Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] tiqqune sopherim

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] tiqqune sopherim
  • Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 00:31:55 +0100

On 04/05/2005 20:31, Schmuel wrote:

...

Peter Kirk,

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) (snip)


Another reader privately asked me what were my views. I just want to be
clear that I was not suggesting earlier corrections. My faith view is very
simple, the Masoretic Text is a Received Text, and represents the scriptures,
the Dvar Elohim.. ...


Just to clarify, I am close to agreeing with you. To me, the canonical form of the Hebrew scriptures, the Dvar Elohim, is in principle what emerged at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, at the time when authoritative prophecy ceased (at least until the New Testament period, but that's another matter). But in practice I understand that form as being very close to the Masoretic text, because it was carefully preserved right through the intervening period (as shown by the DSS Isaiah scroll). At least, the MT is the closest that we can get to that text, although I accept that in a few places we can get closer, mostly where there is agreement between LXX and other ancient versions against MT.

... The Tiqqune Sopherim represents an important challenge to that view, making it a very significant question to anyone concerned with questions of inspiration and preservation of the scripture text.

To me, if one of the Tiqqune Sopherim is a genuine change (and can be shown to be so), the authoritative canonical form of the text would I think be the original before this change. But I suspect you would differ from me on this one. On the other hand, I tend to agree that the Tiqqune Sopherim are unlikely to be genuine changes, at least in the absence of support from LXX or other ancient versions or MSS.

...

Overall, accessible scholarship is very spotty, and even confusing at
times, with the alternative paradigms not clearly laid out.. The Bullinger
view gets the public limelight, and then gets picked up by a lot of
non-scholars and plastered over the web :-)


This is what happens when modern scholars and authors (and their publishers) protect their copyright: their views may become well accepted in narrow scholarly circles, but they don't get on the Internet and so don't get the wide publicity. So, scholars, I challenge you to publish your work on the Internet, in places where it can be read by all free of charge.


--
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: 266.11.3 - Release Date: 03/05/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page