On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Harold Holmyard
<hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>wrote:
> Karl,
> > Harold:
> > Right now we are dealing with what did the text originally say, I am
> letting
> > the what it means slide until later.
> >
> > I found my dead tree version of Tanakh, which has a list of variants, to
> see
> > what the critical apparatus would say. Yes, the apparatus lists all the
> tiqune
> > sopherim and what they were changed from. The exact words are given.
> There
> > is no question what the original words were.
> >
> > But when I come to the first two chapters of Job, there is only a
> speculated
> > correction, with a range of possible "originals". There are no variant
> > readings from other MSS.
> >
>
> HH: The Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia says that it is a correction or
> euphemism for WQLLW or something similar. The Sopherim functioned very
> early. As I gave you yesterday:
>http://www.geocities.com/hebrew_roots/html/hr-2-3-02.html
>
That's theory based on tradition. Is there anything to back it up? What
evidence is there from the DSS?
>
> > So what textual evidence do you have that these verses were changed?
> >
>
> HH: There is no textual evidence. And again, there would not necessarily
> be any.
No evidence? How can I accept that there was a change based on no evidence?
>
> > What is the evidence from the DSS concerning the tiqune sopherim? Were
> any
> > of them found among the DSS?
> >
>
> HH: The changes, if they occurred after the original composition of the
> text, could have been a hundred or more years before the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>
That's theory. What do the DSS actually say?
Now I realize that the DSS are often quite fragmentary, and it is possible
that none of the tiqune sopherim show up in the DSS, but have the DSS
actually been checked for them?