Apikorus

I've always allowed that there could be exceptions to the rule that the KJV always translates a vav at the beginning of a verse. My only claim was that they are exceedingly rare, and that so far as I can tell there are no other examples in all of 1 Samuel. If something occurs with a frequency of one in four hundred, that is exceptional.

So the force of my point remains, and is indeed amplified by the obvious rarity of these cases throughout the entire Hebrew Bible.

Furthermore, although this point is perhaps lost on those who have no competence in biblical Hebrew grammar, I pointed out that the case cited by Ben, in 1 Chr 10:11-12, is not parallel to what we have in 1 Sam 13:1-2, since the sentence beginning in 1 Chr 10:11 begins with preterite plus vav consecutive, which can plausibly be translated as "and when (verb)". In 1 Sam 13:1, we have no such thing. To associate the "and when" with the vav in vayivchar at the beginning of 13:2 and displace it into the middle of 13:1 is desperate and grammatically untenable.

I smile as I imagine Steven furiously surveying 1 Samuel to find an exception, which he so dearly desires. That he is so overwrought suggests that my imagination is pretty close to his reality, which strikes a nerve.

Amaleq13

Ignoring moderator warnings to avoid insults is a poor way to engage in a rational discussion of the evidence but a great way to get a thread locked. Your choice, folks.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

gregor

Api

You asked for luker comments. I have not understood everything, and a condensed summary of the issue and chief points would help. However, your points seem the most reasonable.

Steven Avery

<insulting comments removed>

==================

As for the moderator, I really don't mind a little (editing).
The thread and claims were simply too hilarious and absurd to not have a little fun at Api's expense, however the absurdity comes through better in his argumentation than in my comments.

=======================

Oh, and I do hope one of our logicians will come up with the Latin for what I called the "fallacy of refining qualifications". It is a more precise subset of what we commonly call the "moving goalpost" fallacy, which itself is related to various category selection fallacies, e.g. as we discussed in the thread about "Jesus died tragically".

Shalom,
Steven

Apikorus

OK, so far we've established corruption in 1 Sam 13:1. We also have a corruption in Gen 4:8, where half a verse has been omitted, or perhaps vayomer was accidentally written in place of vayidaber. It is a great testament to my ancestors, the Jewish scribes, that such examples are exceedingly rare. The care they took in preserving the text of the Hebrew Bible, in vocalizing their received consonantal text, in supplying marginal notes, etc., from the start of the masoretic movement ca. 200-400 CE until the first printing of the Hebrew Bible in 1524, is nothing short of astonishing.

But unfortunately the text received by those scribes, the masoretes, was apparently not transmitted with the same degree of fidelity. We know, for example, that among the oldest extant biblical texts -- those from Qumran (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls) -- that no two biblical fragments of the same text are identical in every respect. There are always minor variations. The rabbis themselves noted minor variations among the consonantal text, even in Torah scrolls, in their writings (see Midrash Rabbah on Gen 46:23, for example).

Incidentally, one uncomfortable point which Steven brushes off is the fact that in several cases, the masoretes corrected the written text (ketiv) to a different spoken form (qere). Generally, the KJV translators followed the qere. For example, in 2 Kings 20:4, where the Masoretic Text reads haiyr = "the city", the masorah says we are to say chatzeir = "court". There are several orthographical changes here -- only the last letter is common to both words. The KJV follows the qere and says "court" even though the written Hebrew means "the city". For those who believe that their bible is inerrant, here lies an embarrassing question: which is the divinely correct representation -- the ketiv or the qere?

Let's move on to another example of a textual corruption in the MT, and concomitant harmonizing mistranslation in the KJV. This comes from 1 Sam 1:24, in the story of Chanah, the mother of Samuel. The KJV reads

And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour...

This is a good translation of the Hebrew. "with three bullocks" is a direct translation of the Hebrew b'forim shloshah. In the next verse, we read

And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli.

Here we have yet another example of a harmonizing and deliberate mistranslation in the KJV. The Hebrew of 1:25 says vayishchatu et-hapor = "and when they had slain the bull" (singular, definite article). So the Hebrew contains a disagreement between the forim shloshah = "three bulls" in 1:24 and the singular hapor of 1:25. Of course, KJV readers would never know this, because the KJV deliberately mistranslates the Hebrew here, by neglecting to translate ha = "the".

Once again, the KJV translators were forced into this sleight of hand due to corruption of the underlying Hebrew text. The Septuagint, the Syriac, and, most importantly, the Hebrew text 4QSam(a) from Qumran instead read "three year old bull" in 1:24 rather than "three bulls". Emmanual Tov proffers that the common text originally read bprmsls, before the advent of word division and the matres lectionis. Eventually the text was parsed differently, with the MT (and the Targumim and Vulgate) being witness to a division bprym slsh (the y and h being matres), and the DSS, Syriac, and LXX witness to a division bpr msls. This seems quite sensible.

I very much recommend Tov's book, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. One of the leading DSS authorities, Professor Lawrence Schiffman of New York University, wrote a strong endorsement of Tov's book, saying

"This book should be required reading for all scholars of Bible, Second Temple, and Rabbinic Literature. It represents a major step forward for biblical studies, since it integrates new evidence from the caves of the Judean Desert with the results of studies by the author and others."

Indeed, following Tov, we see how the DSS text 4QSam(a) has helped us identify a corruption in the MT of 1 Sam 1:24. In this case, the corruption is supported by internal evidence as well. And, as usual, the KJV cleverly and deliberately mistranslates the corrupt Hebrew so the final product does not arouse suspicion of those who can only read in English.

Apikorus

Steven, did you not get enough sleep last night? I'm sorry; I know it is not nice to be sent on a wild goose chase. But Ben found one wild goose (OK, more a duck, given the lack of parallel to 1 Sam 13:1). So hope springs eternal!

Amaleq, please do not lock down the thread. Really, Steven's barbs have not been excessive. He's a bit overwrought, and understandibly so. At any rate, I can take the heat, and I think it provides lurkers with a good (and telling) read.

Steven Avery

Rabbit-trail, wild goose chase... actually garbage is the applicable word. See above.

<edit>, Api.

However, I did study some issues, for Factnet, last nite.

Steven Avery

And if anybody thinks that Api's overall view of the Masoretic Text should be taken seriously, simply look again at his "vav" VERSE NUMBER argument ...

The fact that he actually continues on from that point shows the brazenness of error to which folks can succumb.

Anyway, Api at least has switched to something more substantive than his last five or so hilarious "VERSE NUMBER VAV" posts in his latest attempt above.

He took that Vietnam strategy, of claiming victory and getting out. Thanks for the vav laugher.

Shalom,
Steven

Sheshbazzar

After reading through all of the foregoing, and being neither a Christian, nor a Jew, it is my observation that when engaging in the translating of ANY speech/text, ancient or modern, the sense and meaning of such speech/text is to be rendered consistent with the entire context of the speech/document under consideration.
The actual translating of any speech/document is a process; consisting of hearing/reading, comprehending, interpreting consistent with the context, and lastly, speaking and/or writing out the best interpretation into the chosen target language. Thus any word or phrase that seems inconsistent with the overall speech or text normally is "harmonized", this is normal translating practice as is engaged in every day.
When translating from any foreign language, one of the most common pitfalls or mistakes is to try force a too literal interpretation. All good Bible and Interlinear introductions contain warnings against this.
Thus at least to me, praxeus's and Bene's position here appears to be the more reasonable, as was illustrated with the "cart before the horse" analogies.
Biblical scholars have long been aware that the Scriptural text does not always conform slavishly what would seem to be simple and logical spelling and grammatical rules, or "formulas", but in many instances engages in deliberately employing what appear to be "bad" spellings and "poor" grammatical constructions as needed to accommodate to esoteric letter and numerical constructions.
Thus a difference in how the text is perceived, based upon your "interpretation", the underlying Hebrew text must be "corrupt" whereas to many believers it is "perfect",as is, in spite of any perceived "errors", those very "errors" being received as intentional and integral to the text, are most zealously preserved.

Toto

The Board of Directors of the Internet Infidels, non-profit corporation, prefers that we keep the debates on a more civil level.