Apikorus

Here we see the problem with posters the depth of whose knowledge is always a mouse click away. A thorough investigation of Steven's source does indeed show that Gen 14:22 does not appear anywhere in columns 1-21 of the Genesis Apocryphon. However, the Genesis Apocryphon has 22 columns, and Gen 14:22 most certainly appears in column 22 (absent in Steven's source). See pp. 48-49 of Martinez and Tigchelaar's Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (vol. 1), for example.

I recognize that this would - gasp! - require some to go to a library and look in an actual book. Actually, had Steven only done his internet "research" a teensy bit more assiduously, he would have saved himself this severe embarrassment. A google search of "Genesis Apocryphon" and "Melchizedek" immediately turns up a useful summary by James Davila, who is a Qumran scholar (see here).

Also the excellent book by Emmanuel Tov (see here), which I have recommended in other threads, and which has been praised by Lawrence Schiffman among others, includes a discussion (p. 282) of the minus in Gen 14:22. Tov reports that yhvh is present in the MT, in the Targumim, and in translation in the Vulgate, but is absent in the LXX (Goettingen series), the Peshitta, and col XXII, 1.21 of 1QapGen. Tov also reports that the Samaritan Pentateuch has haelohim in place of yhwh.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Ahh... hi Api. Oh, I have no problem being corrected and apologizing when I make an error or miss a reference. Has happened before, and likely will again.

Originally I was going by the the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, Flint, Abegg and Ulrich, and apparently they don't include it... good question why, maybe you know. It would have been proper to recheck it a little more after the strange second post that quoted the wrong section by Loomis.

Your arrogance is nothing new.

So the Loomis original quote was mostly deficient in what it omitted, the Vulgate and the Targumim, supporting the Masoretic Text. (Apparently the Greek OT stuff is incomplete above, and you also add the SP). This is similar to those Metzger and Ehrman deceptions, where they only list one side of an evidence, and even that is often done with parsing and error. Then "proof" is claimed in a vacuum. Here we simply have a case that can be made, but it is simply weak if it is supposed to be a "proof" and even worse if it is supposed to extrapalote to dozens of verses without textual evidence.

So let's go back to my unanswered question.

"Precisely what are the textual evidences of this 'absorbing'. Since we have the DSS of a lot of the Pentateuch from way before the period mentioned, as well as the Peshitta and Vulgate from an earlier time than mentioned above, it should be rather easy to give a few examples that could be checked with the texts. Could you give a list of at least a few verses which had an "El" morphed into a Tetragrammaton demonstrable by text differences ?"

So, is Genesis 14:22 the list ?

btw, Api, did you give a Targum reference in that last verse with the bullocks ?

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

Apikorus

Steven, I find Loomis's posts to be wild and sometimes incoherent. I would agree with him that there may have been Yahweh-El syncretism at one point, but this business about some tradent(s) inserting yhwh throughout the Hebrew Bible is a bit loopy.

I'm not sure I understand your last question. The Targum agrees with the MT in 1 Sam 1:24. What else do you want to know?

I seem to have missed the apology part.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

To answer my own question, since the Genesis Apocryphon was not really a Bible work (consider it midrashic or apocryphal with lots of non-scripture material) those verses that line up from the Hebrew Bible were likely ignored by Flint et al. (Would be a good question why they didn't include them in places where there was no other text and they were close enough to be used).

Then you have the additional issues of fragmentary extrapolation, which is why the last two columns were originally not included in many translations, as their reconstructions came later. Incidentally, the Davila material is not particularly helpful as to the exact text covered, but there are some full translations on the web.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Sure, I apologize for not researching the GA more thoroughly in response to the Loomis post ... not discovering that there were more complete and less complete translations and that Flint et al would not include it in their text.

You would do well to apologize for your snotty stuff, since I was using a book by Tov's compatriot Peter Flint. (btw, I have a fascinating email with Tov supporting Flint on Psalm 22:16).

Oh, you hadn't mentioned the Targum at all in your discussion on the verse, and there isn't a translation easily available. I figured, since you omitted it, that it probably supported the Masoretic Text, as does the Vulgate, which you also omitted.

Shalom,
Steven

Apikorus

Atta boy -- using the ol' noggin' feels good, eh?

This part requires some extra hard thinking. It is true that Davila doesn't translate the exact verse Steven erroneously says is missing from 1QapGen. However, Davila does talk about Melchizedek in column 22 of 1QapGen, and that should have set Steven's synapses a-firing since his source, which translates only cols. 1-21, doesn't say a word about Melchizedek.

Apikorus

First of all, Steven, why are you pursuing the discussion of 1 Sam 1:24 in this thread, rather than here, where I made the original post?

Secondly, can you explain how it is that I "omitted" the Targum and the Vulgate from my discussion in light of the following:Are you up for a second apology in one night? I suspect this sloppiness is probably because of your lack of sleep after staying up so late attending to vavs and such. For my part in all that, I am most contrite.

Steven Avery

Since the Apocryphon often is not quoting the text in any verbatim sense, one could not assume that the text actually matches a Bible verse from what Davila says. There are far more relevant references than Davila, apparently that was the one that Api found so it became a focus.

Steven Avery

LOL .. what a joke. After my post on 1 Samuel 12:9 I dropped all that because it was clear you were winging it, playing games, and making a nonsense "rule" based on VERSE NUMBERS (!) You should be embarrassed and ashamed to try to still wing this, even past a home court audience.

And be a mensch and stop deceiving yourself and others about my time and interest on this. I would never look into trying to prove or disprove a supposed grammatical or translation point based on verse numbers. (possible exception.. a plagiarism analysis as with the HRV, where the capitalization after the verses was an issue).

Api, time for you to stop the deception.

Meanwhile, Benefit loooked at the actual grammatical constructions and demonstrated comparable examples, so you winged it on the verse number nonsense, combined with the refining qualification fallacy nonsense.

If Benefit humored you by looking at verse numbers himself, that would be a small error on his part, imho. Some things are too insipid to be humored or researched.

And sure, an apology on the Targum and Vulgate reference as well. Two errors in a month or so of posting, no provolone. Probably more to come. I liked the bullock reference and looked into it some, it was refreshing after you had wasted so much time on your silly vav stuff

(the King James Bible translators might have translated it this way, except for that, and maybe this and that.. watch the VERSE NUMBERS (!) ... all to simply show that it is an unliteral construction, which we already know even from the KJB footnote),

And I didn't go back to your original text.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

Steven, get some sleep.