Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Tiq. Soph.

Expand Messages
  • James R. Adair
    ... Know is probably too strong a word, and the tradition of only 18 tiqqune sopherim suggests that the practice was only sporadic, but Jim s statement does
    Message 1 of 1714 , Mar 12, 1996
      On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Sigrid Peterson wrote:

      >
      > According to HuldrychZ@...:
      > >
      > > Following up on my last question (about Is 7:14)- we know that the copyists
      > > of the MT altered what they found when they considered it objectionable.
      > > They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim".
      >
      > How do we know this? It's something I haven't learned.

      "Know" is probably too strong a word, and the tradition of only 18 tiqqune
      sopherim suggests that the practice was only sporadic, but Jim's statement
      does follow the common wisdom, as I understand it. Wuerthwein, _The Text
      of the Old Testament_, says that the primary purpose of the tiqqune
      sopherim "was to remove objectionable expressions referring to God" (p.
      18). Yeivin, _Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah_, is somewhat more
      curcumspect in his opinion: "Two similar opinions are held today. Some
      argue that the original text showed the received readings, and the list of
      _tiqqunim_ represents midrashic interpretation, not text history. Others
      believe that these corrections were indeed made by the scribes, and they
      ascribe the same origin to other corrections, not mentioned in the
      Masorah, which were also intended to avoid profanation of the name of God,
      such as the use of the root BRK with reference to God as a substitute for
      some offensive term (e.g. in Job 2:9)" (pp. 50-51).

      The first option mentioned by Yeivin seems to me to reflect an uncritical
      (or perhaps, precritical) predeliction for the MT in which the consonantal
      text is looked upon as immutable. The biblical manuscripts found among
      the Dead Sea Scrolls would seem to mitigate against this view, as would
      numerous other arguments that come to mind. I would, however, be
      interested to hear if others had arguments that they could advance in
      favor of this opinion.

      Jimmy Adair
      Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
      and
      Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
      ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

        Thanks.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.