Having noted there are “levels of meaning,” the entire focus of this chapter is to let you know that people have tried to categorize and understand what different levels of meaning in Scripture are, and define them distinctly. No doubt they are a lot more educated on the subject than is this writer. We will cover the categories, but know that, just as Strauch’s categories, to this writer, they have some tendency to blend together, with blurring of borders. It does not mean you should not be aware of them. And it does help to keep them in mind when you are looking at the border between exegesis and eisegesis.
What we are sharing together is what has already been partially covered in the earlier discussions, looking at spiritual meanings, word play, simile, metaphor, allegory, innuendo, and idioms or figures of speech such as we discussed before, in what at ground level are simple texts about actual events that took place. What authors do in relating historical events is share points that were quite meaningful to them, or to God through them, in the case of inspired writing. Already mentioned is the difference in chapter four of Judges, a narrative about a battle that took place, and chapter five, which is a song about that battle. The two are separated out, so it is very clear there is much included beyond “the facts of the event” in the song, lots of hidden and not-so-hidden messages. But in much of Scripture there is no mechanical separation of the two; the writer has included it all together. This is also why it is related in all three synoptic gospels, as in:
• Luke 8:10 NKJV (see Mt 13:13-15; Mk 4:12; also Acts 28:26-27)
10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that ‘Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.’ (from Is. 6:9)
Isaiah, in verses 6:9-10, speaking for the Lord – ESD – “h0136. אֲדנָֹי ’ăḏônây; an emphatic form of h0113. אָדוֹן ’âḏôn; the Lord (used as a proper name of God only),” is not speaking only of Parables, as Yeshua was pointedly doing in GS, but that the people were not understanding and following through with God’s instructions. Some of that of course is just the stubbornness of people. Some is that the people have not taken the time and effort to glean from Scripture what is there. Much is hidden to the “quick read” or the “casual encounter.” The Father wants us to spend time with him. As previously mentioned several times in Spangler & Tverberg (2009), the highest form of worship to the rabbis was study of Scripture.
This then, is why we focus on categorizing levels of meaning, so the reader will be certain to look for them. Scripture is not a history book. It is a historical book (not however necessarily always reported chronologically, but sometimes arranged topically), but it is much, much more. Some sages of Yehuda say there are an unlimited number of layers of meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures [and note, this “continues” to a greater or lesser extent in the GS, which should become apparent here over time].
Here we will stick with four layers that are pretty well accepted and fairly widely discussed. The four layers are called by the acronym, PaRDeS. It will be explained in some depth. Lest a Christian reader think this is only a Yehudean perspective, Christianity has had a similar concept for many hundreds of years, called the Quadriga, named for a Roman chariot or cart, drawn by four horses (four abreast). Some also call it simply “the fourfold method.” From a Wikipedia article, the fourfold method is “an interpretive method (exegesis) which assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning and tends to focus on the spiritual sense (which includes the allegorical sense, the moral (or tropological) sense, and the anagogical sense) as opposed to the literal sense. It is sometimes referred to as the Quadriga, a reference to the Roman chariot drawn by four horses.”*
By Sailko – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30564944
The article also notes, “The Quadriga is often explained through a Latin rhyme: Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. In English: ‘The Letter teaches deeds, what you believe Allegory, Moral how you act, where you are going Anagogical.'” The photo is of a rendering of a quadriga, such that the reader has a mental picture.
For these English terms, of course the Letter means the ordinary or usual meaning of words, sentences, paragraphs, or whatever unit one is reading. Allegory is when the event, the location, the person, symbolizes something else, which is precisely what has been discussed, for example, in the meaning of names, places, etc. but it can extend to events as well. For moral, or “tropological” meaning, there is fairly widespread understanding. We may read our children stories with a “moral,” that is with a “lesson” behind the telling. What is the message I’m supposed to get from this? So often it is in movies, books, etc. a picture of good vs. evil. Anagogical is a word that is not as well known to us, but really reflects the spiritual sense, a mystical sense. It is from an Ancient Greek word that means “elevation.” Thus it is looking at a still deeper meaning in what is taught or read.
●Therefore in the “Quadriga, the thought is:
- Letter – ordinary or usual meaning, straightforward
- Allegorical – a comparison with another word, phrase, concept, drawing inferences
- Tropological – stressing moral metaphor, often using figures of speech
- Anagogical – interpretation that finds beyond the literal, allegorical, and moral senses a fourth, and ultimate spiritual or mystical sense
The Hebraic approach to explaining the four levels is quite similar. And not unusually for the Hebraic approach, PaRDeS is a notakarion, or acronym. First, know that the basic Hebrew words are written in consonants. Ancient scrolls had no vowels at all. A vowel system (“pointing”) was developed by a group of scribes known as the Masoretes somewhere between CE 500 and 1000, in addition to other scribal notes and markings, that have preserved the traditional pronunciation of the word.** Thus the word was really PRDS, or פרדס , just as the acronym, but now with the addition of the Masoretic vowel pointing, it is פַּרְדֵּס p̱arḏês, or as we are highlighting the acronym, PaRDeS. Also note that the word פַּרְדֵּס p̱arḏês has a literal meaning, in addition to the acronym assigned to it. CWSBD excerpt, “h6508. פַּרְדֵּס pardēs: A masculine noun indicating a forest, a park, an orchard.” This is where we get our word paradise.
Also note that the four consonants PRDS פרדס all stand for a Hebrew word (three are Biblical, one is not in Scripture) with appropriate meaning to tell us what the Hebraic interpreters considered these “levels” to be. The words that the acronym stands for are:
● PRDS
P – פְּשָׁט peśaṭ OR פָּרַ שׁ p̱âraš– meaning Simple
R – רֶמֶז remez – meaning Hint
D – דַָּרשׁ dāraš – meaning Seek, inquire, examine
S – סוֹד sôḏ – meaning Secret or confidential counsel
In Hebraic literature “peshaṭ” or “perush,” as the “simple” meaning, is distinguished from “remez” (inference), from “derush” (interpretation), and from “sod” (the spiritual, mystical, more secret meaning contained in the Scriptures). [The reader should not be concerned about differences in spelling, as there are variations, especially since vowels are an “add-on.”]
● P – פְּשָׁט peśaṭ OR פָּרַשׁ p̱âraš h6584. פָּשַׁט pāšaṭ is a Biblical verb. The abbreviated CWSBD definition is “to strip, to strip off; to raid, to invade.” h6567. פָּרַשׁ p̱âraš is a Biblical verb. The abbreviated CWSBD definition is “to show, to make clear, to distinguish. It means to explain, to interpret something.” Both “peshaṭ” and “perush” are listed here as there are two traditions of usage. One can see by looking at the meaning of the words, both could cover a similar meaning. ””A rule, which was not, however, universally known (comp. Shab. 63a), was laid down that the literal sense must not be completely changed by the interpretation of the derash (Yeb. 24a; comp. Tos. Yom-Ṭob with Yeb. ii. 8), although it is noteworthy that this restriction of the meaning of “peshaṭ” as contrasted with “derash” is accurately observed only in the Babylonian Talmud.” [Peshat *** Bacher footnote below]
What this means to you, the reader, is that whether or not there are all these other levels of meaning, the “simple level” must be true, historical events that actually took place. What it also means is that anyone’s exegesis/midrash is untrue if it contradicts what the peshaṭ/perush says. Read the passage and understand it at a simple level; however, it must be understood based upon many of the topics covered here in this book. It does not mean there may not be figurative language, even in the simple level. And understanding the Hebrew way of thought, the concrete terminology, the idioms are necessary even for looking at the Peshat/Perush. [please note that a parable is specifically a story told by a storyteller to make a point or points – the writer is not saying that each scenario described in a parable actually took place, but that the person indicated to have spoken the parable did indeed do so – hopefully that is clear.]
Rabbi Alshech, in the second half of the sixteenth century “calls peshaṭ (simple explanation) and sod (mystical interpretation) the two opposite extremes.” His expositions focused more on רֶמֶז remez and דַָּרשׁ dāraš. Toward the end of this chapter are some quotations from a book by linguist and Biblical scholar Wierzbicka (2014),# which hopefully will explain these comments about the “simple” level not being so “simple,” due to translational issues. Hebraic scholars (Yehuda) still read in Hebrew and still understand most of the Hebraic methods, thus for them the level may be more “simple” than for those of us speaking English in Western countries.
● R – רֶמֶז remez Let’s move on to the רֶמֶז remez. As noted, this means “hint,” and though it is in modern Hebrew, it is not a Biblical word. It relates to “implied” meanings. The reader has already seen this level in action in the discussions about “Hinting to the Scriptures,” and “What is said,What is not said.” Most commonly these are references to other passages. Links may be through specific words, as shown, or verses. For an example, if one looks at Yeshua’s saying on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34) only in the פְּשָׁט peśaṭ or simple level, thinking “literal,” one gets a terrible feeling of despair. But if one realizes that he quotes the first line of Psalm 22 and is therefore communicating all to review the entirety of Psalm 22, in which despair is followed by hope.
● D – דַָּרשׁ dāraš As with h6584. פָּשַׁט pāšaṭ, h1875. דַָּרשׁ dāraš is a Biblical verb, CWSBD meaning “to seek, to inquire of, to examine, to require.” In this book an extensive “drash,” or “midrash,” will be done to review the use of many of the tools discussed. The tools or techniques specifically used here will be letting Scripture interpret Scripture. In some ways this category combines the allegorical and topological levels of the Quadriga. It uses the רֶמֶז remez, which is the tying together of the different scriptures, but searches for a deeper meaning in the tying together. Again, it is so important that the inferences drawn do not negate the meaning of the peshat/perush level, but only add fuller meaning to it. Very often clergy will do a “midrash” in giving a homiletical sermon [exegesis – “lifting out” the meaning]. S/he will look in more depth at a passage, look at other related passages, and look for some allegorical meaning or a moral to give as a message to the congregation. This is really what exegesis is all about.
● S – סוֹד sôḏ Again, h5475. סוֹד sôḏ is also a Biblical term. CWSBD: “A masculine noun meaning counsel. Confidentiality is at the heart of this term.” This is the more spiritual level. It is the level to which Cabala really begins and extends deeply into, but this should not scare the reader. There is much that is “hidden” or “secret” in the spiritual level of Scripture without progressing heavily into the mystical journey. The GS writer John, in his Gospel and in Revelation uses the סוֹד sôḏ level extensively. There is only a brief mention of Kabbalah or Cabala here, as the recommendation of our brothers Yehuda is not to delve too deeply into the esoteric until one has spent decades in Scripture. Kabbalistic study explores the esoteric.
One common aspect of the סוֹד sôḏ level is the use of gematria, or numerology, where the understanding of the meaning of numbers comes in. In this book, you will see references to numbers as signifying “completeness” or perfection. Part of the beliefs are due to the finding of such patterns in Scripture. Recall the discussion of the development of the Hebrew aleph-bet from the paleo pictographs, evolving over time. Recall that each letter had meanings; combining letters to form words combined the letter meanings. One thing not mentioned before is that unlike the Arabic numerals used in our culture today, Hebrew culture used their letter also for numbers, similar to what is familiar to us in “Roman numerals.” So, many letters had numeric values. Part of the understanding of numbers in symbolism comes from that background as well.
There is still much in the way of the understanding of the meaning of letters today; if one moves into Cabalistic interpretation, much is made of the interpretation of letters. This is by no means only an area of interest of our brothers Yehuda. Much Christian work has been done on the “hidden” level, and especially the significance of numbers and patterns of numbers. One well-known reference ## was published in its fourth edition in 1921, by a prolific Christian author and Bible scholar, E.W. Bullinger. It is an extensive work, and discusses numbers in their occurrence in nature and in Scripture. Know that Yeshua used symbology on this spiritual level, especially in his discussions on eschatology [what many call “end times,” where this writer likes to use the terminology of the Latin poem about the Quadriga, “where you are going.”] See Wierzbicka (2014). It is similar to how the recorded prophets spoke, “if you continue on this path, this is the expected consequence.” [The reader will see this in a later Post: Synthetic View of Life.] Or, “The teaching has been laid out from the beginning. This is how Creation works. And in case you haven’t noticed, you are not doing what was taught. The consequences were spelled out with the teaching. Therefore, here is what to expect.”
The סוֹד sôḏ may use a number of tools to look at patterns, and will use those to communicate where this pattern will lead. Examples for the use of numbers, are the repetitive use of the number “seven,” a number of completeness, throughout Revelation and the Gospel of John [notice seven miracles in John – John begins the counting as a “hint” (John 2:11, 4:54)]. Also, most readers are familiar with one number from Scripture: 666, in Revelation. Take a look at the verse:
• Revelation 13:18 NKJV 18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.
It almost always brings up multiple points to cover, each time a specific verse is brought up [one can see how important is attention to detail]. There are points to be made here. First, recall how Strauch pointed out that “the small words” can make a big difference in how Scripture is interpreted. There is a great example here. Where this version says “the number of a man,” most versions give the same wording. But in order to do so, they have to “bend the rules” just a bit. The Greek word in question here is as small a word as one can get: h3588. ὁ, transliterated as ho. CWSBD notes this as the “definitive” article, “the,” and also notes it is often left untranslated. A better translation would probably be “for it is the number of man,” dropping the “a” altogether.
This is one of those times it is very good to have multiple versions to look at and one of the rare times this writer will refer to some of the less literal versions, because they at least acknowledge this issue. The NIV has a parenthetical note, “Or ‘is humanity’s number;'” the NLT’s note, “Or ‘of humanity,'” and the Amplified Bible, AMP, translates as “for it is a human number,” with their “amplification” then being, [the number of a certain man]. Pertaining to the numerology, six is indeed the number of man, one reason being he was created on the sixth day. And three is one of those “completeness” numbers. Bullinger says of three that it indicates “solid, real, substantial, complete, entire.” So, threefold repetitions being seen throughout Scripture indicate that a thought is very important. Here, the author could be saying, that the “beast” is totally and completely mankind himself, or as current idiom might put it, “he is his own worst enemy.”
• 1 Corinthians 3:18 – 4:2 LITV 18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks to be wise among you in this age, let him become foolish, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it has been written, “He takes the wise in their own craftiness.” (Job 5:13) 20 And again, “YHWH knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are worthless.” (Ps 94:11) 21 So let no one glory in men; for all things are yours, 22 whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. 1 Let a man think of us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries (g3466. μυστήριον mystērion) of God. 2 Moreover, it is sought among stewards that one be found faithful. [h5475. סוֹד sôḏ translates as μυστήριον mystērion]
To follow is a small excerpt from a very long article on Cabala/Kabbalah in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906). It is just to give the reader a small taste of what is meant by Kabbalah. “Cabala comprised originally the entire traditional lore, in contradistinction to the written law (Torah), and therefore included the prophetic and hagiographic books of the Bible, which were supposed to have been “received” by the power of the Holy Spirit rather than as writings from God’s hand (see Ta’an. ii. 1; R. H. 7a, 19a, and elsewhere in the Talmud; compare Zunz, “G. V.” 2d ed., pp. 46, 366, 415, and Taylor, “Early Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,” 1899, pp. 106 et seq., 175 et seq.). Each “received” doctrine was claimed as tradition from the Fathers —”masoret me-Abotenu” (Josephus, “Ant.” xiii. 10, § 6; 16, § 2; Meg. 10b; Sheḳ. vi. 1)—to be traced back to the Prophets or to Moses on Sinai (compare “meḳubbalani” in Peah ii. 6; ‘Eduy. viii. 7).
So the Masorah, “the fence to the Torah” (Ab. iii. 13) is, as Taylor (l.c. p. 55) correctly states, “a correlation to Cabala.” The chief characteristic of the Cabala is that, unlike the Scriptures, it was entrusted only to the few elect ones; wherefore, according to IV Esdras xiv. 5, 6, Moses, on Mount Sinai, when receiving both the Law and the knowledge of wondrous things, was told by the Lord: “These words shalt thou declare, and these shalt thou hide.” Accordingly the rule laid down for the transmission of the cabalistic lore in the ancient Mishnah (Ḥag. ii. 1) was “not to expound the Chapter of Creation (“Ma’aseh Bereshit,” Gen. i.) before more than one hearer; nor that of the Heavenly Chariot (“Merkabah,” Ezek. i.; compare I Chron. xxviii. 18 and Ecclus. [Sirach] xlix. 8) to any but a man of wisdom and profound understanding”; that is to say, cosmogony and theosophy were regarded as esoteric studies (Ḥag. 13a).
Such was the “Masoret ha-Ḥokmah” (the tradition of wisdom, handed over by Moses to Joshua (Tan., Wa’etḥanan, ed. Buber, 13); and likewise the twofold philosophy of the Essenes, “the contemplation of God’s being and the origin of the universe,” specified by Philo (“Quod Omnis Probus Liber,” xii.). Besides these there was the eschatology—that is, the secrets of the place and time of the retribution and the future redemption (Sifre, Wezot ha- Berakah, 357); “the secret chambers of the behemoth and leviathan” (Cant. R. i. 4); the secret of the calendar (“Sod ha-‘Ibbur“)—that is, the mode of calculating the years with a view to the Messianic kingdom (Ket. 111a-112a; Yer. R. H. ii. 58b); and, finally, the knowledge and use of the Ineffable Name, also “to be transmitted only to the saintly and discreet ones” (Ẓenu’im or Essenes; Ḳid. 71a; Yer. Yoma iii. 40d; Eccl. R. iii. 11), and of the angels (Josephus, “B. J.” ii. 8, § 7). All these formed the sum and substance of the Mysteries of the Torah, “Sitre or Raze Torah” (Pes. 119a; Meg. 3a; Ab. vi. 1), “the things spoken only in a whisper” (Ḥag. 14a).”● There is much, much more to the סוֹד sôḏ level, and to Kabbalah. And there are many good books out on Kabbalah, this having been a very small glimpse. Two references are listed below, but writings are extensive.●● A few other points will be noted as discussion proceeds, but we will have sufficient to understand without going into Kabbalah.
How do all these levels come into play at one time? One straightforward example is seen in the city of Jerusalem. In the Simple meaning it may just mean the physical city of Jerusalem. In the Hinting level, it can be “the place where God chose to put his name,” the place where the Temple was built, the place to which all Hebrew men were supposed to go three times a year for festivals. In the Searching or Inquiring level, it can relate to the soul of man; it can be (Pictorial Library of Bible Lands BiblePlace.com) the place where the two witnesses of Revelation 11 come to do their witnessing to the world, with fire from their mouths. And of course in the Spiritual level, it can relate to the “new heaven and new earth,” the heavenly city. In Wierzbicka (2014), the author quotes her earlier article from 2004: (Wierzbicka 2014, p 218)
“When we read texts belonging to other epochs, peoples, and traditions, we need to know something about the so-called ‘cultural scripts’ or ‘cultural rules’ which shaped the ways of thinking and speaking reflected in those texts. To understand the ways of speaking which belong to a culture alien to us we must learn to perceive them in their proper cultural context and acquire some knowledge of this culture’s established speech-forms. The culture of Jesus’ times was profoundly influenced by the tradition of the biblical prophets. He spoke a language of the prophets shaped by Jewish scripts and cultural rules which contained certain shared linguistic patterns.”
Speaking of her comments above, she quotes Waclaw Hryniewicz in a 2012 [p72] article: “In his ethical teaching Jesus would often say something which could not be taken literally, because it was logically impossible. This way of speaking about God in a figurative language aimed to challenge people to think and to see for themselves, and so to discover the intended meaning.” Wierzbicka rightly calls it ‘an attention-catching and thought-provoking device.’ One says things which on the surface look self-contradictory but in fact reveal deeper insights. That is why Jesus often preferred paradoxical ways of speaking about God instead of using unambiguous and simple language.” (pp 218-219)
Wierzbicka (2014) now herself continues: “Such deliberately self-contradictory, exaggerated, and paradoxical ways of speaking are contrary to those that have become the norm in modern English-speaking countries.” Wierzbicka continues with an explanation of the transition in the period of the “Enlightenment,” whereby there were moves to “improve” the English language to make it “safe for science and society.” However, she continues: “The ‘common sense’ widely shared by speakers of contemporary English may lead them to look for coherence at the surface of biblical texts (that is, in their literal meanings) instead of trying to find it at a deeper level. This can lead, in turn, either to literalist interpretation or to rejection of these texts as inconsistent or incoherent. Such rejection, Hryniewicz stresses, is often based on deep cross-cultural misunderstandings.” (p 219)
She then continues to quote Hryniewicz: (pp 219-220) “A literalist reading distorts the essential message of the Good News as a whole and misses its internal coherent. Any doctrine of the infallibility of the letter of the Bible leads to insurmountable difficulties, because it ignores their proper cultural content. The authors of the Books of the Bible multiplied metaphors, paradoxes and antinomies; they used dramatic expressions, in order to impress the reader and the hearer ever so strongly, so that people could feel what those authors actually wanted to say. Such modern values as accuracy, logical formulation, consistency, absence of contradictions and exaggerations, calm and fair reasoning, concern for precise scientific information were unknown to them. One should not take contradictions at their face value or stop at the outer surface of the formulations.” [Hryniewicz 2012:83]
Once more, Wierzbicka quotes herself, this time from the conclusion of her book English: Meaning and Culture (2006:313): “It is important to ‘denaturalise’ Anglo English, and to identify and acknowledge the historically shaped cultural meanings embedded in it, if only so that they are no longer taken for granted as the voice of ‘reason itself.’ Hyrniewicz’s biblical hermeneutics point to the same conclusion.” (p220)
Hopefully this commentary has been helpful in explaining not only the writer’s encouragement to the reader to step away from “assumptive reasoning” early in the book, and helps to explain the critical importance of looking at Scripture with eyes that we are not as comfortable with.
A comment now will follow up on some earlier remarks by this writer. A great Roman Catholic theologian of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Joseph Ratzinger [who later became Pope Benedict XVI], published a two-volume book on Jesus of Nazareth.●●● In an introduction to the first volume he explains his approach in reviewing Scripture to discern the nature of Jesus. He discusses the extent of recent interest in using the “historical-critical” method of looking at Scripture, dissecting scripture using this method to “prove” or “disprove” the authenticity of some of the writings. Two important points he makes are that:
- Scripture must be taken as a whole (that is the GS and the HS must be recognized as being a continuous sharing of the story of God’s involvement with the lives of His people), and
- Scripture is inspired by God. He said, “to understand the Bible as a unity, presupposes a prior act of faith. It cannot be the conclusion of a purely historical method. But this act of faith is based upon reason—historical reason —and so makes it possible to see the internal unity of Scripture.”
He states that he welcomes the advent of more scholarly approaches, because they will actually substantiate beliefs, but only if approached through the eyes of faith. Another important point to remember about Scripture, reflected in Ratzinger’s discussion, is that it is living. And as a living book, the Bible speaks to us in our individual circumstances. Scripture is the spoken Word of God. When God speaks, He creates. (Genesis ch 1) The purpose of this Post was to flesh out some ideas previously discussed.
The most important point was to share some thoughts on the traditions of multiple levels of meaning, giving more witness and structure to the topics presented earlier. In the next Post, there will be more [though not trying to make the reader an expert – there are those whose life is centered around this one area of Scripture] about Poetry in Scripture. Once again, some areas of the poetry discussion have already been introduced. After that, the promised chapter on the Hebrew synthetic perspective on life [vs. analytic].
*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible – accessed 10092016
**Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, Watson E. Mills, general editor, Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, 1990, 1991, article Texts/Manuscripts/Versions, pp. 890-896
***Article entitled Peshat, By: Wilhelm Bacher, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ The Unedited Full Text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia; ALSHECH (Arab. “the Elder”?), MOSES, Michael Friedländer – The Unedited Full Text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1317-alshech ABRAHAM BEN ISAAC ḤAYYOT, Moses Beer – The Unedited Full Text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/453-abraham-ben-isaac-hayyot
# Imprisoned in English, The Hazards of English as a Default Language, Anna Wierzbicka, Oxford University Press, New York, 2014.
## Number in Scripture, Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance, E.W. Bullinger, Fourfh Edition, Revised. 1921, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London.
● CABALA – The Unedited Full Text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia http:// www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3878-cabala
●● The Key to Kabbalah, Book One, Discovering Jewish Mysticism, Rabbi Nissan Dovid Dubow, Dwelling Place Publishing, Texas, New York, 2006; Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, Joel S. Goldsmith, DeVorss Publications, Camarillo, CA, 1947 (25th printing 2007).
●●● Jesus of Nazareth, From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, translated from the German by Adrian J. Walker, 2007, Doubleday, division of Random House, NY.
© Jan 2018 logandspeck.com please cite if copying