More on the saga of the Mahzor for Yom Kippur!

Sheesh kebab! Here is a scan of the first page of the Mahzor that is being discussed, one commentator thinks that it is a Messianic con. But it really is an old Orthodox Jewish prayer-book which was translated into English by Philips (published 1931) that was used but is no longer used as newer editons have replaced it.

Regarding the title Rev, this is not just something used by Christian clergy, there are still Orthodox Synagogues in the UK with members of their ‘clergy’ called Rev.

29 thoughts on “More on the saga of the Mahzor for Yom Kippur!

  1. I actually own this machzor and the Rosh hashanah Machzor. If you think this page would get some discussion, the rosh hashanah page will get even more. The name of Yeshua Sar Hapanim (Jesus, the prince of the face) is mentioned. It is the only page in the machzor that is not translated. This is also found in the machzor Vitre’. I have a combination Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur machzor so the numbering might be different.In my machzor, it’s found on page 100 in the morning prayer service after the first set of shofar soundings. this section was included in all Machzors all the way up to Artscroll, where it was even included and translated. Artscroll then omitted this section the following year from their machzors after complaints of “Jesus the prince of the face” being in english in the text.

  2. Jeff,

    I’m also familiar with this quote about “The name of Yeshua Sar Hapanim (Jesus, the prince of the face), this is a very amazing quote!!! Truly Amazing!!!

  3. What does this “prince of the face” mean? New phrase to me. Thanks.

    Does it mean something subtle no apparent in English or does it mean “looks like” a prince?

  4. Ken Thomas,

    This might help: THE MESSIAH, PRINCE OF THE COUNTENANCE

    The Rabbinic Messianic discussions may to us often sound capricious and irrational. Cryptic Messianic references are made in passing in the Talmudic and Midrashic literature, but probably most of all in the Zohar, a mystical commentary on the Pentateuch. The New Testament’s portrait of Christ too contains aspects which are inexplicable from the historico-prophetical point of view alone. Indeed Paul speaks of the mystery of Christ “which has been kept hidden for ages and generations” and “hidden for long ages past” (Col. 1:26, 1.Cor. 2:7, and Rom. 16:25). According to Peter he was “chosen before the creation of the world” (1.Pet. 1:20).

    Jacob sees the face of God

    One of the most detached Messianically interpreted illustrations in the Pentateuch concerns an incident in the life of Jacob. There is, relatively speaking, so little said about it in the old literature that we present it only now, out of chronological order. In Gen. ch. 32 we read of how Jacob wrestled by the Jabbok stream with a certain “man”, from whom he asked his blessing. Jacob received the new name Israel, which means ‘he struggles with God’, since he had “struggled with God and with men” and won. Jacob gave the place the name Peniel, meaning ‘face of God’, and he said “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been spared”. The two names Peniel and Penuel are used of this mysterious nocturnal apparition (Gen. 32:29–30). Midrash Rabbah commenting on this says that Jacob “saw the face of God in the Holy Spirit” (lit. ‘in the Shechina’).

    The account of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel gave rise among the Sages to thoughts which have a direct bearing on their understanding of the Messiah. Targum Onqelos states that actually Jacob saw the “Angel of the LORD”. But who is this “Angel of the LORD” and who is “Penuel”? Isaiah 63:9 presents a mystical enigma, which in a certain way is connected with the Jabbok river account. Isaiah says:

    “In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence [Heb. ‘countenance’] saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.”

    The Rabbis say that this “angel of his presence” means the “Angel of the Covenant and the Prince of the Countenance”. In Hebrew the phrase is Sar ha-Panim, literally ‘the Prince of the faces’ or ‘countenance’. Rabbi David Qimhi says of Mal. 3:1, the Lord who will “suddenly come to his temple”, that “this Lord is the Messiah-King, and he is the Lord of the Covenant”. This being so, we can conclude that Jacob had a Messianic experience, in that he beheld the face of the Messiah.

  5. Yeshua is the Hebrew word for salvation. Yeshua does not mean Jesus in Hebrew.

    Yeshua, salvation, is a shortened form of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. The Biblical person known alternately as Yeshua and Yehoshua was Moses’ successor, whom English Bibles call Joshua. Note that Joshua is not the English translation of Yeshua, but rather an Anglicized version of the name.

    It has been argued by missionaries here that Jesus, the god of the Christian bible, is actually mentioned throughout the Jewish Bible. This argument hinges on the baseless assertion that Jesus is the Hellenized version of Joshua. No one can say whether there is any validity to that argument; it is not based on any source document that may be evaluated for historicity. But even if it is true that Jesus of the “new testament” shared a common name with Joshua (and there is no basis to presume it is true), that would not advance the argument that the god of the Christian bible is spoken of in the Jewish Bible, since every reference to Joshua in the Jewish Bible is about Moses’ successor, and not Jesus.

    Given the missionaries’ insistence that Yeshua of the Jewish Bible should be translated as Jesus rather than Joshua, the framework for missionary misinterpretation of the Jewish prayerbook is coming into focus. Thus, every time the Jews pray, thrice daily, they ask G-d for yeshua, salvation, and they make the same request in their grace after meals. We should therefore not be surprised to find missionaries insisting that these liturgical Jewish pieces are actually instances of Jews praying about Jesus; that would represent a consistency for missionaries in their selective departures from the Hebrew language. Nor should we be surprised if missionaries “discover” an historical Christianized mistranslation of a Jewish prayerbook that follows Christian theology rather than Hebrew language in rendering yeshua as Jesus. In analyzing these documents, we have to choose between understanding the Hebew language as the Hebrews did, or as the “new testament” Christian apologists chose later to.

    • “Yeshua is the Hebrew word for salvation. Yeshua does not mean Jesus in Hebrew.”

      Half right anon. You’re improving!

      Matt 1:21

      Jesus is simply the anglicised form of Yesoos, which is the Greek transliteration of Yeshua.

    • Anon,

      You wrote:

      “This argument hinges on the baseless assertion that Jesus is the Hellenized version of Joshua. No one can say whether there is any validity to that argument; it is not based on any source document that may be evaluated for historicity.”

      Your claim is totally bogus. The LXX translates the Hebrew “Yehoshua” into Greek as “Ieasous.” The Greek language gospels write “Ieasous” as the name for Jesus. “Ieasous” is transliterated into the Latin Vulgate as “Iesus.” When one transliterates from the Latin Vulgate into the English language King James, one gets “Jesus.”

      This is well documented, as you can see online versions of each of these texts yourself. The fact that the LXX and the gospels mention “Ieasous” (the LXX to refer to Joshua, and the gospels to refer to Jesus), clearly shows the Hellenized connection. Therefore it’s easy to see that the “assertion” is not only an assertion, but a documented, sourced, fact.

      • Israel,

        If Jesus is the English translation of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of a Hebrew name, as you say it is, then how can the English translation of that very Hebrew name be Joshua?

      • Anon,

        There is a huge difference between a translation and a transliteration.

        “Jesus” isn’t an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew name.

        “Jesus” is is instead an English transLITeration of a Latin transLITeration of a Greek transLITeration of the Hebrew name “Yehoshua.”

        Anyone translating ιησου into English wouldn’t be able to do so (it has no root Greek meaning), since that arrangement of characters itself is a transliteration of sorts from the Hebrew which has the meaning “Yah is Salvation”. So then a proper transLATion of the Hebrew into Greek would require the final Greek word to have a meaning in Greek all by itself meaning “Yah is my Salvation” and it would not look at all like “ιησου.” This is why ιησου is understood as a transliteration from the Hebrew יהושע by the LXX.

        But the LXX translators did in fact write in Greek their accepted equivalent for “Yehoshua” as ιησου. Therefore the fact that one either takes ιησου and arrives in English as “Joshua” or “Jesus” depends on if one translates or transliterates, and even then, transliterations can ultimately be subjective. Either or, if we can believe the LXX arrived at ιησου for their equivalent for יהושע then when the gospels write ιησου we have proof that we can do the reverse and surmise that his Hebrew name was most likely יהושע too.

        You also wrote:
        “Got it. So you don’t believe in Jesus. You are a follower of Joshua.”

        Both. But the point of both names is to keep a direct link to original Hebrew pronunciation intact. “Jesus” is not as good as “Joshua” when it comes to the final effort. Unfortunately this was lost upon the translators of the KJV as they often relied upon the more well known Latin translit “Ieasous” and thus wanted to maintain continuity with that in the English. I can’t fault them for it. But it certainly adds to the confusion when you tell a Christian that they follow “Joshua” or better yet, “Yehoshua.” They just look at you funny. It’s not their fault. It’s just due to ignorance of the matter.

        I prefer the Aramaic version of “Yehoshua” which is “Yeshua” – simply because it is more likely historically that his family would have used Aramaic as their street language, but as with all speculation, it comes down to a simple preference. It is far more accurate and probably “better” to say that we are disciples of Yehoshua haMashiach. But if you say that on an intro to a group, they will probably look at you funny and not have a clue who you’re talking about.

    • In fact, if you need specific examples anon:

      LXX (Septuagint)
      Exodus 17:9 ειπεν δε μωυσης τω ιησου επιλεξον σεαυτω ανδρας δυνατους και εξελθων παραταξαι τω αμαληκ αυριον και ιδου εγω εστηκα επι της κορυφης του βουνου και η ραβδος του θεου εν τη χειρι μου

      Notice “ιησου” in the fifth word in that sentence.

      Now let’s look at the gospel of Matthew:

      Matthew 1:1
      βιβλος γενεσεως ιησου χριστου υιου δαβιδ υιου αβρααμ

      Notice “ιησου” in the third word of that sentence.

      Conclusion:
      What is translated into English for Matt 1:1 (Jesus) is the same as that which was translated from Hebrew to Greek by the LXX for Ex 17:9’s name for Joshua (ιησου). Therefore Jesus is a transliteration from Greek, to Latin, to English for the Hebrew for Yehoshua (Joshua).

      • Got it. So you don’t believe in Jesus. You are a follower of Joshua.

        Obviously, that raises some very important questions. First, Joshua and his human, biological father Nun, predated David, by quite a little while. As you may have heard, Jewish messianic prophecy has determined that the messiah will have to be patrilineally descended from David.

        Second, Christians have cooked up a second coming storyline for Jesus–sorry, Joshua–since Jesus died a mortal death without fulfilling any of the hallmark Jewish messianic prophecies, but since Joshua lived, died, and then was born again to mother Mary in his second coming…are you now saying that you’re awaiting a third coming?

      • Anonymous,

        What are you talking about???? Joshua is not the same person as YESHUA, HE just has the same Hebrew name. You cannot be serious. Did you even read Israel’s post’s??? Re read them.

      • Anon,

        you wrote:

        “Obviously, that raises some very important questions. First, Joshua and his human, biological father Nun, predated David, by quite a little while. As you may have heard, Jewish messianic prophecy has determined that the messiah will have to be patrilineally descended from David.”

        The Messiah is patrilineally descended from David, but since the Torah teaches that the Messiah does not have a human father, it can only then be referring to his mother.

        Also “Nun” is a reference to the Hebrew letter itself. From a drashic perspective, literally, Nun in ancient Hebrew is that for seed, as in offspring. Thus, The Torah teaches us that Yehoshua ben Nun, ie Jesus son Seed – a drashic remez to the Promised Seed telling us who the messiah is in the prophecy given in Gen 3:15.

        “Second, Christians have cooked up a second coming storyline for Jesus”

        On the contrary, the Torah teaches a second coming of Mashiach, after his death. See Abel (failed messianic candidate according to Eve), Isaac (in the Akeidah Abraham says “we will return to you” speaking of him and his son prior to his expected death), Joseph (of who Jacob says “my son is dead” and then later says “he is alive”), Moses (of who dies, and his body is not found, but is recorded that he too will inherit the Land – and thus finally lead the generation in the wilderness to it), and even Joshua (who Torah says is HaShem’s response to Moses’ prayer for a Shepherd to lead the people out -into this world, and back in -to the World to Come).

        It is not we who are making up a second coming. It is you who making up a messiah who comes only once.

      • Anon,

        you wrote up above the following:

        “Obviously, that raises some very important questions. First, Joshua and his human, biological father Nun, predated David, by quite a little while. As you may have heard, Jewish messianic prophecy has determined that the messiah will have to be patrilineally descended from David.”

        The Messiah is patrilineally descended from David, but since the Torah teaches that the Messiah does not have a human father, it can only then be referring to his mother.

        Also “Nun” is a reference to the Hebrew letter itself. From a drashic perspective, literally, Nun in ancient Hebrew is that for seed, as in offspring. Thus, The Torah teaches us that Yehoshua ben Nun, ie Jesus son Seed – a drashic remez to the Promised Seed telling us who the messiah is in the prophecy given in Gen 3:15.

        “Second, Christians have cooked up a second coming storyline for Jesus”

        On the contrary, the Torah teaches a second coming of Mashiach, after his death. See Abel (failed messianic candidate according to Eve), Isaac (in the Akeidah Abraham says “we will return to you” speaking of him and his son prior to his expected death), Joseph (of who Jacob says “my son is dead” and then later says “he is alive”), Moses (of who dies, and his body is not found, but is recorded that he too will inherit the Land – and thus finally lead the generation in the wilderness to it), and even Joshua (who Torah says is HaShem’s response to Moses’ prayer for a Shepherd to lead the people out -into this world, and back in -to the World to Come).

        It is not we who are making up a second coming. It is you who making up a messiah who comes only once.

    • Oh and here’s the Hebrew of Exodus 17:9:

      ויאמר משה אל-יהושע בחר-לנו אנשים וצא הלחם בעמלק מחר אנכי נצב על-ראש הגבעה ומטה האלהים בידי

      Notice “יהושע” in the fourth word of that sentence. That’s “Yehoshua,” which the LXX translated as “ιησου” which the gospel use of “ιησου” is translated into the King James as “Jesus.”

      Now do you deny this, or do still claim the “assertion” is “bogus?”

  6. Anonymous,

    You have to be kidding me, you can’t possibly be serious!!! Your objection of YESHUA’S Name is a flat out joke! No one will take you seriously, especially not no serious BIBLE scholar or student of The SCRIPTURES.

  7. B”H
    Israel writes:

    “The Messiah is patrilineally descended from David, but since the Torah teaches that the Messiah does not have a human father, it can only then be referring to his mother.”

    Can you please enlighten us where exactly (chapter and verse) does the Torah teach that Messiah has no human father?

    Thanks in advance.

    • This will be interesting, Ariel, considering the Bible does not contain the expression ‘The Messiah’ anywhere (except for 4 references to Aaron the High Priest who did have a father)

    • Psalm 2 states clearly that YHVH makes him birth. Psa 2:6-7 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. (7) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

  8. Everywhere online I see messianic’s quoting that the book is from 1931. In fact, it has been put downloadable on internet (one without date): http://www.archive.org/details/maazorleyomkipur00philuoft
    Another Yom Kipur Machzor on internet, wich ommits the name of the translator is dated 1901 (!) and has the same translation!:

    http://www.archive.org/details/maohzorlayomkipp00unknuoft

    The interest for this prayerbook is because of the piyyut (a prayer in poetic composition) AZ MeLIFNAY BeREISHITH, which can be found in the afore mentioned online Machzorim respectively on pages 238 and 239 (239 is very special) and in the other one the same text on the pages 279-284 (especialy the part on page 281-284 are of intrest)
    But remember, the Hebrew prayer אז מלפני בראשית AZ MeLIFNAY BeREISHITH is a very ancient piyyut from rabbi Eliezer Kalir, who lifeth at latest in the second half of the seventh century [ http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=45&letter=K ]. In early manuscripts of Ashkenazi Mahzors from as early as the 13th century the prayer is already found.

    On the Name Yshua as being a NAme of Mashiach I like to comment the following:
    In Zecharyah (perek 6:8-13) when YEHOSHUA ben Yehotzadak the high priest is crowned and over him as in mashal prophecy is declared: “Hinei ish Tzemmach shemo – Behold a man called Branch” – which is Mashiach as we all know.
    We also know that in the far past in the time Yisrael was rescued by HASHEM from Egypt it is also said that malach panaw hoshi’am – the angel of His Pressence saved them (Yeshayahu 63:9). The archangels are according to midrash called after there quality, Rapha’el because he cures, etc. (see B’midbar Rabbah 2:10 and Pesikta Rabbati 46:4). So logicaliy the malach panaw that saves should be called Yehoshua or in Aramaic, Yeshua. An archangel is also called sar – prince (Daniel 10:21; 12:1), because of their might. He is indeed also mentioned in the old prayers of Rosh Hashanah between the shopharblows as “Yeshua, sar hapanim – Yeshua, prince of the Pressence” (again: in some of the old ashkenaz and sfard [minhag Polin] machzorim based mahzor, you can find it at the Seder Tekiath Shophar)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s