Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Søren Holst <sh AT teol.ku.dk>]

I thought the point of the introduction quoted was not that the Kara'ites
corrupted consonantal or vowel text, but that Massoretic pointing only came
into being (or at least was fixed) as result of theological consolidation
taking place in opposition to the Kara'ite heresy (as it would be to the
Massoretes). The Massoretic CONSONANTAL text we know to go back to antiquity
(because of Qumran finds).
   Implication of this for scholarly purposes would NOT necessarily be
superiority of the LXX, but rather that when in doubt you should regard the
CONSONANTAL Hebrew text as THE text and the vowels as a later commentary,
which you might consider disregarding if this makes the text more easily
intelligible.
   This is certainly a thesis we should consider regardless of the age and
quality of Oesterley's work.
   I utterly agree with Peter Kirk that scholars are too swift to label a
passage "corrupt" because of their own lack of what we might call "reader
sensitivity".

Soren Holst
Copenhagen

> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra:  peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> Sendt:        5. oktober 1999 22:10
> Til:  Biblical Hebrew
> Emne: Re: The MT and Intro to Eng LXX Psalter
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
>