Subject: Re: Is 1:25

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:16:27 -0400 (EDT)

Dear Jim:

This where I think we need to used extreme caution whenever we are doing
exegesis. Emending the text should be used only as a "last resort" According
to the commentators that I have checked (Keil & Delitzsch) _kabor_ (lye ,
_natron_  or alkali) was "used in the refining process to accelerate the
process of smelting". Consequently before we resort emendation, we should
make sure we understand the passage, before declaring it to be
"non-sensical". I think we should thoroughly research the passage to
understand what the Biblical author was trying to say before we start to
emend. Second we should check the ancient versions, Qumram, LXX, Targums,
the Vulgate , and the Peshitta, to understand how it was regarded by those
closer to the time period than we are. sometimes it's merely a matter of
choosing differing vowel-points (which I don't regard as necessarily
sacrosanct, but they should be regarded with respect). But when emending the
consonantal text, we should use EXTREME conservatism.

At 01:21 PM 7/31/96 -0400, you wrote:
>The MT here reads "kabor" (as lye) but the emendation "bkr" (in the furnace)
>has been suggested.  The emendation seems to make emminently more sense than
>the MT.  So, should I follow the emendation in translation or should I let
>the non-sensical reading stand?
>Or, how often may we legitamately use emendation without feeling a pang of
>guilt?
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Jim
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>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)
[email-masked]