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

Re: tc-list sam. pent.

Expand Messages
  • Bernard A. Taylor
    ... Ian, At stake is the issue of which is the true temple (and true way of worship): Mt Gerizim or Jerusalem. Whereas in the MT Moses speaks of the place
    Message 1 of 19 , Jan 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Ian Hutchesson wrote:

      > Sadly, I haven't any experience with the diversity of the Samaritan lit.,
      > although I do know that the DSS often favour Samaritan readings over the MT
      > (but there is no regularity). Could you kindly give a few examples of the
      > "pervasive changes in Deuteronomy"?

      Ian,
      At stake is the issue of which is the true temple (and true way of
      worship): Mt Gerizim or Jerusalem. Whereas in the MT Moses speaks of
      'the place which the Lord will choose,' SP speaks of 'the place which
      the Lord has chosen,' intended to refer to the prior selection of Mt
      Gerizim. The selection is found in Ex 20 where the 10 comms are followed
      by an "eleventh commandment" to build the temple on Mt Gerizim.

      Second, the choice of the respective locations for the reading of the
      blessings and curses in Deut 27-29 (Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal) is the
      opposite of that in the MT. I choose my words carefully, since some
      scholars in fact argue that SP retains the original.

      There are other classic differences: in Gen 2:2 (SP & LXX), God ends his
      work on the sixth day, not the 7th day of the MT.

      It is also pervasive to supply missing narrative. If an answer or
      response infers information, the question/narrative, etc. is often
      supplied so as to make the text more internally consistent.

      I don't have the texts in front of me, but there are some examples off
      the top of my head.

      Bernard Taylor
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... I don t know, Ian. ... Can t give you sources off hand, but I seem to recal some Talmudic statement about what to do with troublesome heretical documents.
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ian Hutchesson wrote:

        > Yuri wrote:
        >
        > >As M A Robinson already noted, genizah was primarily a way to
        > >deal with worn out sacred texts. Since they were too worn out to be
        > >useful, and destroying them would be sacrilegious, they were put away in a
        > >genizah. Genizah was like a cemetery for old and treasured texts.
        >
        > Are there any ancient documents to support this view or does it only
        > go back to the middle ages?

        I don't know, Ian.

        > >What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They
        > >burned them.
        >
        > Again the sources to this would be rather interesting.

        Can't give you sources off hand, but I seem to recal some Talmudic
        statement about what to do with troublesome heretical documents. Do you
        think what I said didn't make sense?

        Yours,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

        http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
      • Ian Hutchesson
        ... Thanks, Yuri. It did make sense. I found the information interesting, but would need sources if I were to use it. Perhaps someone else on the list has some
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11.10 01/02/99 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
          >
          >On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
          >
          >> Yuri wrote:
          >>
          >> >As M A Robinson already noted, genizah was primarily a way to
          >> >deal with worn out sacred texts. Since they were too worn out to be
          >> >useful, and destroying them would be sacrilegious, they were put away in a
          >> >genizah. Genizah was like a cemetery for old and treasured texts.
          >>
          >> Are there any ancient documents to support this view or does it only
          >> go back to the middle ages?
          >
          >I don't know, Ian.
          >
          >> >What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They
          >> >burned them.
          >>
          >> Again the sources to this would be rather interesting.
          >
          >Can't give you sources off hand, but I seem to recal some Talmudic
          >statement about what to do with troublesome heretical documents. Do you
          >think what I said didn't make sense?

          Thanks, Yuri.

          It did make sense.

          I found the information interesting, but would need sources if I were to
          use it.

          Perhaps someone else on the list has some knowledge or ideas in the area.


          Thanks,


          Ian
        • Ian Hutchesson
          Thanks, Bernard, for the information. ... This is actually quite a hot subject that must have had currency for quite a while, going back, if we can trust
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 1, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks, Bernard, for the information.

            >At stake is the issue of which is the true temple (and true way of
            >worship): Mt Gerizim or Jerusalem.

            This is actually quite a hot subject that must have had currency for quite
            a while, going back, if we can trust Josephus on this, to the time that a
            temple was built on Gerizim for the Zadokite Manasseh -- though Josephus
            probably hides more than he tells us.

            >Whereas in the MT Moses speaks of
            >'the place which the Lord will choose,' SP speaks of 'the place which
            >the Lord has chosen,' intended to refer to the prior selection of Mt
            >Gerizim. The selection is found in Ex 20 where the 10 comms are followed
            >by an "eleventh commandment" to build the temple on Mt Gerizim.
            >[..]
            >
            >There are other classic differences: in Gen 2:2 (SP & LXX), God ends his
            >work on the sixth day, not the 7th day of the MT.

            (Strangely, this example has just come up in James Adair's post of OT
            cruxes today!)

            >It is also pervasive to supply missing narrative. If an answer or
            >response infers information, the question/narrative, etc. is often
            >supplied so as to make the text more internally consistent.

            Is some of this material possibly original and been lost in the MT? I
            remember from Qumran at least one example of a text discovered that was
            earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more
            understandable.

            >I don't have the texts in front of me, but there are some examples off
            >the top of my head.

            I'd heard a few, but you've given me a few others to get me thinking. If
            more come to mind, I'd be happy to hear about them!

            Thanks again,


            Ian
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... I think you are thinking of the Samuel A scroll which is longer than the MT version and closer to the LXX version and considered by some to be more
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 1, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Ian Hutchesson wrote:

              > Is some of this material possibly original and been lost in the MT? I
              > remember from Qumran at least one example of a text discovered that was
              > earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more
              > understandable.

              I think you are thinking of the Samuel A scroll which is longer than the
              MT
              version and closer to the LXX version and considered by some to be more
              original tha the MT.

              Jack

              --
              ______________________________________________

              taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

              Jack Kilmon
              jkilmon@...

              http://www.historian.net
            • Curt Niccum
              The text referred to which was earlier and longer than the MT tradition must certainly be 1 Sam. 10:27 found in 4QSam-a. That text, of course, is not
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 2, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                The text referred to which "was earlier and longer than the MT tradition"
                must certainly be 1 Sam. 10:27 found in 4QSam-a. That text, of course, is
                not Samaritan. It still holds, however, that the Samaritan-type of text
                attested at Qumran could preserve some "original" readings in comparison
                with the MT. That must be judged on a comparison in each reading with the MT
                and all of the other extant witnesses. By the way, the concept of "original"
                text is even more problematic within Old Testament criticism than in NTTC.
                It is a shame that the NTTC Section at SBL last year did not coordinate with
                the Qumran Section which had a much better discussion of the problem. Both
                groups could have benefited from the other's incites.

                Curt

                > Is some of this material possibly original and been lost in the MT? I
                > remember from Qumran at least one example of a text discovered that was
                > earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more
                > understandable.
                >
                >
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... I can t seem to find anything about the use of genizoth prior to the Talmudic period. Every reference to ancient genizoth seems to refer to
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 2, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ian Hutchesson wrote:
                  >
                  > At 11.10 01/02/99 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                  > >
                  > >On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
                  > >
                  > >> Yuri wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> >As M A Robinson already noted, genizah was primarily a way to
                  > >> >deal with worn out sacred texts. Since they were too worn out to be
                  > >> >useful, and destroying them would be sacrilegious, they were put away in a
                  > >> >genizah. Genizah was like a cemetery for old and treasured texts.
                  > >>
                  > >> Are there any ancient documents to support this view or does it only
                  > >> go back to the middle ages?

                  I can't seem to find anything about the use of genizoth prior to the
                  Talmudic period. Every reference to ancient genizoth seems to refer
                  to Taylor-Schecter. I would like to know if this was a practice
                  in 2nd temple times. Anyone else have something on this?

                  Jack

                  --
                  ______________________________________________

                  taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                  Jack Kilmon
                  jkilmon@...

                  http://www.historian.net
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  ... Just as a footnote, the original question asked about a [Qumran] text... that was earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 2, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 2/2/99, Curt Niccum wrote:

                    >The text referred to which "was earlier and longer than the MT tradition"
                    >must certainly be 1 Sam. 10:27 found in 4QSam-a. That text, of course, is
                    >not Samaritan. It still holds, however, that the Samaritan-type of text
                    >attested at Qumran could preserve some "original" readings in comparison
                    >with the MT. That must be judged on a comparison in each reading with the MT
                    >and all of the other extant witnesses. By the way, the concept of "original"
                    >text is even more problematic within Old Testament criticism than in NTTC.
                    >It is a shame that the NTTC Section at SBL last year did not coordinate with
                    >the Qumran Section which had a much better discussion of the problem. Both
                    >groups could have benefited from the other's incites.

                    Just as a footnote, the original question asked about "a [Qumran] text...
                    that was earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context
                    more understandable."

                    This description, I think, applies to 4QSam-a as a whole. It has a text
                    of Samuel which is generally fuller than the MT, and which agrees
                    frequently (though by no means universally) with LXX. Since the MT
                    of Samuel is in bad shape, 4QSam-a (and LXX) are very important
                    witnesses here -- and not just in 10:27.

                    I've always found McCarter's Anchor Bible edition of 1 Samuel fascinating,
                    as one of the few non-specialized books to make textual problems clear
                    to the reader. I don't always agree with his reconstructions -- but
                    it's very instructive.
                    -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                    Robert B. Waltz
                    waltzmn@...

                    Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                    Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                    (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                  • James R. Adair
                    Emanuel Tov, in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, says that about five percent of the texts found at Qumran may be classified as either
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 2, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Emanuel Tov, in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, says that
                      about five percent of the texts found at Qumran may be classified as
                      either pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX (p.
                      115--I've heard that in a later article Tov changes some of the
                      percentages of Qumran "text-types" he gives in TCHB; does anyone have
                      additional information?). Pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran include
                      4QpaleoExod-m and 4QNum-b. Pre-Samaritan elements in these texts include
                      (1) harmonizing alterations (including supplying missing narratives, as
                      Bernard mentioned), (2) linguistic corrections, (3) content differences,
                      and (4) linguistic differences (Tov 85-93).

                      ******************************************************
                      James R. Adair, Jr.
                      Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
                      ******************************************************
                    • Richard J Saley
                      Jimmy, The reference you re looking for is: Emanuel Tov, Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran. _Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness_. STDJ 16.
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 2, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jimmy,

                        The reference you're looking for is:

                        Emanuel Tov, "Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran." _Time to Prepare
                        the Way in the Wilderness_. STDJ 16. Ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H.
                        Schiffman. Leiden, 1995, pp. 85-102.

                        On p. 101 Tov increases the percentage of texts classified as either
                        pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX from 5% to 10%.

                        Dick Saley

                        At 12:39 PM 2/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
                        >Emanuel Tov, in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, says that
                        >about five percent of the texts found at Qumran may be classified as
                        >either pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX (p.
                        >115--I've heard that in a later article Tov changes some of the
                        >percentages of Qumran "text-types" he gives in TCHB; does anyone have
                        >additional information?). Pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran include
                        >4QpaleoExod-m and 4QNum-b. Pre-Samaritan elements in these texts include
                        >(1) harmonizing alterations (including supplying missing narratives, as
                        >Bernard mentioned), (2) linguistic corrections, (3) content differences,
                        >and (4) linguistic differences (Tov 85-93).
                        >
                        >******************************************************
                        >James R. Adair, Jr.
                        >Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
                        >******************************************************
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.