Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Sopherim and an 'Established' Text

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Sopherim and an 'Established' Text
  • Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:51:10 +1100

The Tiqqune Sopherim are definitely quite old. We know this because emended
readings are attested in the LXX (e.g., Gen 18.22). I don't have access from
home to the Qumran evidence to see whether the original readings persisted.
BHS doesn't really help at this point. Nonetheless, the fact that we know
about the Tiqqune Sopherim via the Masoretes implies either (1) manuscripts
with the original readings were preserved for centuries after the
'corrections' were made, or (2) knowledge of the original readings was
preserved through scribal notations.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au



________________________________
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 02:35:05 +1100
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Sopherim and an 'Established' Text

George:

These are the reasons I asked if the passages with the tiqune sopherim are
found among the DSS. It is possible that the tiqune sopherim date from the
early Talmudic period, after the DSS.

There was a site, but I can't find it now, that listed all the DSS and the
portions of the Bible that are found in them. I used that site to determine
that the DSS could not be used in an earlier discussion, because the passage
in question was missing. Are any of the tiqune sopherim represented among
the DSS, and if so, what do they say?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:08 AM, George Athas
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Harold, there are two major problems I have with this view. Firstly, it is
> based largely on tradition which is fairly late - a good few centuries after
> the period you've mentioned (300-200 BC). Secondly, it doesn't seem to do
> justice to the text critical issues as evidenced by Qumran.
>
> I would argue on the basis of Qumran that there is a proto-Masoretic text
> which is reaching a fairly stable form by the turn of the era. However,
> there are also a plurality of other text types which make it difficult to
> talk about a fixed text.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page