Nazaroo

Having been invited to look at this thread, I am rather disappointed, but not surprised at the contents.

Just taking the last post as an example:

The irony of this statement is jarring. The MT can hardly be dated earlier than 200 B.C. in most places after the discovery of the DSS. 200 A.D. for its final stabilization is more plausible.

While this makes Tov's statements about Codex B tolerable, its a pretty shakey basis for establishing either Greek or the Hebrew text.

If Codex B is indeed a 'literal translation' of Judges (whatever the underlying Hebrew text-type), this is startlingly exceptional, since the LXX generally represents the most extreme text *distant* from MT, and Vaticanus in particular generally is closer to any version of the LXX than it is to MT.

In either case we are talking about a 500 - 900 year old text(relative to the original date of the LXX xlation) which has already matured and stabilized after a turbulent early history full of complex variant streams of transmission and translation.

In the case of the LXX/Vaticanus, we are talking of a mixture of text-types and custom 'corrections' by now lost Greek and Hebrew exemplars. Nothing about this MS inspires confidence in it being a text older than about 200 A.D., even in the NT. Rather, it is full of variants and 'corrections' reflecting multiple doctrinal and theological concerns.

In the case of the MT, we are talking of another long history of attempts at correction and modification under completely different doctrinal and polemic influences. The two sets of editors were almost diametrically opposed, yet both very busy.

The agreement between these two texts (say, Codex Aleppo and Vaticanus) in a remarkable number of readings can only reflect either that Vaticanus is a mixed document (hardly a recommendation), or that Jewish interests had finally infiltrated the church by the mid 4th century (a not wholly improbable complication).

The shortest line between these two points is simply the possibility that a scribe of Vaticanus copied from Theodotion or Heschyius at this point in the MS.

But the main arguments in any case from any Greek source must rely upon a clear and convincing connection to the PRE-Christian LXX, not 4th century MSS. Here there simply is nothing except quotations of really early Fathers (and NT documents) and Greek speaking Jews of the 2nd cent.B.C. to 2nd cent. A.D. to go by.

The only extant MSS from the period (and therefore relevant for establishing an *early* reading) are those of Qumran, not heavily edited Ecclesiastical documents from the 4th century, or medieval Jewish texts like MT.

So the text-critical situation resolves itself to Qumran fragments and their interpreters, and only secondarily to Christian texts 500 years later, and Jewish texts from the same late period.

From secondary inferences, (e.g. NT texts and early Christian tradition) we can infer the meaning of 'virgin' was popular among Christians and Jews (early Christians were largely Jews).

The question does not revolve around Hebrew tenses, which is just a red herring. Hebrew prose often reads and is told in the 'present' tense, meaning the imperfect. Prophecies are often spoken of as already existing, or 'complete' (i.e., the perfect verb forms).

But nothing can be reasoned from the almost arbitrary verb form in Hebrew, since it is almost universally acknowledged that Hebrew temporal sense ('tense') is context dependant and also 'interpretational'.

Biblical Hebrew, being a more simply inflected language than Greek, is also more ambiguous. This is just the nature of the case. The vocabulary is relatively small, but contains so many hapax legomena and obscure grammatical constructions, and spans such a long period of time, that it is fair to talk of at least two dialects of Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

The textual situation is also absurdly complex, due to rampant mixing and re-editing of texts, including all the historical books like Genesis and Judges. These heavily mixed and reworked texts can't tell us anything reliable about ancient Hebrew as it was really spoken, or ancient Israelite perceptions of 'prophetic' utterances.

Everytime I hear something to the effect that "all scholars agree..." I know I'm in for a snow job.

In this case again, scholarship is sharply divided on the worth of Vaticanus, and NT scholars and OT scholars also hardly agree on its nature either, nor can their opinions be simplified to apply to the whole document or any large part of it.

Its easy to come to grips with Vaticanus. Its a heavily edited artificial ecclesiastical production probably made on order by Constantine. If that doesn't stamp it "beware, this could be crap", nothing can.

But in this case, even if Vaticanus was hand-signed by the Apostle Peter it would still be near-worthless for establishing the original meaning and intent of the OT Hebrew scriptures used in connection with the 'virgin birth' doctrine.

In a nutshell, Vaticanus is about as useful as a screendoor on a submarine.

Apikorus

This is simply false. The books of the LXX were translated with unequal quality. Some translations were fairly literal, while others were expansive and paraphrastic.

Such presumed "doctrinal" and "theological" alterations of the LXX have a certain truthiness to them, but it is hard to identify examples of this sort of thing. Modern scholars generally find that there is little Christian tampering with the text, and that overwhelmingly the differences between the LXX and the MT are due to the LXX being witness to a different Hebrew exemplar, as is attested by the biblical DSS.

Everytime I hear about something being "universally acknowledged," I know I'm in for a snow job.

Rubbish.

Steven Avery

Thank you, Nazaroo, very well expressed.

Especially pertinent is reminding the forum of the truth that Vaticanus is an "edited artificial ecclesiastical production". Some even place it as part of the Constantine --> Eusebius 50-copy production. So we see Api says "rubbish" simply because he refuses to deal with the issue. Api, rather than be dismissive, where do you think Vaticanus came from ? How did such an ornate manuscript arise in the 4th century with the NT and apocrypha. From rabbinical circles ? From underground Christian copyists ? From proto-Karaites ?

Let us go back to Api's post.

First - a very significant overall question about methodology. I realize that you, in a low-key way, essentially dismiss spin's Judges 13 'going to the Greek' argument. The proper thing to do since it is complete junque, inane on multiple counts. However, let us assume that the case actually had a smidgen of merit, or at least possible consideration - (say, eg. that Alexandrinus agreed with Vaticanus, allowing one to refer to "the Greek").

Then, why don't you agree that the Latin Vulgate (not the Old Latin, which may have Greek origin) and the Aramaic would be more consequential to the spin-type analysis? Specifically, they were in fact directly derived from the Hebrew. And the Aramaic is considered quite early while the Vulgate known to be c400 AD.

Directly derived, exactly what spin is looking for.

Hebrew--> Aramaic
Hebrew--> Latin

Plus these are far closer to the Masoretic Text than any Greek manuscript.
One translation, a fairly homogeneous manuscript tradition, and likely passed down from one translation vector. Far more reliable than anything we have in Greek.

If one is looking for an early example of how the Hebrew of Judges 13:5 was viewed these would be far more consequential than the wild and wooly textual competitions and corruptions of the Greek OT.

Please explain specifically what objection you offer to the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus So you should readily agree that the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible has itself accreted numerous scribal errors over the course of 1700 years of transmission.

A fair question but apples and bicycles. The Masoretes had (and one can conjecture, inherited to one degree or another) a very precise copyist procedure. Nothing like this is ever know to exist in the Greek OT, except maybe among the later Byzantine (post 500-AD) texts, and that still to a much lesser extent. In the Hebrew there were not multiple major recensions, new competing translations, and such, during the heavy copyist period of the first centuries. There was a very high regard for the sanctity of the scripture text. (While In the Greek OT they even plugged in a whole section of Psalms to match Romans !). The Peshitta and the Vulgate (and the DSS, most especially the Great Isaiah Scroll) show that this was an ancient text. And even you only attack a few words and phrases here and there, generally accepting the Hebrew Bible. So your analogy flops horribly. The comparison to the Hebrew itself shows the utter insipidity of talking about "the Greek" when the major manuscripts are split.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Jobes and Silva put it this way:[indent]...responsible use of the LXX requires careful attention to the complicated history of its transmission. Too many scholars in the past have consulted the editions of Rahlfs or Swete as though they were more or less identical with the original text.

Thank you. Exactly. Which is what Spin and his supporters were trying to do here .. and all for one argument on Judges 13:5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Conclusions reached on that basis can hardly inspire confidence.

Destroying the idea that Judges 13:5 in the Vaticanus is "the Greek".

The funny thing about your posts is that you give solid quotes like this that destroy spin's position of Vaticanus fealty and wonderment and then you double back to try to provide him cover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus I find that spin is well aware of the complications in the transmission history of the LXX.

If so he was simply <wrong> in claiming that Vaticanus was "the Greek" of Judges 13:5 and then following it up with two Vaticanus blunders "directly derived from the Hebrew" and "translated from the Hebrew". Apparently his doctrinal goals confused him for a season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus At a minimum, a "believer" believes that the biblical text is divinely inspired. This is a methodological straight-jacket.

And one can say that a professional textcrit has an a priori position that there is not a divine text. A methodological straight-jacket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Indeed, noone is saying that. What spin is saying is that the Vaticanus gives a faithful translation of the MT in the case of Judg 13:5.

He has no evidentiary reason for that, it is all ideological, it fits his preferences. See methodological straight-jacket above. See "circular reasoning".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Tov states that the Vaticanus of Judges is a literal translation.

Of what ? What it was copied from ? An unknown urtext ? The Masoretic text?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus You imply that a good deal of corruption must have taken place between the notional Urtext of LXX Judges and its version in the Vaticanus. What we don't know, of course, is whether the scribe who penned the latter copied from a Greek exemplar which was 50 years old or 500 years old. If the latter, then it is quite possible for there to have been relatively little corruption.

And even it that case it is quite possible for the exemplar to be a mess (eg. Aquila translated directly for doctrinal purposes.. or the earlier Jews may have actually deliberately tampered with the Greek text as they claimed). Or for the alexandrian tendency for scribal sloppiness (see Dean John Burgon on Sinaiticus especially, and also Vaticanus) to come to the fore. So even that 'possibility' of maybe having a not-so-bad text from who-knows-what in Greek which itself is from who-knows-what in Hebrew does nothing to make Vaticanus "the Greek" in a mixed reading environment, nor does it make it relevant as a good window on the early Hebrew understanding of grammar. One can however use it (along with the Peshitta and the Vulgate) as a window into difficult Hebrew words, such as plants and animals, as has been done by good translators over the centuries.

Spin blundered again and again .. bad enough. To see Apikorus desperately trying to trumpet the great scribal fealty of Codex Vaticanus (!), the ecclesiastical junque text, just to try to rescue spin gives us a major for the week.

You really should know when to fold them, Api. Vaticanus ??? Just to try to cover for spin when he makes a totally inane claim from Greek to Hebrew (one with which you understandably don't even agree). And then you have to try to provide cover for the spin-speak blunder after blunder to try to cover the inane claim ... Vaticanus is ..

"directly derived from the Hebrew"
"a translation of the Hebrew".

you actually become gaga over Codex Vaticanus (!)
the alexandrian 4th-century corrupt text.

Why not simply say:

"Spin's statements above were very wrong,
they should be retracted,
and then the discussion of Judges 13 can
properly return to the Hebrew."

Why defend the indefensible for political posturing reasons ?

Why join him in the scholastic quagmire of grandiose claims for Vaticanus,
even while you provide quotes that refute those pretensions ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Spin is at it again.
From another thread, brought over here, emphasis added.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin Obviously Vaticanus is a translation from Hebrew. Obviously it is part of a text tradition. Obviously, this doesn't mean that Vaticanus represents a fresh translation, but the maintenance of the tradition it is part of. Doh! But obviously it is 100 years earlier and 100 years less apologetic than the text you depend on.

So Spin is still turning textual language over on its head, calling Vaticanus a "translation from Hebrew". Of course this is a phrase that should be used for manuscripts and editions that actually are translations from Hebrew. eg. One complaint I have seen from orthodox Jewish circles against using the JPS-1917 (as done by some Christian apologists) is that it is not a translation from Hebrew but simply an update of existing English editions. And that is a fair concern if true and a proper way of phrasing the question. Yet to spin it would not matter, since the JPS-1917 would indirectly anyway be a "translation from the Hebrew". (btw .. at least with the JPS-1917 we actually do have the lineage, unlike Vaticanus).

Now Api does seem to understand that this language is all wrong, and tries to offer cover for spin. Why not simply call a spin a spin ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin But obviously it is 100 years earlier and 100 years less apologetic than the text you depend on.

And spin is very confused here as well, and fabricating. I don't depend on Alexandrinus and in fact I don't consider any Greek OT very relevant. The simple fact is that the texts are different, and on Judges 13 neither one can be called "the Greek". This is so simple and trivial that spin has to fabricate a contention that I never made in order to divert.

The simple truth.

Neither Vaticanus or Alexandrinus can properly be called "the Greek" of Judges 13:5

The following article gives a nice graphic demonstration of the Lagarde and Kahle Greek OT theories.

http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2...-bible-tchb-4/
Early Versions of the Hebrew Bible - Tyler F. Williams

And this is for the earlier Gibson vs. Carrier discussion, where Jeffrey objected to the usage of "LXX" by Richard.

http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2...-bible-tchb-4/
"The name Septuaginta today includes all textual witnesses to the Greek text, including the later revisions of the original Greek translation."

While I also do not generally use that terminology, and even consider it a major problem, the quote is given to show that on that one issue Richard Carrier was in scholastic bounds.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

As you have invalidated yourself from making reasoned comments in the field, you don't know that anything was well expressed. You can merely say thank you for supporting the position I support. End of your meaningful comment. All the rest is penance for you.


spin

Steven Avery

Spin, this is quite after your series of absurd blunders. You have Apikorus tripping over his own feet (even Vaticanus becomes 'pristine' and 'faithful') trying to find some rationale for your transparent fabrications, all created simply to try to prop up your unscholarly Judges 13:5 'going to the Greek' attempt.

At least Api tries, and distances himself from your actual argument. Smart move there. And he and Nazaroo offer references and reasoning for the forum. Perhaps Api will actually respond about the source of Vaticanus in his next post.

This thread stands as a testament to your -

- ability to manufacture absurd theories
- inability to acknowledge error
- ability to ply absurd error upon absurd error.

spin blunders in one thread, 'error' begets error'

"The Greek" of Judges 13:5 (supports present tense understanding)
Vaticanus --> "directly derived from the Hebrew"
Vaticanus --> "translation of the Hebrew".

The pyramid errors of spin, none retracted, all showing his
scholarly bias and unreliability.

Shalom,
Steven

Apikorus

Alas, before the Masoretes inherited their text, the major Hebrew text traditions were split as well, as the evidence from Qumran attests. Regarding the proto-rabbinic text itself, as I wrote in an earlier thread,

1. The text of the Hebrew Bible was preserved astonishingly well from the date at which the consonantal text had stabilized, ca. 135 CE, and the date at which the fully vocalized and annotated text was printed and hence fixed for all time in 1524. The scribes who preserved the text with such meticulous care were called soferim (the Hebrew word for "scribes"), and a class of the soferim, the masoretes, added vocalization, trope, and assorted notation to the consonantal text. The text produced by the masoretes, which you can find printed in Hebrew Bibles today, is known as the Masoretic Text (MT). Really, one should speak of an MT family, since there are very slight variations among different texts in the MT family. But as these variations are slight indeed, it shall serve to refer to the MT as a single well-defined text.

2. The text which the masoretes (active ca. 300 - 800 CE?) inherited had not been transmitted with the same degree of care. Accordingly, there is ample evidence for corruption in the MT. Some books of the Hebrew Bible contain a fair amount of corruption. This can be said for Samuel and Hosea, for example. Others, like Leviticus, are almost pristine. It is perhaps no accident that scholars identify Leviticus as a later text than Samuel -- the earliest texts are the ones most likely to have accreted scribal errors.

Apikorus

Praxeus calls the Vaticanus "junque" while Tov and Jobes & Silva (and Frank Cross and ...) regard it as the most reliable witness to the Old Greek. Who to believe?

spin

More from the semantic quagmire.

Empty rhetoric as usual, but keeping it here helps to maintain the cohesion of the comment.

While the scribes responsible for Codex Vatincanus did not do the translation themselves, the work is nevertheless a translation.

The only axe able to be ground is the "translation from Hebrew". Unfortunately, at some stage in the tradition it was just that, a translation from Hebrew. The performance hairsplitting should get a clapping smilie, but I'm fresh out.

Just imagine the same smilie.

The only thing we get out of this verbiage is that praxeus has gone so far away from talking about things that have meaning he's falling into playing word games with himself.

Oh gosh, projection.

This is where praxeus should draw the line. "Mistaken" maybe but I don't think so, "wrong-headed" perhaps but unlikely, but "fabricating"? He has demeaned himself now and shown that he is willing to stoop low to try to win some lost point. It's all right, praxeus. :wave:

praxeus is still laboring here to crawl out from under this.

He doesn't like the phrase "the Greek" this is because he doesn't like what the Greek says. What does it say? That the people responsible for the text understood the Hebrew of Jdg 13:5,7 to indicate the present reference in the angelic announcement that the woman was pregnant. The problem is that praxeus wants it to be future to match his theological bias, so that he can claim that Isaiah 7:14 must also be future, and that's why he tried to insinuate a text which is a hundred years younger into the argument, the Codex Alexandrinus. Why? Because it has the future where he wants it. I guess his preference for the Alexandrinus was a fleeting one for now he says he doesn't depend on the Alexandrinus. Well, as he has no other way to eke a future out of Jdg 13:5, he must have given up on that pursuit as a lost cause.

He simply can't know why he believes that Jdg 13:5,7 have the future. He just knows. Convincing, isn't it?

We need to overlook the gross simplification in his approach...

And I'm glad that praxeus doesn't have to make any text critical choices for us.

But while we are here, how would praxeus decide the text for Jdg 13:5? What scholarly criteria would he use to decide the text? He doesn't understand the Hebrew. He can't see how the text [-- and as I need to be precise for praxeus because he has difficulties contextualising what one says: by "the text" here, I mean Jdg 13:5 --] supplied by Codex Vaticanus reflects the Hebrew. Yet, somewhere deep down, somehow, he knows what it should be. Is it Gill whispering in his ear? Is it some website that reflects his theological stance? Is it the side of the bed he got up on on the day he decided he somehow knew what the text should be?

Cmon, praxeus, can you try to get back to the text or are you irrevocably lost to your deliberate digressions?


spin

Jack the Bodiless

...Uh, what? There isn't a "divine text"! That much is abundantly clear, hence all this discussion about which version is the best. Certainly, there's no error-free version: if you wish to arbitrarily assert that any one of the texts being discussed here is "the divine text", then why would God preserve an errant text?