Textual Criticism

[xCxx2x]

These are amazing sir. I would love to some day do this kind of work.

[dajusta87]

I believe the use of Hades for hell is one indication that one ought to read the NT from a Greek perspective.

[ancienthebreworg]

@dajusta87 Not necessarily as hades is just the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew she'ol. So when you see hades in the NT, you should be thinking sheol.

[dajusta87]

@ancienthebreworg Yes, but the specific use of the Greek word really shows the audience intended. There is usually a play on words with Hebrew to Greek words, like Gehinna, for the Hinna Valley. There is not so much in the Greek word Hades.

[Yirmeyahu23]

I don't get it Jeff first you say you reject anything Greek then you use the Septuagint (LXX) to make the verse make sense in your own mind. Your the one who is suppose to be teaching us how to get out of Hellenism not use to it to prove away the Hebrew text.

[ancienthebreworg]

@Yirmeyahu23 It does appear that I have a double standard, but rest ashurd, it is not. While I believe that we need to dump our Greek thinking when reading the text, the LXX, though it is in Greek, sometimes preserves the Hebrew better than the Masorah and by translating that Greek back into Hebrew, we can reconstruct the original Hebrew. The DSS has confirmed that the LXX does sometimes have the original reading over the Masorah. For my details on this see my "History of Hebrew" series.

[dajusta87]

@ancienthebreworg I just watched this video and so I hope I am taking this out of context.. Jeff, what does it mean when you want people to "drop out of Greek" or "get out of Hellenism"? We are just speaking about the OT here right?

[ancienthebreworg]

@dajusta87 I don't think I mentioned dropping Greek or getting out of Hellenism in this video, but I do often imply something like this in other videos and yes, this is what I mean. While this does refer to the OT, it also applies to the NT as well. While most people assume that the NT was written in Greek, I disagree. I believe it was written first in Hebrew or Aramaic. We need to drop the Greek philosophy and instead view the text from a Hebraic philosophy.

[dajusta87]

@ancienthebreworg Despite a good argument that shows the NT was probably done so in Hebrew first, and/or spoken verbally in Aramaic, I think the real key is understanding who the audience is. Since the audience was intended for Jewish people living in Hellenistic culture and ultimately copying manuscripts in Greek, there is no way you should be dropping Greek philosophy at all. Paul, who was raised under Roman citizenship yet with Jewish beliefs would most definitely influenced by Hellenism.

[ancienthebreworg]

@dajusta87 Your view is a very valid one, it is just one that I don't agree with. The problem is with the difference between how the orthodox Jews and the Hellenized Jews view Torah (law). To keep this simple, Hellenistic Jews basically reject the Torah and if the NT writers were writing from a Greek perspective, then they are violating the Torah.

[dajusta87]

@ancienthebreworg How are they violating the Torah? Define writing from a Greek "perspective"?

[dunklaw]

@dajusta87 Abstract terms.

[beholdtheageofold]

The LXX completely *ADDS words anyone can spot them. For instance Psalm 22:16.

[Jemoh66]

As usual great video, Jeff. Although, It leaves us with a similar conundrum. This would intimate that Abraham loved Isaac more than Ishmael. The scriptures do not hint at this in any way. Abraham was ready to carry on with Ishmael until God reaffirmed to him that Sarai would indeed bear a son. "Your only son" is less problematic and is theologically implicating. Ishmael is blessed for Hagar's sake. Isaac is the Promise.

[ancienthebreworg]

@Jemoh66 Excellent point Jemoh, something I hadn't considered and definitely brings more though provoking food to the table.

[Jemoh66]

@ancienthebreworg Yeah, also there is a tie-in with "only begotten". I noticed this is because the gr. says monogenys. It is used of Isaac also in Heb. 11:17. So the author of Hebrews would agree with MT. And not only is it consistently one and only to the NT writers, but many Bible translators add 'begotten' because of -genys. The old french Ostervald says "uniquement conçu" (uniquely conceived, or, the only son who was conceived) Not unique in the eng. sense just 'only'.

[cafzal83]

As all those who trust in the scipture and are criticised for what they support must come to the term that they must hold the present documents under criticism in this age of knowledge and truth. We seem to be fools when; building on sand, not examinig our selves in light of our documents, or not examining our documents in light of its ancient origin. Today textual criticism is neccissary for our growth in not only spirit, also truth.

[1021kb]

How does the Aleph Tav preceeding your only/your beloved and Isaac translate? If ET wasnt there would it still read the same? I am wondering if the Aleph Tav points to the covenant and that is what makes Isaac the beloved son. Or: If Abraham was not circumcised at the time of Ishmael's conception but was at Isaacs conception would that make Isaac the beloved son? or the only son born under covenant?

[ancienthebreworg]

@1021kb The aleph-tav (et) is just a word that identifies the definite object of a verb, and can't be translated into English. The et has to be there to be a grammatically correct sentence. That would be like the word "is" missing from "the man here."

[Alexandroslav]

Thanks for the video.

i don't agree with the video myself, i think that the word יחידך came to unify isaac as a unique son, for example: the only son of your beloved wife, or the son i have told you to name isaac that will be the father of a great nation etc... by the only word of יחיד .

those who translated the bible and those who have written it knew the story of abraham and isaac very well to know that isaac wasnt the only son of abraham but they knew that isaac was a special son for abraham

[ancienthebreworg]

@Alexandroslav Wow, so many disagree with me on this one, but that's okay, I'd hate to have everybody think the same way I do, would be pretty boring for debates :-)

[Profit613]

@ancienthebreworg, I agree with you on this. The LXX actually makes that passage make sense instead of sounding contradictory. You've also presented a very logical explanation for one of the many scribal errors found in the manuscripts. It amazes me when I come across people who actually hold the MT is such high regard when it's a known fact that the LXX is closer in it's translation units to the DSS than the MT. That alone is enough for one to raise an eyebrow towards the MT.

Another great vid

[ancienthebreworg]

@Profit613 Finally! Someone who agrees with me LOL :-) To be honest, I used to be one of those who snubbed their nose at the LXX and put the Masoretic text up on a pedestal. But being one with an open mind, I had to admit that the LXX often preserves the text better than the MT. Thanks for chimming in Profit.

[egwpisteuw]

Nice work and a very well done video. One question though. You did not mention the NT commentary on Gen: 22:2 in Heb 11:17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;" This verse is saying that yachiyd in Gen 22:2 = μονογενής (monogenes) in Heb 11:17 which I believe is the correct Greek equivalent. Thus, I would disagree that the LXX is correcting a scribal error--the NT trumps the LXX.

[ancienthebreworg]

@egwpisteuw Excellent criticism, thank you. I wonder though, could the writer of Hebrews be translating from a Hebrew source rather than the LXX?

[egwpisteuw]

@ancienthebreworg I would think he was indeed using a Hebrew source. If he were using the LXX, he would have used τὸν ἀγαπητόν (ton agapeton) rather than τὸν μονογενῆ (ton monogene). I think that it is possible that both τὸν ἀγαπητόν and τὸν μονογενῆ are both valid translations of yachiyd. Isaac was the uniquely born (τὸν μονογενῆ) son of Abraham and also his darling or beloved son (τὸν ἀγαπητόν). Thus rather than scribal error, I would say translational variation--both of which are valid.

[ancienthebreworg]

@egwpisteuw I think your conclusions are very valid and I think many would agree with you. After all, we can see a very wide range of translations from Hebrew or Greek into English, and it would be the same for Hebrew into Greek. However, I am still looking at the use of "only" in reference to his son, when he was not his only, which means to me the simpler explanation is that the original was beloeved. I could be wrong though :-)

[egwpisteuw]

@ancienthebreworg As you look further at this, take a look at how the KJV translators translated yachiyd in Psalm 22:20 and Pslam 35:17 as "Darling" while the NASB Translators used "Only." This is another evidence of both being possible translations. I think, to explain it in English, yachiyd = 1. only in number, "only"; 2. only in kind, "unique"; 3. only in quality, "beloved, darling." #1 is eliminated in Gen 22:2 because of Ishmael, leaving #2 and #3 as the only possibilities.

[ancienthebreworg]

@egwpisteuw I can see #1 and #2 as translations of the Hebrew יחיד, but not #3, at least in my opinion. In my opinion יחיד means "solitary," something that is alone and separated from the rest. It really has no relationship with the idea of passion (beloeved, from the root dod meaning to have passion). I think this is the reason KJV onlyists are KJV onlyists, all this gives them a headache and they don't want to have to deal with it LOL

[egwpisteuw]

@ancienthebreworg Those KJV onlyists are missing all the fun! I think we now have the makings of a journal article on "the use of yachiyd in Gen 22:2" I would imagine there is already some scholarly literature out there on this...

[ancienthebreworg]

@egwpisteuw Yep, they sure are missing out on some real exciting studies :-), but hey, if the KJV is good enough for Paul it should be good enough for us LOL. And I think you're probably right, there are probably many who have disected this verse.

[Bucklehairy]

Shalom. I'm afraid I don't agree. Some questions:

1) Do you have more examples of misreading ד for ח or the other way around? Or could it just be a way of rendering the word יחיד, as in Zech 12:10, Jer 6:26, Amo 8:10?

2) Couldn't it be that the LXX misread their Vorlage and the MT has the most plausible reading? Given the context of Abraham having more sons, a scribe would have every reason to alter "only one" to "beloved one" than the other way around. It would also assimilate with ηγαπησας.

[Bucklehairy]

(cont'd)

Notice that the LXX also diverges from the MT in the place for the Binding of Isaac (Gen 22:2). This is prone to change in many translations, cf. the Aramaic Targumim. Like them, the LXX took the liberty to paraphrase in this specific verse. Now a better example of Textual Criticism would be אחר in v. 13. I'd love to hear your solution.

[ancienthebreworg]

@Bucklehairy No, I don't have other examples of ח being mistaken for ד, but there are many examples of this same thing happening with other letters that look similar. My first thought when I came across this was that "beloved" could be a rendering of the word יחיד, but after some investigations I found this could not be the case. Cont...

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg

I know, ח and ד are not easily confounded, esp. ד > ח. Moreover, I think the instances of this Greek rendering are too many to consider a scribal mistake (Pro 4:3, Zech 12:10, Jer 6:26, Amo 8:10).

[ancienthebreworg]

@Bucklehairy There is another possibility. There are times when a scribe purposefully changed from one Hebrew word to another (for clarity or theological reasons), so what if a scribe saw ידיד, but assumed this was incorrect and changed it to יחיד. At this point, there would be two manuscripts floating about, one with ידיד and another with יחיד. The LXX was using one while the MS was using the other.

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg

Possibly, but certainly not probably. Why would this scribe alter ידיד into יחיד in exactly those cases where the LXX has "beloved"?! On what theological grounds? Indeed, semantically, the LXX is probably younger than the MT. And note that the variation is found only in the LXX: the Greek rendering needs clarification, not the MT, if you'd ask me. Or do the DSS by any chance support your theory?

[ancienthebreworg]

@Bucklehairy I don't think I made myself clear enough. I'm saying that the translator of the LXX is using a Hebrew text with the word ידיד, while the writer of the Masoretic text is using a different Hebrew text with the word יחיד. A similar example can be found in Deut 32:8 where the LXX has "sons of God," while the Masoretic has "sons of Israel." Each is using a different Hebrew text as its source.

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg "Each is using a different Hebrew text as its source." Undoubtedly the LXX has a different Vorlage than the MT, but how do you explain the variation in the LXX? If it is possible to render יחיד as "beloved, precious" in Greek, the variation is not necessarily due to the Vorlage at all, but more likely due to translation. That's what I'm trying to say. So my question is: what do we find in the DSS? Even Josephus used μονογενης, so יחיד must have been around before the MT, right?

[ancienthebreworg]

@Bucklehairy I am saying that these two different Hebrew manuscripts existed before the LXX, MT and the DSS. I did some searching for a DSS with this passage, but was unable to find one on the net.

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg

That's conjecture. Moreover, this doesn't help us find out which reading is more likely to be closer to the original, unless you're postulating a polygenesis for the book of genesis. It was either יחיד or ידיד. As I said before, there is no good reason to believe it was ידיד. (Sorry, if I sound overcritical, I highly appreciate your comments and videos, but I'm not fond of speculation, esp. when it is presented as if it were beyond reasonable doubt.)

[Bucklehairy]

*correction, I meant a polygenesis for the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg

Jeff, I found something interesting. I checked the DSS. In 4Q225, Pseudo-Jubilees, v 11, there is a fragment with ]קח את בנכה את ישחק את יחיד[. Notice it has יחיד not ידיד. In 4Q252, a commentary on Genesis, coll. III, v. 9, we find יחידכה translated by Martínez and Tigchelaar as "your beloved"! This should support my theory. Its just a matter of translation of the Hebrew, not a matter of Vorlage. Hope I've been of help and thanks for the discussion.

[ancienthebreworg]

@Bucklehairy That is very good, which is now causing me to view this ידיד and יחיד from another perspective. It is not uncommon for word spellings to change over time. For istance, the Hebrew word for gold is זהב, but later we see it spelled דהב. This could be what happened to ידיד, the spelling changed at some point and became יחיד.

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg

I'm glad this helps. No, this is not a matter of spelling change. דהב is simply Aramaic (cf. Arabic dhahab). Similarly, ילד and ולד (cf. Arabic walad), which probably reflect different dialects, and not spelling changes. Hebrew ידיד is related to Arabic wadūd (one of the names of Allah, I believe) and יחיד corresponds with Arabic wa7id. They're distinct lexemes, not varieties of spelling.

[adiiz100]

@Bucklehairy well said. you have to know the background of the languges in the area, so you don't fall into fancy ideas just because they sound... well, fancy :)

[Jemoh66]

@ancienthebreworg @ancienthebreworg We're assuming also that the translation is without fault. This could just as well be a mistake in translation, and/or even someone mistaking יחיד for ידיד. After all, there is a greater burden on the translator (LXX) than there is on the copyist (Masoretes).

[ancienthebreworg]

@Jemoh66 Yes, this is the real question. Did the LXX mistransle יחיד for ידיד, or did the MT transpose ידיד for יחיד? But I really liked your comment that the greater burden is on the translator over the copyist. That is so true and to be honest, something that is easily overlooked.

[Bucklehairy]

@Jemoh66

"After all, there is a greater burden on the translator (LXX) than there is on the copyist (Masoretes)."

Exactly! That's what I've been trying to say. The LXX requires explanation, not the MT.

[Jemoh66]

@Bucklehairy yeah, It would be simple if we had mss. dated to time of LXX. But to speculate that they were looking at ידיד by basically looking back through their translation...still speculation. I think Jeff chose a good example.  It really provokes a lot reaction and good thought processes.

[Bucklehairy]

@Jemoh66

"I think Jeff chose a good example. It really provokes a lot reaction and good thought processes."

Agreed. Stimulating, indeed.

"It would be simple if we had mss. dated to time of LXX."

The use of יחידכה in the DSS must count as something.

[ancienthebreworg]

@Bucklehairy Continued...Could the MT be correct? Of course this is very possible, I just see the simpler theory being what I presented in the video. I looked into the אחר but couldn't find an answer for you, sorry. I did do some more investigation into the word יחיד and found someting interesting in Ps 22:20. The Hebrew has יחיד (yahhid/only) Cont...

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg

But your theory doesn't explain the shift from ידיד to יחיד in so many instances. Therefore, it's simpler to assume that the MT is correct and the LXX simply renders יחיד this way because of the close association between "unique" and "precious". This would explain more and reduce the number of causes involved than to assume a scribal mistake in each of these cases. Esp. in Gen 22:2 the LXX takes more liberty to diverge from the Hebrew text than in the rest of Gen 22, right?

[ancienthebreworg]

@Bucklehairy and the LXX has μονογενη (monogeney/only) agreeing with the Hebrew. But interestingly, some translations (such as KJV, RSV) have "darling" assuming the Hebrew was ידיד (yadid/beloved).

[Bucklehairy]

@ancienthebreworg

Or they are just translating the Hebrew word יחיד as the LXX did in other instances. A transition from "only, unique" to "of high worth, dear" is quite natural and more probable than the other way around, i.e. "unique" could be easily interpreted and translated as "precious" or "darling". There is still no good reason for a scribal mistake in Gen 22:2.

[dunklaw]

Shalom Jeff, another easy to understand video :-)

I came across this site : - ao . net / ~fmoeller / qum-1 . htm

This is quite a good example of the Critical process at work (on the 'The Great Qumran Isaiah Scroll') & how the document has to be examined in minute detail for comparison & how subtle or distinct the differences can be.

[ancienthebreworg]

@dunklaw That is an excellent website, used it many times myself. Thanks.

[DesheDanDuvdevan]

I would have translated it: "Please take your son, the only one whom you loved, Isaac", which conveys both meanings in the Septuagint and the Masoretic. 

[ancienthebreworg]

@DesheDanDuvdevan Good point Deshe, though I think I would make that "your only that you love" because of the final kaph being the second person possessive pronoun.

[tudungsenduk]

Please note that the greek should read as

"the son of you, the beloved one".

Alternative Hebrew translation:

and he said "Now take your son, your only, whom you love with Isaac and ..."

[ancienthebreworg]

@tudungsenduk I am the first one to admit my Greek is not great. Let me make sure I understand correctly, the word σου is the possessive υιον? Thanks.

[tudungsenduk]

@ancienthebreworg

Yes. The son of you, i.e. your son.

[LovingScrubbies]

I heard of a rabbinical interpretation that this story was a dream Abram was dreaming.

[ASRIEL153]

Interesting. In order for this to work, the same mistake would have been had to be made twice, because the same reading appears in verse 16. The DSS also has Yachidkha, and the author of Hebrews seems to have been reading off a manuscript with Yachidkha. Perhaps the LXX translator instead did not think a word like monogenes fit the bill? Hard to say. I have a question though, concerning "na" - why does it appear sometimes with a nun sofit?

[ancienthebreworg]

@ASRIEL153 Excellent points Asriel, it is for certain that the process of Textual Criticism is not an exact science, but a very useful tool. We do know that 1,000 years ago, when the Masorites were compiling their Hebrew Bible, they had a variety of sources that differed from each other, and they chose the one that they believed was correct. So 2,000 years ago they would have had the same issue. Continued....

[ASRIEL153]

Continuing... And something similar appears to have happened in Pro 4:3, Jer 6:26, Zec 12:10.

[ancienthebreworg]

@ASRIEL153 I have not seen the nun sofit for this word, but I have a Hebrew Bible that does not include these anomolies. I do not know why it does, but it would be one of the many other anomolies in the Masoretic text (such as the large beyt in Genesis 1:1). I tend to think these are recent inventions as none of them have been found in the DSS.

[medievalman86]

give it 2 days and ll the KJV only will be out to play :)

[ancienthebreworg]

@medievalman86 ROFLOL, actually, I did not have the KJV issue in mind when I created the video, but after uploading it the same thing occured to me. Two days? I give it one LOL

[sparkshot]

@ancienthebreworg - I'm a big fan of the KJV for severel reasons and hold it in high regard both for doctorine and form, however, those of the KJV Only group thinking it is more accurate than the original languages it was translated from are talking nonsence in my opinion, Non - Sence. No Sence. In English slang, Rubbish!

[ancienthebreworg]

@sparkshot I agree spark, as English translations go, the KJV is pretty good, but it is still a translation. I also agree that the KJV only movement is Non-Sence. In all my dealings with them, I have "NEVER" heard one logical rebuttal to any challenge... Err scratch that.... I've NEVER heard any rebuttals of any kind, they ignore the facts and just say "The KJV is perfect PERIOD" LOL

[sparkshot]

@ancienthebreworg - Aye, I watched that debate playlist you prepared on your channel with the KJV Onlyists and I remember hearing something like, "The KJV actually corrects the Hebrew errors and as result is more accurate" ... ... ... um ... ... riiight, superb logic there! I guess all those inspired writers of the tanakh and NT were waiting for the English messiah called James to sort things out. Unbelievable.

[ancienthebreworg]

@sparkshot ROFLOL !!! :-) Nice one

[demoniclordwizard]

@ancienthebreworg Ancient, I've actually PMd you reguarding this matter some time ago when I first ran into your videos , which I like very much btw, but , do you belief the Bible is real , i.e. , the word of God, i.e. , that Moses and Abraham actually talked to God himself and left us record , that Adam and Eve existed and are the beginning of mankind, that the devil exists, that Jesus was who he said he was, ect... After your studies of the sources, do you believe it ?

[ancienthebreworg]

@demoniclordwizard I will say that my theology has drastically changed since learning the Hebrew langauge and culture, but my website, books and videos are not about my theology, but what the text says without any bias (my own included).

[demoniclordwizard]

@sparkshot The reason there are errors is people refuse to accept what's written. I.e. , people refuse to belief a mere snake tricked Adam and Eve , so they say it was satan that spoke through the snake , when the Bible actually says otherwise , clearly stating it was a plain old snake. The only reason the Bible is still believed by people is by reinterpreting the texts according to the times , so it makes sense to people, else , nobody actually believes what the book states, as it's ridiculous.

[sparkshot]

@demoniclordwizard - depends how you interpret it. I have no probs believing it was the snake that spoke, or just under the devils influence, a brain is just a switchboard a spirit can operate, hence why drugs etc still effect you. 'serpent' could just be a reptillian humanoid if you want to stretch things, it says that "on your belly you will go" implying it had limbs, also we find snakes with evidence they had limbs before, DE-volution, loss of info. I believe the scriptures.

[PrincesseJen]

Very comprehensive video. I have a question for you. Ezekiel 7:19 English translations bug the heck out of me.  They're all different. It either says their gold shall be "removed", "refuse" ,"an unclean thing" or "they shall throw their gold in the streets". Do you happen to know which is correct?

[ancienthebreworg]

@PrincesseJen I understand your frustration, been there myself. Here is a literal rendering of the first part of that verse: they will cast their silver in the streets; and the gold will be for filthiness (same Hebrew word for menstruation).

[PrincesseJen]

@ancienthebreworg Thank you.

[ancienthebreworg]

@ReligionFreeDeist Yes, it always (well I should say usually, I haven't searched out every occurence of it) comes after a verb.

[charli33lm3r]

Great Video Jeff, I always enjoy your work

[TheHeroOfChrist]

Nicely done, brother! :)

[Lypur]

Amazingly well done as always. Great video!