Mistranslation in Hebrews

[Clear]

1) THE CONCEPT THAT NATIONAL HEBREW DID NOT EXIST AS A LANGUAGE IS IT'S OWN EVIDENCE THAT TEXTS EXISTING BEFORE NATIONAL HEBREW EXISTED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN NATIONAL HEBREW
Clear said : the Masorectic version from the Hebrew is also a later translation from earlier languages and thus this is why the Massorah discusses LISTS of examples of translational errors in the Masoretic. Translation into HEBREW causes it's own set of problems (Clear, Post #59)
IndigoChild said : What evidence do you have for this? (IndigoChild, post #60)

The fact that the National Hebrew language did not exist at the time the stories occurred means that they could NOT have been written in National Hebrew. Once the stories existed in a written form they would have had to have been translated into national Hebrew. If the stories exist in Ugaritic or other forms older than Hebrew may or may not be relevant.


2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE MASORETIC IS ALWAYS TO BE PREFERRED OVER OTHER VERSIONS OF THE SACRED TEXT
IndigoChild said : Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
Clear said : This is an other silly claim. For example, What about the missing nun line in the Massoretic Psalms 145 that are included in both the dead sea scrolls and in the Septuagint? In this specific case, the septuagint is superior to the Hebrew Masoretic.

The Masoretic not only has many, many errors, but it has much that is missing from the earlier versions of the textual Narrative.

An example of scripture missing from the Hebrew Masoretic is from the DSS text of Samuel: The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse.

With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of the Jewish text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective: After restoring the missing words, the translated Jewish text reads: Quote: "And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam.11:1)

The restoration of the missing paragraph helps readers to understand the situation; the conditions of the treaty of Nahash, and the underlying motive to rally around King Saul and the prophet Samuel. It elucidates the Israelite motive to Slay many Ammonites and to cause the others to flee.

Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL. (Clear, Post #59)

IndigoChild said : It could very well be that the nun was lost from the Hebrew version, yet retained in the Greek. BUT IT COULD ALSO BE that for various reasons, the nun was deliberately omitted, (IndigoChild, post #60)


So, Is THIS theory that the Early Jews of pre a.d. included these many verses but should not have, but the Jews of approx. 800 a.d. had a legitimate reason to leave these insightful texts out?

If so, Can you discuss why you think this theory has any credibility in historical reality?

I spoke of MANY missing verses JUST in the first chapter of Samuel which are missing from the Masoretic. Are you theorizing that the Masoretic purposefully left these verses out for some good reason? What reason might that be? Can you offer us any support for this theory of yours as well?



3) THE MASORETIC HEBREW TEXT HAS MANY ERRORS
IndigoChild said : I am certainly not saying the Hebrew texts are somehow magical or that they fell out of heaven. Although I maintain they are inspired of God, they were certainly written by men. A great many are what remains of earlier oral traditions that turn up in other forms in other cultures. They are quilts of texts stitched together by editors across time. There are historical and scientific errors and contradictions between books. Yet they form a canon that tell my people who we are and what God expects of us. (IndigoChild, post #60)

I agree that the Hebrew Masoretic text has many, many errors in it (as do all ancient sacred texts of size), but this admission itself undermines your initial claim that the Masoretic is ALWAYS to be preferred.


4) THE THEORY THAT A MODERN JEWISH "CANON" IS DIFFERENT THAN THE VARIOUS ANCIENT JEWISH "CANONS"
Clear said : The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. (Clear, Post #59)

IndigoChild said : OR, the DDS manuscript was a version that had edited in extra verses. This doesn't mean it's worthless to study the DDS. I'm enthusiastic for scholarship--and I appreciate your obvious learning. But these extra passages in the DDS are not canon -- what is important to scholars are not always what is important to Rabbis. (IndigoChild, post #60)

This is a rewording of your earlier theory of addition to earlier Jewish texts. I responded by asking : So, Is THIS theory that the Early Jews of pre a.d. included these many verses but should not have, but the Jews of approx. 800 a.d. had a legitimate reason to leave these insightful texts out?

Can you discuss why you think this theory has any credibility in historical reality?

IMPORTANTLY, I agree that the canon of your type of Judaism is not the same as the sacred texts in the time of the Dead Sea version of the Old Testament. Rabbinic Judaism is not the same as early Judaism and their modern texts are not the same as the early sacred texts. In kings, when Hilkiah found three different versions of the Tanakh within the precincts of the temple and created a fourth version. This indicates there were already MULTIPLE versions of the jewish Tanakh and for you to indicate YOUR modern version is to ALWAYS be preferred over other versions is, historically, an unsupportable theory.


5) A) THE MASORETIC VERSION (OF APROX 800 A.D). IS NOT AND "OLDER RENDITION" THAN EITHER THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (APPROX 70 A.D.) OR THE JEWISH LXX/SEPTUAGINT (OF 300 B.D.)


IndigoChild said : Your argument is just not making sense to me. We have an older rendition -- Hebrew. It outweighs a translation.

My point is that your assumptions that your Masoretic is both and “older rendition” and not “a translation” is incorrect historically and thus do not support your theory that the Masoretic is “always preferred”. (IndigoChild, post #60)

The Masoretic version is NOT the “older rendition”. It was produced by Jews later than the 7-800 a.d. and the LXX was produced by Jews in approx. 300 b.c. BOTH The LXX AND the Dead Sea Scroll versions are “older renditions”.

You say the Masoretic “outweighs a translation” yet the Masoretic source texts are translations from earlier texts or oral stories that did not exist in the language of the Masoretic (National Hebrew). It is a historically, irrational, incoherent claim to make


6 B) THE JEWISH TRANSLATION INTO NATIONAL HEBREW IS A TRANSLATION FROM EARLIER LANGUAGES AND EARLIER VERSIONS
IndigoChild said : I don't claim any version of anyone's texts are inerrant, so I agree with you here. I'm just saying that you go with the original language, as translations are de facto inferior. (IndigoChild, post #60)

I agree that no ancient sacred text of any size is inerrant. The problem is that you cannot, in the case of these texts, “go with the original language” since none of them exist in their original language and original versions.

The “original language” of these ancient texts is not National Hebrew and the texts in the “original language” have never been discovered. You cannot even show historically, what language Abraham spoke or wrote in. Do you see the historical problems of your theories?


Please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT trying to simply criticize the Masoretic version of the bible. I honor all of the ancient texts and individuals who tried to produce accurate translations. I am merely pointing out that your theories concerning the Masoretic are, historically, unworkable and unsustainable. I am not your enemy. My point is that the problem of errors in texts apply to all ancient texts and they do not apply more to Christian texts than to Jewish texts. The various early Judeo-Christian texts have various strengths and weaknesses.

Clear
σινεδρω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi Clear.

Let me start by saying that I'm really enjoying our conversation. It is really a pleasure to be able to speak on this subject with someone so educated in the field.

I am a bit concerned about the length of the posts. I do this for fun. Although I hope my posts are not shallow, I do try to answer a lot of people, and so on longer posts, I choose to answer the main points rather than every single point.

I've also noticed that when I dismiss your point because I don't give weight to the argument, or simply consider the area something of little importance, you choose to repeat your point again. Please don't do this. You won't get a different response from me simply by needling me.

1) THE CONCEPT THAT NATIONAL HEBREW DID NOT EXIST AS A LANGUAGE IS IT'S OWN EVIDENCE THAT TEXTS EXISTING BEFORE NATIONAL HEBREW EXISTED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN NATIONAL HEBREW
Clear said : the Masorectic version from the Hebrew is also a later translation from earlier languages and thus this is why the Massorah discusses LISTS of examples of translational errors in the Masoretic. Translation into HEBREW causes it's own set of problems (Clear, Post #59)
IndigoChild said : What evidence do you have for this? (IndigoChild, post #60)

The fact that the National Hebrew language did not exist at the time the stories occurred means that they could NOT have been written in National Hebrew. Once the stories existed in a written form they would have had to have been translated into national Hebrew. It is irrelevant if the stories exist in Ugaritic or other forms.

I prefer not to use the term "National Hebrew" as it makes me think you are referring to the Hebrew used in the state of Israel, when in fact we are speaking of Biblical Hebrew.

In terms of the Ugaritic manuscripts that were found, I assume you are referring to the fact that they used such terms as El and Elohim. It's fascinating to say the least. But there is no Ugaritic Torah from which the Hebrew Torah is translated.

It is a fascinating field to study the evolution of ideas down through time and through culture and language. But that is certainly NOT the same thing as making the highly specific claim that a manuscript B (in Hebrew) was at some point in time directly translated from an earlier manuscript A (in some earlier language such as Ugaritic) when no such manuscript A or record of manuscript A exists. It is a reckless, reckless claim to make without the earlier manuscript.

2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE MASORETIC IS ALWAYS TO BE PREFERRED OVER OTHER VERSIONS OF THE SACRED TEXT
IndigoChild said : Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
Clear said : This is an other silly claim. For example, What about the missing nun line in the Massoretic Psalms 145 that are included in both the dead sea scrolls and in the Septuagint? In this specific case, the septuagint is superior to the Hebrew Masoretic.

First, you have misrepresented my claim. My actual claim was that the Hebrew is always to be preferred over any translation from the Hebrew. I never said, for example, that the Masoretic was more accurate than, i.e., a DDS version in Hebrew. (I did make the distinction that the Masoretic was the canonical version.) For example, I believe that in the DDS version of Isaiah, there are places that the actual tetragrammaton is used instead of lord. Lord is used more commonly in the Masoretic Isaiah. It is obvious that the DDS version is the more accurate version in this instance. (Although, as I said, the Maroretic is the canonical version).

I know you don't have it, but let's say for the sake of argument that you actually DID have a virtual word for word Ugaritic version of Genesis 1. Wouldn't you say that this version was more accurate than the Hebrew because the Hebrew was a translation of it? In the same way, the Hebrew is more accurate than the Greek translation simply because a translation is always inferior. I don't know why this is lost on you. It's not rocket science.

The Masoretic not only has many, many errors, but it has much that is missing from the earlier versions of the textual Narrative.

If so, Can you discuss why you think this theory has any credibility in historical reality?

I think that's above my pay grade.

I agree that the Hebrew Masoretic text has many, many errors in it (as do all ancient sacred texts of size), but this admission itself undermines your initial claim that the Masoretic is ALWAYS to be preferred.

No, it doesn't logically follow. The rule that a translation is always worse than the original language is pretty cut and dry. Nor does it change the rule of thumb that canonicity of the Jewish sacred texts required Hebrew manuscripts.

4) THE THEORY THAT A MODERN JEWISH "CANON" IS DIFFERENT THAN THE VARIOUS ANCIENT JEWISH "CANONS"
Clear said : The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. (Clear, Post #59)

IndigoChild said : OR, the DDS manuscript was a version that had edited in extra verses. This doesn't mean it's worthless to study the DDS. I'm enthusiastic for scholarship--and I appreciate your obvious learning. But these extra passages in the DDS are not canon -- what is important to scholars are not always what is important to Rabbis. (IndigoChild, post #60)

This is a rewording of your earlier theory of addition to earlier Jewish texts. I responded by asking : So, Is THIS theory that the Early Jews of pre a.d. included these many verses but should not have, but the Jews of approx. 800 a.d. had a legitimate reason to leave these insightful texts out?

Can you discuss why you think this theory has any credibility in historical reality?

IMPORTANTLY, I agree that the canon of your type of Judaism is not the same as the sacred texts in the time of the Dead Sea version of the Old Testament. Rabbinic Judaism is not the same as early Judaism and their modern texts are not the same as the early sacred texts. When Hilkiah found three different versions of the Tanakh within the precincts of the temple and created a fourth version. There were MULTIPLE versions of the Tanakh and for you to indicate YOUR modern version is to ALWAYS be preferred over other versions is, historically, an unsupportable theory.

This whole point went places that I didn't go. I didn't make any sort of comment on older or newer Jewish canon. I don't believe we can comment on what exactly was the Jewish canon in, say, 100 BCE. I'd say it was roughly the Torah and Prophets, but was it exactly the Masoretic version we have today? I have no idea. I'm not sure even scholars can really say. And honestly, I think that this sort of question is for scholars. It's not at all the same kind of question as whether a Greek translation is as reliable as the Hebrew it was translated from.

Why would some Jews want to add additional verses? I think that later editors can come on the scene explain passages, give context, write down what was passed down orally, adding additional information that is related, etc. Not unlike we might find in a commentary by Rashi on a given verse, except that Rashi is in a separate section rather than added into the text.


[/quote]5) A) THE MASORETIC VERSION (OF APROX 800 A.D). IS NOT AND "OLDER RENDITION" THAN EITHER THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (APPROX 70 A.D.) OR THE JEWISH LXX/SEPTUAGINT (OF 300 B.D.)


IndigoChild said : Your argument is just not making sense to me. We have an older rendition -- Hebrew. It outweighs a translation.

My point is that your assumptions that your Masoretic is both and “older rendition” and not “a translation” is incorrect historically and thus do not support your theory that the Masoretic is “always preferred”. (IndigoChild, post #60)[/quote]

I'm only replying to this point once more because it is in this area that you are playing games, and I really hate it when people play games.

A. The LXX was not written in 300 BCE. The first five books were written in 300 BCE and were a Great Work of 72 Jewish scholars. Of much lesser caliber were the other books which were not completed until 132 BCE according to some scholars (some say later). The problem is, that the only copy of this LXX existed in Alexandria and was burned to the ground. The LXX that we have today was translated today by the Church.

B. I have continually referred to the Hebrew. Not to the Masoretic. It is you that keeps willfully changing my words to Masoretic. Those DDS in Hebrew? Those are mine. And all those partial fragments we have of the Sacred Texts? Those are mine too. The Masoretic manuscripts may have been scribed in 800 CE, but they were copied from older Hebrew manuscripts which were copied from older Hebrew manuscripts which were copied from older Hebrew manuscripts and so on. Some of it even goes back to Paleo-Hebrew texts before Greek even existed.

If you misrepresent me again by wrongly claiming I said that the Masoretic is superior to the DDS or something to that effect, or if you keep using "Masoretic" instead of "Hebrew" in referring to my posts, I'm just going to start ignoring you.

 

[Clear]

Hi IndigoChild, Please, do not get upset with our discussion. Be at peace and consider that I do NOT dishonor your religion. I honor anyone that honors God. Also, please remember the context of my disagreement, so that we can remain relevant to it.

My disagreement is simple : You stated in post #38 :
Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)

My point is, that historically, this is an untenable statement since the Hebrew is NOT always the most correct text. You claimed then that Hebrew was the original language, and therefore, it has precident. The principle that "Hebrew" itself is the original language and it is "always" more correct than other versions is simply incorrect. For examples :


1) A translation into Hebrew does not always make for increased correctness

You are conflating increased correctness with the Later Hebrew language. This does not work historically. For example, the Masoretes, in their attempts to carry on the work of the Sopherim themselves, (as they came out of the Babylonish Captivity), give us entire lists of examples of mistakes that were made as they created a bible from the Phoenician script, into the early version of National Hebrew. Remember, the matris lectiones / vowels were created partly as an attempt to try to stabilize the text. Still, the lists give us errors in their translation into the Hebrew (proto-hebrew?) of the time.


2) Another example of an error of the Hebrew that is caused by translation from proto-hebrew (a different language) into Hebrew.

For example, the masorah provides entire lists of examples of mistakes caused by the similarity of Aleph and tav in the two different alphabets. Consider I Sam XXIV:10. The Hebrew Masoretic rendered it “but she spared thee” (the AV and RV insert “mine eyes”). However, they tell us that originally the text was … “but I spared thee”. These are the creator/translators that are describing these lists of mistakes. In this case, if you consider that the Septuagint, the Chaldee, and the Syriac have actually the reading with the aleph, then the mistake in the Hebrew is obvious. This then, gives us examples where three other versions are more correct than the hebrew.

This is another example from the list the Jewish Masoretes themselves (those who created the Masoretic bible - the standard for orthodox Jews) give us of mistake they themselves made. We certainly can consider many others examples where the Hebrew got it wrong.


3) Consider the change in a proto-hebrew alphabet to Hebrew alphabet

As the new commonwealth of post-babylon Israel was being established, the substitution of the square characters for the so-called Phoenician or archaic Hebrew alphabet was one of the first tasks of the Masoretes. Though the actual ORIGINAL texts is shrouded in pre-history (i.e. no one can say what actual language the original texts were written in), still even at the era surrounding the Babylonian captivity, the Old Testament existed in in characters similar to that of the Samaritans as exhibited on the Nablus Stone. This is even is taught in the Talmud. Nothing less than the Talmudic authority tells us that the present square characters were a new development and that the Old Testament was earlier written in the Raatz, Libonaah (called the Samaritan Alphabet).

For example, R. Nathan, (from the College of R. Jehudah I a.d. 140-163), who compiled the Tosephta declared “the Law was originally given in Raatz characters”. R. Jose agreed with this. Mar Ukba, the chief judge approx a.d. 220-270 said “At first the Thora [sic] was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred language, but in the time of Ezra they obtained it in the Assyrian [=Square] characters and in the Aramaic language. At last the sages chose the Assyrian [=square] characters and the sacred language for the Israelites and left the Hebrew characters and the Aramaic language for the idiots. Now who are the idiots? R. Chasda says the Samaritans. What characters are the Hebrew? R. Chasda says the Libonaah characters.” Sanhedrin 222.b

The Jerusalem Megilla I, 9; Babylon Sanhedrin 22a tells us that their present square characters “are called Assyrian because the Jews brought them with them from Assyria” (Like many other legends, the early Jews attributed this change to the scribe Ezra himself.)

There are many, many textual witnesses that describe these linguistic changes and innovations. For example, the Babylon Sanhedrin 21 b; (with Jerusalem Megilla I:9) tells us : “… of Ezra it is said ‘for Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord and (p 289) to do it, and to teach Israel statues and judgments’ [Ezra VII:10]. But though the Law was not given by him the writing was changed by him.”

The Jewish teachers who taught both Origen and St. Jerome record exactly the same history. Origen says : “They [their Jewish Rabbi teachers] say that Ezra used other letters after the exile” (φασι γαρ τον Εσδραν ετεροις Χρησασθαι μετα την αιχμαλωσιαν” (Monfaucon, Hexapla II:94) Jerome says “It is certain that Ezra the Scribe and the teacher of the Law after Jerusalem was taken and the temple was restored under Zerubbabel, found other letters which we now use; since up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and of the Hebrews were the same.” (Prog. Galeat. Ad lib. Regum.)

Ginsberg describes the frustration of the Rabbis “That the original characters of the Law should have been changed, and that the hated Samaritans should still be in possession of the sacred alphabet”. The Rabbi R. Eliezer of Modin even went so far as to claim that the Law was given to Moses from the first in the Assyrian or the present square characters.

There is a multitude of witnesses to changes in language and texts. Like many others R . Jehudah I also claimed that : “The Thora [sic] was at first given to Israel in square characters, but when they sinned, the characters were changed into Raatz [=Samaritan], and when they repented in the days of Ezra the square characters were again restored to them as it is written”

Old Hebrew characters were still used in b.c. 139-40 else the Mishna and the Talmud would not have so frequently forbid their use for ritual writings, (Comp Migilla I:8, II:I,2 ; Yadaim IV,5). In fact many of the mistakes in the Hebrew itself, and some of the variations between it and the Septuagint traceable to a confusion of the letters between old Hebrew / Phoenician / Palmyrene etc. as D.C. Ginsberg demonstrated. In any case, it took considerable time for the adoption of National Hebrew, the innovation of the various competing vowel forms and for the final adoption of the present Nation Hebrew over rival language and alphabetic models.

In fact, it was the Sopherim who also provide us of lists of mistakes caused by the difficulties in transcribing the text from the ancient alphabet into the square characters later known as National Hebrew. I started this post with the example of a mistake caused by the similar appearance of the Aaleph and Tav of National Hebrew to the prior letters If you want, I can provide multiple examples of errors in the Hebrew due to such errors. I might as well point out that these lists of errors were provided by the Masoretes who created the Masoretic Hebrew bible.


National Hebrew (that language ultimately adopted by the Commonwealth of Israel and the language in which the Masoretic is written...) was not the original language of the "hebrew" bible nor do we have evidence that National Hebrew is more correct than the original language and in fact the Masoretes tell us that even the simple change in letters between similar languages caused significant problems and errors.

I hope the examples of mistakes in the hebrew and the points by the Jewish translators themselves make sense as to why your claim that the Hebrew is always preferred over other versions is incorrect.

Clear
ακδρτωω

 

[Wandering Monk]

I wouldn't be surprised if the author of Hebrews (probably NOT Paul, but someone in his circle) isn't using some kind of word play as often happens in Jewish and Rabbinic literature.

There are legends in Judaism that God wed Israel at Mount Sinai, that the mountain was lifted up and Israel led beneath it so that Sinai acted as a chuppah (marriage canopy used in Jewish weddings.) The implication of the mountain hanging over their head was that if she failed to keep her part of the covenant, Israel would be crushed.