1

Besides revealing the ancient Hebrew Name of YHVH from 30 AD, does the DSS version of [Psalm 119:65] prove the original Hebrew suffix “Your” (Kha) was originally written with a combined ‘Kaf-Hei’ instead of the abbreviated Masoretic final ‘Kaf’?

To clarify :

  1. DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) refers to versions of Hebrew manuscripts - discovered in abandoned caves at Qumran (קומראן) settlement in west bank of Israel - which predate the Roman Destruction of the 2nd Temple of YHVH in 70 AD.

  2. The image shown is comparative analysis of the Hebrew Masoretic text of Tehillim (Psalms) 119 - on the right - along with the DSS version of Tehillim (Psalms) 119 - on the left - which dates to the year 30 AD.

  3. The date 30 AD (Anno Domini) traditionally refers to the 30th "year of the Lord" by Christians in reference to Yeshua of Nazareth. - Since the DSS version of Psalms 119 dates to 30 AD, Christians could observe the biblical Hebrew used & studied during the ministry of Yeshua of Nazareth.

  4. Major differences in DSS version of Psalm 119 from the 2nd Temple period versus the Masoretic version of Psalm 119 from the Aleppo Codex are :

    • Hebrew Name of YHVH. - The DSS shows the ancient Hebrew Name for the God of Yisrael YHVH which matches the font used during the time of King David & Hezekiah. This ancient Hebrew Naming of God possibly was read by Yeshua of Nazareth while studying at temple.

    • Hebrew word "Kha" meaning 'Your' is used as a suffix at the end of a noun to show possession. - The DSS shows "Kha" written with a Kaf (כָ) + Hei (ה) instead of the modern Masoretic 'Kha' written with only a final kaf (ךָ).


    This might be evidence that the Masoretic version of Psalm 119 used in the Aleppo Codex abbreviated the original Hebrew word "Kha" of the DSS.

    enter image description here

5
  • 1
    It would be helpful to the wide spectrum of persons who contribute to this site and to the even wider spectrum of persons who view this site, not being registered members, if you were to give some explanation in your question as to what exactly we are looking at in your post and why it matters. Could you enlarge on the '30 AD' aspect and also on the writing which you are discussing. This question lacks detail and clarity. – Nigel J Aug 11 '20 at 5:38
  • 1
    @Nigel J // The question has been updated with detailed explanations and context regarding the DSS version of Tehillim 119. – חִידָה Aug 11 '20 at 10:41
  • 4
    Thank you. That is some background information. I am still mystified as to why this matters, myself. – Nigel J Aug 11 '20 at 11:39
  • I have updated my answer to reflect some insights from texts older than the DSS. – aefrrs Nov 23 '20 at 6:19
  • The Masoretic Text in Exodus 13:16 has ידכה. – Alex Nov 29 '20 at 10:33
2

In comparing purely in the Masoretic text there are different spellings for you being ךָ vs כָה. For example look at Exodus 15:11 which uses the word כָמֹכָה instead of כָמֹךָ. They are both pronounced identically. From this we get that depending on which section of the MT you look at, you get different spellings for certain words, which indicates that the MT takes directly from the tradition of the time. It is also important to note that the MT never edits words directly from tradition. If they can work with the written words to make it match the reading tradition, they will put the vowels in the right places so it matches without modifying the word even if the word would be grammatically incorrect. An example of this is נַעֲרָ in Genesis 24:14 where the correct spelling would be נערה as seen throughout the MT. If the MT sees that a text cannot be voweled to match the reading tradition it will put both the written text, and the correct way of pronouncing the text. The written is called the kethiv, and the spoken is called the qere. The kethivs are always taken from tradition.

In contrast, the DSS uses a more phonetic spelling. For the vowels i and o/u it almost always uses the corresponding semi vowel letters י and ו. This was done in order to make it easier to read before there was a way to write vowels. For example מארות is easier to read than מארת, and אתות is easier to read that אתת, but they are both pronounced identically. It is important to note that this easier spelling alone removes certain distinction between different vowels, such as between the qamas qatan אָ and holam אֹ (aleph א used for example). which would both be written as ו. It would be highly unlikely for these distinctions to develop between the DSS and the MT. It would make more sense for them to disappear between these times or to remain. Countless other examples can be found such as קנאו instead of קנהו, because at the time there was little distinction between the sounds of א and ה. Another example is the word universally spelled as כי (it is also spelled this way in the Mishnah and in first-temple period texts such as the Lachish Letters) is actually spelled כיא in the DSS.

For our focus on ך vs כה, texts way older than the DSS such as the Lachish Letters prefer ך as seen by the consistent spelling of the word עַבְדְּךָ as 𐤏𐤁𐤃𐤊 rather than 𐤏𐤁𐤃𐤊𐤄. This seems to give more credibility to the spelling of the MT over the spelling of the DSS.

As for the use of Paleo-Hebrew for the name of G-d, it is very likely that the Qumran Jews viewed Paleo-Hebrew as a more sacred font than the Assyrian script, so they always used it for the name of G-d. This is not a major difference in the text; however, it does likely indicate a minor theological difference.

-1

We may discover a number of this linguistic phenomenon through the comparison between DSS scrolls and MT.

For a couple of other examples we may indicate Gen 1:14. Here the two MT terms מארת, and אתת (translated - respectively - 'luminaries' and 'signs') are longer in a DSS scroll (4Q10Gen-k), מארות, and אתות.

As you suppose, also according to me it seems that - generally - it is reasonable to conclude that the DSS' terms possess some wordings nearer to the original one.

In these particular cases (Gen 1:14), the 'added' waw (comparing to MT wordings) indicates substantivized adjectives (through the use of an ancient form of past participle).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.