Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

I would have the following questions to ask about Oesterley's work:

1) When was Oesterley writing? If the reference is to his 1939 work 
"The Psalms: Translated with Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes" 
(SPCK, London), it is then clear that he did not have the advantage of 
the Qumran texts and probably limited knowledge of the discoveries at 
Ugarit. The Qumran texts may well render his conclusions obsolete.

2) Is Oesterley proposing that the Karaites corrupted the consonantal 
Hebrew text, or just the pointing? If the former, then his hypothesis 
can be falsified or verified by comparison with the Qumran texts; at 
least for other books of the Tanakh, it has largely been falsified. If 
the latter, the degree of corruption possible is rather limited.

It is important to remember that the LXX Psalms are a translation, and 
a translation of poetry, and so (however well done) are unlikely to be 
more than a pale reflection of the original. I would therefore want to 
be very cautious before using the LXX to correct the MT text of 
Psalms. I have recently worked through the Psalms in Hebrew to check a 
translation; I have found only a few places where the Hebrew text is 
really "hopelessly corrupt" (some scholars seem to have a failure of 
imagination when they meet a difficult phrase!) and only rarely was 
the LXX (which is only one of a number of ancient versions done from 
the Hebrew) helpful in resolving the difficulty.

I understand that underlying the position taken in your quotation 
there may be a doctrinal position of the orthodox churches. If so, the 
authors ought to be honest enough to state that they take it on faith 
that the LXX is the authoritative form of the text, rather than 
relying on the doubtful and dated scholarship of Oesterley.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: The MT and Intro to Eng LXX Psalter
Author:  <upb_moniodis AT ONLINE.EMICH.EDU> at Internet
Date:    04/10/1999 08:40


The English translation of the LXX Psalter widely used in the Orthodox 
Christian Church (_The Psalter, According to the Seventy_, Holy 
Transfiguration Monastery, Boston Massachusetts, 1974, p 13-14) has the 
following statement in its 'Translator's Introduction':

----------- begin quote-------

   What is equally important is the fact that the present day Hebrew
version (also know as the Massoretic text) is itself the result of a 
doctrinal upheaval which shook Judaism early in the ninth century A.D. 
During this time, a sharp controversy broke out between the Rabbinical 
scholars and the Karaite sect (the Hebrew from of the name is ~Beni 
Miqra~, "Sons of Reading," i.e., of the Scriptures).  As W. O. E. 
Oesterey notes in his work ~The Psalms:~

   The Karaites undertook a most minute and critical study of the 
   Biblical text; and in order to oppose and refute the Karaite 
   teaching, the Rabbis had to undertake a similar task.  This dual 
   critical study developed into a very keen contest between the 
   Rabbinical and Karaite champions; and there is no doubt that
   the bulk of the work . . . must be assigned to the heretical 
   Karaites.
                       (ibid. p. 114)

   As a result, in his critical edition of the Hebrew Psalter,
Oesterley time and time again comes to the conclusion that, in a 
countless number of verses, the Massoretic text is, as he puts it, 
"hopelessly corrupt," and the Septuagint is repeatedly called upon in 
the author's effort to shed some light on what the original hebrew 
rendering may once have been.

---------end quote---------

My question is:  does this group consider this a "fair" statement. 
And, what might be a good reference source(s) that I could gather more 
on the question for myself.

Thanks.

Polychroni Moniodis





---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.