Wed Jul 31 16:29:54 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jul 31 16:29:54 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA05385; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:28:08 -0400
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:24:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199607312024.QAA23465@utc-01.campus.mci.net>
X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" 
Subject: Re: Is 1:25
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2902

Dear Dr. West:

I suppose that I have a basic assumption that a text is "innocent until
proven guilt." If I try to reconstruct a text based upon a supposition of
how I think it should read rather than on the empirical evidence of how does
it read and how has it been historically understood, then I am guilty of
importing my own ideas into it. I have to realize that the Masoretic text
has a very remarkable degree of accurate transmission (far more than the New
Testament text) If a text "makes sense" within reason Occam's razor would
demand that we do not need to multiply entities unnecessarily. If a custom
is documented, such as using natron/alkali in the smelting process, then to
emend the text to read something different is wrong. I would maintain that
the gymnastics are performed when we seek to modify a reading to suit our
limited understanding of background, culture, linguistics, and philology,
rather than admit that perhaps the writer knew more about what he was
writing than we do. I suppose it all depends on one's definition of 'makes
sense" but one of the cardinal principles of textual criticism is" the more
difficult reading is to be preferred". Difficult readings do not mean
necessarily mistakes, only misunderstandings. I have a great deal of
confidence in the Masoretes who jealously (almost fanactically) guarded the
text and who were on much more intimate terms with it than many modern
critics. I suppose it best boils down to "if it don't appear to be broken
why fix it" LOL. I'm only fearful of emending a text that is accurate as it
stands, to suit what I consider to be "right" or reasonable when in fact it
is correct as it stands. Far too often the problem is with our understanding
of the text rather than the text itself



At 03:12 PM 7/31/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>
Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net

Back