.
The Brit-Am
Movement of the Lost Ten Tribes
The Great Tartan Disputation
Contents:
Introduction
Round One.
Round Two.
Round Three.
Round Four.
Round Five.
Round Six.
Round Seven.
Discussion and Queries.
The Great Tartan Disputation
Round One
Introduction.
TG wrote us several missives which we answered. TG addressed us on a variety of issues.
Later, we mentioned in some context or other, in one of our postings, the
fact that the Coat of Many Colors worn by Joseph was of Scottish Tartan Design.
After that TG began to write us with renewed energy and some very serious criticisms attacking us about Scottish Tartan
and the Coat of Joseph.
His attitude to our mind was arrogant and his criticisms often out of place.
Nevertheless we decided to answer him and from these answers our important series on The Scottish Tartan Cloak of Joseph
developed.
Through work on this series new perspectives and sources of information were opened to us.
At first we had been worried that dealing with TG
was a waste of time and simply a source of needless aggravation.
Events however have proven that, on the contrary, the series on the Tartan was a worthwhile effort.
It comprises another important contribution from
Brit-Am, the Lost Ten Tribes Movement, to this field of study. In a way, all by virtue of TG.
He can pat himself on the back (or kick himself for all we care) for having driven us to produce this
very important series.
This series to our mind has been good for Brit-Am and good for the Israelite Nations.
Some of our previous encounters with TG were reproduced in various Brit-Am Now postings but under a different
name or anonymously.
TG has not let up but keeps coming back with his various arguments some of which are simply silly while others may
deserve some kind of answer.
TG may not be such an outstanding scholar. Neither is he a formidable debater.
Nevertheless he brings up objections to the Brit-Am interpretation of the Hebrew expression "cotonet Pasim" and also
contests our understanding of the Classical Rabbinical Commentaries. Our understanding however, on this point at least,
is the correct one.
Not everyone will necessarily agree with it. By reading the following Disputation a deeper understanding of the points
involved along with some insight into Brit-Am Methodology may be obtained.
TG is symptomatic of a certain pseudo-academic approach to Brit-Am, the Lost Ten Tribes of Movement, teachings. He criticizes us on matters in which he himself offends much more than we do,
e.g. He claims we do not quote sources suffiicently well. The fact is that we nearly always do quote sources and we do it in such a way that whosoever should wish to check them may do so.
TG by comparison quotes from a source without giving an adequate reference to it OR he simply takes information
from others without admitting it. What he accuses Brit-Am of doing he himself does. His supercilous
claims against us lack substance and relies for effect on our implied (but not demonstrated) lack of
accepted academic presentation.
There may be something in this, but so what? The truth is with us and we prove it.
TG may not be important in his own right but rather for what he represents. Most similar criticisms against Brit-Am will be found to suffer from the same faults as those of TG. By replying to TG we are in fact giving an answer to all those of his type and attitude.
TG is apparently Jewish and as such probably not infected with the same degree of Jew-hatred found amongst some of his academic peers. This makes it easier to reply to him on his own academic grounds and with less emotional stress.
Due to the length of correspondence that argumentation with TG involves along with the public interest this has aroused we
are now dedicating the following few articles exclusively to TG Debates.
To properly understand the Disputation one should first peruse our article Joseph and the Scottish Tartan which is the first article in the series
"The Scottish Tartan Cloak of Joseph".
The first two rounds of this Disputation are taken from "Brit-Am Now" Postings. From Round Three onwards they are being posted for the first time.
Below is what may well be entitled:
Round One:
Scroll Down
Round One
Originally entitled:
Brit-Am Now no. 1435
#1.Answers to Criticism of the Brit-Am Understanding of the Coat of Joseph
TG wrote:
re The Scottish Tartan Cloak of Joseph.
http://www.britam.org/tartan.html
When you write something, and quote other people, dead or alive,
you need to say when they said it, or where it was written.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Replies:
That is what we have done more or less. Where we have not we will correct it.
Apart from that when known authorities are quoted and there is only one source
then nothing more than the name should be required.
It should however have been obvious that the source was the Commentary of the
Commentators quoted to the verse considered i.e. Genesis 37:3.
All the Commentators quoted are known
Rabbinicial
authorities and details about them are freely available from the web.
================================================
================================================
TG said:
Hence..
Brit-Am wrote: #The other school says
that the word "passim" applied to the design.#
TG said:
there is no other 'school' unless you can point to a source that
says so.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am replies:
I do not understand your point. We quote the Rabbinical Commentators who
interpret the verse in a similar fashion. This in plain English constitutes a
school of thought as against those who think differently.
On the other hand, when taking the overall view you are correct. There is no
other school really. All the Commentators in effect DO REACH A KIND OF
CONSENSUS!
They agree that the Cotonet
Pasim
was probably long sleeved, of many colors, and of a tartan-type design of
interlocking stripes and squares.
Thank you for pointing this out.
We were so busy getting the details of each individual explanation that we
nearly missed the overall conclusion!
================================================
================================================
TG said:
Brit-Am wrote:
#This appears to be the
majority opinion.#
TG said: you haven't shown this by examining every commentary.
================================================
================================================
Brit-AM Replies:
Tens of thousands of commentaries exist. We have quoted from most of the major
Rabbinical sources.
If you think we have omitted relevant commentaries please quote them.
Otherwise refrain from criticism unless you have something substantial to back
it with.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am wrote:
#Pasim
means stripe or line. Thus we have the concept of stripes or interweaving
lines that according to tradition were of different colors.#
TG said:
christian tradition, not Jewish
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Replies:
No. This is Classical Hebrew usage as used by the Commentators and as used today
in Spoken Modern Hebrew. The Hebrew spoken today in Israel
is that of the traditional sources along with some modernizing input from
academic experts (who themselves consult the sources) on the language. They have
been appointed to the task. In addition the language has an inner dynamism and
logic of its own. A very significant proportion of the Jews who created the
State of Israel already had some familiarity with Hebrew (through religious
studies) before coming to Israel. If a Hebrew word in present-day usage has a
certain meaning then this is worth considering when coming to question the
original meaning of the word. In this case we also have the same usage in both
the modern and the Classical sources.
It may be that your knowledge of Hebrew is lacking but in questions such as the
present one you should not rely only on English language dictionaries though (based
on previous correspondence with you) that is what you are doing.
If you do not know you may ask me.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am wrote:
#The Septuagint says it
was a garment of "many colors". #
TG said: which version, but in any case, christian.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am replies:
The Septuagent
may have been later used by Christians. It was originally a Jewish work and is
mentioned by Philo of Alexandria and in the Talmud (Megilla
9). It is usually dated from some time in the 100s BCE or earlier.
We should not have to tell you this since you seem (or want to seem) better
acquainted with it than we are.
As for which version why should you care?
Have you checked even one of them?
Are there differences in interpretation of Genesis 37:4 between the different
versions?
Stop bluffing.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am wrote:
The Wyclif
Bible (1380 to 1390) "a cote of many
colours".
TG said: again a Christian tradition through misinterpretation
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am replies:
Just because it is Christian does not make it wrong. It was based on
Classical
sources and on scholars who consulted Rabbinical authorities.
That does not make it automatically correct but it is worth noting.
Apart from that, in your previous missives to my humble self you seem to have
relied much more on non-Jewish opinions and interpretations than we have.
You say it is misinterpretation because you dislike the implications that
Brit-Am ascribes to it NOT due to intrinsic examination.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am wrote:
#Each strip [pas, pisah]
of the woven cloth was of a different color# (Rabbi
Yonah
iben
Janach
ca. 990-1050 CE Spain).
TG said:
source please since I want to know not only conclusion, but how
he came to this conclusion
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am replies:
All sources are from the Commentaries to Genesis 37:4. We have quoted what he
said as transcribed in the Commentary
Daat
Mikra
on Sefer
Breishit
[The book of Genesis].
In the overwhelming majority of cases the Commentators did not explain how they
came to any conclusion beyond what we have quoted.
In fact no Commentary apart perhaps from
Abarbanel
will give such an explanation. They did not need to. Their opinion derives from
the simple Hebrew meaning. If you were at all familiar with these commentaries
you would not have made such a remark. Not only have you taken a prior decision
on the subject without knowing what the sources say but you want us to do your
work for you to find justification for your prejudice and bigotry.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am wrote:
Radak
(1160 - 1235 Southern France): "It (the garment) was of many colors with each
strip (Hebrew: "pas") being of a color in its own right" (David
Kimchi,
"Sefer
HaShorashim"
item "pas").
TG said:
source please since I want to know not only conclusion, but how
he came to this conclusion
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Replies:
I gave you the source i.e. Rabbi David
Kimchi
(Radak),
"Sefer
HaShorashim"
on the word "pas".
I have a copy of the original Hebrew Version here.
Now go search for an English Translation.
I do not like useing
intellectual arrogance against you but that is what you are doing with me while
remaining oblivious to your own vulnerability on these points.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am said:
Ralbag
(Gersonides)
translates "passim" as "mishbatsot"
i.e. squares.
TG said:
source please since I want to know not only conclusion, but how
he came to this conclusion.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am replies:
(ibid)
The Commentary of Ralbag
is found in many versions of
Mikraot
Gedolot
[A Classic Very Popular Rabbinical Collection of Commentaries on the Bible]. You
will not find anything beyond which we have quoted. The
Ralbag
wrote his Commentary for those who like himself understood Hebrew and anything
beyond the explanation that "pasim"
meant mishbatsot
(squares of tartan type) was superfluous.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am said:
Aryeh
Kaplan ("The Living Torah", 1981) utilizes both major opinions and translates
"cotonet
passim" as a "long colorful coat" (Genesis 37:3).
TG said:
source please since I want to know not only conclusion, but how
he came to this conclusion.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am replies:
Are you normal? This is the source as given above, i.e.
Aryeh
Kaplan ("The Living Torah", 1981) on Genesis 37:3.
I see it is not only Hebrew you have trouble comprehending.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am said:
This approach is in fact acceptable.
TG said: to you
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am replies:
The approach of synthesizing different opinions and of searching for their
common denominator is that of most of the early authorities.
It is also an approach that we are sympathetic with.
In this case it is the approach adopted by the
Natziv
and by Rabbi Aryeh
Kaplan and the other Commentators with whom you unfortunately appear to be not
as familiar as you perhaps should be. In principle this approach is applied
everywhere in studies of this nature.
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am said:
The Hebrew Bible is a
Divine work. Each word is there for a reason. The beauty of the Hebrew
Language is that one word may have several meanings and the sentence so
arranged that more than one of the meanings be intended at one and the same
time.
TG said:
but each time a meaning is used, it has to be justified in its
usage....
so why was it necessary for Yaakov to make the coat he gave to Yosef 'colourful'
(according to you)?
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Replies:
You should try and make your points more clearly. Your antagonism and sheer
superciliousness comes across quite strongly but the rationale that presumably
exists behind it does not.
As for why Jacob gave Joseph a colored garment?
I do not know.
That was not the aim of the article.
The Commentators however say that the coat was of differing colors in lines and
squares in patterns (of tartan type) similar to those worn by people in the
region of Canaan as depicted on Egyptian walls. The Bible itself indicates that
the cotonet
pasim
signified rank (2-Samuel 13:18) as confirmed by the
Commentatory
Daat
Mikra.
Why Jacob gave Joseph the coat and why the coat he gave was designed as it was
is not the main point of our article.
Our article aimed to show what the coat probably looked like and to point out
that the said design was a tartan one or highly similar to it.
This reflects Divine Providence and an instinctive awareness by the Scottish
concerning their ancestry from Joseph.
Continued in Round Two.
Pleased with what you read?
The Brit-Am enterprise is a Biblical work.
God willing, they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications
Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.
|
'It is impossible to rightly govern the
world without
God or the Bible.'
George Washington
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE
FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.
Home
