01-30-2004, 04:08 AM
Akhi Rob,
I think we need to define our terms a bit here. First of all, I can invalidate an argument by Tovia Singer FROM the Masoretic Text. The MT versions of Isaiah 11:1-2, 53:1-12 and Zechariah 12:10 are more than adequate to this purpose. It is not the MT then that I am at odds with since it is a standardization of several prominent ancient Hebraic strands that are still visible. The LXX, Aquila's translation, Peshitta Tanakh, Dead Sea Scrolls and Samaritan Pentateuch are all ostensibly jewish sources, as is the Hebrew variant behind the LXX.
In terms though of fair scholarship, even the Jewish Publication Society says:
"If a definitive text of the Hebrew Bible does not exist, the best a publisher can do is produce a defensible text that is sufficiently accurate for the edition's intended purpose."
JPS 1999 Hebrew-English Tanakh, p. xi
If we look at the MT, we can see elipses done by the JPS editors for example, when they admit that Cain's statement (Come let us go out into the field) is preserved in the LXX (and most likely therefore the hebrew variant behind it) but is lacking in the MT proper, they know clearly it cannot be the end all and be all.
With those facts in mind then, what Tovia Singer said in terms of using the MT as if it were more ancient an authority en toto than it is, must be viewed as both spurious and laughable on its face. I seriously doubt that any serious rabbinnic scholar would endore such a blanket and simplistic litmus test. Therefore, this kind of recklessness has nothing to do with the MT as it is, it is instead just bad, prejudiced assumptions.
What I was addressing however was another area entirely. My point is that in the ancient record, in certain places, we get snipets that validate parts of the MT. The Nash Papyrus, ca. 200 BCE, contains a verbatim rendering of the kohenim blessing of Bemidbar 6:25. The DSS version of Isaiah is almost identical to MT Isaiah. But, as you point out, there are differences too. However, bear in mind that tampering like this is surely not limited to a few zealous countermissionaries! We see Christian translators also distort Tanakh text, and even their own NT, like KJV editors going from Greek sources adding italicized words to Colossians 2:16-17, or translating "dogma" as "Torah/law" in Ephesians 2:14. In other cases, Aramaic NAMUSA is misunderstood as "Torah" when it clearly means man-made Pharisaic traditions. We do not then invalidate the NT corpus based on the malfaeasance of a few, neither should we do so with the MT.
Again, in my view, legitamate scholarship without a religious extremist agenda is aware of these issues, and knows when to look at the main text and when it is proper to weigh other ancient testimonies. I also think that problems like this guaranteed that, when my people got another chance to write sacred writings in their Semitic tongue, they were determined to get it aiuthoritatively correct that time, the first time, and the result is our beloved Peshitta text.
Finally, and again without locking in 100% of the masoretic as a silly "proof" against everything else, my point was that Peshitta Tanakh is another key ancient Semitic witness that testifies to the fact that overall we have received a good and solid transmission of Elohim's first message to man.
Hope this helps a bit!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
I think we need to define our terms a bit here. First of all, I can invalidate an argument by Tovia Singer FROM the Masoretic Text. The MT versions of Isaiah 11:1-2, 53:1-12 and Zechariah 12:10 are more than adequate to this purpose. It is not the MT then that I am at odds with since it is a standardization of several prominent ancient Hebraic strands that are still visible. The LXX, Aquila's translation, Peshitta Tanakh, Dead Sea Scrolls and Samaritan Pentateuch are all ostensibly jewish sources, as is the Hebrew variant behind the LXX.
In terms though of fair scholarship, even the Jewish Publication Society says:
"If a definitive text of the Hebrew Bible does not exist, the best a publisher can do is produce a defensible text that is sufficiently accurate for the edition's intended purpose."
JPS 1999 Hebrew-English Tanakh, p. xi
If we look at the MT, we can see elipses done by the JPS editors for example, when they admit that Cain's statement (Come let us go out into the field) is preserved in the LXX (and most likely therefore the hebrew variant behind it) but is lacking in the MT proper, they know clearly it cannot be the end all and be all.
With those facts in mind then, what Tovia Singer said in terms of using the MT as if it were more ancient an authority en toto than it is, must be viewed as both spurious and laughable on its face. I seriously doubt that any serious rabbinnic scholar would endore such a blanket and simplistic litmus test. Therefore, this kind of recklessness has nothing to do with the MT as it is, it is instead just bad, prejudiced assumptions.
What I was addressing however was another area entirely. My point is that in the ancient record, in certain places, we get snipets that validate parts of the MT. The Nash Papyrus, ca. 200 BCE, contains a verbatim rendering of the kohenim blessing of Bemidbar 6:25. The DSS version of Isaiah is almost identical to MT Isaiah. But, as you point out, there are differences too. However, bear in mind that tampering like this is surely not limited to a few zealous countermissionaries! We see Christian translators also distort Tanakh text, and even their own NT, like KJV editors going from Greek sources adding italicized words to Colossians 2:16-17, or translating "dogma" as "Torah/law" in Ephesians 2:14. In other cases, Aramaic NAMUSA is misunderstood as "Torah" when it clearly means man-made Pharisaic traditions. We do not then invalidate the NT corpus based on the malfaeasance of a few, neither should we do so with the MT.
Again, in my view, legitamate scholarship without a religious extremist agenda is aware of these issues, and knows when to look at the main text and when it is proper to weigh other ancient testimonies. I also think that problems like this guaranteed that, when my people got another chance to write sacred writings in their Semitic tongue, they were determined to get it aiuthoritatively correct that time, the first time, and the result is our beloved Peshitta text.
Finally, and again without locking in 100% of the masoretic as a silly "proof" against everything else, my point was that Peshitta Tanakh is another key ancient Semitic witness that testifies to the fact that overall we have received a good and solid transmission of Elohim's first message to man.
Hope this helps a bit!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth