Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>]

Hi b-hebrew,

Schmuel
>The  Leningrad text is just one Masoretic Text, not up to the standards of 
>the  Received Text. >From this viewpoint, what really counts is the Received 
> Text.  And it is not  likely to have the annoying small copying errors.  

Hayyim
>The Leningrad Codex agrees much more with the Aleppo Codex than does Ben  
>Hayyim. 

Schmuel
True.  
My understanding is that both the Leningrad and Aleppo Codex can be 
considered 
as in the Ben Asher text family. 

Hayyim
>The Aleppo Codex is almost certainly the text which Maimonides  verified as 
>the very best massoretic text.

Schmuel
Yes, I believe there is some scholarship in that regard, although I am not 
sure how carefully it has been reviewed, considered, vented, etc.  Also, 
Maimonides is only one rabbinical writer to consider, it would be interesting 
to see if Radaq and Ibn Ezra and others show a preference for one text or 
another.  If you have specific studies, links, quotes, references on these 
issues, I will be most appreciative.

Hayyim
>Both agree more often than Ben  Hayyim's text with statements in massoretic 
>texts that identify   specific readings.  

Schmuel
Well, if the Masoretic texts that you are using for identifying specific 
readings are texts in the Ben Asher family, then that would not be very 
surprising :-)  Perhaps you would like to elaborate more.

Hayyim
>Ben Hayyim compiled his text from multiple  manuscripts, without clarifying 
>either which manuscripts he used or how he  decided between them when there 
>were discrepancies.  

Schmuel
Understood.  One might consider this akin to the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, 
Beza and the Elziver brothers in the NT Received Text work.  Although we do 
have some Erasmus notes, and correspondence, in a lot of cases we do not have 
the type of information you mention, such as the exact priorities and 
methodologies used in choosing a particular reading. 

And specific manuscript information is hard to fine.  I would assume that a 
number of these early manuscripts are still extant, but because the specific 
manuscripts today are not as early as Leningrad or Aleppo they are passed 
over.  Again there is a similarity to NT scholarship. 

Also let's keep in mind that this Ben Hayim text was the base scholarship 
text as well into the 20th century, including Kittel's first two editions.  
It would be an interesting study to know what text was primarily being used 
in Jewish circles in the 17th-19th century, and for translation to English as 
well. 

>For such reasons, the  Chief Rabbinate of Israel approved Dotan's edition 
>(based on Leningrad Codex)  for use as the official Tanakh of the Israeli 
>armed forces. All of this reasons from logic.

Sure.  In both NT and Tanach studies, "scientific textual criticism" has let 
to a different textual view, especially in the second half of the 20th 
century.  Whether its precepts are "from logic" is open to rather vigorous 
discussion, dialog and debate.
 
>I generally abhor responding to statements on this list which are  based on 
>theology (anyone's; whether or not I agree with it); but since  
>"Inspiration" (by which I assume is meant "divine" inspiration) was brought 
>up  as a justification for prefering the RT, I need to respond:  

Let me be a little clearer.  My historic process was more in reverse.  I used 
versions/translations based on modern text-critical principles for many, many 
years before studying issues (granted, more in the NT) about the alternative 
conceptions of the text.  It was those studies that led me to reject texts 
based on modern scientific textcrit, as I simply concluded that the precepts 
themselves were fatally flawed.  (At the time, I stopped using the NIV and 
started using the NKJV).  In fact, in some cases I believe the principles 
will ipso facto and by necessity produce an errant text.  .. which today I 
consider this the soft underbelly of textcrit studies.   So from my 
scholarship studies I switched to a Received Text position.

So I simply want this to be clear, that my process was 

Study of textcritical viewpoints ---> rejection of eclectic text --->
Acceptance of received text     --->  full acceptance of inspiration and 
preservation.

In some cases I realize the process is in the opposite order, but since you 
are talking about
my "justification" for the TR view, I feel it is incumbent to splain my 
historical development :-)

>First, we have a guideline:  "Debate that forces particular faith or  
>doctrinal perspectives onto a reading of the text is not appropriate subject 
> matter for this forum. "

Well an over-extension of this guideline would shut out great scholars like 
Professor Lawrence 
Schiffman.  He accepts the Masoretic Text in general as a Received Text (his 
words), and really considers all the alternative readings to the Masoretic 
Text in the DSS, Samaritan Penteteuch, Targumim, Greek OT, Vulgate and 
Peshitta  as akin to window dressing (my words, not his).  Of course 
Professor Emanuel Tov takes a very different view, and this type of vigorous 
discussion even makes it to popular journals like BAR.  

Now I ask.... would Professor Schiffman be "forcing particular faith..." onto 
a reading of a text by declaring fealty to the Masoretic Text as the inspired 
Dvar Elohim ?  If not, what is the real conceptual distinction between his 
view, and my stating the preference for a particular Masoretic Text 
manuscript as the Received Text source ?  Compared to those who reject the 
Masoretic Text, we are 99.9% closer to each other than to those who would 
rewrite the Tanach italicizing the sources above to change the text. 

>Second, it may be perfectly acceptable for a Christian to believe that the  
>Ben Hayyim edition is divinely inspired and therefore superior (although I 
>con't  see any more justification for this than believing the same of the 
>King James  Version).

How about the Masoretic Text in general ?  The view of the rabbinics such as 
Maimonides who your referenced earlier. If your answer is "yes", it is 
divinely inspired and therefore superior (say to the DSS, Greek OT, etc)  how 
would you defend your position against those who rip the "divinely inspired" 
view in precisely the same manner ?  Inquiring minds do want to know.

> I do NOT, however, believe this is possible for Jews, if  only because Ben 
> Hayyim later became an apostate. 

This is rather a curious position. 

The Massorah of David Ginsburg I guess must be even more of a problem, since 
I gather he was a believer (aka.. "apostate") even when the work is done.

How about Akiba ? 
Would his declaration of Bar Kochba as Messiah negate his writings and 
scholarship ?

>Therefore, given that I  do not expect anyone to give weight to my 
>theological objections to Ben Hayyim,  I hope that no one will expect me to 
>give weight to their theological defenses  of 
>the Ben Hayyim text. 

No, I have no expectations as to how you will receive my views.  You are more 
than welcome to disagree and give counterpoint :-)  However, in the post 
above, the only substantive reason I could find is the Maimonides question, 
which itself is just an iceberg tip of even the Rabbinical and Orthodox 
viewpoint.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/ 

>He does, however, have a nice name.
>Hayyim