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

Re: Is 1:25

Expand Messages
  • Sigrid Peterson
    ... [...] ... [...] ... MT as we know it based on Codex Leningradensis is the ONLY witness to the Hebrew text of these books we and the Masoretes held to be
    Message 1 of 1714 , Aug 5, 1996
      According to Tim McLay:
      >
      [...]
      >
      > Kevin Woodruff's original post concerned conjectural emendation, but his
      > statements alluded to an attitude toward MT, to which I drew attention.
      >
      [...]
      > does deserve the benefit of the doubt as a general rule. Does it? or is it
      > a witness like any other?

      MT as we know it based on Codex Leningradensis is the ONLY witness to the
      Hebrew text of these books we and the Masoretes held to be authoritative.
      Lacking the story of the text, except in vignettes, there is no way to
      know how it became the ONLY witness--perhaps it was the only scroll
      rescued from the burning Temple in 70 AD, and the Romans confiscated
      other existing copies. Yet someone has pointed out to me that most
      probably much of the text had been memorized. But to what textual
      evidence is the appeal, when two memorized versions disagree?


      > 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.

      And these do not occur to the same extent in the first five books,
      do they?

      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.
      >

      MT is our source for a continuous Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Hebrew
      Bible. It is the surviving text form from among the varieties of texts
      known at Qumran, a fairly good chunk of which agreed for the most part
      with what we now call MT.

      I hope I've just described the situation in fairly neutral terms, but
      somehow I doubt it. The LXX -- the Torah in Greek -- and the OG
      translations of the rest of the Books of the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures
      may sometimes antedate the texts that we have from Qumran, but not
      necessarily. They may witness to a different Hebrew Vorlage, but not
      necessarily. For the most part, except for the Minor Prophets Scroll from
      Naxal Xever, south of Qumran, there aren't many early witnesses to the
      Greek text. As far as I know, and I've worked with a portion of the Parallel
      Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Jewish Scriptures developed by Emmanuel
      Tov and a team from Penn in the mid-80s, there is NO way to tell whether
      a conjectured archetypal Hebrew text was translated into Greek and then
      evolved into the version in Greek we now have, or whether the differences
      developed in the transmission of the Greek, independently of developing
      difference in the Hebrew-Aramaic text. The ability to make
      generalizations about the original form of the text is absent, even for
      so small a unit as the Biblical book, as LXX or OlD Greek can vary even
      from chapter to chapter.

      For further information on some of this, see, in addition to books and
      articles of Emanuel Tov, the long article by Isaac L. Seeligmann, in
      <s>Textus</> vol XV, 1990, originally written in Dutch in 1940, now in
      English.


      James Barr, in the first few pages of <b>Comparative Philology</>,
      stresses that versional evidence for the text of the OT cannot have the
      same value that Greek ms variation has for the NT. What *would be of
      value would be to clarify the development of the Greek versions of the
      Hebrew Bible.

      > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Tim McLay tmclay@...
      > Halifax, Nova Scotia
      > Canada
      >

      Sigrid Peterson UPenn petersig@...
    • 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.