Wed Jul 31 15:16:57 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jul 31 15:16:57 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA04911; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:15:51 -0400
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:12:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West 
Subject: Re: Is 1:25
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified)
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960731151114.0bf75f6c@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 847

I did indeed look at both commentaries (ancient and modern) as well as
versional evidence before posting my note.
Nevertheless, I cannot accept the notion that simply because someone
"maintains" that a soap prduct was used in the smelting of metals that I am
obliged to agree.

Who do such gymnastics when we all know that letters can be turned around
quite easily, even in the modern era?  And why be so fearful of an
emendation that makes sense, and fits into the context of the passage?

Now of course I am not advocating the wholesale slaughter of the MT.  But
when an emendation makes sense, why not pursue it?


Yours
(and thanks for the help and suggestions)


Jim W.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, QHST
PO Box 310
Petros TN 37845
USA

Back