Peshitta Forum

November 18, 2004

It seems clear that the Peshitta OT probably dates to the time of Christ or earlier, but the primary Hebrew OT text may have been lost with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, the scattering of the Jews, and the systematic destruction of Hebrew scrolls by the Romans. I believe that the Masoretic Hebrew OT text currently in use was assembled about 1,000AD.

One conclusion is that the Peshitta OT may be more reliable than the standard Masoretic text of the Hebrew OT in reflecting the "original" of the Torah and other books.

Comments please.....

Otto

There may be some truth in that, especially where the Peshitta OT and the Greek LXX agree against the current Masoretic.

We must also take the various Aramaic Targums into account as well....as they are of a very early date.

It has been pretty well established that the Massoretic text is much older than A.D. 1000 .
The Great Isaiah Scroll (circa. 100 B.C.) agrees very closely with the Massoretic text throughout the entire book of Isaiah, disregarding Aramaic spelling in the scroll and orthographical style.

It is certainly not a LXX type text, though there are other scrolls of other books (Samuel in particular) that show a LXX type Hebrew text.

The OT Peshitta has been carefully compared with the Hebrew text of the Massoretes and it agrees very closely. See Hugoye Journal's article on the Peshitta OT, I don't remember which issue.

Certainly, The Peshitta and the DSS and LXX can be used to correct the Massoretic text (e.g.Isaiah 7:14 in some places.

The Peshitta, like the LXX is just a translation; therefore it has errors aplenty, like any translation.
It is highly doubtful that it is closer to the original
than the Hebrew text we have today.It is a very valuable and very well done translation, being almost as early as the LXX ,and a Semitic one at that, thus reducing the room for error in translation.
The Massorah lists some 137 places where "Yahweh was changed to Adonai". The Peshitta retains "Marya" in those places in the OT.
So its text , like the DSS, is very early.

Shlama,


Dave

Hi Dave:
I agree with your post. What I find very interesting about the Torah is the fact that there appears to be a "watermark" at the beginning of B'rayshit (Genesis) and Sh'mot (Exodus).
As you have stated, the Masoretic text agrees closely with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Actually, the Torah (Masoretic text) is the "autograph".

There is a fifty (50) letter ELS of the word TORAH from the first "tav", in both B'rayshi(t) and Sh'mo(t). The probability of this happening by random is virtually impossible, but it's there for anyone to see, by counting every 50 letters of the Hebrew (Masoretic) text.

The Peshitta TaNaK is a good comparative translation because it allows us to see how Aramaic words were used as cognates between the Hebrew TaNaK and the Peshitta TaNaK. Moreover, the extrapolation of cognate equivalents in the New Testament Peshitta (Khabouris) text is assured. I agree with you concerning the equivalent between the Hebrew YHVH and the Aramaic Marya.

For anyone that is interested in Bible Codes, the first 50 ELS of YESHUA in the Torah is found in Genesis 26:19, beginning with the YUD in "ma(y)im khayim", "living water".

YUD 26:19 "ma(y)im khayim"

SHIN 26:20 "shem-habyr e(s)ek"

VAV 26:22 "(v)ay'tek misham"

AYIN 26:22 "ki-(a)tah

I searched for the 50 ELS of Yeshua for two reasons.

1) the number fifty (50) is symbolic of "jubilee" as well as "sh'vuot/pentecost".

2) Since TORAH appears as a 50 ELS it would seem appropriate that YESHUA would follow that pattern as a sign of the "watermark" of authenticity.

Kind Regards,
Stephen Silver

gbausc Wrote:It has been pretty well established that the Massoretic text is much older than A.D. 1000 .
The Great Isaiah Scroll (circa. 100 B.C.) agrees very closely with the Massoretic text throughout the entire book of Isaiah, disregarding Aramaic spelling in the scroll and orthographical style.

It is certainly not a LXX type text, though there are other scrolls of other books (Samuel in particular) that show a LXX type Hebrew text.

The OT Peshitta has been carefully compared with the Hebrew text of the Massoretes and it agrees very closely. See Hugoye Journal's article on the Peshitta OT, I don't remember which issue.

Certainly, The Peshitta and the DSS and LXX can be used to correct the Massoretic text (e.g.Isaiah 7:14 in some places.

The Peshitta, like the LXX is just a translation; therefore it has errors aplenty, like any translation.
It is highly doubtful that it is closer to the original
than the Hebrew text we have today.It is a very valuable and very well done translation, being almost as early as the LXX ,and a Semitic one at that, thus reducing the room for error in translation.
The Massorah lists some 137 places where "Yahweh was changed to Adonai". The Peshitta retains "Marya" in those places in the OT.
So its text , like the DSS, is very early.

Shlama,


Dave

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)][/font]

Shlama Stephen,

I have found some very interesting information about the Massorah and the text
of the Hebrew O.T. with which our Lord was familiar. The following is an excerpt from the appendix of the Companion Bible, a supplement of the Online Bible Millenium Edition:

Quote:III. Again: certain letters have come down with the text, from the most ancient times, having a small ornament or flourish on the top: for example, we find

Aleph (=A) with 7 Taagin

Beth (=B) with 3 Taagin

Gimel (=G) with 4 Taagin

Daleth (=D) with 3 Taagin

These ornamented letters were quite exceptional, and implied no added meaning of any kind: but, so jealously was the sacred text safeguarded, that the scribe was informed how many of each of the letters had these little ornaments: that is to say, how many Alephs (a = A), and how many Beths (b = B), etc, had one, two, three, or more.

These ornaments called Ta???agim (or Tagin), meaning little crowns. The Greek-speaking Jews called them little horns (Hebrew keranoth) because they looked like "horns". The Authorized Version and Revised Version rendering of keraia (Greek = horn) is "tittle," which is the diminutive of "title" and denotes a small mark forming such title.

Modern commentators, and even the most recent Dictionaries of the Bible, still cling to the traditional explanation that this "tittle" is the small projection or corner by which the letter Beth (b = B) differs from kaph (k = K); or Daleth (d= D) differs from Resh (r = R), etc.

But the Massorah informs us that this is not the case, and thus, tradition is quite wrong. We give a few examples showing how even these little ornaments were safeguarded:???

Rubric a, ??2 (Ginsburg???s Massorah, volume ii, page 680-701) says: ""Aleph with one Tag: there are two instances in the Pentateuch (#Ex 13:5), (a) in ???asher =( which), and verse 15 [1], (a) in ???adam =( man)"".

[1] Ginsburg gives verse 13; but volume ii shows that it is verse 15.

Rubric a, ??3, says: ""There are seven Aleths (a = A) in the Pentateuch which respectively have seven Taagin"".

Rubric b, ??2, notes Beth =( B) with one Tag, as occurring only once (#Ex 13:11), yebi???aka = brings thee.

Rubric b, ??3, notes Beth (b = B), as occurring in four instances with two Taagin videlicet, (#Ge 27:29) (ya???abduka = may serve thee); (#Ge 28:16) (bammakom = place); (#Ex 7:14) (kabed = is hardened); (#Ex 23:23) (vehayebusi = and the Jebusites).

Rubric b, ??4, gives four instances where Beth (b = B) has three Taagin: and so on, through all the alphabet, noting and enumerating each letter that has any Tagin: thus safeguarding the sacred text, so that not one of these little ornaments might be lost.

It was these Taagin the Lord referred in (#Mt 5:18), and (#Lu 16:17); when He said that not only the smallest letter (y = Yod = Y), but that not even the merest mark or ornament (Tag) should pass away from the Law until all things should come to pass. So that our Lord Himself recognized these Taagin, which must have been in His Bible from which He quoted.

Now, I said all that to say this: The Peshitta of Matthew 5:18 has
???[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0whn lkd 0md9 0swmn Nm rb9n 0l 0+rs dx w0 0dx dwy 09r0w 0ym$ Nwrb9nd 0md9d Nwkl 0n0 rm0 ryg Nym0[/font] 18 (PESHITTA)

18 (MUR) For verily I say to you, that until heaven and earth shall pass away, one iota or "Tag" shall not pass from the law, until all shall be fulfilled.(MUR trans. modified by me)

The highlighted Aramaic word is ???Sarta???. The word in the Aramaic Scripture Research Society???s Peshitta with Hebrew translation has the Hebrew word ???Tag??? for ???Sarta???.
???Tag??? is the word used in the Companion Bible article above. It means a ???little horn??? or ???crown???.
???Sarta??? , according to Smith???s Compendious Syriac Dictionary , is from the verb,???Srat???- ???to draw a line or stroke, to scratch, indent, scratch with steel???.


Hence the noun form ???Sarta??? : "A line,a scratch,
written character".

As Ginsburg???s Massorah notes and Bullinger indicate, our Lord was familiar with
The Massorah and Sopherim traditions in the first century and indicated that it had successfully preserved The Torah until then, and would continue to do so until ???All things shall be fulfilled???.

Shlama w???Burktha,

Dave

ograabe, of course many places indicate that POT and LXX are better than MSS. Read up on Aquila, who supposedly tampered with the Hebrew text.

And as Paul says, this may be especially true when the POT and LXX agree AGAINST the MSS, which happens quite a few times.

November 22, 2004

I conclude that the Masoretic text is quite reliable, even though POT and LXX may be similarly different in certain places. Does that mean that it is possible that the POT was translated from LXX?

Otto

ograabe Wrote:November 22, 2004

I conclude that the Masoretic text is quite reliable, even though POT and LXX may be similarly different in certain places. Does that mean that it is possible that the POT was translated from LXX?

Otto

Impossible, since the POT contains too many Hebraicisms. It is rather awkward Aramaic, as if translated directly from Hebrew and it doesn't even bother to translate some Hebrew phrases, simply transliterating them. (i.e., the "I am that I am" at the burning bush, etc.)

Where the POT and LXX agree against the MSS, it is likely that they were both drawn from an old Hebrew source that contained a variant, or an old Hebrew source that was changed by the Masoretes.

Shlama all,

One Massoretic manuscript is worth a hundred translations like The LXX or the Peshitta OT. That is because it has been compared to a long line of mss. and copied according to well established rules and standards. All the letters were counted, middle word of each book located, number of words, number of Alephs, Beths, etc.

The Peshitta OT is from a Massoretic text !

Individual translations will differ even from the manuscript from which they were translated.

Jesus Himself validated the Massorah tradition, as I pointed out above. The Massorah documents changes made to the "Kerivim" (Oral readings") and "Kethivim" (Written text) with hundreds of
notes not normally available to readers of scripture.

Christian Ginsburg published four volumes of all the Massorahs he could find in 1892. There are 2700+ pages of notes (All of it is notes). Most Bible critics have never even seen these; they are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Anyone who studies the Massorah will be overwhelmed with the extreme care ,skill and reverence with which the Jewish scribes copied and protected every letter of the scripture.

Those who criticise the text are akin to someone
who looks at a Michelangelo sculpture and says: "Ah, that's pretty poor; I've seen better."

Such critics tell more about themselves than about the work they criticize.

I am afraid to criticize a Hebrew text. I want to study every bit of evidence -I have the entire Great Isaiah Scroll DSS photographed on CD, which I regularly read and study, for instance. This 2100 year old scroll agrees very closely to the 10th century Hebrew scroll from Leningrad.

I feel that to lightly dismiss the Massoretic text wholesale is very like Uzzah putting forth his hand to steady the ark of God.He had become too familiar with holy things; it cost him his life.

Are these things not written for our admonition, or are they simply written to entertain and inform us ?
For our admonition they are written, no doubt.

Most of Bible scholarship is in Uzzah's camp.They
speak and write as fools without fear and without knowledge, somewhat as Job's friends.Consequently , they forfeit their spiritual life and light.

May it never be so with me.

Blessings,

Dave