With the Advent of the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai, the Torah Became like Two Torahs.
The House of Hillel and the House of Shammai were two schools of Jewish thought and law founded by Hillel the Elder and his contemporary, Shammai. Both schools flourished in Jerusalem under their founders and descendants beginning circa 40 BCE. Their influence encompassed the years leading up to the arrival of “Jesus the Nazarene,” the Crucifixion and Resurrection, Eleazar’s execution of members of the House of Hillel, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, and many generations beyond.[2]
The founders’ names carry clues to their divergent philosophies and interpretations of the Torah: Shammai, from shema, is the first word of a section of the Torah that opens the morning and evening prayers addressed to YHWH. Shema is translated, “hear-obey.” Shammai was an ultra-conservative Torah and Ten Commandments literalist. He was a YaH-udean, a proponent of YaHWeH, a leader of the Tribe of Judah.
Hillel, from Ha’eL eL eLa, translated, “Praise God-Goddess,” is a reference to the opening words in Genesis when Philo’s Rules[3] for interpretation are applied (we’ll examine them in a moment). Hillel was a Nasi, translated “lord” and/or “prince.” He was a liberal, progressive teacher who minimized the value of the Ten Commandments when he condensed his version of the Torah into one sentence: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”[4] Hillel was a proponent of Ba’eL and Isha Orah, translated “Father God” and “Woman Light.” Together, Isha Orah and El are IshOrahEl. Hillel was a leader of the remnants of the Tribe of Ishrael after the mass defections at Mount Carmel.[5]
Hillel taught Shammai’s precepts alongside his own; in fact, Hillel’s students recited Shammai’s first before Hillel’s.[6] However, Shammai prohibited his students from knowing anything of Hillel’s teachings. The Ten Commandments cannot be ignored or compromised!
Historically, Kings and Queens took the name of their preferred imagined deity. For example, Persian King Nabuchadnezzar was named after the god, Nabu; the King’s name means, “Nabu preserve/protect my firstborn son.” Cyrus the Great, a hero in the Old Testament,[7] was so compassionate that his subjects, who believed him to be God, called him “Father.”
In Old Testament stories, YaHWeH, Ba’eL, eLa Ha eM and Isha Orah (also known as “Asherah”) are names of Kings and Queens who embodied imagined deities of the same name. YHWH (translated “LORD”) was imagined to be authoritative and vindictive; Father El, Ela the Mother, and Asherah were imagined to be compassionate and forgiving, like loving Parents. Notably, Jesus prayed to “Abba, Abba” (Mk 14:36) and “Ela, Ela” (Mk 15:34), a clear indication that he was a graduate of the School of Nasi Hillel.
The Old Testament deity that exhibits symptoms of a “bi-polar personality disorder” is explained by this rational interpretation of biblical texts. The stories are not about “One God” with a confusing dual nature. The stories are about the leaders of two tribes whose ruling styles were based on two different schools of thought and interpretations of Torah. The Kings’ chosen deities, and namesakes, were imagined into being by men and women who infused them with their own values, emotions, and opinions about the best way to rule.
More intriguing and impressive, “the Torah was like two Torahs” because one string of Hebrew consonants can be used to create two different sentences with entirely different meanings, one for Shammai’s Judeans, the other for Hillel’s Israelites.
For example, Genesis 1:1 opens with the consonants, BRSTBRLHM. Rendered BaReSiT BaRa eLoHiM, these words are translated, “In the beginning God created…” (Shammai’s version which was also recited by Hillel’s students before reciting the Nasi’s alternative version). Here’s the problem with this translation: the Hebrew word for “God” is Eloah; the im suffix creates the plural, “Gods.” Philo says this “artificial interpretation of a single expression”[8] is a signal to the initiated (i.e., Hillel’s students) to look for an alternative correct word. A correct rendering and translation of LHM is eLa Ha eM, “Goddess the Mother.” This may not be acceptable to Shammai, patriarchal priests, evangelical preachers, or the Pope, but it is the correct rendering and translation of LHM. (According to Strong’s Hebrew Concordance, Goddess the Mother (LHM) appears 2,598 times in the OT.)
Here’s where it gets really interesting: BRSTBRLHM can be correctly rendered BaR iS, eT aB oR, eLa Ha eM, “Son of Man, Father Light, Goddess the Mother…” (Nasi Hillel’s Nasarene translation unknown to Shammai’s students). This was the original “Holy Trinity” that was rejected by Paul and the Church Fathers. This discovery solves the mystery of the “Son of Man” sayings in the New Testament. “Son of Man” is the phrase that opens Hillel’s version of Genesis, a clue to the version taught by Jesus who repeatedly refers to himself as “Son of Man.”[9] Unfortunately, the correct interpretation that Jesus preferred has been hidden from orthodox successors of the Early Church, while the protectors of His secret have been forced to hide underground.
Jesus the Nasarean said to the Twelve and the others around him, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables …” (aka, “enigmas”; Mk 4:11). “The Secret” is that the word erroneously translated “God” is LHM, correctly translated “Goddess the Mother.” She is rediscovered when Mark is translated back to the original Hebrew, a concept not yet embraced by resistant Markan scholars. However, compelling evidence has existed for several decades: While working on the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1963, French biblical scholar Jean Carmignac decided to translate Greek Mark to Hebrew. He was surprised to discover that the translation points to Greek Mark as a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic original.[10]
And more evidence can be teased from the text, what’s there and what’s missing. “Mark” fails to mention that Jesus came “from Bethlehem” and was born to a “Virgin Mother.” These stunning omissions are especially problematic because most biblical scholars agree that proto-Mark was the source for Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels where Micah’s Bethlehem Prophesy (5:2-3) is fulfilled. Early Church Fathers claimed Matthew’s gospel was composed first, and in Hebrew, a claim most scholars discount today. However, they continue to defend many of the Fathers’ other claims, including that Jesus was called “The Nazarene” because “he came from Nazareth.” This, too, was an early distraction to lead the faithful away from the “Historical Jesus” and the truth about his mission.
Two New Testament verses are all that stand in the way of finding Bethlehem and the Virgin Mother in Mark’s Hebrew gospel. Once that’s done, a related prophesy in Micah and a related story in Genesis can be used to restore the lost ending: The related prophesy is Micah 4:8-10, the return of “Magdal, Daughter Jerusalem”[11]; the related story in Genesis is 40:22; 41:1-45, the crucifixion, reappearance, and demonstrated wisdom of “The Baker.”
The two New Testament interpolations that led us all astray are:
- Matthew 2:23: “and he went and lived in…Nazareth. So…he would be called a Nazarene.”
- Mark 1:9: “At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee…”
Available evidence viewed objectively suggests that Bishop Irenaeus (c. 130 to c. 200) added verse 23 to the end of Matthew, Chapter Two, then interpolated Mark 1:9 to lend support.[12] In doing so, he removed the fulfillment of the two important prophesies that would identify “The Messiah.”
Look at what happens when “Nazareth” is replaced by “Bethlehem” at Mk 1:9:
- Hebrew BTLHM, rendered BeTLeHeM, is the “little town in Galilee,” as prophesied.
- Hebrew BTLHM, rendered BeTuLaH eM, is translated “Virgin Mother,” as prophesied.
- Hebrew BTLHM, rendered BaT eLa Ha eM, is translated “Daughter, Goddess the Mother.”
Both the missing prophesies are fulfilled in Mark’s gospel when “Nazareth” is removed and “BTLHM” is restored. Furthermore, a “Daughter, Goddess the Mother” also appears. What’s that about? And, why would Bishop Irenaeus or any other Church Father falsify the reason “Jesus” was called “The Nazarene”?
The answers to these questions explain why “Jesus the Nazarene, Son of Joseph” was “born” in the first place. Mark’s Crucifixion was originally a dramatization of the story of the first crucifixion in Genesis. The victim is “The Baker” whom Pharaoh imprisoned with “Joseph the Nazar,” Israel’s “Prince,” sold into slavery by his envious step-brothers. Joseph’s mother was RKL RaKeL (oRaK + eLa = “Spirit of Ela”), and his biological father was a King whose name was Eloah.[13] This is the King El and Queen Ela praised by HaeL El and Ela, the man whose name, Hillel, is literally translated, “Praise El and Ela.”
The Baker is sentenced to be crucified; Hillel’s rendering of the climactic scene reveals that The Baker is Rachel, Joseph’s Mother.[14] Two years later, when Pharaoh has worrisome dreams and is desperate to have them explained, Joseph, with help from LHM, interprets them and saves the people of Egypt from a great famine.[15] Obviously, The Baker, also known as eLa Ha eM, was not crucified after all.[16]
Scholars agree that the original ending of Mark’s gospel was removed, and two later attempts were made to harmonize it with Matthew and Luke.[17] Fortunately, Hillel’s interpretation of the first crucifixion in Genesis also helps reconstruct the original ending of Hebrew Mark:
In the remake played out on the streets of Jerusalem, Jesus the Nazarene volunteers to take his mother’s place on the cross; Jesus valued Her life over his own! She, then, concocts an elixir from plants and saves his life, too. “Virgin Mother” (BeTuLaH eM), “Son of God” (YaH-Zeus),[18] and “Daughter of Goddess the Mother” (BaT eLa Ha eM) emerge from the tomb victorious over death. “Daughter Jerusalem”[19] returns to fulfill Micah’s ignored prophesy (4:8-10),[20] and the Son, Daughter, Goddess and God live on, generation after generation into infinity. Well, that was the plan.
Judah’s patriarchal priests objected to honoring the goddess; She might elevate the perceived value of women. Worse, women who felt valued might rebel against those who attempted to subjugate and control them. YHWH forbid!
Some Judean priests rejected the new myth outright and remained Orthodox Jews. They supported the Zealot, Eleazar ben Ananias, who invited the students of both schools to meet at his house; Eleazar, another trickster, instructed armed men to let no-one leave the meeting; several members of the House of Hillel were then killed; Eleazar’s men leverage these deaths to force the others to adopt Shammai’s rules, The Eighteen Articles. Jewish history defines the occasion as a day of misfortune.[21] Indeed! It was the opening volley that led to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE.
More moderate priests were ready for the Messiah to appear, but not Daughter Jerusalem. And so, “Jesus the Scapegoat Savior of Believers” was born, setting back the recognition of the value of women another two thousand years while giving birth to Paul’s “Christianity.”
The truth underlying biblical stories does not demand that rational reasoning be replaced by faith in irrational claims, as we’ve been told. It does demand thoughtful consideration of the evidence, and a mind open to a revised history and the restoration of herstory.
“The Nasarene,” as he was known, reveals that Jesus was a descendant of “The Nasi” Hillel and inherited the position of Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin. Hillel’s grandson was Nasi Gamaliel the Elder; Gamaliel’s son was “Jesus,” also known as, “bar-Jesus.”[22]
Gamaliel VI (circa 370 to 425) was the last Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin, ascending to that position circa 400. On October 20, 415, Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II issued an edict that stripped Gamaliel of his rank of Honorary Prefect. It banned him from building synagogues, deciding disputes between Jews and Christians, converting non-Jews to Judaism, and owning Christian slaves. [23]
Gamaliel was probably executed in 425, the year before an edict transformed the patriarch’s tax into an imperial tax. Theodosius refused to allow the appointment of a successor and in 429 terminated the Jewish patriarchate.[24]
This is just the beginning of the secrets Hillel’s Method of interpretation reveals. Philo of Alexandria preserved, simplified, and enumerated it on behalf of the man rejected by Paul and the Early Church Fathers, “Jesus the Nasarene.”
PaxAmoLux!
Copyright PJ Gott, 2019, Springfield,
Missouri
[1] Mishnah: Hagigah (Tosefta) 2:9; Sanhedrin 88b; Sotah 47b. Also, “House of Hillel,” Wikipedia footnote, Drew Kaplan, “Rabbinic Popularity in the Mishnah VII: Top Ten Overall (Final Tally), Drew Kaplan’s Blog (5 July 2011).” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Hillel. “Hillel and Shammai,” https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hillel-and-shammai.
[2] “Hillel and Shammai,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai
[3] Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, wrote 21 rules for identifying “enigmas” in scripture.
[4] “Hillel the Elder,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder. Shabbat 31a.
[5] 1 Kings 18:36-40: Elijah the trickster tossed a water-combustible chemical on water to prove YHWH was more powerful than Father El and Asherah. The majority of the Israelites abandoned their deities in favor of YHWH.
[6] “Beit Hillel,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Hillel.
[7] 2 Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1-8; Ezra 3; Ezra 4:3-5; Isaiah 44-5; Daniel 1:21; 10:1.
[8] Philo’s Rule No. 16 for identifying and “enigma.”
[9] The term, Son of man, is used by Jesus 80 times as a way to refer to himself (32 times in Matthew; 14 times in Mark; 26 times in Luke; and 10 times in a qualitatively different way from the Synoptic Gospels in John).
[10] Jean Carmignac, The Birth of the Synoptics (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press (1987), p. 1.
[11] “And you, Magdal eder…to you shall come the kingdom of Daughter Jerusalem…”
[12] Irenaeus “Against Heresies,” Alexander Roberts, ed., The Gnostic Society Library Online (1995), 1.9.4-5, n.p.
[13] Gen 30:22: Philo says, “Examine the Hebrew words and select a valid alternative for eLeHa, translated ‘to her.’” eLeHa can also be rendered eLoaH, which is Hebrew for “God.” The reason Joseph was the only “prince” among Jacob’s twelve sons is because his biological father was King Eloah, whose name ties him to the deities, Eloah and Ela Ha Em.
[14] Gen 40:22.
[15] Gen 41:1-45.
[16] Hillel’s version describes how the ancient Hebrew Goddess Shabbat convinced Pharaoh to change his mind about crucifying The Baker, the embodiment of Ela Ha Em.
[17] Both are often added to Mark with footnotes, “the shorter ending”; “the longer ending.”
[18] YHWH + Zeus = YaH-Zeus, invented to peacefully unite Orthodox Jews and Romans.
[19] Jerusalem can be rendered YaRa iSha eLa eM, “Teacher, Woman, Goddess Mother.”
[20] “And you, Magdal eder…to you shall come the kingdom of Daughter Jerusalem…”
[21] Shabbat (Tosefta) 1:16+; Shabbat 13a; Shabbat 17a; Shabbat (Jerusalem Talmud) 1:3c. “Bet Hillell and Bet Shammai: Relation to External World.” Marcus Jastrow and S. Mendelsohn, Jewish Encyclopedia online: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3190-bet-hillel-and-bet-shammai.
[22] Josephus, 1999, Antiquities 20.9.4 (213-214), 657. Luke 13:5-11.
[23] Graetz, Heinrich, History of the Jews. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1898).
[24] Pharr, Clyde (1952). The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952) 470-1. “Rabban Gamaliel VI,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raban_Gamaliel_VI
Following Philo 