PDA

View Full Version : Bible Works in the Church Revisited



Andrew Fincke
09-13-2010, 02:23 PM
We had a guest speaker in church, who spoke about Jonah; and I was reminded of a previous discussion, in which Adelfos raised the valid question: "If the Hebrew Bible is inerrant - as you maintain - why is the verb "waited on" missing in Psalms 130:6: "My soul (waited on) the Lord, more so than watchmen (wait) for morning, watching for morning". I explained that 130:6 isn't defective but rather is an interpolation - a sort of stepping stone - that leads to another "verse" of the same sort - Jonah 2:9: "Those guarding meaningless gibberish forsake their mercy". This verse is a nonsequitur in Jonah's prayer from the belly of the fish between "When I was at a loss, my prayer came to You, to the temple of Your holiness" (verse 8) and "And I in a voice of gratitude I will sacrifice to You whatever I vowed and will repay salvation to the Lord" (verse 10), ending the prayer. Two things unite the Psalms passage with the Jonah passage: 1) The Hebrew משמרים appears only twice in Scripture - at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9; and 2) Psalm 130:7: "Israel trusts in the Lord, because with the Lord is mercy" is the opposite of Jonah 2:9: "They abandon their mercy". Just as Jonah 2:9 is despensable, so is Psalms 130:6, leaving: "I waited on the Lord - my soul waited - and for his word I waited.... Let Israel wait on the Lord, because mercy is the Lord's". I then showed how Jonah's sojourn in the belly of the fish, which forms an eleven-verse pericope (Jonah 2:1-11) parallels the sojourn of our Lord in an equally inappropriate environment - a drunken wedding party -, which also forms an eleven-verse pericope at John 2:1-11. And what do we find at the problematic ninth spot in John? A verse implying that our Lord turned water to wine to replenish the empty glasses of revellers on the verge of drunken stupor. It reads: "When the bartender tasted the water turned wine, unaware of its source (although his henchmen who poured the 'water' knew) he called the groom". Without this verse we read: "Jesus said to them: 'Fill the pots with water!' And they filled them to the top. And He said to them: 'Pour it out and take it to the bartender!' They took it.... And he said to Him, 'Most people serve the good wine first and save the dregs for the drunken. You've saved the good wine until now." The miracle isn't the conversion of water to wine but rather of drunken revellers to sober water-drinkers. John 2:10: "dregs" (lit. ελασσω "lesser") becomes the third משמרים, which - pointed differently than at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9 - means "dregs". "Purified dregs" - precursor of the product of our Lord's miracle - appear at Isaiah 25:6, which means roughly: "The Lord of Hosts did for all the peoples in this mountain a beer-party, a party of dregs enriched (?), refined dregs." These dregs aren't a sort of liquor with high alcohol content, but rather the life-giving water that our Lord promised to the Samaritan woman at the well. when He became - in a sense - her "groom" and thus the contrahent at John 2:10. Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish (in Sheol, Jonah 2:3) parallel our Lord's 3 days in Kana of Galilee (see John 2:1), which in turn parallel the 3 days in the tomb before the resurrection.

bkMitchell
09-13-2010, 11:32 PM
This thread is neither relevant to nor does it contribute to general discussions about Bibleworks(software)

You are high encouraged to post in the non-bibleworks discussion section of these forums.

Andrew Fincke
09-14-2010, 03:01 PM
Dear B.K.,
Since the Hebrew postscript following your message says roughly "Ignore what I just said, and search the Law!" I'm doing just that. The discussion about "dregs" started when my pastor made a glitch in his sermon while I was surfing the internet in church. My ears tingled and I jumped over to Bible Works, which confirmed what I suspected: "dregs" with "from" prefix occurs only twice in scripture - at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9. "Jonah 2:9" became confused with "John 2:9" in my mind, and I gained an insight into the problematic miracle about the booze at John 2:1-11. I left with computer intact when the deacons failed in their attempt to extract the hard drive with BW6 installed.

bkMitchell
09-14-2010, 09:58 PM
Dear B.K.,
Since the Hebrew postscript following your message says roughly "Ignore what I just said, and search the Law!"

That is impossible. One, the word 'Torah' means instruction as it comes from the root word meaning to teach, the word however, is also used of the Pentateuch. Torah, when used with the definite article it can also refer to all of codes and teaching in Judaism. As, this is a Karaite saying it could not possible mean anything having to with Rabbinic Law as codified in the Talmuds and later codes. Two, the words "ignore" and "just" are not used at all in this quotation.



I'm doing just that. The discussion about "dregs" started when my pastor made a glitch in his sermon while I was surfing the internet in church.

Why continue to attend that congregation? Why, not go else where or start your own?


My ears tingled and I jumped over to Bible Works, which confirmed what I suspected: "dregs" with "from" prefix occurs only twice in scripture - at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9. "Jonah 2:9" became confused with "John 2:9" in my mind, and I gained an insight into the problematic miracle about the booze at John 2:1-11.

It is interesting (and fun) when one can look at words through the diachronic prism of literature. One, may discover how a word/term in question was used through time in an anthology like the Bible. However, the risk may also be great.

The Psalms and Jonah are written in vastly different genre and style. It might be better to interpret one book in relation to it's own unique historical, grammatical, and critical setting.

The book of John is written in Koine Greek (not Hebrew) and in a time far removed from either the Psalms or the book of Jonah found in the Tanach/Hebrew Bible. The intended audience of these various texts would also not be the same. Jumping from one these texts, to another can lead to eisegesis.

Andrew Fincke
09-14-2010, 11:24 PM
Dear Brian,
So it says, "Search in all the laws and code in Judaism, and don't rely on my words!" I went from Psalms to Jonah and to John. That's all the laws and code I know. Are you saying John isn't part of the Jewish code? By the way חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי isn't grammatical. The verb חַפְּשׂ with direct object introduced by bet is foreign to the Old Testament (so BW6).
Change churches because the pastor made an error?

bobvenem
09-15-2010, 06:48 AM
Mr. Mitchell is right. What does this have to do with the "General Bibleworks" forum, other than you have a copy of BW6?

Dale A. Brueggemann
09-15-2010, 05:26 PM
Mr. Mitchell is right. What does this have to do with the "General Bibleworks" forum, other than you have a copy of BW6?

But then, Finke was posting in the following forum:


http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/images/misc/navbit-home.png (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/index.php)
Forum (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/index.php)
Miscellaneous (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?10-Miscellaneous)
non-BibleWorks discussion (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?7-non-BibleWorks-discussion)
Bible Works in the Church Revisited

Michael Hanel
09-15-2010, 05:30 PM
But then, Finke was posting in the following forum:


http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/images/misc/navbit-home.png (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/index.php)
Forum (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/index.php)
Miscellaneous (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?10-Miscellaneous)
non-BibleWorks discussion (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?7-non-BibleWorks-discussion)
Bible Works in the Church Revisited



Dale, the thread was moved. It was originally in BibleWorks discussion.

Dale A. Brueggemann
09-15-2010, 08:26 PM
Dale, the thread was moved. It was originally in BibleWorks discussion.

Sorry, didn't know that.:confused:

bkMitchell
09-15-2010, 08:30 PM
Greetings Mr. Fincke,


So it says, "Search in all the laws and code in Judaism, and don't rely on my words!"
No, that would be inconceivable because it is a Karaite saying. So, it must be referring to only the Torah/Pentateuch in context. Today, however, Egyptian and Israeli Karaites may sometimes use the phrase to speak of the Tanach.

Also, in normative Judaism some people, will say this is "the torah of my teacher" meaning this the intruction of/halakha of my teacher. But, generally speaking "the Torah" speaks of the Pentateuch and "Torah" speaks of the oral Law in bodied in the Mishnah, Talmuds, Mishneh Torah, and other codes.



By the way חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי isn't grammatical.
Really? So, medieval Jews and modern Israelis who used/use this phrase have been in error?

Well, then I suggest you report this 'error' to the HaAqademya LaLashon HaIvrith (http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/Pages/default.aspx) and see what they have to say about it.



The verb חַפְּשׂ with direct object introduced by bet is foreign to the Old Testament (so BW6).
Fortunately חַפְּשׂ is not introduced by bet! However, if it was it would not make any difference, would it? After, all the 'saying' in question is not from the Hebrew Bible/Tanach.

bkMitchell
09-15-2010, 09:03 PM
... I was reminded of a previous discussion, in which Adelfos raised the valid question: "If the Hebrew Bible is inerrant - as you maintain - why is the verb "waited on" missing in Psalms 130:6

I find the above statement to be highly misleading because:
(1) Adelphos never questioned the inerrancy of the Hebrew Bible!
(2) Adelphos point was made concerning the validity of the LXX's translation/interpretation of the passage being discussed.

Notice what Adelphos said:

What makes you think the Greek is correct here, especially when the LXX is all over the place in the Poetic books, as well as other places?
Because the preacher chose to preach on the Hebrew does not make his exegesis wrong. It is the Greek that is certainly wrong...

To which you replied:

Dear Adelphos,
Your attitude - "It is the Greek that is certainly wrong" - contradicts not only the raison d'etre of Bible Works - to promote dialogue between and engagement with the versions - but also the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible.
..

See. it was you and not Adelphos who introduced the word incerrancy to the discussion. And, then the term incerrancy was applied to the LXX translation, which was what Adelphos was questioning. Not, the Hebrew Bible.

Adephos then replied you stating:

Even though your answer is virtually a complete non-sequitur, BibleWorks does not assert that the Greek is correct. Furthermore, there are an innumerable company of translators who have asserted that the Greek is wrong, and thus you should take your own medicine and look up how many versions in BibleWorks follow the Greek. Let me save you the trouble...

With the sole exception of the DRA, and not including the two LXX versions which don't pretend to consider the Hebrew, ALL of the English translations assert that the Greek is wrong...Like I said, the Greek is certainly wrong. Nor do you appear to know how confused the LXX is in the poetical passages of Scripture.

Those who have stuck to the Hebrew in this verse have maintained the integrity of God's written Word.

Clearly Adelpos defends and upholds the Masoretic Text/Hebrew Bible. (A Text exemplified in Ben Chayyim's Mikraot Gedolot)

Adelphos
09-15-2010, 09:15 PM
IClearly Adelpos defends and upholds the Masoretic Text/Hebrew Bible.

Aw, shucks! I was trying to keep that a secret! :cool:

bkMitchell
09-16-2010, 12:13 AM
Aw, shucks! I was trying to keep that a secret! :cool:
So, it's true!:eek:

Adelphos
09-16-2010, 01:10 PM
So, it's true!:eek:

LOL. Afraid so.

I think this quote by Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918), head of the Criminal Investigative Division of Scotland Yard, and a brilliant biblical apologist, is pertinent, especially to our recent discussions of the Delitzsch translation --

"When David reached the throne of Israel and came to choose his generals, he named for the chief commands the men who had made themselves conspicuous by feats of prowess or of valour. Among the foremost three was one of whom the record states that he defended a tract of lentiles, and drove away a troop of Philistines. To others it may have seemed little better than a patch of weeds, and not worth fighting for, but it was precious to the Israelite as a portion of the divinely-given inheritance, and moreover the enemy might have used it as a rallying ground from which to capture strongholds. So it is with the Bible. It is all of intrinsic value if indeed it be from God; and moreover, the statement which is assailed, and which may seem of no importance, may prove to be a link in the chain of truth on which we are depending for eternal life." The Coming Prince

Of course, as an expert in evidential matters, he felt the same way about the Critical Text as I do --

"In the Revised Version of the New Testament, textual criticism has done its worst... The question at issue between the majority of the Revisers, who followed Doctors Hort and Westcott, and the very able and weighty minority led by Dr. Scrivener, the most capable and eminent textual critic of the whole company, was one with which every lawyer is familiar, but of which the Revisers may have had no experience, and with which they were not competent to deal." The Bible And Modern Criticism

But like I said, he actually understood the fundamentals of evidential matters, unlike Westcott & Hort and the modern purveyors of the Critical Text, such as the very most basic of all evidentiary rules, which postulates that the testimony of a habitual liar is not to be trusted, which is the exact opposite of Westcott & Hort and the modern purveyors of the Critical Text, whose entire foundation is based on the testimony of two habitual liars, i.e., Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.

Adelphos
09-16-2010, 01:26 PM
Also see this short demonstration of the veracity of the Hebrew Masoretic text against all comers --

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/veracity_of_the_old_testament.htm

Andrew Fincke
10-09-2010, 09:22 PM
1 Samuel 1:24-25 says in the Hebrew: "(24) And she brought him up with her after she weaned him with 3 steers, one ephah of flour and a flask of wine; and she brought him to the house of the Lord in Shiloh, and the lad (was) a lad. (25) And they slaughtered the steer, and they brought the lad to Eli." The Greek is longer: "(24) And she went up with him into Selom with a three-year old calf and (loaves of) bread and an ephah of flour and a flask of wine. And she/he came into the house of the Lord in Selom, and the lad (was) with them. And they approached the Lord, and his father slaughtered the sacrifice which he did every year for the Lord. And he brought forth the lad (or, and the lad approached). (25) And he slaughtered the calf; and Anna, the mother of the lad, came to Eli." 4QSam-a, which is a Hebrew text that predates our oldest Jewish manuscripts of the Bible by 1200 years, says: "(24) And she brought him up to Shiloh after [she weaned him, and she came up with him with a] three-year old steer and one (loaf of) bread [and one ephah of flour and a flask of wine. And she brought him to the house] of the Lord in Shiloh. And the lad (was) [with them. And they brought him near the Lord, and their father slaughtered the] sacrifice which [he did - a fire-offering - every year for the Lord. And they brought forward the lad.] (25) And he slaughtered [the steer, and Hannah, the mother of the lad, came to Eli.]" Everything in brackets is reconstructed and fills in the gaps where the fragment is broken. An infrared photo of the fragment is visible in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, volume 17, along with the rest of the Qumran Cave 4 Samuel fragments. The fragment has survived the excavations and is in the Shrine of the Book museum in Jerusalem but is virtually illegible. You can see that this ancient Hebrew text lends credibility to the long Septuagint version of a passage whose masoretic version ("And the lad was a lad") is senseless.

bobvenem
10-10-2010, 08:50 AM
In at least three English translations (KJV, NIV, NASB) the second "lad" is treated as a predicate adjective ("the lad was young"), which, in modern parlance, would probably be equivalent to "he was a little kid."

Andrew Fincke
10-10-2010, 09:32 PM
Four times נער appears in the qal, two of them intransitively. At Isa 33:9 it means "decay", and at Jer 51:38 it means "roar" - so BW 7. I don't see any support for "be a kid" and especially not for "And the kid was a kid". At 1 Sam 21:5 the Hebrew text has "If the lads were guarded from a woman" and lacks the apodosis: "they may eat the holy bread". See Mark 2:25-27 for the background. The Septuagint supplies the missing words "they may eat", and so does 4QSam-b, which has "And you (plural) may eat of it". A Hebrew scroll that predates the Lerningrad codex by 1200 years agrees with the Septuagint in correcting its great grandchild. Reminds of what began the discussion - Psalm 130:6, where the Septuagint supplies "hopes" and thus corrects the masoretic text: "My soul [hopes] for the Lord more so than watchmen for morning, watchmen for morning".

jimofbentley
10-11-2010, 08:23 PM
Four times נער appears in the qal, two of them intransitively. At Isa 33:9 it means "decay", and at Jer 51:38 it means "roar" - so BW 7. I don't see any support for "be a kid" and especially not for "And the kid was a kid". At 1 Sam 21:5 the Hebrew text has "If the lads were guarded from a woman" and lacks the apodosis: "they may eat the holy bread". See Mark 2:25-27 for the background. The Septuagint supplies the missing words "they may eat", and so does 4QSam-b, which has "And you (plural) may eat of it". A Hebrew scroll that predates the Lerningrad codex by 1200 years agrees with the Septuagint in correcting its great grandchild. Reminds of what began the discussion - Psalm 130:6, where the Septuagint supplies "hopes" and thus corrects the masoretic text: "My soul [hopes] for the Lord more so than watchmen for morning, watchmen for morning".

Although נער in the Qal is probably irrelevant to the conversation as it is an unrelated (though similarly spelled) verb as opposed to the noun which is under discussion.

The inclusion in the LXX and 4QSam-b of a reference to "eating" may simply be an insertion into the text to make clear what is only otherwise implied. After all, what other reason could there be for David to want bread, if not to eat it. English translations of the Scriptures often include words not found in the text in order to make the text clear. It shouldn't surprise us if the translators of the LXX did the same. Nor should it surprise us if later copyists of the Hebrew also did this.

bkMitchell
10-11-2010, 10:13 PM
Salutations Andrew Fincke,

Post # 16 of this thread was carefully and well written. You did your homework well this time Mr. Fincke. And, thanks for starting this discussion.

More, information on these the issues the verse in question has raised can be found in the following:


Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. (see; table 22 pg. 114, pgs 238-240 and pg. 254)
Driver, Samuel Rolles. Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel. (pg. 21)
Rashi's comentary on the Tanach( any edition of the Mikraot Gedolot )
Metzudat David and Metzudat Zion Textual analysis
The NET Bibles Notes on this verse
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (pg, 444)

A basic and helpful introduction of on LXX can be found in the following:
(1) Silva, Moises & Jobes, Karen. Invitation to the Septuagint
(2)Dines, Jinnifer M. The Septuagint



One of the main advantages of having a Massoretic text, is having the Massorah( Parva, Magna, Finalis, accents, and vowel points) and well as having the great body of Masoras that has been hand down along with the written text.

For example, will notice a small raised circle above והנער נָֽעַר as well as3 more circles over 3 more wods in this verse in the BHS. These marks refer to the (MP note) Masorah Parva in the outer margin (page. 444 in BHS). The note is simple a 'chet' with a dot above it. This tells as that there are 8 occurrences of phenomenon in verse 24. The (MM) Masorah Magna registrar at the bottom of page 444 in the (BHS) refers us to list #1564 of the supplementary volume Massorah Gedolah. Also, the critical apparatus alludes to some of the issues at hand here.


Accents have three main purposes:
(1)Cantillation
(2)intonation/pronunciation
(3)Syntax and Punctuation

Accents can be classified as conjunctive and disjunctive.


Now, the text at hand with it's massoretic accents:

וַתַּעֲלֵ֙הוּ עִמָּ֜הּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר גְּמָלַ֗תּוּ בְּפָרִ֤ים שְׁלֹשָׁה֙ וְאֵיפָ֙ה אַחַ֥ת קֶ֙מַח֙ וְנֵ֣בֶל יַ֔יִן וַתְּבִאֵ֥הוּ בֵית־יְהוָ֖ה שִׁל֑וֹ וְהַנַּ֖עַר נָֽעַר׃

Ta'am Siluk under the word נָֽעַר is the second half of this section and ta'am etnahta under the word שִׁל֑וֹ marks the first half of this super section,. However, this is one of those interesting occasions where Tippeha procceds, the Siluk without any other accent between them, and where Ethnata proceeds Tippeha. Tippeha stands alone on a single and becomes a Mayeka or Tarha.(according to the JPD in BW) So, we have (Merekha, Tippeha, Ethnata, Tippeha,) and then the concluding (Siluk/Sof Pasuk). Now, Siluk is an emperor of accents and Tippeha is king, with Ethnata serving it, and all serving siluk. The last word with siluk under it is apart the rest of the group in it's own section, The other words are in some way supporting the last the last word. Boy is a Boy, or Boy Boy does not appear to be a possible translation at all. I can see that without help of the accents this verse might appear to be 'senseless', but with the Masorah we have a light.

So, we know that:


Every verse in the Bible has a Siluk.
The Siluk is always on the final word of the sentence
It is attached to the first letter of the syllable
It often marks the final half section of the clause or sentence


We could then divide this section like this:
Tippeha+ Siluk
Subject + Predicate-compliment (WIVU interpretation would then agree largely with that of the Massorets)

This appears to be very close with how modern translators as well as some older one's handle this verse.

In the same book of Samuel we find two other cases that appear to be fairly similar to this construction as using והנער to mean young.


(1Sa 2:26 WTT)
וְהַנַּ֣עַר שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל


(1 Sa 3:1 WTT)
וְהַנַּ֧עַר שְׁמוּאֵ֛ל


Now, in times closer to our own Rashi felt this section should be rendered: ורביא הוה יניק
The Metzudat David Textual commentary by David Altschuler elaborates: רצה לומר הנער היה עודנו נער קטן ורך ועם כל זה לא נמנעה מלהביאו כאשר


As the LXX was the accepted Canon for the early Church, as well as still being the TR for Orthodox and some Eastern Christians, it can clearly can shed light on the early interpretation of the Hebrew Bible as well as a greater understanding of the NT as a whole. I have a lot of respect for the LXX, and accept it as being the message of God for many Christians out there, even though it is not scripture to me.


Thanks, JimofBentley this is an excellent point.


Although נער in the Qal is probably irrelevant to the conversation as it is an unrelated (though similarly spelled) verb as opposed to the noun which is under discussion.

The inclusion in the LXX and 4QSam-b of a reference to "eating" may simply be an insertion into the text to make clear what is only otherwise implied. After all, what other reason could there be for David to want bread, if not to eat it. English translations of the Scriptures often include words not found in the text in order to make the text clear. It shouldn't surprise us if the translators of the LXX did the same. Nor should it surprise us if later copyists of the Hebrew also did this.

Andrew Fincke
10-13-2010, 10:28 PM
Dear BK,
My responses are interleaved with your text (in red):
Rashi's comentary on the Tanach( any edition of the Mikraot Gedolot )
Rashi simply quotes the Targum, which says "And the lad was nursing". Now that's problematic, since verse 24 in the masoretic text implies that she had weaned him, though room is left open for "she was in the process of weaning him". In any case, the Rashi/Targum intepretation allows linkage with Jer 51:38, which has נער in the qal in the sense baby lions "roaring" (נָעֲרוּ) - apparently for milk. This scenariuo has the freshly weaned Samuel arriving at the temple, famished from the trip but not so hungry/mature he could handle a sirloin steak from the steer they were about to sacrifice. So he cried/roared for milk.


Metzudat David and Metzudat Zion Textual analysis
Reinforces Rashi. It says: "He was still small and tender; and despite that, she didn't wait for him to get strong, but rather brought him up to the House of the Lord directly after his weaning at the age of 2. The Targum doesn't say he was still sucking but rather that he was like a sucking child."


Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (pg, 444)
Says nothing mnore than that the Septuagint and Old Latin have a longer text and are supported in that by 4QSam-a. De Boer could have added the ancient Armenian, Ethiopian and Coptic versions to the Septuagint group. Only the Syriac versions - Peshitta and Jacob of Edessa ("And the lad was young") - support the masoretic text and the Targum.


For example, will notice a small raised circle above והנער נָֽעַר as well as3 more circles over 3 more wods in this verse in the BHS. These marks refer to the (MP note) Masorah Parva in the outer margin (page. 444 in BHS). The note is simple a 'chet' with a dot above it. This tells as that there are 8 occurrences of phenomenon in verse 24. The (MM) Masorah Magna registrar at the bottom of page 444 in the (BHS) refers us to list #1564 of the supplementary volume Massorah Gedolah. Also, the critical apparatus alludes to some of the issues at hand here.
Your eye slipped. Note 24 at the bottom gives the MM (1564) for an MP at verse 19. The MP for verse 24 and MM 32 is 1534. Both MP's - 24 and 32 - begin with chet "8 times", and that confused you. At verse 24 the "8 times" refers not to נער but rather to "Shiloh", which is spelled שלו eight times in scripture as opposed to שלה or שילו or שילה. The MM for וְהַנַּעַר נָעַר is ל with abbreviating overdot. That means לית, Aramaic for "doesn't exist". The expression "The kid was a kid" is unheard of.

Now, in times closer to our own Rashi felt this section should be rendered: ורביא הוה יניק
See above. ורביא הוה יניק is a quote from the Targum.

The Metzudat David Textual commentary by David Altschuler elaborates: רצה לומר הנער היה עודנו נער קטן ורך ועם כל זה לא נמנעה מלהביאו כאשר
Again see above. You left out the end of the sentence.

bkMitchell
10-14-2010, 12:23 AM
Greetings Mr. Fincke,

This is a fun discussion. If, your this is the type of Bible Study you(plural) do in your congregation/Denomination I would really like to attend or at least hear a tape.

Okay...

לא אית “There is no other” is how I have always heard it. So, no argument or discussion about that. וְהַנַּ֖עַר נָֽעַר as a phrase only appears here. So, once again no debate about that, I agree.

There, however, are other phrases that being with הַנַּ֖עַר that appear to be similar in the book of Samuel(only). And, there are other phrases that have 'a' same word repeating, usually names.


a sirloin steak from the steer
That's funny.
but, I'd think he would have avoided the sirloin steak even if he were older as that might not have been considered Kosher after what happened to Jacob.


(By the way an electronic/digital book publisher is developing and is going to release the Dead Sea Scrolls(Biblical) database for 'a' windows platform and The Göttingen Septuagint, too. I have the sectarian manuscripts in Bibleworks format, but I am highly excited about the Biblical database although I wish it would have been a BW database.)



The MP for verse 24 and MM 32 is 1534.Okay, then what follows here is list 1534 from
Weil, G. E. (2001). Massorah Gedolah: Manuscrit B. 19a de Léningrad.

1534
וְכָל־בֵיתוֹ ג.
1 S. 1:21 ויעל האיש אלקנה
2 S. 15:16 ויצא
1 Chr. 10:6 יחדו מתו


Okay, now I see my error. (thanks Mr. Fincke) what I really wanted was list 1525. I can't read the French commentary that follows, but for anyone who can read it I've post the French with this. (and, I know my formatting is pretty bad, I need to figure out how to do that better on these forums)

1525

בְּשִׁלוֹ ח̇ כתיב̇ ו [ (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftn3)בליש̇] (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftn4). (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftn5)

Jdc. 21:19 הנה חג יי בשלו*

S. 1:24 ותבאהו בית יי

S. 3:21 כי בגלה יי תינינ̇ דפסוק̇

S. 14:3 בן פינחס

Jer. 7:14 ועשיתי

Jer. 26:9 מדוע נבית ] עיין מ̇ג̇ [2603

Jer. 41:5 אנשים

Ps. 78:60 ויטש משכן שלו

(http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftnref1)
ce signe complète le titre des listes se terminant par l’expression וסימנהון—dont voici les symboles—et qui sont issues généralement d’une tradition différente de celles dont les titres sont marqués par le simple point.

סימן זה משלים את כותרת הרשימות המסתיימות בביטוי וסימנהון ואשר מובאות בדרך כלל ממסורת שונה מזו אשר נתנה את הרשימות בהן הכותרות מצויינות באמצעות נקודה בלבד.



(http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftnref2)
l’astérisque placé après un mot signale un mot erroné qui a été corrigé.

כוכבון המופיע אחרי מלה מציין מלה משובשת אשר תוקנה.



(http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftnref3)
les crochets qui signalent une reconstitution ou une restitution.

סוגריים מרובעים המציינים שחזור או חזרה.



(http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftnref4)
les crochets qui signalent une reconstitution ou une restitution.

סוגריים מרובעים המציינים שחזור או חזרה.



(http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftnref5)
le point final a été rajouté par moi à la fin de chaque titre de liste par souci esthétique et pour faire la différence avec l’énoncé de certaines listes pour lesquelles le double signe donné ci-après a été utilisé. Les deux points superposés qui marquent la fin des listes dans le manuscrit n’ont pas été repris, la forme choisie pour l’édition rend inutile leur usage.

הנקודה הסופית הוספה על ידי בסוף כל כותרת של רשימה לצורך אסתטי וכדי להבדיל מן הנוסח של רשימות מסוימות בהן השתמשו בסימן הכפול הניתן להלן. לא השתמשנו בשתי הנקודות המופיעות זו על גבי זו והמציינות את סוף הרשימות בכתב היד, משום שצורת ההוצאה הופכת אותן למיותרות.

Andrew Fincke
10-14-2010, 09:30 AM
This is a fun discussion.
The Dead Sea Scrolls - at least the Samuel scrolls - aren't fun. They're a big pain in the b---, as Cross found it.
If, your this is the type of Bible Study you(plural) do in your congregation/Denomination I would really like to attend or at least hear a tape.
At the church dinner last night, the cook said: "Gee, I happened on the Bible Works discussion by chance, when I was looking for a verse on the web. I read your discussion, saw the pastor's name. I don't understand what's being said, but please don't mention our pastors' names!" Here I thought we were having a private discussion, and it's all over the internet!

(By the way an electronic/digital book publisher is developing and is going to release the Dead Sea Scrolls(Biblical) database
Believe that when I see it.

Okay, then what follows here is list 1534 from
Weil, G. E. (2001). Massorah Gedolah: Manuscrit B. 19a de Léningrad.

For those of you who don't know what's going on with Mm and Mp, see Page Kelley, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, page 8. It's on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh6OHYcIZgkC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=weil+massorah+gedolah&source=bl&ots=XX_OQPgpl5&sig=GOsfs8M3P_PUOlZCA9hxtjAQXdo&hl=en&ei=KgO3TMKmFMH6lwfF9oW_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=weil%20massorah%20gedolah&f=false


1525


בְּשִׁלוֹ ח̇ כתיב̇ ו [ (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftn3)בליש̇] (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftn4). (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftn5)



Jdc. 21:19 הנה חג יי בשלו*



S. 1:24 ותבאהו בית יי



S. 3:21 כי בגלה יי תינינ̇ דפסוק̇



S. 14:3 בן פינחס



Jer. 7:14 ועשיתי



Jer. 26:9 מדוע נבית ] עיין מ̇ג̇ [2603



Jer. 41:5 אנשים



Ps. 78:60 ויטש משכן שלו




(http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/#_ftnref1)You got it. Those are the 8 verses. Why the masorete differentiated in a list titled "Shiloh with vav" between שלו and שילו is beyond me. The French/Hebrew you quoted explains Weil's editing marks. He did more harm than good to the masorah, loading it with "corrections". Biblia Hebraica Quinta is undoing his fiddling.

bkMitchell
10-14-2010, 08:30 PM
Hello again,

“as Cross found it”
You mean this Cross: Mr. Frank Moore Cross, Jr. Right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moore_Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moore_Cross)

”At the church dinner last night, the cook said”
I am starting to understand your sense of wit and/or sarcastic humor.

“He did more harm than good to the masorah, loading it with "corrections". Biblia Hebraica Quinta is undoing his fiddling.”
I agree.
Also, it is great that the BHQ will for the first time present a diplomatic edition of both the Masorah Magna and Parva. They have already released some fascicles from this project.

“Believe that when I see it.”
Believe, the truth is out there...


Of Course you know BibleWorks has:
(1)The Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts (in Hebrew/Aramaic with morphological tags), by Martin G. Abegg, Jr. http://store.bibleworks.com/QSM.html
(2)Dead Sea Scrolls English Translation Bundle: Biblical and Sectarian Texts http://store.bibleworks.com/product49.html
(http://store.bibleworks.com/product49.html)

Unfortunately BW does not yet have the Biblical Manuscripts(in Hebrew) from the Dead Sea Scrolls/Qumran. I hope they will consider adding this as a module option for those of us who are interested in OT/Hebrew Bible studies.




The other companies:

a competing product for the windows platform is developing:
Qumran Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Database

a competing product for apple personal computers already has:
The Dead Sea Scrolls Images
The Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical Manuscripts
The Dead Sea Scrolls Greek Biblical Text

Glenn Weaver
10-15-2010, 08:33 AM
Hi BkMitchell,

We have been trying, and will continue to try, to license the Biblical DSS.

We are always looking for good databases that we can include in the program. If you hear of any databases relevant to the BibleWorks mission that we might be able to license, we welcome your suggestions.

Blessings,
Glenn

bkMitchell
10-16-2010, 09:39 AM
Hi BkMitchell,

We have been trying, and will continue to try, to license the Biblical DSS.

We are always looking for good databases that we can include in the program. If you hear of any databases relevant to the BibleWorks mission that we might be able to license, we welcome your suggestions.

Blessings,
Glenn

Hello Mr. Weaver, and thank you for responding to this thread.
Also, thank you for informing us, that the Bibleworks team has been trying to acquire the DSS Biblical database. This is encouraging.

However...
If, I had but one request it would be for the digital images of the facsimile edition of the Leningrad codex. Just, about every modern printed Hebrew Bible, database, and translation is in some way based on the Firkovich B 19 A. So, having a module of the digital images to scroll along side the WTT or translation would be substantially more important than having the DSS or an apparatus for that matter. The paper edition is of course widely available, but it is also quite a large tome to lug around. Having the digital images of it makes a lot of sense to me( if it were possible).

According, to the west Semitic Research Project's announcement "Because of the publication of this facsimile, digital images are unavailable at the present time"(Link) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/scholarly_site/leningrad_codex/). It's been since been 12 years, since the facsimile was published back in 1998. So, I wonder if they'd change their mind.

Grace and Peace,
Brian

Andrew Fincke
10-19-2010, 09:55 AM
This thread is degenerating from a "Non-Bible Works discussion" to a forum for matters that touch the core of a program that claims to deliver the Biblical text. I have the Samuel scrolls reconstructed and typed into the computer, and I don't mean Abegg's Accordance version. Unlike Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 17, with its piecemeal reconstructions, 4QSam-a is in column format and is thus compatible with Ed. Herbert's Reconstructing Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Method Applied to the Reconstruction of 4QSama, Brill, 1997. It goes beyond Herbert's reconstructions, however, in including the First Samuel material. Unfortunately it's neither pointed (neither are the scrolls!) nor morphologically tagged. Attached is column 3, with the text of 4QSam-a for 1 Sam 2:16-3:4. Underlined is what's "on the leather", though that is a misnomer, since the actual fragments in the Shrine of the Book Museum in Jerusalem are virtually illegible. Nor were they amenable to viewing when Cross first worked on them in 1953, and it was only three weeks of treatment with hydrochloric acid and a paint brush that convinced the sticky glob to yield 70 flakes of readable script. Probably a better way to highlight the preserved text would be to set it in red font. The difference in font size between the two halves oif the column - bottom and top - reflects the actual state of the fragments. The text of 1 Sam 1:21-28 and 2:15-16 differs significantly from the masoretic version and for this reason was set in smaller font by the original scribe.

jimofbentley
10-21-2010, 04:28 AM
I have the Samuel scrolls reconstructed and typed into the computer, and I don't mean Abegg's Accordance version.

Are you the Andrew Fincke who wrote, The Samuel Scroll from Qumran: 4QSam(a) Retored and Compared to the Septuagint and 4QSam(c) published by Brill?

For those who are interested in excerpts of this work (because who can afford $271 from Brill?)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dsGd7SsCgTIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Samuel+Scroll+from+Qumran:+4QSam(a)+Retored+and +Compared+to+the+Septuagint+and+4QSam(c)&source=bl&ots=Q_2CvkJ4Fe&sig=SFgD51LCuii5wpLLIs9IN3wREBs&hl=en&ei=Fvi_TI2iI8HBceXEoJwM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

bkMitchell
10-21-2010, 09:46 AM
I have the Samuel scrolls reconstructed and typed into the computer, and I don't mean Abegg's Accordance version.

Interesting, I wonder how the version you have, Abegg's Accordance module, and Dr. Stephen Pfann's Module for Logos (yet to be released) will compare with each other?

Adelphos
10-21-2010, 12:58 PM
The Israel Antiquities Authority is going to put the entire DSS collection online in hi-res images...

http://www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14

bkMitchell
10-21-2010, 10:20 PM
The Israel Antiquities Authority is going to put the entire DSS collection online in hi-res images...
http://www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14

Thanks Adelphos.

This is great, because now everyone will be able to see first hand the amount of subjectivity that is possible when trying to interpret and reconstruct the DSS.

All, manuscripts are intriguing in their own right and DSS even more so!
But, it is only those manuscripts that have been continuously used by and passed down through the Synagogue and Church that are of the greatest interest to me.

Thanks again Adelphos and I'll return the favor after all; One good link deserves another
http://www.archive.org/details/RabbinicbibleotMikraotGedolotBombergshebrewtanach. jacobBenChaim.1525

Andrew Fincke
10-22-2010, 02:28 PM
We have been trying, and will continue to try, to license the Biblical DSS
Dear Glenn, Try no more! I'm willing and eager to see my reconstructions of the Samuel scrolls in BibleWorks.

If I had one request it would be for the digital images of the facsimile edition of the Leningrad codex.
Dear BK, You've got Bomberg's Mikraot Gedolot on line - you gave us the link. Why do you need images of the Leningrad codex? You'd be better off examining the print edition.

Are you the author...?
Dear Jim, I am the author of The Samuel Scroll from Qumran, which - I agree - is not worth the $271. I wish they hadn't put the images online.

Dear Adelphos, The link to the Press Office of the Israel Antiquities Authority says, "Click here to download high resolution pictures!" Where do you click? What are you going to do with the pictures once you have them? Mount them and hang them on the wall? Reconstruction is a wearisome process of learning the scribe's handwriting and filling in the blank places the fragments don't cover. Start with large fragments that cover most of the passage, and fill in the few missing letters and words. Have an eraser or erasers at hand, because it's a trial and error process. Start at the right margin, which is straight, and don't exceed or fall short of the left margin by more than 8mm. If the fragment doesn't show a margin, experiment with different placements right to left. Then proceed to the smaller fragments, which belong to the Samuel scroll because the leather matches, and the ink matches, and the handwriting is the same. Trust Cross! You've placed the fragment - or verified Cross' placement - by searching in BW for a place (or places) in 1-2 Sam where two letters (say עג - the remnants of line x) occur within a ten to fifteen word range from three letters (say ות ב - the remnants of line x+1). Then fill in the rest from your Hebrew Bible. In the case of Samuel, you'll fail alot; and that's where you open up your Greek Bible and find the extra text that fits the space. That is, the extra text in Greek, whose translation into Hebrew fills the space. Or the omission in the Greek that allows you to delete enough of the Hebrew to stop your reconstructed line from running into the margin. That's why I'm embarrassed about what's online. I've redone alot of them and put it all into computer Hebrew. BK's right. Apart from Samuel and 1QIsa-a, the Biblical Dead Sea scrolls don't have alot of surprises. The variant notes in NIV to the Isaiah scroll cover only about 10% of readings that affect the English translation. There are no scroll variants in the NIV for 1-2 Samuel.

Adelphos
10-22-2010, 07:23 PM
You appear to be assuming that the LXX actually antedates the Masoretic text, which it clearly does not, and you also appear to be assuming that the LXX is an accurate representation of the orginal Hebrew Old Testament, which it clearly is not.

In short, the LXX we possess today is no more trustworthy for deciphering the Old Testament than is Homer.

For just one example out of a whole horde of examples...

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/lxx_reverse_engineering.htm

As to the veracity of the Hebrew Masoretic text, here's another out of a horde of examples...

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/veracity_of_the_old_testament.htm

qandy
10-23-2010, 10:50 PM
You appear to be assuming that the LXX actually antedates the Masoretic text, which it clearly does not
I don't follow you, Adelfos. The New Testament postdates the turn of the era - as I understand it - and the Dead Sea scroll of Samuel predates the turn of the era. See DJD 17, 5: "Cross' study ... places the script of 4QSam-a in the interval c. 50-25 B.C." Now 4QSam-a supports the Septuagint at 1 Sam 1:24 in giving a significantly longer version of the incomprehensible: "The lad was a lad". Since 4QSam-a predates the New Testament, so does the Septuagint, at least at 1 Sam 1:24.
About Isaac, the text is fairly clear. Gen 47:30 has Israel (Jacob) telling Joseph how to dispose of his (Jacob's) dead body. Verse 31 reads:
וַיֹּאמֶר הִשָּׁבְעָה לִי וַיִּשָּׁבַע לוֹ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה
“And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself on the bed’s head.” (KJV)
“Bed” is improbable, since Jacob – in his advanced age – can hardly be expected to kneel down at the “head” of the bed – that is on top of the pillow. It’s too precarious. Even more preposterous is that he knelt down on the end of the “staff”. The Hebrew scribe misheard his dictating teacher and wrote הִשָּׁבְעָה לִי “Swear to me!” for הַשְׁכְּבָה לִי “Lay me down!” Jacob wanted to see how he was going to be buried and asked Joseph to rehearse it. The following וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה becomes clear. הַמִּטָּה”the bed/staff” is a mistake for הַמֵּתָה “the deceased (wife)”. See 48:7: מֵתָה עָלַי רָחֵל “Rachel died on me” (i.e. in my presence). Joseph acquiesced to his father’s request by laying Jacob in the grave of his (Jacob’s) wife, Rachel. Jacob responded to this reuniting with his beloved by “praying at the head of the dead”, who was in a bier, not on a bed. The distance between הִשָּׁבְעָה hishava and הַשְׁכְּבָה hashkava is not great, and even less separates מִּטָּה from מֵתָה. The excitement from this encounter with his spouse gave Jacob the energy to endure for two more chapters, the last of which has him delivering a long sermon.
Your assertion: "The scribes of the LXX had the New Testament in front of them when they actually penned the LXX we have today" is incomprehensible to me.

Adelphos
10-24-2010, 05:01 AM
You appear to be assuming that the LXX actually antedates the Masoretic text, which it clearly does not
Your assertion: "The scribes of the LXX had the New Testament in front of them when they actually penned the LXX we have today" is incomprehensible to me.

Maybe so, but the the actual evidence is incomprehensible to a lot of people who know nothing of how to handle evidence. But it wasn't incomprehensible to Owen and the other Puritans and Reformers and Great Awakeners, nor to others in this generation who have also made similar demonstrations in other passages, nor is it incomprehensible, as I said, to one who understand the rudiments of evidentiary matters.

It's really very simple... how many people were in the tent? That's not too difficult for most anybody to comprehend. And that's just for starters, for anyone who thinks that Hebrews 11:21 and Genesis 47:31 are referring to the same event, well, let's just say that any further explanation would be wasted on them.

And as I said, that's just one example out of a plethora of examples, not to mention that the LXX has been falsified both archaeologically and historically, whereas the Masoretic text has not.

Perhaps you should go back and read the article four or five times until you understand it. I chose that specific passage because of its patent simplicity. If you can't understand that one, you will hardly be able to understand most of the others.

bkMitchell
10-24-2010, 07:09 AM
If I had one request it would be for the digital images of the facsimile edition of the Leningrad codex.
Dear BK, You've got Bomberg's Mikraot Gedolot on line - you gave us the link. Why do you need images of the Leningrad codex? You'd be better off examining the print edition.


You must be joking, again...
But, here is my reply:

(1) All, printed and electronic editions based on the Firkovich B 19 are in fact interpretative presentations of the codex. BHK 3rd edition, BHS, BHQ(not complete), Adi/BHL, and the WTT are all based on the codex in question, but they do not read exactly the same, do they?
(Even the Koren Tanakh which is based on neither the Firkovich B 19 nor the Aleppo codex varies between editions.)

(2) Many of the printed editions (as well as digital ones) are base on the Firkovich B 19 A (Therefore, it would be nice to have the digital images to compare with the WTT in BW)

(3) Even the editions that are based on the Aleppo codex like; the Toras Chaim Chumash, Mikraot Gedolot Haketer, Breuer, Jerusalem Crown, HUB, also make use of the Firkovich B 19 A at least for the Pentateuch.


(4) In past times(and today), sefer torah designated tikkun soferim were used to for correcting a Torah in normal situations, but in major ones, Codices were consulted. Now, we all can have the privilege of seeing a codex in everyday life. BY consulting either the facsimile of the Leningrad Codex, or by checking out the Aleppo's web site http://www.aleppocodex.org/

Now, why do I need digital images? For, one I do own the facsimile but it would be far more convent in digital format when I am on the road. Two, I sort of collect Hebrew texts and I would like to have as many of them as possible. For, me there is no one Massoretic text, but there are families of Massoretic texts that were used in various communities. (For example, the Torah of the Yemenite community defers in 9 places from that used else where.) But, we believe with prefect faith that Heaven speaks through the variants and the long and sort spellings found in the various communities' texts and Massorah(Tradition). So, I and my community would like to catch them all.


Post script:
If you haven't read it already you may be interested in (Link) (http://www.amazon.com/Fixing-Gods-Torah-Accuracy-Hebrew/dp/019514113X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287919014&sr=8-1)
B. Barry Levy's "Fixing GOD'S TORAH; the accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law" published in 2001

Adelphos
10-24-2010, 07:59 AM
Brian, I'd love to see your Hebrew collection sometime... if we ever get in the same location. -:)

In the meantime, what text do the modern Karaites use? I suspect you would know, and I suspect they use the Traditional Text (Bomberg/Ben Chayyim), but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

bkMitchell
10-25-2010, 02:23 AM
Brian, I'd love to see your Hebrew collection sometime... if we ever get in the same location. -:)

In the meantime, what text do the modern Karaites use? I suspect you would know, and I suspect they use the Traditional Text (Bomberg/Ben Chayyim), but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, well we might be someday. I would like to return to the states with my family in a year or so.

Okay...
Since, the 1960's the Koren Tanakh has been fairly popular in all circles, it is also the required text for use in Israeli public schools. So, a lot of people use it for easy reading I guess.

However outside of public schools many karaites and traditional Orthodox(as apposed to modern Orthodox) continue to approve of and use 'Sinai Publishing (http://www.sinaibooks.com/galery_en.htm)'s' Torah/Tanach and as well as other traditional publishing houses' texts that are usually based on(or are offprints of) Meir H. Letteris Tanach and the Rabbinic Bible 2nd edition(or some off shot of it). Most, Tikkun Soferim/Tikkun Korim (books used for writing a Torah or practicing chanting it) are based on the 2nd Rabbinic Bible or are a text corrected to be very close to that used Torah scrolls. For example, Ktav House's Tikkun La'Korim(Link) (http://www.judaism.com/display.asp?nt=DH&keyword=Tikkun&startPlace=9&etn=BCJBE).

Karaite Torah Scrolls are similar to those used by 'some' Sephardim in that they don't always have the 'Taggin' (http://www.jhom.com/topics/crowns/tagin.html) and other embellishments recommended by the Rambam and other sages. However, they do follow the rules found in the Massoretic treaties, and codices.

There is another factor here worth mentioning. Since, the 1970's some Jewish publishers have been using the BHS, but then extensively editing it/correcting it to meet halachic and Massorectic standards. For example; the Adi/BHL editions, The Stone Tanach, The Jaffah edition Chumas, JPS Hebrew/English Tanach. In some cases, the doctored BHS' became almost twins of the Traditionally used texts.

It is interesting to check out which editions of the Tanach Orthodox congregants may have on hand. check out the Avodah thread (link) (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n090.shtml)and post #3, 4, 5.



:confused:
qandy
...Now 4QSam-a supports the Septuagint at 1 Sam 1:24 in giving a significantly longer version of the incomprehensible: "The lad was a lad"...

Welcome to the forums Qandy,

You may be interested to know that 1 Sam 1:24, 4QSam-a, as well as the claim of Massoretic text being 'incomprehensible' at this point have been mentioned and addressed earlier in this thread.

However, I think you are not taking the argument to it's logical conclusion. Why stop at the Massoretic text, needs to be corrected by the LXX, or the LXX needs to replace the Hebrew Bible? We, know from looking at the apparatus of Ralf's LXX that the LXX also has room for improvement, too. So, why not go all the way with this line of reasoning?

Here I'll help you out I have listed some possibilities( I think #3, 4, 5, 6 and maybe 7 might appeal to you):
(1) The Massoretic text is correct as stands, but our understanding of ancient Hebrew Grammar and idiom is incomplete. And, Scholar, Sages, Saints of old have struggled with the texts, and come to the an understanding based on context.

(2) The Massorectic text is correct as stands, but the Bible can never be understood and interpreted apart from the oral tradition of the community of faith.

(3) The Massorectic Text is correct as stands but it can never be understood apart from acceptance of God and the gift of the spirit.

(3) The Massorectic text is at fault and needs to be correct with the aide of the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and our hubris(But only after we correct the LXX, and the DSS).

(4) Because, the DSS represents variants related to various families of texts; (a)Massoretic text, (b)LXX, (c)Samaritian Pentateuch, and (d)Targums, we can conclude that they are either all branches from one UR text, or that there was never anyone accepted text.

(5) The Essenes were a sectarian sect, and one that used texts and scripture that was never received by the communities of faith outside of it. Therefore, we should take anything from the DSS with a grain of salt or rather in context of their sectarian nature.

(6)All manuscripts(LXX, MS, DSS, etc) contain numerous errors and contradict each other therefore, we can conclude that these are the work of man only and can be dismissed as being holy texts.

(7)The Massorectic text, DSS, LXX, and any other regilous writtings are in-quintessential as all religion are based on fables and myths.

But, then again there might, be a chance that some kind of higher force or being far beyond our finite minds controls the circumstances both small and great in which these texts were composed over thousands of years and also guided their transmission to this very day to witness to us.

POST SCRIPT:
Think about it, we have more evidence(manuscript) of the Biblical texts, than any other document in History. Not, to mention that there were scriptoriums all over the world and yet what the produced is remarkable the same! yet the accuracy of Biblical text is doubted more often than the texts of plato or socrates? Now, that's what I call incomprehensible!

jimofbentley
10-25-2010, 07:16 PM
Are you the author...?
Dear Jim, I am the author of The Samuel Scroll from Qumran, which - I agree - is not worth the $271. I wish they hadn't put the images online.


Andrew, I didn't say that your book wasn't worth it - for the amount of work and labour you did, I'm sure that it is a bargain at that price. I just said "who can afford it"?

qandy
10-26-2010, 09:30 PM
I'm sure that it is a bargain at that price
My cut was 5%. At $271 that comes to $13.55 a book. I think it originally sold for over $300. I haven't seen any royalties since 2003. Go to a library and photocopy what you need. It shows graphically where the fragments go and was made possible by the appendix to Ted Herbert's (zikrono lebaraka) Reconstructing Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, Brill, 1997. In that appendix he listed all the identifications that were known to him. The condition for getting my book in print was that it predate the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert edition, which didn't come out until 2005 (Cross et al., DJD 17: Qumran Cave Four XII, 1-2 Samuel). With that book - spec. the definitive photographs of the fragments - in hand and the leisure to examine them, I was able to make new identifications, invalidate incorrect ones and improve many of the reconstructions. As byproduct, I typed up the results into Unicode Hebrew and produced what I wish everyone had - a booklet with the 4QSam-a version of 1-2 Samuel in column format - one column per page - with the scroll evidence underlined. See column 3 in the previous atachment. If Glenn is amenable, the material will soon be available for anyone to print out from BW (without bracketed keres botching up the exportation to Word!).

bkMitchell
10-26-2010, 10:22 PM
... If Glenn is amenable, the material will soon be available for anyone to print out from BW (without bracketed keres botching up the exportation to Word!).

This sounds awesome and I can imagine the BW staff should be thrilled. Although, I am not confident they are still reading this thread. Then again, I was pleasantly surprised they had been reading it earlier.

If you want to make a suggestion use the link below:
http://www.bibleworks.com/ideas.html

You can read more about it here:
http://kb.bibleworksllc.com/ikb/questions.php?questionid=56


Now, what about those that don't use MS Word for Hebrew text, but do use DavkWriter and OpenOffice? Will the Keres sill cause issues for us?

So, you must be Mr. A.F. writing under the pseudonym Qandy?

qandy
10-27-2010, 03:52 PM
So, you must be Mr. A.F. writing under the pseudonym Qandy
Ever since I was upbraided by the cook at the church dinner for citicizing my pastor by name in public (BW forums are not a closed platform), I've stopped using given names.

Now, what about those that don't use MS Word for Hebrew text, but do use DavkWriter and OpenOffice? Will the Keres sill cause issues for us
The problem, Brian. is that if I want to import Biblical Hebrew text from BW into a Word document, and that text has a kere, alot of fiddling is involved to get it right in the document; since the brackets aren't in Hebrew. Thus 1 Sam 5:12 version BW:


וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־מֵתוּ הֻכּוּ )בָּעֳפָלִים] (בַּטְּחֹרִים[ וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעַת הָעִיר הַשָּׁמָיִם



becomes jarbled when imported into a left to right moving Word document.

As if "For God so loved the world that He (gave) [gave His] only begotten Son that whosoever" becomes "only begotten Son that whosoever ]gave His) [gave( For God so Loved the world that He" when exported to Word. What a confusion imbedded keres cause! I suggested previously that keres be optional and indicated via pop up balloon "There is a kere; click here to see it!", but I'm afraid that that's beyond the capabilities of the BW programmers. I don't know about Davka, but I'm sure Open Office is the same as Word.
For those interested in the genesis of the publication of the Samuel fragments, here's a timeline:
1) late 1980's: Hershel Shanks and the Biblical Archaeological Review sue a small group of scholars for rights to see the photographs of the fragments.
2) 1990: The suit is successful, and Eisenman/Robinson publish A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The photos are small and of mediocre quality and poorly organized.
3) c. 1992: Ted Herbert, in the course of a PhD on Chronicles for Cambridge University, travels to Jerusalem and learns that the scroll archive is open for public inspection. He finds the Samuel fragments with Cross' identifications in handwriting on the backs. Herbert shifts gears and goes to work on the Second Samuel material, which forms about 80% of the 4QSam-a corpus.
4) Nov. 1996: Fincke leaves Heidelberg, Germany, where he learned modern Hebrew at the School of Jewish Studies, and arrives in Jerusalem
5) June-September 1997: Fincke passes the Hebrew exemption exam and begins a course in the Dead Sea scrolls with Emmanuel Tov, the publisher of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series.
6) April 1998: As paper topic Fincke chooses the first four columns of 4QSam-a, which Cross had cursorily published in 1953.
7) June 1998: Herbert's PhD dissertation is made available in a publication by Brill in the Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judaea series (#22). In it, Herbert includes column reconstrucftions of the Second Samuel material, with photos from the Eisenman/Robinson books set in place and accompanying text explaining the reconstruction of what's missing. An appendix lists the fragment identifications for both First and Second Samuel. Fincke receives a B for the paper and shows it to Emile Puech at the Ecole Biblique, who intercedes with Florentino Garcia Martinez to get it published in Revue de Qumran. Fincke begins work on revising his paper for publication. He learns to use Word 1997 in Hebrew on the Hebrew University computers.
8) 2000: The paper finished and submitted for publication, Fincke spends the downtime verifying Herbert's reconstructions and applying the methodologies of Puech and Herbert to the task of getting the First Samuel material published. Garcia Martinez agrees to have the whole work, which exceeds the framework of an article, published in Studies on Texts of the Desert of Judaea as #43. The condition is that the completion predates the long-awaited Discoveries in the Judaean Desert volume on the Fourth Cave Samuel fragments (DJD 17).
9) June-September 2001: Fincke leaves Israel before the start of the second intifada, Fincke's article appears in RevQ 76, and Fincke submits the manuscript of The Samuel Scroll Restored to Brill.
10) 2002-2005: In the course of study at Trinity Western University, Fincke uses Fernandez Marcos' edition of the Lucianic text of 1-2 Samuel to correct and refine his own variant apparatus. He also engages and revises the reconstructions of 4QSam-b from 1953 (Cross, JBL 74) and 1997 (Cross/Parry, BASOR 306). .
11) June 2005: DJD 17 appears. It includes: I: Cross' reconstructions of 4QSam-a. These are a step backward from the works of Herbert and Fincke, since they disregard the issue of column arrangement. II: A slight revision of the preliminary publications of 4QSam-b (see above). III. A reprint of Ulrich's edition of 4QSam-c from 1979 (BASOR 235). IV. Plates with infrafed photographs of all the Cave Four Samuel fragments, including those not yet identified due to their small size and paucity of letters/words.
12) 2005-2007: Using the definitive photos, Fincke improves his reconstructions, overhauls his book and completes a transcription into Unicode Hebrew of all the Samuel material, including 1QSam, originally published in 1955 in DJD 1. The evidence of the fragments is distinguished from reconstructed text via underloining.
13) August 2007: In a paper delivered at the triennial IOSOT conference in Ljubljana, Fincke highlights errors in the DJD 17 reconstructions of 4QSam-a, as well as invalid identifications, and offers several new identifications of his own.

Attached is a .pdf of column 42, covering 2 Sam 13:13 - 14:3. The photos are at DJD 17, Plate XVIIIa, where it is not apparent that they have text from all but two ofl the lines of the column. See Herbert's arrangement of the photos at page 260. Note at line 9: אהבו כי בכורו "(David) loved him because (he was) his firstborn". These words are part of a sentence that isn't in the masoretic text of 2 Sam 13:21, but is in the Septuagint. The advantage of having all this material on BW is that a pastor writing a sermon on a passage in 1-2 Samuel can check to see if there's a variant from the scrolls. Or he can make a printout of the whole corpus and carry it in his pocket for reading between hospital calls.

bkMitchell
10-27-2010, 09:36 PM
The problem, Brian. is that if I want to import Biblical Hebrew text from BW into a Word document, and that text has a kere, alot of fiddling is involved to get it right in the document; since the brackets aren't in Hebrew. Thus 1 Sam 5:12 version BW:


וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־מֵתוּ הֻכּוּ )בָּעֳפָלִים] (בַּטְּחֹרִים[ וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעַת הָעִיר הַשָּׁמָיִם
becomes jarbled when imported into a left to right moving Word document.



Ah, I have also encountered this situation but when pasting text on to the forums.

So, you studied Modern Hebrew before, classical Hebrew? That's great, I wish more theologians/Biblical scholars would get a command of Hebrew(or Greek) well enough to internalize it the way they do their native language rather than the 'stop and parse' method so often used in many seminaries. And, you studied with Emmanuel Tov, too.


I have read through your PDF and you've really done good work.
Unfortunately, BibleWorks can not , yet, import unicode Hebrew/Greek text into the version database compiler. So, you would probably have to convert that text to BetaCode/CCAT formate, unless you already have made a module of it.

Hypothetically, speaking the PDF in question in BetaCode/CCAT might look something like this:
(also a Zip folder with prototype database files(or a rough draft) of this called AFD should be attached at the bottom of this page. The D means database and you know what the A and F mean. It's not perfect and it can be easily edited, but is only meant to give an idea of what it would look like in BibleWorks)



2 Sam 13:13-14:3


2Sa 13:13 W)NY )WLWK )T XRPTY W)TH THYH K)XD HNBLYM BY$R)L W(TH DBR N) )L HMLK KY L) YMN(NY MMK


2Sa 13:14 WLW) )BH L$MW( BQWLH WYXZQ MMNH WY(NH WY$KB )TH


2Sa 13:15 WY$N)H )MNWN $N)H GDWLH M)D KY GDWLH H$N)H )$R $N)H MN H)HBH )$R )HBH WY)MR LH )MNWN QWMY LKY


2Sa 13:16 WTW)MR LW TMR L) )XY KY) GDWLH HR(H HZ)T M)XRT )$R ($YTH (MY L$LXNY WL) )BH
L$MW( LH


2Sa 13:17 WYQR) )T N(RW M$RTW WYWC)H HXWCH WN(L HDLT )XRYH


2Sa 13:19 WTQX TMR )PR (L R)$H WKTWNT HPSYM )$R (LYH QR(H WT$M )T YDYH (L R)$H WTLK HLWK WZ(QH


2Sa 13:21 WHMLK DWYD $M( )T KWL HDBRYM H)LH WYXR LW M)D WLW KL)B )XR )MNWN BNW )HBW KY BKWRW HW)


2Sa 13:22 WL) DBR )B$LWM (M )MNWN LMR( W(D +WB KY $N) )B$LWM )T )MNWN (L DBR )$R (NH )T TMR )XWTW


2Sa 13:23 WYHY L$NTYM YMYM WYHYW GWZZY C)N )B$LWM BB(L XCWR )$R (M )PRYM WYQR) )B$LWM LKWL BNY HMLK


2Sa 13:24 WYBW) )B$LWM )L HMLK WYY)MR HNH N) GWZZYM L(BDK YLK N) HMLK W(BDYW )L (BDW


2Sa 13:25 WY)MR HMLK )L )B$LWM )L BNY )L NLK KLNW WLW) NKBWD (LYK WYPCR BW WLW) )BH LLKT WYBRKHW


2Sa 13:26 WY)MR LW )B$LWM L) YLK N) )MNWN )XY WY)MR LW HMLK LMH YLK (MK


2Sa 13:27 WYPCR BW )B$LWM WY$LX )TW )T )MNWN W)T KWL BNY HMLK WY($ )B$LWM LW M$TH KM$TH HMLK


2Sa 13:28 WYCW )B$LWM )T N(RYW L)MWR R)W N) K)$R +WB LB )MNWN BYYN W)MRTY )LYKM HKW )T )MNWN WMTTM )TW )L TYR)W KY) )NY CWYTY )TKM XZQW WHYW LBNY XYL


2Sa 13:29 WY($W N(RY )B$LWM L)MNWN K)$R CWH )TM WYQWMW KL BNY HMLK WYRKBW )Y$ (L PRDW WYNWSW


2Sa 13:30 WYHY HMH BDRK WH$MW(H B)H )L DWYD L)MWR HKH )B$LWM )T KL BNY HMLK WL) NWTR MHM )XD


2Sa 13:31 WYQWM HMLK WYQR( )T BGDYW WY$KB )RCH WKL (BDYW NCBYM QR(Y BGDYW


2Sa 13:32 WY(N YHWNTN BN $M(YH )XY DWYD WY)MR )L Y)MR )DNY HN(RYM KWL BNY HMLK MTW KY )M )MNWN LBDW MT KY (L PY )B$LWM HYH MYWM (YNW )T TMR )XWTW


2Sa 13:33 W(TH )L Y$YM )DNY HMLK DBR )L LBW L)MWR KL HN(RYM MTW KY )M )MNWN LBDW MT WYBRX


2Sa 13:34 )B$LWM WY$) HN(R HCWPH )T (YNYW WYR) WHNH (M RB HWLK BDRK )XRYW MCD HHR BMWRD


2Sa 13:35 WY)MR YHWNTN )L HMLK HNH BNY HMLK B)W KDBR (BDK KN HYH


2Sa 13:36 WYHY KKLWTW LDBR WHNH BNY HMLK B)W WY$)W QWLM WYBKW WGM HMLK WKL (BDYW BKW BKY GDWL M)D


2Sa 13:37 W)B$LWM BRX WYLK )L TLMY BN (MYXWR MLK G$WR B)RC XYLM WYT)BL HMLK (L BNYW KWL HYMYM


2Sa 13:38 W)B$LWM BRX WYLK G$WR WYHY $M $LW$ $NYM


2Sa 13:39 WTKL RWX HMLK LC)T )L )B$LWM KY HTNXXM )L )MNWN BNW HMT


2Sa 14:1 WYD( YW)B BN CRWYH KYLB HMLK (L )B$LWM


2Sa 14:2 WY$LX YW)B TQW(H WYQX M$M )$H XKMH WY)MR )LYH HT)BLY N) WLB$Y N) BGDY )BL W)L TSWKY $MN WHYYT K)$H ZH YMYM RBYM MT)BLT (L MT


2Sa 14:3 WB)T )L HMLK WDBRT )LYW KKH WY$YM YW)B )T HDBRYM