Meat Issues with the Masoretics

[Verifyveritas76]

Ive been running into small issues that are adding up to bigger issues the more I find out about the Masoretics. And their version of the OT.

I’ve been doing some research on it recently and just wondering if anyone else has looked into it, pro or con?

 

[Mojo]

Not I. My plate is so full, I rarely find time to get on here as it is. Care to divulge your findings?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I don’t mind at all, BUT, right now I’m trying to find opposition to where my studies are leading me. I don’t want to skew it at this time.

I was hoping that someone would have information disassociating them from the Council of Jamnia and Rabbi Akiva in 90 AD. Officially the Masoretics didn’t exist then, just like the Rabbi’s that compiled the Talmuds. And yet I’m finding shadowy connections and unofficial evidences that they existed and were busy, but just weren’t very prominent or official yet, which creates its own issues.

Its definitely a rabbit hole that leaves me feeling like Alice in Wonderland. I’m not used to that feeling.

 

[rockfox]

Ive been running into small issues that are adding up to bigger issues the more I find out about the Masoretics. And their version of the OT.

I’ve been doing some research on it recently and just wondering if anyone else has looked into it, pro or con?

Are you referring to the group that compiled the Masoretic text used by most modern Bible translations?

I've never done a deep dive on the group itself, I just know from my study on the cannon of scripture that major early church fathers and the modern Eastern Orthodox both held/hold a rather dim view of their [truncated and textually modified] cannon.

I was hoping that someone would have information disassociating them from the Council of Jamnia and Rabbi Akiva in 90 AD. Officially the Masoretics didn’t exist then, just like the Rabbi’s that compiled the Talmuds. And yet I’m finding shadowy connections and unofficial evidences that they existed and were busy, but just weren’t very prominent or official yet, which creates its own issues.

Now you've got me curious. I hope you eventually share what you find.

 

[FollowingHim]

I have nothing to contribute but am likewise very interested in your findings.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Are you referring to the group that compiled the Masoretic text used by most modern Bible translations?

I've never done a deep dive on the group itself, I just know from my study on the cannon of scripture that major early church fathers and the modern Eastern Orthodox both held/hold a rather dim view of their [truncated and textually modified] cannon.



Now you've got me curious. I hope you eventually share what you find.

Those are the guys.

They are best known for their work in providing vowel pointing. To my knowledge, this is a vast improvement for those who are reading Hebrew and learning it on their own. However, it appears that undercover of improving the Hebrew, they conveniently redacted certain phrases from key passages in the Old Hebrew that Christians were using to prove that Jesus was the Christ. Then they began switching out the synagogue copies with the new “improved” version before 150’s AD when Justin Martyr mentions it. They try to do the same thing with the Septuagint under a proselyte named Theodosius, only he used the new Hebrew manuscript as his base so the Christians rejected it. Later another proselyte named Aquila tries again. The Masoretic was generally rejected until Jerome around 500 AD was commissioned to translate a Latin version. He started by using the Septuagint, but was convinced by Rabbis to use the Hebrew to translate from instead of the Greek. I agree with premise behind their argument. It is always better to translate from the Source Documents. However, they used the old bait and switch and convinced Jerome to use the Masoretic (which was probably all that was available for public consumption by then) which no doubt they presented as an exact copy of the original, and the rest is history. The King James translators accepted the same premise and used the Masoretic as their source for the Old Testament, but in multiple places used the Septuagint against the Masoretic because there was so much written evidence from early church leaders rejecting those places specifically. Such as Isaiah 7:14. A virgin instead of a young woman, and Psalms 22:16 they pierced my hands and feet instead of the lions look on my hands and feet.

Basically the pattern I see is that the Masoretics, just like the Jehovah’s witnesses, conveniently created their own version that supported their current theology, and directly removed phrases and passages from scripture, as well as removed years from chronologies, changed numbers of people going into Egypt, removed 650 years from the genealogy from Noah to Abraham to support a Shem Melchizedek (to undermine a Christ Melchizedek). And they removed books from scripture and made a redacted Canon. They also replaced the Divine name in dozens of places where the Septuagint does not. Just another part of their theology.

The worst part is that they managed to pull a bait and switch that was so effective that from the 6th century on has had a major effect on what we consider scripture.

BTW, the Septuagint is not the only evidence against them. The Samaritan Penteteuch, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament all are evidence against their meddling with the Old Testament. All of these were written from the source Hebrew that the Masoretics revised.

Ive always been told that the Masoretic was included with and part of the Textus Receptus. And yet what I’m finding now in no way supports that. The Masoretic was the Textus Rejectus.

And it all seems to tie into the Council of Jamnia

 

[steve]

Fascinating!

 

[Nikud]

See here's the thing I can take the Masoretic text and because of the Hebrew I can pin point exactly what parts are taking about Yeshua from the writing alone. There are some points that seem like inconsistances in the Hebrew like mem sofit in a middle of a word where it shouldn't be and connect it to other scriptures so that I can tell Yeshuas life story with out looking at the gospels. The written language shows the connection. If it was altered to disprove that Yeshua was not the Messiah then it would have to remove from numbers the part when Yehoshua the long form of Yeshua also known as Joshua renewed thecovenent before entering the promise land, the part about Yehoshua the High Preist who built the foundation of the second temple,which is where in Hebrews they get Yeshua is the High Priest. If the intent was to Hide Yeshua either the whole bible would have to be erase or it would need to be written in a different language other than Hebrew. I've looked at the "key phrases" that many "experts" claim were removed to hide the fact that Yeshua is the Messiah. The Truth is the Greek of the Sepitugiant lacks the written sign post that shows that high light how He's our Messiah and do more to hide the fact that what the Masorectics are accused of. If found this out by taking the Second testimony back through the Sepitugiant to the Hebrew. Comparing it to multiple sources including the Dead sea scrolls, thank you VV76 for my first copy of it, you'll find more often than not the Maseoretic is more inline with that that the Sepitugiant is. In some cases both versions of the writings found in the Sepitugiant and Maseoretic text are reperesent in different manuscripts found amongst the dead sea scroll. There's studies out on the at Google the 3 together you should find one relatively quick. Just from experience its only the Dead sea scroll fragments and the Maseoretic text that have the written sign post in it because well it's written in Hebrew and I found alot of Jot being able to see the complete story of Messiah from birth to new Jersusalem in only the First testament.

Just to point out a few things after I read more. More scholars who actually work with the dead sea scrolls say the dead sea scrolls are closer to the Maseoretic text.

Despite there claims, Samaritans were the Babylonians sent to replace the jews. They started worshiping God out of fear. You'll find this in several writings even one from them to Antiochus asking him to stop persecuting them because the weren't Jews and don't even know Gods name. If you every read the Samaritain text check out the 10th comandment thou shall worship on mount GERIZIM and the fact that they don't use Elohim but Allah in the Paleo Hebrew. I wouldnt Trust a scholar who uses the Samaritain to denounce the Maseoretic. It contradicts what's written in the Sepitugiant as well. Plus only the first five books are in the Samaritan bible. AlMost all of the verses in question are in the prophets. How can you compare the accurate of the language in to books when the part in question is missing from one.

On more thing most of the issues between the Maseoretic and Sepitugiant stem from the way people want to translate.

Despite want some may think about Jews they are earnestly looking for the Messiah, and to think that they would intentionally change the text to Hide The fact that Yeshua is the Messiah, which most don't beleive yet, and don't don't care if Christians are "decieved" and hinder their own chances of identifing the Messiah makes no sense but people are going to beleive what gives them the tingles.

Take this for what its worth. Doubt the source document if you find actual fault with the document that can be proven without a doubt to be an issue with that document alone. not the hand that wrote it. I'm going to bow out from this conversation now because I know where it leads, done this dance before, and I don't have time for it.

Shalom.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Nikud thanks for that. I do appreciate it and will look into that deeper. That is the kind of response I was looking for. I need counter posts on this topic.

For what its worth, obviously they don’t remove every mention or prophecy of messiah. From what I’ve seen, they only focused on phrases in passages that were being used to great effect to prove Christ as Messiah. Phrases like recovery of sight to the blind in Isaiah 61:1&2. Or like a comparison of Hebrews 10:5 with Psalms 40:6. Galatians 3:13 with Deut. 21:23. They removed just the phrase “on a tree” from he that is hanged [on a tree] is accursed by God. Same in Psalms 96:10 Say unto the heathen that the Lord reigneth [from the tree]. Similarly with Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 as shown in the RSV which followed the Masoretic versus the KJV which followed the Septuagint in this passage only because so many early church fathers wrote and documented the Masoretics changing the Hebrew word from virgin to young woman. Also two verses in Psalms 22. Verses 16 and 20. This is the crucifixion psalm that Christ refers to from the cross when he quotes, My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me, and It is finished/that he hath done [finished] this. Verse 16 follows the Septuagint. they pierced my hands and feet instead of the Masoretic, the lions looked on my hands and feet.

All of these are proofs by the New Testament that the sources that the Apostles were quoting were different from what we have now. For me the biggie is Luke 4:18,19. I guess its up for discussion whether the synagogue scroll is Greek or Hebrew (I think its Hebrew) but either way, he’s reading, not quoting from memory, and the Masoretic does not match in a very powerful phrase. One that proves Christ is not just a prophet, but THE Messiah. According to the man blind from birth, no one (even Moses or Elijah/Elisha) had ever healed a blind man from the beginning of the earth. Ever wonder why the rulers of the synagogue got their panties in such a wad? This removed phrase is why. It also is definitive proof that the Old Hebrew text was different before the Masoretics got to it. Removing a phrase (even one) is a massive step up than changing a jot or a tittle. And it certainly doesnt fall under the purview of vowel pointing.

Passages that were apparently well known were simply banned from being read, like Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53. Daniel 9:24-30 (at least) has a curse placed on the reader. As well as changed the calendar to muddy the water.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Here’s a link to a guy that does a good job of condensing some of the info I’ve found so far. Some of his reasoning to prove his point is not as well done as I’ve seen in other places, but the point is still accurate.

 

[Nikud]

Passages that were apparently well known were simply banned from being read, like Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53. Daniel 9:24-30 (at least) has a curse placed on the reader. As well as changed the calendar to muddy the water.

Where does this come from? You can YouTube Rabbis who read from these in their synogues (non messianic). I've attended one in San Antonio with a friend of mine that I was sharing my testimony about Yeshua with and they had a reading of Isaiah 53. The Rabbis go in detail about Daniel 9. There's litteraly hundreds of different Rabbinical liature and many conferences going on teaching about. Where do you get the banded from? Or cursed if you read it from? I liked to check them out and see were they claim to get it from.

Edit: I realize that may sound confrontational not my intent. I am truley interested in where this belief comes from.

 

[Nikud]

so many early church fathers wrote and documented the Masoretics changing the Hebrew word from virgin to young woman

This is the Hebrew letter "mem מ.” It is spelled with open mem מ, and closed mem ם. It is one of five letters in the Hebrew alphabet that takes a final (sofit) form. The letter is written מ when occurring at the beginning or inside a word, but it is written ם (mem sofit ) when it occurs as the last letter of a word. This is sometimes called the open mem מ, because of the small opening at the lower left of the letter. In words where it is the final letter, it is written as a closed mem ם with no opening.

Yeshayah 7:14 Therefore God Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the young woman, virgin) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call Shmo Immanu El

Almah from a root implying the vigour of puberty, is a Hebrew word for a young woman of childbearing age

Which is important because ever other miraculous birth was by a barren woman beyond child barring age also represented by a closed mem ם

The term “l'marbeh l'marbeh לםרבה למרבה” literally “to the increase” denotes a large increase; a distinction that is lost in our English translations. But there are many other connotations here, one of which is explained by the sages as moshiach משיח will first come closed, in secret, then moshiach משיח will come openly. A closed mem is a closed womb; an open mem is the womb opening to give birth (Bahir 84). The sages said that the first time moshiach משיח comes, he will come in closed mem ם, a description of the coming of the moshiach משיח from a closed womb; from a virgin!

Isaiah 9:6

Of the increase

(“l'marbeh l'marbeh ל
ם
רבה למרבה”) ​

of his misrah and shalom there shall be no ketz (end), upon the Kisse Dovid, and upon his kingdom, to strengthen it, and to support it with mishpat and with tzedakah from henceforth even ad olam (forever). The Kinat Hashem Tzva'os will fulfill this.

So Isaiah 9:6 is telling us that the son in Isaiah 7:14 is the Messiah! This is why the Ruach HaChodesh inspired Yeshayahu to break the rules of Hebrew grammar and write “l'marbeh l'marbeh לםרבה למרבה.” The lamed ל prefix means "to" or "for." The first letter of the word is them men sofit ם, the closed mem; I.e. the closed womb of a virgin.

Of course contemporary Rabbis do not see HaMoshiach Yeshua in Isaiah’s prophecies, but they are aware of the closed mem in “l'marbeh l'marbeh לםרבה למרבה” and its Messianic portent.

“The rabbis teach that when it is time for the Redemption, the closed mem of Isaiah’s l’marbeh will open for the coming of the Messiah” (Radak, Isa. 9:6). Radak is Rabbi David Kimchi, a noted grammarian and scholar. Rabbi Kimchi got the literal meaning correct, but he has missed the true meaning. The child spoken of in this prophecy would be born of the closed womb of a virgin.

You've probably heard it said that Moshe (Moses) was a shadow of Messiah. There's more revealed in the Hebrew grammar like connecting His sister Miriam to Yeshua's mother, to Rachel and also to Jacobs wrestling with the angel of the Lord to Yeshua. All in the Masoretic text not the LXX.

And so it happened, the young virgin Miriam מִרְיָם, whose name begins with mem מִ and ends with men sofit ם, gave us a child, Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Messiah).

So just because the Early Greek Church commentators didn't understand this and challenged the translation doesn't mean its wrong. It means they didn't understand and they weren't looking at the whole context.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This is the Hebrew letter "mem מ.” It is spelled with open mem מ, and closed mem ם. It is one of five letters in the Hebrew alphabet that takes a final (sofit) form. The letter is written מ when occurring at the beginning or inside a word, but it is written ם (mem sofit ) when it occurs as the last letter of a word. This is sometimes called the open mem מ, because of the small opening at the lower left of the letter. In words where it is the final letter, it is written as a closed mem ם with no opening.

Yeshayah 7:14 Therefore God Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the young woman, virgin) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call Shmo Immanu El

Almah from a root implying the vigour of puberty, is a Hebrew word for a young woman of childbearing age

Which is important because ever other miraculous birth was by a barren woman beyond child barring age also represented by a closed mem ם

The term “l'marbeh l'marbeh לםרבה למרבה” literally “to the increase” denotes a large increase; a distinction that is lost in our English translations. But there are many other connotations here, one of which is explained by the sages as moshiach משיח will first come closed, in secret, then moshiach משיח will come openly. A closed mem is a closed womb; an open mem is the womb opening to give birth (Bahir 84). The sages said that the first time moshiach משיח comes, he will come in closed mem ם, a description of the coming of the moshiach משיח from a closed womb; from a virgin!

Isaiah 9:6

Of the increase

(“l'marbeh l'marbeh ל
ם
רבה למרבה”) ​

of his misrah and shalom there shall be no ketz (end), upon the Kisse Dovid, and upon his kingdom, to strengthen it, and to support it with mishpat and with tzedakah from henceforth even ad olam (forever). The Kinat Hashem Tzva'os will fulfill this.

So Isaiah 9:6 is telling us that the son in Isaiah 7:14 is the Messiah! This is why the Ruach HaChodesh inspired Yeshayahu to break the rules of Hebrew grammar and write “l'marbeh l'marbeh לםרבה למרבה.” The lamed ל prefix means "to" or "for." The first letter of the word is them men sofit ם, the closed mem; I.e. the closed womb of a virgin.

Of course contemporary Rabbis do not see HaMoshiach Yeshua in Isaiah’s prophecies, but they are aware of the closed mem in “l'marbeh l'marbeh לםרבה למרבה” and its Messianic portent.

“The rabbis teach that when it is time for the Redemption, the closed mem of Isaiah’s l’marbeh will open for the coming of the Messiah” (Radak, Isa. 9:6). Radak is Rabbi David Kimchi, a noted grammarian and scholar. Rabbi Kimchi got the literal meaning correct, but he has missed the true meaning. The child spoken of in this prophecy would be born of the closed womb of a virgin.

You've probably heard it said that Moshe (Moses) was a shadow of Messiah. There's more revealed in the Hebrew grammar like connecting His sister Miriam to Yeshua's mother, to Rachel and also to Jacobs wrestling with the angel of the Lord to Yeshua. All in the Masoretic text not the LXX.

And so it happened, the young virgin Miriam מִרְיָם, whose name begins with mem מִ and ends with men sofit ם, gave us a child, Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Messiah).

So just because the Early Greek Church commentators didn't understand this and challenged the translation doesn't mean its wrong. It means they didn't understand and they weren't looking at the whole context.

That is some truly neat stuff. I’m gonna have to go thru that again several times and I’m copying it to my OneNote.

From what I’ve seen, that is not the issue. The issue that I’ve seen is where the Old Hebrew is translated into a Greek word that is only for virgin (Matthew uses the same exact word as the Septuagint) instead of one for a young woman. Indicating that in the Old Hebrew the original word was bethula? Instead of almah.

The Miriam explanation is way cool, but doesnt explain the Greek being translated as virgin, especially if the Miriam explanation is a deep study knowledge.

 

[Nikud]

The Miriam explanation is way cool, but doesnt explain the Greek being translated as virgin, especially if the Miriam explanation is a deep study knowledge.

Question why does the greek have to be right? Especially in this case where it breaks the picture that God was painting like Moses striking the rock instead of speaking to it.

The confusion arises because the Septuagint uses the greek word 'parthenos' to translate Isaiah 7:14. This word, in Greek, does denote a sexually pure woman, not a virgin by the strictest sense of the word.

It can mean

a woman who has never had sexual relations; a female (virgin),

A women beyond puberty but not yet married;

A women who has never commited sexual sin.

So Almah is a valid Hebrew translation so would bethula. Now it is a matter of translation choice.

I would like to point out its translation issues that when all the meanings of a word beyond the exigensis of the translator that scripture doesn't contradict its self.

The LXX and Maseoretic text work extremely well together almost as if that is what was intended .......hmmm..... Especially when taking the 2nd testament back into the Hebrew from Greek.

Like I said I use both.

 

[Nikud]

I find myself more concerned with some of the late copies of the LXX, Maseoretic text and the 2nd testament that have things added to them that's not in the older versions.

Basically commentary added in to explain.

 

[Nikud]

They also replaced the Divine name in dozens of places where the Septuagint does not.

In my copies of the MT they have the name written in Hebrew but read as HaShem or Adonai or Elohim and when its translated to English as the name or phonetic as HaShem.

 

[Nikud]

Abraham to support a Shem Melchizedek (to undermine a Christ Melchizedek)

I just read the MT and LXX and neither of them support the idea that Yeshua was Melchizedek. That's exisgenisis into Hebrews which was stating that their were Preist of Adonai before Sinai. Melchizedek was a foreshadow of Messiah A Preist and king. Saying after the Melchizedeck order is a simile. There is no messianic prophesy saying that He is the return of the Melchezideck or that He was physically here as a mortal before. There are sign post in the MT that say that the High Priest Yehoshua who was the tsemach or branch a term which the Jewish sages connect to Messiah. This is how in Hebrews they were able to show Yeshua was a High Preist. Its the sign post that the bereans and followed to recognize that Paul spoke the truth.

 

[Nikud]

I thought I was going to bail out of this convo but its a topic I like because of How the Father put the peices in the Hebrew for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Thank you VV76 for starting this thread.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I just read the MT and LXX and neither of them support the idea that Yeshua was Melchizedek. That's exisgenisis into Hebrews which was stating that their were Preist of Adonai before Sinai. Melchizedek was a foreshadow of Messiah A Preist and king. Saying after the Melchizedeck order is a simile. There is no messianic prophesy saying that He is the return of the Melchezideck or that He was physically here as a mortal before. There are sign post in the MT that say that the High Priest Yehoshua who was the tsemach or branch a term which the Jewish sages connect to Messiah. This is how in Hebrews they were able to show Yeshua was a High Preist. Its the sign post that the Here and followed to recognize that Paul spoke the truth.

The point to what I stated earlier was that the Melchizedek that Abraham paid tithes to could not have been Shem. I very much thought that was true at one point, but cannot reconcile that now. I do not know who that Melchizedek was, it may have been just an honorary title or position by the time of Abraham, just as Adonai-zedek was in Joshua’s day. Maybe it was a Christophany and maybe not. I do know that very few people have a hard time with God appearing as a man in Genesis 18:1,2 and walking and talking with Abraham. This was only a decade or so after the Melchizedek incident. Who knows what actually happened there.

All that being said, in the video I posted above about the pyramids and Shem, one thing the author doesnt understand is that there was always a man who was a type of Melchizedek as an earthly shadow of the True Melchizedek. That is why you have the phrase “the order of Melchizedek”, just as you have the order or estate of Aaron and Levi. A Levite was from the estate of Levi. Christ is the Lord of Light because he is Light and in him is no darkness at all. Christ is the spoken word that created Light in the beginning. Those who are the “sons of Light” or the “sons of Zedek” are priests after the order or estate of Melchi Zedek. At this time, we are not immortal as Hebrews states The Melchi Zedek is, but we will all be changed in a moment, and this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

I don’t know who the Melchizedek was that Abraham paid tithes to, but if it wasn’t The Melchizedek, it was someone like Seth and Cainan and Enoch and Noah, that other men came to, to learn about God and righteousness.

 

[rockfox]

there was always a man who was a type of Melchizedek as an earthly shadow of the True Melchizedek

I don't disbelieve that, but I don't know of any evidence of it either. Where do you get this understanding?