Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Debtor (Ron) Old Testament Textual History, Masorah

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: Debtor (Ron) Old Testament Textual History, Masorah
  • Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:38:20 -0500

Dear "Debtor",

Thank you for sharing with us this interesting summary of the "Jewish
Encyclopedia" article. I agree with you (in a separate E-mail) that
books are not invalid just because they are old. If this "Jewish
Encyclopedia" was a good book when it was published, it is in many
ways a good one still, but if it was flawed then it has not got any
better. I cannot judge it except to say that the extracts given here
seem sound and uncontroversial for its time.

But any old book has the possibility of becoming out of date. What it
states as being true at the time of writing may no longer be true now.
Most obviously, in your point (5) "recently" is no longer true! There
have been many further discoveries since this encyclopedia was
published, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and these may have affected
the arguments here.

Unfortunately, your key point here is one which is not true now. I now
understand your key point that "the Old Testament Text is an eclectic
text" in the light of your numbered points (38) and (39). The printed
texts available at the time of the "Jewish Encyclopedia" were indeed
eclectic texts. But modern printed Hebrew texts such as BHS are not
eclectic texts but are reproductions of a single manuscript, commonly
the Leningrad Codex, which is not an eclectic text but a direct
product of the Ben Asher school. I don't know if the writers of the
"Jewish Encyclopedia" knew of the Leningrad Codex, if they did they
were probably wrong to classify it as an eclectic text.

Conclusion: the Hebrew texts available at the time of writing of the
"Jewish Encyclopedia" were eclectic texts. But the Hebrew text now
available, and used as the basis for modern Bible translations, is not
an eclectic text.

So please be careful before calling others "greatly uniformed" or even
"uninformed". It may be the one who has not read modern books who is
uninformed about recent developments. While I respect your years of
learning, the truly wise man keeps his wisdom up to date and does not
rely on the wisdom of his youth.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Debtor (Ron) Old Testament Textual History, Masorah
Author: <shella AT cswnet.com> at Internet
Date: 03/11/1999 01:10


Dear Brothers and Sisters and friends, please note, this article deals with
the
development of the Hebrew Old Testament basically since the beginning of the
Christian era. In it you will see the suggestion that the Old Testament Text
is
an
eclectic text, not a copy. ...

<snip>

Gleanings from the Jewish Encyclopedia

THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA, KTAV EDITION,

Article MASORAH.

<snip>
5) Recently Dr. P. Kahle discovered a fragment of the Babylonian Masorah
which
differs considerable from the Received Text in its terminology;
<snip>
38) But for reasons unknown neither the printed text nor any manuscripts
which
have
been preserved are based entirely on Ben Asher's p. 370;
39) Their printed texts and their manuscripts are all eclectic; p.
370;
<snip>

begin:vcard
n:Pound;Dr. R. E.
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:shella AT cswnet.com
fn:Dr. R. E. Pound
end:vcard


  • Re: Debtor (Ron) Old Testament Textual History, Masorah, peter_kirk, 11/04/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page