|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jun 11, 2006 11:38:36 GMT -8
I've recently been looking into the Samaritan  , and learning about the discrepencies between the Samaritan manuscript family, and the Massoretic family. Has anyone looked into the Samaritan ? Does anyone know of an English translation of it? Shalom, David |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jun 11, 2006 16:03:17 GMT -8
I haven't spent much time looking into it. I do know that they had taken it upon themselves to change the word of our Heavenly Father starting their own priesthood and holy temple in direct violation of . I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time looking into it if I were you. If you haven't done so already, you probably should spend your time learning Hebrew so you can read the true in it's original language...In this way, you will be able to spot all other counterfeits. Shalom chaver, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Jun 13, 2006 5:13:36 GMT -8
So, since the Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic text, I would view the Masoretic text as the more reliable. And as Reuel pointed out, they have changed the to allow for their own priesthood and temple which is a violation of itself. Though interesting, I wouldn't spend much time with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jun 20, 2006 6:24:43 GMT -8
About the Septuagent, the Samaritan is unquestionably older than the LXX. I am really interested in the Samaritan for two reasons; #1 to see where it differs, with the exception of those passages that were clearly tampered with, from the Masoretic mss, and, #2, more importantly, to understand the modern Samaritan community. I think they have some things right that even Kairitic Judaism is mistaken on. Shalom, David |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jun 22, 2006 17:02:37 GMT -8
The we have today is sufficient. I don't think that the Samaritan will be of any benefit unless of course you would like to learn something about the Samaritans. But, until you believe you have been founded in the truth of the established of Moshe...I would prioritize your time wisely. In other words, until you know like the back of your hand and can read Hebrew...you have got your work cut out for you. Shalom, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jun 23, 2006 9:11:57 GMT -8
This is something curious I just read in connection with the Samaritan , which just might go to show that the was have today is indeed not sufficient, and that we need to use the Samaritan for comparison. " In about two thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the LXX. agrees with the former. The New Testament also, when quoting from the Old Testament, agrees as a rule with the Samaritan text, where that differs from the Jewish." Easton's Bible Dictionary. This page www.aramaicpeshitta.com/OTtools/samaritan_pentateuch.htm has some very interesting information as regards the Samaritan . Shalom, David |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jun 25, 2006 14:47:38 GMT -8
Shalom David, Careful now... Please reread the forum rules as the statement above violates them. It is true that many passages in the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant writings) do quote the Pentateuch and this helps us to understand why some things don't correspond exactly with the Hebrew . But, this does not mean that the Hebrew Masoretic text that we have today is full of errors...it just means that when the New covenant writings were translated into Greek that they chose Greek quotes from the Pentateuch to go hand in hand with the Greek version of the New Covenant writings. It really depends on what Bible version of the that you are reading from, but many times the differences can be explained in the different ways to translate one particular word. Also, keep in mind that there are some words in Hebrew that there is no translation directly to the Greek. Because of this in many cases some creativity had to be used to communicate the thought being espoused in the Hebrew when translating into Greek (Pentateuch). Therefore, because our Greek new testament cannot fully communicate the Hebrew in many cases and many times had to use a word that had the closest meaning...When this happens, much can be lost in translation. I believe originally that the New Covenant writings were penned in Hebrew, but that most of these copies were destroyed during intense persecution of the Messianic Jews and non-believing Jews when Hebrew scrolls were destroyed. This naturally would aid in the survival of the Greek copies of the New Covenant writings as opposed to the Hebrew copies. Also, there would be many more of the Greek copies to survive as the Gentile population out-numbered the Jewish population. Only the Hebrew scrolls that were greater number and hidden probably squeezed through preserved. But, I believe that there are probably some existing copies of the Hebrew Brit Chadashah (New covenant writings) hidden today waiting to be discovered. Why is all of this important?? Because the Hebrew tends to be more accurate because it is the original language that maintains the original thought many times obscured through translation. So, am I saying that our Greek version of the New Covenant scriptures are full of errors?…Not necessarily, only that in many cases they can only get so close to the original thought being a Greek translation. At any rate, this forum is not the place to promote that our Hebrew is false and that the Samaritan should be preferred. Please feel free to use the Pentateuch and Peshitta as proof texts, but the use of the “Samaritan ” will not be acceptable. I hope that makes sense and that you will respect these guidelines. Shalom, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jun 25, 2006 18:05:04 GMT -8
I'm sorry, I did not intend to say that the Masoretic text is useless or anything of that sort, only that it is imperfect, which is not to say that is imperfect, but that this particular edition handed down may have been slightly corrupted, and we need the Samaritan for criticism. You're suggesting that it is quoting the LXX because it is the Greek versions. But I am referring to the Peshitto Aramaic versions. While yes, most (if not all) of the Brit Chadesha was written in Hebrew, the Greek very clearly is a translation of the Aramaic, so I don't think the Aramaic version would have a reason to quote the LXX. Rather it quoted an ancient Hebrew version (or perhaps the Targums) that closely resembled the Hebrew Samaritan version. I said there are 2,000 places where it appears that the Samaritan is superior. There is also 4,000 places where the Masoretic version appears to be superior. I am not suggesting overall superiority of the Samaritan . If I use the LXX, I may aswell be using the Samaritan version, as they agree in 2,000 places where the LXX disagrees with the Massoretic text. Please explain why the LXX would be acceptable in these places and the Samaritan would not. Shalom, David |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jun 25, 2006 21:47:04 GMT -8
Thank you for explaining Nachshon. Although, if what is communicated in the LXX is what is communicated in the Samaritan ...quoting the Samaritan would be useless as you could just as easily quote the LXX, or Peshitta. I believe that the Samaritans have rejected the True . They changed so they could start their own temple and priesthood in direct violation of what actually states. Whom knows what else they have altered to accomodate their needs. Their holy book will not be used as proof texts here on the forum. Please quote the LXX or the Peshitta as opposed to the Samaritan . This should be an easy enough request for you unless there is something else here at stake for you. Shalom, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jun 26, 2006 6:48:23 GMT -8
oy, too hard to explain.   Shalom, David |
|
|
|
Post by ninjaaron on Nov 28, 2009 2:58:12 GMT -8
The Samaritan Pentateuch has just been translated into English for the first time and is currently in the process of publication here in Israel. No idea when it will be published. In any case, the text itself, as well as the Samaritan tradition of vocalization, is in vast agreement with the MT (generally much closer than the LXX), though there are a few differences. If you get a copy of BHS (Biblia Hebreica Stuttgartesia), I believe they have notes in all cases of significant disagreement with the MT.
The agreement is quite interesting, considering that there interpretative tradition is very different.
For the record, Samaritans today deny that they ever had a Temple of their own, and ceased sacrificial worship at the time the Tabernacle disappeared. I'm not saying it's true, but you ought to be aware in case you ever meet a Samaritan.
I'm not an advocate of the Samaritan religion, but I do think it is useful to compare all the ancient versions when studying the text.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjaaron on Nov 28, 2009 3:01:16 GMT -8
|
|
, and learning about the discrepencies between the Samaritan manuscript family, and the Massoretic family. Has anyone looked into the Samaritan 
