First, I know none of any of the principals involved in the "Herrell
Angel" thread apart from this list. I am not defending anyone or any
remarks.
I am, however, quite startled to find names such as "first-class bigot",
"intellectual lilliputian", &c. on this list (or in any discussion).
Just as [some of] the posters to the list wish to defend the motives of
the Masoretes, ought we not also pause before assuming wicked motives
(e.g., bigotry). It was my great good fortune to attend an extremely
conservative Christian college at which the Masoretes were celebrated and
honoured for their role in preserving the biblical text (an appreciation
that I attempt to pass on to my own students), and so I find even the
insinuation of deliberate Masoretic malfeasance abhorrent. Apparently, not
everyone has been so taught.
Perhaps Herrell et al. are merely ignorant. Perhaps he [they] have been
taught badly. There may be no excuse in our eyes for such ignorance, given
the resources available via the Web, but even so, each of us works out of
what he or she has been taught ... or mis-taught.
Finally, irenic answers--no matter how "bigoted" the questions *appear* to
be--may be more effective in the long run. On our farm, at least, we
caught flies with sugar water. And, when the time comes, as it may,
silence itself may be the most appropriate answer (Proverbs 26.4-5).
> At the mouth of two witnesses a matter will be established. Pastor
> Harrell brought forth several witnesses against the Masoretes, two of
> which I will list here.
>
> Witness one: Isaiah 7:14. Pastor Herrell says that in the Septuagint,
> it reads "virgin", while in the Masoretic text this is altered to "young
> woman". Is this a true or a false witness? The matter touches directly
> on the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus.
>
> Witness two: Luke 3:36. Compare Genesis 11:12. Pastor Harrell says
> the Masoretic text permits no interpretation that includes Cainan, while
> the Septuagint does. Is he wrong on this point?
>
How about a witness on the other side? This one also "touches directly
on the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus".
Hosea 11:1b, literal translation of the Masoretic text: "and from Egypt
I called to my son".
Hosea 11:1b, literal translation of the Septuagint: "and out of Egypt I
called back his children".
Matthew 2:15b, literal translation of the Greek: "out of Egypt I called
my son".
The NT is by no means always closer to the LXX than to the Hebrew. This
difference is of course not evidence for any conspiracy to change the
text, but rather that the LXX is not always a good translation of the
Hebrew. Here presumably the translators read the unpointed BNY as plural
"my children", but the Masoretic pointing agrees with Matthew's
understanding of BNY as singular "my son".
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/