Re: Is 1:25
> I'm not so interested in this particular passage as Kevin Woodruff'sThe LXX and Qumran have shown that, in the main, we do in fact have a
> assertion that "when emending the consonantal text, we should use EXTREME
> On what basis would you justify that position? MT is the latest witness we
> have, so why should it be sacrosanct? The LXX and Qumran are far closer in
> time to the time of the writing of the Biblical texts.
very good text preserved in the MT. The main place where LXX
diverges is in Samuel (leaving aside Jeremiah for the moment, as much
of its problems appear to be outside the realm of TC); the rest of
the Hebrew Scriptures show a remarkable consistency of transmission,
as far back as and including Qumran and the Greek translations.
Moreover, Woodruff's comment was about *conjectural* emendation, i.e.
emendation when there are no documentary witnesses to support it. In
no way did he say (at least I don't see it) that the MT is
sacrosanct. As I understand it, he was calling for caution in
departing from the actual witnesses into the realm of speculation.
> Furthermore, when you later stated:When that uniformity extends clear back to the Qumran documents, it
> "[we] have to realize that the Masoretic text has a very remarkable degree
> of accurate transmission (far more than the New Testament text)"
> I have to say, SO? MT is a witness to a majority text that was standardized
> by one group in the 5th cent. though it derives from earlier efforts which
> formost authorities such as E. Tov and E. Ulrich date as late as the 2d
> cent. Despite the arguments of a few who want to elevate the position of
> the Majority Text in the NT, the majority of scholars recognize that
> uniformity does not mean that much in most cases. Why, then, should
> uniformity amongst late texts be highly regarded when it comes to the Hebrew
is incredibly significant. Also, the comparison to the so-called
Majority Text in the NT is not valid the way you areusing it. There,
the uniformity extends over a large body of documents that are not
significantly separated from each other in time or geography. With
the Hebrew text the picture is different. We have relatively few
Hebrew MSS of the MT, but we also have the LXX, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and now Qumran. When a high degree of uniformity among
this kind of diversity of witnesses is evident, we do well to pay
attention. With Qumran, we now have a diverse enough body of
evidence that conjectural emendation is hardly ever warranted.
> In the end, elevation of the MT means that you are reconstructing A majorityThis is not what Woodruff was doing, and using conjectural emendation
> text and not the closest possible reading of the original (or of a literary
> edition in those texts which exhibit multiple forms).
sparingly can hardly be equated with "elevation of the MT."
I realize the beans have to be counted. I just wish the
bean counters would quit counting their beans in my pocket.
- 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