kwrandolph at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 02:36:01 EDT 2008
Step one, before we go any further, what is the text?
I accept only the consonantal text as authoritative. The Masoretic points
are not authoritative. They represent an ancient tradition that is pretty
good and concerning which I recommend changing only where there are
questions, but not infallible. Therefore, I do not see repointing as
emendation. But the consonantal text is sacrosanct, i.e. there had be very
good evidence that it had been corrupted by copyist error, best where there
are textual variants to back up the evidence. Even in most cases where there
are kethib/qere differences, I prefer the kethib.
Because I don't have the points, I am very dependent on the context to
indicate the best reading. Most of the time it's obvious. Occasionally there
are cases like this verse, where WNXMTY can be a qal, niphal, piel or from
the noun NXMH without emending the text. My practice is then to look for the
meaning that best fits the context.
So what is the text?
It appears that at least one of your points depends on the answer to this
question. We may need to agree to disagree.
Karl W. Randolph.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:58 PM, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com>
> Hi Karl,
> Four things:
> 1. My own experience is the opposite of your own: I find that if I sit
> with the text as it stands long enough, emendation and repointing can
> nearly always be avoided.
> 2. What you have to say below is assertion without demonstrable evidence.
> 3. I would rather the text dictate what it says than repointing or
> emending it to what I think it should say.
> 4. You have not presented a scenario where the text changed from having
> a noun to a verb. If this is what has happened, then there is to be some
> explanation. Nevertheless, I am unable to find manuscript support for
> your position so it seems to be pure conjecture if a scenario giving
> rise to the alteration is not able to be provided.
> David Kummerow.
> > David:
> > First of all, when I read Tanakh, at least for the last few times I read
> > through, I read it without the Masoretic points. There are a few reasons
> > for
> > it: I read using a font derived from pre-Exile Hebrew writing, and the
> > points don't fit in it (I don't know when I deviate from their points);
> > when
> > reading with the dots, I came across too many (I didn't bother to count)
> > instances where changing the points changed a difficult to understand
> > passage to a simple, easily read one; I think the Masoretes were more
> > interested in preserving the sounds that had come to them from their
> > tradition than in having the text make sense, i.e. preserving tradition
> > more important than understanding it; and I don't think they were as
> > mechanically rigorous in their parts of speech as are modern day
> > grammarians.
> > Having said that, I have noticed that almost every time there is a
> > as to the meaning of a verse, changing the Masoretic points of a word or
> > two
> > is enough to clear up the dispute. Almost every time. And here is a
> > with a dispute.
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew