Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Bible Works in the Church Revisited

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    472

    Default In Defense of the Masoretic Text

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    ... 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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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)
    Last edited by bkMitchell; 09-16-2010 at 12:05 AM.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkMitchell View Post
    IClearly Adelpos defends and upholds the Masoretic Text/Hebrew Bible.
    Aw, shucks! I was trying to keep that a secret!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Aw, shucks! I was trying to keep that a secret!
    So, it's true!
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkMitchell View Post
    So, it's true!
    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-16-2010 at 01:17 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Also see this short demonstration of the veracity of the Hebrew Masoretic text against all comers --

    http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJo..._testament.htm

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    111

    Default

    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    159

    Default

    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."

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    111

    Default

    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".

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    472

    Default

    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:

    1. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. (see; table 22 pg. 114, pgs 238-240 and pg. 254)
    2. Driver, Samuel Rolles. Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel. (pg. 21)
    3. Rashi's comentary on the Tanach( any edition of the Mikraot Gedolot )
    4. Metzudat David and Metzudat Zion Textual analysis
    5. The NET Bibles Notes on this verse
    6. 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.
    Last edited by bkMitchell; 10-11-2010 at 11:28 PM.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •