Subject: Tiq. Soph.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:35:22 -0500

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?

Thanks for your help,

Jim West

---

From: Andrew Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:57:28 -0500 (EST)

> And does it not stand to reason, further, that the scribes of the Greek

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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:45:25 -0500 (EST)

> to reason, therefore, that there are other alterations of the Hebrew Bible

There are traditionally only 18 tiqqune sopherim, but other scribal
changes are evident.  The most obvious ones I know of are in the first two
chapters of Job, where the original words "curse God" (or their equivalent
pronouns) have been replaced by "bless God" in the MT. Then there are 
also scribal omissions, puncta extraordinaria, inverted and suspended 
nuns, ....  Fishbane discusses numerous passages in which he detects 
unmarked (by the Masora) scribal changes in _Biblical Interpretation in 
Ancient Israel_.

> And does it not stand to reason, further, that the scribes of the Greek

The obvious example here is Origen, who "corrected" the LXX in the 
direction of the proto-MT in the fifth column of his Hexapla.  Actually 
he just marked the differences and inserted Greek material for the LXX 
minuses, but the effect on the LXX tradition was drastic.

As I recall, Koster (?) wrote a book on the Peshitta of Exodus in which 
he argued that later manuscripts of P tended to "correct" the text in the 
direction of Hebrew manuscripts.

So I think that it can be argued that scribal "correction/corruption" was 
common in most, if not all, manuscript traditions.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Sigrid Peterson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:45:54 -0500 (EST)

According to [email-masked]:
>  They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim".  

How do we know this? It's something I haven't learned.

[...]
> Jim West

Sigrid Peterson  UPenn, Bar-Ilan University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
		 and The British School for Archaeology in Jerusalem
		 [email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 20:35:54 -0500 (EST)

> How do we know this? It's something I haven't learned.

"Know" is probably too strong a word, and the tradition of only 18 tiqqune
sopherim suggests that the practice was only sporadic, but Jim's statement
does follow the common wisdom, as I understand it.  Wuerthwein, _The Text
of the Old Testament_, says that the primary purpose of the tiqqune
sopherim "was to remove objectionable expressions referring to God" (p.
18).  Yeivin, _Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah_, is somewhat more
curcumspect in his opinion: "Two similar opinions are held today.  Some
argue that the original text showed the received readings, and the list of
_tiqqunim_ represents midrashic interpretation, not text history.  Others
believe that these corrections were indeed made by the scribes, and they
ascribe the same origin to other corrections, not mentioned in the
Masorah, which were also intended to avoid profanation of the name of God,
such as the use of the root BRK with reference to God as a substitute for
some offensive term (e.g. in Job 2:9)" (pp. 50-51). 

The first option mentioned by Yeivin seems to me to reflect an uncritical
(or perhaps, precritical) predeliction for the MT in which the consonantal
text is looked upon as immutable.  The biblical manuscripts found among
the Dead Sea Scrolls would seem to mitigate against this view, as would
numerous other arguments that come to mind.  I would, however, be
interested to hear if others had arguments that they could advance in
favor of this opinion. 

Jimmy Adair