Misterioasa Tora din Est

 

Misterioasa Tora din Est

 

Pentateuhul din Derbent, Daghestan, cunoscută şi ca Torah din Daghestan

 

Prima dată am citit despre acest manuscris într-o Enciclopedie iudaică. Şi am început să mă informez. Însă timpul trecea şi informaţiile erau vagi şi contradictorii, aşa că am apelat la Biblioteca Naţională a Rusiei, unde se păstrează acest manuscris.

 

Mesajele mele trimise către Biblioteca Naţională a Rusiei şi răspunsurile de acolo

 

edd@nlr.ru

         

14 oct. 2021, 15:23

         

Hello, I would like some information about the Pentaeuch from Derbent, Dagestan. I understand that it is in the archives of the former tsarist library in St. Petersburg. Please, could you send me a photocopy of Genesis chapter 18? I am a Christian historian and blogger who is interested in the ancient manuscript versions of the Bible. Could we see the manuscript and copy it completely, if we make a trip there? I wish you a good day! XXXXXX

 

 

Dear XXX,

 

 

Please specify from which manuscript you need a Genesis chapter 18?

 

We can place an order for electronic copies for you.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Electronic Document Delivery Service

 

of the National Library of Russia

 

Molchanova Anna

 

mailto:edd@nlr.ru

Johnny

         

          15 oct. 2021, 07:41

Dear Molchanova Anna, Thank you for the feed back! Here is: Derbent Torah, from Daghestan, discovered by Avraham Firkowicz in 1840. https://www.jstor.org/stable

 

orientsekt <orientsekt@nlr.ru>

         

15 oct. 2021, 18:31

         

către edd, eu

  

 

Dear Mr. XXX,

 

the manuscript in question is in fact a Pentatuch scroll written on

leather. The scroll seems to be written in the Caucasus or Iran

regions approximately in 15-16th Centuries CE. The shelf mark of the

manuscript is "1st Firk. Coll. A 1".

 

Our Library does not prepare images of texts containing in scrolls.

 

Sincerely yours,

Boris Zaykovsky,

 

Oriental MSS Section.

MS Department,

National Library of Russia

 

După care nu mi-au mai răspuns. Vă rog să observaţi vechimea manuscrisului: 15-16th Centuries CE. Deci nu are cum să fie un fals făcut de Avraham Firkowicz în 1840, cum spun unii.

 

De ce este important acest manuscris?

 

Manuscrisul este o copie a unei copii mult mai vechi, din era anterioară Textului Masoretic, fiind scris într-un text fără vocale, specifice unei ere anterioare Textului Masoretic. Iată de ce este atât de valoros şi important.

 

Tora antică (primele cinci cărţi din Biblie), profeții și celelalte scrieri din Tanakh (Vechiul Testament) au fost inițial compuse, în cea mai mare parte în ebraică, între timpul lui Moise și ultima generație a profeților. În timpul lui Neemia, mulţi dintre copii israeliților exilaţi, care proveneau din familii mixte - după cum ne spune Biblia, nu mai puteau înțelege bine limba şi implicit nici citirea ebraică originală, astfel că traducerile erau necesare. Aşadar Tanakhul ebraic original a fost tradus în limba aramaică a vremii, pentru diaspora evreiască, iar mai târziu o nouă ediție a Bibliei a fost tradusă într-o limbă ebraică mai dezvoltată a vremii, neo-ebraica, care avea un substrat ebraic şi un adstrat aramaic. Versiunile aramaice au fost traduse de un grup de masoreți cunoscuți ca „Medinkha'e” (Masoreții din Est) și au fost finalizate în secolul I d.Hr. Iar Noua Biblie ebraică (Biblia Neo-ebraică), redată și editată de către Ma'arba'e (Masoreții din Apus) a durat din secolul VII până în secolul al XI-lea e.n.!

Ambele ediții în aramaică și ebraică sunt martori ale acum pierdutului text original ebraic. Ambele grupuri de traducători și editori au avut mare grijă să păstreze originalul, după felul în care îşi imaginau ei că trebuie, redată într-o traducere (versiunea antică folosită de popoarele vorbitoare de aramaica Versiuni antice ale Bibliei Orientului) sau ca o actualizare modernă (textul actualizat folosit astăzi de cărturarii evrei în scrierea sulurilor Torei).

Ethelbert William Bullinger AKC (15 decembrie 1837 – 6 iunie 1913) a fost un cleric anglican, biblist și teolog. A fost editor principal al The Companion Bible (Bibliei însoțitoare) (publicat în 6 părți, 1909–1922), fiind finalizată după moartea sa de către asociații săi.

Apendicele de la Companion Bible editată de Bullinger arată nişte schimbări în textul ebraic. La fel şi adnotările masoreţilor care au făcut însemnări asupra tradiţiei de redare a textului vechi. Este adevărat că aceştia au fost atenți şi meticuloși, dar în acelaşi timp conservatori ai unei tradiţii de redare, pe care nu o putem şti cu siguranţă dacă este fidelă textului original sau nu. Oare au putut soluţiona corect erorile, corupţia și chiar eliminarea anumitor cuvinte și fraze făcute de înainţaşii redării textului ebraic? Între textul vestic şi cel estic (versiunea vestică şi versiunea estică) apar unele diferențe majore în izvoare orientale și occidentale. Iată de ce Torah din Derbent, Daghestan, ar putea ajuta cercetătorii să înţeleagă mai bine anumite probleme ale variaţiei textului ebraic.

După anul 136, Iudeea a fost distrusă aproape complet de romani, în timpul rebeliunii lui Bar Kochba. În urma luptelor aprige, au supravieţuit foarte putine manuscrise. Apoi, după ce romanii au scos Biblia ebraică în afara legii şi au ars copiile ei, acest lucru a redus şi mai semnificativ manuscrisele Bibliei ebraice aflate în circulaţie în Iudeea şi în diaspora. Drept urmare, nevoia de a verifica un text ebraic credibil s-a accentuat si mai mult, după ce au apărut anumite versiuni greceşti, dar şi ebraice cu variaţii textuale.

Aşa a apărut lucrarea lui Aquila şi lucrarea lui Teodotion, care faţă de Textul Masoretic actual nu au diferente prea mari de sens. Între textele Septuagintei arhaice şi între textele ebraice arhaice de la Marea Moartă, există diferenţe de detaliu, acest lucru fiind vizibil la compararea dintre Textul Masoretic actual şi pasaje din LXX, Sulurile de la Marea Moartă, Ghemara şi alte scrieri ebraice.

 

-----

 

The ancient Torah, Prophets and Writings (Tanakh) was originally

composed, for the most part, in Hebrew between the time of Moses and the last generation of the prophets. During the time of Nehemiah, the majority of Israelites, as the Bible tells us, could no longer comprehend the reading of the original Hebrew, thus translations were necessary. The original Hebrew Tanakh was translated into the Aramaic language of the time and later a new edition of the Bible was translated into more developed Hebrew language of that time. The Aramaic versions were translated by agroup of Masoretes known as “Medinkha'e” (Masoretes of theEast) and was finalized in the first century CE. The new Hebrew

Bible, translated and edited by the Ma'arba'e (Masoretes of the West) too much longer to complete - up to the eleventh century CE!

Both of these Aramaic and Hebrew editions are witnesses to the

now lost original Hebrew text. Both groups of translators and editors were very careful to preserve the original, at least in a translation (the ancient version used by Aramaic speaking peoples

 

Ancient Versions of the Bible of the East) or as a modern update (the updated text used today by Jewish scribes in writing Torah scrolls). And while they were careful, or meticulous, it is evident that errors, corrupt

ions and even removal of certain words and phrases were removed from

the western version and some major differences appear between the

Eastern and Western sources.

 

Ancient Versions of the Bible

of the East) or a

s a modern upda

te (the upda

ted text used today by

Jewish scribes in writing Torah scrolls). And while they were

careful, or m

eticulous, it is evident that errors, corrupt

ions and

even removal of certain words and phra

ses were removed from

the

western ve

rsion and some major differences appear between the

Eastern and W

estern sources.

Professor Emanuel Tov, in his book

Textual Criticism of the

Hebrew Bible

1

, says: “Even though t

he scribes of M

T

meticulously pre

served a uniform text, breaches in this unity are

nevertheless visible. Between the early sources of M

T there

existed differences in consonants between texts form

the West

(Palestine) and the texts from

the East (Babylon). S

ome 250 s

uch

differences are mentioned in the Masoretic notes as Medinkha'e

and M

a'arba'e.”

1

Published by U

itgeverij Van Gorcum, 2001

How old are our Bibles?

As mentioned above, the ancient Hebrew text, which no l

onger

exists (at least in whole), dates back to the time of M

oses.

Various "versions" of t

his same text (or group of m

anuscripts)

were found a

t Kirbat Qumran (the Qumran Caves) and are

generally referred to as the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Dead Sea

Scrolls are a collection of Bi

blical and non-bi

blical texts in

Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The date of these manuscripts differ and scholars argue as to the

exact dates of each scroll or fra

gment. There is some general

agreement to many of t

he manuscripts dating ba

ck to the 300's

BCE and the first century CE

. In m

any cases the Aramaic and

Hebrew texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Aramaic

version of t

he original Hebrew text and against that of the upda

ted Masoretic Hebrew text.

I postulate that the original Aramaic versions proba

bly date back

as far as Nehemiah's time with the necessary upda

tes as the

language of the people continued to develop. It

s actual origin

however is considered to be a “mystery” by m

ost scholars who

take even the slightest interest in the ancient Aramaic language.

On the other hand, the Masoretic Hebrew texts are quite late in

existence. The editing proc

ess for the Hebrew MT was completed

in the eleventh century.

The most complete know

n Hebrew Bible in existence (the

Leningrad Code

x) wasn't composed unt

il more than one

thousand

years

after

Messiah

1

walked the earth. Yet, the earliest know

n

complete Aramaic version of t

he Scriptures date back to the fifth

or sixth century, w

hich was copied from

a much earlier text which

is proof i

s given in the Dead Sea Scrolls. My gre

at grandfather,

Aran Ya'aqub Y

ounan, who adapted the Aramaic Peshitta “New

Testament” from

Eastern Aramaic to Judeo-Aramaic (Neo-

Aramaic)

2

, played with the idea that the Aramaic Tanakh and the

earliest manuscripts of the western MT began to be composed

around t

he same time. On the other hand, m

y father believed that

the Aramaic could have been the main source text for M

T. For

either case, I am not yet ready, or c

omfortable to make an opi

nion

on the matter.

1

Yeshua

e

w

s

y

2

He began working on hi

s codex in 1897 a

nd the work on t

he original

concluded by 1912 or

a year before. He was unable to complete the work before

his death. Younan adapted the Church of the East Peshitta text to Jewish Neo-

Aramaic which is typically written phone

tically and replaces certain characters

with others and written with the standard Hebrew alphabet - at least according

to the spelling and gr

ammatical rules in which he was using.

Why choose the Aramaic version over that of the Hebrew?

I have always said that “oldest is not always better.” However, if

there is evidence of m

ore than one

textual witness, and these

witnesses are older than any "upda

ted" ve

rsion (i.e., the Hebrew

MT) and they do not

agree with a latter version, then we must in

good c

onscious choose the majority text. There have been several

examples demonstrating how

the ancient Aramaic Tanakh

(AN"K) and the Dead Sea Scrolls often times disagree with that of

the later Hebrew MT.

In my opi

nion, in many cases even some of the targum

ic texts

(Onqelos, Jonathan, Yerushalmi) are better than that of the

Hebrew MT. The reason I s

ay this is because of so many

disagreements between the ancient witnesses and the more

“modern” Hebrew MT. It is well know

n that the Hebrew MT

contains errors and corrupt

ions as noted above, even though t

he

Masoretes were meticulous in writing the text.

Tov says, “Yet, in spite of their precision, even the manuscripts

which were written and voc

alized by t

he Masoretes contain

corrupt

ions, changes, and erasures. More importantly, the

Masoretes, and be

fore them the soferim, acted in a relatively late

stage of the development of the biblical text, and be

fore they had

put their meticulous principles into pra

ctice, the text already

contained corrupt

ions and ha

d been tampered with duri

ng that

earlier period when scribes did not

as yet treat the text with such

reverence...corrupt

ed in the course of the scribal

transmission...S

uch corrupt

ions are recognized in the Qumran

scrolls (e.g., 1Q

Isaa in Isa 13:19; 26:3-4; 30:30; 40:7-8) on t

he

basis of their comparison with MT and ot

her texts, and, by t

he

same token, in MT itself, when compared with other texts....1 S

am

1:24; 4:31-22;

2 Sam 23:31; 2 Kgs 11:13; Jer 23:33; 29:26; 41:9...

In many de

tails MT does not reflect the 'Original Text' of the

4

biblical books

...differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier

or different stages of the biblical text will continue to be

recognized.”

But weren't the Jewish scribes faithful in preserving the original

text?

As has already be

en not

ed the scribes (soferim) were from

two

sets of “Masorete” families - east and west. Many, but

not all, of

the errors and corrupt

ions found w

ithin the western text (MT)

have been cataloged by va

rious scholars.

Christian David Ginsburg not

ed how

the scribes responsible for

preserving and transmitting M

T went so far as to even remove the

holy Name of G

od (Y

HWH

h

w

h

y

) throughout

the Tanakh in at

least 134 pa

ssages

1

, replacing the prope

r Name with the title

“Adonai” (Lord). If t

hese particular scribes were so bol

d as to

make such a blasphemous act, what other atrocities must they

have committed in the name of “faithful preservation”?

Many a religious individual, especially unde

r the influence of

Protestantism, have a fanciful and ne

ar idolatrous view of the

Hebrew MT in that they imagine the redactors (Masoretes) were

divinely inspired to carefully and pe

rfectly pre

serve the “Word of

God.” Many quot

e the passage in the Gospel of M

atthew to base

their preposterous ideology: “Heaven and earth shall pass away,

but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35, K

ing James

Version).

However, as has already be

en demonstrated above, this was never

the case with the western text that has been transmitted by t

he

Masoretes. Many of t

he same corrupt

ions found i

n the MT have

been carried ove

r in most of the Chri

stian Bible translations of the

Hebrew “Old Testament”.

5

Ancient Versions of the Bible

Concerning the reverence by eastern Masoretes for the holy text of

the Tanakh, in relation to the Targum

s, Pinkhos

Churgi

n says in

his

Targum Jonathan to the Prophets,

“The Aramaic rendering of

the Prophe

ts belongs to the earliest translations of the Bible which

have come down to us. Its importance for the textual investigation

and early Biblical interpretation cannot be overestimated. While

the targum

ist makes little display of c

ritical study i

n rendering

intricate passages, and while he does not pretend to pre

sent a

minutely literal translation of t

he Hebrew text, his reverence for

the letter and transmitted reading of t

he text must by fa

r have

exceeded that of the Greek and Syriac translators. At the same

time his translation is doubt

lessly based on a

sounde

r and exacter

understanding of bot

h the etymology a

nd us

ages of the Hebrew

language.”

2

Bible commentator Adam Clarke says of the Masoretes, “The

Masoretes were the most extensive Jewish commentators which

that nation could ever boa

st. The system of punc

tuation, proba

bly

invented by t

hem, is a continual gloss on the Law and the

Prophe

ts; their vow

el points, and pros

aic and m

etrical accents,

&c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of

meaning, w

hich in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no

means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the

language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and

extensive comments ever written on t

he Word of G

od; for there is

not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular

gloss through i

ts influence. This school is suppos

ed to have

commenced about 450 ye

ars before our L

ord, a

nd to have

extended dow

n to AD 1030. S

ome think it did not

commence

before the 5th century A

.D.”

3

1

See APPENDIX I, "Emendations of the Soferim"

2

Yale University Press, 1907

6

Ancient Versions of the Bible

3

The Holy Bible, “Containing the Old and New Testaments. The text carefully

printed from the most correct copies of the present authorized translation,

including the marginal readings and pa

rallel texts: with a commentary and

critical notes; designed as a help to a better unde

rstanding of

the sacred

writings.” Published by T

. Tegg and Son, 1837

Is there anything "better" than the MT available?

We have the ancient textual witnesses to the original Hebrew

found within the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Aramaic (Medinkhaye)

Version and in fragments. As mentioned above, these ancient

versions often agree with each other and not

with the eleventh

century M

T.

When poi

nting out

some differences between the use of a

particular word in the Dead Sea Scrolls (particularly in the Great

Isaiah Scroll) and the Aramaic and M

T, demonstrating that the

DSS and Aramaic were not in agreement with MT

1

, Paul Younan

said, “This is clearly a case where the pre-Masorete original

Hebrew reading, $-x-d [

d

x

s

], is attested to by bot

h the POT

[Peshitta Old Testament] and LXX [Septuagint]. What makes it

irrefutable is the discovery of t

he DSS Isaiah manuscript, clearly

showing that the Masoretes had a scribal error he

re in reading

Resh for D

aleth (a most common error w

hile reading Ktav

Ashuri). Before the discovery of t

he DSS, all we would have is the

POT and LXX agreeing with each other while disagreeing with

the Masoretic version. T

his example convincingly demonstrates

that the LXX and POT can be, at times, much more valuable in

ascertaining the original reading than the Masoretic version

 

 

https://yeshua1blog.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/ancient_versions_of_the_bible.pdf