tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3406332859927367363.post1354484056569407125..comments2022-09-16T00:35:58.426+03:00Comments on BibleRants: The Septuagint and Hebrew textual criticismAaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10910354285815836605noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3406332859927367363.post-50311419135530746862010-02-15T10:19:47.047+02:002010-02-15T10:19:47.047+02:00Josh Phillips (the guy from the post) sent me this...<i>Josh Phillips (the guy from the post) sent me this excellent response through Facebook Messenger, and I thought I would share it</i><br /><br />Straight up Kol Ha'kavod, v.interesting (and thanks for the personal mention). <br /><br />While I would echo much of the sentiment of the commenter 'Hebrew Scholar' (but maybe not his rather forceful tone) I would like to add two caveats.<br /><br />The LXX wasn't composed as a unified work, the Torah came first and later the remainder of the Bible was translated. Therefore it isn't a unified translation and later dated translations would be made with better knowledge on both sides, of the Greek and Hebrew languages (not to mention theology). If anything it may be said therefore that in terms of authority it would be the later translations of the remainder of the bible which could make a better argument of being considered 'authoritative' in the textual critical sense (a la, Samuel and Psalms)<br /><br />On the other hand the Torah Scroll was and is the central ritual object of all Jewish communities from the ancient world until today. In some Jewish communities (even today), children are taught all five books by wrote and the cantor and Rabbi of each community will usually know it entirely by heart too. All the more so for ritually trained scribes, a profession and tradition that is still around today.<br /><br />If you ever go to an Orthodox synagogue during a reading of the Torah, you will note that if the reader ever makes a mistake, even on the vowels, many members (often grumpy old men) will shout out the correct reading until they get it right. This is why Jewish boys make such a big deal of the Bar Mitzvah, one little mistake and a bunch of people start publicly and vocally correcting you!<br /><br />In conclusion I guess I'm meeting you 50/50, I'll budge on a whole bunch but I do genuinely think (not just for religious reasons) that the traditional MT Pentateuch has reasons for its 'authority' outweighing textual analysis, which we must admit isn't a science like chemistry and like must else in our field, the best you'll get is a good guess...<br /><br />either way you gave me a good read...<br /><br />peace..Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10910354285815836605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3406332859927367363.post-53157261853593279882010-02-13T23:58:49.640+02:002010-02-13T23:58:49.640+02:00I think you misunderstand what the Massoretes did,...I think you misunderstand what the Massoretes did, despite all the nice things you say about them. The Massoretes demonstrate that Hebrew Bibles have been copied incredibly faithfully for hundreds of years, without any significant changes in the Hebrew text. This is why Jews trust their Hebrew Bibles. They know they have been copied faithfully. The sort of differences which the Massoretes found shows that they found only tiny differences between manuscripts, such as different accents, or different spellings in words. The Hebrew manuscripts they used were already without significant differences. They weren't correcting anything, just preserving what was already preserved, and making sure it was preserved faithfully in future. Comparing that to the LXX or Greek New Testament, with its terrible history of text mutations and variations, is like comparing a child's picture with the work of a master artist. You really can't say that the LXX is a more faithfully transmitted text than the Hebrew Bible. That is just wishful thinking. There is little history of the LXX text from 250 BC to the Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. You assume that the latter MSS have been copied faithfully and respresent the tradition of 250 BC, which they certainly do not.Hebrew Scholarhttp://allthingshebrew.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3406332859927367363.post-67141954208474022322010-02-13T23:29:20.868+02:002010-02-13T23:29:20.868+02:00Your posts are always very interesting.
In relati...Your posts are always very interesting.<br /><br />In relation to something you wrote before I was going to point out some rhetorical criticism stuff for the OT but I can't find it, it was related to something I was doing for the NT...<br /><br />The LXX is very nice, appearantly there is a really good critical version out there, which has an extensive txt apparatus, but it comes only in many volumes... have you seen that one? I imagine you have, I can also imagine the textual apparatus is very interesting... my NT professor likes to believe that some of the OT books are actually to be found in their original version in the LXX, but he likes to believe fringe things.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02612676788354930420noreply@blogger.com