Thu Aug 1 08:39:29 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Aug  1 08:39:29 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA08102; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:32:05 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:28:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199608011228.IAA28960@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: 2592

Due to the high degree of correspondence that the MT has with the Qumram
scrolls, I merely meant that the MT should be given a reasonable benefit of
doubt. Although it is a late tradition, it displays a high degree of
accuracy and we should give it the benefit of doubt before pronouncing it
"corrupt" or "non-sensical" For example in I Samuel 13:21. Driver pronounced
the text hopelessly corrupt, but archaeology proved that we just didn't know
what a _pim_ was. The LXX although closer to the writings, varies in it's
literalness of translation and sometimes shows that the translator's didn't
have a clue as to what the text meant. I'm just stating that we should be
careful to not try to superimpose our idea of what we think the text should
say instead of trying to ascertain what does the text actually says.
Emendation should be a tool of last resort, not of first resort. 


At 12:44 AM 8/1/96 -0300, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>
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