On אשרי as found in the Hebrew text of the Beatitudes

QUESTION

This was written in response to a friend and former student who received interpretive material on the beatitudes.  I will not give the name of the author lest I be accused of slander or character assassination; but be warned: in the world of biblical interpretation there are many pretenders and few practitioners.  Be diligent, even with anything I post, because I can be wrong in my understanding too.

Hi. How are you doing?

It is so very hot here like 40 everyday.

I have one question about the word Asherei.

Is this explanation true?

Shabbat Shalom

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT FROM A NETZARIM PERSPECTIVE

In this multi-part study we will look at the Sermon on the Mount in detail in light of the actual Hebrew and Aramaic words used, Semitic Poetic forms, the Tanak, Rabbinic literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

First off, the beatitudes we have are written in Greek.  The Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the beatitudes are translations from the Greek.  The primary Aramaic version is in the Peshitta (c. 300 CE).  There are three Hebrew versions that I know about: a translation of Matthew by Baal Shem Tov from about 1500 CE, the translation made by Franz Delitzsch in the 1890's before Modern Hebrew developed, and a Modern Hebrew translation.  There is no "original" Hebrew of this text preserved from the first century CE or before.

STARTING WITH THE "BEATITUDES"

The so-called "beatitudes" (Mt. 5:3-12) are written as a Hebraic poetry form called Synonymous Parallelism. In this form of poetry the same basic statement is made in parallel lines, using the same sentence structure, but with differing words.

The text is structured like Hebrew poetry, and the lines of text are parallel in structure, but this is not an example of synonymous parallelism.  An example of structural parallelism can bee seen in the Hebrew of Ecc 3:2-8 (see my earlier blog).  An example of synonymous parallelism from Amos 9 is as follows:

Behold, days are coming—the declaration of YHWH —­when a plowman will draw near with the reaper, and treading of grapes with the sowing of the seed.  The mountains will drip with sweet wine, and all the hills will melt. (Translation mine)

The three clauses "­when a plowman will draw near with the reaper", "treading of grapes with the sowing of the seed", and "the mountains will drip with sweet wine, and all the hills will melt" are synonymously parallel.  That is, each clause uses a different metaphor to convey the same content.  Each sentence in the beatitudes has the same structure, but it conveys a different aspect of how one may experience blessedness in the midst of what would normally be experienced as adverse or intense circumstances.  One day I may write an analysis of the message presented in the beatitudes, but that will need to wait until later.

In the "beatitudes" each parallel line begins with: "Blessed are the..." (Mt. 5:3f)  The Hebrew word for "blessed" here is ASHERI (such as in Ps. 65:5 & Deut 33:29).

Here he is basing his comments on the English translation, not any Hebrew expression.  The Hebrew text for the first of the beatitudes begins with אשרי עניי רוח. As you may recall from Hebrew class, this is a construct chain, not a verbal clause.  The form אשרי is an mp noun from אשר, but it should be vocalized ASHREI not ASHRI.  The term usually is translated "blessedness" or "happiness", but the form is plural.  A strictly literal rendering of the expression would be "O the blessednesses of the poor in spirit one…."  The Greek text has μακαριοι οι πτωχοι ..., which is word-for-word and form-for-form equivalent to the Hebrew renderings.

ASHERI is an exclamatory term for "blessed" or "Happy". There are two Hebrew words for "blessed". These are BARAK and ASHERI. ASHERI differs from BARAK. BARAK for example is ALWAYS the term used to bless YHWH, one would NEVER say that YHWH is ASHERI. Whenever a man is blessed with the word BARAK it is always a blessing that is initiated by YHWH. A man cannot BARAK himself or another man, nor can he receive BARAK from another man. And ASHERI is not something a man would ever bestow upon YHWH. What we learn from the usage then is that BARAK blessing is given to man by the grace of YHWH undeserved and unearnable, but ASHERI is a happiness, a blessing that results from positive action.

This text is filled with half truths and total falsehoods.  The term אשר is a noun, not an exclamation.  The masculine single form occurs 10 times in the bible, and the plural construct form occurs 44 times,  There is a verb form from the same root that has various uses depending inflection stem (qal, piel, pual), but the verb form is not present in any of the beatitudes.  The second term he mentions comes from the root ברך, but the form normally used for pronouncing a blessing is the qal passive participle ברוך – baruch.  The verb occurs a total of 327 times in the bible, and the passive participle occurs 68 times.  His statement concerning the exclusive use of baruch is false for classical and Mishnaic Hebrew.  In the Hebrew Bible the term is used with respect to both God and man.  Rabbinic traditions and prohibitions developed later, and so are not relevant to first century usage.  However, his assertion is not even true for Modern Hebrew; the standard expression for welcome is ברוך הבא (singular masculine) or ברוכים הבאים (plural masculine).  

The semantic difference between baruch and asher seems to be that the latter describes the state of an individual who has decided to follow a particular beneficial course in his attitudes and conduct of life.  The former is usually a pronouncement of the greater individual to the lesser.  Now, this latter assertion raises an interesting interpretive question: If the greater blesses the lesser, how do we say to God,

ברוך אתה אדוני אלוהינו מלך העלם?  Surely we are less that the eternal God who is the creator and possessor of all.  It seems to me that there are two possible answers, and likely both are valid.

• Our statement merely affirms the eternally blessed state of being that is God's.
• Just as children normally constitute the greatest source of blessing and joy for human parents, human beings who are obedient to God, their creator and heavenly father, become a source of blessing to him.

Be that as it may, I think that you can safely disregard the interpretations he gives for his examples.

For example:

Happy/blessed (ASHRI) are the undefiled in the way who walk in the Torah of YHWH. (Ps. 119:1)

...he that keeps the Torah, happy/blessed (ASHRI) is he. (Prov. 29:18b)

(see also Ps. 1:1 (2); 112:1; 119:2; 128:1; Prov. 8:32; 16:20)

Thus ASHERI is NOT the undeserved blessing which comes by the grace of YHWH. The ASHERI blessing RESULTS FROM OBSERVING YHWH'S TORAH.

The Aramaic translator renders ASHERI with TUVIHON.

TUVIHON comes from the Semitic root TOV meaning "good" or "benificial". The Aramaic translator understood that because these things caused ASHRI (the blessing earned by Torah Observance and good deeds) they were good or beneficial.

The text in Mat 5:3 of the Peshitta begins with טוביהון למסכנא – (converted to Hebrew characters) blessednesses (are) for the poor…  This is a reasonable rendering of the Greek text into this Aramaic dialect.

If we reduce the gematria (numeric value) of ASHERI and TUVIHON each to a single digit they both reduce to a seven. Seven being the number of completeness and perfection.

This statement is just not true.  The literal conversions of letters to numbers is shown below:

א          = 1

ש          = 300

ר          = 200

י           = 10

This total is 511; adding the digits produces 7.

ט          = 9

ו           =7

ב          =2

י           =10

ה          =5

ו           =7

ן           =50

The total is 90; adding the digits produces 9.

Gematria is one of the tools for the rabbinic interpretive method called sod, or secret.  According to this methodology, words having the same numeric value are mystically related to one another.  I personally have the same problem with gematria that I do with bible codes – specifically, both methods make unstated assumptions about the text being interpreted and reflect more the ingenuity of the interpreter than the meaning of the text.  With respect to gematria, the rabbis have developed ways of adjusting the calculated value (e.g., adding digits, adding or dropping or swapping letters, and others) so they can get the result they want.  As far as I am concerned, they can do what they wish, but the result carries no authority.

Thus from the Hebrew we understand that the list of items in the beatitudes bring one the blessing or happiness one receives as a reward for good deeds and Torah observance. And from the Aramaic we understand that this is a list of things that will be good for us and will benefit us.

If we incorporate the items listed in the "beatitudes" into our lives we will receive prosperity and abundant goodness in ourselves.

Following torah results in blessedness as described in Deut 28, but that is not the point of the beatitudes, and you do not need to read this text in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac to gain its intended message.

Forty years ago I encountered an individual that maintained that the only accurate version of the bible was preserved in the Syriac Peshitta, so I learned to read Syriac.  Then I discovered that the real content difference between the MT, LXX, and the Peshitta were in most cases relatively minuscule.  So why Syriac?  The only answer I ever came up with is this: Syriac is widely known among scholars but it is virtually unknown to ordinary people in the west.  The claim of esoteric knowledge can be a source of power over others who lack this claimed knowledge.  Beware of being deceived by anyone making such claims for themselves.