Original manuscripts?

[Elizabeth]

I have heard that the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are without vowel and punctuation marks. I have also heard there aren't even spaces between the words at least in some. I'm just looking for clarification if that's true, and if so, what is the understood purpose(s) of that because it almost seems to invite personal and man's own interpretation

[alon]

Oct 9, 2018 5:52:26 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

I have heard that the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are without vowel and punctuation marks. I have also heard there aren't even spaces between the words at least in some. I'm just looking for clarification if that's true, and if so, what is the understood purpose(s) of that because it almost seems to invite personal and man's own interpretation

There were no capital letters and no punctuation marks. But there were spaces. They did not use vowels as we understand them. And they used literary devices such as repetition to set sections of writings apart.

Interpretations between languages are always open to misinterpretation. Try reading from an interlinear Bible and you'll get an idea how difficult this can be. To understand another language you have to learn to think like that culture does. This can be difficult with cultures that are vastly different, especially an ancient one. 

This is why we often use the Hebrew terms rather than English. If we learn all the meanings, the connotations a word carries it then means more than just the closest English equivalent. Ideally we'd learn Biblical Hebrew and read from the source texts themselves. But my mind doesn't seem to be that flexible any more. So for most of us we do the best we can with the source materials and references we have and trust that God knew what He was doing in all with the languages.

This becomes an even greater issue with the B'rith Chadashah, where we have source documents so obviously tampered with when translated from Hebrew to Greek. Then they were translated into other languages such as English. Over 5700 different source documents, most of which disagree and some wildly. Marcion even admitted that he and others were rewriting many, especially the Pauline works to suit themselves. Still it is God's Word, and so the truth is there even in English if we are willing to look. Paul was difficult to understand even in his own day and language, and men have always tried to twist the meanings of scriptures:

2 Peter 3:16  (ESV) as he (Paul) does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

But it is not impossible to do. Just sometimes it takes a bit of thought or even work to get at the meanings. Use the best translations you can as your primary source (I like the ESV, NASB, NKJV, but absolutely refuse to use the NIV). Then compare translations (Bible Gateway and Bible Study Tools have literally dozens of translations online which you can easily switch between). They also have reference tools such as concordances, dictionaries, and lexicons you can access to get an idea what words mean. But overall if you start with a good translation the meanings are there. Yes, there may be errors and some meaning will be lost in translation. But the Word of God is eternal, and the meanings are there if we ourselves look honestly at what is said. Because we- our training, experiences, our own preconceptions and our own desires are the biggest variable in the equation here.

Those who stay with Messianic Judaism have committed to making the effort to understand; to put aside our own prejudices (as much as we can) and take a hard look at what is written. We want God's truth, not man's corrupted message. But we must trust that the truth is still there, despite all man's efforts to change it. And yes, it is difficult to read from ancient manuscripts, but scholars actually do a credible job. Punctuation as we know it is a relatively recent linguistic concept. So it can be difficult, but is in no wise impossible to read these ancient texts. Just like it is not impossible to search out the truth from our English translations.

Dan C

[Questor]

Oct 9, 2018 5:52:26 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

I have heard that the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are without vowel and punctuation marks. I have also heard there aren't even spaces between the words at least in some. I'm just looking for clarification if that's true, and if so, what is the understood purpose(s) of that because it almost seems to invite personal and man's own interpretation

It also helps a little that 5 often used letters in Hebrew had their own distinct form at the end of a word...K, M, N, P, and Z. They appear to be exaggerations...making a letter fancier, or longer, but actually have meanings in their letter form.

I am not experienced or sufficiently learned in Hebrew to explain all the regular letters, much less the sofit or ending letters, but an 'M', pronounced Mem, for instance, has the appearance of a pregnant woman, with an opening at the bottom to the left of the letter to represent the birth canal. A Mem sofit, used at the end of a word, tends to be used to represent a closed womb...a pregnant woman with no birth canal, and some of the roundness of the Mem as a Mem sofit is a little more squared...denoting a barren woman or a virgin.

Each letter has its own meaning and gematria which adds to the hidden uses of the word and helps distinguish why that particular word was used in the text going to the deeper meaning of what it means on not just the surface, (peshet)...but whether it hints at something else (remez), is being used as a comparison (drash), or points to a secret lying within the use of the word (sod).

Presumably, when one is a master at Hebrew, you are holding in your mind, not just the surface meaning, but the reason you are using a particular word, and what it says in gematria all at the same time which seems slightly insane to me, but I am not a Hebrew scholar!  Apparently, you imbibe these multiple meanings as a child, and if particularly adept at Hebrew, you use all the letters direct meaning, how their numerics line up the various distinction in how a word is used, and also the level of exegesis, so that when going up to read and expound on a passage, you are playing with more than a full deck. 

Abba, of course, added codes into the words and passages of the Scriptures, making more depth available to the prophets writing them down, and apparently explained as he went, so that said prophets were able to draw out an immense amount of information as they wrote about what they were given in just a few short words.

[alon]

I was thinking about this thread, and it occurred to me that Christian theology gets in the way of translations more than the form ancient Hebrew writing takes. A very good example is the Marcionite idea that the God of the Old Testament was authoritative, overbearing, mean spirited and impossible to obey. The God of the New Testament is seen as loving, understanding, and forgiving. This thinking permeates all of Christianity, though some denominations more than others. So with that theological perspective in mind, let's look at the following in one of the more honest translations out there:

Genesis 22:2 (ESV) He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

Now that's pretty brutal when God tells you to go off and kill your child. And in that society especially when he is your only heir to the promise and you are too old to have more children. "Unless you want a lightning bolt hurled at your backside get up that mountain and kill him!" But look at the Hebrew:

וַיֹּ֡אמֶר קַח־נָ֠א אֶת־בִּנְךָ֨ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֤ אֲשֶׁר־אָהַ֙בְתָּ֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֔ק וְלֶךְ־לְךָ֔ אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּ֑ה וְהַעֲלֵ֤הוּ שָׁם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה עַ֚ל אַחַ֣ד הֶֽהָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ

That word is נָ֠א na, "please." God spoke to Avraham as a friend, asking he do this in faith and trust. This places the verse in an entirely different light! Here's what the "Jewish Publications Society Commentary" says:

The Hebrew adds the participle na to the imperative which usually softens the command to an entreaty, as noted in Sanhedrin 89b, Genesis Rabba 55:7, and Rashi’s commentary. Abraham has absolute freedom of choice. Should he refuse, he would not incur any guilt. (For imperative with na cf. Num. 20:10; Judg. 13:4; 16:6, 10, 28; 18:5; Isa. 1:18; Amos 7:2, 5.) (The JPS commentary (151). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.)

Young's Literal Translation does indicate this:

Genesis 22:2 (YLT) And He saith, `Take, I pray thee, thy son, thine only one, whom thou hast loved, even Isaac, and go for thyself unto the land of Moriah, and cause him to ascend there for a burnt-offering on one of the mountains of which I speak unto thee.'

However if you don't know Shakespear you'll likely miss it, since who say "I pray thee" any more?

This illustrates why it is best if you can learn Biblical Hebrew and read it in the original language. Unfortunately we do not have this luxury with the NT. But if we learn to read everything in the context of the time, customs, author (compare to his other works), who it was actually written to/for, and most importantly taking everything back to , then we can get a very accurate idea what is being said in any passage of scripture. It also helps to know the prejudices and false theology and doctrines of Christianity so we can mitigate their effects in some readings like this one; kind of softening them up even if we don't read Hebrew.

And know the character of God. He spoke to His own like a friend, not a taskmaster or an ogre. Both Moshe and Avraham, as well as others challenged God, questioned Him, and bargained with Him. What other god would allow that! Other gods did demand the sacrifice of your children, and in far more brutal ways than using a knife! If we come to understand that our God and the God of Avraham is not like that, then we can see this relationship of God and his trusting friend Avraham even without the word "please." And we can more fully understand this great man of faith when he said to Yitzchak "God will provide the sacrifice." 

And He did, both immediately for Avraham and later for the entire world. And here we can see both the kind of trust we must have coming to Yeshua/God asking for and receiving His saving grace, and from then on in developing and maintaining a relationship with that same God. Authority, yes! But also family, friend, trusted companion. It's great to find out God said "please." But if we know God and understand Avraham then really, deep down, we essentially knew it anyhow.

Dan C

[alon]

Oct 9, 2018 9:19:56 GMT -8 Questor said:

Oct 9, 2018 5:52:26 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

I have heard that the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are without vowel and punctuation marks. I have also heard there aren't even spaces between the words at least in some. I'm just looking for clarification if that's true, and if so, what is the understood purpose(s) of that because it almost seems to invite personal and man's own interpretation

It also helps a little that 5 often used letters in Hebrew had their own distinct form at the end of a word...K, M, N, P, and Z. They appear to be exaggerations...making a letter fancier, or longer, but actually have meanings in their letter form.

I am not experienced or sufficiently learned in Hebrew to explain all the regular letters, much less the sofit or ending letters, but an 'M', pronounced Mem, for instance, has the appearance of a pregnant woman, with an opening at the bottom to the left of the letter to represent the birth canal. A Mem sofit, used at the end of a word, tends to be used to represent a closed womb...a pregnant woman with no birth canal, and some of the roundness of the Mem as a Mem sofit is a little more squared...denoting a barren woman or a virgin.

Each letter has its own meaning and gematria which adds to the hidden uses of the word and helps distinguish why that particular word was used in the text going to the deeper meaning of what it means on not just the surface, (peshet)...but whether it hints at something else (remez), is being used as a comparison (drash), or points to a secret lying within the use of the word (sod).

Presumably, when one is a master at Hebrew, you are holding in your mind, not just the surface meaning, but the reason you are using a particular word, and what it says in gematria all at the same time which seems slightly insane to me, but I am not a Hebrew scholar!  Apparently, you imbibe these multiple meanings as a child, and if particularly adept at Hebrew, you use all the letters direct meaning, how their numerics line up the various distinction in how a word is used, and also the level of exegesis, so that when going up to read and expound on a passage, you are playing with more than a full deck. 

Abba, of course, added codes into the words and passages of the Scriptures, making more depth available to the prophets writing them down, and apparently explained as he went, so that said prophets were able to draw out an immense amount of information as they wrote about what they were given in just a few short words.

True. You can go as deep in understanding Hebrew and the infinite word of God as you want. I have some reference books dealing with those things. But honestly, they are as much humbling as they are helpful! But even in our English translations, the truth of His Word is there. Some more than others, for sure. But with a little though and effort on our parts, along with some prayerful guidance, it is there.

I suppose if we didn't want to know just how deep the word goes, we should have taken the blue pill and stayed in Christianity! 

Dan C

[Questor]

Oct 9, 2018 10:12:59 GMT -8 alon said:

Oct 9, 2018 9:19:56 GMT -8 Questor said:

It also helps a little that 5 often used letters in Hebrew had their own distinct form at the end of a word...K, M, N, P, and Z. They appear to be exaggerations...making a letter fancier, or longer, but actually have meanings in their letter form.

I am not experienced or sufficiently learned in Hebrew to explain all the regular letters, much less the sofit or ending letters, but an 'M', pronounced Mem, for instance, has the appearance of a pregnant woman, with an opening at the bottom to the left of the letter to represent the birth canal. A Mem sofit, used at the end of a word, tends to be used to represent a closed womb...a pregnant woman with no birth canal, and some of the roundness of the Mem as a Mem sofit is a little more squared...denoting a barren woman or a virgin.

Each letter has its own meaning and gematria which adds to the hidden uses of the word and helps distinguish why that particular word was used in the text going to the deeper meaning of what it means on not just the surface, (peshet)...but whether it hints at something else (remez), is being used as a comparison (drash), or points to a secret lying within the use of the word (sod).

Presumably, when one is a master at Hebrew, you are holding in your mind, not just the surface meaning, but the reason you are using a particular word, and what it says in gematria all at the same time which seems slightly insane to me, but I am not a Hebrew scholar!  Apparently, you imbibe these multiple meanings as a child, and if particularly adept at Hebrew, you use all the letters direct meaning, how their numerics line up the various distinction in how a word is used, and also the level of exegesis, so that when going up to read and expound on a passage, you are playing with more than a full deck. 

Abba, of course, added codes into the words and passages of the Scriptures, making more depth available to the prophets writing them down, and apparently explained as he went, so that said prophets were able to draw out an immense amount of information as they wrote about what they were given in just a few short words.

True. You can go as deep in understanding Hebrew and the infinite word of God as you want. I have some reference books dealing with those things. But honestly, they are as much humbling as they are helpful! But even in our English translations, the truth of His Word is there. Some more than others, for sure. But with a little though and effort on our parts, along with some prayerful guidance, it is there.

I suppose if we didn't want to know just how deep the word goes, we should have taken the blue pill and stayed in Christianity! 

Dan C

Well, I don't have the full deck necessary to 4 levels (minimum) of understanding, much less the memory to learn that sufficiently to use it...so I would like another red pill...please!

[Elizabeth]

Oct 9, 2018 10:05:37 GMT -8 alon said:

I was thinking about this thread, and it occurred to me that Christian theology gets in the way of translations more than the form ancient Hebrew writing takes. A very good example is the Marcionite idea that the God of the Old Testament was authoritative, overbearing, mean spirited and impossible to obey. The God of the New Testament is seen as loving, understanding, and forgiving. This thinking permeates all of Christianity, though some denominations more than others......It also helps to know the prejudices and false theology and doctrines of Christianity so we can mitigate their effects in some readings like this one; kind of softening them up even if we don't read Hebrew.

And know the character of God. He spoke to His own like a friend, not a taskmaster or an ogre. Both Moshe and Avraham, as well as others challenged God, questioned Him, and bargained with Him.
Dan C

What you described was a factor in my issues with evil. This is where how we treat others effects their ability to relate and draw near to G-d. For me the idea of man and soft and approachable just never went together so that characterization of G-d just made intuitive sense.  I'm not sure how to resolve that, but I see now that it played a role - G-d loves me and takes care of me, but He isn't interested or nice to me???  I didn't realize I had that issue till I looked back.

I've also heard different teachers say that if someone had a troubled relationship with their father, then the concept of G-d as their Father is often problematic and potentially detrimental.

Just something to be aware of as we talk with people and in how we behave towards each other. 

[Loxody]

The interpretation of what the vowels were was up to the seventy elders then Men of the Great Assembly then the sages and rabbis.  Of course, many of them debated what the pronunciation of the Hebrew was.

An example of this would be the word חלב in Exodus 23:19.

לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ

Is it chalev (fat) or chalav (milk)?

Traditionally it is rendered חֲלֵב (fat) but just to be sure it is interpreted as both, hence the prohibition in Judaism of not eating meat and dairy together.

Even today, there are different ways of pronouncing Hebrew - Ashkenzai, Sephardic, Modern Israeli, Yemenite, Western Sephardic (Spanish & Portuguese tradition), etc.  The S&P pronunciation pronounces every ב as an English "b", whether or not it has a dagesh (this goes all the way back to the period of the Babylonian exile).

[jimmie]

Exodus 23:19 ... Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Exodus 34:26 ... Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Deuteronomy 14:21 ... Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Abraham and God ate meat and milk at the same meal:

Genesis 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

[rakovsky]

Right. So does that mean that Abraham mixed in milk in Genesis, and that the prohibition in Exodus most likely originally used the word for fat?

[alon]

May 13, 2019 21:36:56 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Right. So does that mean that Abraham mixed in milk in Genesis, and that the prohibition in Exodus most likely originally used the word for fat?

The most common understanding is this was a particularly cruel practice of regional pagans. They would take a goat having just given birth, milk her, slaughter her kid in her presence and boil the meat in her own milk. This was a proscription against such cruelty.

However since we are unsure of the original context or for that matter what the term used there means, observant Jews take the position of better safe than transgress. So they do not mix meat and dairy at all. No cheeseburgers, even though that is just a piece of cheese laid on top of a meat patty. And probably no cheese on your Ramen, even though that is probably some beef flavored chemical in a packet you dump in the noodles. And no glass of milk at breakfast with your beef bacon (which tastes much better than pork bacon, btw).

Many Messianics think this is one of those places where the Rabbonim went too far in their interpretation, which is actually more of a fence than saying "God said no."

Dan C

[jimmie]

Fat seems to have been reserved for being burnt upon the alter and not for consumption:

Leviticus 3:16 And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD'S.

Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Leviticus 7:25 For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.

If fat was intended for the three earlier verses, what is the mechanics/purpose of seething a kid in his mother's fat? If you seethe a kid's stomach in his mother's milk (or any milk for that matter) the result is cheese. Again, what product is made when seething a kid in fat? Way not just seethe the kid in its' own fat?

[rakovsky]

May 14, 2019 6:50:17 GMT -8 alon said:

May 13, 2019 21:36:56 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Right. So does that mean that Abraham mixed in milk in Genesis, and that the prohibition in Exodus most likely originally used the word for fat?

The most common understanding is this was a particularly cruel practice of regional pagans. They would take a goat having just given birth, milk her, slaughter her kid in her presence and boil the meat in her own milk. This was a proscription against such cruelty.

Good point, Alon. I forgot about that back story. This is a good example of how you have alot of knowledge to share in the online discussions.