Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

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.