Charles cutler torrey

Is the masoretic better and septuagint is not a trustworthy translation? Is the peshitta ot better than the mt and Greek? Charles Cutler Torrey (20 December 1863 – 12 November 1956)[1] was an American historian, archaeologist and scholar. He is known for, presenting through his books, manuscript evidence supporting alternate views on the origins of Christian and Islamic religious texts. He founded the American School of Archaeology at Jerusalem in 1901.[2] Torrey taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900) and Yale University (1900–32). He countered certain parts of the Biblical interpretation of Catholic theologian, Albert Condamin, of the Book of Jeremiah.[3] Some of Torrey’s studies are included in The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq. The Mohammedan Conquest of Egypt and North Africa (1901), based on the Arabic work of Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, of which he subsequently published an edition (1922). The Jewish Foundation of Islam (1933). The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (1896) Ezra Studies (1910) The Chronicler’s History of Israel (1954). In The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (1928), he argued that Isa. 34–[...x]

35 and 40–66 should be dated c. 400 BC.

Original Prophecy (1930) presents his theory that the canonical book of Ezekiel is a revision of a 3rd-century pseudepigraphon.

The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels (1912)

The Four Gospels: A New Translation (1933)^[4]

Our Translated Gospels (1936), Torrey held that the four Gospels were Greek translations from Aramaic originals.

Apocalypse of John (1958) argues that Revelation was a translation of an Aramaic original written in AD 68.

Subjects of Biographies”. Dictionary of American Biography. Vol. Comprehensive Index. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1990.
^ “Charles Cutler Torrey | American biblical scholar”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-11-12.
^ Torrey, Charles C. “The Background of Jeremiah 1-10.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 56, no. 3, 1937, pp. 193–216. JSTOR website Retrieved 5 June 2023.
^ Torrey, Charles Cutler (1933). The four Gospels: a new translation. Harper.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed new light on the history of the Masoretic Text. Many texts found there, especially those from Masada, are quite similar to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic Text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BCE. However, other texts, including many of those from Qumran, differ substantially, indicating that the Masoretic Text was but one of a diverse set of biblical writings (Lane Fox 1991:99–106; Tov 1992:115). Among the rejected books by both the Judaic and Catholic canons was found the Book of Enoch, the Community Rule (1QS), and War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (1QM).^[44][45]

Mansoor, Menahem. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Michigan
^ Driver, G. R, The Judaean Scrolls. Great Britain: Oxford, 1965.

Some people say masoretic is better and septuagint is not a trustworthy translation. Some other say the peshitta ot is better than the mt and Greek, some of them hold to an “Aramaic Onlyism”. I think lxx is better thank peshitta ot and masoretic

Those who say the the Mt is the original must say in any way that the lxx is a translation from it. And those who say the peshitta ot must say any other is a translation from it

Some people who say Mt is better must say the new testament paraphrase from the old testament or that a lxx Mt mixed scripture existed before

That’s why textual criticism is important. But it is important to know what limitations textual criticism has

–

The Syriac Aramaic NT appears to quote from the Greek LXX. In the following examples, you’ll see that the Peshitta New Testament does not even quote from the Peshitta Tanakh. Rather, it follows the readings that the Greek NT takes. [It means of the apostles]

The following is important for noting ot syriac is not primary. Christians did not quote it but lxx

Why is that? If the Peshitta [ot] is original, we would expect it [that is nt] to quote its own language, or even Hebrew. But it instead quotes the Greek, even when the Greek diverges from the Hebrew and Aramaic.

~~Does this not lend itself to the idea that Greek, then, came before?~~ No. One thing do not have to do with the other

Let’s look.

(Note: The translations from the Peshitta Tanakh featured below -aside from the Psalms – are my own, and were translated out of necessity. At the time of this writing I did not have access to an English translation of the Peshitta Tanakh, and thus I went with my own. However, all can be verified either by checking it against an existing translation [if you have one] such as Lamsa, or by reading it straight from the Syriac itself.)

Hebrews 10:5 is our first example. Now take a normal Bible (other than the ISR, HRV, or HRB) and look up Psalm 40:6. Now go to Hebrews 10:5. Notice the difference? Here they are from the NASB:

Psa. 40:6 (NASB95) – Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

Heb. 10:5 (NASB95) – Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me…”

Well that’s quite a difference, isn’t it? But here’s the verse from the LXX:

Psa. 40:6 (LXX in American English) – Sacrifice and offering you would not; but a body have you prepared me: whole burnt offering and sacrifice for sin you did not require.

So we can see that the NT book of Hebrews was not quoting the Hebrew Masoretic text, but what happened? Given that the author of Hebrews quoted the reading as it is found in the LXX, most likely the original Hebrew text read, “a body you have prepared for me” instead of “my ears you have opened.”

Now here’s the verse in the Peshitta OT:

Psa. 40:6 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) – With sacrifices and with offerings you have not been pleased, but you have pierced the ears for me; burnt peace offerings for sin you have not requested.

And here it is from Hebrews.

Heb. 10:5 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) – Because of this, when he entered the universe, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you did not want, but you have clothed me with a body…”

So why does the Syriac Aramaic Peshitta NT quote the Greek Old Testament (LXX) and not the Peshitta Old Testament? Or even the Hebrew OT? You might say, “Well it is simply quoting the Hebrew original.” And you may be right, but let’s put that to the test by going further.

Acts 7:43 (NASB95) – You also took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images which you made to worship. I also will remove you beyond Babylon.

This is a quote from Amos 5:26.

Amos 5:26 (NASB95) – You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves.

Notice how different they are? The confusion here was caused by Moloch (in Hebrew, מלך mem-lamed-khaf), and the word for king (in Hebrew, מלך mem-lamed-kha), which is pronounced “Melekh.” The word Sikkuth is from sukkah, the root of Sukkot, meaning “booth” or “tent” or in some cases, “tabernacle.” Lastly, Kiyyun (or Chiun in the KJV) was regarded as a god comparable to Saturn. Here’s the verse from the LXX:

Amos 5:26 (LXX in American English) – Yes, you took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which you made for yourselves.

When they translated “melekh” into Greek, it eventually came to be viewed as Moloch. Raephan is a Coptic (Egyptian) designation for the god Saturn, and thus it made sense to identify the god Saturn with an equivalent name.

So how does the Peshitta OT translate this?

Amos 5:26 (translation mine) – But you carried along the tent of Milkom, and Kewan, your images, the star of your gods which you made.

Here, the Peshitta translates ‘melekh’ as Milkom (another name for Moloch), transliterates the Hebrew Kiyyun as Kewan, and has nothing at all to do with the name Raephan as the LXX does. So what about the Peshitta NT?

Acts 7:43 – ‘But you carry the tabernacle of Malcom and the star of the god Rephan, images which you have made to worship. I shall remove you farther than Babel.’

See what it looks like here? Please note no Dead Sea Scroll has been discovered that contains these verses in Amos (parts of each chapter have been found, but none containing the verse in question), so verification there is not currently possible.[this has to be verified] Otherwise, with the evidence given, it again appears that the Peshitta NT is quoting the Greek. Let’s look at another.
9
Matthew 15:8-9 (NASB5) – This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.

This is a quote from Isaiah.

Isaiah 29:13 (NASB) – Because this people draw near with their words, And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote.”

Here it is from the LXX:

Isa. 29:13 (LXX in AE) – This people draw near to me with their mouth, and they honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.

Here it is from the Peshitta Tanakh:

Isa. 29:13 (translation mine) – This people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is distant from Me; their fear of Me is a teaching taught by men.

And here it is from the Peshitta NT:

Mat. 15:8-9 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) – This people is honouring me with their lips but their heart is very far from me. And they revere me in vain while they teach the doctrines of the commandments of man.

Please note, aside from minor spelling differences (addressed in a different article), the Dead Sea Scrolls [sometimes] read the same as the Masoretic text. The Peshitta OT likewise reads this way.

Why, then, does the Peshitta NT quote the Greek LXX? That is, of course, IF it [syriac ot] is the original. However, if the Peshitta NT was translated from the Greek NT, it only makes sense why this would carry over. That, or the “original” Aramaic NT was quoting from the LXX instead of the Hebrew or Aramaic text. But if that’s the case, then what’s the issue with having a Greek NT anyways?