Los preteristas engañan y están engañados porque no conocen el antiguo testamento.
Las dos genealogías de mateo y Lucas son de José. Eusebius lo explica.
La maldición de jeconias tendría dos explicaciones cual la de tratarse de otro jeconias parecería ser la acertada y no la de Dios perdonandolo.
Los angeles no se casan ni se dan en casamiento porque la resurrección no es para casarnos sino para obtener cuerpos glorificados
Job 42:7
Isaías 61:1
Exodus 1:5 12:40
Genesis 5 11
Sinaiticus 42:17 long verse
Weymouth nt
Amplified bible
Chronology review according to PostApostolicChurch
Neo assyrian empire 720?
Neo babylonian 586?
Rule of persia 538 424 bc
Ezra haggai zachariah explicit chronology
Sheshbazzar = zerubbabel? ezra 1 5:13-16
Ahasuerus
Cyrus de great, Darius I = 1 esdras
Darius the made? Cyaxares ii 550 536? Xenophon?
3 waves of captives
She 536 bc
Zeru 520bc
Ezra 458
(Neh 444bc)
—
Ahasuerus Daniel 9 ezra 4 artaxerxes? Xerxes? Isn’t clear?
—
Ahasuerus in esther
Structure of the name
Josephus
Jerome
Greek septuagint artaxerxes
Xerxes I modern day historians
—
Malachi
Xerubabel temple?
Chronology of the Jews under the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire according to www.youtube.com/PostApostolicChurch. For classical chronology go to Biblical figures identified. For more viewpoints visit interpretation and viewpoints
- Cyrus the Great becomes king of Persia.
- Cyrus the Great conquers Media and subjugates them.
539, Oct 12. Darius the Mede (Cyaxares II), king of Media and subject of Cyrus, conquers Babylon. - Daniel and the lions’ den (Dan 6).
- Daniel’s vision of the 70 weeks (Dan 9).
- Darius peaceably gives Median Empire to Cyrus, who is king of Persia, Media, and Babylonia.
- Cyrus decrees that God’s house is to be rebuilt and appoints Sheshbazzar as governor of Judah (Ezra 1,
2Chr 36:22-23). Sheshbazzar begins the foundation but does not finish it (see Ezra 1:8-11, 5:14-16).
536-530. Daniel and the story of Bel and the Dragon (see Dan 14 in LXX). - Daniel’s visions about Persia and Greece (Dan 10-12).
- Cambyses II succeeds Cyrus the Great.
- Darius I succeeds Bardiya, who had succeeded Cambyses and reigned a few months.
520, Mar-Apr. Zerubbabel’s contest with the bodyguards. He is appointed as governor (1 Esdras 3:1-5:6).
520, Mar-Sep. Zerubbabel and a wave of captives return to Judah (Ezra 2).
520, Aug-Sep. God through Haggai commands to rebuild the temple (Hag 1).
520, Sep-Oct. The altar is built and sacrifices resumed (Ezra 3:1-7).
520, Sep-Oct. Work on the temple is progressing (Hag 2:1-9).
520, Oct-Nov. Remember the folly of your ancestors (Zech 1:1-6).
520, Nov-Dec. Promises from God, poverty turned to prosperity (Hag 2:10-23).
519, Jan-Feb. The first four visions given to Zechariah (Zech 1:7-3:31).
519, Feb-Apr. Opposition to the temple; Tattenai becomes a friend (Ezra 4:1-5,4:24-6:14).
519, Apr-May. The second four visions given to Zechariah (Zech 4-6).
519, Apr-May. Foundation finished (Ezra 3:8-13).
518, Nov-Dec. God’s promises and instructions on obedience (Zech 7-8).
515, Feb. The temple is completed (Ezra 6:15-22).
515 or later. God’s prophecies and the future of God’s people (Zech 9-14). - Xerxes I succeeds Darius I.
- Artaxerxes I succeeds Xerxes I.
- Artaxerxes removes Queen Vasti and looks for a new queen (Esther 1).
459 or earlier. Esther becomes a candidate for queen (Esther 2:1-14).
458, Mar-Apr. Ezra and another wave of captives leave Persia (Ezra 7:1-8:31).
458, Jul-Aug. Ezra and the wave of captives arrive at Jerusalem (Ezra 8:32-36).
458, Nov – 457, Apr. The matter of Jews who married foreign wives (Ezra 9-10).
457, Feb-Mar. Esther becomes queen to Artaxerxes (Esther 2:15-23).
456-453. Previous inhabitants of Judah have Artaxerxes halt the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Ezra 4:6-23).
453, Mar – 452, Feb. Queen Esther foils Haman’s plot and saves the Jews (Esther 3-10).
445, Nov-Dec. Nehemiah hears about the ruins of Jerusalem (Neh 1).
444, Mar-Apr. Nehemiah asks Artaxerxes I to be sent to Judah as governor (Neh 2:1-10).
444, Jul-Sep. Building the wall, opposition to it, finding Ezra 2 (Neh 2:11-7:73).
444, Sep-Nov. Reading of the Law by Ezra, celebrating Festival of Booths, sealing of Levite vows (Neh 8-10). - Resettling Jerusalem and dedication of the wall (Neh 11-12).
- Nehemiah returns to Persia (see Neh 5:14 and 13:6).
? Malachi prophesies against unrighteous worship (Mal 1-4).
Sometime between 431-424. Nehemiah returns to correct various sins (Neh 13). - Xerxes II succeeds Artaxerxes I and reigns 45 days.
- Sogdianus succeeds Xerxes II and reigned 6.5 months.
- Darius II succeeds Sogdianus.
- Artaxerxes II succeeds Darius II.
- Artaxerxes III succeeds Artaxerxes II.
- Artaxerxes IV succeeds Artaxerxes III.
- Darius III, the last king of the Persain Empire, succeeds Artaxerxes IV.
—
Because of the reformers mt got translated
On this origen ad 235 anf vol 4 page 387
—
Among those now presuming to expound the scripture (virgin)
Irenaeus ad 180 and vol I page451
What I have said is I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those
Origin ad 235 and, vol 4, page 388-389
Ref to is 1.10
Greek oldt 200 ad against lxx
Theodotion, aquila of sinope, symmanchus
Siglo i – iii mateo 6:13 la didache, policarpo 1 juan 4:3, justino lucas 22:43-44, taciano marcos 9:24, ireneo juan 1:18 tc unigenito Dios hechos 8:37 lucas 23:34, tertuliano juan 5:3b-4 1 corintios 14:47, hipolito juan 3:13, cipriano 1 juan 5:7
http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable
Read about job 29:17 lxx?
About pork https://medium.com/@s.mobarak03/10-reasons-why-you-should-not-eat-pork-7b43a8a8d65c
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13770/proverbs-differences-between-the-lxx-and-the-mt ??
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts
The Merneptah Stela can be seen in the Cairo Museum, Egypt. It specifically mentions Israel, and is dated to around 1215 BC. This discovery is just one of many that flatly contradicts secular theories about the development of the Old Testament. Mike Luddeni.
https://biblearchaeology.org/?id=2667:the-curious-history-of-the-editor-in-biblical-criticism&catid=11
Humans ramains at gezer
The Name Yahweh in Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/3233-the-name-yahweh-in-egyptian-hieroglyphic-texts
http://postapostolicchurch.blogspot.com/?m=1
Emanuel tov reliable source
Was there a “Septuagint Canon”?
REVIEW: https://bijbelvorser.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/was-there-a-septuagint-canon/
Jobab ben Zerah
Gen 36 job
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Is%20the%20Catholic%20Old%20Testament%20Accurate.htm
Matthew 2:6 mic 5:2 neither lxx mt
Matt 2:15 ho 11:1 לבני mt 1 samuel 3:6
Matt 2:18 jer 31:15 mt
Mt lxx trans comme + strong
Greek trans comme + strong
Peshita how people talked about the word en el periodo exilico o postexilico
On February 27, 380, in Thessaloniki, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius I (347 – 395) signed a decree in the presence of the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian II (371 – 392) that made Christianity the religion of the state and “punished the practice of pagan rituals”.
How many different septuagint-based Bible translations are there? Where can one find them?
Although many Catholic and Orthodox Bibles base their book order on the Septuagint, most don’t base their translation on the Greek Septuagint. As the Introduction to the New Jerusalem Bible states:
For the Old Testament the “Masoretic Text” established in the 8-9th centuries AD by Jewish scholars, is used. Only when this presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or other versions, such as the ancient Greek translation begun in 200 BC at Alexandria, the “Septuagint” (LXX), been used.
Jesus disciples didn’t use the septuagint nor the masoretic but an hebrew copy that was not the masoretic nor the septuagint. The septuagint has more similarities with that copy they used.
https://github.com/bibleforge/BibleForgeDBhttps://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb
Vetus Latina es el nombre colectivo dado a los textos bíblicos en Latín, que fueron traducidos a partir del siglo II, desde la lengua griega (Septuaginta o Versión de los Setenta para la mayoría de los libros del Antiguo Testamento y originales griegos para los libros del Nuevo Testamento), antes que la Vulgata de san Jerónimo se convirtiera en el estándar de la Biblia para los cristianos latino-parlantes en occidente. La frase Vetus Latina significa “Latina vieja” en latín, y la Vetus Latina a veces es conocida como la Antigua Biblia Latina.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43048677?seq=1
LXX
Ptomely II lighthouse of alexandria
Lighthouse of Alexandria, also called Pharos of Alexandria, one of the Seven Wonders of the World and the most famous lighthouse in antiquity. It was a technological triumph and is the archetype of all lighthouses since.
The nt quote the old testament a few hundred times. 20% equals but 80% bt the 2 text. 90% lxx 10% mt
Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually have more in common with the Greek Septuagint than the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text.
The Masoretic Text is a traditional Hebrew text finalized by Jewish scholars around 1000 C.E. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Torah created by the Jews of Alexandria in the third century B.C.E. (The other books of the Hebrew Bible were translated over the course of the following century.)
Three Torah scrolls (talmud)
A Talmudic story, perhaps referring to an earlier time, relates that three Torah scrolls were found in the Temple court but were at variance with each other. The differences were then resolved by majority decision among the three.[10]
Were There Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah? Solomon Zeitlin
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1453840?seq=1
Mr Henry about LXX
DBSJ 24 (2019): 119–154 ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF KAINAN,
SON OF ARPACHSHAD by Henry B. Smith Jr., with Kris J. Udd1
A: https://youtu.be/VI1yRTC6kGE
Thanks for the video. I’ve watched this previously and had correspondence with the creator Nathan Hoffman.
See my notes below.
Thanks, Henry
______________
Please read my two articles on Kainan here:
Smith Jr., Henry B., “New Evidence for Kainan in New Testament and LXX Papyri,” Bible and Spade 31, no. 3 (Summer 2018): 70-77.
Smith Jr., Henry B. and Kris J. Udd., “On the Authenticity of Kainan, Son of Arpachshad.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 24 (2019): 119-154.
Nathan’s treatment of Josephus is also inaccurate. He uses the Whiston translation, which is now almost 300 years old. You can find my discussion of Josephus in the ICC article:
Smith Jr., Henry B., “The Case for the Septuagint’s Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11,” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018), ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 117–132. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
1. Nathan is incorrect in saying that the earliest MSS of Luke and Genesis lack Kainan. Papyrus 911 (late 3rd century AD) of the LXX contains Kainan, as does Papyrus 4 of Luke 3 (mid to late 2nd century AD). P75 is indeterminable, but almost always cited as lacking Kainan. This is not demonstrable from the extant fragment of Luke 3 in P75. Only one MS lacks Kainan for Luke: Codex Bezae. Bezae is inferior for Luke 3, as it actually inserts Matthew’s genealogy into the text of Luke for the list from Solomon to Jesus. Interestingly, this same insertion is also found in Hippolytus of Rome (225 AD), possibly indicating the corruption was in Hippolytus’ MS of Luke. HOWEVER, Hippolytus includes Kainan in Gen 10, 11 and Luke 3:36. Over 45 MSS of Luke include Kainan in 3:36.
2. Nathan has the right idea in trying to ascribe adequate motive to the changing of the numbers. The Melchizedek=Shem theory, while providing adequate motive, cannot account for all the evidence. In particular, it cannot explain the shorter chronology of the MT in Gen 5, which has no bearing on the relationship between Mel and Shem. If Nathan subscribed to the idea that the MT correctly preserves Gen 5, then he would have to posit a motive for the LXX inflating the antediluvian chronology. As far as I know, none exists. Further, Josephus and Liber Biblicarum Antiquitatum both used a Hebrew text of Genesis with the longer antediluvian chronology. Nathan’s theory cannot explain this data adequately. That being said, the Mel=Shem Jewish exegetical tradition probably DID arise in response to the NT book of Hebrews’ connecting Jesus with Melchizedek. Since the MT’s chronology was already deflated by the rabbis, they were able to connect Mel and Shem as an apologetic against the Christian connection with Jesus in Hebrews. There is no evidence of this exegetical tradition in the Jewish literature before the destruction of the Temple. The Melchizedek Document from Qumran makes no such connection, for example.
3. Shem outliving Abraham in the MT (as well as Arpachshad and Eber outliving him) is actually an internal contradiction when compared to the statement in Genesis 25:8 that Abe “died in a good, old age, an old man, full of years.” With the MT’s chronology, Abe’s contemporaries would have been living twice as long as him, if not longer. 175 would have been young! Only in the SP/LXX post-Flood chronology does this statement make sense. This is the internal argument that demonstrates the MT’s deliberate deflation. Nathan’s argument has the right idea, but is too subjective. For different reasons, Whitcomb/Morris make the same subjective argument “it just cannot be correct that Shem is a contemporary of Abraham.” Genesis 25:8 removes the subjectivity and makes the argument grounded in Scripture instead. The MT’s corruption is exposed by the authoritative witness of Gen 25:8. The rabbis failed to account for it.
Q: I was seeing the differences between LXX and mt. Lxx Job 42:17 verse is longer. Are we meant to believe all the septuagint text that aren’t found in the mt?
I have heard there are many versions of the lxx. If so which one is the most reliable?
A: Hi, thanks for your questions. I appreciate them! With the LXX, each individual book and each situation has to be evaluated on its own merits. The case of Gen 5/11 is its own unique problem. Job was translated at a different time and place. It is also a much different kind of work than Genesis. Perhaps the attached article by Peter Gentry can be helpful. Warning- it is deep and needs careful reading. He explains Job in some places, as he has studied it extensively. See page 28, for example. Blessings, Henry
THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Peter j gentry – JETS 52/1 (March 2009) 19-45
Q: Thanks for that source. I have started reading it but I have a question before going any further.
Why is this greek version of job finishing with 29:17 and reading the same that in 42:17 of the masoretic text?In brenton LXX it finishes with a longer version than the 42:17 masoretic verse.
Is this greek old testament I attached to you a corrupted old testament or it is a different lxx version? If so, what version is it?
A: I am not familiar with the textual issues in Job, so I am unable to answer your question adequately. Sorry…
The question you ask below about the interlinear is complicated. Since there are so many LXX manuscripts available, each book has to be evaluated and reconstructed. Many of them are done, some are still incomplete.
Here is the main list:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html
The English Translation is based on the best LXX texts reconstructed thus far:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
If you want to keep up with LXX news, you can follow this blog: https://williamaross.com/
I interview Dr. Ross here:
Why letter of aristeas is reliable? Aristeas was a first-hand witness (hermippus of smyrna was not), josephus and tertullian. Theonas of alexandria agreed. Irenaeus ptolemy i as clement of alexandria who mentioned both. clement of alexandria ad 195 anf vol 2, page 334
Eleazar the high priest (260-245 bc) first and second syrian wars: (274-271 bc against antiochus i soter) (260-253bc against antiochus II theos). best answer: ptolemy ii
The Great Library of Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt, was one of the largest and most significant libraries of the ancient world. The Library was part of a larger research institution called the Mouseion, which was dedicated to the Muses, the nine goddesses of the arts.[10] The idea of a universal library in Alexandria may have been proposed by Demetrius of Phalerum, an exiled Athenian statesman living in Alexandria, to Ptolemy I Soter, who may have established plans for the Library, but the Library itself was probably not built until the reign of his son Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The Library quickly acquired many papyrusscrolls, due largely to the Ptolemaic kings’ aggressive and well-funded policies for procuring texts. It is unknown precisely how many such scrolls were housed at any given time, but estimates range from 40,000 to 400,000 at its height.
| Country | Ptolemaic Kingdom |
|---|---|
| Type | National library |
| Established | Probably during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC)[2][3] |
| Location | Alexandria, Egypt |
Bust excavated at the Villa of the Papyri depicting Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who is believed to have been the one to establish the Library as an actual institution, although plans for it may have been developed by his father Ptolemy I Soter[2]
Ptolemy i built a causeway from egypt’s mainland to the island called the heptastadium. The causeway was seven stadia long exaclty like the sea wall that aristea discribed
justin martyr ad 160 anf vol i page 279 these things… are no fable nor do we narrate fictions. irenaeus ad 180 anf vol i page 151-152. it is found in babylonian talmud. jewish tradition legend. philo of alexandria earliest. aristeas ad 250 verse 302. Against, hermippus of smyrna who said demetrius died under ptolemy ii, cotemporary historian, irenaeus, clement of alexandria
Other schollars of alexandria translated the other 45 books (250-100bc) and added them to the lxx which began with just the pentateuch
http://tanakh.info/gn2-7
Charles thomson bible
Matthew 27:9 aramaic peshita
Structure of the hebrew bible
Luke 24:44
3 – WRONG VERSION
The Syriac manuscripts do not have any name mentioned in Matthew 27:9-10, but says only “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet”. Since it is generally accepted that Syriac versions have been less manipulated than the western Greek versions, some scholars suggests that originally no mention of an specific prophet was written in the original Greek, and that both names, Jeremiah, and Zechariah (Some Greek manuscripts have the name Zechariah instead of Jeremiah in Matthew’s quote), are later scribes additions and not part of the original.
4 – ORAL TRADITION
Others suggests finally that since Matthew says “been spoken” and not “been written”, his quote may come from an oral tradition known to the Jews during his time, and that they would have been aware of that prophetic tradition.
CONCLUSION
The two first theories seem to be unlikely and highly coincidental for the above mentioned reasons.
What it seems to be is that originally, the prophecy mentioned by Matthew may have existed originally in Jeremiah, since the context of betrayal for personal gain and the consequent punishment fits the situation of destruction of the Temple in 587BCE. These words were later repeated by the author of Zachariah and applied in his prophecy of chapter 11, in similar but not exact words, under divine inspiration, to a similar historical situation during the Persian control. St Matthew would have known this, and quoted the prophecy in its original version spoken by Jeremiah, and repeated by Zechariah, which is now lost in the modern Old Testament versions.
if the scribes were using abbreviated forms of the names: in that case, it would be a simple matter of mistaking Ιριου for Ζριου. If a copyist transcribed an iota in place of a zeta, the error is explained
El nombre ‘Peshitta’ fue aplicado a esta versión desde el siglo IX, por Moshe bar Kepha. Obviamente tenía una historia larga y compleja antes de recibir tal nombre.
El Antiguo Testamento de la Peshitta es una traducción directa del hebreo, que probablemente data del siglo II. Desde el siglo V se convirtió en la versión modelo de la Biblia, reemplazando versiones anteriores de los Evangelios. De hecho, el Antiguo y el Nuevo Testamento corresponden a trabajos separados de traducción.
The Muratorian Canon, which date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon.
https://www.christianity.enterprises/2019/06/why-is-quote-in-matthew-279-10-not.html?m=1 SOMETIMES RIGHT SOMETIMES WRONG
At the time, Judea was a middle ground of Hellenistic, Latin, Jewish, African, and Arab cultures, including their languages? Isa 13:20, Jer 3:2 The narrative of the NT let us see the high probability that Lord Jesus himself, understood and spoke not only Aramaic, his mother tongue, but also Latin (Jn 19:10-11) and Greek (Jn 12:20-23). In the same way, it is assumed the Apostles also had an average knowledge of those languages acquired through their business dealings with people of the area, but probably not to the level of proficiently writing in a foreign language, and specially by using sophisticated terminology, and other names of later introduction (Acts 21:7 calls a city known in apostolic times as Acu, the Greek name Ptolemais, which was given decades later in History).
The Masoretic Text[a] (MT or ?; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah.
[a] “Masoretic” pronounced /ˌmæsəˈrɛtɪk/.
The Nash Papyrus (2nd century BCE) contains a portion of a pre-Masoretic Text, specifically the Ten Commandments and the Shema Yisrael prayer.
The oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century.[b] The Aleppo Codex (once the oldest-known complete copy but since 1947 missing the Torah) dates from the 10th century.
[b] A 7th century fragment containing the “Song of the Sea” (Exodus 13:19–16:1) is one of the few surviving texts from the “silent era” of Hebrew biblical texts between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aleppo Codex.[1]
The ancient Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) broadly refers to the whole chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral Torah).
Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words.
Modern scholars and believers seeking to understand the writings of the Old Testament use a range of sources other than the Masoretic Text.[2] These include early Greek (Septuagint) and Syriac (Peshitta) translations, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls and quotations from rabbinic manuscripts. Most of these are older than the oldest surviving Masoretic text and occasionally present notable differences.
[2] “Scholars seek Hebrew Bible’s original text – but was there one?”. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
Urtext in biblical studies refers to the assumption that there once was a uniform text of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) to precede both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT). Since the 19th century there has been much scholarly work to regain this Urtext. The theory that there was an Urtext was advocated by Paul de Lagarde.
The text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Peshitta reads somewhat in-between the Masoretic Text and the old Greek.[5]
[5] Tov, Emanuel (1992). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Although the consonants of the Masoretic Text differ little from some Qumran texts of the early 2nd century, it has many differences of both great and lesser significance when compared to the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (about 1000 years older than the MT from 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of a more ancient Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use by Jews in Egypt and the Holy Land (and matches the quotations in the New Testament of Christianity, especially by Paul the Apostle).[6] A recent finding of a short Leviticus fragment recovered from the ancient En-Gedi Scroll, carbon-dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE (late), is completely identical with the Masoretic Text.[7]
REVIEW [6] Pentiuc, Eugen J. (2006). Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Paulist Press. p. xvi.
[7] “Scanning software deciphers ancient biblical scroll”. Associated Press. 21 September 2016.
Fixing the text
Scribal emendations – Tikkune SoferimEdit
Main article: Tiqqun soferim
Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. The explanation of this phenomenon is given in the expression “Scripture has used euphemistic language” (כנה הכתוב), i.e. to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropopathism.[9]
Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra; to Ezra and Nehemiah; to Ezra and the Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Baruch. All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great Synagogue.[9]
[9] “Masorah”. Jewish Encyclopedia.
Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail4435 words · 121 views