[b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable?

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 19:34:55 EST 2009


Randall has a point here: that despite all its warts and a few places where
we have evidence where it is wrong (e.g. Nahal Heber scrap of Psalm 22
backed up by context and grammar), it is still the best witness to the text
that we have. Of course, some of us want better, but … hey! … let’s be
thankful for what we have, and on the whole it’s pretty good.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:

> If a witness records testimony against themselves where they
> are embarrassed, then qal vaHomer they are reliable where
> they are not embarrassed.
>> Basically, the MT takes one back to the Second Temple in terms of
> reliability and tradition…
> We can't really penetrate the second century BCE on a textual basis for
> the Hebrew Bible. Overall, the MT is our most conservative witness.…
> So is it reliable? Remarkably. that's a yes, even if not absolutely
> absolute.
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth at gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list