Tue Mar 12 16:00:19 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 12 16:00:19 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA04912; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:00:19 +0500
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:57:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew  Gross 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph.
In-Reply-To: <960312143521_244218878@emout04.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1672
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 


On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:

> Following up on my last question (about Is 7:14)- we know that the copyists
> of the MT altered what they found when they considered it objectionable.
>  They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim".  Does it not stand
> to reason, therefore, that there are other alterations of the Hebrew Bible
> which are not noted?
> And does it not stand to reason, further, that the scribes of the Greek
> Testament did the same?


Well, yes, this is certainly all reasonable.  However, if you are trying 
to build an argument from such suppositions, you should make sure that 
these suppositions have undergone an appropriate degree of methodological 
rigor.

More specifically, in order to prove that the MT has been altered, you 
would first have to produce an attestation of the supposed original 
rendering -- and preferably, one that is in the original language.  
Obviously, you would then have to somehow demonstrate that the supposed 
original rendering was in fact the "original" one.

Beyond that, you would have to demonstrate that this change was brought 
about intentionally for ideological reasons and not just through simple 
scribal error.

As for the Greek Testament (assuming that you are referring to the LXX
and/or other Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible), you also would have
to take into account the strong possibility that the translator did not
have the MT as his Vorlage.

So, in short, what you postulate is certainly reasonable, but if you ever 
wanted to demonstrate that alterations had occurred in specific 
instances, you face a heavy burden of proof.


hope this helps,


andrew gross

Back