JoeWallack

From Ginsburg's, Introduction to the Masoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, Page 971:



JW:
Alas, here Mr. Christian overstates his hand (and feet). That there was so much as an ancient reading of K)RW is most certainly in doubt. The earliest and best Manuscripts all have K)RY with no related Masorah. The Ochlah Ve-Ochlah that Ginsburg puts so much weight on also explicitly confirms that there was no spelling variation. The majority of Manuscripts in Ginsburg's Inventory are well before BC's time and all have K)RY with no related Masorah. The best supposed detail evidence of a K)RW tradition is BC's claim that he observed it written in some quality manuscripts (otherwise unidentified to us) yet he confesses that they all indicated K)RY was the correct reading.

Christian goes on to demonstrate his incompetence in going from Hebrew to Greek (too bad Jeffrey Gibson wasn't his Editor) claiming Aquila could get "they have made hateful" directly from K)RW.



JW:
Here it is not at all improbable that Mr. Christian has completely lost it. Because the Aramaic Targum adds a Verb to K)RY he concludes that there was an original of K)RW K)RY. But the Targums often make explicit what they see as implied. It's what they do.

Christian is blissfully unaware of the possibility that the K)RY of 22:17 had an Implied Verb which would be consistent with Ochlah Ve-Ochlah. "Like a lion" implies a word closely associated with a lion just as we use "cat-like" to imply a word associated with a cat. That is why "like" is used. For example, "Steven has dug up a meaning of "pierced" here with "cat-like" ability." (quickness).

Whatever Aquila originally wrote has been copied and translated by Christianity and Aquila appears to have changed his mind. "They have made hateful" doesn't fit the context. Aquila wasn't a Rabbi or Scribe and was known to confuse yods with vavs which were written similarly at the time. "They dug" doesn't fit the context either and also, as has been pointed out here, is missing the direct object marker. The variety of Greek translations is consistent with K)RY being the Text and the Translators either accepting the word as original but guessing it meant something different than "like a lion", such as verb, or assuming it was not original but again making a Verb guess or simply mistaking the "yod" for a "vav".

Even if there was an early textual variation of K)RW the Masoretic text is thought to be standardized by the end of the first century. Who would be in a better position to determine the Likely original, First century Rabbis or a 16th century Christian? Regarding Masoretes deliberately changing from K)RW to K)RY, why would they give a shit which was original. Proof-texting is a Mr. Christian thang. Christianity has been Convicted of this sin many times and a case in point here is "pierced". Where have "The Rabbis" been convicted of the sin of deliberately changing for proof-texting reasons?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Apikorus

It is perhaps a bit embarrassing that so many of the greatest masoretic scholars -- Pratensis, ben Chayim, Ginsburg -- were converts to Christianity. Of course there was the ben Asher family, but they were Karaites. Oh well, at least we had the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

I think the pedigree and scholarly reputation of Jacob ben Chayim ibn Adoniyahu were pretty much unassailable. From what I understand, ben Chayim converted some years after publication of the Second Rabbinic Bible anyway. This absurd charge that somehow ben Chayim and/or Ginsburg were missionaries is laughable.

Reading Ginsburg's critique of Hupfeld's charges of falsification by ben Chayim a bit more carefully, he first (p. 970) discusses the issue of the masorah parva to Ps 22:17, which indicates that the fully vocalized ka'ari, with a qamats under the kaf, appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, with two different senses, the other occurrence being in Isa 38:13, where it clearly means "like a lion." The implication is that in Ps 22:17 it must have a different sense -- possibly a verb (and presumably in the first person given the -y ending). Hupfeld apparently charged that ben Chayim had fabricated this masorah, but as Ginsburg points out, Sefer okhlah w'okhlah confirms that this vocalization of K)RY does indeed occur with two different senses in these two verses. So Hupfeld is proven wrong. Note that this charge and Ginsburg's refutation have nothing to do with K)RY vs. K)RW -- the consonantal text here is K)RY in both cases.

The spelling K)RW appears in the masorah parva to Num 24:9, and in ben Chayim's masorah finalis, where he remarks that he has found K)RW "in some correct codices". Again, Hupfeld smelled a rat here, but Ginsburg points out that the ancient Greek translation by Aquila apparently read K)RW in its Hebrew exemplar. The discovery of the Nahal Hever scroll, of course unknown to Ginsburg, confirms that some ancient Hebrew scrolls did contain K)RW.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ahh A, Always A pleasure. Let me say just for the record that I certainly don't consider any of the Three who Testify who are now in Heaven, Pratensis, BC or Ginsburg, missionaries. There's just something about looking at God's supposed word for yourself and closely that makes those with superior skills realize that what they are looking at was by those with inferior skills. This phenomena does not appear to be limited to Judaism so in addition to its effect on someone very close to you we can add Ehrman, Origen, Jerome El-all:

"And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!"

It makes sense that the Karaites would do the best job of preserving the Biblical Text since that's all they had. By comparison modern Talmuds differ with ancients on almost every sentence. It would appear that the Masoretic went Eclectic once the Karaites went out of Fashion.

Regarding charges against the Big Three the only serious one I see was Pratensis' use of K)RW which couldn't be supported based on the Textual evidence. I certainly think BC's scholarship was inferior to the Ben Ashers. 500 years earlier they had a Masorah that agreed with the accompanying text. BC wasn't able to do that. Of course it's possible that Bomberg cut short BC's effort complaining that at the current rate Jesus was likely to return before BC had a Masorah that agreed to the Text. Ginsburg's related support of BC is what's laughable, that BC deliberately had a Masorah that contradicted the Text because it was representative of the exemplars. Ginsberg finds numerous errors in BC's work which by comparison are relatively difficult to find in the Masoretic Codices to the 12th century. Ginsburg also used some Manuscripts in his Inventory that are full of Scribal errors so his selection technique leaves much to be desired.

The Types of Manuscript studies done by Kennicott, DeRossi and Ginsburg probably could only have been done by Christians at the times anyway. The Christians controlled the Museums, Libraries and Universities so I think it would have been relatively difficult for a Jew to get the kind of cooperation these Christians got.

Regarding the Nahal Hever fragment, as has been mentioned in this Thread, the related Scrap on the Internet has been enchanced. Flint's fellow Christian Bible scholars are on record as saying that the fascimile of the scrap he himself provided is illegible as to the offending word. Combined with the observation everyone agrees with that yods and vavs were sometimes written very similarly at the time and the less agreed observation that this was especially true of a last letter, as well as Flint's confessedly Fundamentalist outlook on life should give the careful and objective Bible scholar who has not looked at the fragment for herself pause before concluding what exactly is written. Currently on B-Hebrew there is a related discussion fueled by our own correspondent Steven and remarkably opinion regarding what the NH reading is has become a K)RYoarscharch test with individuals seeing whatever they are otherwise predisposed to see.




Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Apikorus

JW, you've made this claim before about the last letters, and if memory serves Phlox and I both asked you for some evidence. I can't find any such claim regarding the DSS in the review by Frank Moore Cross, who is generally acknowledged as the leading expert in DSS palaeography. Cross certainly does comment on confusions between similar looking letters Y/W, D/R, K/B, etc. but nothing in particular on how such difficulties may or may not have been more prevalent with final letters of words. If you do have a reference, I'd appreciate your citing it.

The Nahal Hever Psalms scroll is identified as late Herodian, and generally W and Y are distinguishable throughout the fragments.

spin

I know I've made the claim, because I've had to deal with it.

I don't have the literature handy, but in the Encyclopedia of the DSS V.2, p.633, Cross writes, "in the early Herodian period, vav and yod become virtually, if not actually, indistinguishable."


spin

Apikorus

Yes I am aware of this fact and I remarked on it in an earlier post. Cross also comments how W and Y became more distinguishable in the late Herodian period; the Nahal Hever Psalms scroll is presumed to be late Herodian.

What I am asking about is JW's claim that W and Y were less distinct when they occurred specifically at the ends of words. Have you run across this sort of claim before? I can't find any evidence for it.

JoeWallack

JW:
Damn we're good! Steven, Good one on "The Tov, the bad and the JW". I probably told you before that El-i Wallach is a distant cousin. I have Faith that you weren't this funny before you met me and I Am only in it for the Entertainment anyway.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Apikorus

I notice Steven has still failed to present any defense of "pierced".

jgibson000

I wouldn't count on him doing so any time soon.

He's away at the moment, trying to drum up sympathy and support on the TC Alternate List for his claims (curiously stated with confidence in the IIDB 1 Tim 3:16 thread) about how Tischendorf's and the UBS' critical apparatus are inaccurate in what they say with regard to the witness of Epiphanius to the text of 1 Tim 3:16.

Jeffrey

Toto

um, is the picture on the homepage from Monty Python?