Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Jewish Revisionism and Attempted Corruptions

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: Jewish Revisionism and Attempted Corruptions
  • Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:41:41 -0400


But Moshe's underlying point is surely indisputable. The MT tradition
is represented in the DSS, very accurately in such cases as the great
Isaiah scroll which is very close to the consonantal MT. Therefore the
consonantal MT cannot be an adaptation or "corruption" made during the
Christian era in response to Christian interpretation of the LXX
and/or its Vorlage. It is clear that both the proto-MT and the LXX
text type were both in existence during and before the first century.

The strongest argument which our friend can make is that later Jews
preferred the MT tradition because of the Christian use of the LXX.
But in practice, as I understand it, there are very few (if any)
differences between the two Hebrew traditions which reflect doctrinal
differences between Jews and Christians. Can anyone point me to any
such examples? Proof texts like Isaiah 7:14 relate only to the Greek
translations, where Christians preferred the LXX "virgin" (parthenos)
but Jews preferred "young woman" (neanis) as in other Greek
translations, but the only attested Hebrew (at least according to BHS)
is `alma.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Jewish Revisionism and Attempted Corruptions
Author: <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date: 25/10/1999 10:57


At 11.30 25/10/99, you wrote:
>At 10:34 AM 10/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>><p>2) Produce a new Hebrew Text to replace the older Greek LXX and serve
>>as a standard text for all the Jewish and Hebrew people. The Text of the
>>Sopherim was no longer usable it seems because it was not generally
available
>>for the Jewish and Hebrew people. This text is what we know today as the
>>Masoretic Text or the M T.
>
>The problem with this is that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pre-date
>Christianity, that plurality of texts are MT and not LXX (which makes up a
>very smallamount of texts.) Your thesis here does not seem to fit the
>evidence.

Sorry, Moshe, this doesn't fit the facts as I understand them. There are
various indications from within the DS OT texts that the traditions were not
well delineated, ie texts that show MT tendencies may also have certain LXX
or Samaritan traits.

Of course, of the LXX at the time of Josephus there was only some form of
the torah translated. Josephus tells us one of the reasons for his
antiquities is to provide the other Hebrew literature to the world in Greek
(see his preface to the Antiquities). There are only a few fragments of
pentateuchal texts from Qumran.


Cheers,


Ian


---
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.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page