Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? (also intro from new member)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? (also intro from new member)
  • Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 18:00:38 +0100

Yeah. When I did Hebrew people used to recommend Weingreen as well. Personally, I think it's getting a bit dated but there doesn't really seem to be anybody doing anything about bringing Hebrew learning into the realms of modern research on language acquisition. For Classical Greek there's the Athenaze books which are a bit of an improvement on the classical grammar oriented method of language teaching but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

Hopefully, things will change. The problem is that the market is just so small and specialised that it's not really in anybody's financial interest to publish something. The Davidson book was published by a lecturer at St Andrews and If the local legend is true he actually did it at his own cost.

James Christian Read

Quoting JMonte2000 AT aol.com:

Greetings all
I'm new to the list. I just finished 2nd year Greek and I'm starting (3rd
chapter so far) Hebrew. I'm using the Basics to Biblical Hebrew 2nd edition
(Pratico) I'm using this, because it is the book I'll be tested in. A Prof
who will help me out recommended Weingreen as another source.

Concerning the question below, as a primer I'm reading Old Testament
Textual Criticism (a practical introduction) by Ellis R. Brotzman. It seems like
a good book for the questioner to read. I've learned a lot, and it speaks
on the Massoretic text. It's not a large book, about a 170 pages.

Thanks for having this list!

Jim Montesano
I'm married with 2 boys; 24 & 19
I'm 51 yrs old
living in NJ USA
Studying at a Church based seminary called RBS based in Easley, SC
(If you're thinking 51 and studying at a seminary, all I can say is, you're
never to old.)




Dear James,

There is really nothing new in what you have apparently just "discovered".
We've been discussing these issues on and off for years. What you really
should do is to read a few basic books on the formation and canonization of
the text of the Bible. Obviously, there are different opinions, else there
would be nothing to debate (and then what would we do?).

Please note, however: co-modirator George Athas has already called your
attention to the rule that requires all messages to be signed by the
writer's full name. He has also hinted that some of your recent posts are
not really on topic. If you do wish to engage this list in discussion of
Biblical Hebrew, please abide by the list rules.

Thank you

Yigal Levin
co-moderator, b-hebrew

Original Message:
-----------------
From: James Read J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 00:42:06 +0100
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable?



Hi,

I've been doing a lot of reading and a lot of thinking in the past few
months and one of the things I've been interested in was finding out
more about alternative readings. Now I was brought up and fed with
stories that the OT was originally written in Hebrew and so the
massoretic text is our most reliable source for its original shape.
But recent lines of research have been causing me seriously question
that kind of reasoning. Does the fact that the massoretic is in Hebrew
really make it a superior source?

Some of the lines of evidence I've been looking at are

1) The age of extant manuscripts of the Massoretic text
2) Greek translations of the OT
3) The dead sea scrolls
4) The Samaritan pentateuch

Now, I was also brought up on stories of how the LXX has been proven
to be a 'bad translation' because of X, Y and Z with only the Torah
part of it being of decent enough quality. Now, the information that
has come to light to me in recent months are the following factors:

1) The oldest manuscripts of the Massoretic text are post 9th century
(not that old in the big scheme of things)
2) Qere and ketib such as the common he/she confusion show that the
Massoretic text was only sanctified as a holy order of consonants
which must be copied in that sequence no matter what *after*
considerable error had been introduced into it
3) There is more agreement between the variant readings of the
Samaritan Pentateuch, the extant Greek versions of the torah such as
those found in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and the torah
fragments in the dead sea scrolls than there is between any of them
and the Massoretic text.
4) The dead sea scrolls may be as old as 2nd century B.C.E
5) Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both 4th century codices
6) This shows that both the dead sea scrolls and the Greek versions
predate extant MT codices such as Aleppo and Leningrad considerably
7) The MT is the product of years of Rabbinical debate who may have
had an agenda influenced by the ever growing division between
themselves and the Christians
8) Jerome (4th century) claims to have based his Vulgate translation
on the Hebrew text yet there is more agreement with derivative
manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate with the aforementioned dead sea
scroll texts, the Greek versions and the Samaritan Pentateuch than
with the MT

All of these factors have caused me recently to call into question
just how reliable a source the Aleppo and Leningrad codices are and
whether a reconstruction of the original Hebrew text from these other
sources would be a more reliable indicator of an older form of the
Hebrew text of the books we consider to be part of the Tanakh.

Any thoughts?

James

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page