[b-hebrew] Why would the scribal authorities find this objectionable? a response.
peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon May 2 13:21:19 EDT 2005
On 02/05/2005 10:43, wattswestmaas wrote:
>The point here is that the two angels departed from the meal under the tree
>and it was God that was LEFT STILL STANDING. This is why I think that the
>emmended text (IF INDEED IT WAS EMMENDED) is not justified and this was a
>case (as Peter Kirk remarked) of hypersensistivity to a theological
>possibility that the scribes in question could not assimilate into their
Thank you for clarifiying my position on Genesis 18:22, which was
confused before because I quoted the supposedly emended text rather than
the supposed original. I continue to hold that that the alleged
original, with YHWH standing before Abraham, makes good sense in the
context, and if the scribes did feel the need to correct it they were
being hypersensitive. But then the whole of chapters 18-19 is so full of
anthropomorphic language for YHWH that I would expect such
hypersensitive scribes to have made much more widespread changes.
But I agree that we should prefer the text which we actually have,
Abraham standing before YHWH, unless there is good evidence, not just a
vague scribal tradition, that the original reading was YHWH standing
before Abraham. In this case LXX and (I assume from the lack of mention
in BHS margin) all other ancient versions confirm "Abraham standing
before YHWH". And if a correction had been made before the LXX was
translated, would it be accurately reflected in traditions from many
After writing most of the above, I read Schmuel's contribution which
seems to confirm that the tradition of a correction here is unreliable.
Schmuel suggests that the corrections may have dated back to the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah. Well, I accept that the entire Hebrew Bible may have
been subject to extensive redaction in that time (except perhaps for
those parts which were only written at about that time). But in practice
there is no way that we can reconstruct an earlier version of the text
with any degree of confidence. So we may as well take the form which
emerged from that redaction as the canonical form with which we can work
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.1 - Release Date: 02/05/2005
More information about the b-hebrew