Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Why would the scribal authorities find this objectionable? a response.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: wattswestmaas <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why would the scribal authorities find this objectionable? a response.
  • Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 18:21:19 +0100

On 02/05/2005 10:43, wattswestmaas wrote:

...

The point here is that the two angels departed from the meal under the tree
and it was God that was LEFT STILL STANDING. This is why I think that the
emmended text (IF INDEED IT WAS EMMENDED) is not justified and this was a
case (as Peter Kirk remarked) of hypersensistivity to a theological
possibility that the scribes in question could not assimilate into their
dogma.


Thank you for clarifiying my position on Genesis 18:22, which was confused before because I quoted the supposedly emended text rather than the supposed original. I continue to hold that that the alleged original, with YHWH standing before Abraham, makes good sense in the context, and if the scribes did feel the need to correct it they were being hypersensitive. But then the whole of chapters 18-19 is so full of anthropomorphic language for YHWH that I would expect such hypersensitive scribes to have made much more widespread changes.

But I agree that we should prefer the text which we actually have, Abraham standing before YHWH, unless there is good evidence, not just a vague scribal tradition, that the original reading was YHWH standing before Abraham. In this case LXX and (I assume from the lack of mention in BHS margin) all other ancient versions confirm "Abraham standing before YHWH". And if a correction had been made before the LXX was translated, would it be accurately reflected in traditions from many centuries later?

After writing most of the above, I read Schmuel's contribution which seems to confirm that the tradition of a correction here is unreliable. Schmuel suggests that the corrections may have dated back to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Well, I accept that the entire Hebrew Bible may have been subject to extensive redaction in that time (except perhaps for those parts which were only written at about that time). But in practice there is no way that we can reconstruct an earlier version of the text with any degree of confidence. So we may as well take the form which emerged from that redaction as the canonical form with which we can work today.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.1 - Release Date: 02/05/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page