Hebrew Bible older than Aleppo Codex

S

Shoonra

Well-known member
It turns out that the Codex Sassoon has recently been dated as older than the Leningrad Codex (the BHS) and the Aleppo Codex (the Jerusalem Crown). This priceless volume is a expected to bring in more than $50 million at a Southeby's auction ... and I expect there will be a published facsimile or annotated edition in the foreseeable future.

https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-731696
 
The Codex is NOT exclusively Hebrew. It is impossible to separate Greek influence from ANY extant Hebrew collection. As witnessed in this collection. This Codex is organized into three distinct parts. Which is due to late Greek influence. The term "Torah" has evolved throughout history as well as "Pentateuch".

The LXX is better. Much of what you read concerning this Codex is nothing more than marketing hype to drive up the purchase price.
 
I cannot prove it, but I do not believe that the LXX was a major influence on the Hebrew text. Nor do I think that the LXX is better, altho it is an ancient witness to some Hebrew variants.
 
Shoonra said:
I cannot prove it, but I do not believe that the LXX was a major influence on the Hebrew text. Nor do I think that the LXX is better, altho it is an ancient witness to some Hebrew variants.
Click to expand...

These are the types of discussions I enjoy.......

I mentioned why this text is undoubtedly influenced by the Greek edition. They use the word "Torah" and "Pentateuch" which witness to divisions introduced by late collections of Hebrew manuscript after the rendering of the LXX.

There is no such thing as a Hebrew text that predates the LXX. None. Zero.

Can you give me one reason why anyone should consider this work to be superior to what we already know?

The reason we know Hebrew at all today is because of Greek culture. We have significant witnesses in ancient Greek texts. There is no such "thing " associated with the Hebrew language.
 
Last edited:
Conan said:

Is the Earliest, Most Complete Hebrew Bible Going on Auction?​

The sale of Codex Sassoon raises questions about what’s real and what’s hype about this important manuscript​

Click to expand...

From the article....

To be frank, this is nonsense. Pure mashed potato. The consonantal text of what we now call the Hebrew Bible was fixed well before the birth of Christ, and there is a great deal of evidence that a firm tradition regarding the correct reading of that consonantal text was also fixed by that time. The genius of the Masoretes (Jewish scholars, roughly AD 600–900, particularly interested in the text of the Hebrew Bible) was not that they “standardized” the text of the Hebrew Bible, but that they (1) found ways to accurately represent in writing what had previously been preserved orally regarding the correct reading of the consonantal Hebrew text; (2) consolidated and developed a massive, intricate network of textual notes designed to prevent inadvertent changes to the text of the Hebrew Bible in the future.

"Mashed Potato"? When you see something like this in any scholarly work, realize words such as this are used to detract from the subject at hand. The Masoretes were not geniuses. They fabricated their "construct" from "thin air" while claiming "oral traditions". They were a scattered and dissolved nation. Their house was left to them "DESOLATE". The words of our Lord..... There were no "Oral Traditions" left for them. Those "traditions" survived in the extant witness of the early church made of those who were "Jews" inwardly. Those who are the faithful among the children of Abraham. Those that continued the faith throughout history. Christians. There is an extraordinary wealth of information found in the derivative texts that came out of the early church. If you want to know the earliest Hebrew texts from the second and third century, learn the Vulgate. That was the work of Jerome. Not that I believe it is the best. It isn't. However, the Vulgate is better than this edition.

It is true that, today, very few traces survive of Hebrew Bible manuscripts written between about AD 100 to AD 800. Exceptions include the extraordinary Ein Gedi Leviticus Scroll, and—possibly—some of the scroll fragments currently housed in Cambridge University Library. However, this so-called “silent period” does not imply that the Hebrew Bible was transmitted only orally between those dates. On the contrary: stringent Jewish regulations stipulate that the biblical text must be read from a scroll in synagogue services—not recited from memory. These regulations were codified in around AD 600—right in the middle of the “silent period”! So where did all these Bible manuscripts go? Put simply: some went up in smoke, and some went down into the ground. The burning of synagogues in key Jewish centres (such as Jerusalem and Old Cairo) in the high Middle Ages is to be blamed for the loss of many Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Other Bible manuscripts, having been used to the point of being worn out beyond repair, were buried—according to Jewish custom.

Notice the reference to 600 AD. This "author" is confirming the fact that they are reallying on "oral traditions" from a desolated Hebrew people. I'm not accustoms to accepting oral traditions OVER extant written witnesses.
 
I very much disagree with your comments about the Massoretes and about the preservation of the Hebrew text. I won't use the word consensus, but the general trend of thought among scholars is that the consonental Hebrew text predates the LXX by centuries. The work of the Massoretes involved more than just providing the vowels and accents and copying the Bible.
 
]]
Moses, Posters: Moses

christ_undivided said:
From the article....


It is true that, today, very few traces survive of Hebrew Bible manuscripts written between about AD 100 to AD 800. Exceptions include the extraordinary Ein Gedi Leviticus Scroll, and—possibly—some of the scroll fragments currently housed in Cambridge University Library. However, this so-called “silent period” does not imply that the Hebrew Bible was transmitted only orally between those dates. On the contrary: stringent Jewish regulations stipulate that the biblical text must be read from a scroll in synagogue services—not recited from memory. These regulations were codified in around AD 600—right in the middle of the “silent period”! So where did all these Bible manuscripts go? Put simply: some went up in smoke, and some went down into the ground. The burning of synagogues in key Jewish centres (such as Jerusalem and Old Cairo) in the high Middle Ages is to be blamed for the loss of many Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Other Bible manuscripts, having been used to the point of being worn out beyond repair, were buried—according to Jewish custom.

Notice the reference to 600 AD. This "author" is confirming the fact that they are reallying on "oral traditions" from a desolated Hebrew people. I'm not accustoms to accepting oral traditions OVER extant written witnesses.
Click to expand...
christ_undivided said:
From the article....
It is true that, today, very few traces survive of Hebrew Bible manuscripts written between about AD 100 to AD 800. Exceptions include the extraordinary Ein Gedi Leviticus Scroll, and—possibly—some of the scroll fragments currently housed in Cambridge University Library. However, this so-called “silent period” does not imply that the Hebrew Bible was transmitted only orally between those dates. On the contrary: stringent Jewish regulations stipulate that the biblical text must be read from a scroll in synagogue services—not recited from memory. These regulations were codified in around AD 600—right in the middle of the “silent period”! So where did all these Bible manuscripts go? Put simply: some went up in smoke, and some went down into the ground. The burning of synagogues in key Jewish centres (such as Jerusalem and Old Cairo) in the high Middle Ages is to be blamed for the loss of many Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Other Bible manuscripts, having been used to the point of being worn out beyond repair, were buried—according to Jewish custom.

Notice the reference to 600 AD. This "author" is confirming the fact that they are reallying on "oral traditions" from a desolated Hebrew people. I'm not accustoms to accepting oral traditions OVER extant written witnesses.

christ_undivided said:
From the article....
Notice the reference to 600 AD. This "author" is confirming the fact that they are reallying on "oral traditions" from a desolated Hebrew people. I'm not accustoms to accepting oral traditions OVER extant written witnesses.
===================== end christ undivided post

neither am I
------------BUT----------
Moses, Posters; Moses saith

Paul says
Faith commeth by hearing
and hearing by the word of God

Rev. 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;
To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna,
and will give him a white stone,
and in the stone a new name written,
which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.​

Shoonra says​

I very much disagree with your comments about the Massoretes and about the preservation of the Hebrew text. I won't use the word consensus, but the general trend of thought among scholars is that the consonental Hebrew text predates the LXX by centuries. The work of the Massoretes involved more than just providing the vowels and accents and copying the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Shoonra said:
I very much disagree with your comments about the Massoretes and about the preservation of the Hebrew text. I won't use the word consensus, but the general trend of thought among scholars is that the consonental Hebrew text predates the LXX by centuries. The work of the Massoretes involved more than just providing the vowels and accents and copying the Bible.
Click to expand...
So you believe a 9th century reproduction undertaken by unbelieving Jews that hated our Lord to the degree they sought to murder Him, is greater than a extant textual tradition used extensively among believing Jews, exhaustive quoted by every single NT author, and referenced by Jesus Himself?

I have no idea why anyone would make such a choice. Modern critics embrace such claims because they seek to make a name for themselves among peers. Also, modern Judaism greatly desires to distance themselves from their failures.

I remind you that it was Jews who produced the LXX. Not Gentiles. Jews. Ancient Jewish culture produced the ancient Greek OT. Those Jews were experts. Not unbelieving Jews centuries removed from the source text and guided by unreliable oral traditions. Jesus mentioned the vain traditions of such men. Your should be skeptical. You have a more than adequate Greek tradition that drove the explosion of Christianity throughout the early church. Nothing is perfect but there are clear choices to be made. There is no wise choice to be found among the exaggerated claims concerning the work of unbelievers.

I would like to understand just why you would make such a choice? At least admit the work of Jerome is closer to the source texts than the late work of these men.....
 
More on the Sassoon Code. This from the Smithsonian magazine:

www.smithsonianmag.com

World's Oldest Near-Complete Hebrew Bible Goes to Auction

The Codex Sassoon could break auction records, becoming the most valuable historical document ever sold
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com

The Sassoon Codex predates the Leningrad Codex by about a century and probably predates the Aleppo Codex. The one detail that I haven't yet seen is some reference to who did the writing; the Leningrad Codex claims to have conscientiously followed a Ben Asher ms, and the Aleppo Codex claimed to have been proofread and marked by one of the Ben Ashers. The Ben Asher family of scribes is famous, in the way that Stradivarius is famous, but I would like to see a very early Bible worked up without Ben Asher influence.
 
Last edited:
Shoonra said:
More on the Sassoon Code. This from the Smithsonian magazine:

www.smithsonianmag.com

World's Oldest Near-Complete Hebrew Bible Goes to Auction

The Codex Sassoon could break auction records, becoming the most valuable historical document ever sold
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com

The Sassoon Codex predates the Leningrad Codex by about a century and probably predates the Aleppo Codex. The one detail that I haven't yet seen is some reference to who did the writing; the Leningrad Codex claims to have conscientiously followed a Ben Asher ms, and the Aleppo Codex claimed to have been proofread and marked by one of the Ben Ashers. The Ben Asher family of scribes is famous, in the way that Stradivarius is famous, but I would like to see a very early Bible worked up without Ben Asher influence.
Click to expand...

I'm curious why you see value in a late reconstructed/translated/heavily modified text such as this?

Have you studied the history of the "Hebrew script"?

Short history lesson. There are at least 4 different styles of script associated with the Hebrew language. There is a dramatic difference between these "scripts". There is evidence of the Paleo-Hebrew script found in ancient Greek OT witnesses. Such is not the case with any "block style" extant Hebrew writings associated with the work of the Masoretes. Not that such a group isn't without question. Ben Asher had "competitors".
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, the only pre-Massoretic Hebrew Bible mss are the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are written in a very early Hebrew script (but not Paleo-Hebrew) and they did display many variants from the Massoretic text, most of which are mentioned in BHS (also see Abegg, Flint, & Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 1999). Some of the variants and obvious errors (such as misspellings) suggest that the Scrolls (at least some of them) were being copied by hearing a reader rather than by seeing a copy. Some of the non-Biblical DSS are written in a sort of paleo-Hebrew, but I suspect this was done as a sort of secret writing, to baffle unauthorized readers who did not know the old alphabet.

The Ben Asher family had one distinguished competitor - the Ben Naphtali massoretes. We know this only because some early bibliographer made a point of working up a supposedly exhaustive list of differences between Ben Naphtali Bibles and Ben Asher Bibles. As far as I know, nobody ever found a Ben Naphtali Bible. And there may have been other schools of massoretes whose names and existence have been completely lost in the sands of time.
 
Shoonra said:
As far as I know, the only pre-Massoretic Hebrew Bible mss are the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are written in a very early Hebrew script (but not Paleo-Hebrew) and they did display many variants from the Massoretic text, most of which are mentioned in BHS (also see Abegg, Flint, & Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 1999). Some of the variants and obvious errors (such as misspellings) suggest that the Scrolls (at least some of them) were being copied by hearing a reader rather than by seeing a copy. Some of the non-Biblical DSS are written in a sort of paleo-Hebrew, but I suspect this was done as a sort of secret writing, to baffle unauthorized readers who did not know the old alphabet.

The Ben Asher family had one distinguished competitor - the Ben Naphtali massoretes. We know this only because some early bibliographer made a point of working up a supposedly exhaustive list of differences between Ben Naphtali Bibles and Ben Asher Bibles. As far as I know, nobody ever found a Ben Naphtali Bible. And there may have been other schools of massoretes whose names and existence have been completely lost in the sands of time.
Click to expand...
The name of God has been found throughout ancient archeological sites around Jerusalem. The name of God in the LXX shares similarities to Paleo-Hebrew script though they do appear to predate Paleo-Hebrew. They are not even remotely similar to the blocked script of extant DSS scrolls. The value of the DSS are overstated. At best they witness to a variant Hebrew witnesses that probably will never be completely understood. We do have the Greek OT that was used extensively in the early church and quoted by all of the NT authors. There are only a handful of variants among this lineage and they are probably late edits. I have personally believed that for a very long time that if Jerome hadn't personally sought to discredit the LXX tradition, we would be much better off today.
 
The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that many Text Types were in existance 1BC/AD.
Masorectix Text. Hebrew Manuscripts like Septuagint Manuscripts. Ones Like the Samaritan Cannon. And several Independant Text Types.

The oldest Dead Sea Scroll, is a Hebrew Text like the later Masoretic Text.
 
Conan said:
The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that many Text Types were in existance 1BC/AD.
Masorectix Text. Hebrew Manuscripts like Septuagint Manuscripts. Ones Like the Samaritan Cannon. And several Independant Text Types.
Click to expand...

I would NOT "start" with the DSS as by basis of discerning all other Hebrew Manuscripts. We should start with the LXX. It is definitely what Jesus quoted, what the apostles quoted and the early church (Jews) used themselves. There is no dispute in this. This is settled fact. The DSS are made up of the block script that does not predate 1 century BC. The LXX does.

I can't find a reason to believe the DSS should add anything to this discuss. As I've said before. They were collated and collected by those who hated Jesus Christ. At their very best, they could only serve to add uncertainty to the discussion. Which is what the enemies of God desire. To be clear, I'm not saying the LXX is perfect. It is not. I am saying the fault of such resides with those that sought to establish the Vulgate. Even the Vulgate didn't use exclusively Hebrew texts of the OT. They couldn't. They didn't exist. They only exist NOW because of the reconstruction efforts of those who hated Jesus Christ. I'm going to be very blunt here. I have nothing against the Jewish people. Nothing. However, I am appalled at the desire of Dispensationalist/etc to believe they have some "worthy" efforts to "ADD/Fabricate" a collection whereby to judge all other collections.

I call these people "Hebrew Onlyists". Which is what they are. They act just like KJVOists. They promote a more "worthy" texts in the MT. This is false doctrine.

I remind everyone that is was JEWS that praised Jesus Christ and adored Jesus Christ to the point of committing their entire lives to spread the Truth of God in Jesus Christ. These same men had ZERO part in producing/continuing the Hebrew record through the 1st to 9th century. ZERO. What they did foster is the Greek tradition that still survives today.

Conan said:
The oldest Dead Sea Scroll, is a Hebrew Text like the later Masoretic Text.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the word "like". We are talking about very small percentages. If you dig into the facts of the DSS, you will discover that are varying assessments. What we do know is the archeological record of the Hebrew language does not support the block script. We have no idea what the actual script of Moses looked like.
 
Romans 3:1​
What advantage then hath the Jew?​
or what profit is there of circumcision?​
​
2 Much every way: chiefly,​
because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.​
​
3 For what if some did not believe?​
shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?​

when reading the book of Kings
you will find these """"Levites and Scribes""" that put togather
for the egyptians, the LXX were The most base of Men,
not the elect of God

​
I say then, Hath God cast away his people?​
God forbid. For I also am an Israelite,​
of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.​
​
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.​
Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias?​
how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,​
​
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets,​
and digged down thine altars;​
and I am left alone, and they seek my life.​
​
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him?​
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,​
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.​
​
5 Even so then at this present time also​
there is a remnant according to the election of grace.​

these are the ones Paul spake of
Even so then at this present time also
there is a remnant according to the election of grace.


What advantage then hath the Jew?​
or what profit is there of circumcision?​
​
2 Much every way: chiefly,​
because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.​

/
 
Buzzard said:
Romans 3:1​
What advantage then hath the Jew?​
or what profit is there of circumcision?​
​
2 Much every way: chiefly,​
because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.​
​
3 For what if some did not believe?​
shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?​

when reading the book of Kings
you will find these """"Levites and Scribes""" that put togather
for the egyptians, the LXX were The most base of Men,
not the elect of God

​
I say then, Hath God cast away his people?​
God forbid. For I also am an Israelite,​
of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.​
​
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.​
Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias?​
how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,​
​
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets,​
and digged down thine altars;​
and I am left alone, and they seek my life.​
​
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him?​
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,​
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.​
​
5 Even so then at this present time also​
there is a remnant according to the election of grace.​

these are the ones Paul spake of
Even so then at this present time also
there is a remnant according to the election of grace.


What advantage then hath the Jew?​
or what profit is there of circumcision?​
​
2 Much every way: chiefly,​
because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.​

/
Click to expand...

He is a Jew is one that is one inwardly. Those who have experienced the New Birth in Jesus Christ.

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews;

Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

This is a Jew.

Are you going to quote what you claim exists in the book of Kings? I hope you realize that the Hebrew MT has no such distinctions. The "Book of Kings"..... is a distinction that came from the Greek OT.

It really is shameful just how little you KJVOists know.
 
Last edited:
Very little is known about the lives of the Massoretes. The Ben Asher family were Karaites and it is supposed that other massoretes were likewise Karaites. The Karaites are a very ancient Jewish sect - a remnant still exists - that rejected the Talmud and relied entirely on the Scriptures. I have no indication that they harbored any ill-will toward anyone. Because of their devotion to the text of the Bible, they worked up lists and totals of various characteristics of the Bible text -- but C.D. Ginsburg (in his Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1897) points out that various Massoretes must have been using different Bible texts because some of the lists and calculations do not comport with the Bible that has come down to us (Ginsburg was using the Second Rabbinic Bible, printed in Venice 1525, which is virtually identical to the text of the Leningrad Codex - the BHS).

The writing commonly called Paleo-Hebrew or Proto-Hebrew was evidently in use before the Babylonian Exile. When the Jews returned to the Holy Land, in the time of Ezra, they brought with them the Aramaic alphabet (and the Aramaic language). The Aramaic form of writing gradually replaced the Paleo form, altho the Paleo form could be seen as recently as coins struck by the Maccabees, and a form of it is still in use by Samaritans. Ginsburg makes a point that the Paleo alphabet had some letters not easily distinguished, and he cites misreadings in both the LXX and the Massoretic text that indicate that mistakes were made when reading or converting a Bible (now lost) written in Paleo-Hebrew.
 
Last edited:
Shoonra said:
Very little is known about the lives of the Massoretes. The Ben Asher family were Karaites and it is supposed that other massoretes were likewise Karaites.
Click to expand...

Yes. Very little is known of the Massoretes. Which adds no value to the discussion.

Shoonra said:
The Karaites are a very ancient Jewish sect - a remnant still exists - that rejected the Talmud and relied entirely on the Scriptures. I have no indication that they harbored any ill-will toward anyone.
Click to expand...

So they embraced Jesus Christ as Messiah? They were willingly ignorant of the value of God's Son to humanity. They were hostile to the Gospel record. They rejected Jesus Christ.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Shoonra said:
Because of their devotion to the text of the Bible, they worked up lists and totals of various characteristics of the Bible text -- but C.D. Ginsburg (in his Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1897) points out that various Massoretes must have been using different Bible texts because some of the lists and calculations do not comport with the Bible that has come down to us (Ginsburg was using the Second Rabbinic Bible, printed in Venice 1525, which is virtually identical to the text of the Leningrad Codex - the BHS).
Click to expand...

The Pharisees were devoted. I have no expectation to learn of anything valuable from them.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Shoonra said:
The writing commonly called Paleo-Hebrew or Proto-Hebrew was evidently in use before the Babylonian Exile. When the Jews returned to the Holy Land, in the time of Ezra, they brought with them the Aramaic alphabet (and the Aramaic language). The Aramaic form of writing gradually replaced the Paleo form, altho the Paleo form could be seen as recently as coins struck by the Maccabees. Ginsburg makes a point that the Paleo alphabet had some letters not easily distinguished, and he cites misreadings in both the LXX and the Massoretic text that indicate that mistakes were made when reading or converting a Bible (now lost) written in Paleo-Hebrew.
Click to expand...

The Hebrew people valued the Greek OT. They continued the tradition through to the time of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ read from a Greek OT when He presented Himself to this world among the Jews.

From the KJV

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Which is a quote from Isa 61:1

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Notice the difference? The KJV uses the MT here.

Pay close attention to the latter part of verse.... "and the opening of the prison to them that are bound".

It is redundant proclamation in the MT. "and the opening of the prison to them that are bound" and "to proclaim liberty to the captives". It is an easy mistake to make. The MT is faulty here. Jesus quoted the LXX. "the recovery of sight to the blind...."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top