Proof that the Masoretic Text changed Zechariah 3:8 from Nazarene to Branch

[anastasis888]

Proof that the Masoretic Text changed Zechariah 3:8 from Nazarene to Branch 

The Septuagint more accurately renders Zechariah 3:8 as follows:

ἄκουε δή Ἰησοῦ ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας σὺ καὶ οἱ πλησίον σου οἱ καθήμενοι πρὸ προσώπου σου διότι ἄνδρες τερατοσκόποι εἰσί διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἄγω τὸν δοῦλόν μου Ἀνατολήν.

Hear now, O Jesus high priest, you and your fellows that are sitting before you-for they are wonder watchers; for behold, I bring forth My servant Anatola.

Ἀνατολήν means 'east', or 'sunrise'. The original word here is obviously נא-זרחהת (Na-Zarhheth, Prayer Rising) and not צֶֽמַח (Branch). נא-זרחהת denotes the time of morning prayer. For צֶֽמַח never means 'sunrise', or 'east' as the Septuagint renders it. It always means a twig, sprout, or branch of a plant. The original Hebrew word here cannot possibly have been צֶֽמַח as it is in the Masoretic text. 

It becomes quite obvious that the Masoretes changed it from נא-זרחהת (Na-Zarhheth [Prayer Rising]). זרחהת (with segol/tav feminine singular participle ending 'eth') is from the root word זרחה meaning rise, shine, come forth, sunrise. נא-זרחהת (Na-Zarhheth [Prayer Rising]) was changed to צֶֽמַח (Branch, Beam, Twig) to completely erase any trace association with the later Galilean town of Jesus called Nazareth. For if the original was נא-זרחהת, which it must have been, Matthew is directly quoting from Zechariah 3:8 in writing that Jesus was to be called Nazarene (Matt. 2:23).

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

A restored Hebrew text of Matthew would be more blunt in the matter and simply read as follows:

ויבא וישׁכון בעיר הנקראת נאזרית לקיים  מה שאמר הנביא נא-זרחהת יקרא

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth in order to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet that he should be called 'Na-Zarhheth'. (Matt. 2:23)

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

A study page on the word zarach would probably be helpful here.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2224.htm

Na, of course, means 'prayer'.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4994.htm

[anastasis888]

In Zechariah's prophecy over John, he uses the word ἀνατολὴ (Anatola) for 'dayspring'. Now Luke is writing in Greek for the Macedonian churches and to Agrippa (Theophilus), but I just have to wonder if Zechariah originally had in mind that very נא-זרחהת (Na-Zarhheth) of Zechariah 3 in regard to the Lord whose forerunner John was. For Luke seems to have him quoting in the likeness of the Septuagint  ἐγὼ ἄγω τὸν δοῦλόν μου Ἀνατολήν (I send forth my servant Anatola).

Luke 1:76-79

And thou, child, shalt be called prophet of the Most High: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the Dayspring (Grk Anatola) from on high shall make visitation unto us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of Peace.

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

We note that the Torah always has sunrise in the feminine form. אם  זרחה  השמש עליו, “if the sun shone (zarehah) upon him". (Exodus 22:3). Therefore, since sunrise/sunshine is in the feminine, we place the feminine participle "eth" ending for 'sunrising' זרחהת. Finally, we place the interjection of prayer and request (na) at the beginning נא-זרחהת (Na-Zarhheth). 

Notice the feminine form and usage of 'zarehah' (risen) in Exodus 22:3

https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/22-3.htm

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

For the first time in my life, I'm at last satisfied that I understand Matthew 2:23. It's always presented a stumbling block as it stands in our Masoretic text. Matthew clearly points to Zechariah. And, yet, when the student turns to the passage, it does not say what Matthew says.

We know for a fact that the Masoretic text is basically a Jewish revision of the Bible that was begun in the 2nd century after the Bar Kokhba revolt. It is extremely biased against any prophecies pointing to Jesus that the Jesus movement had used to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was Messiah.

A good counter-balance to help us restore those prophecies that the Masoretes sought to obfuscate against Jesus is the Septuagint. And Zechariah 3:8 is a good example of how the Septuagint gives us a good enough indication of what the original Hebrew had therein for us to at last restore Zechariah's utterance to Jeshua the High Priest. When we do so, Matthew 2:23 becomes crystal clear. Clear as Sunrising, in fact.    

Is Matthew really going to use an explicit term and that explicit term not be found in the prophet? No, Matthew is too careful. Matthew is a tax collector, census taker, and book keeper. Matthew deals in precision because his career depended on it. He's too careful to be anything other than exact. He also happens to be an Apostle of Christ with the Spirit. Matthew wrote exactly what he meant to write. And Na-Zarhheth is what Zechariah spoke.

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

We know from the church fathers that Apostle Matthew originally penned his Gospel narrative in Hebrew. There is no indication that he ever wrote in Greek.

 

Those Greek translations copied among the churches after the Jerusalem church had been dispersed through persecution into Antioch and Asia would have had a question as to Matthew's meaning of Na-Zarhheth. Does he mean Nazarene? It seems they supposed he meant Nazarene and so that became the standard Greek reading.

 

However, in the original Hebrew manuscript, Matthew would have used the very root word of both Nazareth and Nazarene from Zechariah 3:8. Matthew is saying that Jesus was not just a Nazarene, but the very root Na-Zarrheth after which the Galilean town was named. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

If you have the feminine participle ending, it is implied that the word is feminine. Therefore, you could shorten it from נא-זרחהת (Na-Zarhheth) to simply נאזרת (Na-Zareth) and the word remains the same. This the form that is found in the medieval Hebrew copy of Matthew's Gospel within Shem-Tob's Evan Bohan (AD 1380). 

Ultimately, I'm satisfied Shem-Tob's copy is a veritable copy of the 1st century Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew that was deposited in Jerusalem before the siege. The text is of superior quality and integrity and does not even have those mistakes within the genealogy that some of our Greek copies have as it contains all 42 names of the 14+14+14 generations.

Matthew writes:

ויבא וישׁכון בעיר הנקראת נאזרית לקיים  מה שאמר הנביא נאזרת יקרא

And he came and dwelt in a town called Na-zarith in order to fulfill what the Prophet spoke that he should be called Na-zareth.

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

Is there any indication in our Greek copies that Matthew's original Hebrew town name was in fact נאזרית?

Indeed there is. P70 (3rd century papyrus uncial) renders it as  Ναζαρα (Nazara). That is different than the later majority of manuscripts that simply render it as 'Nazareth' (Ναζαρέθ). This means that P70 is translating the feminine ending of the Hebrew word into the feminine Greek form. This strongly indicates that the copy of Matthew in Shem-Tob is original.

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888

[anastasis888]

Reference in 1516 Psalter to Rabbi Salomon's commentary on Isaiah where he mentions Nazareth and even spells it the same as the Shem-Tob copy of Matthew's Hebrew gospel  - נא-זרית. This indicates that Shem-Tob's Matthew is a very old copy preserving a more archaic spelling.

Psalterium, Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, & Chaldaeum, cum tribus latinis interpretationibus & glossis (1516)

Edited November 14, 2022 by anastasis888