Original Jewish Text altered?

[etana4310]

While talking with my priest and discussing issues of my doubts about the Messiah being a diety and how Catholics and other Christians often do not use the original Hebrew, I got the below response and I am hoping some learned Jewish friends might help answer this rebuttal (what is in bold, I put there for emphassis):

I, of course, I do not know what may be the "original Hebrew text" to which you refer, but keep in mind that the Jewish Bible today is based on the Massoric texts, which post date the Hebrew texts to which Saint Jerome had access when he translated them into Latin. The Massoric texts are for the most part no earlier than the sixth or seventh century after Christ.
The Fathers of the Church do testify that when Christians began arguing these prophecies with the Jews, certain Jewish texts were altered.
Actually some of the Hebrew Bible has to be translated from other languages, because the text no longer exists in the origianl language.
In any case, for Christians, the Greek Septuagint, used by the Evangelist Matthew, Saint Paul, and even Our Blessed Lord Himself has the same authority, and the translation made before Christ, fully testifies to the prophecies.

I hope some of you might help clarify this for me.

Thank you all in advance.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

While talking with my priest and discussing issues of my doubts about the Messiah being a diety and how Catholics and other Christians often do not use the original Hebrew, I got the below response and I am hoping some learned Jewish friends might help answer this rebuttal (what is in bold, I put there for emphassis):

I, of course, I do not know what may be the "original Hebrew text" to which you refer, but keep in mind that the Jewish Bible today is based on the Massoric texts, which post date the Hebrew texts to which Saint Jerome had access when he translated them into Latin. The Massoric texts are for the most part no earlier than the sixth or seventh century after Christ.
The Fathers of the Church do testify that when Christians began arguing these prophecies with the Jews, certain Jewish texts were altered.
Actually some of the Hebrew Bible has to be translated from other languages, because the text no longer exists in the origianl language.
In any case, for Christians, the Greek Septuagint, used by the Evangelist Matthew, Saint Paul, and even Our Blessed Lord Himself has the same authority, and the translation made before Christ, fully testifies to the prophecies.

I hope some of you might help clarify this for me.

Thank you all in advance.

This really belongs in a debate section, but here goes...Seriously? Someone can't both attack our scripture, then turn around and use it to prove their point. They must choose one option. Speaking of altered texts, ask them about the 'miracle of Nicea' sometime. Talk about hypocrisy!

 

[Caladan]

I would look into the Qumran material and the resemblance between it's Biblical material to that of the Masoretic text. although of course there is more to it. it would help to know more of which specific verses are used to establish divinity, messianism, or virgin birth. there are numerous arguments from the perspective of the Hebrew written material about these issues.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I would look into the Qumran material and the resemblance between it's Biblical material to that of the Masoretic text. although of course there is more to it. it would help to know more of which specific verses are used to establish divinity, messianism, or virgin birth. there are numerous arguments from the perspective of the Hebrew written material about these issues.

Caladan, so nice to see that you've actually gotten off the fence and accepted Judaism. Otherwise, you would be violating the DIR.

 

[Levite]

Caladan's quite correct about this. The Qumran Tanakh documents, which date from the first century BCE, include pretty much the entirety of the Torah and much of the rest of the Tanakh. And although their spelling deviates in places from the Masoretic text, and they occasionally slip from Babylonian-style block characters to Ancient Israelite Hebrew characters, the content is identical to the Masoretic Tanakh. (This is true only of their Tanakh documents, not of the other Qumran documents, which are either not religious textual materials or represent the proto-midrashic interpretations of the text peculiar to that community).

The idea that the content of the text of the Torah, or even the Tanakh as a whole, might have altered in any key ways between the turn of the Common Era and the production of the Masoretic text in the eighth through tenth centuries CE is utterly without merit.

I will presume that the priest who said this is simply ignorant, rather than actually anti-Semitic.

 

[etana4310]

I will presume that the priest who said this is simply ignorant, rather than actually anti-Semitic.

This is a correct assumption, yes. I listened to Rabbi Singer, who claims that in actuality it was Christians who "altered" Sacred Scripture changing tenses to fit what was prophecy and what was not. But again, I am very un-learned in these things.

 

[etana4310]

A subsequent email reply came from my priest. Please know, he is a good man. I have nothing against him. He is good to his people and he has a wonderful heart. I pray this does not turn into any kind of Cathoic-hating. I merely want to see who is correct because I am still learning.

ME:
if the Holy Scriptures, the Torah were read in the Synagogues during the time of Christ - surely there was more than one copy - surely there were several copies of the books of the prophets - why were these copies so hard to obtain?

FATHER

　"And He (Jesus) came to Nazareth, where He was brought up: and He went into the synagogue, according to His custom, on the sabbath day; and He rose up to read. And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered unto Him. And as He unfolded the book, He found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me. Wherefore He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the contrite of heart, To preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward. And when He had folded the book, He restored it to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears. And all gave testimony to Him: and they wondered at the words of grace that proceeded from His mouth, and they said: Is not this the son of Joseph?" (Lk. 4, 16-22)

It is possible that the scrolls used in local synagogues were in Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew. The texts used in most of the syagogues around the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Mediterranean countires were in Greek. [/FONT]After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the dispersion of Jews, it's likely that the texts used in syagogues gradually became in the language of the various mother countries.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Caladan's quite correct about this. The Qumran Tanakh documents, which date from the first century BCE, include pretty much the entirety of the Torah and much of the rest of the Tanakh. And although their spelling deviates in places from the Masoretic text, and they occasionally slip from Babylonian-style block characters to Ancient Israelite Hebrew characters, the content is identical to the Masoretic Tanakh.

That is simply untrue. So, for example, in his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov summarizes: "The fact that all these different texts were found in the same Qumran caves probably reflects a certain textual reality in the period between the third century BCE and the first century CE. In our reconstruction of the history of the biblical text in that period in pp. 187-197 this situation is described as textual plurality and variety. At the same time, the great number of the proto-Masoretic texts probably reflects their authoritative status (cf. p. 191). Since there is no evidence concerning the circumstances of the depositing of the scrolls in the caves or concerning their possible different status in the Qumran sect, no solid conclusions can be drawn about the approach of the Qumranites towards textual variety. It stands to reason that they did not pay any special attention to differenced of the types described her."

While there was indeed a preponderance of proto-Masoretic witnesses, there were many other variants as well.

 

[Levite]

That is simply untrue. So, for example, in his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov summarizes: "The fact that all these different texts were found in the same Qumran caves probably reflects a certain textual reality in the period between the third century BCE and the first century CE. In our reconstruction of the history of the biblical text in that period in pp. 187-197 this situation is described as textual plurality and variety. At the same time, the great number of the proto-Masoretic texts probably reflects their authoritative status (cf. p. 191). Since there is no evidence concerning the circumstances of the depositing of the scrolls in the caves or concerning their possible different status in the Qumran sect, no solid conclusions can be drawn about the approach of the Qumranites towards textual variety. It stands to reason that they did not pay any special attention to differenced of the types described her."

While there was indeed a preponderance of proto-Masoretic witnesses, there were many other variants as well.

That's not what all the information at the Israel Museum says in regard to the Qumran scrolls-- I cannot vouch for other, older fragments. And, I have to admit, when I was living in Jerusalem, they had the Isaiah scroll completely unrolled for public viewing (which they very rarely do), and I spent many an afternoon there, picking out verses. I never once ran across one I did not recognize, or could not find in my pocket Tanakh.

It is possible that the scrolls used in local synagogues were in Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew. The texts used in most of the syagogues around the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Mediterranean countires were in Greek. [/FONT]After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the dispersion of Jews, it's likely that the texts used in syagogues gradually became in the language of the various mother countries.

Actually, the custom at that time was to use the services of a meturgaman (public translator). Torah and other portions of the Tanakh were read aloud, both in synagogues on Shabbat and Festivals, but also in the marketplace or at the gates of the cities on Mondays and Thursdays (market days). Reading was always from a Hebrew text, but every verse or few verses, the reader would pause, and the meturgaman, standing beside him, would then spontaneously translate the Hebrew into Aramaic aloud. Judging from the few written Targumim (translations of Torah into Aramaic) that survive, these "translations" spanned a spectrum ranging from relatively accurate to more of a paraphrase. But at least in the Land of Israel, Hebrew literacy remained relatively high until a couple of centuries after Jesus' demise; though the majority of the common people may have not had fluency in Hebrew, they seem to have had more Hebrew than the average non-Israeli Jew today does, and were usually familiar with numerous passages from Torah through repeated hearing (remember that in those days, memory was generally much better, given that even in a culture that fervently embraced literacy, like ours, the written word was still mostly confined to either sacred text or legal business, and memory was how most people learned).

In any case, the only non-Aramaic "authorized" translation of the text in the ancient world was the Septuagint, and while it was certainly known in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia, it was not generally used there. It was used mostly by the Jews of Egypt, Rome, Greece, and some of the Roman colony cities, and theirs were neither the dominant traditions of Judaism, nor were they by any means the majority communities of the Exile. There is little to suggest that the Jews of Israel, Babylonia, Persia, or North Africa (who were the majority and dominant communities of the Jewish world until after the beginning of the second millennium CE) ever used a non-Hebrew text or at least non-Aramaic translation until very late-- probably not until the Arabic translation of Rav Saadiah Gaon, in the eighth century CE.

 

[Zardoz]

etana4310, why do you post your questions here, in the Conservative sub-DIR? Conservative is one branch of Judaism and no other branches should post here.

Conservative =/= meaning like 'politically conservative'

It would be as if I wanted to know more about baptisms and I asked questions only to Baptists, as if they're the only sect that baptizes!

I can move your threads to the general Judaism DIR forum for you, if a wider Jewish perspective is what you seek.

(No offense to our Conservative members, they know how the name 'Conservative' is misinterpreted by non-Jews)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's not what all the information at the Israel Museum says in regard to the Qumran scrolls-- I cannot vouch for other, ...

That is outrageous! Feel free to quote anything from that museum that challenges Tov - who is, in fact, a highly authoritative source. His summary is not in the least controversial among scholars. So, for example, in Wikipedia's entry on the Septuagint we read:

Dead Sea Scrolls

The Biblical manuscripts found in Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), have prompted comparisons of the various texts associated with the Hebrew Bible, including the Septuagint. Peter Flint, cites Emanuel Tov, the chief editor of the scrolls, who identifies five broad variation categories of DSS texts:

1. Proto-Masoretic: This consists of a stable text and numerous and distinctive agreements with the Masoretic Text. About 60% of the Biblical scrolls fall into this category (e.g. 1QIsa-b)
2. Pre-Septuagint: These are the manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. These number only about 5% of the Biblical scrolls, for example, 4QDeut-q, 4QSam-a, and 4QJer-b, 4QJer-d. In addition to these manuscripts, several others share distinctive individual readings with the Septuagint, although they do not fall in this category.
3. The Qumran "Living Bible": These are the manuscripts which, according to Tov, were copied in accordance with the "Qumran practice" (i.e. with distinctive long orthography and morphology, frequent errors and corrections, and a free approach to the text. Such scrolls comprise about 20% of the Biblical corpus, including the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a):
4. Pre-Samaritan: These are DSS manuscripts which reflect the textual form found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, although the Samaritan Bible itself is later and contains information not found in these earlier scrolls, (e.g. God's holy mountain at Shechem rather than Jerusalem). The Qumran witnesses – which are characterized by orthographic corrections and harmonizations with parallel texts elsewhere in the Pentateuch – comprise about 5% of the Biblical scrolls. (e.g. 4QpaleoExod-m)
5. Non-Aligned: This is a category which shows no consistent alignment with any of the other four text-types. These number approximately 10% of the Biblical scrolls, and include 4QDeut-b, 4QDeut-c, 4QDeut-h, 4QIsa-c, and 4QDan-a.

The textual sources present a variety of readings. For example, Bastiaan Van Elderen compares three variations of Deuteronomy 32.34, the last of the Song of Moses. ...

Also, from the Israel Antiquities Authority:

As a preliminary step the ‘Scrolls Committee’ was formed with the agreement of the State of Israel Archaeological Council. The members of the committee were Professor Shemaryahu Talmon and the late Professor Jonah Greenfield, both of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Mr. Magen Broshi, the director of the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum. Joining them were Professor Emmanuel Tov, who was appointed editor-in-chief and Mrs. Ayala Sussman who acted as the committee’s secretary. The Scrolls Committee convened on more than seventy occasions during which various matters were discussed and decided pertaining to the scrolls and particularly to their publication. The committee’s work was carried out in a cordial atmosphere and decisions were arrived at by agreement. It was refreshing to behold the group of experts dedicating their time and skills to solving this intricate problem. Without the devoted and efficient work of the Scrolls Committee, it would have been impossible to finish the publication project. As mentioned, the Antiquities Authority attended to these three matters

1. The conservation of the scrolls. With the assistance of experts from around the world and from Israel, an advanced method of treatment was developed and agreed upon and the Antiquities Authority established a unique laboratory for this that provided a suitable answer to the problem.

2. An attempt to locate additional scrolls. The project was predicted on the assumption that other scrolls exist that have yet to be located and they merited searching for. This operation was primarily carried out by the Antiquities Authority and the Archaeological Staff Officer of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Dr. Yitzhak Magen. Eight years ago “Operation Scroll” was conducted within the framework of which hundreds of caves were surveyed and dozens were excavated, and the archaeological excavations at Qumran were renewed.

3. The scrolls publication. This was the most complex and complicated aspect of the project. With the appointment of the Scrolls Committee the status of the documents publication and the scientific publication rights held by the different scholars became clear. Following this a publication plan was conceived that was based on increasing the number of researchers and establishing a timetable for their work. In fact, some one hundred scholars participated who were chosen based on their abilities. The Scrolls Committee maintained the right to transfer material that was not ready for publication according to schedule to other researchers. It was agreed upon to continue publishing the entire series and the question of perusing material being studied by other scholars prior to its final publication was solved. The selection of Professor Emmanuel Tov as editor-in-chief proved to be most successful. Thanks to his erudition, his ability and his diligent and methodical work, we can celebrate the accomplishment of the completed task.

If what you say about the museum is true (and, having been to the Shrine of the Book on more than one occasion, I do not believe it in the least) the result would be the collapse of that institution's credibility.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While talking with my priest and discussing issues of my doubts about the Messiah being a diety and how Catholics and other Christians often do not use the original Hebrew, I got the below response and I am hoping some learned Jewish friends might help answer this rebuttal (what is in bold, I put there for emphassis):

I, of course, I do not know what may be the "original Hebrew text" to which you refer, but keep in mind that the Jewish Bible today is based on the Massoric texts, which post date the Hebrew texts to which Saint Jerome had access when he translated them into Latin. The Massoric texts are for the most part no earlier than the sixth or seventh century after Christ. ...

Levite is simply and woefully incorrect, but your priest is also seriously misinformed. While it's true that Jerome antedates the Masoretes (7th-11th century) and that the LXX can point to very ancient Vorlage for justification, it's also true that the proto-Masoretic texts found at Qumran and elsewhere predominate and significantly predate Jerome. Modern scholarship (including, by the way, Catholic) acknowledge the importance of studying all textual variants in an effort to better understand the transmission and redaction history of the text.

(As an aside, it's interesting that the Catholics continue this dogma-driven redaction process by establishing their own variant of the NSRV where, I believe, they do such things as substitute 'brethren' for 'brothers' where they deem it appropriate.)

 

[etana4310]

etana4310, why do you post your questions here, in the Conservative sub-DIR? Conservative is one branch of Judaism and no other branches should post here.

Conservative =/= meaning like 'politically conservative'

It would be as if I wanted to know more about baptisms and I asked questions only to Baptists, as if they're the only sect that baptizes!

I can move your threads to the general Judaism DIR forum for you, if a wider Jewish perspective is what you seek.

(No offense to our Conservative members, they know how the name 'Conservative' is misinterpreted by non-Jews)

I guess because if/when I convert I will probably go the conservative route. It didn't occur to me to put this question to the general public. I apologize - I didn't do it intentionally, as I mentioned, I am still learning my way around.

 

[etana4310]

I think I am more confused now than before. :help:

What I am beginning to see is that I must follow that whisper in my heart and leave the "big-stuff" for later. I have always been trained to look for proof. Every decision was based on proof, but I have a feeling this decision must be based on faith - following where I feel G-d is leading.

Although I do appreciate learning from the above exchanges. Sometimes I do not know what you are talking about at all, but I tuck it away because I know at some point it will make sense to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The whisper in my heart sincerely hopes that you'll respect my religion enough to change your avatar.

 

[etana4310]

Out of respect for your request and because I have probably done something wrong unknowningly, I have changed my avatar.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks & frubals -- it's truly appreciated.

 

[Zardoz]

I guess because if/when I convert I will probably go the conservative route. It didn't occur to me to put this question to the general public. I apologize - I didn't do it intentionally, as I mentioned, I am still learning my way around.

Not general public, but general Jewish public, but if you think you will go with Conservative then this is the right place.

 

[etana4310]

Not general public, but general Jewish public, but if you think you will go with Conservative then this is the right place.

I am pretty certain I will be going conservative, yes. G-d willing.

 

[Dena]

I think I am more confused now than before. :help:

What I am beginning to see is that I must follow that whisper in my heart and leave the "big-stuff" for later. I have always been trained to look for proof. Every decision was based on proof, but I have a feeling this decision must be based on faith - following where I feel G-d is leading.

Personally, as a convert I wouldn't advise you just go with your heart and leave the big stuff for later. It's a very important decision that changes the rest of your life and also the lives of those around you. Just be patient. Don't feel like you have to jump right into anything. Just go about learning for now. You have plenty of time.