...
Schmuel
Gordon Laird has a wonderful site. His discussion of Psalm 110, and the David Kimchi (Radaq) view is very interesting. I trust his scholarship as much as just about anybody, although of course his specialty is not necessarily NT editions.
Peter Kirk
By the way, I also found a link (untested) to a free downloadable Ben Hayyim
Bible at http://www.christianhospitality.org/benchayyim.htm. But this is
apparently incomplete. This page confuses the issue by calling this Second
Rabbinic Bible the Bomberg Bible - although Bomberg was perhaps the printed
of both.
Schmuel
There are multiple corn-fusions on that site in regard to the Ben Hayim
Masoretic Text, I emailed the site author and basically decided that he does
not seem to grasp the issues and definitions. If you like I will go into this
more.
The site recommended earlier (I think by you Peter :-)
http://www.bibles.org.uk/ looks far more reliable.
... You can get a statistic for just about anything, the insight is in the details.
But did Tyndale use Ben Hayyim's text? It would have been very newly published
when Tyndale started work on translating the Hebrew in the late 1520's. I can't
find any clear statement of which text Tyndale used, but at
http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=3271 it is suggested that
at least one of his sources was Ximenez' 1517 Complutensian Polyglot.
Right. And I don't think he personally finished the Tanach, and his sources may have been mixed.
Tyndale also worked with Luther and from his translation. Now Luther cannot
have used the Ben Hayyim text because he was working before Ben Hayyim (his
Pentateuch was published in 1523); in fact it seems he used Gerson's 1494
Brescia edition (see The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge (1908-1912) as quoted at
http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebrewtext1.html).
That's quite interesting :-) What do we know of the Gerson edition ? Is it a similar Masoretic Text work as Ben Hayim ? Perhaps a precursor to the 2nd Rabbinic Bible? I wonder if Max Gerson, famous cancer doctor, is a descendent.
But does this actually make any difference? According to one site I found,
there are a total of just EIGHT differences between the Ben Hayyim and Ben
Asher (Aleppo/Leningrad) texts, none of which affect the meaning. (I accept
that this count of eight does not include the different pointings of YHWH.)
So, are the differences really enough to make a fuss about?
That is the big issue. I will fly it by some folks. I have seen claims that
the difference is much greater. Perhaps there are some notes in Kittel's 3rd
edition.
OK. Well, the process of revising an existing translation is a complex one, and may even allow for complete change from one textual basis to another.KJB used the ben Hayim text directly as its primary underlying text,It seems that the KJV translators in fact followed Tyndale and Rogers as much as any Hebrew text.
augmented more with things like Kimchi's grammar than anything else. ...
Well I don't think that is fair :-) They were updating what they viewed as
the best English Bibles available, but they had about a dozen
semitic-language scholars, and went over every single verse in committee.
The 83% figure can mean just about anything, and might not apply to the
Tanach. It is easy enough to compare Tyndale and KJB to see differences, if
we want to get more involved.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.