Wed Jul 31 23:52:13 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jul 31 23:52:13 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id XAA07077; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:48:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 00:44:40 -0300
Message-Id: <199608010344.AAA12932@thor.atcon.com>
X-Sender: tmclay@mail.atcon.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: tmclay@atcon.com (Tim McLay)
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: 1415

I'm not so interested in this particular passage as Kevin Woodruff's
assertion that "when emending the consonantal text, we should use EXTREME
conservatism." 

On what basis would you justify that position?  MT is the latest witness we
have, so why should it be sacrosanct?  The LXX and Qumran are far closer in
time to the time of the writing of the Biblical texts.

Furthermore, when you later stated:

"[we] have to realize that the Masoretic text has a very remarkable degree
of accurate transmission (far more than the New Testament text)"

I have to say, SO?  MT is a witness to a majority text that was standardized
by one group in the 5th cent. though it derives from earlier efforts which
formost authorities such as E. Tov and E. Ulrich date as late as the 2d
cent.  Despite the arguments of a few who want to elevate the position of
the Majority Text in the NT, the majority of scholars recognize that
uniformity does not mean that much in most cases. Why, then, should
uniformity amongst late texts be highly regarded when it comes to the Hebrew
Bible?

In the end, elevation of the MT means that you are reconstructing A majority
text and not the closest possible reading of the original (or of a literary
edition in those texts which exhibit multiple forms).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McLay           tmclay@atcon.com
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada

Back