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

Re: Is 1:25

Expand Messages
  • Tim McLay
    Sorry for the delay in responding. I only read my mail once a day. Kevin Woodruff s original post concerned conjectural emendation, but his statements alluded
    Message 1 of 1714 , Aug 1, 1996
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry for the delay in responding. I only read my mail once a day.

      Kevin Woodruff's original post concerned conjectural emendation, but his
      statements alluded to an attitude toward MT, to which I drew attention.
      Again in his clarification, Kevin states:

      "Although it [MT] is a late tradition, it displays a high degree of
      accuracy and we should give it the benefit of doubt before pronouncing it
      "corrupt" or "non-sensical."

      My questions emerge due to phrases like "we should give it the benefit of
      doubt" and "extreme conservatism toward the consonantal text." Although the
      subject was emendation, the statements certainly alluded to a more general
      attitude toward MT. And, our attitude toward MT has a great deal of
      influence on our text-critical decisions. Many scholars believe that MT
      does deserve the benefit of the doubt as a general rule. Does it? or is it
      a witness like any other? Perhaps, I am reading too much into Kevin's
      statements (if so I apologize), but the issue is relevant nonetheless.

      So, I agree that there is much in Qumran, LXX, etc. that agrees with MT, but
      there are also significant differences and many minor ones. With respect to
      major differences, they are hardly confined to Samuel and Jeremiah. There
      is Job, Ex. 35-40, Daniel 4-6 + the additions, the chronological system in
      Kings, key transitions in Josh-Judges, Prov. and the AT of Esther. Small
      textual differences abound. Which brings up my initial question, what place
      does MT hold when doing textual criticism? Further methodological questions
      arise when dealing with books where there are major differences.

      Furthermore, the analogy of the MT tradition to the Byzantine text in the NT
      does hold. If the committee working on BHQ holds to its original intention,
      there will be one textual apparatus devoted to variants in the Hebrew mss.
      of the Masoretic tradition. This apparatus will be beneficial for showing
      the small differences that exist among the Masoretic witnesses (since BHQ
      will use the Leningrad codex as its base), because the text of MT became so
      standardized. This is independant from the SP, LXX, etc. That is a
      majority text and is so defined in text books on textual criticism of the
      Hebrew Bible.




      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Tim McLay tmclay@...
      Halifax, Nova Scotia
      Canada
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.