially famously illegal) Dead Sea Scrolls. Unsurprisingly, these actual-size photos (one of the photos must be clicked to enlarge) are more difficult to read. On the other hand, they don't embed nor falsely mislead to confirm Kilmon's interpretation, intrinsic in his fake.
Dead Sea Scroll 4Q285: Messiah Putting To Death or Being Put To Death? –This is the scroll touted by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise as reading "And the Prince of the Congregation, the Branch of David, was killed … and pierced." After considerable criticism of this reading, Dr. Tabor wrote a response. More recently, Prof. Abegg published his response to Tabor.
Retaining the disputed, unvowelized, Hebrew term in these fragments for clarity, the mss. read
[] indicates a short lacuna
… indicates an indefinitely longer lacuna
□ indicates a missing part of a word
{} speculative, derived from Scriptural context
| speculative (section missing) | Papyrus Fragment 4Q285 | speculative (section missing) |
|---|---|---|
| {åð÷ô…} | …éùòéäå äðáéà | |
| åì åéöà çåèø îâæò éùé | {éô} | |
| öîç ãåéã åðùôèå àú | ||
| {ç} | åäîéúå ðùéà äòãä öî | |
| î åáîçåììåú åÀöÄåÌÈä ëÌåÉäÅï | ||
| [ç]ìì[é] ë[å]ì |
The second line clearly recalls Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 11.1, and the preceding verse (10.34):
The rest is "fill-in-the-blanks" speculation directed by patterns found in (Hebrew) Scripture.
Controversy has swirled around the Hebrew term åäîéúå, from the verb îåÉú. Prof. Abegg and other scholars argue it should be åÀäÈîÄéúåÌ or åÆäÁîÄéúåÌ (cf. similar usage of hiph•ilꞋ in Shᵊm•otꞋ 21.29). This term is found in line 4, above (□åäîéúå ðùéà äòãä öî). However, it's my opinion that the word is more likely åÆäÁîÄéúåÒ, following the grammatical pattern as instantiated in Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 65.15, in which the object is indicated in the suffix of the verb, which is then followed by the subject.
Correspondingly, this is a better fit of construct (both hiph•ilꞋ, though the structure differs by an àÆú), as a úÌÄ÷ÀáÌÉìÆú, to åÀðÄùÑÀôÌÀèåÌ in the preceding line.
TzëmꞋakh is universally accepted as referring to the Mâ•shiꞋakh. The meaning of åäîéúå depends upon how it's vowelized—and that's the crux of the dispute, pun unapologetically intended! There were no vowels back then, only the Oral Tradition – of which non-Jews are usually blissfully ignorant or aggressively defy.
I find only one identically spelled instantiation of this verb in Ta•na"khꞋ (Shᵊmu•eilꞋ ÂlꞋëph 22.17) – the hiph•ilꞋ, active causal, construct ("to put to death, kill or execute"); not the only passive form of this verb that has developed: the huph•alꞋ ("to be put to death, be killed" or "be executed"). This huph•alꞋ form is precluded by the middle é, rather than a å, in the lexeme äîéú – though the difference between these two similar letters is practically indiscernible in the handwriting of the scribe in the fragment and, therefore, easily misread.
The scientist must resist the impulse to reach for the illogical and anachronous (these scrolls almost certainly date before 30 C.E.) to build a bridge to a desired conclusion (namely, corroborating the execution of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the Mâ•shiꞋakh), as some scholars have posited. However, the scientist must no less question whether the popular transcription of these two letters, falsely presented as unquestionable, has been driven by the opposite impulse rather than objective science. (An OCR computer program would answer that question – probably revealing some surprises; and certainly introduce objectivity.) In all of the instances in Ta•na"khꞋ in which the passive "he was put to death" is found, the huph•alꞋ would be åäåîúå (viz., åÀäåÌîÀúåÌ). However, this transposition of letters to åî rather than îå (if the é in îé should be read as å) is clearly not what is found in 4Q285. Ergo, the construct in 4Q285 is hiph•ilꞋ – causal active, not passive.
Other constructs of this verb haven't developed either in Ta•na"khꞋ nor in the constructs and conjugations given in 201 Hebrew Verbs.
All instantiations with gramatically compatible construct and tense that I find in Ta•na"khꞋ are in the hiph•ilꞋ:
hiph•ilꞋ imperative m.p. åÀäÈîÄéúåÌ [the Nâ•siꞋ ha-Eid•âhꞋ] – Shᵊmu•eilꞋ ÂlꞋëph 22.17 (includes conj. prefix).
hiph•ilꞋ past lexeme äÂîÄéú – Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 4.24 (…to put to death); Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 26.21 (…to put to death); Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ ShᵊlōmꞋōh 19.18 (…to put to death…).
With the requisite prefix and suffix, this would become in the DSS fragment åÇäÂîÄéúåÒ
hiph•ilꞋ past 3rd pers. m. p. äÅîÄéúåÌ – Shmu•eilꞋ ÂlꞋëph 30.2 (they did {not} put […] to death); Shmu•eilꞋ Beit 13.32 ({not think that} they put […] to death); Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 11.20 & Div•reiꞋ-ha-Yâm•imꞋ Beit 23.20 (they put […] to death)
With the requisite prefix and suffix, this would become in the DSS fragment åÆäÁîÄéúåÌ
Alternately, the same construct as åÆäÁîÄéúåÌ, but with the 1st person suffix, is found in Shᵊmu•eilꞋ Beit 14.32: "…and if I there is an â•wonꞋ in me, åÆäÁîÄúÈðÄé – then may [Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh] put me to death." The object of the verb is its suffix.
In the subsequent line (5) most scholars have derived åÌáÀîÀçåÌìÌÈìåÉú from çÈìÇì. Prof. Abegg posits an alternative derivation from çåÌì. However, this would produce îÀçåÉìÌÀìåÉú. In Prof. Abegg's schema, some villain-king (symbolized by Kit•imꞋ in frg. 5) commands: åÇäÂîÄéúåÒ, which would translate to "you put him to death!" It's then assumed that the next words are the object of the verb, he put to death the TzëmꞋakh…. This is then followed by celebrations with timbrels and female-dancers. Finally, a ko•heinꞋ presumably commands to purify from the blood of those who had been killed – about the only command (!) given by a ko•heinꞋ in Ta•na"khꞋ.
The far greater likelihood is that the term is åÆäÁîÄéúåÒ (i.e., may he [the TzëmꞋakh, Nâ•siꞋ ha-Eid•âhꞋ] put him [probably the king of the Kit•imꞋ] to death), following the grammatical construct instantiated in Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu (Deutero, ca. B.C.E. 540) 65.15:
This stich was almost certainly written concerning the Babylonian Exile that began nearly 50 years before Yᵊsha•yahꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ penned this pâ•suqꞋ.
In light of this grammatical pattern in which the verb contains the object in its suffix, followed by the subject, it is not unlikely that, as the agent of é‑‑ä, the Ōs•inꞋ would have expected the TzëmꞋakh (Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ) to put to death the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ who had deposed and expelled the Ōs•inꞋ authors of this DSS fragment from the Hellenized "Temple"; and whom the Ōs•inꞋ authors of this DSS fragment viewed as øÉòÄé äÈàÁìÄéì servants – as contrasted with themselves (the Ōs•inꞋ), the faithful servants of this chapter.
In my view, profanings–specifically, Hellenism–best fits the context. In this schema, the Mâ•shiꞋakh, puts to death the arch-villain Chief Hellenist of the "Kit•imꞋ" (Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ), whose subjects (the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ) would then go down in the pit in shamings and profanings. All of this would be concluded with the command of the true (Ōs•inꞋ) ko•heinꞋ to purify from the blood of the Kit•imꞋ.
While the author of the scroll seems to describe a fellow Ōs•inꞋ as ko•heinꞋ and TzëmꞋakh (Mâ•shiꞋakh) figure, Scripture requires that the Mâ•shiꞋakh be from shëvꞋët YᵊhudꞋâh, not shëvꞋët Lei•wiꞋ (a ko•heinꞋ). It was the Ōs•inꞋ who, authoring these scrolls, were mostly ko•han•imꞋ and seem to have been prophesying a Mâ•shiꞋakh from among their own community or would, at least, recognize the Ōs•inꞋ community as the faithful servants and sons of light vis-à-vis the apostate Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ.
Of five factors Prof. Abegg offers, although the fifth was not strictly followed by ancient scribes, the first four are compelling – "argu[ing] strongly for the [hiph•ilꞋ] interpretation" – which seems to be the only possible interpretation.
"First, Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 11:4, which follows the verses quoted [Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 10.34 – 11.1] in our fragment (lines 1-3) reveals that the çÉèÆø îÄâÌÆæÇò éÄùÑÈé; åÀðÅöÆø îÄùÌÑÈøÈùÑÈéå… éÈîÄéú øÈùÑÈò with the breath from his lips.’ …
"Second, the two messianic titles [in the fragment] that I [Prof. Abegg] have examined, [öîç ãåéã (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 23.5-8; 33.14-18) and ðùéà äòãä (Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ 34.23f; 37.24-28)] clearly refer, both in the [Ta•na"khꞋ] and in the Qum•rânꞋ texts, to a reigning, not suffering, ruler.
Third, frg. 4 line [6, äÅáÄéàåÌäåÌ ìÄôÀðÅé ðùéà] suggests that the [ðùéà] is in a position of authority and that someone is brought before him…
Fourth, nowhere in extant Qum•rânꞋ literature do we read of the death of a messianic figure." Here, Prof. Abegg demonstrates that Tabor's citation of 11QMelch ii 18 is tenuous, at best.
"Finally, the syntax of the construction compels me [Prof. Abegg] to choose åÀäÈîÄéúåÌ" based on the lack of the accusative particle àÆú [which readers of our pages have likely come to expect] before ðùéà äòãä if it were indeed the direct object." Readers interested in more details should obtain a copy of Prof. Abegg's article.
Aside from Prof. Abegg's arguments, the obvious language for "pierced" Mâ•shiꞋakh should be expected to follow the same ta•vᵊn•itꞋ as in Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 12.10: "Then I will pour on Beit-Dâ•widꞋ and on the Inhabitant of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim the ruꞋakh çÅï and supplications, and they shall gaze upon me whom ãÌÈ÷ÈøåÌ. However, this is not the term found in the 4Q285.
Further, I notice that lines 3-4 of frg. 5 (the putatively åäîéúå frg.), because of context (Messianic figure of the Messianic Era), language (putatively åðùôèå) and space suggest a paraphrasing of Yo•eilꞋ 4.2-3 in the third person, referring to the messianic figure "he" rather than the first person, as found in Ta•na"khꞋ (Yo•eilꞋ 4.2-3):
"Then I will collect all of the goy•imꞋ and bring them down to EiꞋmëq Yᵊhō•shâ•phâtꞋ; åÀðÄùÑÀôÌÇèÀúÌÄé òÄîÌÈí there concerning My kindred and My legacy, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, whom they dispersed among the goy•imꞋ…"
òÄîÌÈí is similar in meaning to àÄúÌÈí except that the latter is a form of the accusative particle àÆú while the former does not imply the object of the verb. This suggests that in 4Q285, as in Yo•eilꞋ, åðùôèå (then they will adjudicate-mi•shᵊpâtꞋ) implies entering into adjudicative deliberations of mi•shᵊpâtꞋ with…; i.e., a court trial culminating in a judgment. In 4Q285, the putative åÀðÄùÑÀôÌÀèåÌ is found in the sentence preceding the putative åÆäÁîÄéúåÒ, clearly describing the Messianic Era; ergo, demonstrating that the scroll intends TzëmꞋakh to refer not primarily to the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 53, but to the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ of Yom ha-Din.
In my view, we can say with great confidence that 4Q285 is speaking of the Messianic Era and a Mâ•shiꞋakh who is causing the death(s) in this scroll, not "being put to death." Unfortunately, the Ōs•inꞋ authors of the scroll seem afraid to openly specify exactly whom the Mâ•shiꞋakh will put to death – except that they are Kit•imꞋ.
Compiling this information suggests that the author of 4Q285 was demonstrating a relationship between Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 10.34–11.1 with Yo•eilꞋ 4.2, the latter in a 3rd-person interpretive paraphrase, illuminated by wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 13.54; 14.4-5, 36 & 40. Conflating the several fragments of 4Q285, almost entirely as set forth by Prof. Abegg (p. 87), produces the following, which is strikingly similar to the cited passages:
[ ëÌÇàÂùÑÆø
ëÌÇúåÌá
áÌÇñÌÅôÆø]
éÀùÇòÀéÈäåÌ
äÇðÈáÄéà
åÀðÄé÷ÌÇô][å]
[ ñÄáÀëÅé
äÇéÌÇòÇø
áÌÇáÌÇøÀæÆì
åÀäÇìÌÀáÈðåÉï
áÌÀàÇãÌÄéø
éÄ]ôÌåÉì
åÀéÈöÈà
çåÉèÆø
îÄâÌÆæÇò
éÄùÑÇé
[åÀðÅöÆø
îÄùÑÌÈøÈùÑÈéå
éÄôÀøÆä
(ðÈùÒÄéà
äÈòÅãÈä]
öÆîÇç
ãÌÈåÄéã);
åÀðÄùÑÀôÌÀèåÌ
àÆú
[çÇéÄì
áÌÀìÄéÌÇòÇì.
åÀòÈîÇã
îÆìÆêÀ
äÇëÌÄúÌÄééí
ìÀîÄùÑÀôÌÈè]
åÆäÁîÄéúåÒ
(ðÈùÒÄéà
äÈòÅãÈä
öÆîÇ[ç]
[ãÌÈåÄéã)
àåÉúåÉ åÀéÈöÀàåÌ áÌÀúåÌôÌÄé]î
åÌáÄîÀçåÉìÀìåÉú
åÀöÄåÌäÈ
ëÌåÉäÅï
[ ç]ìì[é]
ëÌÄúÌÄéÌÄéí
[åÀëÌåÉ]ì[
äÇòí]
As it is written in the scroll of Yᵊsha•yahꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ, Then shall he beat-down
[thickets of the forest by iron; and the Lebanon by a Grandeurous-One shall] fall. Then shall go forth a KhōꞋtër from the trunk of Yish•aiꞋ;
[and a NeiꞋtzër from his roots shall sprout (the Nâ•siꞋ of the Eid•âhꞋ,] TzëmꞋakh of Dâ•widꞋ); and they shall engage in adjudicating-mi•shᵊpâtꞋ[, all]
[of the soldiery of Bᵊli•ya•alꞋ. Then shall stand the mëlꞋëkh of the Kit•imꞋ for adjudication of mi•shᵊpâtꞋ] and1 he,2 shall9 put10 to12 death13 (Nâ•siꞋ3 of4 the5 Eid•âhꞋ,6 TzëmꞋ[akh7]
[Dâ•widꞋ8) [him.11 Then the women shall go forth with timbrel]s and with dancing. Then1 shall2 command5 the3 Ko•heinꞋ4
[ ?? the Kit•imꞋ [and a]ll
Note the ease of paraphrasing Yo•eilꞋ 4.2 in parallel with 4Q285:
4.2 Yo•eilꞋ – åÀ÷ÄáÌÇöÀúÌÄé àÆú-ëÈì-äÇâÌåÉéÄí, åÀäåÉøÇãÀúÌÄéí, àÆì-òÅîÆ÷ éÀäåÉùÑÈôÈè; åÀðÄùÑÀôÌÇèÀúÌÄé òÄîÌÈí ùÑÈí, òÇì-òÇîÌÄé åÀðÇçÂìÈúÄé éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì…
In 4Q285, the Ōs•inꞋ author of the scroll inserts Kit•imꞋ (by which he cryptically means the rival Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ) for goy•imꞋ, as penned by Yo•eilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ.
Speaking of the TzëmꞋakh as a 3rd person, rather than in the 1st person as Yo•eilꞋ had, the thought would look a lot more like 4Q285:
åÀ÷ÄáÌÅõ öÆîÇç ãåéã åÀðÄùÑÀôÌÇèÀ àÆú-ëÈì-äÇâÌåÉéÄí (ëÌÄúÌÄéÌÄéí) òÇì-òÇîÌåÒ; åÀðÇçÂìÈúåÉ éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì…
(Then shall TzëmꞋakh Dâ•widꞋ collect and adjudicate-mi•shᵊpâtꞋ upon all of the goy•imꞋ (Kit•imꞋ) concerning His am, and His legacy, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.)
Both the Aleppo Ta•na"khꞋ and the Qum•rânꞋ Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu scroll, 1QIsa, corroborate that the reading at the end of the first line should be åÀðÄ÷ÌÇó, which can be spelled åðé÷ó without vowels; not åð÷åó.
Christian and Muslim contortions of 4Q285 aren't necessary to demonstrate that the Mâ•shiꞋakh, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, brought to fruition and clarity the provision of é‑‑ä (not another, displacement theology, provision) as the TzëmꞋakh Dâ•widꞋ and Nâ•siꞋ for ki•purꞋ in the non-dimensional, i.e. spiritual and timeless, realm. A moment's thought should show that this would be the priority, before concern for the temporal, physical, earthly, realm.
This contra-{Hellenism / Christian} messianic provision of é‑‑ä is the true ki•purꞋ in the spiritual, heavenly, realm, for which the animal sacrifice system in the defunct Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ served as the mere learning ta•vᵊn•itꞋ. For those who believe that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is the prophesied Mâ•shiꞋakh of é‑‑ä there is a strong desire to follow the authentic Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of Mosh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ as RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa refined, clarified and restored it. A fortiori, when, as described in Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ 45-46, the TzëmꞋakh Dâ•widꞋ serves as Nâ•siꞋ in the eternal realm, it's critical to be in his flock, not among those who denied and defied him.
The bᵊrit•ōtꞋ that é‑‑ä has made with Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ exhibit a common characteristic: each successive bᵊrit incurs a more refined subset of individuals from within the broader, previous, bᵊrit. As must be of an Immutable and Perfect Creator Who cannot contradict Himself (else either before or after the contradiction was error and wrong), none of these increasingly refined contracts as Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ progresses ever contradicts, annuls or displaces any previous bᵊrit with a contradictory or incompatible definition. The Bᵊrit Kha•dâsh•âhꞋ set forth by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 31.30-31—antithesis of the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)–follows the identical paradigm. This Bᵊrit Kha•dâsh•âhꞋ defines a refinement Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ subset within (not a Hellenist, Displacement Theology a•vod•âhꞋ zâr•âhꞋ contradiction of His Perfect previous bᵊrit•ōtꞋ, by goy•imꞋ, apart from) the global Jewish community.
The provision in the eternal realm, by é‑‑ä, provides ki•purꞋ for practicers of Tor•âhꞋ (who are practically all moderate Orthodox Jews) and geir•imꞋ.
Goy•imꞋ, which includes everyone who neglects to do their utmost to live according to the principles of Tor•âhꞋ irrespective of their genetics, are excluded from His refining subset of His Bᵊrit Kha•dâsh•âhꞋ as defined in Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 31.30-31. Ta•na"khꞋ is explicit and crystal clear that goy•imꞋ are not recipients of His ki•purꞋ. Nor have goy•imꞋ any other concomitant reservation in the world to come.
Like all of His previous bᵊrit•ōtꞋ with é‑‑ä, the Bᵊrit Kha•dâsh•âhꞋ concerning RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the TzëmꞋakh, Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ and Nâ•siꞋ of Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ 45-46, embraces only a subset of those who were party to the previous bᵊrit•ōtꞋ—Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (and geir•imꞋ).
Lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ – "salvation" through an anti-Tor•âhꞋ ("antinomian") Christian "grace" of Jesus is a bᵊrit not with lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ é‑‑ä, but with the idolatrous, Hellenist Roman Ζεύς that the Hellenist Roman occupiers syncretized, via the Apostate Paul, into the 4th century C.E. Jesus, a poser and idolatrous counterfeit god-on-a-stick.
 frg4 pl409 (670) 350x185.jpg "ccc") |
 DSS 4Q252 (4QCommGenA) frg4 pl409 (670) |
Fragment 41.708 is found in the same plate, BAS 409 (670), with another messianic Ōs•inꞋ fragment (frg. 4 of 4Q252 / 4QCommGenA; click fragment 41.708 to view) that reads (as best I can translate it):
Abegg, Martin G., Jr. "Messianic Hope and 4Q285: A Reassessment." Journal of Biblical Literature 113.1, 1994: 81-91.
Ben-David, Yirmeyahu. Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant'. Live-LinkT Technology edition, ISBN 965-7328-02-0. Ra'anana, Israel: The Netzarim, 1992.
Halkin, Abraham S. 201 Hebrew Verbs. Woodbury: Barron's Educational Series, 1970.
åäîéúå – "åäîéúå ðùéà äòãä", "åéöà çåèø îâæò éùé", "öî(ç) ãåã". àìëñ ãåøåï, "ëúá-éã 'îùéçé' – áéï äîâéìåú äâðéæåú", îòøéá, 1991.11.10, çì÷ äîãò, 10.
Riesner, Rainer in Charlesworth, James H. (ed.). Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ABRL. Doubleday, 1992, p. 216.
Roberts, Matis (translation and commentary). The Artscroll Tanach Series, Trei Asar / The Twelve Prophets Vol. 1. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications Ltd. 1995, Joel 4.2, p. 176. Artscroll editors et al. routinely translate this verb as "indict' or the like, denying the passive ("'be judged") but sidestepping explanation. Yo•eilꞋ 4.2 demonstrates that the niph•alꞋ of this verb meaning adjudicate-mi•shᵊpâtꞋ, while often used of the courtroom defendant "being judged", applies no less to being engaged in prosecuting a case in a court trial.
Robinson, John A. T. The Priority of John. Edited by J. F. Coakley. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2011, pp. 36-45.
Tabor, James D., Dr. "A Pierced or Piercing Messiah? – The Verdict is Still Out." Biblical Archaeology Review 18:6 1992: 58-59.
 |
|
 |