[b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? (also intro from new member)

JMonte2000 at aol.com JMonte2000 at aol.com
Wed May 6 12:21:30 EDT 2009


Greetings all  
I'm new to the list. I just finished 2nd year Greek  and I'm starting (3rd 
chapter so far) Hebrew. I'm using the Basics to Biblical  Hebrew 2nd edition 
(Pratico) I'm using this, because it is the book I'll be  tested in. A Prof 
who will help me out recommended Weingreen as another  source. 
 
Concerning the question below, as a primer I'm reading Old Testament  
Textual Criticism (a practical introduction) by Ellis R. Brotzman. It seems like  
a good book for the questioner to read. I've learned a lot, and it speaks 
on the  Massoretic text. It's not a large book, about a 170 pages.
 
Thanks for having this list!
 
Jim Montesano 
I'm married with 2 boys; 24 & 19
I'm 51 yrs old
living in NJ USA
Studying at a Church based seminary called RBS based  in Easley, SC 
(If you're thinking 51 and studying at a seminary, all I can say is, you're 
 never to old.)  

 
>>>>
 
Dear James,

There is really nothing new in what you have apparently  just "discovered".
We've been discussing these issues on and off for years.  What you really
should do is to read a few basic books on the formation and  canonization of
the text of the Bible. Obviously, there are different  opinions, else there
would be nothing to debate (and then what would we  do?).

Please note, however: co-modirator George Athas has already called  your
attention to the rule that requires all messages to be signed by  the
writer's full name. He has also hinted that some of your recent posts  are
not really on topic. If you do wish to engage this list in discussion  of
Biblical Hebrew, please abide by the list rules.

Thank  you

Yigal Levin
co-moderator, b-hebrew

Original  Message:
-----------------
From: James Read J.Read-2 at sms.ed.ac.uk
Date:  Wed, 06 May 2009 00:42:06 +0100
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject:  [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable?



Hi,

I've been  doing a lot of reading and a lot of thinking in the past few  
months  and one of the things I've been interested in was finding out  
more  about alternative readings. Now I was brought up and fed with  
stories  that the OT was originally written in Hebrew and so the  
massoretic  text is our most reliable source for its original shape.  
But recent  lines of research have been causing me seriously question  
that kind of  reasoning. Does the fact that the massoretic is in Hebrew  
really make  it a superior source?

Some of the lines of evidence I've been looking at  are

1) The age of extant manuscripts of the Massoretic text
2) Greek  translations of the OT
3) The dead sea scrolls
4) The Samaritan  pentateuch

Now, I was also brought up on stories of how the LXX has been  proven  
to be a 'bad translation' because of X, Y and Z with only the  Torah  
part of it being of decent enough quality. Now, the information  that  
has come to light to me in recent months are the following  factors:

1) The oldest manuscripts of the Massoretic text are post 9th  century  
(not that old in the big scheme of things)
2) Qere and  ketib such as the common he/she confusion show that the  
Massoretic  text was only sanctified as a holy order of consonants  
which must be  copied in that sequence no matter what *after*  
considerable error had  been introduced into it
3) There is more agreement between the variant  readings of the  
Samaritan Pentateuch, the extant Greek versions of the  torah such as  
those found in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and  the torah  
fragments in the dead sea scrolls than there is between any  of them  
and the Massoretic text.
4) The dead sea scrolls may be as  old as 2nd century B.C.E
5) Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both 4th  century codices
6) This shows that both the dead sea scrolls and the Greek  versions  
predate extant MT codices such as Aleppo and Leningrad  considerably
7) The MT is the product of years of Rabbinical debate who may  have  
had an agenda influenced by the ever growing division  between  
themselves and the Christians
8) Jerome (4th century)  claims to have based his Vulgate translation  
on the Hebrew text yet  there is more agreement with derivative  
manuscripts of the Latin  Vulgate with the aforementioned dead sea  
scroll texts, the Greek  versions and the Samaritan Pentateuch than  
with the MT

All of  these factors have caused me recently to call into question  
just how  reliable a source the Aleppo and Leningrad codices are and  
whether a  reconstruction of the original Hebrew text from these other  
sources  would be a more reliable indicator of an older form of the  
Hebrew text  of the books we consider to be part of the Tanakh.

Any  thoughts?

James

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable  body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number  SC005336.



**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list