ESSAY on "ESSA"
by Charles Pope
with Theaux's comment

NOTE an updated version of this text is
at Pope's maintenance
with Theaux's comments

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:52:02 EST

From: Charles Pope
JudeoRoots@aol.com

Inspired by the research of Ahmed Osman; the new book, "Freud and the Legacy of Moses," by Richard Bernstein (Cambridge University Press); and William Theaux's analysis of Ahmed Osman's new title, "Out of Egypt."

Moses' relationship with "the Lord" is depicted as one with a god incarnate. For example, we are told that Moses spoke with "the Lord" face to face, and that he was allowed to see His "form." In that locale and era, the living god in question could have been no other than the ruling Pharaoh. The general behavior (e.g., aloofness) and "signs and wonders" performed by "the Lord" seem consistent with those which might be "performed" by an Egyptian Pharaoh, and which would also have been extremely intimidating to the common people. (Although, "the nobles with scepters and staffs?" (Numbers 21:18) were not so impressed, and these fear tactics were one of the many reasons for the complaining of these pampered elite.)

Many Bible passages indicate that Joshua son of Nun and "the Lord" were to be closely associated. However, in light of Theaux's arguments, they may not necessarily have been one and the same person. Perhaps, Semenkhare has been unwittingly overlooked. For the purpose of discussion, let's say that "the Lord" of the Bible's (early exile) Moses story was Semenkhare, and the closeness and access afforded Joshua to "the Lord" was a result of their being brothers. Because of the very close similarity of their skulls, and their identical bloodtypes, it is now considered likely that they were indeed brothers.

"The Lord" (Semenkhare?) is characterized by fits of anger, followed by loving forgiveness after the intercession of Moses/Akhenaten. Joshua, on the other hand, shows greater self-confidence, and a more equable temperament.

In Exodus 33, Joshua son of Nun enters the Tent of Meeting, but does not depart. Just prior to this (also in Ex 33), "the Lord" had said (verse 3) that "I will not [or no longer] go with you." [parenthetical mine] The implication is that Joshua has died, but it might also be that the Pharaoh (Semenkhare?) was now dead or dying, and Moses was in despair. Moses then speaks "to the Lord," and says "you have not told me whom you will send with me." We are told that "the Lord's" response was, "My Presence will go with you." In the next chapter (Exodus 34) Moses no longer speaks face to face with "the Lord," but instead enters "his presence." (verse 34). This may indicate the succession of Tutankhamun upon the death of Semenkhare.
Joshua/Tutankhamun could no longer be with the Moses on a regular basis, because he became the next Pharaoh. "The Lord (Tutankhamun, or the dying/deceased Semenkhare) tells Moses, "I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites ... but I will not go with you." As Pharaoh, Joshua/Tutankhamun sent the military into Canaan under  Horemheb. Exodus 34: 6-7 would then be Semenkhare's (flattering) Eulogy or Joshua's renewed covenant. In Numbers 27:15-20, Moses is instructed to "appoint Joshua ... and give him some of your authority."

A deal was most certainly struck between Moses and Joshua, and the opponents of the Atenists in Egypt, and this included the changing of Tutankhamun's name. Joshua had likely been taken (kidnapped, if you will) as a security against attacks from Moses' enemies. Part of the deal that brought Tutankhamun to the throne probably included guaranteed protection for Moses and the "Israelites."

It may be that Semenkhare was not killed in the Sinai, but in Egypt. However, the Biblical timeframe would be consistent with the above scenarios. Moses is said to have arrived at Mt. Sinai after the second month of exile (Exodus 19:1). He is said have left at the end of the fourteenth month. Semenkhare ruled for about one year, or less. It is probably not important to this inquiry whether he died in the Sinai of in Egypt. It likely involved intrique in either case.

The death of Joshua/Tutankhamun seems to occur at a later date. Parallel accounts in Numbers and Deuteronomy seem to confirm the death of Joshua. After the "plague at Peor," in Numbers, Moses again inquires, "Who will lead them out and bring them in?" Again, the indication is that it is to be Joshua, however it is apparent that he is now also dead, because we are told that Balaam had been killed by the sword at this time. Deuteronomy 31:3,8 confirms that Joshua was not going with them, but "will cross over ahead of you." It would subsequently be Joshua's presence that would be required to lead Israel into the Promised Land. In Deuteronomy 32: 4-5,15, 43 (prior to their entering Canaan), we are told that they had already "rejected the Rock and their Savior (Joshua)" and that "he will avenge the blood of his servants." The plural here may indicate the murdered servants were Semenkhare and Joshua. The Zadokites would have considered Phineas and Moses to be the real victims, but there were limits to what even they could get away with in this twisted account.

 The two passages (one in Exodus 17, one in Numbers 20) about water coming from the rock are somewhat contradictory, however it appears that the mortal sin of Moses and Aaron was in "striking the Rock," or by interpretation, in allowing the Rock to be struck down.

In "Out of Egypt," Osman points out that the Apostle Paul wrote (1 Cor. 10:1-4 and Hebrews 4:2) that Jesus/Joshua was at some point (possibly after leaving Mt. Sinai, but possibly later) no longer with the Israelites physically, but only symbolically as the "Rock" that sustained Israel, a Rock which has continued to hang ominously over the Jewish people from that fateful time forward. Therefore, the fantastical account of the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua was likely used to cover up the murder of Jesus as Osman suggests. If Phineas was subsequently killed in retribution of his act, this would explain his mysterious role and reappearances in following Biblical accounts. (Phineas was made into a "hero" both in Israel, and in Egypt. Phineas apparently became a far more common name in the Egyptian 19th Dynasty.)

The judgment that the Conquest was a complete fiction may be better off withheld, as further research may establish it as an adaptation of an earlier tradition of a Hebrew invasion of Palestine that was only later attributed conveniently to Joshua in the Bible. It also could have been a recollection of the prior military campaign of Tutankhamun and Horemheb. (See  notes under Joshua in "Implications of the New Chronology on the Works of Ahmed Osman" found on the JudeoRoots web site.)

Joshua had literally/physically "gone before them" as "an angel" to drive out the formidable residents of Canaan. This reflects the historical Canaanite campaign of Tutankhamun/Horemheb. As a result of Tutankhamun's military actions, "their protection was gone," (Num 14:9) i.e., the protection and favor that Canaanite and other tribes had formerly enjoyed as Egyptian vassals. In the New Chronology, Tutankhamun's campaign would have had the further effect of firmly establishing King David in Judea.

Something dramatic happened at Mt. Sinai and at Baal Peor. Perhaps, it was Semenkhare who died or was killed while the Israelites were at Sinai. Perhaps, the death of Joshua/Tutankhamun did not occur until Baal Peor. Perhaps, the death of Moses also occurred in the vacinity of Baal Peor (where he is said to have been buried) at an even later time (after the Exodus) when Seti I took military action against "the foe belonging to the Shasu."

The "great sin" that required "atonement" (Ex 32:30), could not merely have been the making of the golden calf. Aaron's pitiful exuse for an excuse seemed adequate to atone for that. Retribution for the first death appears to have occurred immediately at the hands of the Levites (Ex 32:28). The second (later) retribution (as indicated by Ex 32: 34) occurred when the Israelites had moved among the Midianites (the "Shasu") of Moab. We are told (Numbers 25 and 31) in separate passages that both Israel and the Midianites were decimated. These passages may, as Osman suggests, represent the intervention of Aye as he came to claim Joshua's body and avenge his killing, however elements of one or especially the second account might also reflect the later military action of Seti I against "the foe belonging to the Shasu." (from the Karnak relief)

Moses himself had a Midianite wife (possibly two) and a respected Midianite father-in-law (Num. 10:29). Therefore, it is not logical that sexual relations with Midianite women was the cause of the "plague" of Numbers 25. The story of the death of Zimri the Simeonite (verse 14) must be a contrived grafting of an unrelated tradition. The disgraceful murderous act of Phineas was transformed into a righteous deed of honor and atonement! The account seems to expose its own lie when it accuses the Midianites of deceit in the "affair of [Balaam of] Peor." It does not say the affair of Zimri! What may be closer to the truth is that the "deceit" of the Midianites belies the liklihood that Israel was depending on them for protection, and were blamed (possibly unfairly) of "selling them out" (cf. Numbers 22:7) or otherwise betraying them. See also Deuteronomy 32: 30, which also imply that "their Rock had sold them," and "given them up" to their ememy. Therefore, the Midianites and the leaders of Israel, especially those of Ephraim (Joshua/Tutankhamun and Aye), were attributed guilt for this. Joshua, it would appear, paid for this with his life. We are also told that despite all his oracles of blessings upon Israel, Baalam son of Beor (Peor?) was killed by the sword at this time (at the hand of an Israelite). As Osman states, in the Talmud Baalam and Jesus/Joshua are sometimes synonymous. There may be additional clues of this event in Deuteronomy 4.

The retribution against them Midianites (Numbers 31), which is associated (verse 1) with the death of Moses would appear to have been at the hands of Seti I many years later, and not by the Israelites, themselves.

Other than the vague references to Baal worship, the Bible does not tell us why the exalted and anointed descendants of Joseph fell from grace. However, it is clear in Genesis 49 that the "sceptre" (verse 10) passed from the line of Joseph to the line of Judah. This certainly must reflect the fall of the ruling line of Joseph in Amarna Period Egypt upon the deaths of Tutankhamun and Aye, and the rise of David (Dadua of the Amarna Tablets) in Israel. In the New Chronology of David Rohl, these events are contemporaneous. The genealogies of Phineas in 1 Chronicles 6 and Ezra 7 would seem to be highly inexact, and should not stand in the way of this conclusion.

It was the book of Hosea (likely related to a variant of Joshua's name, i.e., Hoshea - See notes under Num 13:16 and Deut 32:44) that in 1922 led Sellin to believe that an Israelite leader, and probably Moses, was murdered in the wilderness. Osman evinces that this death was that of Joshua and not Moses.

The Book of Hoshea would seem to side with the Zadokite position that the killing of Joshua (an Ephraimite), as well as the death of Aye (the son of Joseph, i.e., Ephraim), was justified, because although "Ephraim ... was exalted in Israel, ... he became guilty of Baal worship and died." However, the Book of Hosea also appears to be making an attempt at reconciliation with Ephraim.

Joshua's military intervention had "saved" Israel" in their battle with the Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-16), and his personal intervention had "saved" Moses and Aaron from stoning (Numbers 14). In the wilderness, he was indeed Israel's last remaining hope of salvation and restoration. However, Moses and Aaron were not able in turn to save him. Phineas killed him, and ended any immediate hope of reconciliation with Egypt.

Note: The repeated passage about Zelophelhad's daughters may symbolize the bereavement and destitution of leading Ephraimite women after the loss of their husbands. (Numbers 26, 27, and 36; Joshua 17)

In dealing with discrepancies between Egyptology, the Hebrew/Israelite traditions, and the Greek traditions, archaeology should carry the most weight. Possibly both Hebrew and Greek legends became somewhat jumbled in the facts and in their sequencing. The "Ramesside conspiracy" may also have resulted in distortions, especially in the Biblical record. However, the Egyptian record is unequivocable regarding the Pharaonic succession of Akhenaten, Semenkhare, and Tutankhamun. This should help to sort out the various traditions.

The Zadokite branch of Levitical priests were probably responsible for distorting (and de-Egyptianizing) the Biblical Exodus account. I also suspect that this ultimately led to a counter movement within Israel, which at some point had to go "underground," and that later resurfaced in the Messianic material of the latter prophets (and further in the schism between Zadokite and Enochic Judaism). The new book, "Beyond the Essene Hypothesis" by Gabriele Boccaccini (Eerdmans Publisher) would indicate that Christianity emerged from the Enochic stream. Boccaccini identifies the Qumran Essesnes as a fringe group within Enochic Judaism, however concludes that they did not produce the Christian Gospels.

Among the Israelites, Aaron and his line through Eleazar and Phineas are the ones who can do no wrong. On the other hand, all of Israel's sins (as well as other Levitical leaders) are put on parade. Even the old priesthood of the Commonwealth is denigrated, e.g., the story of fat Eli and his reprobate sons. The slur campaign of the Zadokites needs to be researched more fully.

If it was the Levitical priest Phineas (= High Priest of Akhenaten, Pa-Nehesy = Polynice?) who killed Jesus/Joshua, then it would have been the Zadokite Priests (line of Phineas) who after gaining power would have tried to cover it up, and to rationalize the killing when that didn't work (hence, the Talmud statements that it was "Phineas [not Caiphas] who killed him" and "they hanged [not crucified] him on a tree [either before or after striking him with a spear or sword]," because he "practiced magic and lead Israel astray.") Despite Jesus'/Joshua's status he was not to be "spared." [parenthetical mine]

Much of Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy is spent justifying the exclusive right of the Zadokite line (through Aaron, Eleazar, and Phineas) to the High Priesthood. Aaron is implicated twice in wrong doing. He is reprimanded, however never disciplined, even in the matter of the golden calf (although he does share in Moses' fate of not entering the Promised Land). (See Exodus 32:22-24, and Numbers 12) Passage after passage exposes the sins of other Levite leaders (Korah, etc). Of Aaron's four sons, only Eleazar is elevated as a result of the zealous killing of Zimri by his son Phineas. Two of the four sons are killed for disobedience, and a third son Ithamar, is virtually ignored. In Num. 10:16-20, Moses becomes angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, however their wise answer appeases even him.

If Rohl is right, then the "Hebrews" were already in Canaan as a result of an Exodus occurring in the Egyptian 13th Dynasty (~480 years prior to the building of Solomon's/Amenhotep's Temple). In Rohl's New Chronology, the abdication and exile of Moses/Akhenaten to the Sinai would have occurred around the beginning of the reign of David, and the return of Moses/Akhenaten to Egypt and his final expulsion/exodus with the "Levites/Israelites" would have occurred late in the reign of David or early in the reign of Solomon. This would explain why Solomon suddenly and mysteriously ordered Benaiah the Levite to kill Joab (the Commander of David's army), and to replace the Commonwealth priest Abiathar with the Levitical priest Zadok! (1 Kings 2:13-35) After the death of Solomon (the Judaean version), the "10 northern tribes" threw off the Zadokite yoke and went their separate way. (1 Kings 11:26-40; 12:1-20)

Conclusion: The stories of Moses and Joshua were written/compiled by heavily biased Zadokite priests. (One of the reasons given in the DSS for the Qumran communities separation was that the Scriptures were being corrupted.)

Question: Had the Zadokites also cut a deal with the Ramseses in order to gain political supremecy in Jerusalem (Kadesh)?

Question: Does the Talmud explicitly state that it was on the day when Moses came down from the mountain that Phineas killed him (Baalam/Jesus), does it explicitly state that it was Mt. Sinai from whence he descended, and does it state that it was on the occassion of Moses receiving the tablets? If so, then this would represent a major impediment  confound/contradiction) to identifying Semenkhare as a more integral part of the history.

Question: Was the account of Moses' return to Egypt transposed to be at the beginning instead of the end? Should it have been properly placed before the final Midianite (Shasu) passage, which would correspond to Seti I's slaughter of "the foe belonging to the Shasu," and the death of Moses. The remnant that escaped likely found (or imposed for themselves) a new home among "Solomon's" court in "Israel."

Question: Would the 10 plagues have been reflective of the "chaos" associated with Akhenaten's abdication and flight? The passage through the swampy reed sea may reflect the exodus of a large number of his followers in a more unhurried departure safeguarded by Semenkhare. The Bible account states that Moses, Aaron and Joshua were looking after 600,000 men. His return to reclaim the throne likely involved far fewer people. The "parting of the red sea" seems more applicable to Akhenaten's hurried departure through a confined area or land bridge in chariots after the failed attempt. The death of the Pharaoh Ramses I in pursuit of Moses (or simply contemporaneous with Moses flight) is also more consistent. Although Semenkhare's death occurred shortly after Moses' exile, his death was probably not associated with his attack on Moses and the Israelites.

THE FREUDIPOUS COMPLEX
by Kozma Gyorgy
with Theaux's comment

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:24:44 +0100

From: Kozma Gyorgy. Budapest
kozmagy@cpr.mtv.hu

1. I want to speak about the suppression of faith in God in our culture.

I know, that it is not fashionable to speak about "the essence" or about "truth" in our post-modern age, and it certainly is not up to date to speak about integrating, categoric words - still I must warn the reader, that I will do so in the following text.

2. Freud and the "Anti-Godism" of our present day civilization

In the last two-or-three thousand years the dominant civilization had to downgrade "belief": Greeks and Romans were fighting with the first inventors of monotheism, the Jews, and some Moslims and some Christians, who have adopted their great invention, monotheism, hid their origins, thus committing - a Freudian expression - "patricide ". The known atheist, a most influential thinker in our times, Freud has a different view (in his famous and unique 'Moses'-essay): he claims that the real monotheism was the Aton-religion introduced by the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton - "Aton is hinting at a force that moves everything" according to Freud - and then, after a period of "latency" Jews projected this total power over onto "a storm-daemon called Yehowe" - and, during this process, they killed the news-bringer Moses, who was (without any proof, just because Freud thinks so) Egyptian himself. The new tenet arrived at its development's peak only, Freud goes on, when Saulus-Paulus "admitted" the desire of killing in the Christ-episode...

3. An Eastern Tradition - Oedipous, the abandoned infant

For Freud it was essential to write about God for a non-believer public. His Moses is an Egyptian. He does not mention, that Oedipous - his hero in Abriss der Psychoanalysis, 1940 - was the descendant of Cadmos, whose name (if translated) means Eastern , and that this Cadmos was the descendant of Agenor, or Canaan, the son of Noah - maybe a Jewish family? Or, quite the contrary: it was the evil non-Jewish Canaan, the son of Ham, who cut off the masculinity of Noah. His descendant, Tantalos, promising his son, Pelops, to the gods. Poseidon falling in love with him.. The son of Pelops idolized by the father of Oedipous, Laios.
I mention these details, because all these names are known from many Greek plays that are parts of our cultural heritage - without mention of their legendary link to Oedipous and Cadmos or Noah and the Bible.) Of Oedipous, (Big-Foot) (whom Graves calls Oedi-phallos) Freud only mentions that he is elevated in a foreign land, in conflict with the taboos of his native land: patricide and incest (which happen to be the central taboos in the Decalogue too.) He does not mention another main problem in this mythic family : gender transformational process - they all have problematic marriages. They have problems in the field of self-transformation, in creation. Freud, - whose main teaching is that parental views can be decisive, and who has resuscitated a myth in an atheist world, where taboos are judged to be "oppressive" - still arrives at a conclusion  toward the end of his life, in which he describes the religion of his father as a "primitive demonical belief" with foreign origins and propagated by foreigners.
What is the basic fact, that Freud (and many other influential decision makers before and after him) simply omits to mention?

4. Freud's, messianic (anointed) lawmaker ancestors were left in his unconscious - silenced for ever.

There were many Jewish families during the Assimilation, the Nineteenth century (and during similar trends before and after, until today), who decided to forget about their Jewish rabbinical ancestors, those, who have participated in the century-old learning ("talmud" in Hebrew) that has created the symbols that compress in themselves the message of "God", the Lord of the Universe, as presented in Jewish Scripture and who have created Jewish tradition (intended to preserve its customs and morality). We do know today, for instance, that a disciple of Freud, D. Rapaport was a descendant of the XVIth century Prague rabbi Löw, the so-called Maharal (the legendary golem-maker), who himself was a descendant of Rashi, (XI. century) from Troyes, the biggest law-catalogue writer until this day, whose ancestor was - among others - the decisor of Babylon, Huna Mari (V. century) and the legendary Hillel (from the first century, who claimed to have been the master of  the Christian Founder hero). We also know, and there is documentary evidence to support this fact, that Hillel was a descendant of King David, the first 'anointed' (Mashiah in Hebrew) king. Freud's disciple had ancestors belonging to this (Davidic, Maharal-descendant) family, without even knowing it. This social memory-loss happened to others too - even to the falsely accused Dreyfus, who was the descendant of Rashi's (and David's) family - the Treves (the high Rabbi of Paris in the XIIIth century) - and no one even suspected it, not even himself, and this was certainly not those accusing him. And it was because of such situations that it was judged better to forget collectively (and risk oblivion) these connections - certain prominent Jews having been in fact related to the relatives of the legendary Christian "Saviour". Here we must mention the movement of the "apostate" - i.e. converted to Islam - Masshiah Shabbatai Tsvi and his descendants (the Frankists and the Dönmeh), who were equally suppressed by all mainstream religions. Some scholars (like G.Scholem) connect the problems surrounding Shabbatianism and the strivings of reformulate "messianism" - as the Tsaddik Rebbe tradition after the Besht and the Hassidim and as an "enlightened" "Messianic Era" in the reformist-progressive (neologue) tradition.

5. Is there a basic message that was left imprisoned in the subconscious ?

What is the central basic message, which Freud (and his contemporary colleagues, and readers up until now) did not want to accept (and consequently it was frowned upon if someone learned the Bible`s language, Hebrew, so that one should not be able to follow the despised "talmudic" logic.) Judaism has a basic message - an invention or rather a discovery - that is obscured mostly even for the averagely religious Jews. Namely the equation between God and Being, Reality. (Cf.  ristotle, VI. century : "Judgment is knowledge united to existence: the verb "is" contains it." Or, in the XIIIth century, in the work of  Thomas of Aquino: "Unum convertitur in esse" - "The One can be substituted by Being") In Hebrew it is a form of the verb "to be" , spelled "yehoweh" - that hints at an entity lording over every existing being, creating, making, constructing them as a personified Higher Power. This word (or Word - or Name) is a causative continous adverbial form, that could be  rendered literally as "Existentiator". "Haya", "howe" and "yihye" are the past, the present, and the future form of the verb "to be", and "yehoweh" thus simply means "make-be-er", "making-to-be"., or existentiator (in conjunction with another word, Creator or Maker, but having a different verb stem.)

6. Why is it important that god is Being itself ?

Because it transcends the thousand year old philosophical dispute on the "existence of god" (since existence is included inherently in the "god" word in this concept.)
They (the "knowers of this reality-G-d",) do not say that "G-d has wanted us to give alms to the poor". They say instead that the Existentiator wants us - as the one that brings Charity into existence - to b e charitable. So it is more self-evident that someone, wishing a change in reality, turns to the Lord of Existence, than to turn to an entity whose name does not contain its essence (like the word "god" that does not denote anything outside cultural constructs, as Carnap has recently pointed out.) The Name of the Father hints at the secret of "becoming" or changing or "becoming other".
I repeat: if I say, that "god wants me to do this or that", then I have to disregard subconscious doubts as to what is the inherent relation between my deeds, decisions or will, and those of the entity designated by the word "g-o-d". But, if I say, that the Existentiator (the Maker) "says" that I should "be" such and such or I should make this or that - then the relation is clear: even my characteristics are in the hands of this Creative Entity, consequently (even though there is no warrant, that my wish will be fullfilled, and I will be always charitable when I should, since this would be a grandiose - e.g. immoral - demand anyway) the statement itself is not illegitim: the Lord of Being tells me to construct "Reminder Symbols" like, for instance, the Shabbat (the word means "sitting" or "resting" in Hebrew, the opposite of creating, making-to-be.)

7. Other basic words of this teaching : 'barooh' (blessed), 'kadosh' (saintly) , "mitsve" (designation, commandement) or "Yehoodi" (Jewish) etc.

Our concept of "god", where the word's form has no connection to its "content", does not exist in Hebrew (since the other word for "god", "El" "elohim" has the same letters as the word meaning "Upside, High up" , meaing concretely Higher Power). The context is also important (to understand our culture's conceptual sources) : a religious Jew says (when he says "G-d bless you",) "borooh haShem"- meaning "bless the Name". But the Name is none other than the godly name originating in the verb "to be". And the word "borooch" hints at the knee (berech) and also to the verb "to graft" (as used in viticulture). So their blessing is equivalent to a wish expressing "may the Existentiator graft itself into you", shortly "may it be so and so". I think it is worth while to mention a few frequent key words in this context. The word "kadosh" (translated as saint) has a simple meaning of "cut off, severed, segregated, differentiated" - hinting at the Other. It is related historically with the word "kayts", meaning "the end".
The name of the place Tsion rhymes - evidently - with the word "tsioon", meaning designated, "signed off".
The word "mitsveh" that has been rendered as the forbidding and stern "commandment" (and that is present in the everyday life of practising Jews when they pray in a prayer-shawl, or refrain from work on Shabbat or give money to the needy) also stems from this word, meaning "to sign", and is best translated as "calling for", "designated", or even Symbolizer.

It is not useful if we continue to imagine Judaism as a forbidding and stern way of life (even if there were instances and persons who went in that direction - as in every other denomination.) A mitsveh is neutrally, first of all a sign, a signifier or a "sign-relation". I am using post-Freudian, Lacanian words partly to re-connect to our first topic.
Yehoodi (Jew) contains the stem "hod", that is simply "echo" and it is possible to translate as "Echoer". (Paranthetically I mention that most people do not know, that the name of the Christian Saviour in Hebrew is Yoshooah - which means in Hebrew simply that: "saviour". Such knowledge would have been "saviour" for many victims of anti-Judaistic movements during the centuries, so it is not by chance - but by human design - that ordinary people were denied access to this information ).
It is also characteristic, that Christians - and Jews cut off from their culture and language - never get informed of the fact that the word "Christian" is a translation of the Greek word "Christos", which is simply the word for "anointed", "oily" (referring to refined, or very old, or to worthy) - which is "Mashiah" in Hebrew. At this point I only briefly hint at the historical fact, that in Jewish history, "kings" (anointed Mashiahs) were - in different forms - ever present . They are the leaders stemming from King David, and his descendants, being academic rulers in the talmudic ages from the first till the tenth century and later members of great rabbinical families (from Rashi through the Prague Maharal and the controversial Shabbatai Tsvi until the late New York Rebbe of Lubavitch.) Even an average Jew will never be informed about these themes and certainly no one will hear about the fact that they - the Davidic descendants - are living among us (maybe numbering several thousands of people) and they were there around Freud  too.

8. Being, echo and sign, are "basic words" in other conceptual frames and cultures too.

The discussion, that non-Jewish philosophers (or, among them a number of Jewish thinkers who simply belong to the non-Jewish culture) and theologians are pursuing, that concerns Being (or identity, or Nought, or the Creator, the Maker, or Existence, Change and Transformation, and Signs and Symbols, archetypes, the un-known or even the sub-conscious) can be continued only if the original Hebrew godly name is not widely known. The Existentiator Yehowe is a causative  verb aiming to express precisely that instance, that philosophers and theologians (discussing creation "ex nihilo") try to express when they refer to "dialectical processes" or " experience" or even "nature" or "genetic" or "construct" or "real" or "existential" etc., in their different - inventive - systems, as the essence balancing between Being and Nought (No-thing).

Why is it that these concepts (Being, Echo-reflexion - Symbol, Sign) are not only central to most philosophical systems, but also to many different religions : (like the Far-Eastern Khmers' and the Indonesian Bataks' "Creator" - Boo Nungpo-nungthai and Mula-Djadi respectively - or the Greeks' Demiourgos, the South-African Ibos' creator, Tshinekeh, and their 22 Gla-Gla signs or the Finno-Ugrian Shamans "warming, echoing oscillations", the Viking creative myth on the echoer rainbow, or the Chinese Tao's echoing mirroring lake as serenity's symbol etc.) ? Who, among the followers of all these conceptual and symbolic traditions would be interested in acknowledging the importance of the parallel concepts in Judaism - apart from the Donmeh? Of course, this question has never been raised, since the Hebrew Transforming "god" concept's existence is not present in our cultural heritage.

9. The Being or Nothing and Knowledge/Symbol/Sign and Ego and Self as "unconsciously godly "funding words of philosophy.

God has the name of Nothing in the writings of Basilios Valentinos, Justinos, Plotionos, Pseudo-Dyonysios, Anselmus, Gregory of Nusa, and in those of the last century's Nachman Krochmal, Schleiermacher and, - since Sartre - at many other writers. It has the name Existence in the Middle Ages in the books of Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Al-Sidjustani, Al-Ghasali, Ibn Roshd-Averroes, at Duns Scotus, and Mulla Sadra. Many times god is identified with Self (Me) - as in the teachings of the Buddhist Atmanism, or in the writings of Montanos, Augustinus, Thomas of Aquino, Ibn Mansur, last-century's Samuel Hirsch - or with Conscience, Reason (Origenes, Augustinus, Ibn-Sinna-Avicenna, Al-Ghasali, Yahya Suhravardi and the Eighteenth century's Baal Shem Tov, the Nineteenth-century's Keats and their modern descendants), sometimes it is equated with Language and writing itself (as in the case of the Logos of Arios, or Abu-Bakr and his "kalam's"  "door-of-symbols" or Abulafia"s tseroof, an anarchic letter-association  therapy, or the Sign-like Netherworld of Ahmed Sirhindri - all this shows (mentioning just those names taken from a standard philosophical history book, namely, that of Karen Armstrong: A History of God, Knopf, 1994) that Being (Existence) is central in philosophy. This concept of Being has become central again after the Ancients (Parmenides, Aristoteles) and after the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinus and Master Eckhardt) when, at the hands of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sprengler, Jaspers, Husserl and Heidegger (up until today's Derrida), slowly the Enlightenment and the technical civilizations have basically put in doubt the fundamental tenets of Christianity (with its unknown Jewish sources) and "talking of God" has become obsolete and impossible.
Still, most philosophers, who do think "god" has to do with existence or transformation, do not mention the fact, that this idea did actually arise in the Hebrew Bible.

10. Jewish and Non-Jewish Anti-Semitic principles are continually generating misunderstandings due to a lack of information on the Jewish "god", the Be-er.

Why did Freud - who, according to Richard Rorty is the only thinker in our age that really does have an influence upon our present day popular culture - have to deny his Jewish traditions and religion? Why did philosophers consequently deny the level of "creation" expressed in the original godly name? Why is it, that Jewish teachings had to be obliterated - both for and by the people and for and by the Church ? How is it, that even Jewish reform-movements become accomplices to this  when they omit basic principles:like the belief in the coming of the personal Messiah, or the teachings about the Godly Name, or the use of Hebrew language concerning which most of us simply believe that it is or was a "dead language" , impossible to learn, written with "unreadable characters" and their insistence on the "impracticality" of simple symbolic mitsvehs, like wearing a little hat, "kippah" or keeping a rest day on Shabbat, not to mention "hygienic" arguments against the symbolic foreskin operation etc.? Why are we all willing together with Freud  , to commit patricide (theicide), becoming god-killers by killing the Hebrew language and Judaistic traditions - the traditions of our forefathers? Why are we Freudipous?

11. The Freudipous complex

It is interesting to note, briefly, that one of the more accepted (or fashionable) present day Freudist, Jacques Lacan, has read concepts "into Freud" that are directly related to these Judaistic basic words , like "The Name of the Father" (of course he does not know about the "existential" meaning of god's Hebrew name ) or the "Other" (related to "kadosh", saint) and the "Signifier" (in contact with the word Tsioon or Mitsveh).
Lacan states, that the Father's Name is the crystallizing constructive creative entity, being itself the center of the Language (the Discourse as he says), which is the place of the "coming-to-be" (Hegelian "Werden") from nonexistence , and it appears in signs as it is reflected (echoed) in the mirror-state (when we see ourselves as ideally compact creatures in the mirroring mothers - the Other's - eyes, though in reality we can barely walk). Lacan argues, that it is exactly "the lack of the Father's Name" which is the source of "sin", the source of our anti-nomical (law-destructing) demanding craving desires. And, in spite of the force this argument would be given by pointing out the Biblical origins of its' constitutive concepts, Lacan, also prisoner of our Anti-Judaistic culture, simply ignores these arguments.

Our atheistic culture has an "other" side subconsciously, which is Jewish. Maybe we do not want to be confronted by this prophetic knowledge - that the name of God (- a Creative making-to-be -) is the ultimate prohibition of Destruction - and we want to deny this (together with Freud), preferring to wander as abandoned children, as Oedipous, blindly losing our way?
Why was it not permitted to Freud to use the Biblical myth of Noah and his castrating sons, the myths of the killer-robber-adulterer King David, the killer Pinhas, Shamshon, or Eliyahoo and the husband-of-adulteress Hosheah, the walking-around-naked Yirmiyahoo, and the rest of the well-known "Evil-doers" in the biblical stories, to elucidate dreams? Not to mention the fate of the Jewish people: "liberated" from the  bondage of "constrainment" (the meaning of the word Mitsraim, usually translated as Egypt) following Joseph's dreams and interpretations, which parallels the Oedipal story(in which the unconscious hero liberates his city by a prophetic re-interpretation of legends ?)

12. The not knowing or denying of the original existential god-name as the name of Being: the task of rediscovering the original Echoer-concept is at present imminent for the Moslim, the Atheist and the Christian Freudipous culture in which we live.

In each century - and even today - there were "Pseudo"-Messiahs : beggar-prince mythical heroes of abandoned infants dramatizing our feeling of being outside of godly prohibitions and laws (- in Freudian-Lacanian language we are "cut off" from our parents - ) but now, finally as this age ends we want to re-install these laws, symbols (aggrandizing ourself as star-idols, wanting to rule over our inner turmoil, in an "anointed", or well-oiled way.) Aren't we (as Freud was himself) in a typically Oedipal situation when we happen to fall - like assimilated Jews do - into a "foreign" (or "unknown") culture - raised without knowing our ancestors' teachings and prohibitions, - afraid that maybe in an unconscious way, we will commit the transgressing "sin" that constitutes the basic taboo of our "tribe"?

It is quite understandable that Freud (the mytho-poet of our age according to H. Bloom), after many hundreds of years of official State and Church propaganda against the Jews and in a period of the waking of the most virulent state-sponsored hatred of the Jews - did not arrive to these same conclusions. But is it necessary - after Lyotard, who claims that Oedipous is "the typical Jew", and after Derrida, who is accusing Heidegger of wilfully neglecting the meaningful connotations of the Hebrew word "ruach" (spirit) and states, that after Auschwitz it is not possible to continue to feign that we do not know, that the mainstream Moslim and Christian teachings today are still negating and discrediting Judaism - together with Atheistic propaganda - to still ignore the Jewish origins of our civilization, instead of proudly showing the positive sides of this heritage - while in the same vein, many Jews forget about central tenets of their faith - like their Messianism and Oekumenism, exemplified by Sabbatainism's Donmeh.

13. Closing remarks.

Freud says, (or rather would say, if he'd been informed about the existential god-name), that we need to stay on the level of the abandoned child (killing our father/mother and luring our parents to incest ), all the while hoping to regain our "anointed"-messianic,_well-oiled inner kingdom, balanced self-reliance, authonomy (self-rule). We have to deny (or kill) our traditions, to become fathers (kings) in our own right.
We have to be careful, when we are accusing many traditionally respected sources (from Freud on, including many other Twentieth century philosophers), that they are ignoring basic linguistic facts - we should try not to "kill our fathers" by "uncovering our fathers". Still: what to do, informed about the Name of the Father - the secret of transmutations? When we feel we must make our ignorance visible - as Oedipous did when he blinded himself, showing how blind other people around him were indeed? Oedipous has had problems with his identity - with who he is indeed, and what he should be, how to transform himself, how to create a new wy of life. It is the problem of everybody today after Freud (and maybe before too.)
That is why it is important, that Freud did not know what the Jewish God's name refers to. (And not in secret - openly.) That it refers to a creative transformation - it shows that there is something now, where there was nothing before. For a well-oiled self-rule - a present day translation of haMelech haMasshiah, the Anointed King-saviour, or Jeshuah Christos in Greek - we should begin reclaiming of our Power as Echoers awaiting the Anointed (be it Joshuah HaNotsri, Shabbatai Tsvi or the Lubavitscher Rebbe or other religion's avatars or non-religious "idolized" ideals) ?

About Foreclosure (as use in Theaux's comment)

Excerpted from Peter Star

I should like to recall the principal features of Lacan's work on psychosis, and specifically the concept of "foreclosure" [forclusion, after Freud's Verwerfung].

The Lacanian reading of psychosis begins with the essentially orthodox claim that the psychotic's hallucinations, often centered around castration, result from a failure of the primal repression and a subsequent blockage in that assumption of castration which resolves the Oedipal conflict. Transposed into the idiom Lacan developed in support of his insistence on the linguistic basis of unconscious functions, this is to say that psychosis issues from an abolition of the "paternal metaphor," a radical absence of the "Name-ofthe-Father" as anchor to the Symbolic Order.17 Lacan likens the metaphoric "inadequacy" triggered by this foreclosure of the Nom-du-Pere to a hole in the place of the Other. Such a hollowing out of the Symbolic provokes a corresponding hole "at the place of phallic signification"--i.e., in that Imaginary domain where the post-Oedipal subject is constituted through identification with the phallus (_Ecrits_ 558/201). Paradoxically, the psychotic's foreclosure of the Name-of-theFather, and his resultant failure to constitute himself as a subject through entrance into the Symbolic Order, results in his living at the mercy of a certain Symbolic--a Symbolic shorn of its signifying function (through foreclosure's blockage of the judgment of existence) and experienced in psychotic delirium as the Real. In short, the foreclosure of castration founds a certain repetitive logic whereby "that which has not come into the light of the symbolic, appears in the real" (_Ecrits_ 388).