Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 3/29/07, Kenneth Greifer wrote:
> Yitzhak,
>
> When you were listing oddball theories on B-Hebrew, you forgot to mention
> my oddball theory that the letters in certain quotes can be regrouped into
> new words and sentences. (You probably forgot my oddball ideas because I
> have not posted any of them lately.) Maybe that would go under textual
> criticism. Is that considered an oddball theory if there is no manuscript
> evidence that the letters of a certain quote should be divided into words
> differently?

Dear Kenneth,

Yes, that is textual criticism, and we do have examples where this gives for
a clear solution.  A nice example, cited by Tov, is the case of 1 Sam 1:24.
The Massoretic reads "bprym $l$h" ("three bulls"), but the Septuagint seems
to presuppose "bpr m$l$" (it reads, "a three year old bull", see:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/1reigns.pdf
).  A fragment in the DSS preserves the reading "bqr m$l$" (possibly: "bpr bn
bqr m$l$").  In general, we may suggest as a way to put together all the above
versions, that the original read "bprm$l$" without spaces between words,
without mater lectionis.  Then, the Massoretic version at some point
reinterpreted "bprm$l$" as "bprm $l$", while it should have read "bpr m$l$".
So, here is an example where two versions (DSS, LXX) against the MT suggest
rereading the words differently.  Your "oddball theory" is not so oddball, 
then.
What needs to be done though, is to apply it very carefully.

Regarding what is accepted and scholarly, and the scholarly imagination, you
should read perhaps some scholarly works to see new and unusual ideas.  A
new idea isn't bad if it is properly substantiated and deals with
relevant criticisms
and known evidence.  In the end, it might be correct.

Yitzhak Sapir