judge

The argument I have seen IIRC from peshitta primacists is that the NT is the work of gallileans and judeans who used targums (probably), but that the POT was that used further east by Aramaic/Syriac speaking jews. Thus in the areas in which the peshitta was preserved they received the peshitta NT from apostles but they got their OT or HB from jewish communities in the East.

So possibly, the POT could have existed quite early in the East yet have no connection with the PNT which came out of Judea.

Apikorus

Here's an example for you. Your Christian Bible contains a contradiction between Acts 7:14, where it says that Jacob went down into Egypt with 75 souls, and Exodus 1:5, where it says 70. The LXX of Exodus, however, says 75, as does 4QExod^a from Qumran.

See Fred Moeller's outstanding web pages on the Great Isaiah Scroll, starting here. He's got 54 pages detailing physical characteristics, editorial marks, orthography, etc., as well as variations from the Masoretic Text. On average there seem to be about 15 to 20 such variations per page, or approximately 800 to 1000 in all.

It isn't an issue of dialect. There are numerous instances of haplography, reversal of word order, presence/absence of articles, differences in aspect, differences in number, editorial corrections, etc. There are also instances of Aramaisms as well. Most of the differences between 1QIsa^a and MT Isa are innocuous, but they are differences nevertheless, and there are relatively many of them. There are 15,097 words in Isaiah (Qoren edition), if I computed correctly, so the two versions are about 95% in agreement. That's good but hardly astounding.

Centuries after the Qumran corpus was penned, Judaism developed a meticulous scribal tradition. Even that, though, was not perfect. For example, there are several hundred differences between the Leningrad Codex (1008 CE) and the Second Rabbinic Bible of Bomberg and Ben Chayyim (1524). Of these differences, only a very few are in the consonantal text. So the Masoretes transmitted their text with truly astounding fidelity. But, of course, even they were not perfect.

There's a new book out by B. Barry Levy, entitled Fixing God's Torah (or via: amazon.co.uk). I've just started reading this (in shul, of course). Here's a paragraph from the Introduction:

Despite the popular, pious-sounding assumption that the Torah text is letter-perfect, frequent and extensive discussions by highly respected rabbinic leaders demonstrate that they, in some measure similar to modern scholars, were concerned about its true textual state; some of them even tried to clarify known textual doubts and to eliminate many troublesome inconsistencies. Basing their discussions on a series of passages from ancient and early medieval rabbinic documents that explored the significance of pentateuchal variations -- usually in contexts about writing, reading, or correcting Torah scrolls -- many famous halakhic authorities entertained serious doubts about the letter-perfect accuracy of the Torah and, by extension, the rest of the Bible. In all likelihood, rabbinic literature would contain even more such discussions, but many have been avoided out of frustration at the lack of a definitive solution. Often this silence has led to misunderstanding and mistakes, but it should not be interpreted as simple acceptance of otherwise indefensible positions on textual uniformity.

The term "Aramaic Bible" is more inclusive. Again, when referring to the Hebrew Bible, "the Aramaic" = Targumim, and "the Syriac" = Peshitta. The Peshitta of the New Testament is often referred to as the "Aramaic New Testament". This, plus the fact that Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, is why the broader "Aramaic Bible" project goes under that name. (See, for example, the description of The Journal for the Aramaic Bible:

The journal covers both Testaments, and will include the Aramaic Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. It will publish articles, short notes and book reviews on the Targums, the Syriac translations (including the Peshitta), the Syro-Palestinian and Samaritan versions, the Diatessaron and the Vetus Syra.

Note how the Peshitta is specifically referred to as "Syriac".) At any rate, your focus is on the NT, while mine is on the Hebrew Bible. Again, "Aramaic" refers to the Syriac with regard to the NT, but to the Targumim with regard to the HB/OT.

That you rely upon English translations is what limits you so severely, and the source of many of your errors and misstatements. You compare an English translation of the Syriac to an English translation of the Hebrew, and you pass judgment on the fidelity of the Syriac vis-a-vis the Hebrew. Is that the way it works, praxeus?

I've already shared my source, which is Dirksen's chapter in Mulder's Mikra. Dirksen is a well-established Peshitta scholar. Can you give a source for your claims? At any rate, here's Dirksen again,

The Peshitta MSS present the textual critic with an enormous number of variant readings, due partly to clerical errors, and partly to the freedom many copyists allowed themselves in improving Syriac style and idiom, or at least adapting it to their personal preferences. These differences occur not only in later MSS, but also in older MSS.

Dirksen finds evidence of terminological and exegetical similarities between the Peshitta and the Targumim. (In some cases, the influence goes the other way. M. P. Weitzman found that in Proverbs the Targum is based to some extent on the Peshitta. He also identified sporadic influence of the LXX on the Peshitta, and generally rejected the idea that the Peshitta was directly influenced by the Targumim. Alas, my copy of Weitzman is not at hand.) I think the idea that the Peshitta is derived from the Targumim is mostly rejected, but there seems to be some relationship between the two, with both texts dependent upon the MT. The relationship also varies from book to book; in the Pentateuch the Peshitta and the Targumim may represent diverging but related Jewish exegetical traditions, while in Proverbs and Chronicles the Peshitta seems to be the model for, or modeled on, a Targum, respectively.

Again, the earliest references to the Peshitta are from the fourth century CE. The earliest references to Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible are from 500 years earlier.

It is early for the MT, but not early enough. You have yet to apprehend my point, praxeus. What I'm explaining to you is that scholars generally regard the Peshitta as of little use in Hebrew Bible text criticism, because it is dependent on the proto-MT and thus doesn't provide us a window into the earlier period of textual pluriformity. By contrast, the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and especially the biblical scrolls from Qumran do open such a window, and that is why they are so important for text criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Here's William H. C. Propp on this point:

Post-canonization versions such as the Latin Vulgate, the Aramaic Targumim or the Syriac Peshitta are less important for textual criticism because they are generally based upon either the traditional Hebrew or Greek texts and do not constitute independent witnesses. It is not that they never reflect genuine variants, but these are hard to find.

Note also the scholarly parlance: "Aramaic Targumim" vs. "Syriac Peshitta".

Look, I don't read Syriac so everything I know about the Peshitta comes from secondary sources. My impression is that its (= "the Peshitta's" for the Pronoun Challenged) star has risen recently, and perhaps the consensus attitude expressed by Propp is overly dismissive of the Peshitta. But still the major edition from Leiden is incomplete -- as I said, lack of a reliable critical edition has been an impediment toward its use in HB text criticism. I'm all in favor of more progress, of course.

In the context of the discussion in this thread, though, what exactly do you think we can learn from the Peshitta? Again, you are welcome to produce the relevant texts.

I've no doubt that there are other examples, perhaps less egregious, where the Vaticanus is problematic. For example, in Isaiah it is said to reflect Hexaplaric influence. But such examples are merely the exceptions which prove the rule. Once again, the strong consensus among scholars is that the Vaticanus represents the best LXX manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, in the sense that it is closest to the original Old Greek. The Alexandrian Jewish scribes who translated the Old Greek were surely highly competent and aware of their own exegetical traditions, which may have differed somewhat from those of their brethren in Palestine and Babylonia.

Steven Avery

Hi Judge,

Sure, that is simply a refinement of the idea we discussed above. Except that geography is used more than time. Possible and unlikely, even if Peshitta primacy didn't have a ton of other major problems.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Please. A contradiction ? Have you ever studied the text ? The NT is perfectly fine there.

You do have simply an example of an error in a Hebrew text that made it into the Greek, so that aspect is true. However, you will notice that the GOT Deut 10:22 stands out as sore thumb with 70 and also the added names in Genesis 46 "Machir the son of Manasseh, Machir's son Gilead, Ephraim's two son's Tahan and Shuthelah as well as his son Eran" are untenable upon examination. We end up with two blunders in the Greek LXX. One of which we see existed in some early Hebrew DSS (but not the Masoretic Text or Samaritan Penteteuch or Peshitta or Vulgate or Targum).

On the NT side Jacobs kindred was in fact 75 (even Haley has the basics ok).

Good is Floyd Nolen Jones
http://floydjones.org/LXX.pdf (p. 41)
The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis by Floyd Nolen Jones

Or my 2005 post with some discussion and links at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia...c/message/9145
Septuagint & Acts 7:14 - "threescore and fifteen souls."

It is clear that the LXX is simply wrong, in two ways, and the actual
words of Stephen fits perfectly with the Masoretic Text.

Now, as I said, there are dozens of actual year chronology differences between the GOT and the MT. Do you agree that the Greek OT numbers are essentially sans DSS or Targumim (or Peshitta or Vulgate) support ? While the Samaritan Penteteuch has its own group of numbers distinct from both.

Much of the argument you give above is still the opposite of spin. Spin wants Vaticanus to reflect deep grammatical understanding of the Masoretic Text while you want Vaticanus to reflect some unknown ur-text. Hmmm. Yet you never comment on the problem, you just (snip). You are also loath to acknowledge that you simply do not think that Vaticanus is a window on Hebrew grammar thus making spin's whole shtick null and void. And you have (snipped) my requests to explain how a possible grammar-window would work.

So once again, please address the multiple problems.

1) spin and you are using Vaticanus with distinct and irreconcilable purposes
you see an ur-text reflection, he sees a Masoretic Text grammar help.
2) Do you consider Vaticanus of import in understanding the grammar of
Judges 13 ?
3) Precisely how would such a window work.
What would the Vaticanus (or LXX) scribes "see" in the Hebrew that we miss.

There are a couple of interesting points below, and I will get to them separately from the two issues covered so far.

With Fred Miller's site I notice you didn't actually quote him, since he stresses the affinity of the Great Isaiah Scroll text to the MT and points out that many of the substantive differences are little scribal foibles on the DSS side. Clearly for you to make an issue of DSS copyist errors is a bit disingenuous.

This I thought hilarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus But such examples are merely the exceptions which prove the rule.

Whenever you hear that phrase, hold on to your hat. You have a gross tampering of the Psalm, a whole section simply stuck in from the NT .. one of the grossest tamperings imaginable .. and this is supposed to "prove" the pristine nature of Vaticanus. Alice is truly in wonderland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus The Alexandrian Jewish scribes who translated the Old Greek were surely highly competent and aware of their own exegetical traditions, which may have differed somewhat from those of their brethren in Palestine and Babylonia.

Which of those Jewish groups put the NT Romans into Psalms ?

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

spin

You'd think that praxeus would at least take notice of what he is trying to deal with before he makes the attempt.

1. He doesn't understand where the Greek text we have comes from or how it developed.

2. He doesn't understand that there were multiple versions of Hebrew biblical texts at the time the texts from Qumran were deposited, one of which developed into the MT, while another reflects the LXX.

3. He doesn't understand how a text which is derived from a different version of the Hebrew text can still reflect on the meaning an MT passage. (Perhaps one version of the Hebrew text can share a lot in common with another.)

4. He doesn't understand the languages that are involved with the texts in question an still he thinks he can say something meaningful about the significance of those texts.

5. He doesn't understand how the Vaticanus could reflect a Hebrew version of the biblical text more faithfully than the Alexandrinus which has been modified -- amongst other things to reflect the MT despite the fact that the Greek tradition was originally not based on the MT.

In praxeus's case, it seems that ignorance is bliss.

He refuses to learn anything about the languages involved. He is a self avowed linguistically ignorant person who persistently meddles in issue regarding the meaning of texts.


To recap on the evidence:

praxeus wants there to be a future for pregnant in Jdg 13:5.

The Hebrew of Jdg 13:5 is the same as in Gen 16:11. The Vaticanus Greek of Jdg 13:5 is the same as in Gen 16:11.

praxeus says: ignore the evidence. He, who doesn't know anything about the two languages, says: don't take any notice of the Greek text, the Vaticanus in the Jdg 13:5 situation. He can't provide any linguistic analysis of the text, so he can't criticize the Greek of the Vaticanus. He simply says, without evidence or language skills, that the Vaticanus can't be right. I can understand anyone who sees the cluelessness of praxeus's position.

Jdg 13:5 was supposed to be his evidence that the pregnancy must be a future in Isa 7:14. Another of praxeus's dogmas lies shattered.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Api,

The distinction between Syriac and Aramaic OT is fine, and accepted for use.

Api, I do English comparisons for issues where such is solid, such as comparing the major omissions in the NT. Seeing if the Peshitta NT is more Byzantine than Alexandrian in those Alexandrian omissions (about 200 .. the Peshitta matches the TR about 75-80%).

Otherwise I go to the folks who know Aramaic, such as this question here.

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1444
Judges 13 and Isaiah 7 tenses

That would be a Peshitta starting point.

Or I will ask similarly on the aramaic email forum. Or read the books or journals (I have here the Richard A. Taylor article "The Syriac Old Testament in Recent Research" which discusses the dating, provenance and critical text issues, among others).

My point is simple and remains. Spin was selective, going to the most corrupt manuscript (in terms of the Masoretic Text, which is what is being examined) possible, the Greek OT, then ignoring the split in the Greek line which he didn't know about, and ignoring other languages that actually might be of some assistance as they came from the MT more "directly derived"-spin ...Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate. The whole enterprise was silly and led to you two becoming great aficionados for the corrupt ecclesiastical 'pristine' Vaticanus, which adds a lot of humor. And Spin ends up claiming that Vaticanus was "directly derived" from the Hebrew and "translated from the Hebrew" .. two incredible blunders that he still embraces !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikuros What I'm explaining to you is that scholars generally regard the Peshitta as of little use in Hebrew Bible text criticism, because it is dependent on the proto-MT and thus doesn't provide us a window into the earlier period of textual pluriformity.

And textual pluriformity is the OPPOSITE of why spin is 'going to the Greek'. He says he wants to see how the Masoretic Text was understood when translated in other languages. In effect you have destroyed his position by demonstrating conclusively that the Aramaic and Syriac (and Latin) are much better windows to the Masoretic Text.

And you apparently don't even understand the cross-purposes.

The split is humorous. You want textual criticism to change the Hebrew Bible, that is your realm, so you value oddball texts and your quotes are to that end. While Spin claims to be looking for a window as to how the Hebrew Bible was understood, the Masoretic Text. And emphasizes "directly derived" and "translated from the Hebrew". Which would be the Targumim, Peshitta and Vulgate, not your ur-text attempts to improve or supplant our Hebrew Bible with another text ala modern textcrit ideas..

Clearly the best foreign-language windows to the understanding of the Masoretic Text are translations that are from the Masoretic Text-type (Targumim, Peshitta, Vulgate) rather than an unknown text that a textcrit wants to use to "correct" the MT. Simply opposite purposes involved.

btw, your 95% DSS-Isaiah-MT affinity was silly. If there is a slight variant in a word (e.g spelling, word order) are the words and verse therefore on the 5% side ? Even with the same language that is problematic, but with different dialects even more so. Talking about percents of affinity is generally a game, since there is no standard definition. You cannot just take number of words and divide by the number of "variants" and get a meaningful percent.

In fact there are multiple problems with the methodology. The definition of a "variant" can vary greatly .. all including spelling .. translatable .. significant ..etc.. whatever it is should be defined. Then determining what is a % is a second problem. If verses are omitted in one text are the number of variants the number of words omitted ? Or is that just one variant. Such issues are wide and deep and blithe percents do more harm than good.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Look at this folks, praxeus has avoided the text like the plague. He has nothing to say about the text. He knows he can't. He has sorrowfully abnegated all responsibility to deal with the text. He has talked about everything other than the text. He'll complain that the Greek text is not the Masoretic text. Doh! He'll say that there are variants and play number games. Shuffling words across your screen that don't touch on the text, he wants to pacify himself to think that he has dealt with the issue -- without ever dealing with it.

Keep watching and see how much he'll talk about the actual text. Would it be strange to see that he doesn't deal with it at all? I guess not.

C'mon, praxeus, thrill us.


spin

Steven Avery

This is the same spin who takes the case that there were no historical books in the 1st century. So did you ever even prove that all the prophetic books were translated and available ? Where ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin 2. He doesn't understand that there were multiple versions of Hebrew biblical texts at the time the texts from Qumran were deposited, one of which developed into the MT, while another reflects the LXX.

Really, its that simple ? Two textlines ? That's it, nice and neat. Then why do the Greek OT differ so much ? Why does the Greek manuscripts differ so much from the DSS ? Where are the chronology numbers in the Greek LXX in the early Hebrew ? Where did the Psalm 14 material come from in the LXX ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin 3. He doesn't understand how a text which is derived from a different version of the Hebrew text can still reflect on the meaning an MT passage. (Perhaps one version of the Hebrew text can share a lot in common with another.)

Is that your new claim. That the Vaticanus doesn't really reflect the Masoretic Text after all ? That it is derived from a different text ? That of course would severely limit its utility to see the Hebrew grammar of the Masoretic Text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin 4. He doesn't understand the languages that are involved with the texts in question an still he thinks he can say something meaningful about the significance of those texts.

Far more meaningful than your claims that
"Vaticanus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew" and
"a translation of the Hebrew".

To make it worse, now you are switching
.. now claiming it is ANOTHER Hebrew !

Better to say little than to make such blunders and stick with them and repeat them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin 5. He doesn't understand how the Vaticanus could reflect a Hebrew version of the biblical text more faithfully than the Alexandrinus which has been modified -- amongst other things to reflect the MT despite the fact that the Greek tradition was originally not based on the MT..

This is so confused. Now you are saying the advantage of Vaticanus is that it does NOT reflect the Masoretic Text. The opposite of your original position.

Oh, what a web.

Originally the case was

"The Hebrew form doesn't suggest diverse meanings, nor does the Greek translation."

Of course you were wrong about "the Greek", now you are acknowledging you are wrong about "The Hebrew". That your text comes from something very different than the Masoretic Text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin praxeus says: ignore the evidence. He, who doesn't know anything about the two languages, says: don't take any notice of the Greek text, the Vaticanus in the Jdg 13:5 situation. He can't provide any linguistic analysis of the text, so he can't criticize the Greek of the Vaticanus.

Amazing straw man. There is no issue of what Vaticanus says. (We do know it is a junque text and there are better windows and the Greek is split).

However my question to Api and you is unanswered... exactly how and why did the Vaticanus copyist or whoever know about the Hebrew that you don't know in Judges 13. What is the nature of their special knowledge. And what did they know that the Targum, Vulgate and Peshitta and translators and Alexandrinus copyists and modern Hebraic exegesis and translation did not know. What is the nature of this fount of knowledge ?

And does that fount apply on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 7 ? Do you look at the Vaticanus as the special window to see Hebrew, Vaticanus uber alles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin He simply says, without evidence or language skills, that the Vaticanus can't be right. I can understand anyone who sees the cluelessness of praxeus's position.

And you "prove" its right by appealing to your own grammatical arguments. A spinning circularity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Jdg 13:5 was supposed to be his evidence that the pregnancy must be a future in Isa 7:14.

.. even Api doesn't buy your strange idea that the Vaticanus Greek is the window to the Hebrew of Judges 13. You are alone with your "directly derived from the Hebrew" Vaticanus while Api, trying to provide cover for you, diddles in textual criticism trying to change the Tanach.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

spin, the Vaticanus Greek is one of the least relevant things around,
and you made it the linchpin of your "case".

That makes your "text" a joke from the get-go and your
presentation a complete mess. Codex Vaticanus !!

This is foolish.
And then you gave us a dogma <edit> about Codex Vaticanus, that it was
"directly derived from the Hebrew" and a
"translation of the Hebrew".

Now you say the opposite, that it is a translation of something else other than the Masoretic Text Hebrew. Sheesh.

Even Api didn't buy your stupid shell game,
yet you still plug foolishly along.

Api
"It seems to me that the (Greek) versions are of
little help in establishing the implied tense of Isa 7:14."

Ahh.. a little honesty there was nice to see.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

You're really trying to deal with the topic there, praxeus.

Does this mean you accept that there were a number of different Hebrew text traditions, or are you just wasting time trying to oversimplify other people's statements?

Perhaps you might read what I said about why there are differences between the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus, but here you are again looking desperately for tangents.

Reading skills are slipping again, praxeus. Your comment is unrelated to what I have said generally and specifically here. Please try to deal with the topics at hand rather than look for even more tangents.

Do you say that the Vaticanus is not a translation of from Hebrew?

Not even a good try. You have to believe that the Hebrew on which the Vaticanus is based is different from the MT with regard to Jdg 13:5, which is our issue. Why is the Vaticanus which supplies the same translation in Jdg 13:5 for the same words as found in Gen 16:11?

Trying to keep away from Jdg 13:5. Good move: avoid what you can't deal with. Oversimplification is the approach once again, doing what you try to accuse me of. The Vaticanus must be faithful to the whole of the Masoretic text, for it to be a faithful reflection of Jdg 13:5. Total rubbish, praxeus. You need a few more fog blowers in your smokescreen.

Well, does the Hebrew suggest different meanings, or does the Greek translation?

Please explain how I was wrong about "the Greek" I supplied for Jdg 13:5.

How is the Hebrew of Jdg 13:5 wrong? Please try to stick to the subject. And no tangents, please.


Hmm, overgeneralization once again. Surprise, surprise?

Sorry, you personally don't know any such thing, do you?

The question is misguided. The Vaticanus of Jdg 13:5 reflects what is found in MT. That strongly suggests that what the Vaticanus is based on featured the same wording as MT.

Have you written the music for this yet?

Would I appeal to your grammatical arguments?

This is an interesting use of the notion of circularity. One supplies grammatical arguments based on the languages involved and by so doing they somehow invalidate their own arguments. Impressive, praxeus. Only you could think of that one.

When you have no-one else to depend upon, you have to try to make the best of what you can crib together, misrepresenting whoever it is necessary.

Do your views of the statement you quote change the meaning of either the Greek of Jdg 13:5 en gastri echei kai texh uion or its relation to the Hebrew HRH WYLDT BN which is the subject? Short answer: no. :wave:


spin